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

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

There is nothing in the existing fighter narrative which implies 'limited to earth-standard capabilities'.

Some contradict thay idea in fact.

Though it could also be said that part of the point of the Fighter from a game design perspective is that its subclass driven. The baseclass isn't intended to more than it is.

And as there is no circumstance where youd be past level 3 and not have a subclass, scrutinizing the baseclass for being underpowered is sort of a weird approach.

Now the subclasses it has still have issues of course, but for some reason theres a lot of focus on the base and not the subs.

Ive played and DM'd Rune Knights, Cavaliers, and even Arcane Archer once with a little homebrew fix. None of them actually struggle to keep up in the game. Samurais, Battlemasters, and Echos don't struggle much either.
 

but only mithril which was created to contain Morgoths most powerful creatures. almost everything in LOTR that was better than mortal was Connected to the Divine.

Sure, but why the metal exists in the canon is immaterial to the fact that its still a relatively mundane thing Dwarves dig up out of the ground.
 

Some contradict thay idea in fact.

Though it could also be said that part of the point of the Fighter from a game design perspective is that its subclass driven. The baseclass isn't intended to more than it is.

And as there is no circumstance where youd be past level 3 and not have a subclass, scrutinizing the baseclass for being underpowered is sort of a weird approach.

Now the subclasses it has still have issues of course, but for some reason theres a lot of focus on the base and not the subs.

Ive played and DM'd Rune Knights, Cavaliers, and even Arcane Archer once with a little homebrew fix. None of them actually struggle to keep up in the game. Samurais, Battlemasters, and Echos don't struggle much either.

If there is a contradiction, let's hear the evidence rather than just say, "well some people disagree"?
 

Sure, but it doesn't have to be. I'm plenty happy for the most part with how EN Publishing handles these issues in Level Up, for example, and there's plenty of smaller experimental creators out there, not to mention homebrew.
Level Up is good but ultimately doesn't deviate that much. It offers better versions of the spells and more obstacles that can be bypassed by magical means.

But it is more weakening the magic than bringing the fighter to the archwarrior to match the Archmage.
 


no humans are muggles magic users are different......:) LMAO

Journey to the West to start with. Every martial arts movie ever. Many myths and stories of Monks running around defeating demons and sending them back to lower realm. (think of demons in oriental myths as Fey) . It's a very Asian thing perfect control of the mind and body grants power over self and one's environment. Not a lot different than the whole church knight mythology. A truely pious knight can take on anything and survive because of his or her purity.
There's some really interesting cross-pollination between D&D derived narratives and cultivation stories in the progression fantasy space...and a lot of really, really terrible self-published novels, so reader beware.

That being said, (and eliding a lot of cultural cross-contamination and differing understandings of the term) cultivation is effectively magic. Depending on your source, the same tradition that leads to Daoist sorcery leads to martial artists, and you might have differences in say, a body cultivation tradition that results in a physically might form that regenerates, vs. a soul cultivation form. Whether or not a cultivator has a sword or a spear or a zither on their person doesn't actually have much bearing on whether they're going to throw fire at you if you get into a fight, and odds are good everyone can fly or has a lightness technique that's close enough for television.

Plus, it has an explicit power source that pointedly exceeds unpowered human norms and makes it really easy to specify "you can do this technique, and it does this precisely." I worry that concept is getting a little more heated than it really needs to. Like, the vague "swears oaths for power" conceit of the paladin works just fine. The problem with the Fighter class is that it's way too broad, archetypally, and if anything is defined specifically in opposition to doing anything supernaturally effective. You'd actually have more room to add higher end powers by being more specific, as the monk, paladin and barbarian prove.
 

You'd actually have more room to add higher end powers by being more specific, as the monk, paladin and barbarian prove.

Thats what subclasses are meant to do. Battlemaster, Samurai, Champion, Cavalier, etc all play off various takes of just being stronk.

Your Rune, Eldritch, and Echo Knights aren't what they are because they're stronk.
 

Thats what subclasses are meant to do. Battlemaster, Samurai, Champion, Cavalier, etc all play off various takes of just being stronk.

Your Rune, Eldritch, and Echo Knights aren't what they are because they're stronk.
It however fails because subclasses are never deep or have the mechanical power to make it work.
It's why the ranger c;lass started off brokenly underpowered. All the power and flavor was put into subclass but the design space wasn't there.
And it begs the question, if the subclasses are the real meat... why not just make them into classes.

Why have a Fighter who dabbles into Battlemaster and Rune Knight just to miss the mark instead of making a Fighter class, a Battlemaster class, and a Rune Knight class?

"BeCaUse ClAsS BlOaT!"
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top