D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Hussar]

You can have a fighter that can cross the planes by cutting holes in space with a sword. Just make it a separate class. There is no reason your fun needs to negate mine.

Now I'm confused. I was just told by @doctorbadwolf that I was being totally unreasonable saying that people were insisting that the base class must never be changed. And, yet, a post or two later, now you're telling me that the base class must never be changed.

Which is it? 'cos, frankly, I'm happy either way. A new class - a Mythic Warrior (or a ... what's another word for someone who is the top of something... of war ... nah...) that is built from 1st level through about, say, 7th, to be pretty much standard fighter, only to have a bunch of stuff come online at the double digit levels? Groovy. Maybe someone who could add status effects to allies and enemies. Limited battlefield control. Then at high levels, be able to do all sorts of stuff that changes the nature of encounters.... If only I had seen a class like that before....

Ok, fair enough. That was overboard. I'm still annoyed that Warlords got consigned to the circular file of history. In any case though, I would be perfectly happy with a completely new class. At least then I might see players actually play a non-caster character once in a while. Would be nice.

 

[Minigiant]

Which one is my Warforged? Are they merely human?

Depends on the Warlorgeds ability.

Are they strong as a human, orc chief, ogre, or storm giant?

 

[Minigiant]

5e says an Archmage is a 18HD caster with 9th level spells at CR 12.

Now what does a Archpriest, Archexpert, and Archwarrior who are 18 HD and CR12 look like?

MOTM has a champion NPC that has 22HD, 3 attacks that deal double normal weapon damage, and is CR 9. It's not enough.

 

[James Gasik]

Now I'm confused. I was just told by @doctorbadwolf that I was being totally unreasonable saying that people were insisting that the base class must never be changed. And, yet, a post or two later, now you're telling me that the base class must never be changed.

Which is it? 'cos, frankly, I'm happy either way. A new class - a Mythic Warrior (or a ... what's another word for someone who is the top of something... of war ... nah...) that is built from 1st level through about, say, 7th, to be pretty much standard fighter, only to have a bunch of stuff come online at the double digit levels? Groovy. Maybe someone who could add status effects to allies and enemies. Limited battlefield control. Then at high levels, be able to do all sorts of stuff that changes the nature of encounters.... If only I had seen a class like that before....

Ok, fair enough. That was overboard. I'm still annoyed that Warlords got consigned to the circular file of history. In any case though, I would be perfectly happy with a completely new class. At least then I might see players actually play a non-caster character once in a while. Would be nice.

As an aside, I'm always amused that people say "War Lord" is a terrible name for a class, and it implies that you're the best warrior ever, or you're automatically the party leader...but nobody bats an eye at "Battle Master".

Some other ones: Siege Expert, Combat Specialist, Smackdown King, Havoc Queen, Fray Witch, Melee Commander.

 

[Mon]

Wish is an artifact.

"Universal Arcanum" is a 9th level spell that lets you cast any spell of 8th level or lower.

We have a house rule just like this, except it’s called “Volition”.

Wishes, artefacts, time travel, true prophesy, and a few other things are “immortal” level magic in our very long running home brew world. No mortal can create them, but mortals can sometimes access them regardless of class or level.

Cheers,

Mon.

 

[James Gasik]

5e says an Archmage is a 18HD caster with 9th level spells at CR 12.

Now what does a Archpriest, Archexpert, and Archwarrior who are 18 HD and CR12 look like?

MOTM has a champion NPC that has 22HD, 3 attacks that deal double normal weapon damage, and is CR 9. It's not enough.

NPC stats are weird in 5e, and they totally break immersion (IMO).

 

[Minigiant]

NPC stats are weird in 5e, and they totally break immersion (IMO).

The point is to discover what we think the martial equal to a magic Arch.

That is the whole point.
WOTC never made a NPC that you could use as a big bad. Because WOTC and the community can't accept what a "Martial equivalent of an Archmage" is.

 

[Mon]

One of the Houserules I use is

"Magic Weapons are magical"

Magic swords can cut throw walls of force. Magic swords can cut through reality to open impromptu portal to overlapping planes. Magic weapons if big enough can block magic attacks. Magic weapon can disrupt magic defences or natural actions supported by magic (ie sight or flight of magic creatures).

But you have to be a skilled warrior to use magic weapons this way.

We have had a house rule a bit like this since AD&D. Magical swords can shatter magical barriers/protections and absorb or even reflect magical attacks, in the hands of a high level fighter or thief.

Cheers,

Mon.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the Blademaster NPC I have. Would anyone object to it being in Core 5e?

 

[Remathilis]

IOW, no, we can't have what we want. Because anything we try to do will be automatically blocked by those who insist that the problem doesn't exist.

These are systemic problems that are grounded right at the root of the game. The disparity starts relatively small in Tier 1 and then gets wider and wider as time goes on. There's an absolute refusal to recognize any actual problems so, any solutions are band-aids at best. To actually solve the problem, we need a system where Level X of Character Class Y is equivalent to Level X of Character Class Z.

Without that parity, we can't solve anything. And, we aren't allowed to solve anything because there is enough people who will automatically gainsay any attempt at a fix by claiming that the problem doesn't exist or that the problem lies ANYWHERE but with the class power structures. It's bad DM's, it's bad encounter design, it's bad monster design, it's bad players. On and on and on. Anything but actually a problem with the non-caster classes.

It really is a shame.

I've been perfectly fine with changing the fighter. I just continue to request one feature be put into the lore: if you want a fighter to do supernatural things, give them a supernatural power source. This idea is apparently extremely controversial for a group of people who think the fighter should be able to fly, throw mountains, and kill hundreds of enemies in a single round all using nonmagical abilities that cannot be countered or negated, all because wizards can cast wish and that's not fair.

Everyone "agrees" that the fighter needs to change, nobody agrees how much. One person says John McClean. Another says Goku. Another says Captain America, while another says Captain Marvel. Some want Hercules and some want Hawkeye. You can't design a class that satisfies all of them.

Personally, I think the two best ideas have been to kill the notion of nonsupernatural classes (every class has access to supernatural abilities, like the monk and blood hunter) and to break the fighter info a handful of classes each with a unique niche and power set. Now you can have a dragonknight that flies, uses dragon fear to court foes and has aoe fire attacks to augment his martial attacks and a nightblade who can go invisible, move through walls and summon shadow duplicates to help her fight.

But no, just keep arguing how 4e had it right and 5e messed it up in a silent edition war that never ends...