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

[Incenjucar]

Should we limit ourselves to WotC quality? Many, many designers, including people on this forum, can and have done better. That's what I'm asking for here.

I already haven't. I don't know why you seem to need WotC's permission. They didn't write something minor down for a fictional class they deliberately made second-class 10 years ago for a fantasy game they have already determined to need fixing.

My power source must be ice magic because I have let it go.

 

[Remathilis]

Then explain why all the other classes have explicit narrative reasons for their supernatural abilities, but fighters don't need them.

Maybe the question should be reversed: why do we need to explain anything?

Magic is. Owlbears exist. None of it needs to be explained. No deities, no "a wizard did it", nothing. D&D doesn't need lore. It doesn't need explanation. It just exists. Elves just are. Tieflings have no origin. Bards know magic because they are bards. A warlock is a warlock because that's what class the player picked. Anything can happen. Just print the raw mechanics and let the players figure out what they mean.

That should fix the problem, right?

 

[Emberashh]

they have already determined to need fixing.

 

[HammerMan]

Which one do you want to use? Once you pick one, it informs how the class is built and what abilities it can logically have. You can't just say, "there will be  something, but it doesn't matter what". That's the same as not offering any narrative at all.

Sure you can. Just like a class that gets magical abailities at will and back in a short rest doesn’t have to be tied to patrons. The mechanics and the flavor can be paired later.

 

[HammerMan]

So the mechanics are the only thing that matters, and you can just slot any old narrative in?

Yes.

In fact I bet I can take any 2 classes in the game and make a possible rewrite of fluff to switch them. Would the mechanics MAYBE need tweaking in the end. Maybe but over all the game rules can be anything.


I know this because we refluff hexblades and warclerics and sword bards as fighters all the time.

 

[Tonguez]

Again, none of those things imply supernatural abilities. Some of the ideas people have had would work with this, but nothing supernatural. All of the classes that actually have supernatural/magical abilities have a narrative that explicitly supports it. The fighter should too.

That depends on how you interpret things since Unparalleled is a statement of exceptionalism in a world where amazing things happen. Its like the statement “Hulk is strongest there is”, its a narrative permission to give him more strength feats than anyone else.
Equally in DnD Death is a force with its own domains, gods and effects. In some cases even its own plane of existence.

- so straight off I can think Fighters defying death get resistance/immunity to Death effects like
Circle of Death, Death Knell, Power Word, Kill, Slay Living, Wail of the Banshee etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure you can. Just like a class that gets magical abailities at will and back in a short rest doesn’t have to be tied to patrons. The mechanics and the flavor can be paired later.

But it needs to be tied to something, and having the mechanics not be informed by the narrative, doing it later as you say, runs the very real risk that you just want this class to exist because you want different mechanics than what are currently available, not that the class actually covers a narrative desire in this roleplaying game. That's not the case, correct?

 

[HammerMan]

Maybe the question should be reversed: why do we need to explain anything?

Magic is. Owlbears exist. None of it needs to be explained. No deities, no "a wizard did it", nothing. D&D doesn't need lore. It doesn't need explanation. It just exists. Elves just are. Tieflings have no origin. Bards know magic because they are bards. A warlock is a warlock because that's what class the player picked. Anything can happen. Just print the raw mechanics and let the players figure out what they mean.

That should fix the problem, right?

Yeah

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

In fact I bet I can take any 2 classes in the game and make a possible rewrite of fluff to switch them. Would the mechanics MAYBE need tweaking in the end. Maybe but over all the game rules can be anything.


I know this because we refluff hexblades and warclerics and sword bards as fighters all the time.

I am very much not a fan of refluffing. To me (and I expect to some others) it makes the narrative meaningless.

 

[HammerMan]

But it needs to be tied to something,

And again. We can do that. We just don’t want that something to be spells.

and having the mechanics not be informed by the narrative, doing it later as you say, runs the very real risk that you just want this class to exist because you want different mechanics than what are currently available, not that the class actually covers a narrative desire in this roleplaying game. That's not the case, correct?

You hit it on the head. We want different mechanics than what exist now.