D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, I agree proficiency should be applicable, but not through Athletics. Our games have a homebrew Strength skill called "Brawn" for such reasons, which involves most other Strength checks, such as excessive lifting, breaking, bending, etc.


Also, it is sort of sad that few monsters actually have the Athletics skill (if you want it to cover such things). Again, for our homebrew we simply treat creatures as proficient using the ability check proficiency option from the DMG. So, Ogres with Strength as their prime thing, are considered proficient in any Strength check.


Like I said, I've see it with giants, but never with ogres or trolls as they are only large. Now, I imagine two ogres (each grabbing an arm and leg) would be able to "make a wish" and pull.


11th, but 9th is close enough. Anywhere around there, really, would probably be fine by me.


I would imagine so, actually.


They really should.

For me, giving Ogre proficiency in Strength checks would be +6, using the DC 17 and advantage grants a 75% of breaking through a wall of "Large" size (i.e. a 10x10 section). Also, giving more creatures the "Siege Monster" feature would help if you want to go the AC/HP route.


It's funny you mention axe. In 5E axes are slashing weapons, but as chopping/cleaving weapons their force is more through the bludgeoning of the axe head into the body, not moving the edge along it (which is slashing).

And I agree the better rule woud be to grant such object resistance against slashing and piercing damage. I know IRL such weapons would be pretty useless (unless magical), but there are two reasons to not be so strict about it: 1) it is a game, and 2) it is a fantasy game.

I find myself agreeing with almost all of this. Nice to be on the same page with someone.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My solution would be to make it much harder or impossible for that (nonmagical) sword to cut through the stone creature by removing some of that abstraction, not by adding more.

So, what? You want to make multiple creatures immune to multiple different weapons? Immune to slashing and piercing (taking any archer and making them useless) but only resistant to bludgeoning? Then the caster.... oh right, none of those creatures are actually resistant to what a caster can do.

Glad to see how "Realism" and "Common Sense" will always be there to help a fighter out, I was worried it might be used to make them feel useless or something. /s

 

[Gammadoodler]

I find myself agreeing with almost all of this. Nice to be on the same page with someone.

On the one hand, having a skill that specifically calls out these kinds of activities..good..

On the other hand, requiring it to be a separate skill from athletics..less good.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So, what? You want to make multiple creatures immune to multiple different weapons? Immune to slashing and piercing (taking any archer and making them useless) but only resistant to bludgeoning? Then the caster.... oh right, none of those creatures are actually resistant to what a caster can do.

Glad to see how "Realism" and "Common Sense" will always be there to help a fighter out, I was worried it might be used to make them feel useless or something. /s

Lol. This is one of my pet peeves.

Simultaneously having generic magical weapons that can damage anything and everything, and nonmagical weapons that in some cases can't do any damage at all.

For all the detail we get, the only difference between a magic weapon and a nonmagic one is that the magical one is especially tasty, maybe even "magically delicious."

Yet, this nonspecific 'magic' with zero contextual tie to the setting, material, or type of monster has universal utility against all resistant creatures, where the nonmagical version is universally constrained or invalidated.

And this gamist nonsense is often hailed as appropriate "simulationism."

Edit: it's what I often find frustrating about these threads. If there isn't a little bit of nonspecific mumbo jumbo attached, then expect the fantastic to be out of reach.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Lol. This is one of my pet peeves.

Simultaneously having generic magical weapons that can damage anything and everything, and nonmagical weapons that in some cases can't do any damage at all.

For all the detail we get, the only difference between a magic weapon and a nonmagic one is that the magical one is especially tasty, maybe even "magically delicious."

Yet, this nonspecific 'magic' with zero contextual tie to the setting, material, or type of monster has universal utility against all resistant creatures, where the nonmagical version is universally constrained or invalidated.

And this gamist nonsense is often hailed as appropriate "simulationism."

I mean, when we are talking about “magic” is there any real difference between gaming and simulation? I mean magic exists just for the game, it can’t really simulate anything

 

[ECMO3]

Right, you wouldn't let them make the skill check to see if they know what a flower is, because you must be staring at the flower the entire time to make a skill check as it says.... huh, nowhere in the books does it actually say you can't identify something based on a description.

I would not let them because it is against the rules and regardless of what I would or would not do, using something that is against the rules to prove that the rules favor Wizards is disingenouos.

There is a fundamental difference between saying the way many people play makes Wizards more powerful vs. the rules make Wizards more powerful and using something that is against the rules can not be an example of the latter.

You aren't playing by RAW, you are playing by arbitrary limitations.

The caster of Find Familiar could spend a full minute staring, smelling, ect the flower,

They absolutely can not do this. To start with they can't smell it using Find Familiar alt all all. Read the spell, it allows for sight and hearing.

Second it does not allow them to do this for a full minute, it allows them to do it from when they take the action to the start of their next turn, which is 6 seconds. They can take the action again, but it is in 6 second incrementns, not "a full minute".

Further this restriction is in there to prevent exactly this kind of use - doing an action while looking through the familiars eyes.

then say they want to roll nature to identify it... and suddenly they cannot possibly do that, because they can't look at it AND roll on the same turn.

Yes those are the rules. Maybe you should start a thread about how Find Familiar should be strengthened to be less nonsensical.

Meanwhile, I've never had a single DM ever tell me that I can't roll to see if I know what a monster is based on its description from the townsfolk.

Sure, but you can't do that at the same time you are looking through your familiar's eyes.

And again, you haven't actually addressed the sudden problem. Even my caster who supposedly sucks at combat is an immediate dire threat that needs to be taken out as soon as possible.

Because he is a caster, has a low AC and is easy to kill.

Meanwhile, they are certainly better than the fighter in the social pillar,

I don't care if they are better at the social pillar. It is irrelevant. They are not good at all 3 pillars as I stated and as you can make a fighter (or a Wizard) on point buy, provided you don't invest 16 in Constitution.

and the only thing holding them back in exploration is your insistence that short-term memory isn't a thing that exists.

No it is my insistence on following "nonsensical" rules.

Here is what I want... ways for fighters to be better at social and exploration pillars of play, so that they DON'T need to sacrifice the one thing they sort of have going for them ie single target damage and surviving combat.

Ok you want that. I get it. You are not going to get it I don't think in official 5E.

 

[ezo]

I find myself agreeing with almost all of this. Nice to be on the same page with someone.

Well, I know we butt heads often, but I think much of it is reflected in the fact it's online discussions. I think IRL we would be able to convey concepts more effeciently and likely agree more often. I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on some things, but for me (as I've said in the past) it comes down to plausibility for me in a fantasy setting.

Do I want PCs leaping over mountains? No. Could I imagine a PC (at high enough level) leaping 50 feet over a chasm? Certainly, with a running start and by making a check.

On the one hand, having a skill that specifically calls out these kinds of activities..good..

On the other hand, requiring it to be a separate skill from athletics..less good.

Having added both Brawn and Grapple as skills for Strength, we just gave all PCs an extra skill proficiency.

Our houserules also allow a PC to to spend a skill proficiency to gain expertise in another skill. So, martials often take expertise in Athletics, Brawn, or Grapple depending on the build.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I mean, when we are talking about “magic” is there any real difference between gaming and simulation? I mean magic exists just for the game, it can’t really simulate anything

There are "simulationist" distinctions that could be made.

A sword blessed by a celestial could be magically effective against fiends or vice versa. Exposure to certain poisons or energies, construction from certain materials, crafting by certain creatures, etc. could also function against resistant creatures in a "simulationist" manner.

And ultimately my problem isn't with the gamist mechanic..necessarily. It's the "simulationist" charade

Well, I know we butt heads often, but I think much of it is reflected in the fact it's online discussions. I think IRL we would be able to convey concepts more effeciently and likely agree more often. I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on some things, but for me (as I've said in the past) it comes down to plausibility for me in a fantasy setting.

Do I want PCs leaping over mountains? No. Could I imagine a PC (at high enough level) leaping 50 feet over a chasm? Certainly, with a running start and by making a check.


Having added both Brawn and Grapple as skills for Strength, we just gave all PCs an extra skill proficiency.

Our houserules also allow a PC to to spend a skill proficiency to gain expertise in another skill. So, martials often take expertise in Athletics, Brawn, or Grapple depending on the build.

That works.

 

[ezo]

Do I want PCs leaping over mountains? No. Could I imagine a PC (at high enough level) leaping 50 feet over a chasm? Certainly, with a running start and by making a check.

I'll add another houserule we've been using which helps Fighters in such situations, another of @DND_Reborn's work:

Action Surge can be used to multiple the lifting and jumping capabilities of the PC by a factor equal to the proficiency bonus.

So, your PC can lift 420 lbs at level 1? Spend your Action Surge and it doubles to 840. At level 5, it triples, and level 9, it quadruples, etc.

Your PC can jump 18 feet with their STR 18? Spend your Action Surge and it doubles to 36, then goes to 48, etc.

This way, a Fighter anyway, can perform superhuman (IRL) but plausible actions in a fantasy game.

It wouldn't be hard to expand this to allow Rage to perform similarly. But I don't know if I could as easily see it going to other martials. Monks have Step of the Wind, a Rogue using Cunning Action might be able to jump further maybe?

All in all, it just comes down to how far you want things to go. At Fighter 17+ with STR 20, you can normally lift 300 lbs, but with the above Action Surge it would be 1800 lbs. If you were a goliath or had some other "Powerful build"-type feature, it could go as high as 3600 lbs! If your typical Ogre weighs about 1000 lbs, either of these would be enough to lift an Ogre overhead, etc.

Also, another idea I've been thinking of is a modification to Rage. Instead of the way it works, what if Rage increased the Barbarian's Strength by your proficiency bonus???

In levels 1-4, it would be a +1 to Strength-based attacks and damage, instead of just +2 damage. Of ocurse a +1 to Strength checks is not as good as advantage, it helps a bit.

However, look at what becomes possible IF you ever got to level 20? You have unlimited rages, and with Primal Champion could have a Strength 24, bumped up to 30 while raging!!! Time for some fun working the numbers:

Str 30 x 30 = 900 lbs, go Goliath => 1800, go Bear Totem => 3600, allow Rage to multiple lift / jump like Action Sure, and now you have 21600 lbs-- over 10 tons. I think such a system which is build for such power, in a fantasy game and at level 20, while most definitely superhuman, would be acceptable to many groups.

Jump back to level 1. Str 20 x 30 = 600 lbs, Goliath is 1200, Rage x2 would make it 2400 lbs, roughly twice the real-world limit for humans currently. Since this is a raging Goliath barbarian, is that too much of a stretch at level 1? Not IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So... a human with fiendish blood in them, who becomes a tiefling, is supernatural. But a human with fiendish blood in them who doesn't become a tiefling is... not? Are we going to start arguing what percentage of blood you need of supernatural origin to stop being considered human and to start being considered something else?

Because that seems to be what you are saying. That until their pure human blood is diluted enough, they are still mundane humans without any supernatural capacities at all.

The rulebooks are pretty on what race/species/heritages gives you, and what it doesn't. Write down human, you're a human and you get human traits.