D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Micah Sweet]

And the games are trying to emulate myths and stories. OR did you think Chimeras, Sphinxes, Rocs, Trolls, Ogres, Goblins, Orcs, Medusa, Hydra, Dragons, Giants, zombies, ghouls, vampires, dryads, nymphs, mermaids, ect ect ect were all real creatures that we really studied to make the game happen?

Games have rules and restrictions. I value consistency, logic and verisimilitude in my games, and to me that requires that things make some kind of logical sense, that there is a reason why your human fighter can break a stone wall with their bare hands or bend a prison bar, or your rogue can completely avoid damage from a ground zero fireball without moving from a five foot square, and I don't want that reason to rely on fuzzy narrative trope-logic. Since those things are not possible for humans in real life, there must be some kind of supernatural explanation. I want to know what it is.

Stories and myths do not require this (although many provide them anyway), because they are stories and myths and serve a different purpose.

You can't emulate something without some logical rules for how the same concept works in different mediums.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I literally quoted this to you before. And you agreed with it! This is why I keep saying you are just here to stir the pot.

PHB, page 29, the entry for human. Is this alone the "excuse"? No, I've also got the entries for Monks, Wizards, Sorcerers, the predominance of human parents giving birth to Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi and other plane-touched. The fact that humans can spontaneously (without a necromancer) rise as undead.

And meanwhile, you defense is.... "but they are humans, therefore they are exactly like us in every single way". oh sorry, unless a class specifically says the word "magic" then the humans are no longer bound to our limitations.

...yup, pretty much. None of that stuff says that humans without specific superhuman power sources should still routinely perform superhuman actions without further explanation. The class descriptions of fighter and rogue are inconsistent with your theory.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd love a better official crafting system. I have a 3rd party one, but official ones would be better.

And I have mentioned a few times giving a bit more breadth to the skill system to give them something to sink their teeth into.

Why exactly would an official crafting system be better than a 3pp one in your opinion?

 

[ezo]

For example. One of the things I would like to see, is a fighter able to burst through a stone wall. You know what can already do that? TRolls and Ogres. These monsters are seen as immensely strong, able to rip men in half and uproot trees. They have the staggering strength of... 18 to 19. A mid-level human fighter is ALREADY stronger than an ogre and a troll.

Yes, Ogres and Trolls are very strong, and their average Strength given in their stat block of 19 and 18 is extremely impressive. The Ogre, due to its size as well as Strength 19, can lift 1,140 lbs at a maximum (barring any sort of ability check to exceed their limits). Although this is possible for the average Ogre, it is also well within the capabilities of humans.

In fact, the 1,210 lbs exceeds what a human can do with a STR 20.

However, I think you'll find an Ogre or Troll cannot burst through a stone wall... A stone wall has AC 17 and is (at least) a Large resilient object with about 27 hit points. Neither has anything like Athletics to help with a Strength check, so all they have is a +4 to the roll if you want to do a check instead of "attacks and damage".

We can't have martials that are equal to spellcasters, because if we do, people who want spellcasters to be superior will be upset.

Yes, a lot of people will be upset with such a fantasy game. A lot of people were upset with 4E because of this very reason. The rules and changes that would (and in some cases do) force them closer to equal at most levels are unpopular.

I'd love to meet a single player IRL who "wants spellcasters to be superior"... I've never, in any edition, met such a player. Then again, I've yet to met a single player IRL who's complained the feel their martials is being overshadowed by any casters. The whole argument seems strange to me.

Yeah, no special rules. People just have ogres and trolls and other large, high strength monsters do things like that.

Huh? I wonder how.... I mean, I've seen monster who have the Siege Monster trait do such things, but that's it.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I'd love to meet a single player IRL who "wants spellcasters to be superior"... I've never, in any edition, met such a player. Then again, I've yet to met a single player IRL who's complained the feel their martials is being overshadowed by any casters. The whole argument seems strange to me.

I've retired a character for that reason specifically, and I also know of at least one person who prefers PF2 specifically because casters are more restrained in that edition. It's not that strange really.

Sidenote: If you go to any 5E board you will find people complaining about the balance. If you go to any PF2 board people there will argue that it is more balanced than 5E.

 

[ezo]

I've retired a character for that reason specifically, and I also know of at least one person who prefers PF2 specifically because casters are more restrained in that edition. It's not that strange really.

Sidenote: If you go to any 5E board you will find people complaining about the balance. If you go to any PF2 board people there will argue that it is more balanced than 5E.

To clarify: I've "met" people online who say such things, but NEVER in real life at any game table I ran, played at, or even visited...

I prefer (very) restrained casters myself, but it has nothing to do with because I feel when I play martials (or others do) that my PC is overshadowed by casters. I prefer it because the checks and balances that existed before and made casters more challenging to play no longer exists.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, it's a gradient. People have literally suggested that high level fighters should be able to leap over mountains. That's a long way from bursting through a (presumably thin) stone wall by making a strength check. There's currently no rule for either, but I think you and I would agree that the stone wall could be doable, but the mountain leaping maybe not so much.

Sure, literally jumping over a mountain is likely a bit much. Other than teleportation or plane shift even casters can't move that far in a single action.

But what about jumping 100 ft? That is literally 1/5 of what it is possible for a caster to do in a single action. Is that more doable?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Quite frankly, the system in so far as numbers are concerned makes no sense and is in no way consistent. Strength doesn't mean strength apparently, otherwise normal humans with a very high Strength would indeed be capable of the kind of feats you are describing without additional explanation, and they aren't. Therefore, those numbers cannot be taken to mean in the fiction what they appear to mean, because there is no logic to them. If you want your fighter to bust through stone walls with their bare hands, you cannot rely on compared game numbers to justify it. Since such things are not possible without superhuman ability from the perspective of people in the real world (which I've explained many times is the perspective that matters to me), you need to accept that your fighter is drawing on supernatural power for those abilities. I see no reason for pretence on that score in the game.

Who says they aren't capable of them? Can you quote me a rule in the PHB or DMG that says that a fighter cannot roll athletics to break through a stone wall?

Or, is it that they are not capable... because you say they are not capable?

I mean, super-strength is, well, supernatural. Ogre Strength is literally a magical item. And it is a 19. Perfectly achievable.

As for lacking logic... again, says who? The logic has been explained to you time and time and time and time again, you just say it is not true because there is no evidence like... naturally occurring super-human strength?

 

[CreamCloud0]

And yet they are considered to be balanced against the two classes that draw from only one, unexplained source?

Yes, because they dedicate themselves fully to the one source, rather than splitting their focus, using more sources of power doesn’t get you more power it just gets you more kinds of power, they’re not multiplicative.

How much benefit do you really think a wizard is getting from the baseline martial power? Basically squat, They’ve never trained their bodies to harness those powers that way except maybe bladesinger but they’re obviously supplementing their martial abilities with their arcane abilities, other classes train their bodies more to various degrees but the fighter and rogue? They go whole hog all the beans into mastering the inherent martial capabilities anyone can access and that’s why they can stand on equal footing with the other classes.

Please do not respond with anything even vaguely to the effect of ‘but why isn’t that written in their class descriptions’ I don’t want to hear that for the fifteenth time this thread.

 

[ECMO3]

I've retired a character for that reason specifically, and I also know of at least one person who prefers PF2 specifically because casters are more restrained in that edition. It's not that strange really.

So we have a gaming group that tried PF2 for a few games and overwhelimingly wanted to go back to 5E. This was one reason of several. We did not even finish the campaign and one person actually left the group permanently.

If you did not like playing then retiring your character is the right choice and presumably that was a good solution that led to your happiness going forward? Some builds are just not good and rewarding. The only Artificer I played was like this honestly, where I did not have a lot of fun (not for the reason you stat though). She died before I retired her though (and no I did not kill her intentionally). I replaced her with a Standard Human Rune Knight and a had a blast the rest of the campaign.

Sidenote: If you go to any 5E board you will find people complaining about the balance. If you go to any PF2 board people there will argue that it is more balanced than 5E.

More balanced and less fun IMO. I know one person who has played them both and prefers PF2.