D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[nevin]

Conan is a low level concept.

this I disagree with. A 20th level fighter with magical weapons can be conan. A 20th level fighter with feats that give them crazy saves and lots of hitpoints can be be conan. nothing in the current rules prevents a conan at 20th level. with the current state of the wizard you'd probably want to institute a magical/divine/or monk like will power aura that dispells magic to get that conan effect of shaking off all the magical stuff but it's easy enough to do in any edition if you aren't picky about how it happens. To the people who are picky about how it happens i'd argue find another system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point was nothing about the game feels normal or non magical regardless of the lack of definition of where powers came from or that swinging a sword was possible in real and d&d world. Don't know anyone in all the years I've played since 1977 complaining about the source or non magical and/or magical fighter. They just play without knowing why it works and are happy and feel the fantasy vibe.

sorry for being snarky

No worries. I see where you're coming from, but setting and worldbuilding are very important to me and my players, and I have played with many people over the years who care about where powers come from and how realistic (or not) it is. Tons of fans of fantasy and science fiction literature and other media care about those things too. Not everyone plays TTRPGS as a vibes-first activity.

 

[nevin]

in 47 years I've never had anyone have a problem figuring out a warrior type in thier head. Now paladins, wizards. sorcerers, clerics and other magical powered classes I often have to give them some explanation to make it work in thier heads. I think the lack documentation you complain about is a sign that the number of people that have a hard time visualizing and accepting what martials can do is so low that what you want will never be worth the effort to wizards or anyone doing a d&D clone. Just my opinion though .

 

[Gammadoodler]

No, but if you want Rule of Cool as a guiding principle of worldbuilding I very much do not, so we are not going to meet because the middle is too far apart for either of us to have fun.

Maybe you can help me understand what benefit you are getting out of employing fantasy as your chosen genre to roleplay in then?

Because near as I can tell..if "Rule of cool" were a genre, fantasy would be that genre.

 

[Tonguez]

OK, I thought up a little example that I think illustrates what I want (but I am probably wrong). I am using Frank Castle (the Punisher) and Lobo as to extremes of the broadly similar fictional martial antihero spectrum. Castle is supposed to be like a RL human and Lobo superhuman, but are otherwise very similar (aka the same class) in my example. The both fight hand to hand and with weapons, but no "magic" per se.

To me, and for this example, these characters are both the same class. I want the game rules to be able to support both characters. I want it to be able to play a full game as Frank Castle and to be able to fantasy that I can do things at the limits of RL skill and ability. I also want to be able to play Lobo and be able to punch a god in the face. I want both. I also want to be clear, from a rules perspective (but not necessarily in the setting / fiction) that Lobo's great strength is supernatural (and what that means). Why you ask? So that when my player has his wizard character cast dispel magic (or anti-magic) on Lobo he isn't confused why it doesn't work. Lobo is just that strong. My player needs a frame of reference to understand how magic works (and doesn't work) in the game rules.

I hope that is clear, but probably not. It is late and my dog woke me up to go to the bathroom so I am not my best self at the moment.

This confuses me The Punishers relentless violence is certainly extraordinary and both Frank and Lobo can be modelled by the same classes. The difference is that Lobo isnt human, he's an alien with super strength, durability and regeneration - those are natural traits of his Ancestry/race.

 

[dave2008]

The distinction is because "magical" has a defined meaning within the context of the RPG itself, different to how it is being used in this thread.

Actually that is a problem within 5e at least. It is not clearly defined. What I want is a clear definition. What does anti-magic affect: spells and magical effects? However, per sage advice that does not include "innate magic" like dragon's flight or beholder's hover, etc. If we had a clearly defined magic, we wouldn't have these questions.

 

[dave2008]

Maybe you can help me understand what benefit you are getting out of employing fantasy as your chosen genre to roleplay in then?

Because near as I can tell..if "Rule of cool" were a genre, fantasy would be that genre.

There a many types of fantasy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OK, I thought up a little example that I think illustrates what I want (but I am probably wrong). I am using Frank Castle (the Punisher) and Lobo as to extremes of the broadly similar fictional martial antihero spectrum. Castle is supposed to be like a RL human and Lobo superhuman, but are otherwise very similar (aka the same class) in my example. The both fight hand to hand and with weapons, but no "magic" per se.

To me, and for this example, these characters are both the same class. I want the game rules to be able to support both characters. I want it to be able to play a full game as Frank Castle and to be able to fantasy that I can do things at the limits of RL skill and ability. I also want to be able to play Lobo and be able to punch a god in the face. I want both.

See, but this is exactly the problem. If I ask you who wins in a fight, The Punisher or Lobo... the answer is obvious. Lobo wins. The guy can laugh in the face of missiles being fired at him, and get away with only some mussed hair. And, when the adventure gets to a high enough level, both Lobo and Punisher are facing gods. Lobo... can fight at that level. Frank Castle... can't.

But you want them both to be represented by the same class at the same level.

I also want to be clear, from a rules perspective (but not necessarily in the setting / fiction) that Lobo's great strength is supernatural (and what that means). Why you ask? So that when my player has his wizard character cast dispel magic (or anti-magic) on Lobo he isn't confused why it doesn't work. Lobo is just that strong. My player needs a frame of reference to understand how magic works (and doesn't work) in the game rules.

See, but over half of what you want the wizard player to know is already true. Dispel Magic ONLY works on SPELLS. You can't dispel magic on a magic item, it doesn't work, per how the spell is phrased. So, unless your wizard player thinks Lobo has an active spell effect on him, he won't expect Dispel Magic to work.

And, at least for me, I wouldn't expect Anti-Magic to work either. I wouldn't expect it to weaken a death knight, or a storm giant, or or really any non-caster. So, the only confusion I can see, is if the player thought his strength came from a magical object. But, again.... why would he? You don't see a Pit Fiend and think of using Anti-magic on it to take away its strength, because that just doesn't make sense.

 

[dave2008]

This confuses me The Punishers relentless violence is certainly extraordinary and both Frank and Lobo can be modelled by the same classes. The difference is that Lobo isnt human, he's an alien with super strength, durability and regeneration - those are natural traits of his Ancestry/race.

Like I thought, I wasn't clear. In this example Lobo is human.

 

[dave2008]

This is a problem ONLY because of Anti-magic. Nothing else cares or interacts with these things in an unclear manner. For Example, whether or not you consider psionics magical, a creature using psionics to cast detect thoughts can be counter-spelled or the spell dispelled, because it is still a spell-like effect.

The game jargon does not need to exist, except to satisfy a single spell that is poorly thought out and poorly worded.

I disagree, but I don't see any point in discussing it further.

First, DnD humans are already capable of of this, because of Monks. It is already an established fact. The issue is that people keep saying humans can't do these things, and other pointing out that, this is fantasy, of course they can do these things if we say they can.

The issue I keep seeing is that people say "I want to play a mundane character" and they want a gritty, down-to-earth human fighter who would fit into Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. Which is fine... for low-level DnD.

I can't speak to other people - but that is pretty much what I want. That was my first post in this thread. I want a mundane class or two that can do all the wildly possible things (probably about everything the current lvl 20 can do + more) in about the first 10 levels. Though, I also think level 20 is OK. (just not my preference).

However, people want this character to continue, without a growth in power, to move from "Kill this Orc Chieftain" to "Kill this interdimensional dragon who is ripping apart the fabric of the multiverse"

I want the character to be able to continue to grow in power, able to kill the interdimensional dragon, if you the players what to play in that type of game. It is an option. That is the whole point of what I am saying, just acknowledge for those who want that it is supernatural.

And this is not a restriction on any other class, except the rogue.

No, it is not a restriction but I means to allow freedom. Also, I would absolutely apply this concept to all classes for balance reasons. That does not mean classes can't get magic, but would look at how magic balances with the mundane character and go from there.