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

[HammerMan]

Here are 2 examples by a little known company called wizards of the coast.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're right. I am going to focus on the phrase, "mystical connection", because that's the thing that makes that description work the best. It allows stuff like sleeping in a graveyard to have supernatural meaning, which is all I am asking for. You already agreed to this, which is why I'm unsure why your discourse seems so aggressive.

The fighter stared literal death the embodiment of the end of all things in the face. If staring a force beyond gods in the face isn't mystical, what is?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. You don’t want the magicless classes to be as fun and complex as magic ones so nothing will satisfy that.

What makes you think that? Is providing a narrative explanation that explicitly allows for supernatural effects so onorous a task that it is an unreasonable ask for you? Again, some folks above have suggested some better fighter abilities that don't necessarily require the supernatural, and in that case my objection doesn't apply. Your conclusion baffles me. I think I've been more than clear, to the point where I've been asked to shut up about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes this whole discussion is about how we want WoTC to remove magical dependency and give either a fixed fighter or new class that is not stopping others from playing fighters.

I haven't seen anyone but you demanding that WotC take action on this, as opposed to the far more plausible imo 3pp or homebrew solution.

 

[HammerMan]

What makes you think that? Is providing a narrative explanation that explicitly allows for supernatural effects so onorous a task that it is an unreasonable ask for you?

It is unreasonable to keep asking once answered. Weather or not you like the answer.

Again, some folks above have suggested some better fighter abilities that don't necessarily require the supernatural, and in that case my objection doesn't apply. Your conclusion baffles me. I think I've been more than clear, to the point where I've been asked to shut up about it.

I’m asking you not to shut up but to except what others have told you

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here are 2 examples by a little known company called wizards of the coast. View attachment 288755View attachment 288756

Do you think either of those are likely to be recreated in D&D's current environment? They were both a while back, and new classes in the 5e era seem very much a non-priority for today's WotC. I don't know if they even wanted to make the artificer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fighter stared literal death the embodiment of the end of all things in the face. If staring a force beyond gods in the face isn't mystical, what is?

The phrase "staring death in the face" is never assumed to be literal.

 

[HammerMan]

Do you think either of those are likely to be recreated in D&D's current environment?

I think the environment changes all the time.
I think that Bo9S wasn’t in the cards in 2001 and 4e wasn’t in 2005.

So I think that the more people talk about it the more likely it is.

They were both a while back, and new classes in the 5e era seem very much a non-priority for today's WotC. I don't know if they even wanted to make the artificer.

And yet they did make it and even went so far as to say they will update it to the new 2024 rules just not in the main boom

 

[Remathilis]

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

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

I also never have said "spells", and my use of magic (often used interchangeably with supernatural) has included plenty of "not spell" abilities like ki, rage, and psionics. My only disagreement has been on where the line between "extraordinary, but possible" and "overtly supernatural" lies, and how much you can do with the former before it becomes the latter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The phrase "staring death in the face" is never assumed to be literal.

Where does it explicitly state in the books that it isn't literal? No one ever takes the phrase "I have a mystical connection to nature" literally in the real world either, yet turns out it is literal druids. "That song was enchanting" is never considered literal, unless you are a DnD Bard. Clerics, paladins, rangers... lots of phrasing that normally isn't literal being taken literally.

So where does it explicitly state that the fighter's phrase is supposed to be non-literal, unlike all of these other phrases?

I mean, you won't accept the versions of the class we re-wrote to have explicit mysticism, because if you did, you would have stopped asking us to rewrite them to include explicit mysticism in a single defined manner. You won't accept ANYTHING it seems, because no matter what we offer, you declare that people who don't like our ideas won't accept them, as though that somehow means anything to discredit the idea itself. There are people who won't accept the idea of medicine, doesn't mean we stop making medications.