Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8491526" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Generally, Fighters are the "typical example" of a martial character, although by no means the only one. It is very much worth noting that not all fighters are pure martials: Eldritch knights, Rune Knights, Echo knights are all examples of fighters that aren't purely martial any more. Rogues and Barbarians have similar specific subclasses in the same manner. Classes like Paladins, Monks, Rangers are also all explicitly magic users and so are generally viewed more generously when it comes to allowing them to pull off unusual ideas through use of their class abilities.No. This is about whether martials get to have non-combat power within the game at the same level that spells grant the spellcasters, without needing to get DM buy-in.You gave the Tony Stark example as an example that a martial doesn't need DM buy-in to be as effective in non-combat situations as a spellcaster; "Take away the suit (magic item) and what is left that is just granted by class features?I'm guessing that you didn't intend to move the goalposts, and you just forgot where that example came from. But it does kinda prove our point.They make no appreciable difference than the caster ones.Because both are almost entirely combat-focused.So in a discussion about how martials generally need the DM to grant them magic items to perform as well out of combat as the spellcasters without items do, you chose to only allow combat-based items to be considered for the comparison.There are any number of magic items that would have been germane to the subject at hand that would have made a massive difference in out-of combat performance for the martial: Apparatus of Kwalish, Carpet of Flying, Cloak of Invisibility, Cubic Gate, Helm of Teleportation to name a few.But you chose to only allow items for the martial that give basic numerical bonuses, primarily only useful in combat, to be used for the comparison.Why?Really? It would seem that they do not in this case.Generally because playing a batman-equivalent would require not only way more gold than a character can start with, but also either magic items or spells to replicate the many gadgets that he relies on. Since magic items aren't generally easily available for sale, and having spells takes the character out of the purely martial realm, this rather proves the point that a martial would need DM generosity to play a concept that many casters could without needing the DM to put their thumb on the scales.That statement does indeed make sense, but it has very little to do with what was being discussed.Gammadoodler brings up the example of Morgana as a fully developed character with effective ways of influencing and taking part in non-combat challenges. As compared to King Arthur, whose influence and capability to deal with high-end non-combat challenges has to be granted by the DM because it is not given by class features.Another fighter has very little effectiveness in such challenges unless the DM also gives them that ability, whereas another spellcaster still has that capability baked in to their class.Wizards get to learn 44 different spells at base. That is almost three times more than a sorceror. They are fine without finding any scrolls - extra ones are just a power boost rather than being necessary. Heck, a wizard even gets to memorise a lot more spells than a sorceror, and cast more in a day.</blockquote>

Verification