D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Minigiant]

What's the distinction there? It seems to me that banning casters is the same as making it martial only.

One is banning printed material. The other is restricting specific items.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with that is what I think of as the 4e Problem. Everyone can do the same level equivalent thing, pretty much, it just looks different. Not what I want.

Is it really a problem, tho? Ultimately D&D is a game of your imagination. If you can imagine a different way of accomplishing something based on your class's idiom, why isn't that enough.

(and that was an old straw man of 4e, anyway, it simply wasn't ever true, just repeated a lot in the course of the edition war)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or make it a class feature, was my point.

That'd be a class feature listed in the DMG.


A straight-up class feature would be, just, at a certain level you gain a magic item with a certain magical function. No, other classes can't use it, unless they get the same feature. Simple. Bit abstract, but so's everything in D&D from hp on up.

And, TBH, I was not thinking of fireball at 5th level taking out an encounter full of orcs or something, but sleep at 1st level dropping, like 4 or 5 kobolds (an easy encounter) in one action, a feat a mundane fighter could accomplish at... 11th? 2 extra attacks, action surge, 6 total attacks (you can even afford to miss once or twice). 5th level with a build that finagles a bonus action attack, and a bit of luck.
Well, I mean, apart from the kobolds all needing to be within a 40' sphere centered within 90' of the caster (120' because the caster could move forward 30' and cast), and someone needing to finish them off in the next 10 rounds.


I mean, "mundane" and "supernatural" are extremes, and most fantasy-genre martial concepts probably fall between them?

Where does the magic item come from? Give me any answer except, "It doesn't matter".

 

[Maxperson]

Well when I say "seen wish" I mean as a wish, not to cast an 8th level spell or lower. Or maybe it was just a preference of the people playing the wizards to take a different 9th level spell.

Prior to 5e I almost never saw it used to duplicate a lower level spell. 5e's risk of permanent loss makes it very unlikely that you will see it used for special wishes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it really a problem, tho? Ultimately D&D is a game of your imagination. If you can imagine a different way of accomplishing something based on your class's idiom, why isn't that enough.

(and that was an old straw man of 4e, anyway, it simply wasn't ever true, just repeated a lot in the course of the edition war)

It is a problem for some, yes, just not for you apparently.

I played and ran 4e for well over a year, and it sure felt true to me. AEDU was poison to my game.

 

[Minigiant]

Except that it's not really that. Clearly several folks in this thread(including me) think that it also includes(as the primary thing for me) martials training abilities into the supernatural levels, such as swinging a sword and hitting someone 100 feet away.

You are agreeing with me.

"The fighter is swinging a sword and hitting someone 100 feet away with a class feature"
vs
"The fighter is swinging a sword and hitting someone 100 feet away with a magic item"

Not a person in this thread said the fighter cannot hit someone 100 feet away.

the whole argument is on How.

 

[Maxperson]

You are agreeing with me.

"The fighter is swinging a sword and hitting someone 100 feet away with a class feature"
vs
"The fighter is swinging a sword and hitting someone 100 feet away with a magic item"

Not a person in this thread said the fighter cannot hit someone 100 feet away.

the whole argument is on How.

It's still not the same argument.

"Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?" is saying that the martials should have class abilities and not rely on magic items.

"Are magic items assumed or optional?" is saying that it should be magic items and not class abilities.

Those are different arguments which is why the "how" is different. You said one is the same as the other and it's not.

If you're saying that we are debating here how martials should be equalized, then I agree with you. If you are saying that one method of equalization is the same as the other(s), then I don't agree with you.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Just like "Come and Get It" was purely mundane because the designers said it was. Right.

4e's philosophy was geared towards being cinematic, where the table was left to narrate how the power played out. So one could narrate it through mundane means or supernatural means. It is not everyone's playstyle but it has merrit.

My biggest issue with this cinematic narratively strong adoption of the game was that the designers should had gone full tilt with this. ie. Characters would not and should not be bogged down to the same repetitive powers fight after fight, they should have been allowed to use any of their class daily, encounter, at-will power to their maximum number of uses per encounter and day as long as they met the requirements (proficiencies, weapons etc).

Cinematic action scene with free-style narration was the goal, but they shoe-horned it into traditional D&D's metrics.

 

[Scribe]

Where does the magic item come from? Give me any answer except, "It doesn't matter".

A quest.
A blacksmith.
A noble patron.
A mysterious benefactor.

 

[Maxperson]

A quest.
A blacksmith.
A noble patron.
A mysterious benefactor.

My favorite is...

Midgard Dwarf from 3.5e

"Master Smith
Midgard dwarves gain Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wonderous Item, and Forge Ring as bonus feats. They are considered to possess the prerequisites necessary to craft any magic item of those types, even if they do not otherwise meet the requirements or have the ability to cast the necessary spells."

Norse dwarves for the win! I'll take one Mjolnir and one Gungnir to go please. Oh, and toss in a Ring of Multiple Wishes.