D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[Oofta]

Im thinking more along these lines:

In one corner we have a level 25 fighter

In the other corner we have a level 18 fighter level 7 wiz or dru.

Root tangle or similar spell, prestidigitation to ignite oil containing sword (dont even have to have legit enchantment) attack

Next turn fighter does what fighter does. (Yes next turn specifically because a martial artist who bothers to learn magic is going to bother to get various advantages that will guarantee certain strategic advantages like initiative)

You're assuming the opponent has powerful spells left at their disposal. It also depends on whether or not the fighter makes their save. Just like my dwarf made his save and demolished the silly wizard who dared question the supremacy of martial types and got his ... hat ... handed to him.

Since my personal experience is the only one that matters, I say fighters rule, wizards drool. Or ... it just depends on the rules used, and half a dozen other circumstances. Given enough encounters without chance to recover spells they balance out. Just as important, they tend to fill different roles in the party and one is not "better" than the other.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Since my personal experience is the only one that matters...

...elves die all the time?

 

[Oofta]

...elves die all the time?

Exactly.

 

[TwoSix]

Because the actual descriptor doesn't matter. It's whatever a character claims about themselves in the fiction. The whole "best swordsman in the world" thing was just a single example. By the same token, a wizard who is known as the greatest wizard known to man in a particular narrative I am running does not need to have better "game mechanics" than any other potential wizard in the game. Because up until those two characters actually start rolling dice at each other... those mechanics are meaningless. As a matter of fact, I don't even need to create game mechanics for that wizard and still let him be known in the narrative as the greatest wizard known to man. Because if it's known as such in the story... then it's known as such in the story. And I don't need to build this NPC mechanically to "prove" it. What a waste of time that would be. Build every single NPC mechanically just so we can categorize and compare who's the "good" blacksmith in the town or the "best" sage. Rather that just describe them as such.

If at some point down the road a PC wanted to get into a wizard's duel with that wizard? Then sure, I'll probably make the character up mechanically. But that doesn't mean I have to make him 20th level in order to define him as actually "the greatest" wizard either. I'll make him whatever mechanically would help benefit the drama of the story we are telling.

I see where you're coming from, but you have to admit that advocating for freeform description as the primary narrative driver in D&D, which is predominantly a high-concept simulationist game, is going to raise a few eyebrows. I mean, you can stat up the "greatest wizard" any way you want, sure, especially if any NPC wizard has Schrodinger's stats, because then there's no concept of a relative comparison. But I think as soon as you run into any opposition in the narrative that mandates the use of mechanics, something is going to be formalized. And that's going to out some kind of bounds on the practical mechanic expression of the PC.

I'll be honest, I kind of wonder if this whole post chain is just a long con to get Saelorn riled up, considering your ideas are anathema to his play style.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Exactly.

...there were too many elves, anyway.

 

[Oofta]

...there were too many elves, anyway.

Yeah, I think the last time I ran an elf and the DM killed them off they just about started to cry because they had never killed off a PC in years of DMing. They were quite confused when I just laughed and chalked it up to the curse.

Maybe 6E will be the edition where I can finally play an elf and get them past level 3.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You're assuming the opponent has powerful spells left at their disposal. It also depends on whether or not the fighter makes their save. Just like my dwarf made his save and demolished the silly wizard who dared question the supremacy of martial types and got his ... hat ... handed to him.

Since my personal experience is the only one that matters, I say fighters rule, wizards drool. Or ... it just depends on the rules used, and half a dozen other circumstances. Given enough encounters without chance to recover spells they balance out. Just as important, they tend to fill different roles in the party and one is not "better" than the other.

Im assuming a dual.

A dedicated swordsman who learns magic explicitly to give them an edge as a swordsman is only going to use spells that give them an edge as a swordsman for the most part. And you only need a few well placed spells to allow you big advantages. Entangle is probably not the best example thinking it over again. But its a first level spell. And prestidigitation is just a cantrip (which can be used all day long).

Im specifically looking at it in a way of a swordsman who uses magic to amplify or tweak their martial arts. They will win most times. Could be as simple as granting themselves advantage at certain times for well timed criticals or to hamper the other person's move economy. All that can be done without high level spells which means they will have plenty of spell slots to fuel this especially with upcasting. Status effects are also nasty and reminiscent of actual historical examples like usage of Metsubushi by swordsmen on their oponents. Plenty of low level magic to do that with. So no they wont really run out over the course of a dual (or likely several battles)

ps. I dont know why but i stopped being able to turn off bold. None of the latter bold text is intentional. There seems to be some sort of problem ive suddenly been affected by on this site's text interface.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Im assuming a dual.

That may be a typo, or it may be "dual" seems intuitive, but it's "duel" with an e. Because English. ;|

A dedicated swordsman who learns magic explicitly to give them an edge as a swordsman is only going to use spells that give them an edge as a swordsman for the most part. And you only need a few well placed spells to allow you big advantages. ... without high level spells which means they will have plenty of spell slots to fuel this especially with upcasting

Seems like the EK is just about perfect for that, and the above example of Shield is a proven one.

Im specifically looking at it in a way of a swordsman who uses magic to amplify or tweak their martial arts. They will win most times.

But it doesn't so much reflect being a better swordsman. Magic, in that sense, is like adopting a new technology. The guy who brings an iron sword to the bronze age duel has an advantage, not in his skills (at least, not his skill as a swordsman), but in technology. Magic, in D&D, is analogous to superior technology, that way.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

That may be a typo, or it may be "dual" seems intuitive, but it's "duel" with an e. Because English. ;|

Seems like the EK is just about perfect for that, and the above example of Shield is a proven one.But it doesn't so much reflect being a better swordsman. Magic, in that sense, is like adopting a new technology. The guy who brings an iron sword to the bronze age duel has an advantage, not in his skills (at least, not his skill as a swordsman), but in technology. Magic, in D&D, is analogous to superior technology, that way.

English is not my primary. Thankyou for the correction.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

That may be a typo, or it may be "dual" seems intuitive, but it's "duel" with an e. Because English. ;|

Seems like the EK is just about perfect for that, and the above example of Shield is a proven one.But it doesn't so much reflect being a better swordsman. Magic, in that sense, is like adopting a new technology. The guy who brings an iron sword to the bronze age duel has an advantage, not in his skills (at least, not his skill as a swordsman), but in technology. Magic, in D&D, is analogous to superior technology, that way.

I think it would depend on what sort of magic. Some types definitely represent ecpanding your conorehensive swordsman skill set. Again. My gymnastics example. Casting a spell to give you superior maneuverability (thereby allowing more tightly arranged movements or so e other martially relevant thing) woukd be an example of using magic as a specifically swordsmanship-relevant skill.

Also i dont mean to exclude melee attackers that actually have magic. Im saying in general a swordsman whos swordsmanship includes magic as a part of the technique would realistically be a higher calber swordsman.