D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

It's more a playstyle necessary. An easy mode caster. A caster who mostly spams.

Then you use subclasses to match in lore specialization (warmages, stage magicians, logistics mages) or copying magic from other IP.

Just make a caster class that doesn't use any from of Vancian magic for offense and defense. The Warlock still relies of spell slots

I don't think it really IS a playstyle neccessity though. I've never been fully onboard that any class needs to be stripped down for new players. I disagree with the existence of the Champion, for instance.

And the way you would do this is so incredibly simple, that it is either ripe for abuse... or just making a class that is Eldritch Blast and as few abilities as humanly possible. Which sounds dreadful.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Only if you chose that.

You could also be:

• A legendary sovereign, whose descendants would rule wisely and well for centuries to come, leaving your mark nigh unto forever
• An undying warrior, who has faced death and found it wanting, soul and body fused into one unbreakable union
• A warrior whose armor is as her skin--and whose skin is as her armor, inseparable, unyielding to any blow
• An everlasting defender, who might become the spirit that defends a land, the watcher at the edge of existence, or some similar fate
• A master of martial technique so transcendent, you empower the techniques passed to your students, and theirs, and theirs, down the ages

Only the sovereign one sounds "mundane" at all to me. And they not only can still choose to defy death, but they are equal in strength to a demigod.

And those are just the examples that require you to be a Fighter and/or a Martial character. There are others, depending on exactly how your character came together over the 20 levels preceding Epic tier. For example, the Dark Wanderer, which is technically for Rangers but actually works quite well for Defenders that face large numbers of weaker opponents.

Further, if an otherwise-mundane Fighter, who has never done a single magical thing, becomes a demigod, what does that mean? Does it mean they were somehow magic all along and just somehow never showed even the tiniest evidence of it? Or does it mean that "mundane" and "demogod" are not as far apart as you want to assert? Because that latter thing is kind of woven all throughout 4e. An extremely myth-like spirit: the difference between "mundane" and "magical" is a purely modern contrivance, something the Ancient and Medieval mind would have found deeply weird. The sharp, absolute separation between what we today would call "science," "witchcraft," and "sacrament" did not exist before the Renaissance. That's (part of) why Apuleius had to defend himself against a (completely secular) charge of witchcraft in 158 AD.

See, you are jumping to the conclusion that I am the one making this distinction, and that I am making the distinction in the way you mean it.

I was responding to Creamcloud, who stated "potent mundane martials can exist, they managed it in 4e after all." And my point was that the mythic nature of 4e's epic destinies contravenes that. A fighter in 4e was not "mundane" when they gained their 21st level. Heck, they may have lost that mundane status when they got their Paragon path at level 11. A human fighter could have become a Steelsky Liberator which "draw from ancient divine blessings of those who were enslaved by the dragon lords"

So, the claim that 4e managed to have Mundane Martials at all is suspect, because the distinction, as you rightly point out, didn't really exist.

Just as Guan Yu's legend grew from peerless mortal warrior to literal god of war. Just as Psyche was worshipped above Venus, and became herself an immortal goddess by labor and by grace. Apotheosis of mortals, by mortal deeds, was hardly considered that special. Those deeds just had to be skills that, despite being mundane in nature, exceeded mundanity in their prowess and impact.

Or, as I have so often called it, the transmundane: that seed which grows from mortal soil and mundane roots, but which rises to touch the firmament.

Right, 4e epitomized this idea that exceeding mundanity was not an aspect of playing the correct class, but simply of gaining levels, of becoming a paragon or a reaching your Epic Destiny. The mundane is low level, not a feature of being a fighter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

D&D has consistently rejected this though. Which is...sort of the issue. It rejects that this is a thing, but fails to actually make it happen.

A lot of folks are really keen on the idea that someone can be Just That Good, such that they CAN fight supernatural enemies without having supernatural powers. And a lot of other folks are so anti-keen on that idea, it actively upsets them to have anything that even remotely hints of it.

And somehow we're expected to have a game that pleases both--which usually ends up throwing the first group under the bus without a second thought.

But this gets immediately to the definition problem.

Is a Swordsman who is so skilled he can cut a spell in half "mundane" or "supernatural"? As you stated earlier, from an older perspective on the universe, that is a nonsense question, because skill is what made someone supernatural. People did not cast magic because they were better than other people, they cast magic because they knew secrets that allowed them to do so. Brewing a potion that made the drinker immortal and gave them iron skin was a matter of knowing how to brew that potion.

But, many many people, as you point out, would say that no matter how skilled a swordsman is, they can't cut a spell or deflect a lightning bolt without some sort of magical abilities that allow them to do so. They reject that transcendent skill exists.

The distinction I am making is not that transcendent skill does not exist, I believe it should, but that people who are calling on "mundane" characters don't WANT transcendent skills. For example, Batman has already been brought up as a man with completely mundane skills.... But that is ludicrous by this point in his history. His supposed lack of anything special about him is why he is referred to as a Gary Stu or having the power of plot armor, because the things he does in many comics are so far beyond normal mundane people, that to keep claiming he is ordinary breaks belief. I have seen people WITH SUPERPOWERS perform feats of strength, speed and/or intellect that are less impressive than Batman (in some comics), so... I reject that Batman is "mundane" under the definition of Mundane that is "achievable by ordinary humans"

 

[Chaosmancer]

but as @EzekielRaiden quite eloquently put in their recent post, what do you specifically mean by a 'supernatural martial', because if you mean anything along the lines of 'secretly has the blood of gods' or 'their weapon is giving them superpowers' that defeats the point for people who want to play their martial as 'just the farmboy who stepped up' or 'the common guard who just sees the overlord as another unruly customer to be charged for their crimes'

Right, but at the point the farmboy who stepped up is challenging the Demon Prince of the 345 Layer of the Abyss to a solo duel for the soul of his beloved... he is a different type of character than he was when he was defending a merchant caravan from overly aggressive bears.

This is why I like the idea of transcendent skill and becoming "supernatural" by the 3rd tier of play. Because your character can't get to the point of battling multiversal powers based SOLELY on having the determination to pick up a sword to fight a goblin. Because if all it took was attitude and steel, then they would have been able to win the fight at level 5.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why? If y'all want only specific types of supernatural abilities to counter dnd's magical threats, the burden isn't on me. I simply responded to "You need supernatural power to combat supernatural threats."

Even a basic +1 weapon enchantment is still enough to be supernaturally sharp, increased accuracy / homing ability, supernaturally durable, and break through supernatural resistances in a number of supernatural creatures. The abstractive nature of mechanics really fails at showing how crazy even a basic enchantment is from an in-character perspective.

Like, an army of pikemen aren't going to defeat a modern tank. No arguement from me. But magic items are the dnd equivalent of advanced technology. A +2 arrow is the DnD equivalent of armor piercing rounds, and a magic bow is equivalent to a high power rifle.

But what really matters is that, by "supernatural creatures," what seems to be the mechanical equivalent is monsters' resistances and immunities. If you have a weapon that bypasses those... why can't a basic Fighter or Rogue overcome?

Because giving a +1 Bow to a 5th level fighter doesn't mean they are actually capable enough to kill Demogorgon. Sure, sure, I bet you could contrive a scenario where you could pull it off with enough range, yadda yadda yadda... but that kind of ruins Demogorgon, doesn't it? If literally all it takes is a half-decent archer with a magic bow to kill him, why is he a threat that can consume entire worlds? Do those worlds just completely lack any magical weapons?

From a story perspective, you need to be something special, to take down threats of that level. The archer who kills Demogorgon will be remembered forever, they are going to be a legendary hero... and it feels cheap to me that that can be because they just happened to have the correct weapon to overcome his magical defenses.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To me, it's fine that low tier fighters are mundane. Low tier casters are supernatural, but they chose classes that are all about the supernatural. People who choose fighters are more interested in beating something with a stick, and low tier casters are still weak enough that you can compete on their level by beating things with sticks. As your levels increase, however, it becomes very hard to suspend disbelief for that mundane feeling, to me. If that girl has a hundred hit points, she'd better be bench-pressing ogres.

Honestly, it might be worth asking...

Is an Elvish mage who can cast light and firebolt actually "supernatural" in DnD terms? Like, if we are going to play around with these terms, elves are already supernatural compared to normal mundane humans on Earth. A level 0 elf is (in theory) a nigh immortal being, with memories of their past life, who can use magic and see in the dark.

Orcs and Goliaths, in DnD, already have a low-level super strength compared to humans. In One DnD, Goliaths are going to be able to grow in size. Are they... mundane or supernatural?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not good enough for me. People in my settings don't get to surpass mundane limits without explicit explanation.

What about "I was born an orc"?

 

[Chaosmancer]

But the rest of D&D doesn't reflect that. Epic Kings don't cause their kingdoms to feast or famine by their mood. Epic bakers don't create gingerbread golems. Epic farmers don't raise pumpkins big enough to be weapons of war, epic tailors don't make magic clothes spun of pure gold, spider silk and first true love. All that stuff COULD happen, it does in fairy tales and legends, but NPCs aren't given magic for doing epic things that aren't combat related. D&D is finicky when it comes to who gets magic and supernatural power. You don't get to be magical unless you have a reason. That's why sorcerer is even a thing: it's a CLASS dedicated to explaining why you cast magic without studying it. If D&D is a world where mighty deeds can earn magical power, it should have far more people with magical power than it does.

Agreed, but to me that just means we should have more crazy cool magic things in the world. I would love to come into a region and hear of a baker who cured a plague with muffins (comic reference) because they prayed to a goddess of baking and were blessed.

Would it be a little silly? Sure, but the best stories are always a little silly.

 

[Maxperson]

Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, is how I look at those categories.

The rogue isn't a fighter and doesn't borrow power. A paladin would be the borrowed power warrior.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it really IS a playstyle neccessity though. I've never been fully onboard that any class needs to be stripped down for new players. I disagree with the existence of the Champion, for instance.

And the way you would do this is so incredibly simple, that it is either ripe for abuse... or just making a class that is Eldritch Blast and as few abilities as humanly possible. Which sounds dreadful.

Warlocks spam EB and Hex as is.

Mage Hand Press has a version that one of my players used that was fun which allows subclasses of

• Caster
• Leader
• Tank
• JOAT
• Sneak

but I'd do it differently

• Third caster
• Ritualist
• Cantrip points to boost cantrips
• Heavy Cantrip blaster
• Wand user