D&D 5E Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There is in fact a system in place to allow for complete or martial failures without derailing the heroic story arc. It's called hit points. I can miss a blow or have a monster resist my cone of cold or whatever without just losing the game because the consequence of my victory is a reduction in enemy hp and the consequence of failure is a reduction in my hp, with additional status effects, positioning concerns, and other stuff to keep combat interesting.

If the system allows all non-combat scenarios to be decided by a single binary skill check, there is indeed a serious negative impact on any mundane class that can't use a resource to auto-succeed, as a wizard often can under optimal circumstances. I think structurally this means DMs need to keep in mind "failing forward" and plan on using multiple checks. Don't just put a single pit in front of the players, because that favors the wizard who can burn a single jump spell to bypass it; put lots of swinging ropes and pits and rough terrain around, interspersed with combat, so even a wizard with fly is making a tradeoff in combat effectiveness to maintain his superior mobility.

And, yes, introduce more auto-succeed resources for martial specialists.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=6778261]Morty[/MENTION] , good post. I'm in agreement with it and have been for over two decades.

[MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION] , I think we're winding down here. Further, we're still going to be in disagreement on some pretty important nuance that defines our respective positions. One last bit of nuance that is relevant:

You can play Batman in D&D. In 4e I've seen a Batman archetype played beautifully in my last campaign by a Rogue with a build that made him MacGuyver meets Errol Flynn meets James Bond. The conflicts I framed him into, his suite of resources, his action declarations, and the mechanical resolution of all of the former "showed" that archetype in play.

You could do a Batman character in 4e with several different build types (including an Avenger or Monk as base with the right Skill Powers and/or Rituals).

Beyond 4e, you could also do Batman. Relevant to this thread, the way you would do so was by picking the Wizard class.

 

[Morty]

As far as Batman goes, I think D&D kind of lost something when it gave up on providing characters with resources and holdings beyond the standard WBL, in 3e onwards. In 3e, everyone has a crap-ton of gadgets to rival Batman's resources, eventually. I don't know if 5e will have anything like that - we'll have to wait for the DMG to judge.

 

[Uchawi]

I doubt the DM guide will address it, short of a rewrite of how certain classes play or gain ability. At that point you may as well buy a different game because any of the core assumptions the classes were based on will crumble.

 

[pemerton]

Shove a high level champion off an orbiting spelljammer and a few minutes later he'll dig himself out of the crater and dust himself off while regenerating back to 1/2 hitpoints.

There is in fact a system in place to allow for complete or martial failures without derailing the heroic story arc. It's called hit points. I can miss a blow or have a monster resist my cone of cold or whatever without just losing the game because the consequence of my victory is a reduction in enemy hp and the consequence of failure is a reduction in my hp, with additional status effects, positioning concerns, and other stuff to keep combat interesting.

If the system allows all non-combat scenarios to be decided by a single binary skill check, there is indeed a serious negative impact on any mundane class that can't use a resource to auto-succeed, as a wizard often can under optimal circumstances.

I have put these two quotes together, because I think the second makes the point that, from the point of view of RPG design, there are devices and techniques available that can extend the hit-point model for failure ablation to other spheres of activity.

I think that it is the relative (not total) absence of these from 5e which, at least for some potential players, is a problem.

the chance of failure is an unavoidable consequence of a chance driven game reality rather than a narrative reality.

But a great deal of spell casting in 5e actually has no chance of failure (even though, from the point of view of RPG technology, spell failure mechanics have been around for over 30 years).

This is one of the significant points of contrast between martial and spell-using characters.

bad[/i] that I can make a character who actually has to try to use persuasion and skill to get by in the world instead of just waving some bat crap around as a universal problem solver?

I have two responses to this.

First, it misdescribes what I (and I think not only me) am looking for in a martial PC. I have no objection to martial PCs having to use persuasion and skill to get by in the world. But that can be implemented in a myriad of mechanical ways, and many of those ways can enable the character to play out as preternaturally skilled or lucky (like Batman) - typically by metagame mechanics that permit rerolls, or minimum rolls, or stipulated natural 20s in place of actually rolling the dice, etc.

Second, it seems not to take account of the levelling system. If I want to play a magic-user PC who takes on Orcus while having access only to the simplest of cantrips, I can do that without building a whole new sub-class of wizard that doesn't learn higher level spells. I just build a 1st level wizard PC and take him/her off to meet Orcus. Likewise for martial PCs - if you want to play a PC who is not capable of preternatural prowess, just build a lower level character!

 

[Pickles JG]

Gandalf judged Aragorn to be worth hundreds of ordinary knights. I think a 5e 20th level fighter is worth maybe two-dozen.

Napoleon (well his hat) was said to be worth 40,000 men & I am pretty sure he did terrible DPR with his sabre & hardly ever shot anyone.

Which depressingly reminds me that the more plausible than pretty much any other D&D character Warlord has been removed for his unrealistic inspirational healing powers et al.

 

[Grainger]

Gandalf judged Aragorn to be worth hundreds of ordinary knights.

Are you sure that was in terms of fighting ability, though? The LOTR heroes might have been good fighters, but I struggle to imagine them being that powerful - to me, it just seems a bit, well... silly. Surely Gandalf's assessment is due to leadership/tactical ability, or his ability inspire troops due to who he is. Can you give us a quote from the book?

I mean, in LOTR, even Gandalf isn't that powerful in terms of throwing flashy magic around.

 

[pemerton]

Are you sure that was in terms of fighting ability, though? The LOTR heroes might have been good fighters, but I struggle to imagine them being that powerful - to me, it just seems a bit, well... silly. Surely Gandalf's assessment is due to leadership/tactical ability, or his ability inspire troops due to who he is. Can you give us a quote from the book?

I think I posted the reference upthread (p 916 in my one volume edition with appendices).

Imrahil suddenly laughed aloud.

"Surely," he cried, "this is the greates jest in all the history of Gondor: that we should ride with seven thousands, scarce as many as the vanguard of its army in the days of its pwer, to assail the mountains and impenetrable gate of the Black Land! . . . If the Dark Lord knows as much as you say, Mithrandir, will he not smile rather than fear . . . ?"

"No . . . ," said Gandalf. "And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece. No, he wil not smile."​

Why is Aragorn worth hundreds of knights? Because of his ability to fight. Because he does not tire. Because he inspires others to great valour. Because he is the heir of Elendil, who turned a Palantir to his will and taunted Sauron by means of it, and who wields Narsil reforged, and has the weight of history and prophecy behind him.

A 20th level fighter in 5e satisfies the "does not tire" bit fairly well, but nevertheless is not really worth hundreds of knights. (Whereas a wizard, arguably, is - with well-placed AoE a wizard can really do a lot of damage to an opposing force.)

 

[billd91]

I think I posted the reference upthread (p 916 in my one volume edition with appendices).

Imrahil suddenly laughed aloud.

"Surely," he cried, "this is the greates jest in all the history of Gondor: that we should ride with seven thousands, scarce as many as the vanguard of its army in the days of its pwer, to assail the mountains and impenetrable gate of the Black Land! . . . If the Dark Lord knows as much as you say, Mithrandir, will he not smile rather than fear . . . ?"

"No . . . ," said Gandalf. "And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece. No, he wil not smile."​

Why is Aragorn worth hundreds of knights? Because of his ability to fight. Because he does not tire. Because he inspires others to great valour. Because he is the heir of Elendil, who turned a Palantir to his will and taunted Sauron by means of it, and who wields Narsil reforged, and has the weight of history and prophecy behind him.

A 20th level fighter in 5e satisfies the "does not tire" bit fairly well, but nevertheless is not really worth hundreds of knights. (Whereas a wizard, arguably, is - with well-placed AoE a wizard can really do a lot of damage to an opposing force.)

I really don't think this comparison makes any sense. As you're pointing out above, correctly, Aragorn is worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights but much of it is because of all sorts of reasons utterly external to the things a fighter or even a wizard in D&D have and do. Aragorn is significant in the eyes of Sauron because, fundamentally, he has the right to counter Sauron's might. That's how he wrests control of the palantir - because it is his by right. Why is he a significant leader of men? Because it is his birthright, his destiny. These concepts are pretty big thematic elements of Lord of the Rings. And none of that are really things D&D has done much modeling of outside of Birthright because they are (and should be) highly campaign dependent.

So why exactly we are supposed to use them as some kind of benchmark for a 20th level fighter is beyond me.

 

[Grainger]

Thanks, Pemerton for the quote. In addition to what billd91 has said, I'd re-iterate that I really don't want one Fighter in D&D to be better at fighting than "thousands of knights". That's just totally stupid. I want high-level PCs to be powerful - legendary even - but even legendary heroes have to be vulnerable to some threat (and not just an exceptional one that has to be contrivedly summoned every adventure), and it has to have some relation to reality.

I'd rather that the majority of their power comes from their political influence or (by that stage) leadership of fiefdoms/kingdoms, not from how they can single-handedly defeat any army on the planet*.




*And if they can't do the latter even though they're worth thousands of warriors, then you've just entered into the kind of runaway campaign power escalation that's never been a good idea.