D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[ECMO3]

So, make the character on the front line more likely to die, and focus on... what? Wisdom and Charisma are only useful if you have... skills.

ABSOLUTELY. Do you want your fighter only to be good at combat or good at other things too? It is a choice you make and then live with it.

Also I have played numerous fighters with a 10 Con and played two of them with a 12 Con all the way to 20th level. None of my fighters have died in play (yet). I have had an Artificer, Monk, 2 Wizards, Bard and Rogue die in play.

I mean, sure, yeah, you can build a fighter who has less hp and instead has a high charisma, which allows them to actually succeed at persuasion rolls.

Yes you can. So if that is what you want to it.

... But they can't read minds.

Yes they can detect thoughts is available through a feat to any PC and also available to the Eldritch Knight subclass. Again choices.

They can't change their appearance with a single action.

Yes they can, many ways. Off the top of my head - Changinling, Glaysya Tiefling, Magic Initiate, Eldritch Knight, Shadow Touched.

They can't charm.

Yes they can - eldritch Knight, Fey touched, Magic initiate, Eladrin, Fierna Tiefling

They can't suggest courses of action.

Any character at 1st level can suggest courses of action. I don't understand this.

OR Wisdom, by which you are likely focusing on perception. But... while perception is useful, what can the fighter do that is equal to detect good and evil? Detect Poison? Detect Magic? See Invisibility? True Seeing?

A fighter can do all of those things except true seeing if you make build choices to enable it.

Most people aren't stupid when they build their characters. They give front-liners high Con because they get hit the most, and they don't want their characters dying.

And don't want their characters being good at other things. You do not need a high constitution to avoid dying. It does give you a buffer, but it comes at a cost in other pillars. If you want to pay that cost fine, but that is a purposeful decision.

But even if a fighter puts a high score into wisdom or charisma... they are still limited. They are limited to the skills and what the DM allows. They can't break out of that.

Sure. The DM has the ultimate power and say here.

What if, by level 10 or so, a martial character with Investigation could roll and on a success, they discover enough clues to actually get to "see" what happened in a room? The DM would describe to them, for example, that two men slipped in through the window, startled Mr Darcy, who ran for his sword, but he was hit by a thrown dagger with an ornate handle. The two men dragged him back to his chair, where the second used magic to seal the wound, and make it appear as though he died of natural causes.

This is something that absolutely happens in fiction, with skilled investigator characters, and if the player knew that, they might be far more interested in putting a higher Int on their character, and building towards that ability.

OR, if they want to play the jock fighter, maybe give their athletics a way to destroy scenery more easily, or an ability to ignore environmental damage and effects through sheer toughness (Oden standing for an hour in a pot of boiling oil to save his men from execution)

There are things that would allow us to compete or exceed spells, things we lack, and can't build towards.

Why can't you do those things now?

Should be less effective? No. But at that point, are you really going to say that catching someone on fire is should be less effective than shooting them with an arrow? Taking Firebolt is a decision that has a real, tangible cost too.

It depends on the fire. IRL getting shot with an arrow is generally going to be worse than getting a molotov cocktail thrown at you, but not worse than getting napalm dropped on you.

So what is the BENEFIT of not taking magic?

I didn't say there is a benefit

The highest AC builds are usually magic using characters, like Bladesingers, forge clerics, and Eldritch Knights (which I know is a fighter subclass, but they are the fighter subclass that USES MAGIC, so what is the benefit of forgoing that?)

If you want a non-magic character, the benefit is having a non-magic character (and a lower AC). Just like if you want a character with good social skills you will have less hit points.

Damage? I'll admit, Fighters and Rogues are not slouches when it comes to single target damage, but generally, full caster optimizers SCOFF at the idea of building blasters. It is the LEAST effective thing you can do, in their mind. And trust me, I've seen first hand it doesn't matter how much damage you can do if the enemy can't touch you for 10 turns of combat.

It depends on the enemy and at higher levels as control spells become more powerful and available they also become less reliable as save bonuses or flat condition resistances outstrip the increase in DC and legendary resistance becomes available when they do fail.

Sure, Speak with Dead is a great spell for solving murder mysteries. It is also not even a blip on the design space of full casters.

But it is an example you used and it comes with a high cost of being prepared and using a slot. The real value in the investigator being able to get clues (albeit less effectively) is letting the Wizard prepare Fear instead.

It is going to be rare that a character is walking around with Speak with Dead prepared.

What does the 11th level fighter do that is impossible? Make more attacks? Re-roll a save? That's it. And those aren't impossible things. Those aren't even notable things, in terms of plot impact. No challenge or encounter is going to be circumvented or even significantly impacted by that.

An 11th level fighter with a 6 constitution can fall off a 70 foot building and survive 100% of the time and even walk away with no broken bones. They can fall off a 200 foot building and survive over 60% of the time.

On top every fighter subclass except Samauri, Champion and Cavalier get an explicitly impossible ability by level 7.

 

[Minigiant]

RAW it absolutely is good with the right choices when you add in class and subclass abilities.

If a DM is not playing RAW then that is a different story, but DCs should not go up with level in the base game design

RAW when.

Before TCOE, no. The feats , maneuvers, and fighting styles for noncombat capable fighters didn't exist.

After TCOE, everything got buffed so much that it became too easy for other classes to do better.

Heck subsystems that would have let multiple characters enter the same roles in different capacity like languages or complex checks were half way done.

So as the party leveled if the DM would offer them harder challenges unless it is a group role the fighter can easily be overshadowed. They weren't supernatural. Then Martial progress was not defined in a matter that can be leveraged unless you have a DM that matches your mental imagination perfectly. And their spells, when they got, were underleveled.

Focusing more on the core archetypes and designing gaps for new classes would have been the best choice. But 5e wasn't future proofed.

This entire thread is about appealing to define the undefined by claiming not magical martials are supernatural.

It's fully a bargaining compromise. Let my fighter be the hulk to make up for tilted design.

 

[Chaosmancer]

ABSOLUTELY. Do you want your fighter only to be good at combat or good at other things too? It is a choice you make and then live with it.

Also I have played numerous fighters with a 10 Con and played two of them with a 12 Con all the way to 20th level. None of my fighters have died in play (yet). I have had an Artificer, Monk, 2 Wizards, Bard and Rogue die in play.

So, because you played a fighter with 10 Con to level 20, everyone who is worried about dying on the front line is a fool? Come on, you are positioning yourself as though if a fighter wants to be equally useful all they need is a decent score and a skill proficiency, but that is so bare bones, that most Full Casters ALSO have those things.

Yes you can. So if that is what you want to it.

Yes they can detect thoughts is available through a feat to any PC and also available to the Eldritch Knight subclass. Again choices.

Yes they can, many ways. Off the top of my head - Changinling, Glaysya Tiefling, Magic Initiate, Eldritch Knight, Shadow Touched.

Yes they can - eldritch Knight, Fey touched, Magic initiate, Eladrin, Fierna Tiefling

So... spells, spells, spells, magical race, spells, spells, spells.... Huh... so the only way to accomplish these things are through... spells. Or playing a race that allows you to shapeshift.

Hmmm.... I wonder if that is the problem we keep talking about...

Any character at 1st level can suggest courses of action. I don't understand this.

Suggestion spell.

A fighter can do all of those things except true seeing if you make build choices to enable it.

Through.... gaining access to spells.

And don't want their characters being good at other things. You do not need a high constitution to avoid dying. It does give you a buffer, but it comes at a cost in other pillars. If you want to pay that cost fine, but that is a purposeful decision.

Sure. The DM has the ultimate power and say here.

Really? Because if a Bard wanted to, say, read someone's mind to better be able to persuade a character towards a course of action... they innately have that option available to them. Additionally, unless the DM actively works to prevent this, the Bard can do so without giving up anything that they traditionally want. Their power in combat is unaffected by getting this option, unlike the Fighter.

Why can't you do those things now?

Because when I investigate, I'm lucky if the DM tells me what is in the room, if I didn't specify that I looked under the bed. Let alone a full, accurate description of what occurred over a day ago.

I mean, seriously, this sort of "vision of the past" style thing is often treated as... the realm of magic. In fact, something similar is a magical ability.

So, the better question is... why would I expect I can, without an ability that says I can? Sure, I can "investigate" but that doesn't give me any narrative options, that doesn't lead to "since I have investigation, I can [blank]" like a spellcaster gets with "Since I cast Detect Thoughts, I can read his mind"

And, if you think this is something that a character can just do with any old DC 15 Investigation check... why would you be against me formalizing it as an ability?

It depends on the fire. IRL getting shot with an arrow is generally going to be worse than getting a molotov cocktail thrown at you, but not worse than getting napalm dropped on you.

Considering how many people survive being shot with arrows without their faces being destroyed, I disagree. Fire as hot as what a wizard is throwing is horrific.

I didn't say there is a benefit

Well.... THAT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM! IF there is no reason to play a non-magical character, you have a badly designed game on your hands.

If you want a non-magic character, the benefit is having a non-magic character (and a lower AC). Just like if you want a character with good social skills you will have less hit points.

So... the benefit is being worse in all ways? Whoo. So exciting.

It depends on the enemy and at higher levels as control spells become more powerful and available they also become less reliable as save bonuses or flat condition resistances outstrip the increase in DC and legendary resistance becomes available when they do fail.

And what do non-martial characters have to induce effects anywhere close to this? Also, many of the offenders are either instant combat enders if the enemy fails the save (and there are a plethora of ways to increase the chances of that happening) or have no save at all.

But it is an example you used and it comes with a high cost of being prepared and using a slot. The real value in the investigator being able to get clues (albeit less effectively) is letting the Wizard prepare Fear instead.

It is going to be rare that a character is walking around with Speak with Dead prepared.

I'm so glad my entire character concept allows the wizard to choose to not overshadow me. Truly, I am grateful for their benevolence of allowing a peon like my character to be somewhat useful so that they can be even more useful.

Have you ever noticed it never goes the other way? There is never a time the fighter or rogue goes "oh, we have a wizard/cleric/bard/druid so I don't need to choose X ability". It is always that the existence of the martial allows the wizard to swap a SINGLE SPELL.

An 11th level fighter with a 6 constitution can fall off a 70 foot building and survive 100% of the time and even walk away with no broken bones. They can fall off a 200 foot building and survive over 60% of the time.

And so can everyone else. And this is only if the DM decides to allow it, sometimes DMs call such things impossible and kill your character for falling that height. Unless of course you have magic to allow flight, teleportation, feather fall, ect.

Additionally, "I jumped from a tall building and took a bunch of damage" isn't exactly something that generally solves a problem or overcomes a challenge in the game.

On top every fighter subclass except Samauri, Champion and Cavalier get an explicitly impossible ability by level 7.

So, nothing in the base class, unlike all of the wizards/clerics/bards/druids in the game, who we only ever discuss the base class abilities.


I mean, you are kind of proving the point I'm trying to make. At every turn you have basically said "If the fighter chooses to gain access to spells, they can do the things the other classes can do, only worse than those classes." Meanwhile, the fighter's greatest feats include falling on their faces, hitting things with weapons... and that's it. Something everyone else can do. Heck, I've built druids and Clerics to be very deadly in melee. It isn't hard.

So.... what is the problem with adding new abilities to the martial characters, off-loading the design into the skill system, and gaining access to it via an ability, in the same way the Weapon Mastery system was designed? Why is this unacceptable?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, because you played a fighter with 10 Con to level 20, everyone who is worried about dying on the front line is a fool? Come on, you are positioning yourself as though if a fighter wants to be equally useful all they need is a decent score and a skill proficiency, but that is so bare bones, that most Full Casters ALSO have those things.



So... spells, spells, spells, magical race, spells, spells, spells.... Huh... so the only way to accomplish these things are through... spells. Or playing a race that allows you to shapeshift.

Hmmm.... I wonder if that is the problem we keep talking about...



Suggestion spell.



Through.... gaining access to spells.



Really? Because if a Bard wanted to, say, read someone's mind to better be able to persuade a character towards a course of action... they innately have that option available to them. Additionally, unless the DM actively works to prevent this, the Bard can do so without giving up anything that they traditionally want. Their power in combat is unaffected by getting this option, unlike the Fighter.



Because when I investigate, I'm lucky if the DM tells me what is in the room, if I didn't specify that I looked under the bed. Let alone a full, accurate description of what occurred over a day ago.

I mean, seriously, this sort of "vision of the past" style thing is often treated as... the realm of magic. In fact, something similar is a magical ability.

So, the better question is... why would I expect I can, without an ability that says I can? Sure, I can "investigate" but that doesn't give me any narrative options, that doesn't lead to "since I have investigation, I can [blank]" like a spellcaster gets with "Since I cast Detect Thoughts, I can read his mind"

And, if you think this is something that a character can just do with any old DC 15 Investigation check... why would you be against me formalizing it as an ability?



Considering how many people survive being shot with arrows without their faces being destroyed, I disagree. Fire as hot as what a wizard is throwing is horrific.



Well.... THAT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM! IF there is no reason to play a non-magical character, you have a badly designed game on your hands.




So... the benefit is being worse in all ways? Whoo. So exciting.



And what do non-martial characters have to induce effects anywhere close to this? Also, many of the offenders are either instant combat enders if the enemy fails the save (and there are a plethora of ways to increase the chances of that happening) or have no save at all.



I'm so glad my entire character concept allows the wizard to choose to not overshadow me. Truly, I am grateful for their benevolence of allowing a peon like my character to be somewhat useful so that they can be even more useful.

Have you ever noticed it never goes the other way? There is never a time the fighter or rogue goes "oh, we have a wizard/cleric/bard/druid so I don't need to choose X ability". It is always that the existence of the martial allows the wizard to swap a SINGLE SPELL.



And so can everyone else. And this is only if the DM decides to allow it, sometimes DMs call such things impossible and kill your character for falling that height. Unless of course you have magic to allow flight, teleportation, feather fall, ect.

Additionally, "I jumped from a tall building and took a bunch of damage" isn't exactly something that generally solves a problem or overcomes a challenge in the game.



So, nothing in the base class, unlike all of the wizards/clerics/bards/druids in the game, who we only ever discuss the base class abilities.


I mean, you are kind of proving the point I'm trying to make. At every turn you have basically said "If the fighter chooses to gain access to spells, they can do the things the other classes can do, only worse than those classes." Meanwhile, the fighter's greatest feats include falling on their faces, hitting things with weapons... and that's it. Something everyone else can do. Heck, I've built druids and Clerics to be very deadly in melee. It isn't hard.

So.... what is the problem with adding new abilities to the martial characters, off-loading the design into the skill system, and gaining access to it via an ability, in the same way the Weapon Mastery system was designed? Why is this unacceptable?

It's not unacceptable, but it has to make sense as a non-supernatural or magical ability, if that's a requirement for you. There are definitely ways to make that work. All the mundane classes in Level Up have a variety of cool things they can do without the supernatural, and the skill system is about as robust as compatibility allows it to be.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That is not the only thing those classes are good at. The reason fighters in particular are only good at hitting single target enemies is because players CHOOSE to make their PCs only good at that.

Most of the people who play fighters that are only good at combart also play fighters with a 14+ in Constitution (usually a 16+). They dump every useful ability in the game, purposely build their character to be good at only single target combat and then complain that they are only good at single target combat. I purposely positioned my ability scores so my fighter is a dumb, irritating clutz and now I can't figure out why no one likes him, why he can't solve and puzzels and he trips over his own shoelaces!

If you want to be good at other things, play a Fighter with a 10 Constitution and a 16 in Wisdom or Charisma and it is a whole different ballgame and that character is still good at melee.

Oh please. It's not like other classes need to dump any important stat to be good at fighting. Other classes "fight" just as well, and contribute orders of magnitude more than fighters do outside of a fight. Hell, Valor bards and Bladesingers get the same two attacks fighters get in the vast majority of games because D&D is rarely played past level 10.


Fighters could get an ASI/feat every other level and they might be on equal footing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not unacceptable, but it has to make sense as a non-supernatural or magical ability, if that's a requirement for you. There are definitely ways to make that work. All the mundane classes in Level Up have a variety of cool things they can do without the supernatural, and the skill system is about as robust as compatibility allows it to be.

See, that's the aggravating thing. No it doesn't.

Let's take that ability I listed before. Investigation check to "see" a replay of the events that happened in this location. Does it work as a non-magical ability? Yes. Does it work as a magical ability? Also yes.

What if we gave fighters the ability to roll a con save against an effect that causes automatic damage on their turn, to reduce that damage to its minimum amount. Does that work as a non-magical ability? Yes. Does it work as a magical ability? Also yes.

Rolling medicine to actually heal hit points and cure diseases and poisons? Non-Magical? Yes. Magical? Yes.

Action surge and indomitable work both as non-magical and magical effects. Same with second wind. Heck, you could take the fighting styles and make them work both ways.

So... why try and define them and demand it "makes sense"? If you can't see it making sense as a non-magical ability, call it magical. If you can, don't. But instead you are locked in on "but is this possible?" which is never the right question. Of course it is possible. It is not only possible, as soon as we write the rules, it is exactly what happens.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What do you consider "magic"? Are battlemaster maneuvers like Bait and Switch, Menacing Attack, Rally and Goading Attack "magic"? How about Stunning Strike, Cunning Action, Purity of Body or Barbarian Rage? Does using a Magic Weapon count as magic?

How about being able to withstand jumping off of a 100 foot tall building, walking away from that and having no injury at all after sitting down for a nice meal?

IF you consider these kinds of unrealistic physics defying feats to be "magic" then I think you have a point, but it is going to be hard to build a fantasy RPG where those kinds of things don't exist.

I think that most of us are defining "magic" the way the game defines "magic". 5e has a specific definition, and it is this sort of magic that we are specifically trying to avoid in the concept of a martial character.

That is not the only thing those classes are good at. The reason fighters in particular are only good at hitting single target enemies is because players CHOOSE to make their PCs only good at that.

That is what the class is good at. Many fighter players would love to make their characters good at buffing, control, multiple-target damage, supporting other teammates, exploration, investigation, or social, according to concept. The issue is that single-target damage is the only thing the class is good at.
They can drop to average at combat, in exchange for also being average at some ability checks.

Most of the people who play fighters that are only good at combart also play fighters with a 14+ in Constitution (usually a 16+). They dump every useful ability in the game, purposely build their character to be good at only single target combat and then complain that they are only good at single target combat. I purposely positioned my ability scores so my fighter is a dumb, irritating clutz and now I can't figure out why no one likes him, why he can't solve and puzzels and he trips over his own shoelaces!

I think that you're going to need to back up that rather bold claim with some statistics if you want it to be taken seriously.

If you want to be good at other things, play a Fighter with a 10 Constitution and a 16 in Wisdom or Charisma and it is a whole different ballgame and that character is still good at melee.

Yep. You're often as good in a fight as a Cleric or Bard, and almost as good at skills as them.
. . . of course they are still full-casters, and you're not. When they're not using their spells for combat, they have them available for all sorts of other things. The fighter . . . doesn't.

Of course giving up on your concept of the martial hero and picking up spells though feats or multiclassing is an option. But that is yet more of the situation of losing ability at what you're good at to be not-very-good at something you aren't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, that's the aggravating thing. No it doesn't.

Let's take that ability I listed before. Investigation check to "see" a replay of the events that happened in this location. Does it work as a non-magical ability? Yes. Does it work as a magical ability? Also yes.

What if we gave fighters the ability to roll a con save against an effect that causes automatic damage on their turn, to reduce that damage to its minimum amount. Does that work as a non-magical ability? Yes. Does it work as a magical ability? Also yes.

Rolling medicine to actually heal hit points and cure diseases and poisons? Non-Magical? Yes. Magical? Yes.

Action surge and indomitable work both as non-magical and magical effects. Same with second wind. Heck, you could take the fighting styles and make them work both ways.

So... why try and define them and demand it "makes sense"? If you can't see it making sense as a non-magical ability, call it magical. If you can, don't. But instead you are locked in on "but is this possible?" which is never the right question. Of course it is possible. It is not only possible, as soon as we write the rules, it is exactly what happens.

It's the right question if you care about it. You don't, but that is no less a subjective, personal opinion than mine is, and I prefer a game where designers give these questions some thought rather than just decide everything and anything is fine because, "fantasy". I in fact believe asking those questions and attempting to answer them makes for a better game, certainly for what I want.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's the right question if you care about it. You don't, but that is no less a subjective, personal opinion than mine is, and I prefer a game where designers give these questions some thought rather than just decide everything and anything is fine because, "fantasy". I in fact believe asking those questions and attempting to answer them makes for a better game, certainly for what I want.

But it isn't leading to a better game. It is leading to endless arguments that prevent any possible design, because first you are seeking unanimous agreement on what is allowed to power the abilities.

If I'm playing a Fighter, and I use action surge to make another attack, and describe that attack as being my shadow leaping out to make a second attack... are you going to quote the rule book at me and say a level 1 fighter cannot do that, because that makes no sense? Are you going to demand a detailed breakdown of how my character has gained the powers of shadow manipulation, and the limits of that power? And only THEN am I allowed to continue with my attack?

Or... does it ultimately not matter, because I'm using the ability as written, and just adding some flavor to it?

The game designers have never locked people into a single interpretation of anything. That doesn't mean they have never thought about the design. And frankly, the game is not better served by having a tightly focused setting where only four or five things can ever happen. There are more things possible on Earth than you can fit into a single textbook. Even the internet barely contains all possible things. Why would we expect that a fantasy world with three or four dozen sentient races, using alternative physics and breaking the laws of probability over their knees like matchsticks could possibly be full defined in a book as small as the PHB? Why would we WANT it to? So that you, personally, can understand all possible things about this world? No thanks.

 

[ECMO3]

Oh please. It's not like other classes need to dump any important stat to be good at fighting. Other classes "fight" just as well, and contribute orders of magnitude more than fighters do outside of a fight. Hell, Valor bards and Bladesingers get the same two attacks fighters get in the vast majority of games because D&D is rarely played past level 10.

What other classes can and can't do is irrelevant to the discussion! The false claim is that a fighter can't be good at anything except attacking one enemy.

That statement is simply untrue in RAW 5E. It is 100% categorically false in RAW 5E.

A fighter can be good at other things and if you want to play a fighter that is good at other things you should build it to be good at other things instead of building it to be good at combat.

I play a lot of fighters and none of them have only been good at combat.

Fighters could get an ASI/feat every other level and they might be on equal footing.

Who cares if they are on equal footing? The point is they can do other things well unless you purposely build them not to be.

And fighters are already ahead of barbarians and Monks at most levels.