D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Vaalingrade]

Once more with feeling:

If something is not supernatural in-universe, it is not supernatural. It may be fantastic in its meta context, but something's status as magical or supernatural is relative to the work in which it exists.

 

[Bluenose]

Supernatural now means 'being fictional'.

In D&D, making some one bleed is a magical effect.
You can't break someone's arm with a heavy blow to the shield they're holding.
You can't even move at the same time someone else is.

Think even reality is too much for Fighters to have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, back to trying to respond to this SINGLE post

Sure, but I think that is because the PCs you play with prioritize Constitution and don't try to be good at other things. I mean if they take a feat at 4th level are they getting Actor or Pole Arm Master?

Just because they don't feel comfortable with low con, does not mean they do not try to be good at "other things". Additionally, think about what Actor does before you start casting shade on people who don't take it. Actor is only good for pretending to be someone else or mimicking a voice. And when I have had those people, they often are playing Changelings, or Warlocks with MAsk of Many Faces, or they take Eldritch Adept to get Mask of Many Faces. They don't play fighters who take Actor, and who also need disguise kit proficiency.

At high level it is very common and so are very high saves and so are condition immunities. To pull some stats I went to D&D beyond and filtered CR15 creatures. Out of the first 10 only 2 did not have either Legendary resistances and one of them was immune to frightened.

Casters can do damage, but at high level you often run into damage immunity or resistance and if they prepare the most poweful spells their damage is weak even when it is not resisted. If they pick high-damage spells then they are not picking "encounter enders"

My point was this, and I can say it confidently because I played in a lot of high-level campaigns recently: As casters get large numbers of slots to use very powerful control "encounter ending" options enemies als get resistances or saving throws that counter those "encounter ending" spells.

That is not to say those spells are not useful, but an 8th level Wizard with the ability to cast Fear and Psychic Lance 5 times a day is like a god. Fear is an encounter ender, Psychic Lance is extremely debilitating and generally difficult for enemies to resist. At higher levels though the gap closes because monsters do a better job resisting spells, even as the spells become more powerful.

A few assumptions here.

1) You seem to assume that a high level party will face only CR 15 or above creatures, and they will all be in the same fight. Also, the first 10? So... adult dragon, adult dragon, adult dragon, adult dragon... The immune to fear was likely the Death Giant Shrouded one. So, what? You expect a party in a normal game is going to have multiple encounters that contain multiple adult dragons of different types teaming up with an elite death giant?

2) While yes, higher level spells are often stronger, that doesn't mean low-level spells are weak. Web is an example I bring up fairly often, it is a low level spell, and not an IMMEDIATE fight ender, so will the DM use a legendary resistance on it? But, if you fail the dex save, then it takes an action to break out. And if you are trying to make distance, this can translate into two turns of the enemy being unable to hit the party, while granting advantage to the parties attacks. And the fighter.... can't replicate this, unless they take the web spell. The only fighter who even has an ability to restrain an enemy AT ALL is the Rune Knight, and it is a save at end of turn and fire damage.

3) It depends on what you mean by High Damage. I was running an NPC warlock for a group, and they were in dire straits. The hag they were fighting was hitting them with a powerful cursed item that was about to cause major problems for the party. I needed, in the spirit of the character, to end the fight as effectively as possible with damage. So, I looked, and on average her highest damage option was.... Magic Missile. Due to the nature of the auto-hit, and the way dice average out, Magic Missile is reliable good damage in a pinch, especially for single targets. It is also force damage, which is never resisted. You mentioned Psychic Lance, if I am fairly certain the enemy is going to make the save (maybe they did before) then Psychic Lance is an average of 12 damage and no incapacitation. A 2nd level magic missile is 14 damage. A 4th level is 21 damage, and psychic lance at full strength is an average of 24.5. Psychic Lance is stronger, and with an INT save it is really reliable, but if I'm sure it isn't going to work... then Magic Missile will.

4) You seem to consistently not talk about cantrips, which is weird. 3d8 (13.5) damage is quite solid. It is almost as good as having extra attack and a +3 mod (not three attacks, two attacks).

I was happy last night with it.

I am glad you find joy. I would not be happy to realize that my entire character is a footnote in another character's abilities. In fact, I have often been annoyed by that.

It would not "invalidate" the entire build. This is a team game.

If my character is better than yours at something then maybe you should try to be good at something else.

The Drow fighter I mentioned above was a good face in part because other PCs weren't.

In team game there is two ways to play and this is part of the session 0 contract.

1. One, and I would argue the better more fun one is for every player to build the PC they want and ignore party dynamics or make up. This leads to shortfalls at times. TOA for example we had no one who could find traps and got lost all the time. I actually took an unplanned Ranger level multiclass level just to get the ability to never be lost. 5E is forgiving enough though that you can play this way and still survive (we never got someone who could find or disarm traps worth a flip).

This is so easy because you worry about you.

2. The second way is to plan out group build to ensure you have all bases covered. This will make success more likely, although it will be less fun IMO. If you are doing this then by definition you need to be willing to alter your character idea to fit a specific role and you need to consider what the other PCs want to play. If one player wants to play the tank role as a Wizard and the other PCs want him to fill that role because he will be better than you, then in this sort of game you should build your character towards something else. Still pick your class, but you are driving the direction the team wants, not what you want. The Drow above is an example of this.

You realize this entire line of thinking led to healbot clerics, right?

But more importantly, you keep missing the point. Your fighter was good as the face because no one else wanted to be the face. And, while yes, it is a team game, if you consistently make it so that only spellcasters can reach the heights of certain pillars... then you are going to consistently see spellcasters taking over. And then someone who doesn't want to play a spellcaster is either going to be forced to change their concept, or be a less effective team member.

I'm facing something like this right now. I made a Beast Barbarian with a focus on stealth and hunting... and another player came to the table with a Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogue. I wanted to be more than just the big, strong tough guy, but I'm completely overshadowed in anything dealing with stealth and tracking. I can't turn invisible in darkness after all. I'm still having fun, because I've played with this group for years, but I specifically agreed to help the DM sell their world as one where people hate and fear magic by playing someone with religious convictions against using magic, and the rest of the party is magical and quickly out-stripping me on every front except taking damage. Turning to magic would ruin the character concept to a degree (I can make it work with it being clerical, if I need to) but we ALSO just got a paladin. The magic of the other classes is forcing me into smaller and smaller niches, because it can cover so many things that I just am not allowed access to until I take spellcasting in some form. It is very frustrating.

A crapload of Ranger options do this. Taking Fey Wanderer with a max wisdom and decent Charisma nullifies every other face build out there except maybe Bard that optmizes for social skills (and that is about equal not better at most levels).

Taking Natural explorer dominates the wilderness portion of the exploration pillar and then PWT nullifies any kind of effort other PCs put into stealth.

A Paladin't Aura largely nullifies efforts to be good on saves as it can make everyone good on all saves and it to a degree weakens spells like Calm emtions, Heroism and PEG.

Rangers and Paladins. The half-casters with access to spellcasting? Like how the spell Pass Without a Trace negates stealth builds, like... rogues? Or Dex Fighters who want to be sneaky?

Also, Fey Wanderer can match someone with Expertise, but it doesn't nullify all the OTHER things a face character can do (as long as that face is using magic) And maxing Wisdom while getting a 16 Charisma.... doesn't leave a lot of room for Dex, and being a martial character.

It allowed them to do the impossible and fall hundreds of feet without dying .... and in one of those examples the "Wizard cast dimension door and took no damage (along with the Rogue he took with him).

You completely missed the point though. The claim was that fighters can't do impossible things and they can! Casters just do them more or better.

And you restate the problem, again.

They are RAW and if you are not using them that will be far more restrictive for PCs.
Your position is martials can't do anything except combat, but if you are not using feats, you aren't using the rules that exist which enable them to be better at things beside combat.

None of this makes them any less optional. Martials need to work WITH and WITHOUT feats.

Not true. Plenty of my martials contribute in either the social or exploration pillars when other PCs can do this.

When I want to be really good at one of these pillars though I usually build a character that is dominant at it and will be a lot better than other characters. This happens most often when Paladins or to a lessor extent Sorcs or Warlocks get outdone by my Ranger in the Social Pillar. When I do that though, that Ranger is usually running a 14 Dex and is not as good in melee. It is a spell first Ranger build.

Shocking that you had to focus on spells and be worse at combat. It is almost like spells dominate everything. Which is weird, because I said "But if they want to contribute without spells..."

IMO Spellcasters should be able to get all the basic weapons and options that martials get. I don't mind hiding those behind feats or subclasses, but they should be available.

Every PC, regardless of class, should have access to the full range of non-magic options. In addition casters should have unparalleled access to spells.

Why would you ever want this?! This sounds horrendous. Are you just trying to kill off any concept that doesn't cast spells?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So... Tony Stark? People will say he's an artificer because he uses advanced weapons and item, which the fighter would never use. Same with the second blue beetle.

Can't be Aquaman because he's not human and there's no non-humans in D&D.

People will say Hawkeye is a Ranger because, bow.

Can't be Black Widow because she fights unarmed and that has to be Monk. Same with Wildcat and the first Blue Beetle.

Captain America is on delicious drugs

Jaime Reyes, Blue Beetle III has a friend, which no D&D player can relate to...

So... Slade, Swordsman, and... Angel? Angel used a sword. Maybe Wolverine too.

Mostly, the fighter doesn't have a lot of pop culture references because other classes stole their 'fight things good' shtick for the more common weapons (fists and ranged weapons).

Plus, Batman is being used as an example of a martial character, not just a fighter. Batman ha skills, which fighters are never, ever allowed.

Yeah, you really need to look more to non-comic media or non-western media to find good examples of fighters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, look.

Any 'diegetic' explanation for literally anything in fiction?

Came from a writer.

Favored by the gods?

Writer.

Training?

Writer.

Was of woman born?

Writer.

The distinction I'm making is between playing a game where I play a writer, and playing a game where I play a character. These are distinct methods of play, with different kinds of fun in them. When I play D&D, I want to play a character - for me, ROLE PLAYING suggests that element of it, and it's an element I really enjoy. A role playing game isn't the same kind of experience as a storytelling game.

If the game says a Champion's ability to stab a dragon with a sword comes from being JUST THAT SKILLED AND WELL TRAINED (which aligns with the current narrative I believe), then I am in. I can play a character with superhuman skill and training. We're not pretending to be realistic, here. I'm stabbin' dragons.

If the game says a Champion's ability to not die when bitten by a dragon comes from them being a PC and PC's being the heroes of the story and that heroes don't die from measly dragon bites, then that takes me out of it. My Champion doesn't know she's a PC in a game. I do, but part of the goal of play for me when I am playing a character is to get into that character's head space. That's part of the fun. A game mechanic that relies on coming out of the character's head and into the headspace of a game-player or writer is running counter to that fun.

This is a useful way to discuss "how to be Batman in D&D" because if the designers were to come at it by saying "You have 1 Plot Point you can spend to have the right invention to solve this problem," that would be a pretty bad experience for me. But if the designers were to come at it by saying "Here's some tools you can build, pick X at the start of the day to equip on your utility belt" that's more in the character's headspace. That gets me thinking like Batman thinks - planning and researching. That also introduces the element of failure, and ramps up the fun - there's consequences to my actions now! Stakes!

This frankly bewildering line of discussion is not and has never been simply saying 'plot armor' or 'protagonist'. It is because someone straight up dismissed the 'diegetic' (is this the new verisimilitude; a word misused as a bludgeon against the fantastic?) explanation for Batman's success,; his superior planning, as supernatural because they can't accept that as an explanation.

I mean, what was that person trying to actually argue? That Batman is an unrealistic power fantasy? Yes, I think this is not something that we have any serious disagreements over.

Were they trying to argue that because Batman is unrealistic, that playing a Batman-esque character in D&D shouldn't be supported? Because not only are unrealistic power fantasies things that are pretty core to D&D, it already IS supported. That person would just be wrong.

Which is exactly the problem at hand: people seeing something they personally can't accept--up to and including things normal humans can and routinely absolutely do like 'come up with a contingency plan' or 'swim in the Misssissippi' and immediately not only decide they're humanly impossible, but actively supernatural regardless of what actually matters: the in-universe mechanics and contexts of those abilities.

Batman's planning is a completely mundane product of his ingenuity.

Wolverine's healing factor is the result of his naturally occurring (in some continuities) X-gene.

Juggernaut's Crimson bands of Cytorrak are magical.

Why?

Because the writer said so. No matter how brutally some people may want to torture words, especially 'magic' and 'supernatural' to be a catch-all for 'fictional'.

"Completely mundane" is easily confusable for "realistic." As "mundane" as they are, they are by no means "realistic."

A useful point of comparison: Saitama, aka One Punch Man.

Saitama's powers are "completely mundane." He did a year and a half of 100 daily push-ups, sit-ups, and squats, plus 10km daily running. That's the source of his power. Now when he punches, he can destroy mountains.

Saitama's powers aren't meant to be seen as realistic. Neither are Batman's. Neither is a D&D character's. They're all fantastical, super-normal, supernatural, if you will. Batman could never exist in the real world. It's as unrealistic as punches destroying mountains.

I can't exactly play Saitama in D&D today (though I could definitely see a path to it...), but I can play a character who does 100 burpees and pull ups every day for a year and eats a purely vegan diet and can then slay giants with a sword.

Their powers would be completely mundane, and diegetically, they'd be just a normal person who did some intense training. The capabilities of this character would be distinctly unrealistic, though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You seriously made a SECOND massive post?

Splitting this. May just cut some things. I cannot write a full length novel just replying to you.

Sure, but that PC gave up something else to do it.

There is no reason I should not be able to build a PC to outdo another class at what that class is supposed to be good at.

The problem for some of us (though seemingly not for you) is that it is really hard to find something that full casters are not good at, while martials seem regulated to "hit with club" and "be hit by club" as the things their class is good at. You can build a bard who is an equal to a rogue in just about every way, but you can't build a fighter who can outshine a bard if they are trying. The road only goes one way.

If you want to cast that spell it does not defeat the purpose. It does exactly what you want to do/

If want to cast suggestion I should logically have to get the suggestion spell to do it (which is not available as a feat but that is an aside).

But the goal is NOT to cast a spell. The goal is to have abilities that effect the narrative of the world in a similar manner. Not in all ways, I'm not looking to have fighters throwing around wishes or meteors, but narratively they are limited, and currently the only thing I'm getting from you is "Yes, that is because only spellcasters should have access to that much power, if you want it, you are required to become a spellcaster, or just hope no one else is making an effort" Which... is bad game design.

If you choose to play that subclass or choose to switch to it from another subclass at the level it becomes important. For example if I want suggestion on my battlemaster, when he becomes level 7 I switch to Eldritch Knight and pick up Suggestion.

Everything is a choice, but when saying a class can't do something you need to consider all the available choices IMO.

Ok a couple things. Battlemaster maneuvers are available to all fighters through a fighting style and avaialable to all characters through a feat, so it does not need to cut into combat options at all (other than the feat or fighting style selection).

Fighting Style gives a single d6 once per short rest. +3 to one roll is not going to make you good at a pillar of play. Also, most people don't swap subclasses, not even sure why that is in the discussion.

Banneret is a very weak subclass, but it can be built into a very strong social character. Not as strong as a Bard, Rogue or Ranger optimized for that, but better than just about anything else.

A Banneret with a 14/15 Charisma, 14 Wisdom and Superior Technique-commanding presence is going to outdo a Wizard by a wide margin in terms of social skills. Pick up martial adept and ASIs or feats to boost Charisma and you can hang with almost anyone.

Banneret is also on the fighter chassis, which means you are getting extra ASIs and more attacks and you can wear heavy armor and you have d10 hit dice. These other classes don't get all these things automatically.

Yes. Do you want to be good at persuasion or not?

So, play the banneret to be a fighter who is bad at fighting, but good at social.... but not as good as bards, rogues, rangers or warlocks.... who also don't have to be bad at fighting...

This is a bad argument.

Only the Bard is as better than a Samaurai who optimizes for this because the Samarai has access to Commanding presence and two more feats than those other classes.

The bard is better hands down.

From the fighting style? Again, that is a single bardic inspiration die essentially. Do you treat manuevers as at-will abilities instead of a resource?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You seriously made a SECOND massive post?

You've met your match!

 

[NotAYakk]

Show me some in-universe proof and not a meta supposition due to the writer being a writer.

Because otherwise, this is just a gross treatment of the concept of fiction.

Are we assuming the universe has people who have properties like humans in real life?

Batman being able to stab the feet of a speedster because "they must not be phased out". Speedsters, whose reaction time is such that they experience time 10000x slower than anyone else. Just, as it happens, this time they aren't.


Reality warping. He's interacting with something that is completely out of scope for a human being to be able to handle. And wins, because nonsense reasons.

In a game like D&D, that is like fighting something who gets to take 10000 turns for every turn you take. Whenever you do an action after deciding to do it and saying what it is, they get to do 200 turns first, then you try your action. And you win, because ... reasons.

It isn't inherit to being a fictional character. It is inherit to being a fictional character with plot armor. Not all fictional characters have such plot armor, but such plot armor is (from a stimulationist standpoint) supernatural.

If you want to have a game (like D&D) with any vestige of simulationism where someone can do things like batman, you can't go "ok, you can do what a human being can realistically do". You literally have to do "reality warps itself around your character to make what you try to do work" or something similar. If this is an identity-insertion game (like D&D tends to be, where you have one character in the game), the either the player+character has to have abilities far beyond a human being would have, or a 3rd party (maybe the rules, the referee/DM, or someone else) has to explicitly bend the simulated reality to aid the character's actions.

You can see this "plot armor superpower" lampshaded in the "Gwenpool" series from Marvel. She's a comic book fan who is dropped into the Marvel universe. Realising that the rules of comic book narration apply, she dresses herself up as a super hero and tries to be sufficiently popular that she won't be harmed by the antics she engages in. Her super powers are literally "understanding narration" and "knows a lot about the comic book world because she was a big fan". As an example, she uses flashbacks to be a "scarlet witch level reality bender", and is generally aware when she starts a new mini series and how her survivability depends on being popular.

So, on the topic of "the magical martial", if you want batman you need to add reality bending powers to the PC, because the plausible range of outcomes from a game simulating "highly skilled human" doesn't include batman without adding insane plot armor; what more, plot armor specific to him, and not to his enemies and allies.

I'm ok with this. We can give non-spellcasters plot tokens that they can use to rewrite reality.

The other option is to throw out the idea that you are simulating anything anywhere close to a normal human. You pretend that jumping 1000' is something you can do by practicing really hard (or whatever). Nothing magical about it. That is supernatural but you pretend it isn't by closing your eyes and saying "I don't hear you", but it also works.

In that case, you have the supernatural but not magical martial. It has things that are insanely off the charts inhuman, they aren't just coded as magical, so you pretend they aren't. Your character can literally lift up a castle by grabbing its corner, but that is just because they worked out regularly, not for any magical reason.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In D&D, making some one bleed is a magical effect.
You can't break someone's arm with a heavy blow to the shield they're holding.
You can't even move at the same time someone else is.

Think even reality is too much for Fighters to have.

I agree. Crits should mean more, in a specific way, and otherwise I like the idea that damage isn't really binding until you hit zero. It's the only way to approach having hit points work logically IMO.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They do not brutilize combat. Fighters do. Except Sleep all the things you mention have a save and none are encounter enders.

Hold Person is extremely powerful if the enemy targeted is a humanoid but it is one enemy and they save every single turn. If you happen to be fighting a BBEG and that BBEG is a humanoid without LR it is huge, but the main reason it is huge is cause melee characters are getting crits on him for the round or two he is paralyzed. In a large encounter it is not nearly as powerful.

Sleep is extremely powerful if the enemy is not immune and they have low enough hit points to land it, but most enemies aren't and when they are the battle is nearly over. It is also hard to use without causing freindly fire.

HP is on of the most overated spells in the game. If DMs play smart HP is weak. The enemies simply wake up their allies. As long as 1 enemy saves it should never be more than 1 lost action per bad guy and damage automatically ends it. If you use HP on 10 Orcs at 5th level about 7 should fail statistically and those 7 should lose one attack each (maybe 2 for a couple of them if you run individual initiative and the turn order is not in their favor). That is powerful but not overwhelming. If you use it on a lone BBEG he is incapacitated until someone damages him, which is probably the next allies turn. Fear is the real OP spell at 3rd level .... as long as enemies are not immune to frightened, and that is actually an encounter ender most of the time.

I skipped a lot of your build stuff, because most of it is just silly to me. I especially don't get why you are wasting time of false life and shield while in a city or town and not fighting.

But the rest of this is just... kind of hilarious. Yeah, Hold Person only targets a single person at base level. Yes, again, any attack within 5ft is an auto crit. But you seem to never have fights with one big heavy. Taking out the enemy bruiser, who likely doesn't have LR or a high wisdom is critical.

Also, "never more than one lost action per bad guy" are you not understanding how HUGE that is? The enemy is forced to ignore your party, potentially for an entire round. IF you time it right, you can essentially get two rounds of combat. Most fights are three rounds. That isn't an encounter ender? It can turn a hard fight into a cakewalk. Fear is a much smaller area, and since the enemies run away, they just come back later.

They save every turn and every time they take damage and they can still move (crawling).

I use THL a lot and it is a good spell, but it is situational. You can't use it well on a single target because he is going to save fast as your allies will all be damaging him. It is a cast it on one guy while the party concentrates on the other kind of spell and it is good at that. But it is also a 1st level spell that does not upcast, so you are competing with Mage Armor, and Shield (and possibly Silvery Barbs). Run out of 1st level slots and start using THL at 2nd level and it is extremely weak.

And if the enemy is low wisdom and will fail even with advantage? Seen it happen. It was actually a demon and they had advantage the entire time, took them three rounds to shake off the spell, WITH people hitting them.

Situational, sure, but when you have ten different "situational" encounter enders, it stops becoming a rare occurrence.

I had this happen many, many times. But I have enemies beat good spells too.

Sure, it happens. But a spell that wins the fight half the time, still wins half of the fights. And no martial character can do that. None of them have the kind of reach or ability to, in a single action, win a fight.