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

[Gammadoodler]

Not sure which version of D&D you're referencing but looking at 5e....

Typical army soldier probably needs a crit to hit the epic level fighter, and is using a short sword, so averaging 9 dmg per 20 attacks. Approx 20 crits needed to kill the fighter, so approx 400 attacks. Assuming 4 can attack per round, so about 100 rounds

High level fighter is probably attacking 4 to 5 times per round, hitting on 2s, any hit is a kill, so say 4 kills per round. Over 100 rounds that's 400 kills.

Single-handedly mowing down hundreds and hundreds of soldiers while taking crit after crit after crit to the face.... That doesn't count for you?

I'm legitimately unsure what your gear assumptions are. A CR 1/8 guard has a 16 AC and 11 HP and a +3 tohit. A level 20 fighter has +11 tohit for 1d8+5 and a capped AC of 20 (with a shield) absent magical gear.

So thats getting hit on a 17 or higher, and hitting on a 5 or higher (and only maybe getting a kill on that hit). I don't have an issue with including magical gear exactly, but there is a range of power in those that gets difficult to model without being specific, and which has nothing to do with fighter class features beyond basic armor proficiency.

One assumption you did state that is extremely suspect is that only 8 people in the opposing force can attack at a time. This means our opposition is using zero ranged weaponry, shot or thrown. A spear is a simple weapon that can be thrown with a 20/60 range increment. I believe that is a 9×9 grid (80 enemies..72 over your assumptions) around the fighter that could potentially attack in a round. Cut it to say half and you've got what 36 incremental attacks per round assuming none of them have multiattack and there is no movement to rotate additional enemies into range? And we don't even mention the entire rest of the army that has readied attacks for when the fighter gets in range or what happens if you start handing out shortbows and slings (also simple weapons).

Basically we're looking at a result that is orders of magnitude less favorable than you've proposed. Maybe they aren't dead in one round (unless you start handing out shortbows), but they almost certainly don't make it out of round 5.

Measured another way..our mighty fantasy warrior, at the pinnacle of martial prowess, can hold off an army composed solely of CR 1/8 creatures...for roughly the same amount of time it takes to reheat a slice of pizza in the microwave..

And that is not even getting into how much more effective an equivalent eldritch Knight with access to tools like greater invisibility, shield, wall of flame, etc. would be in the same scenario.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I want to really understand something here. It seems like the question was asked backwards:

Why is so hard to say "Martials are magic" and be done with the entire problem?

What is Wrong with martials being magic when literally everything in the entire world is made out of magic instead of physics? The rocks are magic, the air is magic, the Fighter is magic.

Why is "Magic" a pejorative when attached to your character?

There isn't anything wrong with that per se. The issue is that martials are, by and large, not given abilities that reflect this.

I don't really care about the "how do they do it?" question that much. I care about the "what can they do" question.

Where people are getting tangled is that they are allowing the "how" to define the "what". And "magical" characters have near limitless options, while "mundane" characters have to play "mother may I" (at best) or just don't have as many options (at normal).

 

[Gammadoodler]

I agree that Superman is a generally poorly explained super, a human looking alien who gains power under a yellow sun who is strong and tough but also just gains unconnected non-thematic super powers of laser eyes and x-ray vision and non-jumping flight. It is a pretty poor narrative explanation.

Still once you have him well established, he is well established and saying he just does any weird new power naturally comes across as jarring, so looking at him causing illusions in some continuities is jarring for those not familiar with those continuities. Explaining it with random power-inducing (red?/blue) kryptonite might be an established narrative explanation. Being a big established part of pop culture since the 30s adds to him being accepted as is with his weirdness while departures are jarring.

Also generally in superhero contexts there are people with specific super powers and people without them. Just because superman can break through brick walls you wouldn't say anybody can. You would generally say OK, give me a thinly explained narrative origin for your ability to bust through walls (super tech suit, bit by a radioactive spider, magic gem gave me power, but not I am a person who lifts weights).

A good example of a narrative magic system with limits would be the animated series Avatar the Last Airbender. I've watched the original series but not Kora or the movie so my understanding is from there. You expect the different benders to do thematic elemental control magic and martial arts adjacent/integrated magic. There is air bending for getting height and epic fire bending for hand jets to fly, but there is no teleportation. There is no summoning of creatures.

The point is you are giving people powers by giving them powers. They are the starting point, not the result of the narrative.

Superman can fly because writers said he could fly. "Benders" in Avatar can bend because the writers said they could bend (as far as I'm aware, no explanation has been given for why people are able to bend or for why they are limited to a certain element.. beyond national affiliation.. which is a weird "source" of power).

 

[tetrasodium]

Alternatively, you have the Automatic Bonus Progression rules, that simply make anything you pick up provide the necessary bonuses. The rules originally debuted in Dark Sun, but proved extremely popular.

That was a good rule for allowing a game or setting with very few or no mafic items in a system built with math that has baked in magic item assumptions that doesn't require overloading the math with magic items in a system designed for no magic items

 

[HammerMan]

Where people are getting tangled is that they are allowing the "how" to define the "what". And "magical" characters have near limitless options, while "mundane" characters have to play "mother may I" (at best) or just don't have as many options (at normal).

Perfectly said.

This a major reason why people dislike (my fav 4e class) Warlord. This is the "Shout them back to life" argument I hated. It is why I LOVED 4e martial classes so much, and why I miss them.

I will add though that even the "magic swordsman" gets the raw end when we have Bladesinger and Eldritch KNight but no real melee (or ranged I guess) weapon spells...

where is my throw my sword and it explodes then reforms in my hand, where is my as part of an attack light my blade on fire, where is my teleport attack teleport attack teleport spell?

 

[Voadam]

where is my throw my sword and it explodes then reforms in my hand, where is my as part of an attack light my blade on fire, where is my teleport attack teleport attack teleport spell?

In the 4e Swordmage is my recollection. And they were cool. As were a lot of the 4e full on narratively non-magical martial powers.

Some disliked the warlord shouting your hp back in you. Others enjoyed gym teacher/drill sergeant "suck it up" healing as being a great match to the cinematic action hero logic of D&D hp, particularly with the 4e emphasis on cinematic action hero thematics.

 

[HammerMan]

In the 4e Swordmage is my recollection. And they were cool.

Some disliked the warlord shouting your hp back in you. Others enjoyed gym teacher/drill sergeant "suck it up" healing as being a great match to the cinematic action hero logic of D&D hp, particularly with the 4e emphasis on cinematic action hero thematics.

yes I totally used 4e spells from swordmage for that question

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

Are we assuming the fighter-types still have to use magic items separate from their class features as a baseline?
That makes a bit more sense than just killing 8. There are quibbles: (my math says they will kill 40 soldiers before going down but it only assumes class features.) - but the important thing is that the magic warrior probably won't do much better.

Fair point. I was just going with normal 5e D&D which is that magic items are a normal thing.

I was doing it all in my head so might not have been 100% accurate with everything but then, I didn't think this was a thing where being accurate was the point.

In my head I was using a L17 champion (cos it was the easiest, least complicated) with +2 plate, shield & long sword. 20 str & 18 con. Duelling & Defense fighting styles. No other items, no belt of giant strength, no +3 items, no special items, no tricks or anything. Nothing out of the ordinary or contentious I thought.

That gives AC of 25, about 160 hps + second wind = about 180 total effective hps. +13 to hit, avg dmg =11.5 & min dmg 8.

I was thinking a standard soldier would be slightly better than a bandit but not as good as a1st level fighter, so about AC 13-14, about 9-10 hps, about +4-5 to hit, d6+2 dmg. Something like that.

In combat.
Outside of dealing damage in combat, the epic magic warrior still has a range of versatile and powerful spells. What class features do you think the epic-level fighter-type should get to be similarly fun and useful to the party?

This is the right question to ask IMHO. My answer would be to be guided by 2 things : 1) the Rule of Cool and 2) the characters concept.

Should they be able to match the feats of mythic warriors in legends?

Depends, what's their char concept? If it matches, then, yes!

Leaping castle walls or cutting/smashing through them? Building them overnight? Predicting an opponent's moves three steps in advance through sheer experience and knowledge of combat? Running a hundred miles non-stop while carrying their horse? Holding their breath for half an hour while fighting sea serpents. Wrestling giants into submission?

Yes to all of these things if it meets the 2 criteria above.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

I'm legitimately unsure what your gear assumptions are. A CR 1/8 guard has a 16 AC and 11 HP and a +3 tohit. A level 20 fighter has +11 tohit for 1d8+5 and a capped AC of 20 (with a shield) absent magical gear.

So thats getting hit on a 17 or higher, and hitting on a 5 or higher (and only maybe getting a kill on that hit). I don't have an issue with including magical gear exactly, but there is a range of power in those that gets difficult to model without being specific, and which has nothing to do with fighter class features beyond basic armor proficiency.

One assumption you did state that is extremely suspect is that only 8 people in the opposing force can attack at a time. This means our opposition is using zero ranged weaponry, shot or thrown. A spear is a simple weapon that can be thrown with a 20/60 range increment. I believe that is a 9×9 grid (80 enemies..72 over your assumptions) around the fighter that could potentially attack in a round. Cut it to say half and you've got what 36 incremental attacks per round assuming none of them have multiattack and there is no movement to rotate additional enemies into range? And we don't even mention the entire rest of the army that has readied attacks for when the fighter gets in range or what happens if you start handing out shortbows and slings (also simple weapons).

Basically we're looking at a result that is orders of magnitude less favorable than you've proposed. Maybe they aren't dead in one round (unless you start handing out shortbows), but they almost certainly don't make it out of round 5.

Measured another way..our mighty fantasy warrior, at the pinnacle of martial prowess, can hold off an army composed solely of CR 1/8 creatures...for roughly the same amount of time it takes to reheat a slice of pizza in the microwave..

And that is not even getting into how much more effective an equivalent eldritch Knight with access to tools like greater invisibility, shield, wall of flame, etc. would be in the same scenario.

Erm.... Okay. Let's take a look.

I listed the sort of things I was thinking in the post above. I didn't list them originally as I didn't think we were going to get down to minutia as I thought this was a pretty hand wavy kind of discussion. But yes, I did assume some basic magic items for an epic level character. This might not be appropriate for some super low magic item settings I guess.

I also wouldn't expect an entire army to be fitted out with chain & shield (that's very expensive) but again, I suppose it depends on the setting. Yours could be extraordinarily well supplied.

Most armies also don't call down ranged attacks on their own troops location just to try to hit one guy standing in the middle of hundreds of their own guys..... Again, I suppose your campaign setting could be unusual in this regard. They might be very bloodthirsty.

But honestly, we can tailor the example however we like, but given the infinite possibilities of campaign settings, character builds, and actual player-DM storytelling interactions, to me there is plenty of room for this legendary swordsman to be able to acquit himself well in this scenario (or versions of it).

What is your fundamental disagreement with this?

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

I want to really understand something here. It seems like the question was asked backwards:

Why is so hard to say "Martials are magic" and be done with the entire problem?

What is Wrong with martials being magic when literally everything in the entire world is made out of magic instead of physics? The rocks are magic, the air is magic, the Fighter is magic.

Why is "Magic" a pejorative when attached to your character?

It isn't. It's just not what everyone wants to be their character concept for every character they ever play. It really is this simple.

I know, I know, it seems strange to me that not every player wants every character they ever play to be magic. Personally, I can't understand WHY they would want that. But they do.

I have players I have played with for decades that really enjoy the idea of playing explicitly non-magical character concepts. They love the idea that these characters are awesome in and of themselves, in some sense complete & independent without needing the "crutch" of being magical rainbow unicorns to prop them up. They would violently object to anyone trying to change their character concept to say "Martials are magic" and would likely not want to play that character any more, and maybe the game/setting either. It's just not what they want to play. And that should be ok.

Utterly baffling to me, but still, it should be fine for them to choose & prefer this. And the game and the campaign setting should support them.

And my job as the DM (I'm almost always the DM) is to run a game where they can play the character they want to play and have fun doing it. In fact, my guideline is that I try to make them look good, or even better, to make them look awesome. Magic or no magic. So, again, I believe that the only two criteria is 1) The Rule of Cool, and 2) does it fit with their char concept ? If yes to both of those, go nuts!

The real issue is people don't get that most stories are low level. So "Martial is Magic past level 8" wouldn't affect most of their imagined stories

I agree with your premise but not your conclusion. Most of our traditional stories are low level, and from what I hear, most game campaigns are low level too. So I don't think there's a big dissonance there, hence I don't believe this is the "real issue".

To me the real issue is that it's easy to imagine what epic level magic is like, but it's a lot harder (ie takes more work on the part of the DM and the players) to imagine what equivalent level epic non-magic is like. Critical word in that sentence is "equivalent". Just b/c something takes more work, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.