D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit


log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Supernatural and magic aren't necessarily the same.

And a mundane 'dispel would contradict what we 'know' now. It would be a great addition to the lore to make magic actually part of the world instead of some cheap veneer lightly applied to the world like so much vinyl wrap on a mini cooper.

It'd be nice to have the nature of the world be fantastic and acknowledge that there's fantastic stuff that effects magic, be it material, technique of meta physics.

For example:

Witchbane Woad
This paste of willow, wysteria and mandragora pulp can be applied to the body to provide a bonus to saves vs effects caused by arcane spells.

Meditation on the Hidden Ways
Each morning, one may spend an hour meditating with a tea of certain herbs and talismans. Doing so allows you to become aware of any magical effect within 10ft of you. As an action, you may focus on a square to discern what objects or creatures within that square is generating a magical effect. IF you are trained in Arcana, you can discern the nature of that magic as normal with the skill.

Sunderweave Technique
By combining the heightened awareness of the Meditation on Hidden Ways, the warrior can make an attack against a magical effect on a creature or object. Make an attack against the target. On a hit, treat this as dispel magic. If you can discern what effects are on the target, you may choose which to dispel. If you are not, you dispel an effect at random.

This just reminds me of how little D&D did with metals.
I had a DM in 3.5 that had a blanket rule.

Silver bypassed Lawful DR and Fey DR
Cold Iron bypassed Chaotic DR and Lycantrope DR
Gold gave a save bonus vs evil
Lead gave a save bonus vs magic
Copper temporary drained magic and DR for a time

It made it simple for him to remember.

Would people accept that a warrior could stab a devil with a silvered dagger and dispel it's buffs? Maybe.
 


What's strange about interpreting creature abilities as explicitly stated? The cockatrice ability is explicitly a magical ability. The basilisk gaze is explicitly supernatural. There's a reason for this and I've explained it to you multiple times now.

They're magical/supernatural because the game sets forth through example and through RAI that these things are beyond normal as commonly understood in English(our world).

This is a very weak attempt at justifying something that is obviously against RAI. It also does contradict every dispel interaction as all of them are magic on magic. A mundane "dispel magic" would contradict everything shown to us by current dispel abilities.
You understand that your argument here is that something added to RAW would violate RAI.

I assume "RAI" as used here means "Rules as inferred (by @Maxperson )". I'm not going to buy that DnD designers "intended" for DMs to use some agglomeration of aggregate monster ability descriptions to conclude upon the fundamental forces D&D settings.. certainly not in any "rules-relevant" way.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
This just reminds me of how little D&D did with metals.
I had a DM in 3.5 that had a blanket rule.

Silver bypassed Lawful DR and Fey DR
Cold Iron bypassed Chaotic DR and Lycantrope DR
Gold gave a save bonus vs evil
Lead gave a save bonus vs magic
Copper temporary drained magic and DR for a time

It made it simple for him to remember.
I have a player who is VERY into stuff like this and wanting to bring it into the game. He is very much into rules for crafting items, etc.

Would people accept that a warrior could stab a devil with a silvered dagger and dispel it's buffs? Maybe.
I think so, and it does go to a good point made recently.

What is overlooked (even by myself at times) is what is mundane in our world is not necessarily the same as what is "mundane" in a fantasy world.

Incorporating "natural, real-world" elements in a fantasy world could include rare herbs which "energize a creature and increase its reflexes". In game effects might be speed increase by 10 feet and advantage on Dexterity saving throws.

But, I think really the difference pointed out is such things augment what an otherwise mundane creature could do. A commoner using such an herb would benefit just as well as a 10th-level rogue. In this respect, such a fantastical herb would be mundane by that world's standard of mundane, even if not mundane in our world.

So, it largely depends on what your fantasy world is like. Is it possible for a person, through extraordinary dedication to training and learning long lost forgotten techniques to leap 100 feet across a chasm, with nothing magical about it? If it is part of your world, why not? Now, also notice I just said was it possible for a "person" to do these things, not necessarily a PC...
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
IF your DM allows it. IF. It's a 'DM may I' thing.
Where is the "if?"

"This section explains in more detail what those abilities mean and the ways they are used in the game."

The ways they are used, not may be used.

"You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump."

There's no "if" or "may" in there. The only thing up in the air for the DM to decide is just how far you can go and what the DCs are.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This just reminds me of how little D&D did with metals.
I had a DM in 3.5 that had a blanket rule.

Silver bypassed Lawful DR and Fey DR
Cold Iron bypassed Chaotic DR and Lycantrope DR
Gold gave a save bonus vs evil
Lead gave a save bonus vs magic
Copper temporary drained magic and DR for a time

It made it simple for him to remember.

Would people accept that a warrior could stab a devil with a silvered dagger and dispel it's buffs? Maybe.
I think you might have Fey and Lycanthrope switched in that list.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You understand that your argument here is that something added to RAW would violate RAI.
A DM change to RAW that violates RAI does in fact violate RAI. The designers aren't going to redesign the game around this. If they add these things, the clearly supernatural/magical abilities will be labeled as such. This has been their design method since WotC purchased D&D.
I assume "RAI" as used here means "Rules as inferred (by @Maxperson )". I'm not going to buy that DnD designers "intended" for DMs to use some agglomeration of aggregate monster ability descriptions to conclude upon the fundamental forces D&D settings.. certainly not in any "rules-relevant" way.
It's intended, not inferred. I provided how they view magic in my response to Vaalingrade, and we can see it from their design of monsters and PCs. Doesn't matter whether you buy it or not, their intent is clear.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What is overlooked (even by myself at times) is what is mundane in our world is not necessarily the same as what is "mundane" in a fantasy world.
This isn't true. In 5e the common usage of a word in our world is what it means in 5e. For mundane to mean anything different in D&D, the definition would have to be changed and would no longer be the common usage. That's why instead of labeling a dragon's ability to fly as mundane D&D physics, they made a category for magical physics.
 

A DM change to RAW that violates RAI does in fact violate RAI. The designers aren't going to redesign the game around this. If they add these things, the clearly supernatural/magical abilities will be labeled as such. This has been their design method since WotC purchased D&D.

It's intended, not inferred. I provided how they view magic in my response to Vaalingrade, and we can see it from their design of monsters and PCs. Doesn't matter whether you buy it or not, their intent is clear.
First, we're not talking about a "DM" rules change here. We're talking about changes we think the designers should make.

Second, i believe I've seen you argue that DM changes to rules they don't like is RAW (e.g. centaurs shouldn't climb..even if the rules say they can).

Third, a bestiary book is about the most ludicrous place I can think of for a person to draw the conclusions for a RAI argument. It's content that is DM-facing where DMs are free to use some, all, or none of it completely at their discretion. The only "intent" at work here is to provide a tool to make DM encounter-building easier.

And last what do you think the actual "rule" is that you are taking credit for?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
First, we're not talking about a "DM" rules change here. We're talking about changes we think the designers should make.
As I've said, they aren't going to do an about face on this.
Second, i believe I've seen you argue that DM changes to rules they don't like is RAW (e.g. centaurs shouldn't climb..even if the rules say they can).
You haven't. I've never in my life argued that DM changes to rules are RAW. I did say that centaurs shouldn't be able to climb, but I never said that a DM disallowing the climbing would be making new RAW.
Third, a bestiary book is about the most ludicrous place I can think of for a person to draw the conclusions for a RAI argument. It's content that is DM-facing where DMs are free to use some, all, or none of it completely at their discretion. The only "intent" at work here is to provide a tool to make DM encounter-building easier.
Cool. Cool. Never used only the MM. You keep ignoring the other elements of the argument. I wonder why? :unsure:;)
 

There's a perfectly good reason why Come and Get It affects enemies the way it does, regardless if they are intelligent or not: The Fighter tells such a hardcore "Yo Mama" joke that hits so hard that opponents suddenly find themselves filled with intense rage.

Case in point: this clip accurately showcases when the 4E Fighter uses it against the Mindflayer and it succeeds.

 

As I've said, they aren't going to do an about face on this.

You haven't. I've never in my life argued that DM changes to rules are RAW. I did say that centaurs shouldn't be able to climb, but I never said that a DM disallowing the climbing would be making new RAW.

Cool. Cool. Never used only the MM. You keep ignoring the other elements of the argument. I wonder why? :unsure:;)
And you're right. It is unlikely that they would do an "about face" on a topic they've never actually discussed or addressed. But even if they had, it's irrelevant to a discussion of what people think they should do/should have done.

What you said it is RAW that a DM may choose to use MM attributes at the expense of the RAW player-facing ones (amongst other things). It's almost like you think anyone can just change rules they don't agree with..or..maybe that's something only you can do?

Probably didn't address other elements due to a near complete absence of citation on your part...which is strange considering how conscientious you are about that kind of thing. 🙄

And lastly, you only addressed 3 of the 4 points in th post you replied to. As a refresher..I also asked:
what do you think the actual "rule" is that you are taking credit for?

Simple oversight I assume.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What you said it is RAW that a DM may choose to use MM attributes at the expense of the RAW player-facing ones (amongst other things).
If I said something like that, I certainly didn't say it like that. I'm really not sure what you think I said, but I do know that I have never in my life said that the DM changing the rules makes those rules RAW.
It's almost like you think anyone can just change rules they don't agree with
Only the DM. It's a fact that he can just change any rule he doesn't agree with. That doesn't make it RAW.
..or..maybe that's something only you can do?
When I DM.
Probably didn't address other elements due to a near complete absence of citation on your part...which is strange considering how conscientious you are about that kind of thing.
I still don't know what you are talking about.
And lastly, you only addressed 3 of the 4 points in th post you replied to. As a refresher..I also asked:


Simple oversight I assume.
I ignored it because I never claimed it was a rule. If it was a rule, it would be RAW and not RAI.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
My vote is for a lot of very specific capabilities.

@Minigiant I like the direction you're thinking is going!

Finally before I head out, something I thought of the other day when it comes to WotC and the apparent focus of D&D:
View attachment 149003View attachment 149004
View attachment 149005View attachment 149006View attachment 149007
Each of these highlighted sections focuses on spellcasters for the most part. Very little is commented on as to what other classes are capable of.

It's a pity, really, IMO.
Just to go back to this post.

I think D&D missed a good opportunity when it didn't keep maneuvers core in martials back in the playtest.

By making it tied to a subclass, maneuvers wouldn't have the justification to scale.

So all maneuvers are Tier 1. Having 4, 5, or 6 levels of maneuvers would have helped determine the Mundane Limit.

If EPIC BOONS are equal to high martial, that's a mid level maneuver?

Roll a Superiority die and add 10 times the result to your speed?
Expend a sup die and add it to hit roll, damage roll, and AC?
Add your superiority dice result to your all your ability checks?
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

Legend
Just to go back to this post.

I think D&D missed a good opportunity when it didn't keep maneuvers core in martials back in the playtest.

By making it tied to a subclass, maneuvers wouldn't have the justification to scale.

So all maneuvers are Tier 1. Having 4, 5, or 6 levels of maneuvers would have helped determine the Mundane Limit.

If EPIC BOONS are equal to high martial, that's a mid level maneuver?

Roll a Superiority die and add 10 times the result to your speed?
Expend a sup die and add it to hit roll, damage roll, and AC?
Add your superiority dice result to your all your ability checks?
Yeah, I have never really liked the BM as a subclass and wish maneuvers (in some fashion) were core to martials, particularly fighters.

Keeping them as Martial Maneuvers for any class even. The "martials" could learn more, and you could scale them by using the proficiency bonus.

FWIW, I revamped the BM Maneuvers to remove superior dice and use proficiency bonus instead. I don't like the idea of something you are "capable of", like a parry, being limited in use instead of at-will.
 

Yeah, I have never really liked the BM as a subclass and wish maneuvers (in some fashion) were core to martials, particularly fighters.

Keeping them as Martial Maneuvers for any class even. The "martials" could learn more, and you could scale them by using the proficiency bonus.

FWIW, I revamped the BM Maneuvers to remove superior dice and use proficiency bonus instead. I don't like the idea of something you are "capable of", like a parry, being limited in use instead of at-will.

When I was still trying to make 5E what I wanted, I was redoing the Fighter class to basically have both At-Will maneuvers similar to 4E which had minor effects, but also larger maneuvers which worked off the "Grit" resource Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You'd gain grit back from killing people and getting crits, allowing you to regain resources while fighting. I thought it was a cool idea, but I never finished it up.
 

Stalker0

Legend
When I was still trying to make 5E what I wanted, I was redoing the Fighter class to basically have both At-Will maneuvers similar to 4E which had minor effects, but also larger maneuvers which worked off the "Grit" resource Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You'd gain grit back from killing people and getting crits, allowing you to regain resources while fighting. I thought it was a cool idea, but I never finished it up.
If you want the "simple" version of this. When the battlemaster gets to d10 on their superiority dice, have it where they can use manuevers "at-will" with a 1d4 die. So they now can do a weak but at-will version of the maneuvers.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
If you want the "simple" version of this. When the battlemaster gets to d10 on their superiority dice, have it where they can use manuevers "at-will" with a 1d4 die. So they now can do a weak but at-will version of the maneuvers.

I'd start with least dice and hand 1d2 at will

LevelAt Will DiceShort Rest Dice# of Short Rest dice
3rd1d21d83
7th1d31d84
10th1d41d104
15th1d41d125
20th1d61d205
 

Stalker0

Legend
I'd start with least dice and hand 1d2 at will

LevelAt Will DiceShort Rest Dice# of Short Rest dice
3rd1d21d83
7th1d31d84
10th1d41d104
15th1d41d125
20th1d61d205
The main issue with that, is that many maneuvers don't really need the superiority dice....there power lies in the core maneuver and not the die. Commander's strike is one example, grappling strike is another. So giving the BM at-will maneuvers at 3rd level is quite a big change, whereas by 10th level having such at-will powers is not that big a deal.

Now it may be your goal to give the BM a big power up at 3rd, but if your looking for something simple that focuses the power change at higher levels, I wouldn't go with a new suite of at-will powers at 3rd.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top