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

[Gammadoodler]

Yeah, basically this.

The game cannot be realistic because, quite literally, it isn't real. It's openly not conforming to the restrictions of reality. Bringing up those restrictions in some places and happily ignoring them in others just feels arbitrary and capricious.

Fictional things, regardless of their level of realism, can still be grounded however. That's what differentiates most "hard" sci-fi from "soft" sci-fi, for example, even though both things are usually unrealistic. Gundam Wing is not striving for realism, because in reality there are no giant-mech pilots and it would be both extremely difficult and mostly pointless to construct such things. By introducing something unrealistic--Minovsky particles--however, the author was able to make a grounded and justified world that still managed to include things as unrealistic as Gundams. This is usually seen as being worthy of praise, as the Minovsky particles are a very minimal and narrowly-defined form of breaking from known reality, while still enabling all the fundamental story elements the author desired. The limits and applications of the particles are clear, and can't just be defied whenever one likes--they're not a free pass to do whatever you want. Similarly, stuff like Eezo and its titular Mass Effect are a very small change--just one exotic material, and even tying it into current ideas in theoretical physics e.g. dark energy--but that enables all the classic sci-fi concepts (FTL communications and travel, "shields," levitation, fancy material construction, even psionics). Such conservation of detail while remaining grounded is well-appreciated.

The thing with groundedness is, all it requires is some effort. Most things can become grounded; that's the reason we praise stuff like the above, where you employ minimal changes and don't break or ad-hoc modify the rules once they've been established. So the thing to look for, at least from where I'm sitting, is not "stuff that ought to be nerfed because it's unrealistic," but rather "stuff that I want explained because I don't see what grounds it."

At a certain level, I don't think I'd argue there is even necessarily a virtue in "grounding" a D&D setting.

The examples listed here "need" to be "grounded" because they are set in the Earth's future. Conventional Earth baseline is a baseline that is consistent with the fiction.

DMs use conventional Earth assumptions because it's the easiest thing to do; players understand Earth reality's rules, not because there's any real correlation between the physics of fantasy worlds and ours (in many ways quite the opposite).

You can just say "things just work differently here" and that is a perfectly valid, consistent, logical approach. The only work required is to provide the players with adequate guidance for their characters to make informed choices.

 

[Azzy]

God I love this non-argument. A game that has elves and dragons just can't have any realism!!!!

No, I just find it amusing that the thing you write off as unrealistic is far more realistic than so many elements already existing in the game.

 

[Eubani]

Like I said before, some years ago someone taught mage players the word 'verisimilitude' without explaining that it is about consistency relative to the in-universe story and they've been using it as a sword to destroy every non-magic thing that's not Earth Standard (from their understanding).

This so much to the point that when a person uses that V word I automatically think they are a W word.

 

[Eubani]

No, I just find it amusing that the thing you write off as unrealistic is far more realistic than so many elements already existing in the game.

As long as those martial plebs are kept in place, right!

 

[Maxperson]

The game cannot be realistic because, quite literally, it isn't real. It's openly not conforming to the restrictions of reality. Bringing up those restrictions in some places and happily ignoring them in others just feels arbitrary and capricious.

What I am saying is neither arbitrary, nor capricious. Choices centered in reason cannot be either.

Realism is a spectrum with complete chaos and unreality on one end and our reality on the other. I'm not attempting to mirror our reality, but I do require aspects of my game to be farther along the spectrum that 5e D&D has placed them.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I just find it amusing that the thing you write off as unrealistic is far more realistic than so many elements already existing in the game.

It doesn't matter. Each aspect of the game can and should be considered individually as far as what level of realism you want for your game. They don't all have to be equal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One thing I'm wondering regarding the casters vs. martials discussion coming into part 2. For martials, are we referring to both ranged and melee characters? Because I feel like those are different discussions.

Specifically that melee characters feel the difference in power more keenly since they are affected more obstacles than a ranged martial would be.

That said, for my purposes, while I would like martials to have more interesting/useful tools in the exploration pillar, my interest in those would primarily be focussed on how well they help a martial serve their "master of combat" role. Breaking through walls, leaping gorges. (I suppose rogues deserve some separate consideration since their role differs quite a bit).

Personally, I don't need martials utility to compete with the versatility that casters have. I just need them to be generally less constrained by mundane obstacles. The fact that walls and pits and the like are near equally effective at limiting martials' movement from level 1 to level 20 is insane to me. Similarly for several of the effects that constrain perception. Should "fog cloud" still be effective at level 20?

But what I would like to see (and one of the easiest things to do thematically) is bake more combat power into the classes, especially melee.

• No melee martial should be struggling to keep up with agonizing eldritch blast damage. Simple fix, bump damage numbers. By level 20, the difference should be somewhere between significant and extreme.
• Martials should get more ability to inflict more and more severe status effects. Like, the fact that martials cannot inflict "blinded" is ridiculous. The same with "stunned", "paralyzed", "restrained", etc. Once this access exists, power level get dialed up or down based on usage constraints, effect duration, save type, DCs, and save frequency, resource costs, etc.
• more options to effectively spread or focus damage. Stuff like "whirlwind strike" where you can be attacking enemies in an area, rather than based on number of attacks, balance using size of the area, uses, damage delivered, allowing a save, etc. Or spend some resource to amp up the damage on a single strike, like smite divorced from spellcasting, balance based on damage delivered, resources expended, etc.

If you feel martial damage cannot keep up with agonizing eldritch blast, then yes, bump numbers. Personally, this is a non-issue for me, but I suppose it is game-specific, and as you say a simple enough fix (or make a more complicated one if you want).

Anyway, maybe features like those below (names optional LOL)? Obviously the features would have to be geared to the appropriate level, and could scale or have add-ons, etc.

• Focused Strike (allows you to strike with focused power, akin to Bruce Lee's "One-Inch Punch", to obliterate creatures/ objects at higher levels)
• Juggernaut (smash through doors, then walls, then castle walls, getting more power at higher levels)
• Mighty Leap (increasing jump distances, again as levels increase)
• Reaping Whirlwind (attack multiple foes, more as levels increase, but also move so quickly at higher levels you are a blur, harder to hit, and can even create wind-like effect to foil fog cloud and such)

and for ranged attacks:

• All Sight (you gain advantage on perception for sight, then darkvision, then blindsight, then truesight at higher levels)
• Quickened (your ability to move around the battle field keeps you safe, no OAs, increased speed, reaction attack while surprised, etc.)
• Unerring Attack (if your attack misses, you can reroll, then later you can change it into a hit; but if you needed a 20, it is not critical)

and Combat Maneuvers (Blinding Strike, Expert Grappler, etc.) where increasing DCs make it harder to make the save versus gaining the condition (blind, restrained, etc.), higher levels could increase the duration or something.

And all of these can easily be flavored as resulting from strength, speed, skill, technique, exertion, or whatever other 'mundane' descriptor needs to be present to avoid setting off people's "that's magic" alarms.

Yep. Depending on the power of the feature, it might stretch things for some people, but as long as the people who want it are happy, that's all that matters.

 

[TheSword]

I’m late to the party but the whole framing of this debate is geared to denigrate martials and complain about the power of magic.

Mundane might mean non-magical but it also means lacking interest or excitement; dull. You can’t separate those to meanings in choosing the word mundane.

Yet I don’t think there is anything dull or lacking excitement about martial combat. In fact I would say the opposite. Climbing a cliff hand hold by handhold with the risk of falling to your death is far more interesting and exciting than using a levitate spell.

I don’t need my martials to be realistic. What I do want them to be is ‘possible’ however unlikely that is. Whereas magic is the preview of the ‘impossible’. Possible doesn’t have to mean easy, simple or obvious though. What John Wick does is in theory possible, though it would take a great deal of training and endurance beyond anything seen… it can be conceived as possible though. Levitating an inch of the ground without some external force is impossible though. That’s the difference with magic. Things martials can do are thoroughly not mundane!

By the same token magic doesn’t mean better, stronger, or more powerful… it just lets you do things that aren’t possible.

A lot of the abilities are great, but you can keep your disintegrating strikes and dispelling blows.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of the abilities are great, but you can keep your disintegrating strikes and dispelling blows.

Like I said before, I'm fine with martials doing disintegrating strikes and dispelling blows if they are weilding a magic weapon.

I know many DMs don't want to be forced to give magic items but I personally would be okay if some Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Monk class features required a magic weapon or armor. DMs in low magic setting should choose something else as a variant.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

OK. So in terms of practicalities, Warlock seems to be the best class to base the ability distribution of a "Hero" class.
1) It is generally regarded as a "decent" class. Not overly powered, not significantly weak.
2) Eldritch and agonising blast already match Extra attack progression.
3) It has a progression of "always usable" tricks, of "extra effort required" short rest abilities, and at high levels some "maximum effort" 1/long rest abilities.
4) It doesn't have a ridiculously large list of abilities known at any one time.