D&D 5E The Martial/Magical scale

[aramis erak]

Yeah, not seeing how being a warlock, a class who's every ability is granted them by an evil magical patron, counts as at all martial and anything less than 100% magical.

They tend to be second rank combattants - the eldritch bolt is equivalent to a heavy crossbow, and the blade pact is specifically for a sword. They won't have the fighter specializations, but a feat allows for that. They're pretty front-line capable if no actual fighters are nearby.

 

[Klaus]

Yeah, not seeing how being a warlock, a class who's every ability is granted them by an evil magical patron, counts as at all martial and anything less than 100% magical.

Between light armor, simple weapons and HD d8, warlocks are hardier than sorcerers and wizards (moreso if they choose the Fiend patron).

 

[Remathilis]

The problem I'm seeing with the scale is the criteria seems arbitrary.

Martial seems to have two scales: how good are you at combat, and how mundane (IE non-magically powered) are your abilities. These do not seem to 1:1. Similarly, Magical seems to imply 9 level spellcasting and no combat ability, which again doesn't seem 1:1 (a wild mage sorcerer is less magical than an evoker wizard exactly why?) The real problem comes when things like mountain dwarves (which add armor proficiency, so that makes them... less magical?) try to move the scale.

Just as an example of why this can't work: imagine WotC created a Blunder and gave a class full wizard spellcaster but also martial weapons, armor, and d10 HD. Is it closer to the Martial (good combat) or magical (awesome spells) side?

If you had two charts: one that measured magical - mundane, and then one that measured good combat - poor combat, then you might be able to make these changes. But together, too many variables are mucking up the data.

 

[Klaus]

The problem I'm seeing with the scale is the criteria seems arbitrary.

Martial seems to have two scales: how good are you at combat, and how mundane (IE non-magically powered) are your abilities. These do not seem to 1:1. Similarly, Magical seems to imply 9 level spellcasting and no combat ability, which again doesn't seem 1:1 (a wild mage sorcerer is less magical than an evoker wizard exactly why?) The real problem comes when things like mountain dwarves (which add armor proficiency, so that makes them... less magical?) try to move the scale.

Just as an example of why this can't work: imagine WotC created a Blunder and gave a class full wizard spellcaster but also martial weapons, armor, and d10 HD. Is it closer to the Martial (good combat) or magical (awesome spells) side?

If you had two charts: one that measured magical - mundane, and then one that measured good combat - poor combat, then you might be able to make these changes. But together, too many variables are mucking up the data.

The whole scale was an attempt at listing the Fighter/Magic-User (or "gish", if you're a githianky) possibilities, from least Magic-User to most Magic-User. I could see a Wild Sorcerer being moved up to max, even though it has a larger HD than the wizard.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem I'm seeing with the scale is the criteria seems arbitrary.

Martial seems to have two scales: how good are you at combat, and how mundane (IE non-magically powered) are your abilities. These do not seem to 1:1. Similarly, Magical seems to imply 9 level spellcasting and no combat ability, which again doesn't seem 1:1 (a wild mage sorcerer is less magical than an evoker wizard exactly why?) The real problem comes when things like mountain dwarves (which add armor proficiency, so that makes them... less magical?) try to move the scale.

Just as an example of why this can't work: imagine WotC created a Blunder and gave a class full wizard spellcaster but also martial weapons, armor, and d10 HD. Is it closer to the Martial (good combat) or magical (awesome spells) side?

If you had two charts: one that measured magical - mundane, and then one that measured good combat - poor combat, then you might be able to make these changes. But together, too many variables are mucking up the data.

Actually there are 3 axises

1) Magic vs Nonmagic
2) Combat competency
3) Magic knowldege

The first is how much magic you wield. Going from "extraordinary but not outright supernatural" champion fighters ad thief rogues to "Supernaturals" like monks and totem barbarians to 1/3 casters to 1/2 casters to full casters.

The second axis is how war like you are. HP, weapon profs, and armor profs.

The last is magic lore. You go from the "no nothings" like fighters to the "granted magics" clerics, druids, and warlocks to the "naturals" in sorcerers and maybe bards and the "mage scholars" wizards, EKs, and ATs.

 

[Riley37]

No! There is ONE AXIS, and one axis only!

North is Up, and latitude is a subcategory of longitude. If you like cats, then you are a cat person and therefore hate dogs, and vice versa. If you are more martial then you are therefore less magical, and vice versa. When you gain INT, you lose STR, and vice versa. If you are more masculine, then you are therefore less feminine, and vice versa. If you like freedom, then you hate sharing, and vice versa. If you enjoy music, then you hate reading, and vice versa. If you use logic, you may not have emotions, and vice versa. There is no such thing as "ambidexterity".

Also, the more tall you are, the less short you are, and vice versa.

Hmm. Actually, maybe that last example (height) is more true than all the other examples I listed.