D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[FormerlyHemlock]

so that's a few starting ideas. What else do you think would make the high level world less insurmountable for martials?

This reminds me somehow of the fact that folklore assigns various vulnerabilities and weakness to monsters which tend to get ignored in D&D 5E: vampires retain vestiges of these weaknesses (inability to cross running water, taking damage and temporarily losing regeneration while in sunlight) but it's not common to see things like e.g. mind flayers fleeing in terror from a rooster's crow, or nightwalkers being unable to cross a line made of salt. But you could!

You could also apply similar thinking to magical obstacles by requiring every obstacle including spells to have a mundane countermeasure or weakness. Perhaps Conjure Animals cannot harm anyone who is barefoot, and Wall of Force collapses if licked by a cow or stroked seven times with a raven feather.

This would incidentally boost "martials" but in a larger sense it really boosts Combat As War/puzzlegaming and mundanes of all stripes, including thieves and wizards who are using their "wise" brains and not their magical muscles. But certainly some warriors/martials could fit the Indiana Jones model of being brainy but not magical.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, but let's say everything you've mentioned about the master swordsman is true, but the sword isn't magic or made of special material or whatever.

Why is this a problem?

It's not to me.

But some other people would balk.

Iron already has anti magic roots in mythology. Any weapon of steel or iron would be okay for me. But many hardliners would balk if the weapon isn't obviously magical.

 

[Incenjucar]

The fact that the weaknesses that spellcasters do have get reduced every edition doesn't help. Thank heavens bonus spells are gone, at least.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Martials only advance quantitatively, almost never qualitatively.

I agree, this is a problem. I hear some Martial fans complain about this.

But its seems like many (most?) Martial fans ... like it this way. These strongly resist the idea of a Martial feeling "magical" at the highest levels.

That's because anyone who wanted a cool martial left to play another game, so the martial players that are left either simply don't care about the game aspect or have some weird impotence fantasy where they want to play a town guard +1 alongside Dr. Strange. The people who like the current fighter just don't care much about effectiveness or driving the plot through character abilities.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It's not to me.

But some other people would balk.

Iron already has anti magic roots in mythology. Any weapon of steel or iron would be okay for me. But many hardliners would balk if the weapon isn't obviously magical.

And this is the thing that puzzles me, because, as you say it does come up a lot, usually from self-professed critical thinkers and, it usually is something along the lines of..

"oh but a real sword can't do that, it'd have to be magical"

The game is this way too. But rarely, if ever have I seen anyone lay out what the specific magical mechanics need to be.

It's never...
"without the blessing of Torag..." or
"without a vorpal rune inscribed by a disciple of Mordenkainen..." or
"if the blade isn't quenched in the blood of an archfey"

It's just, "well is it magical". Always bugs me.

 

[Emberashh]

And that will be a basis for a conclusion of.."see not that big a deal really".

Keep in mind the context for this chain of thought is what is actually consequential and how that relates to how high level magic is perceived by players, which has to come down to a comparison between the actual effects of said magic and what can (and readily is) replicated by mundane mechanisms. A Meteor Storm that's no more consequential than a plane crash puts the power of that spell into perspective when, like a plane in our world, magic in that world is a common place and not fantastical part of reality.

Magic does not "warp reality" when it just is reality, and when we look at the magic accused of warping reality and look at what it actually does, that logic tracks, as the spells in question don't, as said, actually do all that much.

Wish is the sole exception purely because its effects, with DM intervention, can go well beyond the capabilities of any other magic described in the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And this is the thing that puzzles me, because, as you say it does come up a lot, usually from self-professed critical thinkers and, it usually is something along the lines of..

"oh but a real sword can't do that, it'd have to be magical"

The game is this way too. But rarely, if ever have I seen anyone lay out what the specific magical mechanics need to be.

It's never...
"without the blessing of Torag..." or
"without a vorpal rune inscribed by a disciple of Mordenkainen..." or
"if the blade isn't quenched in the blood of an archfey"

It's just, "well is it magical". Always bugs me.

Because too many people also don't want to bother themselves with that level of detail. Something of a catch-22.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Iron already has anti magic roots in mythology. Any weapon of steel or iron would be okay for me. But many hardliners would balk if the weapon isn't obviously magical.

It made sense in Gygax's original cosmology where "pluses" were connected to planar travel: each plane you go through makes your items leave behind one "plus" until you come back through, and powerful planar creatures take a certain number of "pluses" to damage as basically a representation of the fact that they're not entirely present on the Prime Material Plane, whereas a sufficiently powerful weapon has enough extraplanar reach (my wording) to reach them where they actually exist.

In 5E that logic has become so attenuated and vestigial that it's difficult to justify.

 

[Emberashh]

It made sense in Gygax's original cosmology where "pluses" were connected to planar travel: each plane you go through makes your items leave behind one "plus" until you come back through, and powerful planar creatures take a certain number of "pluses" to damage as basically a representation of the fact that they're not entirely present on the Prime Material Plane, whereas a sufficiently powerful weapon has enough extraplanar reach (my wording) to reach them where they actually exist.

In 5E that logic has become so attenuated and vestigial that it's difficult to justify.

Thats actually a pretty sweet and should be more of a thing.

 

[Yaarel]

The people who like the current fighter just don't care much about effectiveness

That seems part of the conflict between Fighter fans.

Fans who like the "mundane" Fighter, prioritize mundane flavor, and dont care about effectiveness or class balance.

So fans who do care about effectiveness are left less effective − in the sense of being shut down by certain narrative scenarios that happen at high tiers.

At the same time, it is probably the mundane Fighter fans who start to ... end the game ... after reaching level 8 in the mid tier. So these Fighter fans rarely see the tiers when magic narratively changes the game.