D&D 5E Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[GMforPowergamers]

This is something I never understood. What does that even accomplish?

Does making it "martial" do anything other than making it bypass an anti-magic field? You are still operating on and performing acts far beyond the ken of mortals and our physics. In what way does calling such a thing "martial" make a power seem more legitimate?

in my case it is a knee jerk reaction to being told for year "Your edition sucks, fighters have spells now" then not understanding that giving them legendary and epic options wasn't the same as giving them spells

 

[MechaPilot]

This is something I never understood. What does that even accomplish?

Does making it "martial" do anything other than making it bypass an anti-magic field? You are still operating on and performing acts far beyond the ken of mortals and our physics. In what way does calling such a thing "martial" make a power seem more legitimate?

In what way does calling a 3e Extraordinary Ability "extraordinary" make them more legitimate? A barbarian that's raging becomes more accurate? A druid non-magically becomes immune to all poisons, ceases to age, and becomes immune to magic aging? A monk non-magically becomes immune to all non-magical diseases, and can non-magically speak with all living creatures? A paladin non-magically gains immunity to all natural and supernatural diseases? A ranger can non-magically hide while being observed?

That's all martial powers are, the equivalent of 3e's Extraordinary abilities (which are described in the 3e PHB as explicitly being non-magical even if they break the laws of physics).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Actually, being technically accurate is what is not really relevant. Why? Because that's not what people are talking about when they say, "I want my PC to do things like X" When people make those statements, they're talking about the widely accepted perception, even if that perception is not technically accurate. I would posit that if everyone *did* know that figure X didn't have any special powers, they wouldn't have used figure X in their analogy of what they want their PC to do.

And if that was the context given the messages I quoted, you'd be right. But then people go beyond that, either claiming the abilities a hero like Heracles or Odysseus "has" (as if that means anything), or speaking from a position of authority to claim (e.g.) "many folks out of myth and legend have superhuman abilities if not outright supernatural."

What people want their characters to be depends on a generally accepted understanding, even if it isn't true to the sources. Claiming more than that is the problem I was speaking to.

 

[Leatherhead]

In what way does calling a 3e Extraordinary Ability "extraordinary" make them more legitimate?

It doesn't, that's where the disconnect comes from. It was an arbitrary label used to interact with a few rare mechanics that grew into some kind of ideological battlefield.

It's one of those sacred hamburgers that was thankfully set out to pasture in 5e, all it seemed to accomplish is making people bust out into spontaneous bouts of old 3.x vs 4e edition warring when we are all so done with that now.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is a character considered magical if they can charge and defeat a platoon of soldiers single handily? Because high level martial characters can literally do that.

 

[Pickles JG]

In what way does calling a 3e Extraordinary Ability "extraordinary" make them more legitimate? .

It's a game construct. Magic in D&D follows the rules of D&D magic while these extraordinary abilities do not. So for example they do not interact with dispel magic

In the real world both extraordinary and magical abilities are or rather would be "magical" in the sense that they are not explained by physics.

As I understand the sim Martial players they don't want things in their games that break real world physics unless they are called out as magical, or at least "extraordinary", like animal totem rage or ki powers say. . They would want to play a purely martial character that could exist In the real world. (Fighting dragon with a sword notwithstanding).

Someone like me or GMforPowergamers would rather have our martial powers larger than life like action movie heroes weĺ from before Marvel made all the action movies. I recognise that heroic monstr slaying already goes beyond human capability and wan tto do cool stuff that is not just hitting things like the wizard can.
.
If I were playing a low magic setting like Lankmar or even Conan I would be more inclined toward more realkstic martials, but D&D has always been terrible at capturing those settings. Weĺl any setting other than high magic, clerics are a must D&D world.

 

[aramis erak]

Is a character considered magical if they can charge and defeat a platoon of soldiers single handily? Because high level martial characters can literally do that.

Looking back to AD&D, and BECMI, high level fighters have ALWAYS been able to do that. Just like several of the characters mentioned in various editions as good inspirations for Fighter characters.