D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Micah Sweet]

It is the same.. and we don't need that either.

Who's "we" here? Because it certainly isn't everybody, no matter what you imply.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems like you think there are objective categories of fantasy elements here.

There aren't.

If you can't at least try to define something, then you can't really discuss it, not coherently anyway.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, we do need to transcend human limits. Sorry, but we do. Humans don't do so well when hit by objects the size of trees, caught in flames hot enough melt steel, blasted by millions of volts of electricity, or any number of other things that happen to PCs on a regular basis.

And frankly, if I have a BBEG who can legitimately threaten to cause serious, personal harm to the planet by his sheer personal power... I don't want Farmer Joe's shotgun to be enough to kill him. And no matter how well trained an IRL human is with a sword, a shotgun blast is always going to be deadlier.

It's a seriously good thing we are not, nor have never been dealing with IRL humans, but humans in a fantasy context where we don't have to even pretend to care how it works in real life.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Because I prefer truth, honestly, and because I see the players of the game and the setting of the game as separate things. From the players perspective, things Earth humans can't do are supernatural or magical. Denying that because.. you don't like labels? Just seems silly to me.

There isn't any truth in establishing a particular hierarchy between magic and mundane..

Magic is made up.

It is equally likely to have magic in setting where it takes 10 wizards 10 days to heat a pit of water as it is to have a setting where a wizard can wish people dead, and find their target's obituary in the morning post.

Preferring the latter over the former has nothing to do with truth.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, we do need to transcend human limits. Sorry, but we do. Humans don't do so well when hit by objects the size of trees, caught in flames hot enough melt steel, blasted by millions of volts of electricity, or any number of other things that happen to PCs on a regular basis.

And frankly, if I have a BBEG who can legitimately threaten to cause serious, personal harm to the planet by his sheer personal power... I don't want Farmer Joe's shotgun to be enough to kill him. And no matter how well trained an IRL human is with a sword, a shotgun blast is always going to be deadlier.

Human limits are not a necessary concept in a fantasy setting, or at least the real world versions of them aren't.

 

[Gammadoodler]

A game isn't a story. It doesn't follow story logic unless everyone agrees it does.

I have no idea what you intend to mean here?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Who's "we" here? Because it certainly isn't everybody, no matter what you imply.

I certainly can agree that there are people who want it. I stand by that no one needs it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think maybe part of the issue with the discussion here is that "magical" is an explicitly defined term in 5e and other editions. However it is being thrown around as everything between this definition to just "beyond what a guy at my gym could achieve".
Many people who would like to see martial characters get more varied abilities are objecting to giving them magical abilities because that term has a meaning in the game that is being discussed, and it lies outside the martial concept for many of them.

Since I've already seen some of the other terms bandied about, it might be worth hearkening back to the definitions of D&D 3.5 and looking at another term: Extraordinary: Nonmagical but may still break the laws of physics.
This would cover capabilities that could not realistically be achieved in the real world, but aren't magical or supernatural in fantasy or action movie logic.
Things like Dragon or aarakocra flight, halfling muscle power, the ability of a high-level wizard to fall from low-earth orbit and walk away without using magic, hand crossbows with significant range and damage and suchlike.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If you can't at least try to define something, then you can't really discuss it, not coherently anyway.

Writing up and defining a singular structure for the fantasy elements DMs can choose to incorporate in their worlds and defining reasons (natural or supernatural) that they function the way that they do for everyone is..

A. Impossible..because it's all made up, and made up by a broad community of creators with widely varying perspectives and stories to tell...and.
B. Unwise. Trying to force everyone to use the same fantasy elements in the same ways for the same reasons just makes the number of worlds we can visit and the number of stories we can tell smaller. Why do this?

 

[Tonguez]

In the nerf the wizard thread Silvery barbs came up and that reminded me why I dislike that spell - in the end its using a reaction to distract a target (within 60 ft) and having yourself or any ally use that distraction for advantage, why can’t a Fighter do that too?