Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical?
It doesn't have to be magical, but it should be associated with some superhuman force, and in a faux-medieval setting this is probably going to be magical, though not necessarily any more magical than, say, ki powers. Historical examples of mythic heroes generally involve a connection with the divine, mythic villains may be involved with malign supernatural entities. More modern settings sometimes replace magic with advanced technology.
The issue isn't really magic vs mundane, it's spellcaster vs martial.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical?
It doesn't have to be magical, but it should be associated with some superhuman force, and in a faux-medieval setting this is probably going to be magical, though not necessarily any more magical than, say, ki powers. Historical examples of mythic heroes generally involve a connection with the divine, mythic villains may be involved with malign supernatural entities. More modern settings sometimes replace magic with advanced technology.
The issue isn't really magic vs mundane, it's spellcaster vs martial.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
I’d argue that ki is magic. Specifically, it is a manifestation of the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
Since dragon breath (among other things) is deemed non-magical, it does demonstrate that there are high level effects that are non-magical
Thus the concept that psionics could actually be non magical is legit. However it also follows that there would be anti-psi spells, even if they do not necessarily also affect magic.
In fact, the biggest problem balancing psionics is that it usually does magical effects with fewer of the counters.
Well, point of order - dragons ARE magical, it's just not the kind of magic that can be dispelled. Per Sage Advice:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.
So the high-level martial effects would also be magical, just not magical in a game rules sense. But they would be magical in the fiction.
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
Since dragon breath (among other things) is deemed non-magical, it does demonstrate that there are high level effects that are non-magical
Thus the concept that psionics could actually be non magical is legit. However it also follows that there would be anti-psi spells, even if they do not necessarily also affect magic.
In fact, the biggest problem balancing psionics is that it usually does magical effects with fewer of the counters.
Well, point of order - dragons ARE magical, it's just not the kind of magic that can be dispelled. Per Sage Advice:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.
So the high-level martial effects would also be magical, just not magical in a game rules sense. But they would be magical in the fiction.
Actually I think it is "Dragons are magical but their breath weapons are not"
How they interact with anti-magic fields is part of the context. Dragons are magical but neither created nor summoned by magic, so they can enter. Their breath weapons are not considered magical, so not affected by such fields.
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
What's "magical"? Is a Barbarian's Rage magical? A Monk's ki? Are the things a Battlemaster does magical?
Is it a broad category that includes all supernatural powers? Or is it a specific class of supernatural powers?
If everything's magical nothing is it's almost useless as a category. From a game-design perspective, you don't want that sort of category, because you can't mechanically interact with it. If anti magic shell stops everything, you can't have anti-magic shell.
4e had the right idea. (Again.) All the character classes had a specific, defined, power source. I assume the monsters and such did as well, but it's been a while. I also don't remember if they had abilities that operated based on that power source category, but it's an obvious thing to do.
Actually I think it is "Dragons are magical but their breath weapons are not"
How they interact with anti-magic fields is part of the context. Dragons are magical but neither created nor summoned by magic, so they can enter. Their breath weapons are not considered magical, so not affected by such fields.
Sure, they get to ignore AMF, no argument here. But the point is that you need some kind of explanation for a martial to do the same thing (like being a Dragonborn) above and beyond, say, doing a bunch of pushups. And even when martial powers are allowed to break that fantastical barrier, they tend to be a lot more limited in scope and effect than spells are, whereas the descriptions of what people seem to want out of psionics in this thread are much broader and therefore would necessitate the kind of transparency that makes them functionally identical to spellcasting... so you might as well just use the spellcasting framework. That's what Paizo eventually landed on with Psychic Spells.
4e had the right idea. (Again.) All the character classes had a specific, defined, power source. I assume the monsters and such did as well, but it's been a while.
Power source didn't particularly matter in 4e, it was basically a style issue that determined what kind of powers a character is likely to have but didn't have significant mechanical impact. To the degree monsters had the same it was their creature type keywords.
4e had the right idea. (Again.) All the character classes had a specific, defined, power source. I assume the monsters and such did as well, but it's been a while.
Power source didn't particularly matter in 4e, it was basically a style issue that determined what kind of powers a character is likely to have but didn't have significant mechanical impact. To the degree monsters had the same it was their creature type keywords.
Ok, I guess they didn't have the right idea, but they almost did.
Actually I think it is "Dragons are magical but their breath weapons are not"
How they interact with anti-magic fields is part of the context. Dragons are magical but neither created nor summoned by magic, so they can enter. Their breath weapons are not considered magical, so not affected by such fields.
Sure, they get to ignore AMF, no argument here. But the point is that you need some kind of explanation for a martial to do the same thing (like being a Dragonborn) above and beyond, say, doing a bunch of pushups.
Do you? Why?
It's not hard to find examples of fictional warriors who do absurd feats with no explanation beyond "they're just that badass". When you reach the levels of power in high-level D&D, it's not out-of-genre for a warrior to, say, split a spell with their sword.
And even when martial powers are allowed to break that fantastical barrier, they tend to be a lot more limited in scope and effect than spells are, whereas the descriptions of what people seem to want out of psionics in this thread are much broader and therefore would necessitate the kind of transparency that makes them functionally identical to spellcasting... so you might as well just use the spellcasting framework.
That doesn't follow. It's a conclusion you obviously can reach, but it's not required.
It's not hard to find examples of fictional warriors who do absurd feats with no explanation beyond "they're just that badass".
Yeah, and I roll my eyes at every single one of them. Unless you mean mythological figures and the like who are literally descended from divinity or other supernatural entities, in which case, that's the explanation.
Um... why would I ever want to use anime as inspiration for D&D combat? There are plenty of other TTRPGs for that. BESM, Exalted, OVA...
Because you weren't making an assertion about D&D martial characters, you were making an assertion about martial characters in general. The fact that D&D fighters are stuck in the mud looking up at the god wizards isn't a feature of martial characters, it's a feature of D&D.
However, to more directly answer your point: anything that fixes the martial/caster divide will either enormously gimp spellcasters, or it will result in anime-esque martial characters, because there simply aren't any other options, and your response perfectly illustrates my prior point:
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
What's "magical"? Is a Barbarian's Rage magical? A Monk's ki? Are the things a Battlemaster does magical?
Is it a broad category that includes all supernatural powers? Or is it a specific class of supernatural powers?
If everything's magical nothing is it's almost useless as a category. From a game-design perspective, you don't want that sort of category, because you can't mechanically interact with it. If anti magic shell stops everything, you can't have anti-magic shell.
4e had the right idea. (Again.) All the character classes had a specific, defined, power source. I assume the monsters and such did as well, but it's been a while. I also don't remember if they had abilities that operated based on that power source category, but it's an obvious thing to do.
I never said everything is magical only those things which are not mundane. To use an argument ad absurdism, a 1st level character swinging a stick is not magical.
Anti-magic shell permits a lot of magic. Dragons aren’t affected by anti-magic shell as someone else pointed out. Yet, dragons are magical.
Anti-Magic Field is one of those spells that is very poorly written (as evidenced by the dragon issue just mentioned), so I’m not going to accept or reject an argument based on it.
Pantagruel666, your core premise is flawed. Martials are not looking up at Wizards.
Theorycrafting might lead you to that impression, but theorycrafting is flawed and stupid. It almost always starts with the assumption that a wizard has whatever spells and magic items they want up to a certain gold piece. That’s not RAW.
Theorycrafting might lead you to that impression, but theorycrafting is flawed and stupid. It almost always starts with the assumption that a wizard has whatever spells and magic items they want up to a certain gold piece. That’s not RAW.
RAW you get 2 spells every level-up, and many spells have no material cost requirements. As for magic items, "martials get every magic item they need and wizards don't get any" is certainly not RAW, and a martial with no magic items is completely irrelevant in tier 3 and above because of the wide variety of opponents they are completely unable to harm.
Why would a high level martial have no magic items except in the rare scenario?
You were the one pointing out that wizards might not have the magic items they want. My point is, if you limit magic items, martials are far worse off than spellcasters.
Why would a high level martial have no magic items except in the rare scenario?
You were the one pointing out that wizards might not have the magic items they want. My point is, if you limit magic items, martials are far worse off than spellcasters.
There’s a really BIG difference between a character not having all the magic items they want up to a certain gold.piece level and not having any magic items at all.
There’s a really BIG difference between a character not having all the magic items they want up to a certain gold.piece level and not having any magic items at all.
So? You were assuming a high level thief has an amulet of proof against detection and location. Also, most discussion of martials vs casters barely pays attention to magic items, it certainly isn't assuming the wizard has anything they want, though it sometimes assumes the martials have anything they want.
It doesn't have to be magical, but it should be associated with some superhuman force, and in a faux-medieval setting this is probably going to be magical, though not necessarily any more magical than, say, ki powers. Historical examples of mythic heroes generally involve a connection with the divine, mythic villains may be involved with malign supernatural entities. More modern settings sometimes replace magic with advanced technology.
The issue isn't really magic vs mundane, it's spellcaster vs martial.
Dragon breath is magical. It's just not a spell. To quote the Sage Advice Compendium
I’d argue that ki is magic. Specifically, it is a manifestation of the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
Well, point of order - dragons ARE magical, it's just not the kind of magic that can be dispelled. Per Sage Advice:
So the high-level martial effects would also be magical, just not magical in a game rules sense. But they would be magical in the fiction.
Actually I think it is "Dragons are magical but their breath weapons are not"
How they interact with anti-magic fields is part of the context. Dragons are magical but neither created nor summoned by magic, so they can enter. Their breath weapons are not considered magical, so not affected by such fields.
What's "magical"? Is a Barbarian's Rage magical? A Monk's ki? Are the things a Battlemaster does magical?
Is it a broad category that includes all supernatural powers? Or is it a specific class of supernatural powers?
If everything's magical
nothing isit's almost useless as a category. From a game-design perspective, you don't want that sort of category, because you can't mechanically interact with it. If anti magic shell stops everything, you can't have anti-magic shell.4e had the right idea. (Again.) All the character classes had a specific, defined, power source. I assume the monsters and such did as well, but it's been a while. I also don't remember if they had abilities that operated based on that power source category, but it's an obvious thing to do.
Sure, they get to ignore AMF, no argument here. But the point is that you need some kind of explanation for a martial to do the same thing (like being a Dragonborn) above and beyond, say, doing a bunch of pushups. And even when martial powers are allowed to break that fantastical barrier, they tend to be a lot more limited in scope and effect than spells are, whereas the descriptions of what people seem to want out of psionics in this thread are much broader and therefore would necessitate the kind of transparency that makes them functionally identical to spellcasting... so you might as well just use the spellcasting framework. That's what Paizo eventually landed on with Psychic Spells.
Power source didn't particularly matter in 4e, it was basically a style issue that determined what kind of powers a character is likely to have but didn't have significant mechanical impact. To the degree monsters had the same it was their creature type keywords.
Ok, I guess they didn't have the right idea, but they almost did.
Do you? Why?
It's not hard to find examples of fictional warriors who do absurd feats with no explanation beyond "they're just that badass". When you reach the levels of power in high-level D&D, it's not out-of-genre for a warrior to, say, split a spell with their sword.
That doesn't follow. It's a conclusion you obviously can reach, but it's not required.
Um... watch some Naruto or something? Martial powers are just powers with the martial keyword.
Um... why would I ever want to use anime as inspiration for D&D combat? There are plenty of other TTRPGs for that. BESM, Exalted, OVA...
Yeah, and I roll my eyes at every single one of them. Unless you mean mythological figures and the like who are literally descended from divinity or other supernatural entities, in which case, that's the explanation.
Because you weren't making an assertion about D&D martial characters, you were making an assertion about martial characters in general. The fact that D&D fighters are stuck in the mud looking up at the god wizards isn't a feature of martial characters, it's a feature of D&D.
However, to more directly answer your point: anything that fixes the martial/caster divide will either enormously gimp spellcasters, or it will result in anime-esque martial characters, because there simply aren't any other options, and your response perfectly illustrates my prior point:
I never said everything is magical only those things which are not mundane. To use an argument ad absurdism, a 1st level character swinging a stick is not magical.
Anti-magic shell permits a lot of magic. Dragons aren’t affected by anti-magic shell as someone else pointed out. Yet, dragons are magical.
Anti-Magic Field is one of those spells that is very poorly written (as evidenced by the dragon issue just mentioned), so I’m not going to accept or reject an argument based on it.
Pantagruel666, your core premise is flawed. Martials are not looking up at Wizards.
Theorycrafting might lead you to that impression, but theorycrafting is flawed and stupid. It almost always starts with the assumption that a wizard has whatever spells and magic items they want up to a certain gold piece. That’s not RAW.
”It's not hard to find examples of fictional warriors who do absurd feats with no explanation beyond "they're just that badass".”
I can’t think of many. Most have magical origins (perhaps having divine ancestors) or divine favor. That’s magical.
In fact, the only example that comes to mind is Robin Hood splitting an arrow in two in order to hit the bullseye.
RAW you get 2 spells every level-up, and many spells have no material cost requirements. As for magic items, "martials get every magic item they need and wizards don't get any" is certainly not RAW, and a martial with no magic items is completely irrelevant in tier 3 and above because of the wide variety of opponents they are completely unable to harm.
That’s right, you get _four_ per spell level, not every spell you want, and many spells do have material components.
“martials get every magic item they need and wizards don't get any”. I challenge you to point out where I said that.
“a martial with no magic items is completely irrelevant”
Why would a high level martial have no magic items except in the rare scenario?
You were the one pointing out that wizards might not have the magic items they want. My point is, if you limit magic items, martials are far worse off than spellcasters.
There’s a really BIG difference between a character not having all the magic items they want up to a certain gold.piece level and not having any magic items at all.
So? You were assuming a high level thief has an amulet of proof against detection and location. Also, most discussion of martials vs casters barely pays attention to magic items, it certainly isn't assuming the wizard has anything they want, though it sometimes assumes the martials have anything they want.