Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheOneGargoyle" data-source="post: 8491243" data-attributes="member: 6924207">Yes, but what sort of martial?  "Martial" is a very broad bucket term, it's not a character concept.  How are you going to discuss the mechanics of what a char can do, vs what it should be able to do, if you don't have a concept to relate it to ?Should a martial be able to fly ?  Should a martial be able to create earthquakes ?  Should a martial be able to power word kill ?How would I know how to make an assessment of those things ?  Should a barbarian of the storm be able to throw around lightning bolts ?  Ooh, now that I can see, b/c it totally fits the concept.  Let's have a mechanics discussion about how much dmg those lightning bolts should do and also a story discussion about how it happens - do primal spirits fight for/with them, do they channel the power of their ancestors, does their rage manifest in physical elemental form, etc.  Should a barbarian of the storm be able to change into a dragon ?  Umm ... no I don't think so, because I can't see any link to the char concept.Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to transform into a dragon ?  Oooh, yeah that might work, let's a conversation about the mechanics of the dragon form to ensure it's balanced and a story conversation about how it happens - does their rage make them forget their identity and an ancestral one takes over, etc.  Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to throw around lightning bolts ?  Umm ... well .... probably not because it doesn't seem to fit the concept.See what I mean ?  To me, in order to have any sort of meaningful dialog about mechanics, I would think we need to understand what sorts of char concepts those mechanics relate to.  Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial".  So what should they be able to do ?  Well, it depends on the char concept.Of course.  But this has nothing to do with whether the character is a martial or a caster.  This is about getting DM buy-in to play a char concept that has implications for the shared world.  You would need this regardless of whether you are wanting to play a martial or a caster.And I absolutely agree with you here.  That's why I think some of those things you pointed out in PF2e are so good!  More of those in D&D would be awesome.  But which ones, for whom ?Sure, but this is just b/c that example happened to have a magic sword.  The exact same thing is true of a Miyamoto Musashi WITH the Sword of Kas and one without.  The one without can't do the stuff the one with it can do.Ok, now this is something we can have a mechanics discussion about !  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> What would be the big caster items ?Staff of Power & Robe of the Archmagi ?  +4 AC, spell attack and save DC - the spell save DC is likely to go from 18-ish up to about 22-ishWhat about for martials ?Pick any 2 of the following: Armour+3, Shield+3, Weapon+3 & Belt of Giant Str (I guess depending on whether you're going for offense of defense or a mix of both ?) - those are pretty impactful too.  Do you think they make way more difference than the caster ones ?  I'm not convinced that's so.LOL no, that was in reference to whether the game rules support being able to play the character concept you want!Agreed.  Although, again, if the player wants to play Batman in D&D, and the DM is on board, why not?Ok, then I haven't managed to get across what I was trying to.  I was trying to say that the char concept should come first, and then the mechanics should be evaluated against that, not just in a white room vacuum.eg, if a player wants to play a Stalwart Guardian type character, there's not a lot of point of comparing the DPR output of this character compared to a blaster sorcadin and saying "See ?  The martial gets the raw end of the deal again!" Does that make more sense ?Again, that's just b/c in that example the fighter came with a magic item as an integral part of the story and the wizard didn't.  Some stories reverse that, Sauron comes with The One Ring as part of his story and wouldn't be the same without it - whereas Aragorn can be King of Gondor without a ring of power (or without Narsil either).I agree there is a disparity in capability and that this heavily influences the fun factor.  My thinking on where to go from there is: martial characters should have more awesome things baked into their classes that they can do at high levels that don't rely on external factors like magic items and world-building (I think we agree on this?), but (maybe this is where we differ?) these things should be based on & make sense for their char concepts and the story the player & DM want to tell.100% agree on this.The opposite is also true IMHO, mechanics should be balanced enough, and char concepts & stories should be well defined & collaboratively created enough that it's not just about whether the DM is feeling generous or not, it's about does it make sense and is it a good story.</blockquote>

Verification