D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[dave2008]

First, just wanna make sure you know that I'm not offended. Apologies if the tone of my post gave off that vibe.

No worries - and it be honest it is general vibe from several people responding to me posts. Nothing specific from any one person

The point is, when you encounter a difference between the real world and the fantasy world, if that disturbs you in any way, it's kinda on you for selecting from the "different from the real world" genre.

Ok, but I never said it disturbs me did I?

I have no issue with there being a difference. In fact, I would prefer game jargon that defines the nature of those differences. That makes a fantasy world richer and more interesting to me; rather than saying: "its fantasy - who cares!"

 

[Zubatcarteira]

In all seriousness though, non-magical 5e martials can get pretty crazy, but mostly due to general rules of the system, not their own class abilities. When you can survive being bitten by a moon-sized monster, or shrug off an explosion that's like a small nuke, it's hard to say you aren't powerful, but the moment to moment gameplay still ends up being walk over to an enemy and beat them up until they die. There are some abilities like Evasion and Deflect Missiles that let you do crazy things like grabbing a bullet out of the air or dodging lightning, it'd be cool to have more of that.

There are some subclasses with more options like Rune and Echo Knight, but non-magical ones could get some more evocative abilities, Battlemaster always felt too limited to me.

Been playing D&D 3.5 for a bit, and I'm not a big fan of it, but the martials there have some cool abilities. Our Fighter can walk up to an enemy and shatter their steel weapons with a single blow, another one could crit nonstop, we had a Barbarian that bullied large bosses by just tripping them repeatedly (which you can do in 5e as well, but being tripped in the system is less of a problem than in 3.5).

In PF2, you can trip and grapple huge creatures from level 1, intimidate people with a stare, and even kill them with a word at high-levels, resurrect people with just your medicine skill, squeeze through solid walls, stomp to create an earquake and steal someone's underwear without them noticing.

In PF2, I've found it pretty balanced between martials and casters once you leave the first few levels. 3.5 casters feel so busted that my 8 con, 7 dex, 12 wis Druid was the MVP for a while. In 5e, I think it's mostly fine if the casters aren't optimizing much, but just giving martials some cooler abilities would help a lot.

 

[dave2008]

This is a bad path to start down though.

I agree - one I have been pushed, pulled, and dragged down by the posters in this thread!

This is not a discussion I ever wanted or intended to have.

 

[dave2008]

Sure they are. If it doesn't have a magical explanation, they don't think it should be possible

I am not sure if you think I am in that group or not; but that is definitely not what I have been saying. It does seem that several posters think that is what I am saying. So there is clearly a miscommunication issue.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I am not sure if you think I am in that group or not; but that is definitely not what I have been saying. It does seem that several posters think that is what I am saying. So there is clearly a miscommunication issue.

There is an issue here with some people arguing that because X is true, Y must be true, and this leads to a lot of people thinking (including me, to be honest) that people who argue that X is true are actually doing it to prove that Y must be true.

Less of a miscommunication thing and more about mistaken assumptions regarding intent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The X-Gene is extraordinary.

Certain manifestation of Gamma and above mutants can tap into the supernatural or magical..

But the gene is extraordinary. That's why the suppression collars work. They all start as extraordinary and the collars suppress that.

In other words, the X-Gene is science. Super science. It still uses the realities laws.

But by the laws of our reality, it is effectively supernatural. And those terms are in comparison to our reality, not theirs.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No worries - and it be honest it is general vibe from several people responding to me posts. Nothing specific from any one person

Ok, but I never said it disturbs me did I?

I have no issue with there being a difference. In fact, I would prefer game jargon that defines the nature of those differences. That makes a fantasy world richer and more interesting to me; rather than saying: "its fantasy - who cares!"

The problem, for me, is that you (general) appear to want a definition in the game.

Adding such a definition to the game crowds out the alternative, and equally viable definitions.

It is subtraction by addition, which is why I'm not interested.

 

[Micah Sweet]

your preference is your preference and i couldn't care less about what you want to run in your own games, my argument is that we cant ever seem to have a discussion about this kind of thing without you coming in to crowbar your need to have your own preferences validated before we can talk about anything relevant to the actual thread topic.

I'm not stopping anyone from making awesome martials. I just question why you clearly want martials to do things beyond what is possible in our world, but fight like mad to not label said beyond our reality abilities as...beyond reality. Why? I seriously do not get it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"You want martials with abilities beyond Earth expectations, make them cop to being magical in some way" is exactly how people have expressed it.

In a game, from the perspective of the players in that game, I see zero problem with that statement (though if you prefer a different term than the apparently toxic "magical", that's just fine).

 

[dave2008]

The problem, for me, is that you (general) appear to want a definition in the game.

Adding such a definition to the game crowds out the alternative, and equally viable definitions.

It is subtraction by addition, which is why I'm not interested.

I'm of two minds really: I like ambiguity for its flexibility and I dislike it for its lake of specificity. You can't really have both I don't think.

I personally don't find adding some clarity to be a subtraction by addition, but I understand that is how you feel. The level of simplicity vs specificity or abstraction vs simulation is different for everyone I suspect. You can't make everyone happy. That is why I've always said this is something I want, not something that needs to be.