D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Gammadoodler]

But with current D&D rules if your DM ignores magic items, or just generate random ones instead of planning them for your party then you'll have miserable players. I've seen that go both ways. I've seen martials with special items that marginalized the wizard and the wizard with a bag full of stuff that was all useless to him because his spells were better and easier

This is exactly the point I was making.

The Fighter's worst case is misery because without the equipment support they are missing critical functionality.

The Wizard's worst case is boredom with their equipment. Their critical functionality is covered by spellcasting..but the supplements are lackluster.

I think the rulebook should cover critical functionality for all the classes. And if, for some reason, there are gaps, they should be equivalent for all classes. And ideally, there should be some coaching to the DMs for what they can do to close these gaps.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because it's supposed to have a DM controlling all the details, instead of being a micromanaged game with 7 or 8 full rule books telling you what to do in every concievable situation.

Is it? I really think that depends on the game and the table, and it's a spectrum anyway, rather than the binary your argument seems to be assuming.

 

[Clint_L]

Wizards are already superheroic. The problem is that if you want to be a superheroic character you have to limit yourself to playing casters.

There are superheroic options for every class. Every class.

You can have your grounded martials if we can have our super heroic martials. Except, of course, you would argue very hard against adding properly balanced martials even if you could keep your mundane classes. You would seek every justification to deny other people this option because you clearly don't want anyone to have it.

Heroic martial already exist. They just don't exist in the exact way that you, specifically, want. I am not inclined to support changing all of 5e, which is patently working very well and extraordinarily popular, because one guy on the internet isn't happy.

Let's call this what it is: this aspect of the game doesn't suit your taste. That's true for everyone.

I, at least, do not want to limit you. It is you who wants to limit me.

No, this is just not true. You want to make it impossible for me to play a mundane character. You want every character to be supernaturally powerful. You want to remove an option that is currently in the game and replace it with your subjective taste, for everyone. And your point about "properly balanced" is a red herring. I think the game is already properly balanced.

 

[Clint_L]

[double post]

 

[Gammadoodler]

Have you ever engaged with any existing fantasy property? How many of them are "literally anything goes, as long as its cool". Much of the time, the "cool" stuff has rules and reasons to exist within the framework of the setting.

And I never said "grounded", although parts of most settings tend to be so they are relatable to the audience. I said, "coherent". I am honestly having a hard time even understanding how we are even having this conversation.

Dude.."any fantasy property".. seriously?

The white walkers in Game of Thrones...only rule I can recall is vulnerability to dragon glass.. no discussion I recall of who they are, why they exist, how they work, or what they want.

Similar deal with the R'hollor. And the faceless men.
Why do the dragons respond to Targaeryens? How do giant wildlings work? Or wargs?

What is the in-world reason for any of this stuff to exist beyond being cool?

So, I've asked you this question directly a couple times now, and you haven't yet answered it..

You seem to want to play in a world that includes fantasy elements in it. If the coolness of those elements isn't enough reason to include them, why do you do it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dude.."any fantasy property".. seriously?

The white walkers in Game of Thrones...only rule I can recall is vulnerability to dragon glass.. no discussion I recall of who they are, why they exist, how they work, or what they want.

Similar deal with the R'hollor. And the faceless men.
Why do the dragons respond to Targaeryens? How do giant wildlings work? Or wargs?

What is the in-world reason for any of this stuff to exist beyond being cool?

So, I've asked you this question directly a couple times now, and you haven't yet answered it..

You seem to want to play in a world that includes fantasy elements in it. If the coolness of those elements isn't enough reason to include them, why do you do it?

Because its fun to imagine and explore a different world than our own. That desire doesn't demand that the things in that world need to be nonsensical.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yeah while dodging fireballs and hacking 100 ton giants to death, surviving being kicked hard by said 100 ton giants because I made my save and killing those beholders, I often think how much like our own reality it is??????????????

Just wanted to clarify, if giants are the same density as humans they would be between 4-6 tons (using the square cube law) not 100 tons. Not that it makes a real difference in your example

 

[Voranzovin]

Have you ever engaged with any existing fantasy property? How many of them are "literally anything goes, as long as its cool". Much of the time, the "cool" stuff has rules and reasons to exist within the framework of the setting.

And I never said "grounded", although parts of most settings tend to be so they are relatable to the audience. I said, "coherent". I am honestly having a hard time even understanding how we are even having this conversation.

I think I can possibly help you with that. To me, this looks like a pretty classic enlightenment vs romanticism issue.

The kind of fantasy you're interested in is rooted in a modern view of the world. In the reality of the 21st century, we know how physical laws work (to a point). We have data on what is and is not humanly possible, and even if you've never really looked at that data, living in a society that knows those things shapes how you think. This modern view is the basis for science fiction, super heroes, and some genres of fantasy--the world obeys the laws of physics, except FTL travel is possible because of advanced alien phlebotinum, or it's the world outside your window except some people are mutants or were been bitten by a radioactive spider, or society works just like you'd expect except there are vampires and other supernatural beings hiding in the shadows.

But one of the things one might want to turn to fantasy for is escape from exactly that modern viewpoint, to the way human beings used to see the world before the advent of modern science, where the world is defined by mystery and "wisdom" is more relevant then logic. And fantasy, traditionally, has filled that role: Tolkien is extremely explicit, for instance, that there is no division between natural and supernatural in Middle Earth. You won't find any such distinction in Narnia, in Lovecraft, in Edgar Rice Burroughs (well, in Tarzan anyway, John Carter is a different kettle of fish) or in Robert E. Howard. Part of the joys of these stories is precisely that they do not adhere to a modern viewpoint (except for Lovecraft, kind of) and that is one of the things DnD caters to.

But of course it isn't the only thing--Dnd is a mishmash of viewpoints, and some of them are extremely modern. The very concept of an "anti-magic field" is pure sci-fi, for instance. Arguably, Dnd being a relatively well-defined system does lend itself more to a "scientific" view of fantasy where magic is just alternate physics. And it's true that recent fantasy has tended more towards a modern direction, though this certainly isn't universal.

It sounds to me like a post-enlightenment viewpoint is so central to you that people looking for romanticism in their fantasy is actually incomprehensible. But humanity has only had a scientific conception of the world for a very, very short period of time, and wanting to harken back to a more, well, fantastical conception of the world is perfectly natural.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, this is just not true. You want to make it impossible for me to play a mundane character. You want every character to be supernaturally powerful. You want to remove an option that is currently in the game and replace it with your subjective taste, for everyone. And your point about "properly balanced" is a red herring. I think the game is already properly balanced.

as someone who desires strong martials without relying on supernatural aids, i still have to recognise that there is a level of 'real world mundane limits' that can't continue to exist while progressing into the high levels, but that doesn't mean that your fighter starts needing to start manifesting superman-esc powers,

your character starting as john wicke wrestling hitmen and throwing endtables turns into captain america versus thanos turns into hercules versus giants and dragons and throwing boulders, they're still doing the same fundamental things just scaled up. *just for reference im thinking of the disney hercules here in the original movie, given that there are dozens of versions of herc in various media.

edit: yes cap and herc have super serum and god's blood 'explaining' their abilities but in DnD there's no explicit NEED for those explainations to be in play for your character doing the things they do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think I can possibly help you with that. To me, this looks like a pretty classic enlightenment vs romanticism issue.

The kind of fantasy you're interested in is rooted in a modern view of the world. In the reality of the 21st century, we know how physical laws work (to a point). We have data on what is and is not humanly possible, and even if you've never really looked at that data, living in a society that knows those things shapes how you think. This modern view is the basis for science fiction, super heroes, and some genres of fantasy--the world obeys the laws of physics, except FTL travel is possible because of advanced alien phlebotinum, or it's the world outside your window except some people are mutants or were been bitten by a radioactive spider, or society works just like you'd expect except there are vampires and other supernatural beings hiding in the shadows.

But one of the things one might want to turn to fantasy for is escape from exactly that modern viewpoint, to the way human beings used to see the world before the advent of modern science, where the world is defined by mystery and "wisdom" is more relevant then logic. And fantasy, traditionally, has filled that role: Tolkien is extremely explicit, for instance, that there is no division between natural and supernatural in Middle Earth. You won't find any such distinction in Narnia, in Lovecraft, in Edgar Rice Burroughs, or in Robert E. Howard. Part of the joys of these stories is precisely that they do not adhere to a modern viewpoint (except for Lovecraft, kind of) and that is one of the things DnD caters to.

But of course it isn't the only thing--Dnd is a mishmash of viewpoints, and some of them are extremely modern. The very concept of an "anti-magic field" is pure sci-fi, for instance. Arguably, Dnd being a relatively well-defined system does lend itself more to a "scientific" view of fantasy where magic is just alternate physics. And it's true that recent fantasy has tended more towards a modern direction, though this certainly isn't universal.

It sounds to me like a post-enlightenment viewpoint is so central to you that people looking for romanticism in their fantasy is actually incomprehensible. But humanity has only had a scientific conception of the world for a very, very short period of time, and wanting to harken back to a more, well, fantastical conception of the world is perfectly natural.

I actually understand what they want out of fantasy just fine. Sometimes in stories that's what I want too. What I can't understand is the attitude I'm getting from @Gammadoodler that not wanting the kind of fantasy they want, in an RPG like D&D (which i believe is better suited to being understood through "scientific" fantasy as I prefer) means I don't actually want fantasy at all, as if romantic fantasy is the only kind and wanting anything else makes no sense to them.

My confusion is regarding why they are confused.