D&D 5E Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[Andor]

I'm not familiar with the source material you're citing. I think M Night (maybe) did a movie (?), but I didn't see it. Regardless, I think I know what you're intending as your salient point; indispensability due to party dynamics means Fighter's role is always legitimized. However, I didn't find that to be the case when GMing late mid/high level play in 2e (even though I think the 2e C&T Fighter was second to only the 4e Fighter in its awesomeness) and definitely not in 3.x (by far the worst iteration of Fighter - a truly terrible, awful class and nerfed horribly with respect to its predecessors). In 1e UA and 4e, yes, the Fighter was a boon and his relevance endured (especially 4e).

Don't see the movie. The animated series is excellent, the movie suffered very, very badly from studio stupidity.

In any event no, what I was saying is that your concerns are legitimate, but that the reasons for playing the "mundane" class are basically narrative and I was pointing to a fictional source where things played out perfectly. I then conceeded that you need an almost ideal table for things to work out that well for the player.

Legolas is an interesting character here. The source of his otherworldly martial ability wasn't supernatural. Further, if Gandalf is only level 6ish, I certainly wouldn't classify him anywhere near Epic tier (level 17 +). However, in the fiction, in all ways his abilities make the 5e Champion look like an absolute chump. You cannot get Legolas out of the task resolution system and bounded accuracy of 5e. Legolas could lay low dozens and dozens of orcs (with bow or blade) and float around the battlefield like a wraith. He could bring all of that big damn hero, crazy athleticism (with pretty much 100 % efficacy) outside of combat for noncombat conflict resolution. The Champion couldn't dream of that kind of stuff. Even at double his level.

Well no. There are no non-supernatural elves in LotR. They are so magic they can't even understand how humans differentiate between magic and mundane tasks like household chores and crafting.

In 5e terms however I'll point out that you can pretty much exactly portray movie Legolas as a Wood Elf Monk.

I've yet to GM more than the early playtests (and I expect I won't ever be GMing it unless some of the modules turns it into a better one-off dungeon crawl than 1e or RC). However, the system seems so familiar to me and I've run so very many AD&D 2e and 3.x games (this system basically looks like AD&D 3e and I'm certain it plays like it), that extrapolation seems trivial.

With respect, that's a trap. The differences between 5e and 3e appear subtle but are profound in their interactions and on table play. For example:

I'm reluctant to buy-in to 5e's multi-pronged approach to balance at mid 2nd tier through Epic. The vast majority of Conctration checks will be in the vicinity of 10. This is trivially worked around via the Warcaster feat, the Resilient Feat, Transmuter's Stone, potions or stuff to give you resistance or having Shield and Mage Armor. A level 10 High Elf Wizard with any combination thereof (or even just 14 Con and Warcaster will be passing typical Concentration checks at a rate approaching mechanical irrelevance).

The significance of the concentration mechanic is not that concentration can be disrupted, although that is not to be sneezed at. It is that you can have only one concentration spell going at a time.

Arcane Eye
Passwall
Wall of Stone*
Greater Invisibility
Major Image
Fly
Suggestion
Levitate
Web
Hold Person
Invisibility
Sleep
Disguise Self
Charm Person
Mage Armor
Shield
Protection from Energy
Dominate Person
Wall of FIre

I have bolded the spells with a duration of concentration. In 3e you could have all of those going at once. In 5e, pick one and only one at a time. If you want to Fly above the melee, you're not doing anything else in bold. If you want to cast web, or charm, or hold person, you have to land and risk melee. That is not a minor nerf.

I agree with this. It's the lack of the ability to circumvent the base, d20+bonus mechanics and hit-point attrition that strikes me about the fighter. So little condition-infliction. No auto-jump or climb. Etc.

The problem isn't with classes or subclasses being mundane. It's with the lack of resources - eg X skill rolls per day are a nat 20, or get advantage, or whatever. Which means the players of those PCs lack the fiat powers that spell-casters have.

As I implied, I think that at a meta-game level they had to have that be true for at least one class. And actually it isn't true for all of any class. It's true for the Fighter (Champion) and the Rogue (Thief and Assassin.) The Battlemaster has little out-of-combat that violates the skill system but in combat has considerable ability to to status infliction and control. And the Thief does have to abide by the skill system, but past 11th level can't roll below a 10 and has expertise essentially making him immune to failure in any skill he cares about. The Fighter (Eldritch Champion) and Rogue (Arcane Trickster) are both casters. The weakest casters, yes, but casters.

And even as a Fighter (Champion) without Multiclassing here's what I need to do to start buying into the ability to use spells to bypass resolution mechanics. Be a High Elf. Be a Forest Gnome. Be a Tiefling. Take either of the feats: Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster.

I keep saying this: If you want magic, it has a lower buy in cost in 5e than in any previous version if D&D. If you don't want magic, why are you complaining about not having magic? The ability to do something to bypass the normal resolution system is pretty much the definition of magic.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If you don't want magic, why are you complaining about not having magic? The ability to do something to bypass the normal resolution system is pretty much the definition of magic.

I think this is the crux of the argument actually: Manbearcat and I would probably both say that mechanical resolution systems are completely unrelated to whether something is magical or not. Eldritch Blast uses the same resolution system as a crossbow (attack roll vs AC), but one is clearly magical and one is nonmagical. Likewise, there are already plenty of nonmagical effects that bypass the normal resolution system, like the Lucky feat and several of the higher-level rogue skill-monkey abilities.

The normal resolution system (skill/ability checks, hp damage, etc) is designed for normal circumstances; high-level characters are exceptional, so they can break the mold in their areas of specialization. A level 20 fighter can already stab eight separate enemies in six seconds, far more than anyone else. A rogue can auto-succeed at "hard" tasks all day long. So whether or not you think fighters need more juice out of combat, I don't think it makes sense to claim that any time they do anything that isn't an attack roll or standard skill check they're performing magic.

 

[pemerton]

If you don't want magic, why are you complaining about not having magic? The ability to do something to bypass the normal resolution system is pretty much the definition of magic.

This is pretty well covered by [MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION]. Whether or not an ability is magic is a feature of the ingame fiction. Whether or not something is resolved using a certain mechanic is a feature of gameplay in the real world. There is basically no correlation between the two.

 

[Hussar]

Not really. For most of that to happen you would have to: Let Wizards rest whenever they want to without consequence, misunderstand spells, ignore drawbacks to spells (Especially in older editions) and ignore spell components. People never seem to mention any of those limitations, so I can only surmise that we're talking about games where the Wizard is resting every other encounter, doesn't need components, there's never any drawbacks, and spells are played wrong.

Actually, this isn't really true at the levels we're talking about. The whole "you just aren't a good enough DM to keep wizards in line" falls down when you actually look at the numbers. We're talking about high level campaigns here, not 5th level. Let's peg it at 14th.

A 14th level Wizard in 3.5 E, has 28 spells from 1st to 7th level. Make him a specialist and now he's got 35 spells. Tap in a decent Int score (and heck, he's a 14th level wizard, he likely has an Int in the stratosphere) and he's got about 40 spells per day.

Now, say our adventuring day is 5 encounters (pretty decent day, certainly not 15 MAD) and each encounter is 5 rounds long (probably too long, but, work with me here). That means our wizard can drop a spell every single round of every single encounter and still have 15 spells left over. He leaves 10 spell slots (say 2 spells per level from 1st to 5th, that's where most of the flex is anyway) open and now he doesn't have to worry about memorizing in the morning, he's got all the flexibility he could possibly need.

THAT's the problem that people want to address. It's not about screwing up how spells work or being too easy with resting. It's that high level casters (and remember, our example caster is only 14th) are really that insane. And all of that is without a single item - scroll, wand or anything else.

Now, 5e has gone a long way towards toning down high level casters. Being a high level caster no longer means that you are pretty much ruling the game if you want to. You're powerful, but, not as bad as before.

But, the argument still holds. How is a high level fighter simply mundane? Note, there is precedence here for giving mundane classes high level powers. Look at 3e Rogues. High level rogues can dance in the middle of fireballs without losing an eyelash, can shrug off mental effects and has such high skills that he can pretty much pick up any magic item you find and use it perfectly well. All without any "magical" abilities.

If rogues can do this, why can't fighters?

 

[Uchawi]

It is odd because they go out of their way to state some of the monk abilities are magical, while they do not do it for the rogue, and really restrict the fighter.

 

[Sadras]

Look at 3e Rogues. High level rogues can dance in the middle of fireballs without losing an eyelash

They're probably using RevitaLash. (apologies, once I get the itch)

If rogues can do this, why can't fighters?

Agreed. There should definitely be a module to cater to for this. I think the only instance where we might disagree is if the mythic fighter play-option should be included within the PHB or the DMG. Sounds arguments both ways methinks.

 

[Morty]

The problem, as I see it, is that D&D for the longest time tried to have its cake, and eat it, too - with the exception of 4e. Magic is powerful, and subsequent editions removed the restrictions and difficulties it had. Non-magical character are limited to interacting with the system the exact same way from level 1 to level 20, and they're kept in check by a misguided idea of 'realism', that occasionally actually has some relation to the real world, but not always or even usually.

At the same time, though, the game - at least in 3e and 5e - continuously insists that a wizard and a fighter, or a cleric and a ranger, are equally contributing members of the team, or equal threats to the PCs if they're NPC enemies. Which is blatantly false. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a fantasy game where magic-users are simply more powerful, more versatile, more dangerous and all-around more relevant to the world at large than those who have less or no magic - but the system should just straight-up admit it, instead of flip-flopping on the issue. It's not possible for a character bound by real-world physics to contend with the kind of threats a high-level D&D campaign involves head-on - through superior numbers, trickery, or firepower, maybe, but not by walking up to it and duking it out, which is what D&D warriors are meant to do. You would honestly have a better case arguing that a rogue, ranger or such should be realistic, because they make up for their lack of magic or larger-than-life martial skill with their cunning and cleverness. Of course, at that point we run into what I call the Batman problem, that is to say, at which point hyper-competence and versatility in ostensibly realistically human pursuits becomes unrealistic and super-human? So the system should either admit that you're playing a scrappy underdog who survives on luck and narrative fiat, or give your non-magical characters abilities that let them match those of the ostensibly magical ones. Don't do the former and pretend to do the latter.

Having said that, 4e is the only edition to at least try to consistently put down what it means to be a character of a given level. Other editions only give us numbers, which are meaningless without context - context which is sorely lacking. Is a level 15 warrior Gimli? Conan? Achilles? Every other player seems to have their own answer, which is not surprising, given that the game won't give them one. Spell-casters' abilities are precisely defined - they can cast those spells, but not that one yet. Non-magicians get numbers to their attacks and skills, extra actions and sometimes passive resistance abilities like evasion or slippery mind.

I will also add that some people's definition of what 'mundane' D&D characters should be able to do tends to lock out Drizzt and his friends and arch-nemesis out of the list of possible concepts. So there's that.

 

[Ashkelon]

D&D has long had a problem with scaling martial PCs to the challenges they face at mid to high levels.

For example, in 5e, a giant is a huge creature at only CR 5. Huge creatures are well over 15 feet tall. Such a creature would easily defeat any real world warrior. The real world warrior would not be able to endure a single blow from such a mighty creature, and the warrior's attacks would be largely ineffective on such a foe. But in D&D, a normal human is able to go toe to toe with such a monster and is expected to not only live, but to actually win.

We suspend our disbelief in situations like this, but somehow cannot accept a fighter who can jump 20 feet into the air, punch a hole in a stone wall, lift a massive boulder overhead, or slice an iron door in half.

Well, perhaps the issue is that the fighter class is trying to do too much. It cannot be a mundane warrior for those who want to play Gimli, while also being a heroic or mythic warrior for those who want to play Achillies, Beowulf, or Herakles. Maybe the correct solution is to just have a whole new class for the mythical warrior archetype.

If that is the case, then maybe this will help. It is a 5e class I designed base off the 3e Tome of Battle material. Let me know what you think.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHLtUBIOpuzbhov9Jk6GsCgftm1TIb2_Q8oHBWo26Jk/edit?usp=sharing

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The problem, as I see it, is that D&D for the longest time tried to have its cake, and eat it, too - with the exception of 4e. Magic is powerful, and subsequent editions removed the restrictions and difficulties it had. Non-magical character are limited to interacting with the system the exact same way from level 1 to level 20, and they're kept in check by a misguided idea of 'realism', that occasionally actually has some relation to the real world, but not always or even usually.

At the same time, though, the game - at least in 3e and 5e - continuously insists that a wizard and a fighter, or a cleric and a ranger, are equally contributing members of the team, or equal threats to the PCs if they're NPC enemies. Which is blatantly false. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a fantasy game where magic-users are simply more powerful, more versatile, more dangerous and all-around more relevant to the world at large than those who have less or no magic - but the system should just straight-up admit it, instead of flip-flopping on the issue. It's not possible for a character bound by real-world physics to contend with the kind of threats a high-level D&D campaign involves head-on - through superior numbers, trickery, or firepower, maybe, but not by walking up to it and duking it out, which is what D&D warriors are meant to do. You would honestly have a better case arguing that a rogue, ranger or such should be realistic, because they make up for their lack of magic or larger-than-life martial skill with their cunning and cleverness. Of course, at that point we run into what I call the Batman problem, that is to say, at which point hyper-competence and versatility in ostensibly realistically human pursuits becomes unrealistic and super-human? So the system should either admit that you're playing a scrappy underdog who survives on luck and narrative fiat, or give your non-magical characters abilities that let them match those of the ostensibly magical ones. Don't do the former and pretend to do the latter.

Having said that, 4e is the only edition to at least try to consistently put down what it means to be a character of a given level. Other editions only give us numbers, which are meaningless without context - context which is sorely lacking. Is a level 15 warrior Gimli? Conan? Achilles? Every other player seems to have their own answer, which is not surprising, given that the game won't give them one. Spell-casters' abilities are precisely defined - they can cast those spells, but not that one yet. Non-magicians get numbers to their attacks and skills, extra actions and sometimes passive resistance abilities like evasion or slippery mind.

I will also add that some people's definition of what 'mundane' D&D characters should be able to do tends to lock out Drizzt and his friends and arch-nemesis out of the list of possible concepts. So there's that.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this debate pertains specifically to 5e and how much is a carryover from 3e/PF. We can still complain about martial versatility outside of combat, but I don't think you can really claim that a 5e fighter isn't in the same league as a 5e wizard or cleric in combat.

 

[Grainger]

In general, real world records in athletics are set by people very strongly specialized in a very narrow range of activity, usually using some pretty hefty sports science (ergonomics of running, nutrition science, and so on.

Yes - modern athletes have access to modern training methods, diet, medical treatment, etc. We should be comparing to medieval standards, not the very best of modern achievements.

Admittedly, in most campaigns, D&D characters are pretty much modern people in a pseudo-medieval world, but if we want the system to be vaguely like a medieval world, then the characters shouldn't be as "optimised" athletically as modern elite athletes. [for what it's worth, I don't care; the PCs are heroes, and should be exceptional; going by the OP's analysis, I think the balance is about right].