D&D 5E (2014) Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[GMforPowergamers]

Thank you for clarifying, because that is exactly what you said when you said they don't exist. For your second sentence up there, I think you are mistaken. Run a BM fighter for a while, and see how it actually plays. I've done it. In fact, my halfling BM fighter is one of my favorites. And it seems to do everything you're asking for.

I said they did not exsist in the same way... and maybe once I get a campaign under my belt it will change, but for now I do fear the changes...

these fears do not come out of no where though, I have played/seen 4 BM fighters...

1)the 18th level vs a village game I posted here, and as I reviewed then the 18th level blaster mage still blew away the complex build fighter...

2) a 5th level 2 shot campaign with 6 players, 3 where fighters of one sort or another...
[sblock=if you care]I played a human fighter 3 (eldritch knight) wizard 2 who got shafted out of knowing a 2nd level spell because we miss under stood the rules. there was also a level 5 BM fighter, and ranger 2/ rogue 2/ fighter 1 variant human with the feat to give 2 maneuvers and 1d6 die. we also had a way of shadow monk, a starpact blade pact warlock, and a fey pact chain bound warlock[/sblock] it was hard to say if it was well done or not since we only had 1 combat per day at most and 1 of those combats ended because of my (eldritch knight) action surge spell followed by attack attack...

and
3) a one shot at level 3 trying out subclasses we had 2 battle master fighters, a wizard and a druid... we went through some small rp, found a map, had some travel time with 1 encounter, then a short rest lead to a small dungeon (10 rooms: 3 exploration, 1 a trap, and 6 combat).
results where that those few dice the Battle masters had where spent in the 1st encounter, recovered, then by room 3 was out of them... the wizard spent 1 or 2 spells in the 1st encounter, recalled them then made it through the dungeon just fine...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Martial abilities are not magic; that's sort of part of the definition.

Now one can say they have similar effects, but similar effects has never stopped D&D before. I mean, how many fire spells are there. How many weapons and armor are identical in functional mechanics (damage and properties) but have different weights and costs (see 5e's spear and trident), or are virtually identical in functional mechanics apart from one minor difference (see 5e's flail and warhammer, and 5e's padded and leather armor).

Martial/ Magic.. Its all just superpowers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Martial/ Magic.. Its all just superpowers.

yea, because that is how we describe King Arthur, or Conan, or Captain Sheridan. It is of course how Rambo works, and gimili and legolis... also everyone heard of the super powers that Beowulf and Odysseus had.

 

[Derren]

What super powers did Odysseus have exactly?

 

[JasonZZ]

Peak human fitness and strength, cunning that rivals Batman, and literal divine favor. And he's arguably the least blatantly-superhuman of the ancient Greek heroes.

More seriously, many folks out of myth and legend have superhuman abilities if not outright supernatural. Cú Chulainn and his warp spasm. Achilles and his Styx-granted invulnerability. Sir Gawain and his strength that rises with the sun. Heracles and his unparalleled strength. I could go on, but you get the point.

BTW, complaining that folks of myth and legend shouldn't have "superpowers" gets it backward. Superhero comics are inspired in part at least by those old tales.

 

[Umbran]

What super powers did Odysseus have exactly?

He was, for one thing, extremely strong. Part of the test to prove who he was when he returned home was to string his bow, which no other mortal man could do.

I think the comment about superpowers was not about "how we describe", but about how all these characters do things that *real* people cannot - in that sense they are all superpowers, and there's a limit to how really consistent with 'reality' you can be in describing them.

 

[Ahrimon]

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] one thing to consider with 5e as a whole is that every class has fewer things to do in combat. The martial classes are just hit a little harder than the caster classes. While 5e does backpedal in the amount of options that most classes have in every combat from to a more pre 4e level it at least keeps the effectiveness of the classes more on par like 4e does.

I do see where you are coming from, the BM does not match the flexibility of the Warlord. But it does surpass the Warlord in combat ability being based on the fighter. It helps to think of the BM as a Warlord/Fighter multiclass. I know it's not 100% what you would like, but within the re-arranged ability timing of 5e it's as close as you can get right now. If you really have your heart set on a pure warlord style character, the embraced the flexibility of 5e and talk with your DM about modifying the fighter (or even bard) class to better align with what you feel a warlord should bring to the table. But just remember that with 5e's action pacing you'll probably never have the amount of options available to you as you would in 4e.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The problem with generalizations about mythology is that it's so easy for errors to creep in because of the aggregating nature of cultural storytelling. Details get added later and we (today) typically assume they were always there. That's the case with

Achilles and his Styx-granted invulnerability.

Most people know Achilles from Homer's Iliad. In that poem he isn't invulnerable; nor is he in tragedy, or any indications in Greek art. That detail isn't attested until the first-century CE Latin poem Achilleid, of which only a book and a half were written (it was left incomplete at the author's death).

The same is true of your other examples:

Sir Gawain and his strength that rises with the sun. Heracles and his unparalleled strength. I could go on, but you get the point.

Again, only some sources suggest Gawain's strength follows the sun. Heracles is strong but I'm hard-pressed to find a source that says it was unmatched.

You get the point.

He was, for one thing, extremely strong. Part of the test to prove who he was when he returned home was to string his bow, which no other mortal man could do.

Again, this isn't quite true either. Whatever the story is with the bow, we are told that Telemachus had the ability to string it, and would have done so had his father not warned him off. (Odyssey 21.125-29).

It's important that it's *not* a magic trick or a unique property, and it establishes that Telemachus is in fact every bit the measure of his father.

Comparison with historical and mythical examples will always be inadequate. But if you do it, you need to be precise. Otherwise it's without meaning.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The problem with generalizations about mythology is that it's so easy for errors to creep in because of the aggregating nature of cultural storytelling. Details get added later and we (today) typically assume they were always there. That's the case with



Most people know Achilles from Homer's Iliad. In that poem he isn't invulnerable; nor is he in tragedy, or any indications in Greek art. That detail isn't attested until the first-century CE Latin poem Achilleid, of which only a book and a half were written (it was left incomplete at the author's death).

The same is true of your other examples:


Again, only some sources suggest Gawain's strength follows the sun. Heracles is strong but I'm hard-pressed to find a source that says it was unmatched.

You get the point.



Again, this isn't quite true either. Whatever the story is with the bow, we are told that Telemachus had the ability to string it, and would have done so had his father not warned him off. (Odyssey 21.125-29).

It's important that it's *not* a magic trick or a unique property, and it establishes that Telemachus is in fact every bit the measure of his father.

Comparison with historical and mythical examples will always be inadequate. But if you do it, you need to be precise. Otherwise it's without meaning.

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.

 

[Leatherhead]

Martial abilities are not magic; that's sort of part of the definition.

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?