D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

[Voadam]

Hercules Samson and Achilles were all heroes with powers that were non magic...

Son of Zeus, blessed by God, dipped in the River Styx all seem more comparable narratively to a paladin's magic divine power source than to Gimle being good with an axe.

 

[HammerMan]

Son of Zeus, blessed by God, dipped in the River Styx all seem more comparable narratively to a paladin's magic divine power source than to Gimle being good with an axe.

every hero has an origin...
billionaire tech genius, billionaire who watched his parents get murdered, super soldier, demi god, blessed by god, dipped in the river styx, descendent of the true line of mystic long lived kings,

gimli was a descendant of Durin the Deathless, father of the first house of the Dwarven people. Gimli was descended from, but was not a member of the royal line.

 

[Voadam]

Batman can be made as a fighter/monk/rogue or you could go back to 4e and make him just a rogue... but at the end of the day
Hawkeye, Black Widow, Batman and Green Arrow all clearly have powers. They can do (and survive) things no real person could.

There is not a binary state of completely real world normal versus anything goes with no narrative justification.

I feel Black Widow falling multiple stories and landing badly on asphalt with just a oof that hurt, was particularly narratively jarring in her movie. It was a noticeable departure from her normal amazingly choreographed physical fight scene/physical stunt stuff.

I feel that narrative context matters and so whether you need narrative justification depends on context. Bamboo fighting in Crouching Dragon is narratively fine. Boromir bamboo fighting would probably be jarring.

A martial with an explained superhuman strength in narrative context is absolutely fine (Hulk, Hercules). Batman picking up an Elephant to smash it around like he was the Hulk would absolutely be narratively jarring. Batman flying by shooting a grappling gun with retractable grapple works because of the explanation.

 

[HammerMan]

A martial with an explained superhuman strength in narrative context is absolutely fine (Hulk, Hercules). Batman picking up an Elephant to smash it around like he was the Hulk would absolutely be narratively jarring. Batman flying by shooting a grappling gun with retractable grapple works because of the explanation.

But batman useing his grappling gun (or other bat gadget) to swing the elephant around would work (I'm sure the writer would use better words) but it's the same thing... his super powers are more laid back, but he does superhuman things all the time... they justfy it with tech and training

 

[Voadam]

But batman useing his grappling gun (or other bat gadget) to swing the elephant around would work (I'm sure the writer would use better words) but it's the same thing... his super powers are more laid back, but he does superhuman things all the time... they justfy it with tech and training

The narrative chosen matters a lot. Saying batman's martial arts training allows him to punch an elephant around is probably going to be jarring narratively. Saying his explosive batarang distracts and startles an elephant so it turns away might be the same end result, but it is really not the same thing.

 

[Asisreo]

) It's never been explicit, and 5e is worse with this giving non-magical options, then making magic 'optional'

Page 8 of the PHb has the sentence "For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival."

Page 7 of 4e's Player's handbook says "At some point, all adventurers rely on magic in one form or another."

Magic is D&D.

4e only relied on magic items to shore up the numbers because apparently no one thought of non-magical gear enhancements or fantastic materials..

Or they wanted to stay true to their core assumptions of the edition.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Page 8 of the PHb has the sentence "For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival."

Page 7 of 4e's Player's handbook says "At some point, all adventurers rely on magic in one form or another."

Magic is D&D.

Or they wanted to stay true to their core assumptions of the edition.

You know, I'd never actually read this section of the PHB. It is a great summary for why there is a problem with 5e's core assumptions regarding magic.

That is the preview for a 90 pg section on spells when all class features for all 12 classes are described in 75 pgs..*chef's kiss

 

[Gammadoodler]

The narrative chosen matters a lot. Saying batman's martial arts training allows him to punch an elephant around is probably going to be jarring narratively. Saying his explosive batarang distracts and startles an elephant so it turns away might be the same end result, but it is really not the same thing.

Let's flip this around. You've shown how you believe the narrative context matters for the martial (I disagree, but let's go with it). Can you show something similar for the spellcaster?

 

[Asisreo]

You know, I'd never actually read this section of the PHB. It is a great summary for why there is a problem with 5e's core assumptions regarding magic

You can call it a problem. Like if you'd call DC's depiction of speedsters a problem due to them all relying on the magical-not-magical speed force.

But it's ingrained in the core of the system just like the speed force is ingrained in the core of the speedster Canon.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You can call it a problem. Like if you'd call DC's depiction of speedsters a problem due to them all relying on the magical-not-magical speed force.

But it's ingrained in the core of the system just like the speed force is ingrained in the core of the speedster Canon.

Maybe I'm just not up on DC comics lore.. No character can have superhuman speed if they aren't relying on the speed force??

If that's true (and I'm reasonably sure it isn't..bc Superman), yeah, it's kinda dumb.

Like seriously, what purpose does that limitation serve?

And that's my general issue with the whole "you need magic" argument..Why?? What benefit is there to having magic be the one catch all solution to every problem?