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

[Hussar]

Not at all. Turn the fighter into the monk.

Seriously.

Supernatural abilities? Check.
Vague handwavium power-source (ki/spirit)? Check.
No Spellcasting unless you pick a subclass that allows it? Check.

Nobody in their right mind calls the monk a gish. Yet they are explicitly supernatural and have magical abilities. The same is true of blood hunters and to a certain degree barbarians (4e barbarians were PRIMAL, not MARTIAL). The fix is simple. But people INSIST the fighter cannot have an ounce of magic to explain his supernatural abilities.

You’re not wrong.

To play a mythic warrior - don’t play a fighter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, I encounter this often with new players. Just a couple weeks ago.

Player:There’s a martial v caster disparity!

DM: Don't worry I run a classic style 2e/BECMI game that makes everything work out. Here are my house rules (basicaly NOT be a fan of magic characters and do NOT give magic a free pass)

Player, after reading: What you CAN"T play the game like this! You must play the game with "THE" offical "agreed upon" rule changes and style THAT not only creates the martial v caster disparity, but exacerbates it!

That is a pure player issue. Nothing else.

The "DM must be a fan of the characters" or a Buddy Dm to the players is a HUGE one that effects the game. Example:

DM: The skeletal warriors rise up from the ground and advance.

Player Bob: No problem, my character Enchanter Bobo cast 'mass charm' on them! Haha!

DM(Fan/buddy): Oh, wait undead are not effected by charm spells like mass charm. Don't waste your spell. We will say you did not do that, and you can take another action.

VS

DM: The skeletal warriors rise up from the ground and advance.

Player Bob: No problem, my character Enchanter Bobo cast 'mass charm' on them! Haha!

DM: your cast spell has no effect on the skeletal warriors and they continue to advance forward.

Player Bob: Wait What? I just wasted a spell?!?!?!

DM nods: Yes

This also has nothing to do with what we are talking about, for a few reasons.

1) Skeletons are not immune to charm. If you have homebrewed them to be immune to charm, then it does behoove you to remind the players of that.

2) Many spells that are charm spells that do not work on undead specifically say that. This then becomes a case of reminding the player of their own ability. An example of this would be something like Shape Water. Shape Water can freeze a 5ft cube of water into ice, but is explicitly cannot trap creatures. Reminding a player that their ability does not allow them to do the thing they are attempting to do is not somehow increasing the martial caster divide, it is just not being a jerk and forcing them to waste their turn (and possibly resources) doing something their character is 100% aware would not work.

Seriously, this is like telling a player they caught their house on fire because they tried to use blacksmith's tools and their forge to build a wooden door. It is OBVIOUSLY not going to work, so why make them feel stupid and punish them for making a mistake?

 

[Remathilis]

You’re not wrong.

To play a mythic warrior - don’t play a fighter.

I mean... yes? Kinda?

The class called fighter, as is currently conceived, isn't mythic. You can make a mythic warrior that can do those amazing things, but only by killing the current "everyman master of mundane weapons and armor" for something more mythic in flavor.

The barbarian has primal spirits channeled into rage. Bards tap into the Music of Creation. Clerics and paladins channel the power of their deity or faith. Druids and rangers draw upon the raw power of nature. Monks hone their ki. Sorcerers are born or infused with magic, warlocks bargain with powerful forces for it. Wizards study arcane formulas and rituals. Every class but fighter and rogue has some way of tapping into power beyond mortal limitations and each one gets to treat the laws of reality as guidelines. It's time for the rogue and fighter to do the same and if we must kill the current classes and replace them with one or more supernaturally powered classes, so be it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We know that PCs have a cap of 20.
NPCs can have rolled stats.

An NPC can break the rules have stats high or lower than the normal. An Orc NPC can have 22 STR before getting to level 20.

There is an NPC ogre out there with STR higher than 19. And with them being large, this strong ogre can lift almost a ton. That's super strength.

This isn't a coherent argument. This is a bunch of random statements barely strung together.

Yes, we know that PCs have a cap of 20... that has nothing to do with saying an elite human caps at 19, in fact, it disproves that unless you don't think that PCs can be elites. It is just a random statement with no bearing on the conversation.

NPCs can have rolled stats? Okay... sure? I could decide to roll stats for a cat, but I don't need to. I usually don't in fact. But just because you CAN roll stats for NPCs doesn't mean that you logically must, or that your method for determining modifiers makes any sense.

For example, using your method, I can determine that humans have the following modifiers
#1 -> +4 wisdom, +1 charisma
#2 -> +4 dex, +2 con, +10 int, +5 wis, +6 cha
#3 -> +1 str, +6 dex, +4 con, +3 int, +1 wis,
#4 -> +6 str, +2 dex, +7 con, -1 int, +1 wis, -1 cha
#5 -> +0 to all

These are all real modifiers that I would get from real human statblocks. So, again, your method is unsupported and leads to bizarre, unsupported results.

Can NPCs break the rules? Yes, of course, that doesn't mean anything. Can there be an NPC ogre with more than 19 strength? Sure. But you can't declare confidently that the rules support an ogre with a strength of 27. They don't, anymore than they support an NPC human with an intelligence of 28 or a strength of 24

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

But, going back from dealing with all of that

But the real point here was to remind you and others that "human" limits are a bit squishy in DnD. Most martials end up as strong or stronger than ogres, Barbarians can end up matching dragons and giants with ease. But also, these are the exact same limits faced by elves, dwarves, warforged, goliaths and goblins.

We said it earlier, when running for days to run down the orcs, Gimli, Legolas, and the Orcs could all keep that pace because.... they were orcs, elves and dwarves, it was just expected of them. But Aragorn needed to have special lineage powers and training. Well, in DnD... elves, dwarves and humans are all on a level playing field. So using "human limits" doesn't make immediate sense.

Again, this was the point I was getting at originally. When I asked where my warforged landed on your chart, when I pointed out that humans can be stronger than ogres, I wasn't trying to get into a discussion on the limits of NPC creation, but to instead point out that not all PCs are human, and earthling limitations in DnD aren't something that make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Hussar]

@Remathilis - I think we broadly agree here. If someone wants to play a mythic warrior, they’re far better off just playing a paladin and doing a bit of reskinning. Even without spells, paladins are pretty mythic. So inspiring that those standing with me are fearless. Able to cure diseases with a touch. So terrifying that I can literally freeze someone to the spot (depending on subclass) and far and away devastating in combat.

Plus a fairly decent selection of spells which can certainly do double duty as “powers”.

 

[Remathilis]

@Remathilis - I think we broadly agree here. If someone wants to play a mythic warrior, they’re far better off just playing a paladin and doing a bit of reskinning. Even without spells, paladins are pretty mythic. So inspiring that those standing with me are fearless. Able to cure diseases with a touch. So terrifying that I can literally freeze someone to the spot (depending on subclass) and far and away devastating in combat.

Plus a fairly decent selection of spells which can certainly do double duty as “powers”.

Paladin should be one option. But I want dragon knights and blood hunters and swordsages as well. I want subclasses where you have titan-blood or have picked up some artifice and make cool magitech gadgets. I want nightblades who use the power of the shadowfell to walk through walls and vanish in thin air. I want classes so cool that fighters and rogues are an afterthought, a relic of days when magic-users had one spell per day.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I mean... yes? Kinda?

The class called fighter, as is currently conceived, isn't mythic. You can make a mythic warrior that can do those amazing things, but only by killing the current "everyman master of mundane weapons and armor" for something more mythic in flavor.

The barbarian has primal spirits channeled into rage. Bards tap into the Music of Creation. Clerics and paladins channel the power of their deity or faith. Druids and rangers draw upon the raw power of nature. Monks hone their ki. Sorcerers are born or infused with magic, warlocks bargain with powerful forces for it. Wizards study arcane formulas and rituals. Every class but fighter and rogue has some way of tapping into power beyond mortal limitations and each one gets to treat the laws of reality as guidelines. It's time for the rogue and fighter to do the same and if we must kill the current classes and replace them with one or more supernaturally powered classes, so be it.

You could add the following set of words to the existing description of the fighter somewhere in the PHB and it would be ready to accommodate a mythic fighter.

"The most accomplished of fighters are capable of feats some see as supernatural"

13 words (and it could probably be less)
Job done.
Probably don't even need to change layouts that much.

 

[Yaarel]

It is officially possible for a level 1 Human to have Strength 20. If they roll 3d6 to obtain an 18, then add their species +1 to Strength, then use the Variant Human feat to select a half-feat that also grants a +1 to Strength.

This doesnt happen at my table (because of using arrays), but it can happen.

 

[Hussar]

Paladin should be one option. But I want dragon knights and blood hunters and swordsages as well. I want subclasses where you have titan-blood or have picked up some artifice and make cool magitech gadgets. I want nightblades who use the power of the shadowfell to walk through walls and vanish in thin air. I want classes so cool that fighters and rogues are an afterthought, a relic of days when magic-users had one spell per day.

Dragon knight- ranger
Magitech gadget - artificer (which easily equal any combat oriented class)
Nightblade- monk

Like I said, you’ve already got your wish. The actual cool classes are there. They’re just not fighters.

In that other polling thread a third of tables don’t have a single non-caster. I wonder how many tables do not have a single full caster? People interpret the other thread as evidence of the popularity of non-casters. I interpret that as a fail. When a third of tables don’t have a single example of something, and another good chunk only has one, that’s not very popular.

I’m going to start another poll but switching it around - full casters instead of non-casters. My prediction is that close to 100% of tables will have at least one full caster and a majority will have two. A large minority will have three.

That’s my prediction anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I think theoretically universally accessible (or randomly accessible) supernatural ability that are unevenly and variably distributed is the best model. That's the engine that makes a bunch of modern fantasy work. It's fine (and frankly preferable) if character classes represent exceptional individuals and are a fairly rare trait in the general populace. You can even do "genius of hard work" if you have some martial cultivation model.

This is why I think that slightly more broad mastery moves are better for high level martials than maneuvers and the like. You want cultivation, but not a long list of not-spells.