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

[Yaarel]

Cool. Swords can cut that or something.

If you want it to be a game that I would play, it must have a narrative that I like.

This means a default narrative that satisfies 70% or more of the D&D players.

And this default must be a light touch that is easy to ignore and override with ones own setting-specific narrative, to satisfy the remain D&D players.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Using "damage" to bring down a Wall of Force makes less sense.

Force is a physical but immaterial force. Gravity is a kind of Force Construct.

To use a sword to bring down a Wall of Force would be conceptually like using a sword to diminish the force of gravity.

But, to use a Strength Check to push thru a Wall of Force, to overcome its area of repulsion, does make conceptual sense.

And unlike gravity Wall of Force is a solid construct. It is a force field. Please don't tell me that you think breaking a forcefield is somehow conceptually impossible. Because like, 80% of sci-fi and a great deal of fantasy and a whole lot of superhero stories would like to have a word with you.

 

[Yaarel]

so you're saying you'd rather there be no explaination how they could do it and that the jedi could just do force stuff because that's what jedi do? kinda how we want the fighter to just be able to do amazing fightery things because that's what fighters do???

Regarding Star Wars, yeah.

I would rather it be "mystical", and the mind pervades the Star Wars universe. More like the scientific hypotheses about "psychic powers" during the 1900s.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The Weave pervades all existence and is itself psychoresponsive to the intentions of sentient minds.

that's weird, when I said 'this is a fantasy world where magic is part of everything and martials could use it to surpass 'natural' limits becoming super strong' i got told 'but where does it say they can do that in the books'

 

[Gammadoodler]

Cool. Swords can cut that or something.

If you want it to be a game that I would play, it must have a narrative that I like.

This means a default narrative that satisfies 70% or more of the D&D players.

And this default must be a light touch that is easy to ignore and override with ones own narrative, to satisfy the remain D&D players.

The default starts with

"Psychoreactive BS that pervades all existence, which certain folks can use to manipulate reality by waving their hands around, muttering incoherently and tossing bits of detritus around, and/or maybe playing a lute"

This is not a light touch.

 

[Yaarel]

And unlike gravity Wall of Force is a solid construct. It is a force field. Please don't tell me that you think breaking a forcefield is somehow conceptually impossible. Because like, 80% of sci-fi and a great deal of fantasy and a whole lot of superhero stories would like to have a word with you.

Those scifi narratives are using magic advanced technology to affect those force fields.

 

[Emberashh]

If you truly need something though.

"When enough force (heh) is applied, weapon attacks collect handwavium particles along their striking surface which can disrupt the imaginarium tethers which bind force constructs together"

Do old school damage reduction or something.

Ezpz

There's an even easier way. In a fantasy world, fantasy metals are a thing. Said fantasy metals could easily be said to be able to break through magical barriers, embodying the basic trope of the silvered weapon from yesteryear.

Said fantasy metals could also be reasonably dense, heavy, and difficult to handle, but would otherwise be mundane things relative to their universe.

Ergo, martials who specialize in swinging heavy things can take magic head on with nothing more than something slightly better than steel or iron. (And thats without getting into speculative metallurgy to see how your titaniums, tungstens, and even plutoniums would fit into those dynamics).

And the naysayers who say "but then martials NEEEEEED them", would be wrong, because in this context, anybody who looks to swing a sword would want them, for the same fundamental reason they'd want a steel sword instead of a rusty pig iron sword.

The addition of magical enchantment in this context would only be a further desirable trait, but not one that was strictly necessary. Id see such enchantments as being more focused on diversifying capabilities and acting as a force multiplier, but damage and baseline capability would all be driven by the metals own inherent, in-universe-mundane qualities.

(Ie, the stuff Im doing in LNO is the right way to do it huehuehuue)

 

[Yaarel]

The default starts with

"Psychoreactive BS that pervades all existence, which certain folks can use to manipulate reality by waving their hands around, muttering incoherently and tossing bits of detritus around, and/or maybe playing a lute"

This is not a light touch.

Well, the D&D material component derives from the Greek concept that comes to be described as "sympathetic magic". Similarly the words and gestures.

I am less of a fan of spell components because I prefer innate magic, but there is a point to them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are zero arguments against a new class that is not as powerful. That is my point. It is never about not as powerful. It is always about more powerful. The ability to take without conceding. Here are a few examples:

• Racial ASIs: I want to place my plusses anywhere because I must start with a 16, not a 15. I know I get the benefit of all these other cool racial feats, but I want both. Hence, more powerful than the original PHB intended.
• I don't like that my ranger can do all these cool things, but does 1.2 less damage per round than the fighter. The fix, ranger does all these cool things and is now stronger than the fighter, doing 2.3 more damage per round. Hence, more powerful than the original PHB.
• I want to be able to fly at first level. Even though the intentions of the designers were clear and specific - flying is a powerful tool reserved until a wizard reaches fifth level. When they wrote the PHB, they adjusted it so it would come later. The fix, the wizard can now fly at first level.

Heck, even right now people are arguing for being able to mix and match racial feats. There is no story behind this. It's all because they want to pick the best ones for their class. As I said, half the debates on here are because people want expanded powers - not to "tell their character's story," but to have something more powerful. For we all know, flavor wise, you can tell any story you want without making your character stronger. Yet, suspiciously, every debate just so happens to make characters stronger.

So the argument against a class that is the same power. There isn't one. The problem is - that is never the real argument.

To prove my point.

Seriously? Did you even understand my point or did you just feel like a strawman for your convenient excuses was needed?

Do you know how many times I've been told that the solution to the lack of martial utility is feats? Do you know how many times martial damage has been decried as unrealistic due to a lack of feats? Heck, I've been told a core part of the fighter identity is that they get more feats.

Yet pointing that out as a problem with a potential solution requiring the taking zero feats is somehow an example of me wanting nothing but to be a dirty powergamer who can't be honest?

I suspected you haven't been arguing in good faith, but seriously, this takes the cake. If you hate the idea of changing the status quo, why even participate in the discussion?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, the D&D material component derives from the Greek concept that comes to be described as "sympathetic magic". Similarly the words and gestures.

I am less of a fan of spell components because I prefer innate magic, but there is a point to them.

Did the Greeks have a well-documented understanding for how these components combined with some mutterings could manifest unbreakable walls of diet gravity?