What Should Martial Characters Be Able To Do In The Face Of Weapon Immunity?

[Amechra]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)

[Amnestic]

If they can't deal damage at all, they need to be either a) mitigating incoming damage or b) inflicting conditions that make it easier for the people who are dealing damage to...deal it (and also mitigate damage).

Some examples of these already exist - Interception fighting style or things like the Ancestral Guardian barb mitigate damage done to others, monks can stun, barbarians are decent at grappling/tripping.

Rogues could get a baseline ability to inflict the poison/blind conditions (maybe 'mute' if they ever make that one exist), perhaps by sacrificing a number of SA dice, which would be irrelevant since you can't deal damage.

[Mastikator]

I wouldn't add anything to the PHB class chapters.

I'd add to the creature description other things that can inflict damage to it/defeat it, how those other things can be found near or around regions/lairs you find the creature, or where one could buy such a thing or build such a thing. And DCs for players finding out with a recall information check.
For example a "shadow wraith" might be immune to all attacks while in dim light or darkness, and vulnerable to physical attacks when in direct sunlight.

Then I'd add a section that warn the players that some creatures are immune to direct attacks under certain conditions and the players should investigate how to overcome that immunity and use that knowledge to change the circumstance and make them vulnerable.

[Oramac]

snip

Then I'd add a section that warn the players that some creatures are immune to direct attacks under certain conditions and the players should investigate how to overcome that immunity and use that knowledge to change the circumstance and make them vulnerable.

I really like this. It encourages players to take an interest in the world and their foes, as well as look for creative ways to counter enemies, instead of just hack 'n' slash their way through everything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I really like this. It encourages players to take an interest in the world and their foes, as well as look for creative ways to counter enemies, instead of just hack 'n' slash their way through everything.

And I'd do the exact same thing for spell immunity.

Seriously--if there are creatures that are flat-out immune to weapon damage, there should be just as many or more that are flat out immune to spells. Period. Full stop. Like the Rakshasa, but not stopping at low spell levels.

But I'd rather not have monsters like this at all. In either case. I happen to dislike "puzzle monsters" as a general rule, for many reasons. But that's my personal opinion.

[Vahnavoi]

The classic answer is to grapple it, followed by other forms of binding or trapping it. One could try to dig a pit and lure a monster into it, or, try to scare a monster into running off a cliff. Tripwires and nets are other obvious choices. For anything that breathes, drowning is a possible way to finish it; for things that don't, setting them on fire is the next step. For anything that relies on its physical strength to move around, burying it under enough tons of rock, sand, cement or other heavy substances is a working solution. When in doubt, liberally combine elements from all of the above, wrap it in chains and sink it to the ocean or drop it in an active volcano in a lead coffin.

The problem for martials isn't that there are no things they could do to creatures that can't be killed with weapons; it's that anything that cannot be killed with weapons is often stupidly resistant to all of the above, incorporeal undead being the chief offender. The second problem is that they often don't get any noticeable advantages to pulling these off - extra attacks and damage don't translate to more or better attempts to tie something up with iron chains, for example.

Of course, sometimes physical confrontation isn't really in the books, in which case a martial character should negotiate with a monster, run from it, hide from it, trick it with food, etc.. Oh yeah, that brings me to another classic way to get rid of a tough monster - feed it something it can't handle. But a lot of these things aren't about what traits the martial character has, they're about what qualities the monsters have. The monsters have to have more depth to them than being relentless killers that won't stop fighting before the other party is out of hitpoints.

[Amnestic]

Clearly the answer is that the martial character(s) should betray the party and side with the monster.

If you can't beat 'em (with a stack), join 'em.




But I'd rather not have monsters like this at all. In either case. I happen to dislike "puzzle monsters" as a general rule, for many reasons. But that's my personal opinion.

I just don't think 5e is set up to be a puzzle monster game. Typically encounters are over too quickly to make that sort of thing viable, and unless you're drastically rewriting the MM, such creatures are going to be footnote rarity of an annoyance rather than a staple. This isn't a Witcher game where you methodically research your foe, search out specific oils and rituals, and plan a site to take down the Monster of the Week.

You can include that, but 5e's mostly built as a dungeon romp simulator where the sum total of how long you fight an enemy is about 30 seconds after slamming through the door thanks to Leeroy the Barbarian. I'm sure you could make a subsystem and campaign around specialised monster hunting, if you cared to, but if the answer is "do a research ability check to find out how to Win" then really you're just extrapolating combat out of the combat system and bringing it into the skill check system.

Which, again, is fine. I've joked before that "if social/exploration encounters can be summed up by a skill check then why not do the same for combat?" but that's really not what 5e's about for the most part.

[Kane0]

Shoves, grapples, disarms, environmental damage, specific materials for your weapons, class and subclass features, spells and abilities from allies, monsters with specific kryptonites, etc.
Edit: Help action, dodge action, search action, the new Influence action...

[Unoriginal]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)

Is the monster immune to strangulation too?

[RSP]

Assuming Immune to P/S/B weapon damage doesn’t also disqualify them, class features like BM maneuvers would still work. Grapples and Shoves. Getting in between the ones who can damage the enemies and the enemies.

Can you give a reason through the environment or setting to get them to care about you? Can you grab the Mcguffin and take off running getting some of the baddies to chase?

I feel there’s more to combat than just attack-spamming, though it often gets reduced to that.

[Rukelnikov]

It was fairly common in previous editions. In 2e some monsters were immune to weapons below a certain magical power like immune to weapons +2 or lower (weapons typically went up to +5 back then), in 3e they had damage reduction bypassed by weapon +X or higher, but some were pretty much immune, like iron golems had something like DR 50/+3, making them pretty much immune to weapons +2 or lower.

I think there's a lot of place for such monsters in the game, they serve as things the party kinda has to run from, which in some dungeons can be used as a tool to keep the party moving.

[Catullus64]

If I'm designing a new edition of the system? Make it so that non-attack standard combat actions like Shoves & Grapples, as well as damage-dealing items like caltrops, alchemist fire, acid, and holy water have effective scaling with character levels, such that they don't fall super far behind standard attack options at higher levels. (They should still be somewhat behind, but not basically-useless-after-Level-5 behind.)

[Pex]

Have a chapter in the DMG about encounter design. Warn the DM against making any encounter where a PC can't do anything just for existing. If using a monster such as this, let there be something else in the encounter the martial character can be doing. The PC might need to interact with the environment while others are battling the monster or the PC can do something to make the combat easier overall such as being able to move the creature into a hazard that harms or hampers it. Also advise that one encounter where a PC cannot function at full capacity because of monster defenses is fine, but do not let it be every or most encounters. Don't be Monty Hall about it, but magic items are one fun solution players like to have. It is a feature, not a bug, a magic item is used to overcome a monster's defenses. Monster design can then be its own thing without worry.

[Kane0]

Let the noncasters be able to pick up and use stuff like wands and scrolls too, in a pinch.

[da newt]

For every immunity there ought to be a vulnerability of some kind.

I do wish that there was a bit more non standard attack w/ a weapon options for martial types to add to the dodge, grapple, shove, help etc. I'd like to see rear naked choke or blind or disarm, or restrain in a way that prevents somatic casting or verbal or breath weapons / biting, etc ...

[Unoriginal]

If the enemy isn't also immune to fire, you can use a torch and/or oil against them

[JonBeowulf]

But I'd rather not have monsters like this at all. In either case. I happen to dislike "puzzle monsters" as a general rule, for many reasons. But that's my personal opinion.
Preach it! Puzzle encounters are fine, but not puzzle monsters.


If the enemy isn't also immune to fire, you can use a torch and/or oil against them
Yep, the classic "set it on fire" strategy is a classic for a reason. Alchemist's fire, oil, torch... burn it!

[Cheesegear]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

Unfortunately, you have to change the design of the game:

1. You have to make it so that there are ways of defeating a hostile creature, without dealing damage. Otherwise, if there ever is a creature that is Immune to Weapon Damage, anything you do is now suboptimal, if not outright useless.
"What feature should someone use, when they can't deal damage?" ...Why are they in a situation where they can't deal damage? Is their character **** or something? Make a new character that doesn't suck.

or

2. You have to design it so that hostiles do so much damage, or have such an effect, that two hits from their attack, will kill a player. Not "Drop to 0, start making Death Saves...You have so many chances to come back from this." The Martial who isn't dealing damage, had sure-as-**** be hamstringing the hostiles somehow. But more importantly, that hamstringing has to be making a difference in the fight.
"Oooh...The creature's attack deals 17 damage...Several more of those hits and you might be in trouble...Nevermind the Cleric healed you on their turn. It's like you're not even hurt. Why would I spend a resource to give Disadvantage when it doesn't even matter if you do get hit?"
as opposed to
"No seriously, if you get hit once - maybe twice if the creature has Multiattack - you're dead. The Cleric can't even heal you because your body will be paste. You're so ****ing lucky I'm here to prevent that from happening."

TL;DR. It doesn't matter what feature(s) you give martials, if:
1. The only thing that truly matters, is dealing damage. Anytime you aren't dealing damage, you're wasting your party's resources, and/or
2. The game isn't lethal enough. It shouldn't matter that you aren't dealing damage because you're preventing your party (somehow) from actual death.

[Xervous]

If I’m designing the martial classes for the next edition a class that only deals damage is going to be deemed incomplete. Everyone deals damage and quite a few are geared to deal more. I’d not rule out allowing players to make characters that are only good at doing damage, but there’d be a strong effort made to ensure the Martials have level appropriate non damage options available, if not alternate lethal means. Rogues knocking targets unconscious, size changing barbarians with crushing grapples that inflict exhaustion, fighters able to disable some of a creature’s attacks for rounds. Level appropriate, the basic shove/grapple stuff others are mentioning is tier 1 stuff, I’d see to ensuring the Martials get to grow up.

[stoutstien]

1) take steps to walk back from the unspoken promise that everything is solvable by killing it regardless of choices or opportunity costs. Kill the idea of the "standard" adventuring day while I'm at it.


2) ditch the concept of martials/caster divide as a basis of design. Even as an unofficial concept it has a very predicable pattern.

3) gut magic(spells) to free up mechanical space.

4) If a class is the defacto master at dealing damage via *whatever* then they are just that and nothing should be able to come close to them in that respected niche. *In that case it would be ok they sometimes can't deal with challenges. See #1*

5) this should probably be #1 as it the most important but take the time to provide those GMing the tools and resources to produce gaming experiences the table seeks regardless of past experience in that role. No amount of surface changes on the player facing material will have the same impact as 10% of those changes behind the screen.

[Sigreid]

Personally I see immunities as an opportunity for outside the box solutions. You don't have to kill or destroy an opponent to overcome it.

Now, none of this applies if the DM isn't willing to roll with a creative solution to the problem the opponent poses.

[RSP]

I’d not rule out allowing players to make characters that are only good at doing damage, but there’d be a strong effort made to ensure the Martials have level appropriate non damage options available, if not alternate lethal means. Rogues knocking targets unconscious, size changing barbarians with crushing grapples that inflict exhaustion, fighters able to disable some of a creature’s attacks for rounds. Level appropriate, the basic shove/grapple stuff others are mentioning is tier 1 stuff, I’d see to ensuring the Martials get to grow up.

I’m fine with players making characters with the niche of “lots of damage”, but, if the DM isn’t running a straight dungeon hack campaign, that should be pointed out.

Rogues in 5e can knock opponents unconscious, as can anyone making a melee attack (including melee spell attacks). BMs can disable some creatures attacks via Disarm.

I’m 50/50 on expanding grapples: they’re already a great tool to shutting down certain enemies (at very little cost: essentially taking Athletics as a Prof), and while I like the idea of adding some more depth to the mechanics, I don’t want it to become an “I win button”: that is, it’s already very good in certain combats/encounters, I don’t want it to completely take over situations where it applies.

I could probably be swayed to try stuff if anyone has specifics on a more fleshed-out mechanical system.

On the flip side: I’ve always operated under the assumption that what the PCs can do the NPCs can do (and vice versa), are we okay with enemies grappling PCs and inflicting exhaustion on them? Or are you thinking “let’s make the game with standalone mechanics for PCs, and standalone mechanics for NPCs?


Personally I see immunities as an opportunity for outside the box solutions. You don't have to kill or destroy an opponent to overcome it.

Now, none of this applies if the DM isn't willing to roll with a creative solution to the problem the opponent poses.

Agreed, and will further stress, if the DM is putting Immune creatures in front of PCs, they better have a very good idea on how the situation can be overcome by the PCs (which very well might be not fighting the “monster”)

[Witty Username]

So, it was back in 3.5 but I have seen a creature that was effectively immune to damage
(Half-Red/Black dragon Troll)
As it happens we killed it by drowning.

So
Solution A
Give martials ways to deal energy damage, paladin gets in on this already, and it could fit ranger and barbarian without too much trouble.
Solution B
Buffing/debuffing, martials generally tend to lack features that support other characters, more of these to reduce damage to allies or hamper enemies
This is already why spell Immunity doesn't have the same bite to it as weapon Immunity does. Things like healing, temp HP, haste and turning allies invisible don't care about the monsters at all. Which gives casters things to do when the golems attack
Solution C
Environment based solutions, lava pits, ocean shores, long falls, etc.
The grapple and shove rules can facilitate these, but more forced movement options would be welcome

[Unoriginal]

Worth noting than in myths and legends, the solution to an opponent immune to weapons is often "beat up and wrestle the opponent with your bare hands".

[Vahnavoi]

I’m 50/50 on expanding grapples: they’re already a great tool to shutting down certain enemies (at very little cost: essentially taking Athletics as a Prof), and while I like the idea of adding some more depth to the mechanics, I don’t want it to become an “I win button”: that is, it’s already very good in certain combats/encounters, I don’t want it to completely take over situations where it applies.

I could probably be swayed to try stuff if anyone has specifics on a more fleshed-out mechanical system.

A more fleshed-out system would likely have some rock-paper-scissors dynamic where a player has to change their approach almost on turn-per-turn basis, rather than simply picking one approach per combat (or worse, per character) and then repeating that ad nauseam. Crafting one isn't particularly hard to do, even past versions of D&D have tried to do it, they just ended too complex compared to the rest of the combat system.


On the flip side: I’ve always operated under the assumption that what the PCs can do the NPCs can do (and vice versa), are we okay with enemies grappling PCs and inflicting exhaustion on them? Or are you thinking “let’s make the game with standalone mechanics for PCs, and standalone mechanics for NPCs?


A reasonable implementation would have symmetry, yes, and enemies inflicting non-lethal consequences to player characters isn't worse than them inflicting lethal damage. For most editions of D&D, virtually all bad things player characters are capable of inflicting on others can also be inflicted on them, so there isn't a good reason why this wouldn't apply to grapples.

[Cheesegear]

1) take steps to walk back from the unspoken promise that everything is solvable by killing it regardless of choices or opportunity costs.

Unless you're willing to actually threaten and kill characters as a consequence for killing hostiles...You can't.

What happens if I kill this NPC?
Well I think that would be murder; So you're gonna have to deal with Nobles and Guards.
Pfft. Nobles and Guards? I've read the MM. I'll kill them too.
Okay. Robocop the Warforged Paladin with his +3 Hand Crossbow, and Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter is going to hunt down the murderer - you.
...Wait. That's not level appropriate.
...So you wont kill the NPC?
No. Not because I mechanically can't. But because you've effectively threatened my character with death, if I do.
I think that's the best I'm gonna get. So I'll take it.

Every hostile encounter (and even a lot of friendly ones, too) is solvable by killing it. The only way it isn't, if it starting the combat at all results in one or more character deaths. If the players perceive every - and yes I mean every - encounter as Deadly, they are more likely to roleplay past a combat that they can't steamroll, unless the DM declares that they must fight - you can't perform an impossible Persuasion check.*
(i.e; See my point about lethality in a previous post.)

Then of course you have Clerics prepare Speak with Dead. Roleplaying with NPCs is hard. Just kill them. And magically force them to answer your questions truthfully - they don't even get a save. When Speak with Dead works better than Zone of Truth, your game might have a problem.


Kill the idea of the "standard" adventuring day while I'm at it.

You can't do that and still expect new DMs to...Want...To DM.
There must be a starting point. There has to be a standard. Then, once you know what the standard is, and why it's standard...Then you break it.

The only reason that the "standard" adventuring day could ever be a problem, is if DMs stick to it even when they don't need to.

The other problem being that the "standard" in the DMG is effectively broken - and always has been. The encounter design tables in the DMG would be a great tool for DMs...If they were actually accurate. But they aren't. So those tables get fudged with a lot.


ditch the concept of martials/caster divide as a basis of design.

You need to redesign every class.
But more importantly the better thing to do would be to simply remove a whole bunch of spells from the game.

*On the other side of the coin, the players start arms racing the DM...Which the DM will inevitably win.

[Oramac]

I'd like to see rear naked choke


A more fleshed-out system would likely have some rock-paper-scissors dynamic where a player has to change their approach almost on turn-per-turn basis, rather than simply picking one approach per combat (or worse, per character) and then repeating that ad nauseam. Crafting one isn't particularly hard to do, even past versions of D&D have tried to do it, they just ended too complex compared to the rest of the combat system.

Having been training brazilian jiu jitsu for a couple years now, I'd love to see an expanded grappling ruleset. The rock-paper-scissors dynamic would still be somewhat watered down (by my understanding, anyway) but it would work well for game mechanics. Sadly, it most likely would turn into its own sub-category of combat mechanics and probably be too involved for most tables to worry about.

[Amnestic]

Then of course you have Clerics prepare Speak with Dead. Roleplaying with NPCs is hard. Just kill them. And magically force them to answer your questions truthfully - they don't even get a save. When Speak with Dead works better than Zone of Truth, your game might have a problem.

It doesn't though?

Speak with Dead:

Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy.

[stoutstien]

Unless you're willing to actually threaten and kill characters as a consequence for killing hostiles...You can't.

What happens if I kill this NPC?
Well I think that would be murder; So you're gonna have to deal with Nobles and Guards.
Pfft. Nobles and Guards? I've read the MM. I'll kill them too.
Okay. Robocop the Warforged Paladin with his +3 Hand Crossbow, and Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter is going to hunt down the murderer - you.
...Wait. That's not level appropriate.
...So you wont kill the NPC?
No. Not because I mechanically can't. But because you've effectively threatened my character with death, if I do.
I think that's the best I'm gonna get. So I'll take it.

Every hostile encounter (and even a lot of friendly ones, too) is solvable by killing it. The only way it isn't, if it starting the combat at all results in one or more character deaths. If the players perceive every - and yes I mean every - encounter as Deadly, they are more likely to roleplay past a combat that they can't steamroll, unless the DM declares that they must fight - you can't perform an impossible Persuasion check.*
(i.e; See my point about lethality in a previous post.)

Then of course you have Clerics prepare Speak with Dead. Roleplaying with NPCs is hard. Just kill them. And magically force them to answer your questions truthfully - they don't even get a save. When Speak with Dead works better than Zone of Truth, your game might have a problem.



You can't do that and still expect new DMs to...Want...To DM.
There must be a starting point. There has to be a standard. Then, once you know what the standard is, and why it's standard...Then you break it.

The only reason that the "standard" adventuring day could ever be a problem, is if DMs stick to it even when they don't need to.

The other problem being that the "standard" in the DMG is effectively broken - and always has been. The encounter design tables in the DMG would be a great tool for DMs...If they were actually accurate. But they aren't. So those tables get fudged with a lot.



You need to redesign every class.
But more importantly the better thing to do would be to simply remove a whole bunch of spells from the game.

*On the other side of the coin, the players start arms racing the DM...Which the DM will inevitably win.

Eh. Plenty of systems dont have standardized days and are 100000% better at providing GM support. Trying to have a standard causes way more issues than it will ever solve.

As for the first point...combat *should* be dangerous in terms of both the unknown factors and it's inherently risky. Even In the most epic setting troupes you run the risk of getting unlucky. Im all for bringing back the days of making it through an arch without drawing a weapon is a victory in its own right.

[Xervous]

snip

To be clear I’m not looking for the options we have at home, I’m well aware of how pitiful and grounded they are. I mean stuff like a rogue having the option to force a save vs a sleep effect if they qualify to inflict sneak attack. I intend the barbarian to become huge and force saves vs exhaustion on his grapple victims. I expect to see the fighter forcing a save as part of their attack routine that disables the werewolf’s claws.

I’m perfectly fine with enemies throwing out a variety of statuses and conditional effects. The game greatly underutilizes saving throws and conditional or coercive effects. If a party member got grabbed by an exhaustion grappler all it takes is something like forced movement to break the grapple. Any party member can supply this, whether it’s a conjuration wizard using benign transposition, the grapple victim shoving, a warlock’s repelling blast, or some new feature that gets added.

PCs and NPCs can use this, so does that mean the PC grappler gets hosed when the opposition packs forced movement? Hardly, that’s just one trick the barbarian would have. He’ll still be able to shove every creature in reach for an action, deafen enemies with his intimidation while breaking their concentration, or swing that big weapon like good old times.

[Anonymouswizard]

If I'm designing a new edition of the system? Make it so that non-attack standard combat actions like Shoves & Grapples, as well as damage-dealing items like caltrops, alchemist fire, acid, and holy water have effective scaling with character levels, such that they don't fall super far behind standard attack options at higher levels. (They should still be somewhat behind, but not basically-useless-after-Level-5 behind.)

Can you draw and throw a grenade as an attack? I don't think so, but it would go a long way towards making mundanes more viable against B/P/S immune monsters. Weapon coatings that changed your damage type might also work, but they'd have to be applied with at most a BA (including digging them out of your pack).

I also would be nice to get more depth to improvised weapons, but that's mostly tangential here.

Also it might be worth letting PCs stow their weapons when they ready another one for free. Because otherwise you're encouraging players to drop them on the floor, and that leads to issues if they suddenly need to switch back later in the encounter.

I'd also bring back 4e style marking, so if the worst comes to the worst you can always interfere with enemy attack rolls.

[Dr.Samurai]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)
I think this is more of a system thing; like monsters with certain vulnerabilities and weak spots, etc. (maybe like the gorgon has nearly impenetrable skin but if you knock it prone you can hit it's belly or something, and at higher levels you can cut through it's armor if you're strong enough).

But for martials, what comes to mind specifically is a more robust grappling/wrestling system. Immobilizing limbs, chokeholds, gouging eyes, etc.

Not a hill I'd die on but... the Pin function of the Grappler feat can be useful against solo enemies, especially in parties with ranged attackers. Immobilize, debuff enemy attacks, AC, and Dex saves. Party can focus fire with cantrips/attacks with a low-cost or resource-free strategy. Expanding on what can be done with a grappled enemy might be one way to allow martials to deal with enemies they can't otherwise damage. Doesn't help too much against really big enemies though.

[False God]

Lord help me half the answers are "grapple and choke it".

First off, this is a massive immersion break for me. I can't slice it with a sword, I can't pierce it with an arrow, and I can't bash it with a mace...but I can hug it to death?????

Secondly, at least in the context of D&D, it involves engaging in a secondary subsystem that is inherently either brokenly OP (see: trippers) or obnoxiously complex, or just generally useless by requiring more, harder and generally more failure-punishing checks.

Thirdly, this is all assuming I'm a strength-based character! What about my stealthy dagger-dudes? My secret snipers? My barbarian diplomats?(or is rage magical now? I can't keep up)

Frankly, my answer is to hire a playtester who tells me this is outrightly dumb and it shouldn't be a thing.

The idea that somehow a sword, a knife, an arrow, a mace, a claw can't harm a creature but I can...hug it to death? Poke out its eyes with my fingers? It just makes me laugh at the absolute absurdity.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't get the immersion break at all. If it's a creature's skin or carapace or whatever that is protecting it from attack, why would that protect areas that aren't covered by skin or armor, like their eyes? Why would skin that can't be penetrated prevent a creature from being crushed or needing air to breathe?

It's a good point that it only addresses strength-based characters, so something would be needed for dex-based characters.

But it's really not that absurd. "Invulnerable" characters are hardly completely immune to harm of one kind or another. The Nemean Lion couldn't be harmed by weapons, but Hercules strangled it to death. Not sure what the issue is, but I don't expect all things to be for all people.

[Hail Tempus]

D&D is a team sport. It's up to the entire party to figure out how to overcome challenges. If a given monster is immune to non-magical attacks, there are spells, such as Magic Weapon, available to the party casters.

[Sigreid]

D&D is a team sport. It's up to the entire party to figure out how to overcome challenges. If a given monster is immune to non-magical attacks, there are spells, such as Magic Weapon, available to the party casters.

There's also pit traps, snares, misdirection and on and on.

[Amechra]

I just realized that I made a pretty large typo in the thread title. Oops!

[False God]

I don't get the immersion break at all. If it's a creature's skin or carapace or whatever that is protecting it from attack, why would that protect areas that aren't covered by skin or armor, like their eyes? Why would skin that can't be penetrated prevent a creature from being crushed or needing air to breathe?
Why can't I use a knife, sword, or mace to bash in these "soft spots"? How can my puny little human hands crush the throat a beast that a mace, using all the exact same stats when impacting that area, has no effect?


It's a good point that it only addresses strength-based characters, so something would be needed for dex-based characters.
And now we are creating more subsystems to get around bad design rather than analyzing bad design. We've essentially told half the players of the game that when this situation comes up "you can't play the game"....then we realized that was terrible, but instead of addressing the issue, we said "okay, we know thats terrible, so lets develop special subsystems to help you get around it!"


But it's really not that absurd. "Invulnerable" characters are hardly completely immune to harm of one kind or another. The Nemean Lion couldn't be harmed by weapons, but Hercules strangled it to death. Not sure what the issue is, but I don't expect all things to be for all people.
Hercules is a magical creature of legend who himself was nearly invulnerable to damage. My dude with the sword is not.

[Anonymouswizard]

D&D is a team sport. It's up to the entire party to figure out how to overcome challenges. If a given monster is immune to non-magical attacks, there are spells, such as Magic Weapon, available to the party casters.

I really need to have a closer look at Wizard, as Melee was a shockingly good combat sport simulator. But TFT also has much less in the 'immune to weapons' department, and wizards are a lot less powerful.

But part of the issue is that noty every group runs with spellcasters, and a lot of people who do play casters prefer not to take the buffing spells (which might be suboptimal, but most people don't care). This can be especially true in rare or low magic settings, which third parties have provided for 5e (I own the first version of LotR5e and the Midnight book). A lore appropriate Mightnight party probably only has one spellcaster and gets most of their healing from herbal remedies, and that caster is probably a Sorcerer, maybe a Druid if they're lucky. Having morte options than the 5e default of 'just use a spell' would be really useful outside of high magic games.

My personal suggestion would be to really bump up the viability of alchemical items (many of which can be reflavoured as mundane), which gives mundanes a much greater ability to access status condfitions and alternative damage types. Generally less effectively than spellcasters, but it's still access.

What does a fighter do if the monster is imune to swording? Throw a flask of acid at it's face.

[OldTrees1]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)

Ooh good question:


In some cases I expect the lack of weapon damage would not prevent the martial character from going on the offense:
Some would be able to immobilize/restrain/incapacitate the enemy. This might take the form of a barbarian grappling a golem to the ground and then chaining them up with chains around limbs and iron spikes in joints. It might take the form of enveloping a ooze in a waterproof bag.

Some would use another lethal approach. Imagine asphyxiation through smoke, drowning, or strangulation (garrote or by Str alone).

Some would use a non weapon to inflict harm rather than damage. Taking a torch, grabbing and burning an arm to the point of not being functional in a fight rather than worrying about slaying the enemy.



However I expect other objectives as well. For example mobility:
Some would be able to keep out of reach. A Rogue climbing the walls for example. As they improved this would extend to them being able to keep their allies also out of reach, and even NPCs too.

This also extends to evading the enemy on a larger scale. Sneaking past the enemy, outrunning them, or otherwise defeating the encounter by achieving the strategic goal of getting past it.


Lord help me half the answers are "grapple and choke it".

First off, this is a massive immersion break for me. I can't slice it with a sword, I can't pierce it with an arrow, and I can't bash it with a mace...but I can hug it to death?????
What about "climb onto it and drown it / smoke it"?

[Dr.Samurai]

Why can't I use a knife, sword, or mace to bash in these "soft spots"?
You can. I think the simple gist, if we're having a discussion and not getting defensive or having a visceral knee-jerk reaction, is that for all intents and purposes you can't simply use the Attack action and hurt this creature. But if you grapple it, and perhaps pin or restrain it to some degree, you can then expose or aim at the vulnerable spot.

How can my puny little human hands crush the throat a beast that a mace, using all the exact same stats when impacting that area, has no effect?
It's your choice to describe your character as puny. No one is saying that a puny person can strangle a creature to death.

You can't tell the DM that you're specifically aiming to crush the creature's throat. But, again, if you immobilize/restrain/pin the creature, then you can apply the pressure there.


And now we are creating more subsystems to get around bad design rather than analyzing bad design. We've essentially told half the players of the game that when this situation comes up "you can't play the game"....then we realized that was terrible, but instead of addressing the issue, we said "okay, we know thats terrible, so lets develop special subsystems to help you get around it!"
It's your speculation that the system would necessarily be terrible in design. No one is saying a terrible system should be implemented.

Frankly, I find the "you can't hurt it unless the wizard casts Magic Weapon first" dynamic to be... pointless. But even if we're not talking about Resistance/Immunity, an expanded grappling system would be great. I'd love for more interaction with monsters that can impact their ability to use their attacks or special abilities.

Hercules is a magical creature of legend who himself was nearly invulnerable to damage. My dude with the sword is not.
I don't know what your dude is or isn't. It seems like it will be whatever it needs to be to say this is a bad idea from the jump.

But Hercules was not impervious to damage, and in fact wore the skin of the Nemean Lion to protect himself from weapons. Further, your "dude" can mimic a lot of this toughness, since your D&D character takes hits all day every day and doesn't die or suffer long-lasting injuries from it. So for all intents and purposes, your character is something akin to Hercules.

[Witty Username]

High level characters (but especially zealot and bear barbarians) can fall in lava and live.

Reality takes a back seat in D&D, especially high level play.

Although, I would include that, choke out, should be one of multiple options.
Improvised torch fighting is a simple one that could see more use in games. And fits a more mundane vibe.

[LudicSavant]

Interestingly, a lot of the better martial subclasses in 5e are ones that already have something to do besides damage. Rune Knight can grapple it no matter how big it is, or do various other things to control it or protect the party. Mercy Monk just has a fat, action-efficient battery of debuffs, healing, and status removal. And so forth.

[Cheesegear]

What does a fighter do if the monster is imune to swording? Throw a flask of acid at it's face.

Another design problem of D&D is that players simply aren't incentivised to be adaptable. Hence the concept of "Dump Stats." A Fighter that wears Plate Armour, is advised to dump DEX, and if they want to bump their Initiative, they take Alert - there's also an issue that Alert is super good, but not the point.

All flying creatures, currently right now, are "Immune to Swords", especially ones with ranged attacks like Manticores and Dragons... Don't even get me started on Spellcasting Dragons. Flying is great. If you haven't seen an Aaracokra player ruin a DM's whole adventure, the players aren't trying hard enough.

"What should a Martial character do in the face of a flying creature?"

Grapple it! ...It's flying.
Choke it out! ...It's flying.
Trip it! ...It's flying.

Saying "Dur Fighter, just whip out your Longbow, idiot." doesn't help, because the Fighter doesn't have Archery Fighting style; Hasn't spec'ed into Sharpshooter, and his DEX is 0...Potentially even -1. He may as well do nothing, even when he does have something he could use.

It's also a problem of loot distribution; Once you have your Flame Tongue Longsword...You're set, right?
...Yeah. But now you have to switch back to non-magical Javelins for this one fight across a gorge, whilst the hostiles pelt you with Longbow attacks. Your Javelins aren't doing anything at all. Your effectiveness has been fractioned. Not because you can't use Javelins in this situation - of course you can. It's that nothing you have, makes Javelins effective, because this whole time you've been spec'ing into Longsword.

Going from a magical Longsword to a non-magical Longsword (e.g; Anti-magic field); Shouldn't be that big of a deal, because you still have your abilities with the Longsword.
Going from a magical Longsword to a non-magical Javelin, is a disproportionate punishment, because now you don't even have your abilities. You're just...A guy throwing a Javelin with a bit of extra Strength. Half-Orc Commoners can do that.

...At least with 5.5 Weapon Mastery rules, a Fighter can spec into three weapons. That's...Something? But 20 STR and 10 DEX still means switching from a Greatsword to a Longbow reduces your accuracy by ~25% and your damage by...An amount.

It's not a case of "Martials don't have anything to do!" ...It's that Martials are strongly encouraged to spec into one area of combat at a time. Even when you give a Fighter multiple extra ASIs and Feats...I've rarely seen a player branch out from...Fighter. Where's the Guide that says Magic Initiate is the optimal pick at Level 6? Giving all Fighters free access to scalable Fire Bolt would solve their ranged attack and elemental damage problems and...Oh wait. What Fighter takes a mental stat? There is no strength-based ranged attack that's good (...Javelin of Lightning?), so obviously no Fighter is going to spec down that path, because it doesn't work.

Why would you take PAM and Sharpshooter on the same character? Are you dense? Why would you want your character to be able to do two things. Everyone knows that if you take PAM, your next Feat is Sentinel. Why generalise when what you should do, is specialise? Being a "Jack of All Trades, Master of None" is stupid and dumb, 'cause all's that means is that you aren't actually good at anything, because the game is designed around you being a Master of...Something, at least.

I have Shield Master!
I target you with a Cha save. Your Shield does nothing, because I'm not even targeting your AC. High AC is irrelevant at this point in the game.
Uhhh...

I've said it before and I'll say it again; You have to design a system where the optimal character "only" has a 14 in every stat. Having 20 Strength, as a Barbarian, should be a bad thing, because it means you've missed out on all the things that having at least a 12 in Int, Wis or Cha would give you. What does that look like? ...It looks like all classes need a total redesign. But between Xanathar's and Tasha's; I believe a full redesign is possible using the tools we already have.

You have to design a system where adaptability is more or less enforced. Not simply optional, and certainly not disincentivised.

[GloatingSwine]

Personally I see immunities as an opportunity for outside the box solutions. You don't have to kill or destroy an opponent to overcome it.

Now, none of this applies if the DM isn't willing to roll with a creative solution to the problem the opponent poses.

But of course an enemy that's immune to weapon damage isn't an opportunity for outside the box solutions, it's an opportunity to check reddit until the Wizard is finished playing the game for you.

"What should a martial character be able to do in the face of weapon immunity"

Play a class the DM doesn't think is wrong next time.

[Vahnavoi]

Lord help me half the answers are "grapple and choke it".

First off, this is a massive immersion break for me. I can't slice it with a sword, I can't pierce it with an arrow, and I can't bash it with a mace...but I can hug it to death?????

This goes right back to myth, the aforementioned Nemean Lion and other such cases. To wit: the Lion's fur was impenetrable to all weapons of human make. So Heracles, the demigod of strength, had to grapple and strangle it with his bare hands. He then used the Lion's own claw, the only thing that could penetrate its pelt, to skin it.

Even in a grappling contest between two humans, it's not rare to get a situation where neither party can realistically strike the other with sufficient force to cause injury, but one can pin the other in a position from which they can't possibly move, or are indeed strangled by their own bodyparts, clothes or armor.


Secondly, at least in the context of D&D, it involves engaging in a secondary subsystem that is inherently either brokenly OP (see: trippers) or obnoxiously complex, or just generally useless by requiring more, harder and generally more failure-punishing checks.

D&D's past failures to implement an interesting grappling system aren't a reason to stop trying. Psionics were also a mess for several editions before 3.5, after revision within the 3rd edition, managed to make a system that was agreed to be pretty good.


Thirdly, this is all assuming I'm a strength-based character! What about my stealthy dagger-dudes? My secret snipers? My barbarian diplomats?(or is rage magical now? I can't keep up)

Frankly, my answer is to hire a playtester who tells me this is outrightly dumb and it shouldn't be a thing.

The idea that somehow a sword, a knife, an arrow, a mace, a claw can't harm a creature but I can...hug it to death? Poke out its eyes with my fingers? It just makes me laugh at the absolute absurdity.

It's no more absurd than the idea that a person can command fire or physically interact with things that lack a physical body if they speak the right words. :smallamused: Some of the non-grappling solutions I already discussed, but let's reiterate:

A sneaky dude? Forget about the daggers. Sneak around the invulnerable monsters, duh. Use misdirection and trickery to make it go somewhere where you are not.

A secret sniper? Don't aim for the monster. Is it something that can be physically stopped? Lure it into a cave, then shoot the cave to create an avalanche and trap it. Does it have breakable possessions or non-invulnerable loved one? Aim for those, use the threat against things that are not it as leverage.

A barbarian... diplomat? Okay. You don't fight the beast. You bring it food or valuables and beg it to leave you alone. It's your god now. If it's not immune to poison, maybe you can sneak some special sauce in the food offerings.

[Cheesegear]

A sneaky dude? Forget about the daggers. Sneak around the invulnerable monsters, duh. Use misdirection and trickery to make it go somewhere where you are not.

I'm not a sneaky dude. I'm a (Non-Battle Master) Fighter in Full Plate with +0 to Dex.


A secret sniper? Don't aim for the monster. Is it something that can be physically stopped? Lure it into a cave, then shoot the cave to create an avalanche and trap it. Does it have breakable possessions or non-invulnerable loved one? Aim for those, use the threat against things that are not it as leverage.

I'm not a secret sniper. I'm a (Non-Battle Master) Fighter in Full Plate with +0 to Dex.

One of my solutions to Fighters would be to remove Battle Master as a subclass; A Fighter gains a number of Maneuvers equal to (min. 1). A Fighter can change which Maneuvers they know when they finish a Long Rest...I might even roll in Arcane Archer arrows, since no-one uses that Subclass anyway. 'You've spent how long fighting magical monsters, and you haven't figured out the value of magical arrows? ...Are you...Dense?'

Similarly, I would make Four Elements Monk "spells", Monk Class Abilities, and remove the Subclass.

I don't really think it's a case of classes or builds. If your character uses a weapon [I]at all (i.e; Deals physical damage), are you in trouble?
Similarly, hostiles don't even have to be immune to all weapons...Just the weapon that you happen to have (e.g; Flying hostiles).
For a DM that hands out random loot and random encounters; There is a bit of leeway. You don't really know what your players are going to have and the encounters you create are going to be random. Xanathar's put a Ghost here...So here's a Ghost.
For a DM that hands out fixed loot, and then makes encounters where that fixed loot isn't effective...**** off.


A barbarian... diplomat? Okay. You don't fight the beast. You bring it food or valuables and beg it to leave you alone. It's your god now. If it's not immune to poison, maybe you can sneak some special sauce in the food offerings.

By the time combat has started, that solution is off the table. Which was my assumption for the thread; Combat has started. What do?

[Unoriginal]

I'm not a sneaky dude. I'm a (Non-Battle Master) Fighter in Full Plate with +0 to Dex.



I'm not a secret sniper. I'm a (Non-Battle Master) Fighter in Full Plate with +0 to Dex.

One of my solutions to Fighters would be to remove Battle Master as a subclass; A Fighter gains a number of Maneuvers equal to (min. 1). A Fighter can change which Maneuvers they know when they finish a Long Rest...I might even roll in Arcane Archer arrows, since no-one uses that Subclass anyway. 'You've spent how long fighting magical monsters, and you haven't figured out the value of magical arrows? ...Are you...Dense?'

Similarly, I would make Four Elements Monk "spells", Monk Class Abilities, and remove the Subclass.

I don't really think it's a case of classes or builds. If your character uses a weapon [I]at all (i.e; Deals physical damage), are you in trouble?
Similarly, hostiles don't even have to be immune to all weapons...Just the weapon that you happen to have (e.g; Flying hostiles).
For a DM that hands out random loot and random encounters; There is a bit of leeway. You don't really know what your players are going to have and the encounters you create are going to be random. Xanathar's put a Ghost here...So here's a Ghost.
For a DM that hands out fixed loot, and then makes encounters where that fixed loot isn't effective...**** off.



By the time combat has started, that solution is off the table. Which was my assumption for the thread; Combat has started. What do?

If you're a strong dude, strangle the monster. If you're not, use fire.

If it's immune to fire, try acid.

If you don't have enough acid, take your rope from your backpack and Gulliver it up.

EDIT:

Do note Ghosts can be killed by a party with 0 magic in any form. Immunity to non-magic is rare.

[animorte]

Ball bearings, caltrops, rope, net, alchemist's fire, hunting trap, manacles, poison, holy water. Legs, also legs, for running away because you're clearly outmatched and DM wins! Next!

[Arkhios]

Purely theoretical!

one thing that comes to mind in a situation when a purely martial character who is solely relying on weapons is facing a thing such as "weapon immunity": Combat Maneuvers, such as shoving, pulling, grappling, etc. other effects causing a hindering condition. That way you can contribute to a fight at least to some extent, even if the target is immune to weapon damage.

[Amnestic]

As a martial, I would use the Improvise Action option to cast a spell.

Can't get much more outta the box thinking than that.

[Kane0]

Anything a thief rogue can do with a bonus action i suppose, you just use your regular action instead.

[GloatingSwine]

It's also a problem of loot distribution; Once you have your Flame Tongue Longsword...You're set, right?
...Yeah. But now you have to switch back to non-magical Javelins for this one fight across a gorge, whilst the hostiles pelt you with Longbow attacks. Your Javelins aren't doing anything at all. Your effectiveness has been fractioned. Not because you can't use Javelins in this situation - of course you can. It's that nothing you have, makes Javelins effective, because this whole time you've been spec'ing into Longsword.

Yeah, this is something of a problem with the way Fighter is designed around its ability to specialise and almost every axis of progression available to them is about specialising harder along the same path.

Quite a lot of the ways fighters currently have to pick a specialisation should be just baked into being a Fighter, with specialisations being the sprinkles on top of the donut not the whole donut.


one thing that comes to mind in a situation when a purely martial character who is solely relying on weapons is facing a thing such as "weapon immunity": Combat Maneuvers, such as shoving, pulling, grappling, etc. other effects causing a hindering condition. That way you can contribute to a fight at least to some extent, even if the target is immune to weapon damage.

Which is nice, but unless the beastie needed shoving, pulling, or grappling to let the other characters do whatever they were going to do to it you haven't really "contributed". You've taken an action but it was low value at best and value neutral "I consumed my turn with an action" at worst.

[Arkhios]

Which is nice, but unless the beastie needed shoving, pulling, or grappling to let the other characters do whatever they were going to do to it you haven't really "contributed". You've taken an action but it was low value at best and value neutral "I consumed my turn with an action" at worst.

I feel you have overestimated what I said as "the best and only thing you could do instead", which isn't what I said. "Contributing to the fight at least to some extent" doesn't mean contributing your absolute best effort (unless it actually is the best you could do).

The point is, that was my "one thing that came to mind right away". Whatever those condition rendering effects may be, they could be made better in various ways, such as designing a new way of dealing damage through the same action used to cause that condition. How exactly? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm only proposing ideas, not final solutions.

After all, as the OP asked, I tried to imagine myself as someone in charge of designing something for a hypothetical 6th edition, which as far as I know isn't being designed by WotC, yet (at least not in public anyway). I only proposed a food for thought concept for such an endeavour.

[stoutstien]

The best way to avoid the infinite loop of hyperspecialization is to just agree as a table to not engage with it. Nobody benefits from it and all it does is limit potential material.
This does mean you have to be careful with new material on the GM side because they tend to release based on the wisdom of the crowd. Hence the super power dragon blocks and NPC purposely designed to bypass the most recent iteration of "normal".

[Unoriginal]

After all, as the OP asked, I tried to imagine myself as someone in charge of designing something for a hypothetical 6th edition, which as far as I know isn't being designed by WotC

I sure hope it's being designed, they announced it for 2024.

[Arkhios]

I sure hope it's being designed, they announced it for 2024.

They did not. Nothing about 6th edition has been confirmed by WotC, period.

[Anonymouswizard]

Another design problem of D&D is that players simply aren't incentivised to be adaptable. Hence the concept of "Dump Stats." A Fighter that wears Plate Armour, is advised to dump DEX, and if they want to bump their Initiative, they take Alert - there's also an issue that Alert is super good, but not the point.


Yes, and the system is designed to punish Martials for generalising. But as I remember the thread is about what should be theoretically viable options.


All flying creatures, currently right now, are "Immune to Swords", especially ones with ranged attacks like Manticores and Dragons... Don't even get me started on Spellcasting Dragons. Flying is great. If you haven't seen an Aaracokra player ruin a DM's whole adventure, the players aren't trying hard enough.

A what player?

"What should a Martial character do in the face of a flying creature?"

Grapple it! ...It's flying.
Choke it out! ...It's flying.
Trip it! ...It's flying.

Saying "Dur Fighter, just whip out your Longbow, idiot." doesn't help, because the Fighter doesn't have Archery Fighting style; Hasn't spec'ed into Sharpshooter, and his DEX is 0...Potentially even -1. He may as well do nothing, even when he does have something he could use.

Yes, flying is a hard counter to melee and Martials are encouraged to be ridiculously specialised. This is an issue with the system, not with the idea of generalised Martials.


It's also a problem of loot distribution; Once you have your Flame Tongue Longsword...You're set, right?
...Yeah. But now you have to switch back to non-magical Javelins for this one fight across a gorge, whilst the hostiles pelt you with Longbow attacks. Your Javelins aren't doing anything at all. Your effectiveness has been fractioned. Not because you can't use Javelins in this situation - of course you can. It's that nothing you have, makes Javelins effective, because this whole time you've been spec'ing into Longsword.

Again, the issue is with the system, not the idea that you should vary weapons with the situation.


Going from a magical Longsword to a non-magical Longsword (e.g; Anti-magic field); Shouldn't be that big of a deal, because you still have your abilities with the Longsword.
Going from a magical Longsword to a non-magical Javelin, is a disproportionate punishment, because now you don't even have your abilities. You're just...A guy throwing a Javelin with a bit of extra Strength. Half-Orc Commoners can do that.

Yeah, because a +1 modifier and no proficiency bonus is as good as a +3 modifier with a +3 proficiency bonus


...At least with 5.5 Weapon Mastery rules, a Fighter can spec into three weapons. That's...Something? But 20 STR and 10 DEX still means switching from a Greatsword to a Longbow reduces your accuracy by ~25% and your damage by...An amount.

Which is an issue theoretically fixed by thrown weapons (which I think have enough range to hit a flyer using the vast majority of attacking flyers). It is an an imperfect solution, so here's a hot take: no character should be optimal in all situations.


And I've deleted the rest of your post because honestly by that point you're preaching to the choir.

[Sigreid]

But of course an enemy that's immune to weapon damage isn't an opportunity for outside the box solutions, it's an opportunity to check reddit until the Wizard is finished playing the game for you.

"What should a martial character be able to do in the face of weapon immunity"

Play a class the DM doesn't think is wrong next time.
You can go that route I suppose, but I'll try something that may sound a bit crazy because it's fun to do that for me. Also, I kind of assume that creatures with immunities that actually make things hard for the party are an occasional spice added to shake up the campaign a bit and keep it interesting and not a "this whole campaign is a battle against werewolves on an island with no magic weapons or silver". Same as the occasional opponent that is resistant or immune to the wizard's magic.

[Cheesegear]

Yes, and the system is designed to punish Martials for generalising.
[...]
Yes, flying is a hard counter to melee and Martials are encouraged to be ridiculously specialised. This is an issue with the system, not with the idea of generalised Martials.

Again, the issue is with the system, not the idea that you should vary weapons with the situation.

Theoretically, if you were to design a creature that is "Immune to Weapon Damage" (bearing in mind that that already exists in 5e, though not in those words); What should a Weapons Damage-character do - or be able to do - against that creature?

The problem wouldn't be with a character specialising in Weapon Damage. The problem is with be with the system that encourages dropping a creature to 0, but not allowing ways to do that.

1. Why would you design a creature that is immune to weapon damage?
2. Why would you design a weapons damage class that can't deal weapon damage?

We're taking #1 off the table. We have designed the creature, and we're in combat with it. The damage has been done (pun unintended). That means we can only talk about #2.

Now, theoretically, the best solution would be some way to defeat the creature, without dealing damage (Unconscious in Round 1, how?) . However, another assumption that I'm making, is that the other members of the party are still doing damage, the issue is that you, just can't. So it isn't that the hostile is immune to all damage...Just Weapon Damage (by which I assume BPS). Theoretically the hostile could be harmed by Spelled Physical Damage (e.g; The piercing damage from an Ice Knife spell), but we'll steer away from that. Point is, the other members of the party are still doing damage, so the design still believes that doing damage is important, just that we, can't contribute - and that sucks (again, ignoring that this can already be the case against certain hostiles).

So IMO, the solution isn't "Grapple/Choke/Trip/etc." The solution to "What to do when you can't deal damage?" is...Well...Find ways to deal damage. The solution isn't Alchemist's Fire and Acid Vials...Those aren't necessarily Class Abilities...And again they have the same problem as switching from a Magical Longsword to a Non-Magical Javelin... Yes. Sure. That's an option. But it sucks and you may as well sit this one out until the Wizard solves the encounter for you, because non-Magical Javelins aren't going to do **** when the Dragon has 150+ Hit Points.

So, IMO, where there is design space:

The -Smite spells. The vast majority of the time, Paladins just use their Class' Divine Smite. It's the most efficient and the most effective. The only ones I really see get used are Wrathful- and Banishing Smite, and that's because they deal psychic and force damage, respectfully. Surely a Barbarian*, Ranger or Monk could or should be able to "tap into something" to pick up some kind of spell-like ability that grants them the equivalent of the -Smite spells. Trying to get the Fighter to pick this sort of stuff up is a bit more tricky, since it doesn't really fit into their identity...But the idea could be there, somehow... Also allowing the -Smite spells to proc off of Thrown weapons would be great...But let's ignore that for now.
*I'm almost certain that there's a Barbarian Subclass that can deal Radiant damage when they Rage...Almost certain. But I could've made it up.

Four Elements Monk Disciplines. Similar to the -Smite spells, I can't really see why these are limited to a (Sub-)Class. IMO, the Four Elements stuff is baked into what I want a Monk to be (basically just Dragonball, let's be honest, for real). It's just the the Subclass...Sucks. But there's so much design space...I can punch so hard I effectively cast Thunderwave - krakoooom! In my opinion, significantly expanding the Discipline list, as well as removing the Subclass and giving the Disciplines to Monks, full stop. Could - and would - go a long way.

Arcane Shots (Xanathar's). From the Arcane Archer Subclass...I see what you're doing Jeremy. I get it, and I love it. But by limiting it to a Fighter Subclass - and not even a very good one - you've taken a good idea and dropped it in the toilet. At a certain point (up to or at Level 7), even Fighters and Rogues should see the value of magic. They're travelling with Clerics and Wizards, and even fighting magical beasts. Hell, maybe they've even fought Ghosts and Lycans. Surely at some point you sit down with your traveling companions and you say "Look. Guys. You have to teach me...Something. I don't know much. But I do know how to shoot something in the face. Give me...Something. I'm in over my head. I can't be walking up to Undead and getting my Strength drained anymore. That doesn't fly."
...Then as part of a Long Rest, a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, (or Barbarian?) can craft 1d2 magical pieces of ammunition (their choice). It doesn't seem like a lot. But it will add up if your DM doesn't make you use them.

Rogues (and/or Rangers, and/or Barbarians?) could probably flavour their Smites and Arrows as more effective Poisons. Of course then Rogues would complain every time they come up against a creature Immune to Poisons...Or any Dwarf hostile. But in this example we're only really talking about creatures that are immune to BPS only...Unless we aren't...

Which brings us to Maneuvers. A fantastic idea. An idea so good it almost makes all other Fighter Subclasses redundant because no other Fighter can do what the Battle Master, does. The only subclass that is even remotely as interesting (or effective?) is the Rune Knight. Similar to Elemental Disciplines and Arcane Shots...There's a great idea just sitting there. But it's locked behind a (Sub-)Class. Rogues and Fighters should certainly get access to them...And at the outer you might even consider Rangers and Monks, too.
...A good way to do this might be to say that a Martial character gets as many maneuvers equal to the Intelligence modifier (minimum 1), and also you allow them to change them every so often. Every 10 days or after a Level Up, whichever comes first?* And I am aware that "10 days" is bookkeeping and nobody will keep track. But it's more realistic than at the end of any and every Long Rest as "5.5" seems about to trot out.
*I think Tasha's allowing Classes to change things every ASI, is a good idea...But "every ASI" just isn't often enough to be entirely helpful except for Fighters.

...But Maneuvers in this fashion are only effective if the "thing" that makes them immune to weapon damage, doesn't make them immune to everything else physical. As others have brought up.

If we can still Grapple, Restrain, knock the creature Prone, and impose Disadvantage; Well then there are loads of Feats and Abilities that can do that, and that's what people are already generally doing anyway in the current edition. No design change is required. However my assumption for all of the above is that "Doing a Grapple" is either not enough, or doesn't work (just like knocking a Dragon Prone isn't a solution when it's 100 ft. up in the air waiting for its Breath Weapon to Recharge before it comes down again).

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, put me down for an expanded grappling system that allows martials to impose different conditions on enemies, over making them all magical attackers.

Now it’s my turn to have a visceral reaction lol.

[Cheesegear]

Yeah, put me down for an expanded grappling system that allows martials to impose different conditions on enemies

Are we still going with a Martial can't Grapple a target more than one size larger than they are?

'Cause if so a Small Warrior (or Rogue) still does nothing.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think there can be multiple solutions. I don't think expanding grappling fixes everything for everyone, by any stretch. I think the issue is systemic, as you've also mentioned in your post.

Martials need better ways to interact with monsters, with the environment, and with gear. So long as people insist that the game has to be super duper pared down and simple, martials have to be designed for beginners, and any new sub-system is automatically terri-bad... this problem will never go away.

Though I suppose adding elemental damage to their attacks fixes it without any of the above. And yet... I find that completely unappetizing as a unilateral fix. I am enjoying playing my Rune Knight as a devotee of a god that is using Giant's Might as a stand-in for the 3.5 Righteous Might spell. It's a ton of fun and I like the character a lot. But that doesn't mean I want every fighter I play with to have overt supernatural abilities.

There's a completely untapped space here for scrappy fighters that do actually meaningful things with gear, grappling, and terrain that is completely ignored because the system doesn't really allow for it, and everyone assumes it will necessarily be done poorly.

[GloatingSwine]

I feel you have overestimated what I said as "the best and only thing you could do instead", which isn't what I said. "Contributing to the fight at least to some extent" doesn't mean contributing your absolute best effort (unless it actually is the best you could do).

The point is, that was my "one thing that came to mind right away". Whatever those condition rendering effects may be, they could be made better in various ways, such as designing a new way of dealing damage through the same action used to cause that condition. How exactly? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm only proposing ideas, not final solutions.

After all, as the OP asked, I tried to imagine myself as someone in charge of designing something for a hypothetical 6th edition, which as far as I know isn't being designed by WotC, yet (at least not in public anyway). I only proposed a food for thought concept for such an endeavour.

No, I was questioning whether those options can be made to meet the minimum threshold of utility to be usefully counted as a "contribution" even if they're the only thing you do. Which is the point at which the outcome of the encounter is meaningfully positively affected because you did them.

Which they probably aren't on their own, because if they're that useful they become a mandatory action in every encounter.

[Cheesegear]

Martials need better ways to interact with monsters

So long as CHA and INT are considered dump stats, Martials have to fight. Fighting is the only way to interact when you can't talk or reason well.

Another alternative is you throw roleplaying out the window:
Well I rolled a 16 on Persuasion so hostile creatures wont harm us.
...That's not quite how that works...I mean. I see what you're doing. But can you give me more than that?
Nope. I rolled a 16, so we're done with this. We walk right past since the creature wont harm us.

...But I know that most tables won't accept "Don't roleplay, just roll dice" as a viable option.


with the environment

This is extraordinarily dependent on the DM's ability to be able and willing to describe the scene. It's also extremely dependent on the players' abilities to think of ways to use that environment. It's also dependent on whether the DM requires an Ability Check that the player could potentially fail; And will that Ability Check take my Action?

Q. What should a player do when a creature is immune to weapon damage?
A. Pray that the DM is a good DM.

There are always ways to interact with the environment. But it absolutely depends on both the player's, and the DM's creativity. The DM has to set the scene (putting in a whole bunch of work beforehand, probably), and the player has to be smart and/or creative enough to see what the DM is allowing them to do. ...It doesn't matter if your character has an INT of 14...Your character is only as smart as you are.

Q. What should a player do when a creature is immune to weapon damage?
A. Try to get a look at the DM's notes for this scenario.

I could run up the stairs, leap off the bannister, jump on the chandelier...Or...Hear me out...I can just move forwards and take the Help Action so the Cleric gets Advantage on their Inflict Wounds...Even though they already have +8 to hit and the creature's AC is 14. Doing basically nothing seems less risky than trying hard.

Q. What should a player do when a creature is immune to weapon damage?
A. Take no risks, be very careful. Your character probably dies here. So you should sit this one out and let this Wizard take care of things. Dodge, mostly. But Help only if you have to.


and with gear.

Do you mean Crafting? ...Like what do you want to do with gear now, that you can't?


So long as people insist that the game has to be super duper pared down and simple...

I would insist that Classes' abilities not be front-loaded, so that new players actually have time to learn what their spells even do, before you go tacking on Domains and how does Sneak Attack even work I'm so confused why did you give me these things so early...

I personally think that Classes shouldn't come into their "identity" until at least Level 3...And preferably not even 'til Level 6. But, like a Netflix movie, you have to frontload all the complicated **** into the first 2-3 levels or otherwise the player might get bored...But also if the stuff is too complicated the player gets confused and says D&D is for nerds.

So you have to ride that line between "Here's a ton of options for you and you have to know all of them." and "This game is easy to learn."


martials have to be designed for beginners

All Classes should be designed for beginners.


There's a completely untapped space here for scrappy fighters that do actually meaningful things with gear, grappling, and terrain that is completely ignored because the system doesn't really allow for it, and everyone assumes it will necessarily be done poorly.

Agreed. A whole system redesign is the only actual fix.

As I said; I dislike the "Grapple" solutions because the Grapple rules are terrible. If you made Grapple also cause Conditions, you would make Small Warriors even less viable than they already are.

But ultimately
"Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from weapon attacks."

...Doesn't tell me nearly enough information. If the creature is Huge; Grapple is basically off the table except for Rune Knights (the best or second-best Subclass, because Grappling Huge creatures isn't off the table). If it's Large or smaller. No problem.
If it Flies...Well, ****. If it doesn't...I dunno.
Does it have Condition Immunities - like a Ghost. Surely if it's immune to physical damage, it's immune to physical conditions, too? Right? Can you knock it Prone? Paralyse it? ...Ghosts are immune to a lot. Can a Warrior throw an Inhaled Poison at it; Does it breathe?
How many Hit Points does the creature have? How much damage does it do on each attack? Can our party (minus weapon damage) knock it down to 0 before it kills one of us? If not...Does giving it Disadvantage even help? If it's got +14 to hit, probably not.

[Kwinza]

Here's what I'd do.

At lvl 6, the following classes gain and ability;

Barbarian - Primal Fury - If you successfully hit with an attack and the damage is mitigated by any means, you gain temporary hit point equal to the amount mitigated. Like normal, these do not stack.

Fighter - Steadfast Defense - If you successfully hit with an attack and the damage is mitigated by any means, you gain AC equal to half the amount mitigated when being struck by that creature. This feature does not stack if you attack multiple times.

Rogue - Dexterous Retreat - If you successfully hit with an attack and the damage is mitigated by any means, you can move a number of feat equal to the amount mitigated without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the attack that was mitigated was a sneak attack, you can also attempted to hide without using an action.

Monk - Not needed

Ranger - Not needed

Paladin - Not needed

What does everyone think to these?

[Psyren]

Hercules is a magical creature of legend who himself was nearly invulnerable to damage. My dude with the sword is not.

All right, since we're moving out of the realm of theory into practice... which monster is completely immune to all weapon damage in D&D?

[False God]

All right, since we're moving out of the realm of theory into practice... which monster is completely immune to all weapon damage in D&D?

5E Lycanthropes are immune to all mundane damage, excepting silvered items.

But this is, IMO, fine design. It doesn't remove martials from the game or force them to use other subsystems that their class gives no benefit. It says "hey go to the store, buy a silvered weapon and proceed as usual."

According to This List (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BqoEjl9HZEEOU0ZKrrycpqA_zWWBX89JpNU-OB7YZPg/edit#gid=0) there are 50 creatures immune to nonmagical BPS, only one immune to magical BPS. 18 are bypassed by adamantine, 9 by silver. Interestingly, unlike magical immunites there are NO creatures selectively immune to Bludgeoning or Piercing, and only a whopping 3 immune to slashing. Immunity to non-magical BPS is apparently, second only to immunity to fire, at 74.
This is from 4 years ago, so I don't know how up to date it is.

There is a filter on D&Dbeyond itself that allows you to see which monsters are which and is certainly more comprehensive, lotta swarms. Apparently you can't smash bugs. Hmmm, actually looks like all swarms, so swarms of bugs are immune, swarms of rats are immune, swarms of skeletons are completely immune to mundane damage.

[Cheesegear]

All right, since we're moving out of the realm of theory into practice... which monster is completely immune to all weapon damage in D&D?

Generally speaking, most people often talk about it in relation to low-level martials coming up against creatures that can't be harmed by nonmagical weapons.
Other times - and I know I bring it up a lot - there is the classic case of a flying creature being straight up immune to melee weapons. Not because it says so it the stat block, but because it Just Is.

And of course there are homebrew monsters (i.e; The DM being a ****).

It's not necessarily a case of "The monster is immune to weapons.", it's a case of "The monster is immune to weapons...That I happen to have."

That's why my solution involves all Classes having access to damage sources that aren't necessarily weapon damage.

And I also think that other posters have missed one of the bigger problems:
"Not at Classes need to be good at all times." ...We agree!

The issue that I see - and so do many others:
"A player realises that - for whatever reason - they can't meaningfully contribute in a combat, and they disengage from the game and don't care what's happening. They sit on their phone for the next 20-30 minutes. How do you make it so that players stay engaged when they can't - meaningfully - contribute?
A good example of this is when a Martial character sees that the hostile has resistance or immunity to their favoured weapon. The player clocks out.
A player has the Tavern Brawler and Grappler Feats, and the Hostile is immune to Grappled and Prone.
How do players stay engaged, once they've realised that nothing they do, really matters?"

The counter-question being:
What should a spellcaster do when in an anti-magic field? ...Check out and let the Fighter handle it.

The Tarrasque in the room, is that a) Nobody cares about spellcasters' problems, and b) Hostiles resistant or immune to favorite weapons are much more common than anti-magic fields. Especially at low(er) levels because that's when players and characters are trying to find their footing, so the problem is much more noticeable.

[Psyren]

5E Lycanthropes are immune to all mundane damage, excepting silvered items.


Generally speaking, most people often talk about it in relation to low-level martials coming up against creatures that can't be harmed by nonmagical weapons.

Neither of those are actually weapon immunity - just immunity to nonmagical, which is something nearly every martial will want to deal with eventually (and have the tools to do so, unless their DM is being a jerk.) If the DM is truly going to saddle them with nonmagical immune enemies and no access to magic/silver weapons, they have build choices in most cases to deal with that. Every Paladin and Monk can, most Rangers, certain Barbarians and Fighters etc.

[Cheesegear]

Neither of those are actually weapon immunity - just immunity to nonmagical, which is something nearly every martial will want to deal with eventually

Q. What should you do when you can't contribute in a fight (your [favoured] method of attack isn't effective)?
A. Use a combination of Clairvoyance, Scrying and Divination so that you can see the fight ahead of time, that way you'll know what fights are coming up next so you can plan the encounter better so that you can contribute to the fight... Just ask the DM about the challenges ahead of time, that way you'll always know what tools you're gonna need for later.


Example Storytime. My Unarmed Fighter (Tasha's) has the Grappler and Tavern Brawler Feats. The final fight had an Air Elemental and a few Will o' Wisps. Knowing that my character was useless in this fight, I was barely paying attention. Since I was on my phone the whole time. I didn't have much to do except Dodge or Help, so I couldn't care less about what happened. When the DM called on me for my turn; I said "I Dodge and end my turn." since I know the Elemental probably can't hit me with Disadvantage - that was probably the best play for my character. The DM yelled at me for not caring and being on my phone. I replied that there was nothing much I could do with my particular character build against Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps in this fight (although earlier I was grappling with Cultists and throwing them out of six storey windows. Isn't "defenestrate" a fun word?) and I was bored.

Tavern Brawler and Grappler are suboptimal Feats and the player has a bad character. Learn to play. Why don't you have a better character?
Even though it goes against his character and/or build, the Unarmed Fighter should just carry around a magical Warhammer at all times - specialising in a role is stupid.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should be banned from using Air Elementals in his adventure.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should bend reality in this encounter so that Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps are Grapple-able, and non-magical Unarmed Strikes should be just as effective as the Wizard's Fire Bolts.
Once it was clear that an Air Elemental was going to be the final boss (maybe two or three rooms in advance, if the DM is playing fair), the Unarmed Fighter should have called an audible. "Sorry guys. I'm not going to be effective in the boss fight so we have to go back to town to Long Rest, and I need to spend a few days tracking down some magical gauntlets for my character. Then after a couple of days and a new magic item, we can come back and do the boss."
There's something inherently wrong with the game's system; Where it encourages specialisation, but also punishes being specialised. Seemingly - and especially - when it comes to non-magical characters dealing with magical creatures.

[Kane0]

Is the example character clever enough to think of something else on the fly or well prepared/paranoid enough they might have something helpful in their pack?

Fair enough if not (im the kind of person that finds it really hard to play characters that arent clever or at least savvy)

[GloatingSwine]

Tavern Brawler and Grappler are suboptimal Feats and the player has a bad character. Learn to play. Why don't you have a better character?
Even though it goes against his character and/or build, the Unarmed Fighter should just carry around a magical Warhammer at all times - specialising in a role is stupid.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should be banned from using Air Elementals in his adventure.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should bend reality in this encounter so that Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps are Grapple-able, and non-magical Unarmed Strikes should be just as effective as the Wizard's Fire Bolts.
Once it was clear that an Air Elemental was going to be the final boss (maybe two or three rooms in advance, if the DM is playing fair), the Unarmed Fighter should have called an audible. "Sorry guys. I'm not going to be effective in the boss fight so we have to go back to town to Long Rest, and I need to spend a few days tracking down some magical gauntlets for my character. Then after a couple of days and a new magic item, we can come back and do the boss."
There's something inherently wrong with the game's system; Where it encourages specialisation, but also punishes being specialised. Seemingly - and especially - when it comes to non-magical characters dealing with magical creatures.

I think there's another option which is:


The system is trying to deliver experiences it isn't well suited to.



Things like werewolves in their own stories are only vulnerable to silver, for instance. Doesn't matter who you are or what you have, silver or GTFO. That often means that the silver is significant to the story, an heirloom or significant item is often involved.

In D&D werewolves are only vulnerable to silver and two dozen other things any nerd in robes can cough up.

Which very much changes the character of what's going on. The Nemean Lion wouldn't have been worth a labour of Herakles if they could just grab a passing nerd and have him chuck some fireballs in its direction.

[stoutstien]

Q. What should you do when you can't contribute in a fight (your [favoured] method of attack isn't effective)?
A. Use a combination of Clairvoyance, Scrying and Divination so that you can see the fight ahead of time, that way you'll know what fights are coming up next so you can plan the encounter better so that you can contribute to the fight... Just ask the DM about the challenges ahead of time, that way you'll always know what tools you're gonna need for later.


Example Storytime. My Unarmed Fighter (Tasha's) has the Grappler and Tavern Brawler Feats. The final fight had an Air Elemental and a few Will o' Wisps. Knowing that my character was useless in this fight, I was barely paying attention. Since I was on my phone the whole time. I didn't have much to do except Dodge or Help, so I couldn't care less about what happened. When the DM called on me for my turn; I said "I Dodge and end my turn." since I know the Elemental probably can't hit me with Disadvantage - that was probably the best play for my character. The DM yelled at me for not caring and being on my phone. I replied that there was nothing much I could do with my particular character build against Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps in this fight (although earlier I was grappling with Cultists and throwing them out of six storey windows. Isn't "defenestrate" a fun word?) and I was bored.

Tavern Brawler and Grappler are suboptimal Feats and the player has a bad character. Learn to play. Why don't you have a better character?
Even though it goes against his character and/or build, the Unarmed Fighter should just carry around a magical Warhammer at all times - specialising in a role is stupid.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should be banned from using Air Elementals in his adventure.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should bend reality in this encounter so that Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps are Grapple-able, and non-magical Unarmed Strikes should be just as effective as the Wizard's Fire Bolts.
Once it was clear that an Air Elemental was going to be the final boss (maybe two or three rooms in advance, if the DM is playing fair), the Unarmed Fighter should have called an audible. "Sorry guys. I'm not going to be effective in the boss fight so we have to go back to town to Long Rest, and I need to spend a few days tracking down some magical gauntlets for my character. Then after a couple of days and a new magic item, we can come back and do the boss."
There's something inherently wrong with the game's system; Where it encourages specialisation, but also punishes being specialised. Seemingly - and especially - when it comes to non-magical characters dealing with magical creatures.

I mean what is the logically break point for a player that spends every available opportunity cost on a single action and/or pillar of play? I agree it's is a lot easier to avoid this with magic(spells) and spell adjacent features but eventually you have to have the player/GM/table expections conversation. Preferably before you even start but late is better than never.

[False God]

Neither of those are actually weapon immunity - just immunity to nonmagical, which is something nearly every martial will want to deal with eventually (and have the tools to do so, unless their DM is being a jerk.) If the DM is truly going to saddle them with nonmagical immune enemies and no access to magic/silver weapons, they have build choices in most cases to deal with that. Every Paladin and Monk can, most Rangers, certain Barbarians and Fighters etc.

Yes, immunity to "non-magical" is the point, that's why we're in a thread talking about how non-magical classes should deal with immunity to the stuff they do.

[Psyren]

Yes, immunity to "non-magical" is the point, that's why we're in a thread talking about how non-magical classes should deal with immunity to the stuff they do.

Right, and they can. Even if your DM refuses to help you, that just means you have certain build choices prescribed. There is no martial class in the game that has zero means at its disposal to deal with weapon immune monsters, because there are no truly weapon immune monsters.

[Amechra]

I'm amused by how the responses to this thread are basically an even split of:



Defeatist murmurings, including insulting the character of a theoretical DM that would do such a thing. Shining examples of why this forum isn't allowed to have nice things.
WRESTLEMANIA GOING WILD, BROTHER,


(OK, OK, you do have the "change the rules so that this is inherently less of a problem" folks, but they tend to end up fitting into one of those two camps.)

[Kane0]

WRESTLEMANIA GOING WILD, BROTHER,


Well we cant use the steel chair but choking and drowning are still on the table.

[Sigreid]

Q. What should you do when you can't contribute in a fight (your [favoured] method of attack isn't effective)?
A. Use a combination of Clairvoyance, Scrying and Divination so that you can see the fight ahead of time, that way you'll know what fights are coming up next so you can plan the encounter better so that you can contribute to the fight... Just ask the DM about the challenges ahead of time, that way you'll always know what tools you're gonna need for later.


Example Storytime. My Unarmed Fighter (Tasha's) has the Grappler and Tavern Brawler Feats. The final fight had an Air Elemental and a few Will o' Wisps. Knowing that my character was useless in this fight, I was barely paying attention. Since I was on my phone the whole time. I didn't have much to do except Dodge or Help, so I couldn't care less about what happened. When the DM called on me for my turn; I said "I Dodge and end my turn." since I know the Elemental probably can't hit me with Disadvantage - that was probably the best play for my character. The DM yelled at me for not caring and being on my phone. I replied that there was nothing much I could do with my particular character build against Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps in this fight (although earlier I was grappling with Cultists and throwing them out of six storey windows. Isn't "defenestrate" a fun word?) and I was bored.

Tavern Brawler and Grappler are suboptimal Feats and the player has a bad character. Learn to play. Why don't you have a better character?
Even though it goes against his character and/or build, the Unarmed Fighter should just carry around a magical Warhammer at all times - specialising in a role is stupid.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should be banned from using Air Elementals in his adventure.
The DM is a bad DM. He should have known that one of his players is a Grappler, and as such should bend reality in this encounter so that Air Elementals and Will o' Wisps are Grapple-able, and non-magical Unarmed Strikes should be just as effective as the Wizard's Fire Bolts.
Once it was clear that an Air Elemental was going to be the final boss (maybe two or three rooms in advance, if the DM is playing fair), the Unarmed Fighter should have called an audible. "Sorry guys. I'm not going to be effective in the boss fight so we have to go back to town to Long Rest, and I need to spend a few days tracking down some magical gauntlets for my character. Then after a couple of days and a new magic item, we can come back and do the boss."
There's something inherently wrong with the game's system; Where it encourages specialisation, but also punishes being specialised. Seemingly - and especially - when it comes to non-magical characters dealing with magical creatures.

Personally, I'd never build a character with only one option, even if one is preferred. If you do, that's just a consequence of your choice. Though a DM shouldn't always be hard countering your choices.

[LudicSavant]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)

So, so many things.

A battlefield commander effectively coordinating and inspiring their teammates like Captain America when he's up against things he can't punch or throw a shield at while he's with teammates.

Disarming, pinning, or otherwise hobbling a foe they cannot harm.

Spending actions on full defense, and using that to intercept attempts to harm their allies.

Learning significant amounts of information from observing how an enemy fights (in another system I'm a big fan of, one of the better abilities in the game is basically this any time an enemy attacks one of the martial classes. And it's no less high magic than D&D).

Pretty much anything involving skill checks.

So much more.

[Psyren]

I'm amused by how the responses to this thread are basically an even split of:



Defeatist murmurings, including insulting the character of a theoretical DM that would do such a thing. Shining examples of why this forum isn't allowed to have nice things.
WRESTLEMANIA GOING WILD, BROTHER,


(OK, OK, you do have the "change the rules so that this is inherently less of a problem" folks, but they tend to end up fitting into one of those two camps.)

I'm none of these three; I said "every martial class can deal with nonmagical immunity, if during session zero your DM says magic weapons are unlikely to be a thing, pick one of the options that doesn't care." For example Beast Barbarian, Soulknife Rogue, any monk etc.

[Dr.Samurai]

So long as CHA and INT are considered dump stats, Martials have to fight. Fighting is the only way to interact when you can't talk or reason well.
Yes sure but fighting can take different forms. Right now, martials are limited to attack+damage or Shove/Prone/Grapple, and that is limited by size.

If we can change the system to do more, what might those changes be?

This is extraordinarily dependent on the DM's ability to be able and willing to describe the scene. It's also extremely dependent on the players' abilities to think of ways to use that environment. It's also dependent on whether the DM requires an Ability Check that the player could potentially fail; And will that Ability Check take my Action?
The entire game is dependent on DM and Player buy-in. How much you get out of it is going to depend on a combination of those things.

But if the game makes that a part of the system, then it might help DMs lean in that direction more, until both players and DMs might expect these types of environmental factors.

Conan is not D&D, which has a lot more magic and stuff and PCs are way stronger. But I think the Temple of Set scene is a great example of using the environment. Using cover to sneak, lighting the curtain on fire as a distraction, knocking the cauldron and it's boiling contents down the stairs into the oncoming defenders, the two big bruisers seeing the strong warrior and choosing him as their focus, the cauldron hitting the serpent column and cracking it, weakening it so that when Rexor hits it with his hammer, the serpent head falls on Thorgrim, and then Rexor brings the entire pillar down, letting the heroes escape. Current D&D swat-style combat has absolutely no time for this stuff.

By virtue of not having magic, environmental factors are incredibly important to martials, whether it's working in their favor, like choke-points, or against them, like long distance+difficult terrain vs ranged enemies. If I'm designing a new system, as in the OP, I would think about implementing common elements in the environment that can be interacted with.

Q. What should a player do when a creature is immune to weapon damage?
A. Pray that the DM is a good DM.

There are always ways to interact with the environment. But it absolutely depends on both the player's, and the DM's creativity. The DM has to set the scene (putting in a whole bunch of work beforehand, probably), and the player has to be smart and/or creative enough to see what the DM is allowing them to do. ...It doesn't matter if your character has an INT of 14...Your character is only as smart as you are.
I may be reading this wrong but it strikes me as throwing our hands in the air.

Q. What should a player do when a creature is immune to weapon damage?
A. Try to get a look at the DM's notes for this scenario.

I could run up the stairs, leap off the bannister, jump on the chandelier...Or...Hear me out...I can just move forwards and take the Help Action so the Cleric gets Advantage on their Inflict Wounds...Even though they already have +8 to hit and the creature's AC is 14. Doing basically nothing seems less risky than trying hard.
Yeah but think about it... against Legendary Resistance, a caster uses a spell that doesn't push a saving throw. Against damage resistance, they use a spell with a different damage type. They have options. If a creature can't be affected directly by spells, they use a summon spell.

For martials the options are "Let the caster do it", or "Let the caster cast Magic Weapon", or "Use the Help Action to assist the caster".

Do you mean Crafting? ...Like what do you want to do with gear now, that you can't?
No, more like trap-making (I think one of the newer splats gave some rules for it) and equipment like harpoons and grappling hooks that can be used to grapple fliers from a distance.

All Classes should be designed for beginners.
Sure, but they're not. And some people think that fighter and barbarian should be the simple classes vs all the casters. And as long as that attitude persists, people will think we're limited to what we already have when talking about how to "fix" the system.

Agreed. A whole system redesign is the only actual fix.
Yep.

As I said; I dislike the "Grapple" solutions because the Grapple rules are terrible. If you made Grapple also cause Conditions, you would make Small Warriors even less viable than they already are.
I'm perfectly fine with this. "Big strong warrior" is a trope that deserves to be preserved. Small warriors can still grapple small and medium creatures, which will be the lion's share of enemies anyways.

We're already handing out warrior capabilities like candy to all the casters. I don't think we need to make sure that small warriors are just as good as medium warriors. We may as well erase Strength from the game and get it over with at this point.

But ultimately
"Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from weapon attacks."

...Doesn't tell me nearly enough information. If the creature is Huge; Grapple is basically off the table except for Rune Knights (the best or second-best Subclass, because Grappling Huge creatures isn't off the table). If it's Large or smaller. No problem.
If it Flies...Well, ****. If it doesn't...I dunno.
Does it have Condition Immunities - like a Ghost. Surely if it's immune to physical damage, it's immune to physical conditions, too? Right? Can you knock it Prone? Paralyse it? ...Ghosts are immune to a lot. Can a Warrior throw an Inhaled Poison at it; Does it breathe?
How many Hit Points does the creature have? How much damage does it do on each attack? Can our party (minus weapon damage) knock it down to 0 before it kills one of us? If not...Does giving it Disadvantage even help? If it's got +14 to hit, probably not.
All true. These things will all have an impact on what is actually possible.

I'm amused by how the responses to this thread are basically an even split of:



Defeatist murmurings, including insulting the character of a theoretical DM that would do such a thing. Shining examples of why this forum isn't allowed to have nice things.
WRESTLEMANIA GOING WILD, BROTHER,


(OK, OK, you do have the "change the rules so that this is inherently less of a problem" folks, but they tend to end up fitting into one of those two camps.)
LMAO

I like the idea of gouging the eyes out of a creature with a gaze attack. Or pinning the arms of a creature with a potent claw attack, even if you can't hurt it, at least it won't harm your allies. But, as mentioned already, these things would require a system rework. Less "bag of hit points", but I don't think everyone would like this.

[GloatingSwine]

We're already handing out warrior capabilities like candy to all the casters. I don't think we need to make sure that small warriors are just as good as medium warriors. We may as well erase Strength from the game and get it over with at this point.


Why should small warriors be worse?


I like the idea of gouging the eyes out of a creature with a gaze attack. Or pinning the arms of a creature with a potent claw attack, even if you can't hurt it, at least it won't harm your allies. But, as mentioned already, these things would require a system rework. Less "bag of hit points", but I don't think everyone would like this.

If you can't hurt something, how are you gouging its eyes out. It doesn't care, you can't hurt it.

That's a problem for a lot of the alternative "think of something with the environment" options, if it doesn't care about being smacked with tools designed for doing damage unless they're magical it's also not going to care about a lot of environmental factors unless they're magical as well.

[stoutstien]

Why should small warriors be worse?



If you can't hurt something, how are you gouging its eyes out. It doesn't care, you can't hurt it.

That's a problem for a lot of the alternative "think of something with the environment" options, if it doesn't care about being smacked with tools designed for doing damage unless they're magical it's also not going to care about a lot of environmental factors unless they're magical as well.

In regards to 5e not really. Most, if not all, immunities are limited to attacks not damage. If it's save based or maybe an ability challenge it works.

As far as I recall only the MotM version of demon lords are flat out immune to non-magical damage.

[Xervous]

Why should small warriors be worse?


If they’re both designed towards practical goals the small warrior isn’t following the exact same game plan. Just the same as you can put in amusement park style height checks to see who is tall enough to ride, you can use the same dividing line to hand options to characters shorter than the bar. Selection of size then affects the frequency at which “I’m the small guy here” options appear relative to “I’m the big guy here”. A Small and a Medium fighter might have the same little guy options against a Large Ogre, but different options against a Medium bandit. It’s not simply “halflings are worse than humans at grappling,” it’s “halflings trade the grappling potential of humans for nimble little guy advantages against a set of foes”.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Personally I'd like to see more b, p, OR s resistance or vulnerability (maybe the odd immunity). That way martials have more meaningful decisions to make in combat and a little variety in what they're doing. The current system where most of the time b/p/s is a blanket effect is really uninteresting.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why should small warriors be worse?
It's pretty intuitive to me why this would be the case, but by all means ask the devs why they implemented size restrictions on grappling. That will be your answer.

They put the size restrictions there. Are you saying that small characters should be able to grapple even larger creatures? Do Medium characters get to expand what size creatures they can grapple? Do you think the restrictions should be removed?

If you can't hurt something, how are you gouging its eyes out. It doesn't care, you can't hurt it.

That's a problem for a lot of the alternative "think of something with the environment" options, if it doesn't care about being smacked with tools designed for doing damage unless they're magical it's also not going to care about a lot of environmental factors unless they're magical as well.
If you think of "weapon immunity" only as some magical forcefield that can't be penetrated by weapons, sure.

But it can also be a dragon's scales, and there's a weak spot on its belly. Or impenetrable hide, so that the creature is vulnerable wherever it's hide doesn't cover. The "weapon immunity" is more of a condition that means "you can't just attack this creature to deal damage, you have to satisfy some other condition". Grappling to pin a creature and aim at a weak spot would be one way. Or maybe there isn't a weak spot and you can only immobilize it.

In Justice League: War, the Justice League couldn't hurt Darkseid, but they could impale his eyes and push him back through a portal. These types of distinctions allow "weapon immunity" to actually change the dynamic of combat. Currently, it just means spellcasters will cast spells like always, and martials will need a magic weapon. Then the "immunity" is completely pointless.

EDIT: Agree with Xervous and 5ENeedsDarkSun above.

[GloatingSwine]

It's pretty intuitive to me why this would be the case, but by all means ask the devs why they implemented size restrictions on grappling. That will be your answer.

They put the size restrictions there. Are you saying that small characters should be able to grapple even larger creatures? Do Medium characters get to expand what size creatures they can grapple? Do you think the restrictions should be removed?

I'm not asking them, I'm asking you because you made the claim here. Why should small characters be worse? If they're worse at grappling why should they not get something else instead?

Also, if you think small creatures can't grapple larger ones go and try and win a wrestling match with an orangoutan. It's half your size at best but it'd twist your head off without exerting itself.


If you think of "weapon immunity" only as some magical forcefield that can't be penetrated by weapons, sure.

But it can also be a dragon's scales, and there's a weak spot on its belly. Or impenetrable hide, so that the creature is vulnerable wherever it's hide doesn't cover. The "weapon immunity" is more of a condition that means "you can't just attack this creature to deal damage, you have to satisfy some other condition". Grappling to pin a creature and aim at a weak spot would be one way. Or maybe there isn't a weak spot and you can only immobilize it.

Weapon immunity can be lots of things, they could pass harmlessly through, bounce off, or be regenerated instantly. Carve a werewolf's heart out and it still won't care unless you did it with silver. Not even 1HP lost if it's immune to nonmagical/nonsilver weapons (like 2e and you had to have a pretty high enchantment at that).

"This thing has a strong natural defence with few and difficult to exploit weaknesses" is modelled in the system as a high armour class, not weapon immunity.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Deadlands has things called Servitors that are impervious to everything except a specific weakness. Just means it becomes less a fight and more a puzzle.

Examples range from the first Anti-Templar being vulnerable only to a specific sword to the Right Hand of Death being vulnerable only to himself or by being shot with one of the bullets that first killed him (He's undead, said bullets are in his chest still)

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not asking them, I'm asking you because you made the claim here.
My reasoning is in the post that you quoted when you first posed this question. If that's not sufficient for you... ask the devs?

Why should small characters be worse?
Why should they be the same?

Why are there weight classes in combat sports?

If small characters can grapple the same types of foes as medium characters, that makes them better than medium characters. Do you not feel a need to defend this position?

I ask you again, do you think the size restrictions should be removed? What are you getting at here?

If they're worse at grappling why should they not get something else instead?
When did I ever say they shouldn't get something else?

Also, if you think small creatures can't grapple larger ones go and try and win a wrestling match with an orangoutan. It's half your size at best but it'd twist your head off without exerting itself.
When did I say small creatures can't grapple creatures larger than themselves? I literally said they can grapple the lion's share of enemies in the Monster Manual. Gentle reminder that medium creatures are larger than small creatures.

I don't think you're replying to what I'm actually saying, despite the fact that you're quoting me.

Weapon immunity can be lots of things
Agreed.

"This thing has a strong natural defence with few and difficult to exploit weaknesses" is modelled in the system as a high armour class, not weapon immunity.
It could be modeled by other things though. This thread is speculative.

[Witty Username]

I am left again wondering if a shift from ability score bonus to proficiency bonus would be good.
Or rather a greater pool of static number for ones primary function.

Like say weapon expertise, this would give martials without ability score bonuses the same bonuses as ones with full investment would have now.
But that means greater freedom for allocation to other areas of the game.

Str 10 dex 10, still a fighter and so will kick the wizard's rear in a fight.
Str 20, dex 20, or Int 20 would then differeniate skilled fighters rather than define if a fighter is skilled.

[da newt]

As I think I said before, I'd like to see a grapple like option that allows the grappler to blind or silence the grappled.

And in response to flying creatures are immune to melee weapons - I'd counter melee combatants are immune to (most) flyer's attacks because most flyer attacks aren't ranged. For me this is a sign of good game design. If you can avoid all melee attacks by flying, you SHOULD also only be able to attack melee goobers from melee range.

For every immunity there ought to be a corresponding vulnerability. This is true of PC and monster design.

Encounter design ought to solve this even when monster design does not - the PCs that can't effectively damage the foe ought to have opportunities to actively 'win' the encounter. Maybe the foe is BPS immune but the weapon guys can get busy stealing the McGuffin, rescuing the damsel, or bypassing the gate keeper to the true goal, or whatever.

I'm a big fan of creative problem solving and all DMs ought to be encouraged to reward clever out of the box thinking.

[JLandan]

Do the players in your games not support one another?

If a creature is immune to weapon damage, the martial character should protect the caster. An enemy that may only be damaged by magic will attack the caster first. So the caster is in dire need of protection. Besides restraining the enemy, a martial might provide a distraction, give cover (with their body if need be).

If your character is such that he must always just do his own thing, and regards the adventure to be his own personal story and be damned to the others in the party, it is not a good character. Bad characters get scragged. Either by the DM or the other party members.

[GloatingSwine]

Do the players in your games not support one another?

If a creature is immune to weapon damage, the martial character should protect the caster. An enemy that may only be damaged by magic will attack the caster first. So the caster is in dire need of protection. Besides restraining the enemy, a martial might provide a distraction, give cover (with their body if need be).


But of course if the creature is immune to weapon damage it can freely ignore a martial character who can't damage it unless they do something like grapple it.

So we're back to "grapple and soak hits" or use Battlemaster class features to screw with it. Nothing for the default fighter and it really just means the cleric has to heal someone different at the end of the fight.



Why should they be the same?

Because that lets more players embody their desired character within the rules. That's why we're not still playing 2e where the answer to "can I have a halfling paladin" was "No, human or GTFO".


Why are there weight classes in combat sports?

Because we live in a world where there are biomechanical limitations on strength which do not exist in any fantasy RPG. You don't have to look like Eddie Hall to be Strength 30 in D&D.


If small characters can grapple the same types of foes as medium characters, that makes them better than medium characters. Do you not feel a need to defend this position?

"If they're the same they would be better" is a hard sell. There are few inherent advantages to being small (or smaller) that aren't situational.


I ask you again, do you think the size restrictions should be removed? What are you getting at here?

Yes, I think size disparity should have different effects than "lolno", with a wider range of things that a character who has grappled another can then do, explicit in the system not left to the DM, some of which only apply if they are larger or smaller.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Ideally there would be a hazard nearby. I had a wrestler PC grab werewolf and try to drown them in a puddle at low level.

Alternatively, having devices that need to be interacted with around the room to Debuff the target or shut it down. Like switches that limit mobility or reduce the number of attacks so the casters can whittle away or just escape the room.

Otherwise you have Help, Tank (be a target), and melee control like push and prone.

[False God]

If you think of "weapon immunity" only as some magical forcefield that can't be penetrated by weapons, sure.
We are in 5E, so for the sake of context it's important for everyone to be on the same page. If I talk about how WoD resolves things and you talk about 5E and someone else is talking about FFG Star Wars and someone else brings up a hypothetical alternate rule system we none of the aforementioned printed systems actually utilize, then we are going to have problems having a discussion.


But it can also be a dragon's scales, and there's a weak spot on its belly. Or impenetrable hide, so that the creature is vulnerable wherever it's hide doesn't cover. The "weapon immunity" is more of a condition that means "you can't just attack this creature to deal damage, you have to satisfy some other condition". Grappling to pin a creature and aim at a weak spot would be one way. Or maybe there isn't a weak spot and you can only immobilize it.

In Justice League: War, the Justice League couldn't hurt Darkseid, but they could impale his eyes and push him back through a portal. These types of distinctions allow "weapon immunity" to actually change the dynamic of combat. Currently, it just means spellcasters will cast spells like always, and martials will need a magic weapon. Then the "immunity" is completely pointless.

EDIT: Agree with Xervous and 5ENeedsDarkSun above.

To be clear, I'm fine with "soft spots" as a mechanic. "This monster is immune to BPS, except on its underbelly, or only at the neck." Which are of course more difficult targets to hit. I use this mechanic all the time, in non-D&D games.

The reality of the situation is that D&D, particularly 5E, is intensely binary. Something either has defenses, or it doesn't. I think body charts are awesome elements of games. But D&D does not employ these things. I'd love it if they did. I've worked on subsystems to do so, but I have trouble getting people to play them. The low investment, low brain-power of 5E gameplay encourages people to not think too hard and discourages DMs from "puzzle monsters".

Which is fine, but it makes for things like "mundane damage immunity" forcing people into quixotic subsystems. If D&D wants to operate on a "simple level" then it should avoid these kind of mechanics.

Rather than forcing players to engage with broken subsystems, we could simply have a generic anyone ability "Sunder: When you make a successful sunder attack against a creature normally immune to B, P or S, you reduce one type of immunity to resistance." and maybe a Fighter-only ability, "Improved Sunder - When you make a sunder attack against a creature normally immune to B, P, or S, you remove its immunity to this damage type."
*Note that this second type would also affect creatures immune to magical BPS.
Maybe we could give rogues and barbarians specific immunity reducing or immunity-bypassing abilities.
We could give different martial classes different ways of engaging with "soft spots" based on their class.

But fundamentally, we're still figuring out an answer for a problem we created. We could simply not create the problem and instead utilize more selective immunities, more situational immunities and still allow the classes to function "out of the tin", without the need for taking on specific situational special abilities, which take up design space.

I mean, this is D&D right, if we ask "What do we give fighters to make them able to handle BPS immunity better?" we also need to ask "What are fighters going to lose?" Because as we all know: mundane classes can't have nice things.

[GloatingSwine]

Also size alone maybe shouldn't determine grappling ability. If you miniaturised an Iron Golem down to Small size it's probably still got the mass to park most Large critters like an anchor if it grabs on.

[animorte]

I brought his up during the last size-vs-grappling discussion. Been near any toddlers recently? Mine have absolutely no problem grappling and slowing me significantly. Sure, I can make a much better str/dex check to escape, but those little boogers certainly make a difference despite being 1/4 my size.

[Sigreid]

Also size alone maybe shouldn't determine grappling ability. If you miniaturised an Iron Golem down to Small size it's probably still got the mass to park most Large critters like an anchor if it grabs on.
Personally, I'd just take size off the effect of grappling. Myth and legend is full of people sized people wrestling giants on an even footing.

[Cheesegear]

But fundamentally, we're still figuring out an answer for a problem we created.

If I was going about it, I might start with

"Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing and slashing from weapons attacks"

And after that see how long it takes for a non-magical character to become useless.

I Grapple!
Huge creature.
Trip!
Condition Immunities prone
Alchemist's Fire! Acid Vial!
Damage Immunities also fire and acid.

What does a creature look like, that is "Immune non-magical characters"

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, I think it's a consequence of the fact that right now all Grapple does is stop them moving and let you drag them about a bit, which they naturally assume is a function of mass (rather than leverage and biomechanics) and they shorthand that with size.

[Segev]

Personally, I would like to see more monsters care about the difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, and also see some of that 'care' being vulnerabilities rather than merely overcoming resistances or immunities. Skeletons being vulnerable to bashing was the example I used in the thread that inspired this one.

I would also like to see resistances and even immunities extend further. The werewolf should require silver as a material component or a special silver focus for spells to harm it; it shouldn't be just as easy for a wizard to kill as a non-lycanthrope human or wolf would be. I don't buy into the notion that "horror" means "helplessness," but a horror monster is properly going to be a puzzle monster, at the very least, and if the party lacks the means of damaging a werewolf, then the werewolf can play its early-story role of being this force they can only delay or flee from while they desperately try to get ahold of some silver to take it down. Again, that's not "to make proper horror" - because it doesn't; it's just a puzzle encounter - but it does let it play its role as a truly dangerous threat that needs more than just "enough levels" to work around. (Adding to monks' ki-infused strikes the ability to emulate different materials would make monks' mystical kung fu powers even more 'mysterious' - or at least special - because the monk might be the only one who can harm the weretiger if the party wasn't prepared with silver weapons.)

[Psyren]

Why should small warriors be worse?

They're worse at a few specific methods of fighting (i.e. Heavy Weapons and Grappling), in exchange for other advantages, most notably Cover and Squeezing. That doesn't make them worse overall - just different.

[Dr.Samurai]

Do the players in your games not support one another?
I look at it more like "Should weapon damage immunity force a different playstyle, and should that playstyle be support the caster?"

I think PCs already support each other, and casters are always going to use spells. So this is really about what should martials be doing, and switching to a different fighting style, or using gear, can keep things interesting without them feeling like "oh this is one of those combats where I'm just a helper".

Because that lets more players embody their desired character within the rules. That's why we're not still playing 2e where the answer to "can I have a halfling paladin" was "No, human or GTFO".
But we are still playing 5e, where small creatures take a penalty to wield Heavy weapons, and can't grapple Large creatures. So the game clearly wants there to be a distinction.

Just because an expanded Grapple system would not apply equally to Small characters doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.

Making sure that Small characters can wield giant anime swords and grapple Kaiju is simply not one of my priorities, and it likely never will be. I leave that to others.

Because we live in a world where there are biomechanical limitations on strength which do not exist in any fantasy RPG. You don't have to look like Eddie Hall to be Strength 30 in D&D.

And yet, there is a correlation between creature size and a Strength score in 5e. The larger monsters get, the stronger they are. Most of them don't even have proficiency in Strength saving throws because it would be too much coupled with their native Strength scores.

I don't want to play a game where the cloud giant has a 12 Strength because "this isn't the real world and there are no biomechanics". The game isn't simulationist, which is not the same thing as the game doesn't try to map to some realities of our world. It's not an arbitrary decision to limit grappling by size. It's a consideration of how things really work, balanced by the needs and goals of the game.

"If they're the same they would be better" is a hard sell. There are few inherent advantages to being small (or smaller) that aren't situational.
If you were not removing the size restriction, but allowing Small creatures to grapple the same as Medium, then the small creatures would be able to grapple creatures two sizes larger than them, which is better. But now we know you want to get rid of the size limits.

Yes, I think size disparity should have different effects than "lolno", with a wider range of things that a character who has grappled another can then do, explicit in the system not left to the DM, some of which only apply if they are larger or smaller.
I both agree and disagree. There should be a wider range of things for grappling. I've been saying that from the start.

I don't know that that includes a small creature stopping a huge creature in their tracks.

We are in 5E, so for the sake of context it's important for everyone to be on the same page. If I talk about how WoD resolves things and you talk about 5E and someone else is talking about FFG Star Wars and someone else brings up a hypothetical alternate rule system we none of the aforementioned printed systems actually utilize, then we are going to have problems having a discussion.
We are discussing designing new things for martials in a theoretical new edition. So everything should be received in that light. Most of what I have seen in this thread is "that's not possible in 5e", which strikes me as completely unhelpful.

Rather than forcing players to engage with broken subsystems, we could simply have a generic anyone ability "Sunder: When you make a successful sunder attack against a creature normally immune to B, P or S, you reduce one type of immunity to resistance." and maybe a Fighter-only ability, "Improved Sunder - When you make a sunder attack against a creature normally immune to B, P, or S, you remove its immunity to this damage type."
*Note that this second type would also affect creatures immune to magical BPS.
Maybe we could give rogues and barbarians specific immunity reducing or immunity-bypassing abilities.
We could give different martial classes different ways of engaging with "soft spots" based on their class.

Love the idea, though I'd think this Sunder type ability would be a no-brainer for barbarians.

But fundamentally, we're still figuring out an answer for a problem we created. We could simply not create the problem and instead utilize more selective immunities, more situational immunities and still allow the classes to function "out of the tin", without the need for taking on specific situational special abilities, which take up design space.
See... for me this is worth the discussion because it would keep things interesting.

Attack+Damage, Rinse/Repeat can get boring under certain circumstances, and pushing the right buttons to "tactically" end combat in 2 rounds is playing on easy-mode.

So I don't see these things as "quixotic" or taking up too much space or necessarily a bad thing.

But I'm not a game designer, by any stretch. So I'm open to the fact that you're all probably on to something.

I mean, this is D&D right, if we ask "What do we give fighters to make them able to handle BPS immunity better?" we also need to ask "What are fighters going to lose?" Because as we all know: mundane classes can't have nice things.
Martial: So I ask the DM if I can jump on the back of this dragon and attack its wings to ground it.
Therapist: Ok
Martial: He says "Give me an Athletics check to jump, then an attack roll to land on the dragon, followed by a Strength check to grab on. Then roll a percentile to target the wing, then an attack roll at Disadvantage to hit it, and treat the damage as having Resistance, since you're unstable. After that, roll a Reflex save to see if the attack makes you lose your grip and fall." It's a lot, you know? Just to do a cool thing. It makes me sad.
Therapist: That's understandable, doing cool things is one of the main reasons to play D&D. Have you ever tried being a spellcaster?

I brought his up during the last size-vs-grappling discussion. Been near any toddlers recently? Mine have absolutely no problem grappling and slowing me significantly. Sure, I can make a much better str/dex check to escape, but those little boogers certainly make a difference despite being 1/4 my size.
In fairness though, you're trying not to hurt them, purposely or by accident.

If you were fighting to the death with something the size of a toddler, you'd be the one doing the manhandling.

Personally, I would like to see more monsters care about the difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, and also see some of that 'care' being vulnerabilities rather than merely overcoming resistances or immunities. Skeletons being vulnerable to bashing was the example I used in the thread that inspired this one.

I would also like to see resistances and even immunities extend further. The werewolf should require silver as a material component or a special silver focus for spells to harm it; it shouldn't be just as easy for a wizard to kill as a non-lycanthrope human or wolf would be. I don't buy into the notion that "horror" means "helplessness," but a horror monster is properly going to be a puzzle monster, at the very least, and if the party lacks the means of damaging a werewolf, then the werewolf can play its early-story role of being this force they can only delay or flee from while they desperately try to get ahold of some silver to take it down. Again, that's not "to make proper horror" - because it doesn't; it's just a puzzle encounter - but it does let it play its role as a truly dangerous threat that needs more than just "enough levels" to work around. (Adding to monks' ki-infused strikes the ability to emulate different materials would make monks' mystical kung fu powers even more 'mysterious' - or at least special - because the monk might be the only one who can harm the weretiger if the party wasn't prepared with silver weapons.)
This all sounds great!

[GloatingSwine]

But we are still playing 5e, where small creatures take a penalty to wield Heavy weapons, and can't grapple Large creatures. So the game clearly wants there to be a distinction.

Just because an expanded Grapple system would not apply equally to Small characters doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.

Making sure that Small characters can wield giant anime swords and grapple Kaiju is simply not one of my priorities, and it likely never will be. I leave that to others.

And yet, there is a correlation between creature size and a Strength score in 5e. The larger monsters get, the stronger they are. Most of them don't even have proficiency in Strength saving throws because it would be too much coupled with their native Strength scores.

I don't want to play a game where the cloud giant has a 12 Strength because "this isn't the real world and there are no biomechanics". The game isn't simulationist, which is not the same thing as the game doesn't try to map to some realities of our world. It's not an arbitrary decision to limit grappling by size. It's a consideration of how things really work, balanced by the needs and goals of the game.

If you were not removing the size restriction, but allowing Small creatures to grapple the same as Medium, then the small creatures would be able to grapple creatures two sizes larger than them, which is better. But now we know you want to get rid of the size limits.

I both agree and disagree. There should be a wider range of things for grappling. I've been saying that from the start.

I don't know that that includes a small creature stopping a huge creature in their tracks.



I think the game is choosing the wrong distinctions because it has made some incorrect assumptions about the application and consequence of size and its concept of grappling is too limited (the fact that interesting fun options like "climb up the monster" is in the optional rules not the basic concept of grabbing onto them is part of that).

The game doesn't need an expanded grappling system, the game needs a wrestling system which needs to account for size disparity both ways by giving new and different options depending on who comes out on top. Right now it's only conception of grappling is "hold on and park"

There is a correlation between creature size and strength in monsters in D&D, but player characters break that correlation. With and without magical assistance. And we are talking primarily about what player characters should be allowed to do.

And yeah, sometimes it's going to need to mean small characters being able to stop large, doesn't matter if they're a halfling and you're an ogre, if you're tripped and in an ankle lock because they know how to use their strength and mass to apply leverage properly you're not going anywhere unless you fancy a broken ankle.

And again that's discounting the fact that size and mass don't correlate quite so closely. Things like eg. flying critters, especially nonmagical ones, will be lighter per volume and so more vulnerable to being grappled by something denser even if it's smaller. So size is not necessarily a good enough proxy by itself for grappling ability.

[False God]

We are discussing designing new things for martials in a theoretical new edition. So everything should be received in that light. Most of what I have seen in this thread is "that's not possible in 5e", which strikes me as completely unhelpful.
Sure, but I do think fundamentally, we're in the 5E forum, which contextualizes this as at least D&D and we've already seen some of the direction of 6E, the solution to mundanes being mundane seems to be "add magic".

Which isn't necessarily a bad answer, and frankly sometimes I think the game D&D wants to be is one without anything less than half-casters. Which I've run and it works pretty well. (Gish-only game, pre-designed class combos. Barbarian/Druid, Fighter/Cleric, Rogue/Wizard, Monk/Psion). Not insomuch that they were powerful, they were, but thats not hard to adjust for, more that everyone was on the same level and there was no worrying that in order to challenge the OP wizard I was going to kill the OP Druid.


Love the idea, though I'd think this Sunder type ability would be a no-brainer for barbarians.
See... for me this is worth the discussion because it would keep things interesting.
Attack+Damage, Rinse/Repeat can get boring under certain circumstances, and pushing the right buttons to "tactically" end combat in 2 rounds is playing on easy-mode.
So I don't see these things as "quixotic" or taking up too much space or necessarily a bad thing.
But I'm not a game designer, by any stretch. So I'm open to the fact that you're all probably on to something.
I think the concept of riders on 4E's at-will attacks were an absolutely wonderful way to make "normal combat" more engaging and I am terribly unhappy that they restricted it to some of the most boring options and for only one class. (Battlemaster Fighter), but again, this is just indicitive of WotC's "martials can't have nice things" mentality.

Trip, Push, Pull, Grapple, Sunder, Charge, Bull Rush, etc... should all be standard things that martials can do, if they want to. Some classes might get a specific selection, some classes might get improved versions, special variants and so on. We shouldn't need to go check the "Grapple Rules", because "grapple" should just be an attack rider. But I agree that "just hit it again" gets stale quickly, but keeping to the terms of the OP, I think we're still solving for a problem we created if we locked out an entire class, and then are trying to design around it.

Selectively locking out singular damage types and puzzle monsters are fine, but again, we'd be designing a version of D&D that demands the players think. I have no problem with that, but realistically it's clearly not the direction WotC is headed.


I think the game is choosing the wrong distinctions because it has made some incorrect assumptions about the application and consequence of size and its concept of grappling is too limited (the fact that interesting fun options like "climb up the monster" is in the optional rules not the basic concept of grabbing onto them is part of that).

I made an amusing commentary to my friend on the idea of a creature grappling something dramatically larger than it. It's not so much that you have restrained the creature, but more that your sheer audacity and disregard for the size differential has left it confused and it has become preoccupied with trying to shake you loose, hence seemingly "holding still" from the perspective of the party. The monster isn't concerned you're going to hold it down, it's more concerned you're going to draw funny pictures on it's back or do something indecent. Because everyone knows adventurers are off their rocker, and someone willing to attempt to "grapple" a creature so much larger must be an absolute loon. The embarrassment of "Kilroy was here." drawn on the dragon's forehead will do far more damage to their reputation among other dragons than your sword to its body.

[GloatingSwine]

I made an amusing commentary to my friend on the idea of a creature grappling something dramatically larger than it. It's not so much that you have restrained the creature, but more that your sheer audacity and disregard for the size differential has left it confused and it has become preoccupied with trying to shake you loose, hence seemingly "holding still" from the perspective of the party. The monster isn't concerned you're going to hold it down, it's more concerned you're going to draw funny pictures on it's back or do something indecent. Because everyone knows adventurers are off their rocker, and someone willing to attempt to "grapple" a creature so much larger must be an absolute loon. The embarrassment of "Kilroy was here." drawn on the dragon's forehead will do far more damage to their reputation among other dragons than your sword to its body.

Even if you're a Cloud Giant an angry Gnome going up your trouser leg is suddenly priority #1...

[Ionathus]

What Should Martial Characters Be Able To Do In The Face Of Weapon Immunity?

Lay down and die, thus clearing the way for the more deserving Casters to inherit the earth.

Kidding. Maybe.

I appreciate that 5e mostly avoids this in theory. By the time you run into nonmagical BPS immunities, most characters should have acquired some magic weapons. It's still frustrating, and I think it undermines one of my ideals for martial characters that has just never materialized in this edition: that they should be "pretty good" at any fight. Broadly effective generalists that can roll with most punches and deal consistent damage, while spellcasters hit harder but require specific circumstances to maximize their potential.

Unfortunately it feels like the opposite has happened: casters have so many spell options and abilities and blatant favoritism from 5e's designers that they always have a solution to most problems. Whereas depending on campaign, martials will only shine if you go out of your way to give them the kinds of combat that let them shine. This becomes more egregious at higher levels and higher spell levels - my current party's 13th-level Wizard walks around with 4-6 ways to trivialize practically any encounter. Conversely, my party's 13th-level barbarian is a little bit better at hitting things than she was 6 levels ago. As the DM, I can find plenty of ways to create engaging challenges and give the barbarian ways to shine and reward her creative gameplay ideas. But that's all extra work I'm putting on top of the text. RAW 5e favors non-martials heavily.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the game is choosing the wrong distinctions because it has made some incorrect assumptions about the application and consequence of size and its concept of grappling is too limited (the fact that interesting fun options like "climb up the monster" is in the optional rules not the basic concept of grabbing onto them is part of that).
I agree that "climb a monster" should be part of the default rules (and I think it should be expanded upon). This would be a great alternative for smaller creatures to still participate in grappling without being able to do things larger creatures are capable of.

The game doesn't need an expanded grappling system, the game needs a wrestling system which needs to account for size disparity both ways by giving new and different options depending on who comes out on top. Right now it's only conception of grappling is "hold on and park"
I'm using grappling to mean wrestling, and yes, I agree.

There is a correlation between creature size and strength in monsters in D&D, but player characters break that correlation. With and without magical assistance. And we are talking primarily about what player characters should be allowed to do.
Player characters are still limited by their size, so they don't really break that. It's on both sides in different ways. The game feels it should be treated that way, and I happen to agree in this regard.

And yeah, sometimes it's going to need to mean small characters being able to stop large, doesn't matter if they're a halfling and you're an ogre, if you're tripped and in an ankle lock because they know how to use their strength and mass to apply leverage properly you're not going anywhere unless you fancy a broken ankle.
A halfling's hand couldn't span an ogre's big toe, let alone wrapping its arms around the ogre's leg and ankle. I'd like it more if the halfling was using gear and digging his feet into the ground instead or pretending that if I spread my arms out against a wall, I can pick the entire house up. Like, the halfling is supernaturally strong, and throws a rope or chain around the ogre and starts to immobilize it. At least there is something that's actually physically containing the ogre in that sense, that the halfling is leveraging with their strength.

And again that's discounting the fact that size and mass don't correlate quite so closely. Things like eg. flying critters, especially nonmagical ones, will be lighter per volume and so more vulnerable to being grappled by something denser even if it's smaller. So size is not necessarily a good enough proxy by itself for grappling ability.
It's not perfect, but we know what they're going for.


Sure, but I do think fundamentally, we're in the 5E forum, which contextualizes this as at least D&D and we've already seen some of the direction of 6E, the solution to mundanes being mundane seems to be "add magic".

Which isn't necessarily a bad answer, and frankly sometimes I think the game D&D wants to be is one without anything less than half-casters.
It's a bad answer for me, because I don't always want to play a character with magic attacks.

But also, it seems to just circumvent the entire mechanic. We're back to "either you can't bypass resistance/immunity, or you can". It would seem to me that if everyone has magical attacks, there's no point to the issue we're discussing.

I do agree with you though that D&D seems to want everyone to be magical. I suspect in the end every class will be some sort of Bard-like design, or artificer design.

I think the concept of riders on 4E's at-will attacks were an absolutely wonderful way to make "normal combat" more engaging and I am terribly unhappy that they restricted it to some of the most boring options and for only one class. (Battlemaster Fighter), but again, this is just indicitive of WotC's "martials can't have nice things" mentality.

Trip, Push, Pull, Grapple, Sunder, Charge, Bull Rush, etc... should all be standard things that martials can do, if they want to. Some classes might get a specific selection, some classes might get improved versions, special variants and so on. We shouldn't need to go check the "Grapple Rules", because "grapple" should just be an attack rider. But I agree that "just hit it again" gets stale quickly, but keeping to the terms of the OP, I think we're still solving for a problem we created if we locked out an entire class, and then are trying to design around it.

Selectively locking out singular damage types and puzzle monsters are fine, but again, we'd be designing a version of D&D that demands the players think. I have no problem with that, but realistically it's clearly not the direction WotC is headed.
Agreed.

I made an amusing commentary to my friend on the idea of a creature grappling something dramatically larger than it. It's not so much that you have restrained the creature, but more that your sheer audacity and disregard for the size differential has left it confused and it has become preoccupied with trying to shake you loose, hence seemingly "holding still" from the perspective of the party. The monster isn't concerned you're going to hold it down, it's more concerned you're going to draw funny pictures on it's back or do something indecent. Because everyone knows adventurers are off their rocker, and someone willing to attempt to "grapple" a creature so much larger must be an absolute loon. The embarrassment of "Kilroy was here." drawn on the dragon's forehead will do far more damage to their reputation among other dragons than your sword to its body.
So, back in the day, I'm in a boiler room speaking to one of the porters, and an American cockroach bolts out from somewhere across the floor and climbs up his boot and all the way up his leg and starts crawling around his torso. I was horrified, he was dancing around. We both laughed afterward lol.

But I think this is a good reason why size works. Physicality is something we all understand to one degree or another and we get that giants and dragons and wurms are all very large and very strong. The question about whether or not we can physically stop them is one of size and opposed checks.

But the example given above assumes that a small creature climbing a huge or gargantuan one will force that creature to stop for reasons of personality or panic, etc. It requires that monsters behave a certain way and think a certain way. I played in a one-shot where my barbarian used the Climb on a Monster rule to climb atop a great wyrm dragon. It practically ignored me from then on. I attacked with Advantage each turn, dealt maybe like 20% of the total damage to it, and that was that. But if we say "well, small creatures can immobilize huge creatures because it's confusing or embarrassing", then all huge creatures will have this same character flaw that requires them to stop and deal with a small creature. Not because they're physically forced to, but because they can't bear the idea of a small creature crawling on them. This seems like a loss to me.

[False God]

But the example given above assumes that a small creature climbing a huge or gargantuan one will force that creature to stop for reasons of personality or panic, etc. It requires that monsters behave a certain way and think a certain way. I played in a one-shot where my barbarian used the Climb on a Monster rule to climb atop a great wyrm dragon. It practically ignored me from then on. I attacked with Advantage each turn, dealt maybe like 20% of the total damage to it, and that was that. But if we say "well, small creatures can immobilize huge creatures because it's confusing or embarrassing", then all huge creatures will have this same character flaw that requires them to stop and deal with a small creature. Not because they're physically forced to, but because they can't bear the idea of a small creature crawling on them. This seems like a loss to me.

I think it would depend a lot on presentation. The dragon starts flying high into the atmosphere to get you off. The Giant starts dancing around. The wurm starts bucking. Giant intelligent creatures don't want people crawling on them for the same reason people don't want bugs crawling on them. Giant un-intelligent monsters don't want people on them for the same reason most animals don't want things on top of them, it's a threat.

I don't think every creature needs a unique way of reacting. But this approach is going to rely heavily on the DM to present it appropriately.

[animorte]

I
In fairness though, you're trying not to hurt them, purposely or by accident.

If you were fighting to the death with something the size of a toddler, you'd be the one doing the manhandling.
A fair point! Though that last bit is debatable. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Martial: So I ask the DM if I can jump on the back of this dragon and attack its wings to ground it.
Therapist: Ok
Martial: He says "Give me an Athletics check to jump, then an attack roll to land on the dragon, followed by a Strength check to grab on. Then roll a percentile to target the wing, then an attack roll at Disadvantage to hit it, and treat the damage as having Resistance, since you're unstable. After that, roll a Reflex save to see if the attack makes you lose your grip and fall." It's a lot, you know? Just to do a cool thing. It makes me sad.
Therapist: That's understandable, doing cool things is one of the main reasons to play D&D. Have you ever tried being a spellcaster?

So here's the thing; I agree that if your fighter wants to just try something straightforward and cool (the bolded part above) then throwing a dozen checks in their way is likely going to result in a negative or disappointing experience for them. So I would definitely discourage a DM from doing that. But I'll also point out that the result of failing those checks doesn't have to be inaction, debilitation or slapstick either.

The PHB and DMG themselves both advise the DM that a valid outcome for failing a check is "success at a cost." Even if they fail one or more rolls, they can still do the Awesome Cinematic Thing of landing on the dragon's back and bringing it down from the sky; the DM can simply be more creative when it comes to assigning consequences. Maybe a failure means they take some falling damage as the dragon comes down because they weren't able to maintain their position astride it; maybe their weapon gets lodged in the dragon's wing and they need to spend an action or one of their attacks yanking it free before they can use it again; maybe the landing mildly concusses them so they spend the next round Incapacitated as they get their bearings; maybe the dragon lands on top of them and they end up grappled or restrained until they can force their way free.

Those all vary in severity (which make them a decent fit for a range of die rolls), but all of them still allow the Fighter to accomplish their main objective of bringing down the dragon for their allies and feeling awesome in doing so.

[Angelalex242]

You could do that...but making the Fighter that fails feel like the useless nonspellcaster he is is so much more fun!

Fail the Athletics check? "You try to jump on the dragon, but don't jump quite high enough and bounce off like you'd thrown a plain old nonmagical rock at it. Give me a reflex save to see if you land or not...

Fail the attack roll: "You jump high enough...and also miscalculate your jump. You jump over the dragon, doing nothing of any usefulness whatever. Womp womp."

Fail the strength check: "You jump high enough and land on the dragon's back...however, you can't hang on, and slide down his rough scales, takes 2d6 slashing damage and falling off his tail, looking rather like a young child going down a waterslide. Womp womp."

Fail the percentile: "You jump, land on the dragon's back, and manage to hang on, even! However, you don't target anything important. Roll your attack roll as if you hadn't bothered doing anything special at all."

Fail the disadvantage attack roll: "You jump, land on the dragon's back, and manage to hang on. You swing your sword at his wing, targeting it properly...but you forgot dragons have some of the highest ac in the game, and your sword simply bounces. Too bad. You're getting higher and higher in the sky...better not fail that reflex save, falling damage goes up to 20d6 ya know."

Deal insufficient damage: "You jump, land on the dragon's back, and manage to hang on. You swing your sword at his wing, targeting it properly...but you forgot dragons have some of the highest hp in the game, and your sword doesn't injure the wing enough to ground the dragon. The dragon gets higher and higher in the sky....better not fail that reflex save, falling damage goes up to 20d6 ya know."

Fail the reflex save: "You jump, land on the dragon's back, and manage to hang on long enough to swing your sword...carefully timing your strike to hit a weak spot in the wing where the scales are thinner. The dragon can't maintain his flight, so he starts falling to the ground. You can't hang on, however, and fall off the dragon, landing prone."

In short, fighters that fail should feel like they just stepped into Looney Tunes, and they're Daffy Duck doing no better than telling you, "You're despicable!" Or, for the falling part, Wiley E Coyote falling off yet another cliff...

[Cheesegear]

I was thinking again...

A lot of the solutions people have brought up (including myself) involve changing the rules of the game. Whether it be changing the rules around Grapple, or giving Warriors magical attacks, etc. However, there was also a slight tangent about specialisation being a bad thing; Choose better Feats and diversify your character build, so that you aren't locked into a specific tactic that your DM can counter (whether by accident or on purpose).

If we accept that there are good choices to make - and bad choices - when it comes to making a character, and that we should use the tools available to us, and that diversity of character build is a good thing:

Why don't Warriors learn to multi-class? :smallconfused:

The solution to the problem already exists. We don't need to add new rules to the game.

[Amnestic]

Why don't Warriors learn to multi-class? :smallconfused:


Multi-classing is an optional rule :)

[stoutstien]

Multi-classing is an optional rule :)

And not a good one at that for the very reasons brought up on this thread.

[Witty Username]

Success at a cost can work, but I am not sure how well D&D handles it.
Part of this is definitely the lack of guidance for ability checks. You can hackney some stuff yourself, like within 5 of the DC is success with a complication. But their isn't anything in the DMG to support that one way or the other as a good idea.

The other part is d20 pass-fail stuff doesn't feel like it lends well to degrees of success, at least how D&D handles it. Like what is a reasonable cost to still succeed (for jumping for example, would it cost an action, HP damage, a level of exhaustion, or something else). Also, you can't use success at a cost too often or it will start to losen the tension of failure. This feels like some subsystem stuff or DC guidelines in the core rules would help here.

[Psyren]

I was thinking again...

A lot of the solutions people have brought up (including myself) involve changing the rules of the game. Whether it be changing the rules around Grapple, or giving Warriors magical attacks, etc. However, there was also a slight tangent about specialisation being a bad thing; Choose better Feats and diversify your character build, so that you aren't locked into a specific tactic that your DM can counter (whether by accident or on purpose).

If we accept that there are good choices to make - and bad choices - when it comes to making a character, and that we should use the tools available to us, and that diversity of character build is a good thing:

Why don't Warriors learn to multi-class? :smallconfused:

The solution to the problem already exists. We don't need to add new rules to the game.

If my DM told me during session zero that I'll never find a magic weapon then sure, my Fighter would likely multiclass. The bigger issue is that if I explain I want to be a Fighter during S0 and the DM doesn't warn me that I won't get the tools I need to deal with the enemies they have planned.


Success at a cost can work, but I am not sure how well D&D handles it.
Part of this is definitely the lack of guidance for ability checks. You can hackney some stuff yourself, like within 5 of the DC is success with a complication. But their isn't anything in the DMG to support that one way or the other as a good idea.

Nor should there be; consequences of failure should be mostly if not entirely in the DM's hands.

Even if the book were to mandate that a fighter failing a roll should spend the round doing nothing - or worse, dealing with a big setback, i.e. less than nothing - you're still responsible for running your game and making sure the players have fun. Is it fun to have the fighter's action/next two actions be entirely wasted (or at least, a good chance of being wasted) any time they try to do something cool? I'd wager it isn't for most. But codifying that in the book would make it too easy for DMs to hide behind that text and not take an active role in ensuring their players have fun.


The other part is d20 pass-fail stuff doesn't feel like it lends well to degrees of success, at least how D&D handles it. Like what is a reasonable cost to still succeed (for jumping for example, would it cost an action, HP damage, a level of exhaustion, or something else). Also, you can't use success at a cost too often or it will start to losen the tension of failure. This feels like some subsystem stuff or DC guidelines in the core rules would help here.

A reasonable cost is one that, again, keeps the action moving and is thus fun. In general I'd imagine that the martial getting to do the thing they set out to do (e.g. "jump on the back of this dragon and attack its wings to ground it") even if the roll was bad, will be happy. That gives you a lot of leeway to assign consequences that still keep them happy. 5e has a laundry list of conditions as well as other drawbacks like dropping a key piece of equipment or simply applying disadvantage to the next thing they do.

[Cheesegear]

And not a good one at that for the very reasons brought up on this thread.

I want to play a non-magical character in a high(est) fantasy setting.
That's a disaster waiting to happen.
Well then can you change the rules of the game for me? Or perhaps, change the lore of the setting, even?
You can't accept that a creature must learn magic (or magical abilities), eventually - Inevitably - in order to survive in a magical world?
I cannot.
You know that hamstrings the kinds of things you can do?
That's why I'm asking you to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.
But...You can multiclass. Hell, I'm sure with a bit of Downtime and a decent one/two-shot we can grab you Magic Initiate.
No. I don't want to multiclass. I don't want to be magical.
So...You're choosing to be bad, on purpose?
No. You're going to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.

[stoutstien]

I want to play a non-magical character in a high(est) fantasy setting.
That's a disaster waiting to happen.
Well then can you change the rules of the game for me? Or perhaps, change the lore of the setting, even?
You can't accept that a creature must learn magic (or magical abilities), eventually - Inevitably - in order to survive in a magical world?
I cannot.
You know that hamstrings the kinds of things you can do?
That's why I'm asking you to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.
But...You can multiclass. Hell, I'm sure with a bit of Downtime and a decent one/two-shot we can grab you Magic Initiate.
No. I don't want to multiclass. I don't want to be magical.
So...You're choosing to be bad, on purpose?
No. You're going to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.

Nothing is nonmagical in terms of relating to RL reference points. Maybe they need to bring back a certain tag for stuff that is obviously superhuman (magic) but not *magic* magic.
What a lot of players don't want is having to pick up magic (spells) to do stuff. Using MC as a crutch eats up a ton of design space will almost no up side besides for those who like false complexity for the sake of it. The fact that anyone bring up MC as a reason why concept X or Y hasn't been done, or if included, it's is lackluster is indicatory to this problem.

This isn't even an optimization issue. MC allows some to grab very low hanging fruits to cover purposely placed weak points in classes for balance ax thematic reasons. MC doesn't allow high magic settings. It destroys them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ah, D&D. The most popular RPG of all time, in the most popular edition of all time. So amazing. So incredible.

And if you don't build your character in a very specific way, you're wrong and playing bad.

That's the spirit!

[Ionathus]

Why don't Warriors learn to multi-class? :smallconfused:

The solution to the problem already exists. We don't need to add new rules to the game.

Because at that point what you're really saying is "pick a different class", and you're just haggling over the price (i.e. number of MC levels).


I want to play a non-magical character in a high(est) fantasy setting.
That's a disaster waiting to happen.
Well then can you change the rules of the game for me? Or perhaps, change the lore of the setting, even?
You can't accept that a creature must learn magic (or magical abilities), eventually - Inevitably - in order to survive in a magical world?
I cannot.
You know that hamstrings the kinds of things you can do?
That's why I'm asking you to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.
But...You can multiclass. Hell, I'm sure with a bit of Downtime and a decent one/two-shot we can grab you Magic Initiate.
No. I don't want to multiclass. I don't want to be magical.
So...You're choosing to be bad, on purpose?
No. You're going to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.

Batman. Sokka. Xander. Most Doctor Who companions. Han Solo. Samwise Gamgee.

Name any fictional setting saturated with magic or superpowers and someone will be able to tell you about an awesome Badass Normal who holds their own alongside the superpowered heroes.

It is not unreasonable to also want this in our D&D games.

[Psyren]

Also, there are plenty of martials with magical abilities. Arguably most of them. Magic != spellcasting.

But yes, if your concept is "badass normal" or as close to that as D&D will allow, and your DM says no magic weapons + nonmagic immune enemies, your best bet is to change your concept, change their mind, or vote with your feet.

[Dr.Samurai]

Because at that point what you're really saying is "pick a different class", and you're just haggling over the price (i.e. number of MC levels).
Indeed.

Batman. Sokka. Xander. Most Doctor Who companions. Han Solo. Samwise Gamgee.

Name any fictional setting saturated with magic or superpowers and someone will be able to tell you about an awesome Badass Normal who holds their own alongside the superpowered heroes.
Having been through these conversations before, it saddens me how many D&D players just dismiss the badass normal as a concept that should exist in D&D.

It is not unreasonable to also want this in our D&D games.
In before the "You have it, just stick to lower levels, you don't deserve level advancement you plebs" crowd.

[False God]

Batman. Sokka. Xander. Most Doctor Who companions. Han Solo. Samwise Gamgee.

Name any fictional setting saturated with magic or superpowers and someone will be able to tell you about an awesome Badass Normal who holds their own alongside the superpowered heroes.

It is not unreasonable to also want this in our D&D games.

Look this is going to be a bit of a pet peeve, but I hate drawing on literature as examples. I get why people do it, but they're very quick to forget that these characters are written to do a thing because they author felt it was appropriate for them to do so. D&D is nowhere near that level of narrative-driven. It's over-reliance on the dice being the deciding factor and little to no integrated roleplay mechanics means it will never achieve even the most basic level of narrative-driven "Batman can kick butt right along side Superman but in a totally different way." See: BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. Superman can beat up Darkside but Batman can out think him are not elements derived from random number generation. They're good writing.

You aren't guaranteed to get that in a RNG based game, especially one with as little energy put into roleplay mechanics as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you I'm just saying D&D isn't the game to play if you look to literature and want to reproduce that feeling that in your games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Look this is going to be a bit of a pet peeve, but I hate drawing on literature as examples. I get why people do it, but they're very quick to forget that these characters are written to do a thing because they author felt it was appropriate for them to do so. D&D is nowhere near that level of narrative-driven. It's over-reliance on the dice being the deciding factor and little to no integrated roleplay mechanics means it will never achieve even the most basic level of narrative-driven "Batman can kick butt right along side Superman but in a totally different way." See: BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. Superman can beat up Darkside but Batman can out think him are not elements derived from random number generation. They're good writing.

You aren't guaranteed to get that in a RNG based game, especially one with as little energy put into roleplay mechanics as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you I'm just saying D&D isn't the game to play if you look to literature and want to reproduce that feeling that in your games.

Very much agree. The techniques of authored fiction and TTRPG scenario and game design are...fairly different. The idea of replicating those feelings in games that aren't single-purpose-designed for that particular scenario (and world, likely, as what it looks like will differ between worlds) is sketchy at best.

And that's not because D&D doesn't work or is bad. It's because D&D is designed from the ground up for a group of relatively equal people all engaging in the same areas, especially when combat is in play. And it's designed to leave all the NPC-thought-plan level stuff rather ad hoc.

Personally, I find those scenarios utterly contrived in every single case I've ever seen and want none of that in my games. They lean very heavy on fridge logic and writer fiat. And generally involve (especially in superhero scenarios) very ill-defined worlds, power-sets, and fiction. For example, Batman's lack of superpowers is entirely incoherent to me--it's stated but it doesn't fit with the rest of what he actually does without pure authorial fiat. But that's just me.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's less replicating it exactly and more that some people (myself included) like to play "normal" people that are adventuring, without going overtly supernatural. Insofar as one can be "normal" within the D&D ruleset, some of us like that theme of a person thrust into an adventure and surviving by their skill and grit and mettle, and not because they can make their hand glow with elemental energy and zap people with it.

Earning the equipment (magic sword, armor, etc) through exploration, as a reward, or from a vanquished foe, to let you take on greater threats is super rewarding and thematic. These heroes mentioned are all normal people with a laser pistol, gadgets they built, a magic sword and light, etc.

This is all very different from someone just mutating into an elemental channeler. This is my issue with the direction D&D has been going in. Just like the ranger changing from someone that forms a powerful bond with a beast, to someone that can summon magical spirits, people are suggesting that the warriors go from someone that can wield a magic flaming sword, to someone that can summon magic flames onto their sword.

It's a change that I don't like and am not interested in as a unilateral replacement to the possibility of playing a badass normal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's less replicating it exactly and more that some people (myself included) like to play "normal" people that are adventuring, without going overtly supernatural. Insofar as one can be "normal" within the D&D ruleset, some of us like that theme of a person thrust into an adventure and surviving by their skill and grit and mettle, and not because they can make their hand glow with elemental energy and zap people with it.

Earning the equipment (magic sword, armor, etc) through exploration, as a reward, or from a vanquished foe, to let you take on greater threats is super rewarding and thematic. These heroes mentioned are all normal people with a laser pistol, gadgets they built, a magic sword and light, etc.

This is all very different from someone just mutating into an elemental channeler. This is my issue with the direction D&D has been going in. Just like the ranger changing from someone that forms a powerful bond with a beast, to someone that can summon magical spirits, people are suggesting that the warriors go from someone that can wield a magic flaming sword, to someone that can summon magic flames onto their sword.

It's a change that I don't like and am not interested in as a unilateral replacement to the possibility of playing a badass normal.

Except...those gadgets? Those are innate magic powers. No one else can use Iron Man's suit (although he can make one for others, with limited success). No one can use Batman's gadgets and get the same results.

In those worlds, training is a superpower all of its own, even if it isn't officially called out as one. There are no "badass normals" that keep up with the high-end supernaturals except by writer fiat. And that's not possible in a TTRPG.

Instead, I think it's better to lower the power level of the entire system so that there are no high-end supernaturals. Then, yes, someone with the standard Action Hero power set (which is absolutely a superpower set relative to every other person in the fiction, let's be clear) can keep up with some magic gear.

As far as I can tell, there are no "badass normals" available in the PHB. Everyone gets powers that are well beyond what normal people can do in setting. Yes, even the Champion Fighter and the Thief Rogue.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm well aware that you refer to exaggerated traits as "magical". We can continue to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think it's that hard to understand what a badass normal is in the context of D&D. It seems to me if someone can understand the difference between literature and a TTRPG, they could understand that a badass normal might look different in one than to the other, but that the concept still exists.

And I don't understand the "throw our hands in the air, it can't be done, turn everyone into anime magic warriors" attitude. But I'll oppose it every single time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm well aware that you refer to exaggerated traits as "magical". We can continue to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think it's that hard to understand what a badass normal is in the context of D&D. It seems to me if someone can understand the difference between literature and a TTRPG, they could understand that a badass normal might look different in one than to the other, but that the concept still exists.

And I don't understand the "throw our hands in the air, it can't be done, turn everyone into anime magic warriors" attitude. But I'll oppose it every single time.

If you can do something that normal people in the setting cannot, you are not normal. That's rather definitional. That's exactly what normal excludes.

So you can't be a "badass normal" if you can do things normal people in the setting cannot. And all high-level PCs, regardless of class, regardless of how flashy their abilities are, can do things that normal people in the setting cannot. Therefore, there are no "badass normal" characters, using normal definitions. If you extend it to allow the Action Hero powerset (extraordinary luck, extraordinary resilience and healing and accuracy and competence), then yes, you can have "badass almost-normals". And those can keep up with lower power explicitly-supernaturals. They cannot, at least without making cardboard worlds that work entirely on authorial fiat, keep up with the high-power explicitly-supernaturals.

So the only possible options are
1. Give everyone explicit supernatural powers. Then everyone can keep up with the high end that exists.
2. Reduce the high end range significantly. Effectively cut off most of the 6+th level spells and equivalent effects from the game. Then your "badass almost-normals" can keep up (given appropriate gear).

The only other option is to just embed a bunch of authorial fiat and completely discard any attempt at setting or game consistency. Give fighters "can do whatever they want, and we pinky-promise that it's not magical and they're just normal people" abilities. AKA "take the comic-book-setting route and have a world that makes no sense beyond the needs of the current story."

[Dr.Samurai]

If you can do something that normal people in the setting cannot, you are not normal. That's rather definitional. That's exactly what normal excludes.
This is the strangest way to define this I have ever seen, and I don't think it holds up. In order to be normal, all normal people must be exactly capable of the same things? I don't think so.

You are completely missing the point of what a "badass normal" is. By your definition, none of the people described as badass normals would actually be badass normals.

So I feel like you're trying to force a discussion that uses your own re-defined term, when no one is using it that way.

[Psyren]

I'm well aware that you refer to exaggerated traits as "magical". We can continue to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think it's that hard to understand what a badass normal is in the context of D&D. It seems to me if someone can understand the difference between literature and a TTRPG, they could understand that a badass normal might look different in one than to the other, but that the concept still exists.

And I don't understand the "throw our hands in the air, it can't be done, turn everyone into anime magic warriors" attitude. But I'll oppose it every single time.

I agree - the concept of wanting to be a noncaster who is able to fight alongside the casters without being their 1:1 equal is perfectly fine.

What's so wrong with replicating a squire or farmer who finds a magic sword in D&D? What's wrong with wanting to be Conan, or Caramon Majere, or Hawkeye?

[False God]

It's less replicating it exactly and more that some people (myself included) like to play "normal" people that are adventuring, without going overtly supernatural. Insofar as one can be "normal" within the D&D ruleset, some of us like that theme of a person thrust into an adventure and surviving by their skill and grit and mettle, and not because they can make their hand glow with elemental energy and zap people with it.

Earning the equipment (magic sword, armor, etc) through exploration, as a reward, or from a vanquished foe, to let you take on greater threats is super rewarding and thematic. These heroes mentioned are all normal people with a laser pistol, gadgets they built, a magic sword and light, etc.

This is all very different from someone just mutating into an elemental channeler. This is my issue with the direction D&D has been going in. Just like the ranger changing from someone that forms a powerful bond with a beast, to someone that can summon magical spirits, people are suggesting that the warriors go from someone that can wield a magic flaming sword, to someone that can summon magic flames onto their sword.

It's a change that I don't like and am not interested in as a unilateral replacement to the possibility of playing a badass normal.

To reiterate my point and expand, there are fundamentally two solutions:
Either everyone needs to be roughly the same power level, which is true in the Avatar series, Dr Who, LOTR & Star Wars, just differently so, or you need authorial fiat (aka: narrative mechanics), or both.

D&D clearly is not interested in including either of these mechanics.

[Dr.Samurai]

To reiterate my point and expand, there are fundamentally two solutions:
Either everyone needs to be roughly the same power level, which is true in the Avatar series, Dr Who, LOTR & Star Wars, just differently so, or you need authorial fiat (aka: narrative mechanics), or both.

D&D clearly is not interested in including either of these mechanics.
I don't think this is true.

The game is already telling us it's possible. My human champion fighter can withstand damage from high level monsters, can make saving throws, can evade incoming attacks, etc. The champion can also hurt those monsters, kill them, grapple them. Use skills to explore and navigate and survive, etc.

The game does not require you to be magical, at all, to play and succeed.

As for authorial fiat... the DM has that. The DM chooses the enemies, the terrain, the treasure, the NPCs, etc etc etc etc etc etc. The DM creates and runs the ENTIRE world all of the dice rolls happen in. In fact, the DM determines when dice are rolled and which dice are rolled.

[False God]

I don't think this is true.

The game is already telling us it's possible. My human champion fighter can withstand damage from high level monsters, can make saving throws, can evade incoming attacks, etc. The champion can also hurt those monsters, kill them, grapple them. Use skills to explore and navigate and survive, etc.

The game does not require you to be magical, at all, to play and succeed.
I didn't say that. I said you needed to be on the same level. D&D has two levels. "Mundane" and "magical" and they are clearly not equal.


As for authorial fiat... the DM has that. The DM chooses the enemies, the terrain, the treasure, the NPCs, etc etc etc etc etc etc. The DM creates and runs the ENTIRE world all of the dice rolls happen in. In fact, the DM determines when dice are rolled and which dice are rolled.
A game that says "do what you want" is not the same as a game that provides rules and guidance on how to do it. D&D drops everything roleplay in the lap of the DM and the Players. It doesn't give any real guidance, much less mechanical manifestation of how to do it.

Go play any system that has a more narrative-first, dice-second approach. There's GOBS of guidance and pages spent helping people figure out how to role-play and mechanics that support it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the strangest way to define this I have ever seen, and I don't think it holds up. In order to be normal, all normal people must be exactly capable of the same things? I don't think so.

You are completely missing the point of what a "badass normal" is. By your definition, none of the people described as badass normals would actually be badass normals.

So I feel like you're trying to force a discussion that uses your own re-defined term, when no one is using it that way.

The definition for "badass normals" seems to be "whatever I want to be able to do, just with the fig leaf that it's totally normal." And that's an utterly incoherent definition and leads to contention.

Someone is normal if the set of things they can do is the set of things other people acknowledged as normal can do. That's..kind of explicitly the definition of normal. Yes, it's somewhat circular, but that's language for you.

"Badass normal", if it's going to mean anything, has to mean either
a) a normal person who is skilled but still within normal bounds. They can't do anything outside the norm, because that would make them not normal definitionally. PCs are not in this boat, even the "mundane" ones, from about level 3 on.
b) a person who isn't normal, but doesn't have flashy powers. Or who everyone pretends is normal but isn't. The latter is just a lie and makes for incoherent worlds that aren't worth looking at (or relies entirely on authorial fiat). The first is actually possible, and that's the Action Hero power set (+-, generally).

Definition (b) is what I'm using as "badass almost-normal". To signify that they're not normal. PCs meet this fairly well. But Action Hero characters can't keep up with people who can warp reality on a daily basis without unhealthy and impractical amounts of authorial fiat. So you need to drop the high end down to "has flashy powers, but isn't warping reality on a daily basis". Which is my preferred route.


I agree - the concept of wanting to be a noncaster who is able to fight alongside the casters without being their 1:1 equal is perfectly fine.

What's so wrong with replicating a squire or farmer who finds a magic sword in D&D? What's wrong with wanting to be Conan, or Caramon Majere, or Hawkeye?

That's a bit of a false dichotomy--not all non-casters are "normal". Being a caster isn't the only (or even the best) way of being super-powered. There's tons of room between "totally normal joe with a sword" and "casts spells" for people with powers (flashy or not).

And Conan, in the context of his fiction, is utterly abnormal. Sure, he doesn't have flashy powers. But all the common depictions of him are well beyond what is normal for his context. Same with Caramon Majere and Hawkeye. The latter of those has the Marvel "really, he's just a well-trained guy" incoherent mess of a fig leaf, but that's because Marvel is all about that incoherence.

And you know what? Hawkeye only keeps up with the other Avengers due to massive amounts of authorial fiat, plot armor, and other such things. And the fiction (both in-world and fanbase) lampshade this heavily. Because it's utter nonsense and obviously so. Conan and Caramon Majere can "keep up" because their worlds are very much lower power (and the latter does have substantial authorial fiat involved).

So you can square this circle in one of two (and only two) ways if you want a coherent world.
1. Make everyone explicitly superpowered and adjust power sets to match. Ie drop the concept of the "badass almost-normal" as a playable character.
2. Drop the high end of the range quite a bit.

[Segev]

I want to play a non-magical character in a high(est) fantasy setting.
That's a disaster waiting to happen.
Well then can you change the rules of the game for me? Or perhaps, change the lore of the setting, even?
You can't accept that a creature must learn magic (or magical abilities), eventually - Inevitably - in order to survive in a magical world?
I cannot.
You know that hamstrings the kinds of things you can do?
That's why I'm asking you to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.
But...You can multiclass. Hell, I'm sure with a bit of Downtime and a decent one/two-shot we can grab you Magic Initiate.
No. I don't want to multiclass. I don't want to be magical.
So...You're choosing to be bad, on purpose?
No. You're going to change the rules of the game and/or the lore of the setting.I mean, you shouldn't have to multiclass to do things that keep up with magic in a magical setting. Your warrior should be able to do extraordinary, superhuman feats at higher levels. 5e even supports this, to an extent (how "enough" of an extent this is will be somewhat subjective), in that you can invent actions that are resolved using ability checks (possibly opposed), and remember that a DC 30 is "nigh impossible," so that superhuman feat may well be in the 30ish DC range.

You should not expect people to multiclass to keep up with your high fantasy; the levels of your class should keep you up.


In before the "You have it, just stick to lower levels, you don't deserve level advancement you plebs" crowd.
I make that argument a lot, but I want to make sure it is understood what that argument actually is: The argument of staying at lower levels is one where, if you want your game not to involve superhuman feats (or even just want your "superhuman feats" to stop below a certain point), you should stop the leveling of your campaign at the level where you're happy with the superhumanness of the feats.

If you are wanting to cut off mages after a certain point because you want your "Conan" (whatever you envision "Conan" to be) to not be "too superheroic" but also to "keep up" with the spellcasters, then stop leveling at the level where spellcasters are doing things that you find appropriate!

This isn't a "you plebe" thing. This is a calibration thing. Levels are not just a number. If you don't want your game to "Go to 11," then literally stop before level 11. (Assuming "level 11" is the bridge too far for your expectations.)

I see nothing wrong with wanting to play a fighter or barbarian or the like all the way to level 20. But if you WANT those to keep up with mages going to the same levels, allow them to achieve superhuman feats that "keep up." They don't have to be spellcasters, but they do have to be allowed to be superheroes to play in the superhero game. If you don't want it to go to "shonen anime/superhero" heights, stop leveling before you get there. That's all the argument is.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't say that. I said you needed to be on the same level. D&D has two levels. "Mundane" and "magical" and they are clearly not equal.
But this isn't what the argument is.

"Give the martials magic powers to deal with weapon immunity"

"Nah, I'd rather that martials not be required to be overtly magical"

"They need to be to keep up with casters"

That doesn't follow. We're talking about making a change to overcome weapon immunity. Not balancing martials with casters.


A game that says "do what you want" is not the same as a game that provides rules and guidance on how to do it. D&D drops everything roleplay in the lap of the DM and the Players. It doesn't give any real guidance, much less mechanical manifestation of how to do it.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

Can the DM run a game where a player plays a badass normal and participates alongside the party without any issues? The answer is absolutely yes. The DM can't decide what actions the players take, or what side the dice land on. But the DM has control over literally everything else.

The definition for "badass normals" seems to be "whatever I want to be able to do, just with the fig leaf that it's totally normal." And that's an utterly incoherent definition and leads to contention.
Batman is one of the posterboys for Badass Normal, and according to you he wouldn't be a badass normal because he's not normal. It's a completely unhelpful definition, that you've just invented, and that no one uses because no one refers to normal people that are badass as "badass normals". They refer to incredibly skilled, powerful, resourceful heroes in various media that do the impossible, but are otherwise not powered or superpowered or in a mech suit, etc.


Someone is normal if the set of things they can do is the set of things other people acknowledged as normal can do. That's..kind of explicitly the definition of normal. Yes, it's somewhat circular, but that's language for you.
No, this is not what is being said by the term. I think that, even if this is how you want to use it, you do understand how people are using it? Right? Badass Normal (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal)

Definition (b) is what I'm using as "badass almost-normal". To signify that they're not normal. PCs meet this fairly well. But Action Hero characters can't keep up with people who can warp reality on a daily basis without unhealthy and impractical amounts of authorial fiat. So you need to drop the high end down to "has flashy powers, but isn't warping reality on a daily basis". Which is my preferred route.
A champion fighter can't keep up with a wizard how exactly? Because if I play in a high level D&D game as a champion fighter alongside a wizard, I don't think the wizard will be immune to death, damage, or conditions, nor do I think they will solo all encounters. Nor do I think my fighter won't contribute meaningfully, or is going to get wiped off the grid in a single turn, etc.

And Conan, in the context of his fiction, is utterly abnormal. Sure, he doesn't have flashy powers. But all the common depictions of him are well beyond what is normal for his context.
A normal person has no powers and has a certain amount of resilience, strength, prowess, bravery, etc. A badass normal is like that, but with a lot more of that stuff. Maybe even unbelievable amounts if you want to be super technical and forget you're reading a fantasy novel or a comic book and pretend we're talking about real life people.

A badass normal is never going to shapeshift into a giant beast, shoot lasers out of their eyes, grow to the size of a mountain, propel themselves through the air with a thought, etc. Because that's not normal.

Similarly, Conan can wear armor and wield weapons, and grapple people. He takes damage, but he can take more than most normal people. That doesn't mean he isn't "normal", that means he gets the qualifier of "badass" normal. If Conan could sheathe himself in a fiery aura and burn his enemies by approaching them, that would not be normal.

I make that argument a lot, but I want to make sure it is understood what that argument actually is: The argument of staying at lower levels is one where, if you want your game not to involve superhuman feats (or even just want your "superhuman feats" to stop below a certain point), you should stop the leveling of your campaign at the level where you're happy with the superhumanness of the feats.

If you are wanting to cut off mages after a certain point because you want your "Conan" (whatever you envision "Conan" to be) to not be "too superheroic" but also to "keep up" with the spellcasters, then stop leveling at the level where spellcasters are doing things that you find appropriate!

This isn't a "you plebe" thing. This is a calibration thing. Levels are not just a number. If you don't want your game to "Go to 11," then literally stop before level 11. (Assuming "level 11" is the bridge too far for your expectations.)

I see nothing wrong with wanting to play a fighter or barbarian or the like all the way to level 20. But if you WANT those to keep up with mages going to the same levels, allow them to achieve superhuman feats that "keep up." They don't have to be spellcasters, but they do have to be allowed to be superheroes to play in the superhero game. If you don't want it to go to "shonen anime/superhero" heights, stop leveling before you get there. That's all the argument is.
I totally disagree, and so does 5E D&D, and every edition before it that didn't require martials to transform into shonen warriors when they reached high levels.

But more to the point, we're not talking about "keeping up" or "balancing against casters". We're talking about weapon immunity. I see no need to give warriors the power to deal elemental damage, and it honestly would serve to make weapon immunity almost pointless if everyone can deal cold, fire, lightning, thunder, acid damage whenever they want for no reason.

[Ionathus]

I'm reminded of the High-Level Abilities in Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (not sure if a version also existed in AD&D).
Thieves got "use any item," some gnarly high-powered traps, a deployable Evasion buff, and the ability to apply "sneak attack" (i.e. backstab modifier) to every attack for X rounds. Meanwhile, warrior classes got a whole host of attack- and defense-boosting abilities. Hardiness reduced all damage by 40%. Greater Whirlwind let you make 10 attacks that round. Critical Strike made every attack for that round an auto-crit. And Rangers got Tracking, which is laughably bad even at the start of BGII let alone at the HLA-choosing point xD

Importantly, almost all of the martials' abilities were flavored to be mostly nonmagical ("Time Trap" notwithstanding :smallsigh:). And these classes are incredibly fun to play even when compared to caster classes that can toss around meteors and summon planetars.

High-level martials can be viable without blatant magical powers. It takes a bit more calibration for the system's rules, but it can absolutely work.

[False God]

But this isn't what the argument is.

"Give the martials magic powers to deal with weapon immunity"

"Nah, I'd rather that martials not be required to be overtly magical"

"They need to be to keep up with casters"

That doesn't follow. We're talking about making a change to overcome weapon immunity. Not balancing martials with casters.
In the context of D&D they're not really inseparable arguments. If the game presents magic as the primary way to overcome monster difficulty and then flatly does not provide certain classes with magical options, then we have a balance issue between classes with the ability to overcome difficulties and ones that don't.

Martials don't need to "keep up with casters". They need to keep up with the game and its ever increasing level of difficulty. Magic classes come with that baked in. Ways around resistances, immunities and ever more powerful spells. Mundane classes don't have those things. Ensuring that all classes in the game are able to keep up with the game's ever increasing level of difficulty is an integral part of the martial/caster balance argument.

I don't see any way you can frame "How do we make martials do the things casters can do(overcome BPS immunity)?" as not relevant to the martial/caster divide issue.


I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

Can the DM run a game where a player plays a badass normal and participates alongside the party without any issues? The answer is absolutely yes. The DM can't decide what actions the players take, or what side the dice land on. But the DM has control over literally everything else.
I'm not sure how to explain it for you then without literally saying "Go play something more narrative-heavy." L5R for example spends nearly half the book talking about the setting of Rokugan and how people live in it and provides ample guidance for roleplaying characters in it. The mechanics of the game back up this roleplay guidance. World of Darkness spends endless pages in all their books giving guidance on how members of *this specific monster type* live and breath as guidance for how players can roleplay them. Countless numbers of their mechanics reinforce and rely upon roleplay.

"Do whatever" is not a rule. I don't need a 200+ rulebook to tell me when I get to the roleplay section "do whatever". I can do that on my own. It's the exact opposite of support and guidance, it's a dereliction of it.

And once and for all Batman is not normal. Batman is a genius playboy billionaire owner of one of the largest corporations in the world who has trained since he was a child under some of the most skilled assassins and martial artists who has a secret lair full of some of the most powerful technology known to man. The fact that he is human and has red blood is not enough to call this guy "normal".

Hawkeye is a normal guy who is really really good with a bow. The fact that Marvel ignores his normalcy in order to put him on par with billionaire playboy genius in a tin-can Iron Man, with nearly indestructible gamma-powered mutant the Hulk and a literal god should not be taken as an example of "normal joes" being able to play alongside magic folks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

Can the DM run a game where a player plays a badass normal and participates alongside the party without any issues? The answer is absolutely yes. The DM can't decide what actions the players take, or what side the dice land on. But the DM has control over literally everything else.

Batman is one of the posterboys for Badass Normal, and according to you he wouldn't be a badass normal because he's not normal. It's a completely unhelpful definition, that you've just invented, and that no one uses because no one refers to normal people that are badass as "badass normals". They refer to incredibly skilled, powerful, resourceful heroes in various media that do the impossible, but are otherwise not powered or superpowered or in a mech suit, etc.


Batman is an incoherent character who has a figleaf of "he got there just by training and being smart." He's not normal by any stretch of the imagination other than authorial fiat. He has massive plot armor, gets all the authorial fiat benefits possible, and still has to use mech suits to handle anything other than street level people. Or just pure thin-air pulls on the writers' parts. Using him as an example of anything even remotely normal is meaningless.



No, this is not what is being said by the term. I think that, even if this is how you want to use it, you do understand how people are using it? Right? Badass Normal (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal)


That definition is a contradiction in terms. But sure. That's what I've been calling a Badass Almost-Normal. Hereafter "BA*". Because they're not normal and that's a hill I'll die on.



A champion fighter can't keep up with a wizard how exactly? Because if I play in a high level D&D game as a champion fighter alongside a wizard, I don't think the wizard will be immune to death, damage, or conditions, nor do I think they will solo all encounters. Nor do I think my fighter won't contribute meaningfully, or is going to get wiped off the grid in a single turn, etc.


If (and this is an IF, not a statement of what is) the reality-warping powers of a full-on, high-optimization caster are the expected high-end point, then no. And we've had tons of threads to that effect.

In a more low-op game, I'd tend to mostly agree with you, under normal circumstances. But that's an example of how if you lower the power level, your "BA" characters can already keep up ok. Which I explicitly said.

Note that Conan only stands out because his world is low-power. Even the great sorcerers are, relatively, on about the T2 level for D&D. Put him in a different fiction (say Wheel of Time) and he'd need massive authorial fiat to be relevant[0].



A normal person has no powers and has a certain amount of resilience, strength, prowess, bravery, etc. A badass normal is like that, but with a lot more of that stuff. Maybe even unbelievable amounts if you want to be super technical and forget you're reading a fantasy novel or a comic book and pretend we're talking about real life people.

A badass normal is never going to shapeshift into a giant beast, shoot lasers out of their eyes, grow to the size of a mountain, propel themselves through the air with a thought, etc. Because that's not normal.

Similarly, Conan can wear armor and wield weapons, and grapple people. He takes damage, but he can take more than most normal people. That doesn't mean he isn't "normal", that means he gets the qualifier of "badass" normal. If Conan could sheathe himself in a fiery aura and burn his enemies by approaching them, that would not be normal.


Sure. A "BA*" person is basically that. He's an Action Hero-class person[1] without flashy powers. But there's a huge gap there of characters that can be in that boat without being just a normal person who happened to pick up a magic weapon. He may have been that at level 1, but by level 5...he's already changed and grown. That's what leveling up means. Doesn't mean he has flashy powers. His "powers" (the way he exceeds the norm) may not be visible at all.

D&D very firmly takes the position that Sufficiently Serious Training is Indistinguishable from Superpowers[2]. Ignoring that locks people very firmly in the Guy at the Gym (and the low-end version of that) mentality, where you limit yourself to only what a crabbed imagination can allow. My whole point is that if you accept that fact, lots more things open up fictionally.

And if you want to keep your "BA*" guy at higher levels, you need to tone down what those higher levels mean as far as what's an acceptable power level.



But more to the point, we're not talking about "keeping up" or "balancing against casters". We're talking about weapon immunity. I see no need to give warriors the power to deal elemental damage, and it honestly would serve to make weapon immunity almost pointless if everyone can deal cold, fire, lightning, thunder, acid damage whenever they want for no reason.

I actually agree with this. Personally, I don't like weapon immunity as a thing, because it basically makes for a puzzle monster and I don't think D&D does puzzle monsters well from the core level. So I'd rather just ditch it and find other ways of representing the same fiction.

[0] Just about all the other non-channelers get exactly that kind of authorial fiat and ad-hoc superpowers and still are mostly irrelevant to the main plot of Wheel of Time. Showing that at some level of power for the main people, "normal" folks (even BA* ones) are no longer relevant.

[1] Stronger, faster, smarter, more durable, implausibly resilient and lucky, etc. Nothing flashy though.

[2] Superpowers =/= "casts spells" or other flashy overt "magic". Just...you get implausibly stronger than most folks do over a lifetime, but do it in a matter of weeks/months[3]. And you start out well above that curve. Yes, even a Thief Rogue or a Champion Fighter, who are into that boat by early T2. Evasion? Yup, that's decidedly abnormal. Critting 2-3x as much as anyone else, even a top-ranked master of weapons (ie a Battlemaster fighter)? Yup, abnormal. Everyone has their (low-grade) "superpowers" by fairly low levels. Some just are more overtly flashy than others.

[3] AKA the Charles Atlas Superpower (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower). Which even uses Batman as one of its poster children.

[Psyren]

That's a bit of a false dichotomy--not all non-casters are "normal". Being a caster isn't the only (or even the best) way of being super-powered. There's tons of room between "totally normal joe with a sword" and "casts spells" for people with powers (flashy or not).

And Conan, in the context of his fiction, is utterly abnormal. Sure, he doesn't have flashy powers. But all the common depictions of him are well beyond what is normal for his context. Same with Caramon Majere and Hawkeye. The latter of those has the Marvel "really, he's just a well-trained guy" incoherent mess of a fig leaf, but that's because Marvel is all about that incoherence.

For your first paragraph, not only do I agree, I'm the one who made that very point upthread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657007-What-Should-Martial-Characters-Be-Able-To-Do-In-The-Face-Of-Weapon-Immunity&p=25801399&viewfull=1#post25801399) But there IS also room for the, if nonmagical martials is unpalatable to you, at least less magical ones.

For your second - maybe what would help me is if you could articulate what exactly Conan does that a current D&D martial with strong stats can't do. Because I'm not seeing a material difference.



And you know what? Hawkeye only keeps up with the other Avengers due to massive amounts of authorial fiat, plot armor, and other such things. And the fiction (both in-world and fanbase) lampshade this heavily. Because it's utter nonsense and obviously so. Conan and Caramon Majere can "keep up" because their worlds are very much lower power (and the latter does have substantial authorial fiat involved).

So you can square this circle in one of two (and only two) ways if you want a coherent world.
1. Make everyone explicitly superpowered and adjust power sets to match. Ie drop the concept of the "badass almost-normal" as a playable character.
2. Drop the high end of the range quite a bit.

I guess part of my issue is that I'm not seeing as sharp a divide between authorial fiat and gameplay convention as you do. The fact that PCs are entitled to a 27 point buy or 4d6kb3 as well as 20 levels of progression is itself a form of fiat, because it's arbitrary, yet it guarantees that they will be functionally superhuman relative to the vast majority of the world(s) they inhabit. How is that any different than Caramon or Hawkeye being outliers in their own respective fiction? They're both authorial fiat, in the sense that they are decided upon by an omnipotent creator operating outside the bounds of their respective fictions - it's just that one author is writing a noninteractive story while the other is crafting a game world.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not much time here but PhoenixPhyre, your "superpowers" does not have to include "summon elemental damage". Like... if I play the word game with you and agree to your terms, I can also just say "sure sure, improved critical is a superpower, but I like superpowers that aren't elemental in nature".

You're just making it more complicated to have this discussion by dictating what these words mean for all of us. Critting more often than others is not what I would consider a "superpower", ESPECIALLY given the anemic nature of critical hits in 5e. But I hope you we can at least agree that a superpower like "crits more" is different to "can fly at-will" or "shoots heat beams" or "can shrink down to the size of a molecule".

Essentially, the argument doesn't appear to be "warriors have to have magical powers to keep up", but rather "because warriors in D&D aren't normal, it is unreasonable to limit them from having overtly magical powers, this is the shortest path to balance with casters, ergo warriors should have magical powers".

And that second bit that you think follows from the first premise, is where I'll disagree until Ragnarok comes and takes us all, and therefore can never agree with the conclusion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For your first paragraph, not only do I agree, I'm the one who made that very point upthread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657007-What-Should-Martial-Characters-Be-Able-To-Do-In-The-Face-Of-Weapon-Immunity&p=25801399&viewfull=1#post25801399) But there IS also room for the, if nonmagical martials is unpalatable to you, at least less magical ones.

For your second - maybe what would help me is if you could articulate what exactly Conan does that a current D&D martial with strong stats can't do. Because I'm not seeing a material difference.


Conan is exactly a BA* character. Which I've said that PCs are. Depending on the depiction, though, Conan is on the lower end. Roughly on par with a 5th-or-so level fighter (with some curlicues because his fiction doesn't match D&D fiction).

So I'd not expect Conan, as written, to be much use in a high-level or especially high-op game. Because he's fundamentally lower level.

My point was that if you put Conan into a different fiction, one with much higher assumed power levels (such as Wheel of Time), he'd no longer be exceptional and would be, in fact, kinda meaningless.

So what qualifies as "a functional BA*" character is entirely dependent on the environment he finds himself in. In Conan-land or in a low-power D&D-esque game, he's fine and dandy. In WoT or a high-power, high-op D&D game, he's not.

So if you want to play Conan without significant progression through level 20 and have him work all the time without authorial fiat (see below), you need to drop the overall power level of what it means to be level 20. No more "wish + teleport + simulacrum" as a standard, for one.



I guess part of my issue is that I'm not seeing as sharp a divide between authorial fiat and gameplay convention as you do. The fact that PCs are entitled to a 27 point buy or 4d6kb3 as well as 20 levels of progression is itself a form of fiat, because it's arbitrary, yet it guarantees that they will be functionally superhuman relative to the vast majority of the world(s) they inhabit. How is that any different than Caramon or Hawkeye being outliers in their own respective fiction? They're both authorial fiat, in the sense that they are decided upon by an omnipotent creator operating outside the bounds of their respective fictions - it's just that one author is writing a noninteractive story while the other is crafting a game world.

Authorial fiat isn't at the worldbuilding level. It's at the scenario level. Hawkeye is only useful to the Avengers Ensemble Movies because the writers explicitly put things that only he can deal with. There is very little, if anything, that Hawkeye can do in the big-name movies that one of the others couldn't do exponentially better, while doing everything else. He's a warm body relative to the threat. And it's lampshaded heavily in the films. He's only accepted as an equal because the authors say so. And when there's anything serious going on...Hawkeye is nowhere to be found (off taking care of smaller villains).

It can take other forms as well--Batman only wins because Batman is defined to be a winner. He wins not because he could plausibly have predicted those or survived that, but because he's the hero and heroes win. And in such things as Batman vs Superman, the authors have to pull massive Deus Ex Machina-level contortions to even let him exist on the same plane and not get pulverized instantly. That's authorial fiat.

In a TTRPG environment, that would mean things like
- Finding implausible reasons why there are antimagic fields[1] all over the place or why enemies suddenly grow immunities to all the magic, just so the champion fighter can be the star of a high-op game[2].
- Funneling massive quantities of just the right magic items to the fighter at just the right time. When the bear drops a magical polearm, yeah.
- Finding implausible reasons why <particular tactic> would work just right here.
- Fudging the dice.
- Etc.

All things that require active DM intervention to put a thumb on the scale on behalf of the person being favored (which may or may not be a weapon user). None of which are particularly good times, as it comes across as either favoritism or worse, condescension. "oh, you poor baby, let me help you out so you can have something useful to do while the big boys get things done." It sucks. It works in authored fiction because the characters can't complain and there aren't players to get aggravated. Of course, it also makes for utterly incoherent worldbuilding, when you claim one thing is the case and then let someone break that for no apparent reason other than "just because." That's the trap the superhero properties fall into 99.9% of the time--their worldbuilding is a stack of authorial ipse dixit and makes no sense when considered as an actual world rather than a cardboard backdrop for cool explosions.

[1] Although those tend to neuter fighters also in high-op games, since they rely on magic weapons.
[2] this isn't needed in a lower-op game, but that's because those actually work reliably.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not much time here but PhoenixPhyre, your "superpowers" does not have to include "summon elemental damage". Like... if I play the word game with you and agree to your terms, I can also just say "sure sure, improved critical is a superpower, but I like superpowers that aren't elemental in nature".

You're just making it more complicated to have this discussion by dictating what these words mean for all of us. Critting more often than others is not what I would consider a "superpower", ESPECIALLY given the anemic nature of critical hits in 5e. But I hope you we can at least agree that a superpower like "crits more" is different to "can fly at-will" or "shoots heat beams" or "can shrink down to the size of a molecule".

Essentially, the argument doesn't appear to be "warriors have to have magical powers to keep up", but rather "because warriors in D&D aren't normal, it is unreasonable to limit them from having overtly magical powers, this is the shortest path to balance with casters, ergo warriors should have magical powers".

And that second bit that you think follows from the first premise, is where I'll disagree until Ragnarok comes and takes us all, and therefore can never agree with the conclusion.

No, that's not my argument.

My argument is a couple-fold, with two possible options.

It's more like (sticking to the weapon immunity thing directly, which is where I think we're most aligned):

Premise: IF (and this is a big if) we're in a state where immunity to weapons is common
Premise: AND IF we want weapon users to not have any flashy powers, elemental powers, or anything other than just hitting stuff with weapons that aren't themselves capable of piercing that immunity and maybe grappling, but not too much, since you can't really see the Guy at the Gym wrestling a giant into submission,
Then: we're stuck. Anything else breaks plausibility tremendously.

So the options are

1) loosen up the second premise. Allow them to have "flashy" powers, even if that's just "your weapons are an extension of your body and your training lets you cut the uncuttable (ignore weapon immunity)." I, personally, am fine with that. Others may not be.
2) Loosen up the first premise. Don't use creatures with immunity to weapons. <-----this is the base state of the game and my strong preference on the matter.
3) discard any semblance of a coherent world and claim that these normal people can do abnormal things just because we're carving out a specific loophole with their name on it. No thanks.

More generally,
a) IF the high-op caster play (where shield is a necessity, AC 30 is the expected value, and having a simlacrum or summoned monsters is par for the course, where wish is just fine and dandy, where casters are considered to be rightfully reality warpers on a daily basis, able to throw down with literal gods) is the desired high-end power level
b) AND IF we want warriors to remain BA* at the top end, without any flashy powers or anything that even hints of supernatural power
THEN: we're stuck. Either warriors will always be second-class citizens, made relevant only by DM pity, or they just won't be relevant at all.

And the options to fix this are exactly the same as the first case, just more so. Tone down the first premise or relax the second one. Or discard any semblance of coherence and just do pure ipse dixit/authorial fiat/fudging.

Everything else is fairly basic logic. There's no fourth option.

[Doug Lampert]

So the only possible options are
1. Give everyone explicit supernatural powers. Then everyone can keep up with the high end that exists.
2. Reduce the high end range significantly. Effectively cut off most of the 6+th level spells and equivalent effects from the game. Then your "badass almost-normals" can keep up (given appropriate gear).

This is untrue. A realistic skilled warrior can kill pretty well anyone with a single weapon attack that hits solidly.

There are no land animals large or strong enough to be effectively immune to being killed by a guy with a spear with a single spear attack.

Give someone that perfectly realistic power of, in game terms, an at-will save or die, and they're competative with high end magic. If the save is tough enough, magic has trouble competing with the mundane at combat. You can leave all the current magic in the game, all the current powers, and simply say, "But Conan's sword through your gut, gutting you like a fish, means that you are dead", and in a combat heavy game, Conan stays relevant.

That's not supernatural, at all, in any way shape or form, it's saying that unless you are really good at avoiding being killed, a sword attack from Conan kills you. Which is what it SHOULD DO! Similarly, if Robin Hood shoots you, you most likely die.

Yet attacks like those compete quite well with 9th level magic (except wish-simulacrum, because the caster can use that to duplicate the fighter).

Now, if you include weapon immunity, then we need to add in Hercules or Beowolf's ability to wrestle, because that solution to "immune to weapons" happens in multiple myths and works fine too.

If you can't bear to have a non-supernatural save power, just award Conan's sword attack a base damage of 1d8+9000, so his power is over 9000 without anything supernatural.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is untrue. A realistic skilled warrior can kill pretty well anyone with a single weapon attack that hits solidly.

There are no land animals large or strong enough to be effectively immune to being killed by a guy with a spear with a single spear attack.

Give someone that perfectly realistic power of, in game terms, an at-will save or die, and they're competative with high end magic. If the save is tough enough, magic has trouble competing with the mundane at combat. You can leave all the current magic in the game, all the current powers, and simply say, "But Conan's sword through your gut, gutting you like a fish, means that you are dead", and in a combat heavy game, Conan stays relevant.

That's not supernatural, at all, in any way shape or form, it's saying that unless you are really good at avoiding being killed, a sword attack from Conan kills you. Which is what it SHOULD DO! Similarly, if Robin Hood shoots you, you most likely die.

Yet attacks like those compete quite well with 9th level magic (except wish-simulacrum, because the caster can use that to duplicate the fighter).

Now, if you include weapon immunity, then we need to add in Hercules or Beowolf's ability to wrestle, because that solution to "immune to weapons" happens in multiple myths and works fine too.

If you can't bear to have a non-supernatural save power, just award Conan's sword attack a base damage of 1d8+9000, so his power is over 9000 without anything supernatural.

Yeah, no. That breaks everything. Because now every single attack is no save just die on hit. Starting at level like...5. Welcome to breaking the game apart at the seams.

It doesn't match the rest of the system whatsoever, and shatters all the abstractions. And it must go both ways--if Conan, the regular STR 20 guy (no other particular skills) can one-hit-kill anything...then that giant over there? Yup. He one-hit kills all the things. Because he's supernaturally stronger (STR 21+, compared to Conan being limited to STR 20).

D&D is not reality. There are lots of D&D creatures that are effectively immune to being killed with a single sword attack, because swords do defined damage. And no, adding 9000 to the damage is not an option--it's one of
a) supernatural
b) DM fiat.

And that doesn't actually get you competitive. Because killing things is where martials stay the most relevant even now. Giving a fighter the ability to one-hit kill anything just makes the game boring, it doesn't actually give them any substantial narrative power. Especially when that would have to start at level 5 or so for everyone in the universe. Any single STR 20 (or even lower) person would have to be able to kill anything in a single hit, guaranteed. Which, as I said, breaks everything.

[GloatingSwine]

Now, if you include weapon immunity, then we need to add in Hercules or Beowolf's ability to wrestle, because that solution to "immune to weapons" happens in multiple myths and works fine too.


Yeah, but it generally works fine on things that are corporeal and have to do things like breathe. Iron Golem don't care.

I've already said upthread that it's a necessary addition anyway, but it doesn't solve the whole problem of weapon immunity.

One thing that might is a simple design rule that no creature can ever be immune to all types of weapon damage. It has to have at least one it is no more than resistant to, combined with a redesign of martial combat characters away from specialisation. So no specialist fighting styles on Fighter, you're a Fighter, your specialist style is all of the fighting. Battlemaster features as default in the class, and a redesign of martial combat feats away from single weapon types into general combat actions and enhancements.

So that a fighter is able to always have the right thing to hit the enemy with and be good at hitting them with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, but it generally works fine on things that are corporeal and have to do things like breathe. Iron Golem don't care.

I've already said upthread that it's a necessary addition anyway, but it doesn't solve the whole problem of weapon immunity.

One thing that might is a simple design rule that no creature can ever be immune to all types of weapon damage. It has to have at least one it is no more than resistant to, combined with a redesign of martial combat characters away from specialisation. So no specialist fighting styles on Fighter, you're a Fighter, your specialist style is all of the fighting. Battlemaster features as default in the class, and a redesign of martial combat feats away from single weapon types into general combat actions and enhancements.

So that a fighter is able to always have the right thing to hit the enemy with and be good at hitting them with it.

I still don't like immunity (although I dislike resistance more, generally) for other reasons, but I'm basically ok with all of this.

-----------

I will say, on the subject of one-hit-kill powers, the game revision I'm working on does give the fighter-equivalent a similar power at high levels:

Note: armsmen have level+CON Stamina per short rest.



Deathblow:

Starting at 14th level, you can attempt to strike down a wounded foe. When you hit an enemy with a weapon attack and the enemy has less than 25 HP, you can choose to spend 5 STA to drop it to 0 HP instead of dealing normal damage. You can choose whether this is lethal or nonlethal if you hit with a melee attack.

If the target has hit points above this threshold, you can choose to force the target to make a Constitution saving throw at disadvantage against a DC of 8 + your Strength + your proficiency bonus. On a failed save they are stunned until the end of your next turn. Alternatively, you can choose to refund the STA spent.

Improved Deathblow
Starting at 20th level, your touch is death for most weaker foes. You no longer need to expend STA to use Deathblow if the target's current or maximum HP is below 50, and can spend stamina to use Deathblow as long as the target's current HP is under 100.


So basically PW:K at 20th level 5x/SR, with a half-threshold version at will. And the option to try to stun targets with too much HP.

Is it supernatural? Meh. In this setting, things that cost STA aren't explicitly magical. Where the line is from there is very fuzzy.

And one subclass (the more defensive Defender) gets the explicitly magical (AET is aether, something everyone has, of which the Defender would have ~10/LR)



###### Total Prediction
Starting at 18th level, you have trained enough to be able to magically sense your enemies' actions a few steps ahead. As an action you can expend 4 AET, gaining limited precognitive abilities for one hour. For the duration, you cannot be surprised and have advantage on attack rolls. Additionally, other creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls against you for the duration.


So basically one part of foresight, 2x/LR. That one is explicitly magical since it uses AET. But access is entirely a Charles Atlas Superpower--Training Is Magical is a central part of the setting and system.

[Psyren]

Conan is exactly a BA* character. Which I've said that PCs are. Depending on the depiction, though, Conan is on the lower end. Roughly on par with a 5th-or-so level fighter (with some curlicues because his fiction doesn't match D&D fiction).

So I'd not expect Conan, as written, to be much use in a high-level or especially high-op game. Because he's fundamentally lower level.

Okay, let's start here. Say I agreed with you that Conan is a low-level character. If you then proceeded to level him up using the expected 5e progression - more proficiency bonus and HP, more stats and feats, access to a few magic items - then would he still be useless against high-level challenges? Would he stop feeling like Conan? Because I don't think either would be true.



Authorial fiat isn't at the worldbuilding level. It's at the scenario level. Hawkeye is only useful to the Avengers Ensemble Movies because the writers explicitly put things that only he can deal with. There is very little, if anything, that Hawkeye can do in the big-name movies that one of the others couldn't do exponentially better, while doing everything else. He's a warm body relative to the threat. And it's lampshaded heavily in the films. He's only accepted as an equal because the authors say so. And when there's anything serious going on...Hawkeye is nowhere to be found (off taking care of smaller villains).

It's at both levels. Who decided dragons and liches are high level threats, but trolls and shadows aren't? The authors. Why do all monsters in the manual have finite HP? Authors. Why don't gods have stats? Authors. Why are the vast majority of printed challenges combat challenges? Authors. You can certainly make scenarios out of all those elements, but before that, they all began as an idea or concept of the kind of world they fit into and what the players might need in order to oppose them directly.

As for designing challenges Hawkeye can defeat... Guess what, D&D does that too! That's why there aren't actually any monsters in the game that are outright immune to martials or weapon damage. That's also why the game includes a CR assumption you're expected to follow. It would be trivial to design if the devs wanted, just like it would be trivial to design something Hawkeye can't beat in a story - just put in their statblock "immune to all weapons" or "can only be defeated by a character with at least X wizard levels" or something. That they choose not to do so is just as much authorial mandate/fiat as putting stuff into an Avengers movie that Hawkeye can shoot to contribute.

[LudicSavant]

There's no fourth option.

I think there is a fourth, a fifth, and more.

For example, just being better at hitting things than the next guy can be a pretty big deal if interesting items are a regular thing. You didn't get any less mundane, but characters like Link or Hawkeye or whoever get enormous boosts when the variety of weaponry in the world gets more interesting.

Link doesn't need the ability to shoot fire out of his hands to get elemental damage, he can just throw a bomb. But in 5th edition D&D, Alchemist's Fire is rarely even worth the effort to toss.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there is a fourth, a fifth, and more.

For example, just being better at hitting things than the next guy can be a pretty big deal if interesting items are a regular thing. You didn't get any less mundane, but characters like Link or Hawkeye or whoever get enormous boosts when the variety of weaponry in the world gets more interesting.

Link doesn't need the ability to shoot fire out of his hands to get elemental damage, he can just throw a bomb. But in 5th edition D&D, Alchemist's Fire is rarely even worth the effort to toss.

But that relies on having reliable access to magic items. Which means magic marts or having magic items as class features. Which has all sorts of other issues. And having magic items that can keep up with wish, simulacrum, or minionmancy is...yeah. Not exactly some mundane thing. And it's something that anyone else can use just as well. WBL-mancy (3e style) basically erases your class features.

And that basically only helps in combat, the place where martials are already nearest parity. Unless you basically make "spell in a can" as magic items...in which case the casters can use them just as well.

Things that are equal-access cannot bridge a gap, because anyone can get there. And without contorting the world, you can only close small gaps that way. Sure, magic items can help a BA* quite a lot. But they're not going to make Hawkeye be a valid character in the Wheel of Time, where basically at-will teleport is a standard power for those that count and one of the smaller powers out of a huge range. Unless it's a helm of at-will teleport + a crap-ton of other things.

I'll also note that Hawkeye's "arrows" are entirely "supernatural". Keep track of how many he shoots--his ammo is effectively unlimited and he always has the right arrow. Including things that just aren't possible mundanely. Yet he supposedly makes them himself.

To be very clear--I personally think that, played as intended, 5e Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues are not significantly out-of-band with other characters. But that's because most of the high-op tricks are very much not playing as intended. So you have to choose at most 2:

1. Plausible BA* characters
2. High-op play
3. Coherent worlds.

[LudicSavant]

But that relies on having reliable access to magic items. Alchemist's Fire isn't even a magic item.

[Corran]

OK, imagine that you're in charge of writing up the martial classes for 6e, and you're told that some monsters will just be straight-up immune to weapon damage for Reasons. What kinds of useful/thematic features would you give each martial class for these fights where they can't deal damage?

(This is inspired by how spellcasters are generally designed so that they have something that they can do if their direct offensive spells are off the table.)
I think 5e handles this well. Giving some, but not all, martial (sub)classes access to magical attacks (at the very least as an option). This promotes the need for teamwork and makes players' choices harder, both of which I find entertaining. The parallel you are drawing with spellcasters is not a 1-1 analogy. It would be if you used an antimagic zone. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any thematic cool feature for any subclass missing access to magical attacks (probably because enough of them get one), but making crits bypass immunity (flavoring it as exploiting a weakness, eg Smaug's missing scale) probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (I am not sure I like it).

[Kane0]

Donating your actions/bonus actions to other characters, like the help action but for action economy

[False God]

I think there is a fourth, a fifth, and more.

For example, just being better at hitting things than the next guy can be a pretty big deal if interesting items are a regular thing. You didn't get any less mundane, but characters like Link or Hawkeye or whoever get enormous boosts when the variety of weaponry in the world gets more interesting.

Link doesn't need the ability to shoot fire out of his hands to get elemental damage, he can just throw a bomb. But in 5th edition D&D, Alchemist's Fire is rarely even worth the effort to toss.

If mundane hero Link gets the magical Master Sword to overcome mundane damage reduction...then aren't we still saying that Link needs to be magical? If not personally then be equipped with magic. At the end of the day, the answer is still get some magic.

[Psyren]

If mundane hero Link gets the magical Master Sword to overcome mundane damage reduction...then aren't we still saying that Link needs to be magical? If not personally then be equipped with magic. At the end of the day, the answer is still get some magic.

Yeah but like... the game (DMG) tells you that everyone should be getting magic items in T2+. It's not exactly a revelation or unfair.


But that relies on having reliable access to magic items. Which means magic marts or having magic items as class features. Which has all sorts of other issues. And having magic items that can keep up with wish, simulacrum, or minionmancy is...yeah. Not exactly some mundane thing. And it's something that anyone else can use just as well. WBL-mancy (3e style) basically erases your class features.

And that basically only helps in combat, the place where martials are already nearest parity. Unless you basically make "spell in a can" as magic items...in which case the casters can use them just as well.

Things that are equal-access cannot bridge a gap, because anyone can get there. And without contorting the world, you can only close small gaps that way. Sure, magic items can help a BA* quite a lot. But they're not going to make Hawkeye be a valid character in the Wheel of Time, where basically at-will teleport is a standard power for those that count and one of the smaller powers out of a huge range. Unless it's a helm of at-will teleport + a crap-ton of other things.

Bad example is bad, because archers who are nowhere near Hawkeye's level take out Aes Sedai and damane all the time, even before we take his special arrows into account. A big part of that is because, much like D&D, arrows easily outrange most spellcasting in WoT; also like D&D, channelers generally need to see threats to deal with them.


I'll also note that Hawkeye's "arrows" are entirely "supernatural". Keep track of how many he shoots--his ammo is effectively unlimited and he always has the right arrow. Including things that just aren't possible mundanely. Yet he supposedly makes them himself.

I can't speak for your games but we definitely don't track arrows in ours. If you mean his special arrows exclusively, he doesn't need that many to be effective - he took down Loki with a single explosive arrow, so whether he had 50 more or 0 more was irrelevant.


To be very clear--I personally think that, played as intended, 5e Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues are not significantly out-of-band with other characters. But that's because most of the high-op tricks are very much not playing as intended. So you have to choose at most 2:

1. Plausible BA* characters
2. High-op play
3. Coherent worlds.

D&D doesn't require "high-op play" to be D&D. Sure if you're shooting for that exclusively, Champions and Thieves might get left behind at your table, but that doesn't mean the designers are doing anything wrong.

[Cheesegear]

Because at that point what you're really saying is "pick a different class", and you're just haggling over the price (i.e. number of MC levels).

Agree.


Name any fictional setting saturated with magic or superpowers and someone will be able to tell you about an awesome Badass Normal who holds their own alongside the superpowered heroes.

I can name several regular normals who are a burden to their magical friends, until the author decides that they aren't in one episode per season.
I can name several regular normals who can't be killed, ever, because the media that they are in is designed for children, and secondly the media has a profit-motive for characters to explicitly not die, ever, for merchandising.


It is not unreasonable to also want this in our D&D games.

Again. Partial agree.

But you don't get to say:
"You shouldn't specialise into a particular niche, because the DM can take that away from you through various means, so it's best to generalise your character build. You have other options available to you... You just chose the bad options."
and then
"...Multiclassing solves all my problems. But I just don't want to. I'm am choosing not to take an option available to me. Instead of being punished for not taking the good option, and I can't stress this enough; It was my choice. To that end, I want the game (i.e; Other players at the table) to warp the game around me, even though it was my choice to build the character the way I did, knowing how the game works."


Insofar as one can be "normal" within the D&D ruleset, some of us like that theme of a person thrust into an adventure and surviving by their skill and grit and mettle, and not because they can make their hand glow with elemental energy and zap people with it.

Good thought!
...With the exception of the Four Elements stuff; Is what a Monk does, magical? At 6th Level, they can punch Ghosts. Is this a skill they possess, or magic they do?

Are Monks badass normals? Or are they magical nerds, same as everyone else?


Earning the equipment (magic sword, armor, etc) through exploration, as a reward, or from a vanquished foe, to let you take on greater threats is super rewarding and thematic.

You are lame.
Cool sword, though.

Kinda feels like you're special because of the sword. Not because you're special because you're a cool guy.


This is my issue with the direction D&D has been going in. Just like the ranger changing from someone that forms a powerful bond with a beast, to someone that can summon magical spirits, people are suggesting that the warriors go from someone that can wield a magic flaming sword, to someone that can summon magic flames onto their sword.

The alternative is remove high-tier magic from the game. Which I am in favour of.


It's a change that I don't like and am not interested in as a unilateral replacement to the possibility of playing a badass normal.

As others have said; D&D just doesn't offer that experience.


As far as I can tell, there are no "badass normals" available in the PHB. Everyone gets powers that are well beyond what normal people can do in setting. Yes, even the Champion Fighter and the Thief Rogue.

A Commoner has 4 HP, AC 10, and +0 to everything. Can barely swing a club.
Nobody wants to play that character.


I mean, you shouldn't have to multiclass to do things that keep up with magic in a magical setting.

I agree in theory.


Your warrior should be able to do extraordinary, superhuman feats at higher levels.

A Wizard casts Time Stop and Teleports away. "See you later, ****head."
In this scenario, what does the Warrior do...Mundanely (Is that a word? It is now)?

The Warrior can't Anti-magic field. That's magic.
The Warrior can't Counterspell. That's magic.
The Warrior can't track a Teleport...I'm almost certain however you homebrew'd that, it would be magical.

The Wizard casts Fly...And goes countably infinite feet up into the air.

The Warrior can...Jump? Probably? How high? Probably a little bit less than infinity high, I guess? WTF is jumping gonna do when the Wizard casts Meteor Swarm? We even saw that goes in OotS. :smallwink:
Maybe if Roy Greenhilt had been a Monk he could have Feather Fall'd...Or is Feather Fall too magical?

I can agree that a Warrior should have preternatural abilities; They can adrenaline surge and deadlift a car off a baby. They can "never give up" and run twice and far and fast without exhaustion. They can drop to 0 hit points and stand back up without making a Death Save. Their Constitution becomes their Armour Class. A Shield Master adds their Shield bonus to their Dex saves. That's cool. That's...Dare I say...Normal.

But it doesn't mean **** when gargantuan flying blue dinosaur tags you for 135 lightning damage from 90 ft. in the air.

This is my friend, Nightwalker. Go toe-to-toe with it. Use Magic Sword if you have it, he doesn't care. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. You're done. Physical attacks and effects don't mean anything to the 'Walker.


You should not expect people to multiclass to keep up with your high fantasy; the levels of your class should keep you up.

True.
But they don't.
And they haven't for almost 10 years. Maybe even longer.
...But multiclassing has existed for just as long. And as Xanathar's and Tasha's gives more and more expanded options; Multiclassing becomes even better.

There is an option on the table. Already there. Ready to go - and it's effective.

People just don't want to take that option...Because the character you envision at Level 0 is the same character you're gonna have at Level 17+, regardless of the story the DM runs you through, and your character, in character, isn't going to learn a single thing - not one - about magic. Despite being actively searching for it, and being in and around it constantly. Your character, in character, doesn't have pattern recognition and doesn't understand the value of magic, even when 16 levels deep in it.

[Angelalex242]

I have long said the only martial class that has any business being in a high level campaign is Paladin.

Cause they DO have the tools to play with the big boys, with the minor restriction of wanting to fight up close. But even then, these guys (can) have Misty Step or Even Dimension Door and they aren't afraid to use 'em.

This might be less the case in One D&D, but it's still true in 5E.

[False God]

I have long said the only martial class that has any business being in a high level campaign is Paladin.

Cause they DO have the tools to play with the big boys, with the minor restriction of wanting to fight up close. But even then, these guys (can) have Misty Step or Even Dimension Door and they aren't afraid to use 'em.

This might be less the case in One D&D, but it's still true in 5E.

Referencing back a few pages about a game I ran, sometimes I think the game D&D wants to be is a gish game. Wizard Warriors, Rougish Sorcerers, Warrior Clerics, Barbarian Druids, Monk Psions, etc... The fact that there are even feats to make many of these combinations work without gishing seems to indicate they recognize and want to facilitate this kind of hybrid class gameplay.

They're quite high-power mind you, but they balance well with each other and fit nicely into the action high-fantasy D&D seems to be promoting for the last 20 years.

[Segev]

The answer, I think, to the OP's question is that the warriors should have to find the solution to the damage problem. As written, warriors can carry alchemist's fire, oil, and other ways ti deal fire damage as a fallback if they lack magic weapons or special material weapons of the appropriate sort.

It still stinks that mages do have more options to deal with such threats without having to do anything special; this is why I suggested, as an example, making lycanthropes immune to all damage types that aren't somehow backed by silver, whether as an added spell component, or using a special silver focus, or whatnot.

Maybe critical hits should bypass some immunities, too.

[GloatingSwine]

The answer, I think, to the OP's question is that the warriors should have to find the solution to the damage problem. As written, warriors can carry alchemist's fire, oil, and other ways ti deal fire damage as a fallback if they lack magic weapons or special material weapons of the appropriate sort.

Yeah, I think most people are just starting with the default assumption that those things are just not sufficient to the task.

The reason is that they're scaled to level 1 characters and don't get any better, which means that at high levels they're almost never worth an action to use.

But that means that a warrior who has to rely on them is doing something they know is basically a pathetic non-action just to consume their turn instead of tuning out from the game completely.

[Angelalex242]

Immune to slashing Mr Werewolf?

...you're not immune to radiant!

SMITE SMITE SMITE!

Me, a Paladin.

[Mastikator]

It still stinks that mages do have more options to deal with such threats without having to do anything special; this is why I suggested, as an example, making lycanthropes immune to all damage types that aren't somehow backed by silver, whether as an added spell component, or using a special silver focus, or whatnot.

Maybe critical hits should bypass some immunities, too.

IMO I think WotC dropped the ball when it comes to non-magic BPS immunities and resistances. They could've added options to bypass those resistances with circumstances. Take the Wretched Sorrowsworn from MP:MotM, it has resistance while in dim light or darkness. The antidote to their resistance is literally just a torch, however a torch comes with its own pros and cons. That is good monster design, and it's the exception.
They could've applied a similar thing to the Shadow from MM, for example if it a character is surrounded by a circle of salt then it can bypass the shadow's BPS resistance.
A Peryton's resistance might be bypassed if attacked by a non-magical weapon that is covered in the blood of the attacker (IE deal 1 hp to yourself with your weapon and then attack the Peryton).

[Ionathus]

For what it's worth to the current discussion: I think magic armor, accessories, and weapons are fine. Probably the best way to help martials keep pace. Magic Items are already a de facto assumption in 5e, even if RAW claims that they're not necessary.

It's fun to get a greatsword that bursts into flames, and I have nothing wrong with my mostly-mundane Fighter making use of a magical sword. In fact I think martials are uniquely set up to have magic items harmonize with their innate abilities -- the level-20 fighter with action surge can do a helluva lot more damage in one turn with a Flametongue than a bard or a cleric could. And in my opinion, that moment doesn't make me see the fighter as dependent on the magic item (even if they technically are): instead, I see the fighter as the one in the group best able to capitalize on what the magic item offers the group.


Again. Partial agree.

But you don't get to say:
"You shouldn't specialise into a particular niche, because the DM can take that away from you through various means, so it's best to generalise your character build. You have other options available to you... You just chose the bad options."
and then
"...Multiclassing solves all my problems. But I just don't want to. I'm am choosing not to take an option available to me. Instead of being punished for not taking the good option, and I can't stress this enough; It was my choice. To that end, I want the game (i.e; Other players at the table) to warp the game around me, even though it was my choice to build the character the way I did, knowing how the game works."

???

Who are you talking to? It's not me. I never said...whatever opinion you're responding to here.


You are lame.
Cool sword, though.

Kinda feels like you're special because of the sword. Not because you're special because you're a cool guy.

<snip>

This is my friend, Nightwalker. Go toe-to-toe with it. Use Magic Sword if you have it, he doesn't care. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. You're done. Physical attacks and effects don't mean anything to the 'Walker.

<snip>

True.
But they don't.
And they haven't for almost 10 years. Maybe even longer.
...But multiclassing has existed for just as long. And as Xanathar's and Tasha's gives more and more expanded options; Multiclassing becomes even better.

There is an option on the table. Already there. Ready to go - and it's effective.

People just don't want to take that option...Because the character you envision at Level 0 is the same character you're gonna have at Level 17+, regardless of the story the DM runs you through, and your character, in character, isn't going to learn a single thing - not one - about magic. Despite being actively searching for it, and being in and around it constantly. Your character, in character, doesn't have pattern recognition and doesn't understand the value of magic, even when 16 levels deep in it.

(emphasis mine)

Dude, we get it. You've got intense disdain for non-spellcaster classes for whatever reason. If you look down your nose at them any harder, you're going to go cross-eyed.

Mundane PCs exist in 5e. A method to take those PCs all the way to level 20 and beyond exists in the PHB. They are baked into the core rules. If the Champion Fighter who lives and dies by her athleticism and her weapon expertise is intended by WotC to be a selectable option, then that class should be playable as-is, without multiclassing BS. If WotC didn't want Champion Fighter to be in the game, they wouldn't have put it in the damned game. But since it's there, we can assume it's meant to be there, and people are meant to be able to take it to level 20.

Do you see how countering every argument with "just multiclass into something with magic or else your character is literally an idiot" is unhelpful to this discussion?

[Dr.Samurai]

In the context of D&D they're not really inseparable arguments. If the game presents magic as the primary way to overcome monster difficulty and then flatly does not provide certain classes with magical options, then we have a balance issue between classes with the ability to overcome difficulties and ones that don't.
Yes but the problem is that many people that engage in these discussions are already assuming the conclusion. And that conclusion is that warriors HAVE TO BE MAGICAL in order to solve for all of these problems.

It's not just warriors that have to deal with immunity (and actual weapon immunity is pretty rare). There is also antimagic in the game as well.

We can envision an edition of this game where monsters are straight up immune to some spells or effects with more regularity. Coupled with casters have limited spells known/prepared, this may represent more frequency in which casters also have to think outside of the box to deal with creatures.

In this case, we have achieved a balance between both classes (in this matter), in that they each have foes in the monster manual that counter their primary method of attack. And we didn't have to turn the warriors into magic sailor moon expies to do it.

Martials don't need to "keep up with casters". They need to keep up with the game and its ever increasing level of difficulty. Magic classes come with that baked in. Ways around resistances, immunities and ever more powerful spells. Mundane classes don't have those things. Ensuring that all classes in the game are able to keep up with the game's ever increasing level of difficulty is an integral part of the martial/caster balance argument.
My very first post mentions systemic changes. Magic classes don't come baked in with those methods because they were found that way etched in a stone tablet by interdimensional beings.

They were designed that way. We're talking about how to design to solve for a problem. We can design martials differently. We can design "the game" differently.

I don't see any way you can frame "How do we make martials do the things casters can do(overcome BPS immunity)?" as not relevant to the martial/caster divide issue.
Because we're trying to solve for a problem, and now I have to contend with the argument of "you need to do this in order to be balanced against casters", which is an entirely different problem and irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not sure how to explain it for you then without literally saying "Go play something more narrative-heavy." L5R for example spends nearly half the book talking about the setting of Rokugan and how people live in it and provides ample guidance for roleplaying characters in it. The mechanics of the game back up this roleplay guidance. World of Darkness spends endless pages in all their books giving guidance on how members of *this specific monster type* live and breath as guidance for how players can roleplay them. Countless numbers of their mechanics reinforce and rely upon roleplay.

"Do whatever" is not a rule. I don't need a 200+ rulebook to tell me when I get to the roleplay section "do whatever". I can do that on my own. It's the exact opposite of support and guidance, it's a dereliction of it.
Forgive me but I honestly can't make out what you're trying to say here, and I know that's me not understanding. But I don't know what I"m supposed to take away from this.

And once and for all Batman is not normal. Batman is a genius playboy billionaire owner of one of the largest corporations in the world who has trained since he was a child under some of the most skilled assassins and martial artists who has a secret lair full of some of the most powerful technology known to man. The fact that he is human and has red blood is not enough to call this guy "normal".

Hawkeye is a normal guy who is really really good with a bow. The fact that Marvel ignores his normalcy in order to put him on par with billionaire playboy genius in a tin-can Iron Man, with nearly indestructible gamma-powered mutant the Hulk and a literal god should not be taken as an example of "normal joes" being able to play alongside magic folks.
Batman and Hawkeye are "normal" insofar as they are not aliens, mutants, monsters, beings from the spirit realm, magical creatures, etc etc etc etc. I think you guys know exactly what "normal" is meant to mean here. There are plenty of references in the comics to Batman being "just a man", because that is part of the point of the character. Yes, he does things that normal people can't do. Yes, it's unbelievable. It's a freaking comic. This is a fantasy roleplaying game. Your objection, and PhoenixPhyre's objections, are completely and utterly inappropriate.

Nobody cares that Batman and Hawkeye are unrealistic. They are heroes in a comic book. Would Sam really defeat a humongous spider demon goddess with a short sword? No, probably not. NOBODY CARES, because we like the story. We like the message. We like the action. How does Conan fight an elder evil? I don't know, but I'll find out when my level 17 fighter goes up against one.

Batman is an incoherent character who has a figleaf of "he got there just by training and being smart." He's not normal by any stretch of the imagination other than authorial fiat. He has massive plot armor, gets all the authorial fiat benefits possible, and still has to use mech suits to handle anything other than street level people. Or just pure thin-air pulls on the writers' parts. Using him as an example of anything even remotely normal is meaningless.
Levels and levels and levels of subterranean dungeons packed with monsters and treasures is incoherent and requires authorial fiat. Like... what game do you think you're playing in that we have to justify things to this degree?

That definition is a contradiction in terms. But sure. That's what I've been calling a Badass Almost-Normal. Hereafter "BA*". Because they're not normal and that's a hill I'll die on.
Ok, so whenever we use Badass Normal, you can use BA*, and we'll be talking about the same thing, correct? As I said, this is just complicating the discussion, but at least we will be on the same page.

If (and this is an IF, not a statement of what is) the reality-warping powers of a full-on, high-optimization caster are the expected high-end point, then no. And we've had tons of threads to that effect.

In a more low-op game, I'd tend to mostly agree with you, under normal circumstances. But that's an example of how if you lower the power level, your "BA" characters can already keep up ok. Which I explicitly said.
My table experiences run more to the latter than the former, and I see no reason to use "what might be" as the standard. Just because some people online like to run heavy OP swat games and optimize, doesn't mean we have to make martials magical to keep up with these theoretical online discussions, or someone's game I will never ever participate in.

Note that Conan only stands out because his world is low-power. Even the great sorcerers are, relatively, on about the T2 level for D&D. Put him in a different fiction (say Wheel of Time) and he'd need massive authorial fiat to be relevant[0].
THE GAME DISAGREES WITH YOU.

If I want to play Conan, I can do so in 5E, all the way to level 20, and kill balors and archdemons, etc.


Sure. A "BA*" person is basically that. He's an Action Hero-class person[1] without flashy powers. But there's a huge gap there of characters that can be in that boat without being just a normal person who happened to pick up a magic weapon. He may have been that at level 1, but by level 5...he's already changed and grown. That's what leveling up means. Doesn't mean he has flashy powers. His "powers" (the way he exceeds the norm) may not be visible at all.

D&D very firmly takes the position that Sufficiently Serious Training is Indistinguishable from Superpowers[2]. Ignoring that locks people very firmly in the Guy at the Gym (and the low-end version of that) mentality, where you limit yourself to only what a crabbed imagination can allow. My whole point is that if you accept that fact, lots more things open up fictionally.

And if you want to keep your "BA*" guy at higher levels, you need to tone down what those higher levels mean as far as what's an acceptable power level.
I replied to this already but fighters and barbarians and rogues can already exist at higher levels, so no toning down necessary.

Conan is exactly a BA* character. Which I've said that PCs are. Depending on the depiction, though, Conan is on the lower end. Roughly on par with a 5th-or-so level fighter (with some curlicues because his fiction doesn't match D&D fiction).

So I'd not expect Conan, as written, to be much use in a high-level or especially high-op game. Because he's fundamentally lower level.

My point was that if you put Conan into a different fiction, one with much higher assumed power levels (such as Wheel of Time), he'd no longer be exceptional and would be, in fact, kinda meaningless.
You are refusing to imagine a system that takes a Conan type character and levels him up, but keeps him within theme.

So what qualifies as "a functional BA*" character is entirely dependent on the environment he finds himself in. In Conan-land or in a low-power D&D-esque game, he's fine and dandy. In WoT or a high-power, high-op D&D game, he's not.
In what way is he not?

Authorial fiat isn't at the worldbuilding level. It's at the scenario level. Hawkeye is only useful to the Avengers Ensemble Movies because the writers explicitly put things that only he can deal with. There is very little, if anything, that Hawkeye can do in the big-name movies that one of the others couldn't do exponentially better, while doing everything else. He's a warm body relative to the threat. And it's lampshaded heavily in the films. He's only accepted as an equal because the authors say so. And when there's anything serious going on...Hawkeye is nowhere to be found (off taking care of smaller villains).

It can take other forms as well--Batman only wins because Batman is defined to be a winner. He wins not because he could plausibly have predicted those or survived that, but because he's the hero and heroes win. And in such things as Batman vs Superman, the authors have to pull massive Deus Ex Machina-level contortions to even let him exist on the same plane and not get pulverized instantly. That's authorial fiat.
LMAO, none of the D&D classes map to Avengers. You guys are taking things so literally, and in the wrong ways. The point is to play a character of a race... that just uses weapons. Period, end of story. I don't want to summon something, transform, light my arms on fire, or bamf around the battlefield.

No authorial fiat... good luck. My wizard is so godly, I can just mop the floor with Demogorgon. I'm going to march right up to him and take him out with no issue.

The fact that you can even reach an immortal god-like being that rules over demons or devils or aberrations, is authorial fiat. The entire game is constructed around the PCs.

In a TTRPG environment, that would mean things like
- Finding implausible reasons why there are antimagic fields[1] all over the place or why enemies suddenly grow immunities to all the magic, just so the champion fighter can be the star of a high-op game[2].
Why can't monsters be designed in the same way they have weapon immunities? In the Dresden-verse, there are plenty of monsters that spells simply bounce off of. Why would that be unfair?

- Funneling massive quantities of just the right magic items to the fighter at just the right time. When the bear drops a magical polearm, yeah.
Oh god, adhering to tropes and myths and fantasies that we all love, the horror! Why should the warrior find a magic weapon or armor? Screw him! Why would a villain use a magic weapon that can be gained after defeating them? Why would the place of death of an ancient hero hidden away have his equipment lying around? Why would a quest-giver grant a magic item to the hero? Ugh, this all is stupid and doesn't make sense!!! Get rid of it all!!

- Finding implausible reasons why <particular tactic> would work just right here.
Or design encounters and monsters that require particular tactics already instead of just hit+deal damage.

- Fudging the dice.
- Etc.
Yes, I'm sure casters never need help, always succeed because "magic", and just breeze through the game without DM intervention ever. *Dr.Samurai casts Roll Eyes on himself, DM not required*

My argument is a couple-fold, with two possible options.

It's more like (sticking to the weapon immunity thing directly, which is where I think we're most aligned):

Premise: IF (and this is a big if) we're in a state where immunity to weapons is common
Premise: AND IF we want weapon users to not have any flashy powers, elemental powers, or anything other than just hitting stuff with weapons that aren't themselves capable of piercing that immunity and maybe grappling, but not too much, since you can't really see the Guy at the Gym wrestling a giant into submission,
Then: we're stuck. Anything else breaks plausibility tremendously.

So the options are

1) loosen up the second premise. Allow them to have "flashy" powers, even if that's just "your weapons are an extension of your body and your training lets you cut the uncuttable (ignore weapon immunity)." I, personally, am fine with that. Others may not be.
2) Loosen up the first premise. Don't use creatures with immunity to weapons. <-----this is the base state of the game and my strong preference on the matter.
3) discard any semblance of a coherent world and claim that these normal people can do abnormal things just because we're carving out a specific loophole with their name on it. No thanks.
For me it would be appropriate that at some level, the warrior is proficient or powerful enough to cut through immunity (maybe treat it as resistance, and finally ignore). But I also like grappling, using terrain, and assisting the others.

I don't think weapon immunities should be common, unless the game is built around it.

More generally,
a) IF the high-op caster play (where shield is a necessity, AC 30 is the expected value, and having a simlacrum or summoned monsters is par for the course, where wish is just fine and dandy, where casters are considered to be rightfully reality warpers on a daily basis, able to throw down with literal gods) is the desired high-end power level
b) AND IF we want warriors to remain BA* at the top end, without any flashy powers or anything that even hints of supernatural power
THEN: we're stuck. Either warriors will always be second-class citizens, made relevant only by DM pity, or they just won't be relevant at all.

And the options to fix this are exactly the same as the first case, just more so. Tone down the first premise or relax the second one. Or discard any semblance of coherence and just do pure ipse dixit/authorial fiat/fudging.

Everything else is fairly basic logic. There's no fourth option.
I tend to agree with Doug Lampert on this. You can design martials in such a way that they can keep up better, without going magical.

This is untrue. A realistic skilled warrior can kill pretty well anyone with a single weapon attack that hits solidly.

There are no land animals large or strong enough to be effectively immune to being killed by a guy with a spear with a single spear attack.

Give someone that perfectly realistic power of, in game terms, an at-will save or die, and they're competative with high end magic. If the save is tough enough, magic has trouble competing with the mundane at combat. You can leave all the current magic in the game, all the current powers, and simply say, "But Conan's sword through your gut, gutting you like a fish, means that you are dead", and in a combat heavy game, Conan stays relevant.

That's not supernatural, at all, in any way shape or form, it's saying that unless you are really good at avoiding being killed, a sword attack from Conan kills you. Which is what it SHOULD DO! Similarly, if Robin Hood shoots you, you most likely die.

Yet attacks like those compete quite well with 9th level magic (except wish-simulacrum, because the caster can use that to duplicate the fighter).

Now, if you include weapon immunity, then we need to add in Hercules or Beowolf's ability to wrestle, because that solution to "immune to weapons" happens in multiple myths and works fine too.

If you can't bear to have a non-supernatural save power, just award Conan's sword attack a base damage of 1d8+9000, so his power is over 9000 without anything supernatural.
Indeed. Humans hunted megafauna to extinction all around the world with spears. Regular humans, killing gigantic creatures.

Give those creatures intelligence, weapons and armor, and abilities, and it gets tougher. But give those humans gear, class features, and make them badass normals, and we're in business.

If mundane hero Link gets the magical Master Sword to overcome mundane damage reduction...then aren't we still saying that Link needs to be magical? If not personally then be equipped with magic. At the end of the day, the answer is still get some magic.
Yes, but surely you see the difference between "I have a magic sword" and "I have the power to make swords magical".

The answer, I think, to the OP's question is that the warriors should have to find the solution to the damage problem. As written, warriors can carry alchemist's fire, oil, and other ways ti deal fire damage as a fallback if they lack magic weapons or special material weapons of the appropriate sort.

It still stinks that mages do have more options to deal with such threats without having to do anything special; this is why I suggested, as an example, making lycanthropes immune to all damage types that aren't somehow backed by silver, whether as an added spell component, or using a special silver focus, or whatnot.

Maybe critical hits should bypass some immunities, too.

Yeah, I think most people are just starting with the default assumption that those things are just not sufficient to the task.

The reason is that they're scaled to level 1 characters and don't get any better, which means that at high levels they're almost never worth an action to use.

But that means that a warrior who has to rely on them is doing something they know is basically a pathetic non-action just to consume their turn instead of tuning out from the game completely.
I agree with both of these.

To my mind, it's not a big deal to fight a creature with weapon immunity. Use the Help Action is always an option, in many cases grappling could be an option. But I do think the game would benefit from a more interesting take on resistances/immunities, and expanded options for dealing with monsters. And that includes immunity to spells as well.

IMO I think WotC dropped the ball when it comes to non-magic BPS immunities and resistances. They could've added options to bypass those resistances with circumstances. Take the Wretched Sorrowsworn from MP:MotM, it has resistance while in dim light or darkness. The antidote to their resistance is literally just a torch, however a torch comes with its own pros and cons. That is good monster design, and it's the exception.
They could've applied a similar thing to the Shadow from MM, for example if it a character is surrounded by a circle of salt then it can bypass the shadow's BPS resistance.
A Peryton's resistance might be bypassed if attacked by a non-magical weapon that is covered in the blood of the attacker (IE deal 1 hp to yourself with your weapon and then attack the Peryton).
I really like these ideas.

[Amechra]

*Sprays everyone in the thread with an explicitly non-magical hose.*

Oy, guys, please stop turning this into yet another re-litigation of a tangentially-related argument that's been a thing for literal decades?

I asked everyone a simple question — "you are designing the Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Rogue from scratch, and are told that there will be some times when they won't be able to solve problems through direct violence — what do you think they should be able to do in those situations?" and it feels like the only answers I've gotten are grappling, "oh, but that's bad design - all problems must be solvable through stabbing", and despair. Meanwhile, spellcasting classes are sitting right over there with actionable examples of how to handle this — sure, some classes just shrug and turn into secondary melee fighters (Clerics, Druids) in the face of magic-immune monsters (both literally and figuratively), but the rest can shift into support/battlefield control positions to support the rest of the party, and all of them do it in a way that still lets you feel like the class in question.

This is a mechanical question — you can come up with whatever justification you want afterwards for why the Barbarian can draw aggro without needing to attack stuff or why the Fighter offers some solid defensive buffs. Is it magic? Is it Maybelline? I don't care as long as you share cool ideas for how your version of the Barbarian deals with ghosts (and no, foisting the problem off on the magic weapons people or the spell list people so that you can say that the solution is "get a magic weapon, or get someone to make your weapon magic, and then stab" is not an answer).

(I'm sorry to anyone who has actually been sharing ideas and thoughts instead of arguing. I can only check the thread intermittently and probably missed you in all the pointless arguing.)

[Ionathus]

To my mind, it's not a big deal to fight a creature with weapon immunity. Use the Help Action is always an option, in many cases grappling could be an option. But I do think the game would benefit from a more interesting take on resistances/immunities, and expanded options for dealing with monsters. And that includes immunity to spells as well.

:vaarsuvius: Thrice-cursed Spell Resistance! (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html)

Another Baldur's Gate II example: for many late-game enemies, "just hit it with your biggest sword" becomes a more reliable method of attack than even your biggest spells, thanks to how rampant and OP the game's Magic Resistance mechanic is (just a % chance to completely negate all effects of a spell, I think that's an AD&D thing?).


I really like these ideas.

Same. A lot of folklore and mythology did this: basilisks vulnerable to crowing roosters, for instance. Lots of supernatural entities were stopped by salt, etc. 5e only ever kept the silver vulnerability of werewolves, probably to streamline and not overcomplicate fights. But examples like these, which can be hacked together from common materials an adventurer might have, can make a combat dynamic and fun. I don't think outright immunity is a very fun mechanic, but being able to play around with different tactics is fun and using a damage type that's almost never resisted is a boring solution.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hey Amechra, would you be interested in system redesigns, or is this more aimed at class features and what types of abilities you can give to the actual classes?

I ask because I like the idea of monster immunities having conditions or caveats, such as in the last couple of posts that mention a circle of salt bypassing the immunity, or the immunity only existing under certain conditions. But that's not really "giving something to martials", unless I'm understanding the OP incorrectly.

[Xervous]

On the topic of giving something to Martials, I feel it needs to be something exclusive for them or you are just adding another basic attack that everyone can default to. If this were a Bethesda Game you wouldn’t be seeing [Athletics], [STR:18] or [$featName$] next to that option. It would be [Fighter].

[Ionathus]

*Sprays everyone in the thread with an explicitly non-magical hose.*

Oy, guys, please stop turning this into yet another re-litigation of a tangentially-related argument that's been a thing for literal decades?

I asked everyone a simple question — "you are designing the Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Rogue from scratch, and are told that there will be some times when they won't be able to solve problems through direct violence — what do you think they should be able to do in those situations?" and it feels like the only answers I've gotten are grappling, "oh, but that's bad design - all problems must be solvable through stabbing", and despair. Meanwhile, spellcasting classes are sitting right over there with actionable examples of how to handle this — sure, some classes just shrug and turn into secondary melee fighters (Clerics, Druids) in the face of magic-immune monsters (both literally and figuratively), but the rest can shift into support/battlefield control positions to support the rest of the party, and all of them do it in a way that still lets you feel like the class in question.

This is a mechanical question — you can come up with whatever justification you want afterwards for why the Barbarian can draw aggro without needing to attack stuff or why the Fighter offers some solid defensive buffs. Is it magic? Is it Maybelline? I don't care as long as you share cool ideas for how your version of the Barbarian deals with ghosts (and no, foisting the problem off on the magic weapons people or the spell list people so that you can say that the solution is "get a magic weapon, or get someone to make your weapon magic, and then stab" is not an answer).

(I'm sorry to anyone who has actually been sharing ideas and thoughts instead of arguing. I can only check the thread intermittently and probably missed you in all the pointless arguing.)

To answer your actual question:
Fighter. Battlemaster's party-buffing abilities are existent but anemic. I'd love to see more maneuvers, maybe incorporate some Warlord stuff in there (I don't really think Warlord is thematically distinct enough to be its own class) for inspiring allies, allowing them extra attacks, encouraging them to shrug off failed saving throws, etc. I stand behind maneuvers being incorporated into base Fighter -- even if they did no damage, it would still be worthwhile to go for a Tripping or a Disarming attack in the right circumstances.

Barbarian. I'd love to see pushing and grappling be expanded to be more effective, fun, and flavorful. Barbarians start making checks to literally TOSS enemies their size or smaller, regardless of immunity, and suddenly that enemy wizard has to respect their presence a lot more or else end up out of position (or worse, surrounded by things that CAN hurt them). Treat every barbarian like a buff WWE wrestler who can command the ring and get some map control, not just soak up hits.

Rogue. If the enemy is immune to sneak attack, you should be able to distract or inflict status effects instead of dealing damage. Blind them, distract them, disrupt spell concentration, get in there and cause problems. Picture how the hobbits in LotR work alongside the full warriors of the Fellowship -- they get scrappy and trip, disorient, and distract. Even if they're not doing damage, they set someone else up to do it. Maybe even "loan" your sneak attack to somebody else for a turn?

Monk. I'd love to see the monk become less individualistic. Mobility is a core feature of the monk, but I feel like they never get a chance to actually help their team with it. What about if you got an extra free item interaction every turn? You could run critical supplies back and forth between party members, feed someone a potion, make a damage-less attack against the enemy who's in melee with your wizard and if it hits, the wizard doesn't need to disengage to escape. This kind of overlaps with the rogue's Cunning Action and thief's Fast Hands, but I don't think anything would suffer if you gave monks a few more things to do. They're supposed to be super-fast martial artists who can do a lot of little stuff in a turn, but the instant that doesn't include "attack" all the mechanics break down and it's hard to justify anything else.

[False God]

Non-stabby solutions to fights:

Control effects:
Barbarian - Intimidating Shout, all enemies who can hear within range must make a charisma save or become Frightened, as the condition.
Fighter - Weapon Dance, all enemies within weapon range who can see the fighter must make an intelligence save or be unable to use their Action for anything but defense on their next turn.
Rogue - Dazzling Display, all enemies who can see must make a wisdom save or be Stunned for one round.

Command effects:
Barbarian - Snarling Slur, all enemies who can hear the Barbarian must make a wisdom save or take a -2 penalty until the end of their next turn, this effect can stack
Fighter - Call to Battle, All enemies who can hear must make an intelligence save or use their next movement to try to reach the Fighter and their Action to try to attack them.
Rogue - Cutting Remarks, all enemies who can hear the rogue must make a charisma save or take a -2 penalty to all attacks until the end of their next turn, this effect can stack.

Non-damage effects:
Barbarian - Bear Hug, (no grapple rules needed), Barbarian makes an attack roll and if successful, the target takes one level of exhaustion struggling to get free (which they are assumed to have done).
Fighter - Overwhelming Critical - if this attack crits, target must make a con save or dies instantly.
Rogue - Dirty Strike - rogue makes attack as normal, if successful, target is blinded until the end of its next turn.
*these are replacement effects, the attacks deal no damage, they just use the attack action to function.

Attack Riders for anyone:
Sunder - On a successful attack, targets non-magical BPS immunity is reduced to resistance.
Improved Sunder - On a successful attack, target's magical and non-magical BPS is removed.
Bull Rush - On a successful attack, target is pushed a number of feet*5 equal to the attackers strength mod.
Leap Attack - Make a jump check, on a success, you land on top of the target. The target must make a strength check or fall prone. *insert bonuses for size or quadrupedal*
Fancy Footwork - On a successful attack, the target must move to a square of your choice adjacent to you.
Overrun/Imp Bull Rush - On a successful Bull Rush attack, the target must make a strength save or be knocked prone.
Flanking - On a successful attack, the target's AC is reduced by -2 and the attacker may move up to 5 feet to anywhere that is also adjacent to the target.
Mounted Suppression - On a successful Leap Attack, if the target does not fall prone, it takes 1 level of exhaustion and another each round it fails to throw you off.

*While these are all attacks the effect is a replacement of the damage. To avoid the DM saying "Well, you can't use any of these because they all rely on dealing damage first!" NO, they deal the special effect only.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hey Amechra, would you be interested in system redesigns, or is this more aimed at class features and what types of abilities you can give to the actual classes?

I ask because I like the idea of monster immunities having conditions or caveats, such as in the last couple of posts that mention a circle of salt bypassing the immunity, or the immunity only existing under certain conditions. But that's not really "giving something to martials", unless I'm understanding the OP incorrectly.

I agree that approaching this from a system perspective rather than a class perspective is the most interesting path.

[Cheesegear]

It's fun to get a greatsword that bursts into flames, and I have nothing wrong with my mostly-mundane Fighter making use of a magical sword.

A Fighter gaining a Magical Firesword, good.
A Fighter gaining the ability to cast Searing Smite all on their own, bad.

I feel like there's a disconnect that I can't quite grok, I guess.


Dude, we get it. You've got intense disdain for non-spellcaster classes for whatever reason.

I have an intense disdain for players who dig in their heels, that say that because of the (bad) choices they make, they shouldn't be hamstrung, and at worst, should be rewarded for making poor choices.

Then, when the solution presents itself, that solves their problems, they don't take it.

I have an intense disdain for non-spellcaster characters, in Tier 3 and above. The only reason a character in that world wouldn't learn magic by Level...12? Is because the author (read; player) refuses to allow them to.

Sure. I understand that in some high fantasy settings the ability to manipulate physics is something you need to be born with, and if you aren't born with physics manipulation you need to have a special item that removes the ability from others to put you on equal footing with them (and you were born without physics manipulation, so you gain the upper hand by tearing down others, rather than excelling...). But, D&D isn't one of those settings.


Mundane PCs exist in 5e.

Agreed.


A method to take those PCs all the way to level 20 and beyond exists in the PHB. They are baked into the core rules.

Agreed.


If WotC didn't want Champion Fighter to be in the game, they wouldn't have put it in the damned game.[ But since it's there, we can assume it's meant to be there, and people are meant to be able to take it to level 20.

If WotC wanted non-spellcasters to be effective past Level 12, they would have put that in the game. However, since they didn't put that in the game, we can assume that WotC doesn't want non-spellcasters to be effective past Level 12.

...Is that the argument? Did I get it right?

I don't think we really want to go down the road that whatever is or isn't in the rules is what the designers intended.


Do you see how countering every argument with "just multiclass into something with magic or else your character is literally an idiot" is unhelpful to this discussion?

My character's specialty is useless in this fight. I wish there was something I could do in this fight.
Well, to be fair, eventually, I'm is going to put you in a challenging situation where your specialisation may not be effective as you want it to be - maybe even outright useless. Hell, I might have even done it by accident. It's not even a tailored encounter against you. It's just where the story goes. Sorry. It sucks. But it's gonna happen and a lot of the time it does happen I probably wont even mean it to. I haven't used a certain monster in a while and wouldn't it be fun to- Oh...Oops. Stuff like that, you know?
That's fair. But like...How do I make sure that doesn't happen? Like those encounters aren't fun for me and I want to stay engaged, but that's really hard to do if my character sucks.
Well, you might be better off generalising your character build. Like you have to have more than one option in a fight. I think your character just needs to be able to do more than the one trick.
You're right. It would be really cool if we started adding more abilities to my character.
I meant more like taking different Feats, maybe? And multiclassing. Cantrips and skill proficiencies (in)famously scale off of character level, not class level. So with even one level of-
I'll stop you right there. I'd prefer redesigning the game. I already have the Feats I want and I don't want magic. I designed this character at Level 0 with a specific build in mind and I'm not gonna change it when things get difficult for me at Level 13.
I mean I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't-
Have you tried designing your encounters better? You could just try being a better DM and doing extra work. If you made different choices in your encounter design we don't have to have this conversation.
...I see what you did there.

[Witty Username]

The reason is that they're scaled to level 1 characters and don't get any better, which means that at high levels they're almost never worth an action to use.


This is stated as a design goal in the Spelljammer stuff for 5e, at least with Spelljammer weapons). By design the stuff like ballistics is supposed to be worth less than a regular player action, partially for gameplay focus reasons.

I could see the logic being applied to other areas of the game as well like alchemist's fire. Which sorta runs counter to items giving interesting things to do.

[GloatingSwine]

This is stated as a design goal in the Spelljammer stuff for 5e, at least with Spelljammer weapons). By design the stuff like ballistics is supposed to be worth less than a regular player action, partially for gameplay focus reasons.

I could see the logic being applied to other areas of the game as well like alchemist's fire. Which sorta runs counter to items giving interesting things to do.

Yeah, but we're talking about how that design interacts with other things that turn all of the player's actions off because the target doesn't care about them.



I have an intense disdain for players who dig in their heels, that say that because of the (bad) choices they make, they shouldn't be hamstrung, and at worst, should be rewarded for making poor choices.

Then, when the solution presents itself, that solves their problems, they don't take it.


If the system designers are going to put 20 levels of progression on the fighter class, it's incumbent on them to ensure that being a 20th level fighter isn't a poor choice.

That means that if the 20th level fighter is expected to have a source of magical damage because they're going to use immunities, the system must be designed to make sure they have it.

[Boci]

Sure. I understand that in some high fantasy settings the ability to manipulate physics is something you need to be born with, and if you aren't born with physics manipulation you need to have a special item that removes the ability from others to put you on equal footing with them (and you were born without physics manipulation, so you gain the upper hand by tearing down others, rather than excelling...). But, D&D isn't one of those settings.

I get that "Well the DM can do that" is a slippery slope, since a DM could theoretically do anything with enough effort and creativity (which the players would also then have to devout effort to understanding), but making sure a 20th level fighter without a casting archetype has a magic weapon is not a big deal for the DM or players involved. Magic weapons have always been part of the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

To answer your actual question:
Fighter. Battlemaster's party-buffing abilities are existent but anemic. I'd love to see more maneuvers, maybe incorporate some Warlord stuff in there (I don't really think Warlord is thematically distinct enough to be its own class) for inspiring allies, allowing them extra attacks, encouraging them to shrug off failed saving throws, etc. I stand behind maneuvers being incorporated into base Fighter -- even if they did no damage, it would still be worthwhile to go for a Tripping or a Disarming attack in the right circumstances.

Barbarian. I'd love to see pushing and grappling be expanded to be more effective, fun, and flavorful. Barbarians start making checks to literally TOSS enemies their size or smaller, regardless of immunity, and suddenly that enemy wizard has to respect their presence a lot more or else end up out of position (or worse, surrounded by things that CAN hurt them). Treat every barbarian like a buff WWE wrestler who can command the ring and get some map control, not just soak up hits.

Rogue. If the enemy is immune to sneak attack, you should be able to distract or inflict status effects instead of dealing damage. Blind them, distract them, disrupt spell concentration, get in there and cause problems. Picture how the hobbits in LotR work alongside the full warriors of the Fellowship -- they get scrappy and trip, disorient, and distract. Even if they're not doing damage, they set someone else up to do it. Maybe even "loan" your sneak attack to somebody else for a turn?

Monk. I'd love to see the monk become less individualistic. Mobility is a core feature of the monk, but I feel like they never get a chance to actually help their team with it. What about if you got an extra free item interaction every turn? You could run critical supplies back and forth between party members, feed someone a potion, make a damage-less attack against the enemy who's in melee with your wizard and if it hits, the wizard doesn't need to disengage to escape. This kind of overlaps with the rogue's Cunning Action and thief's Fast Hands, but I don't think anything would suffer if you gave monks a few more things to do. They're supposed to be super-fast martial artists who can do a lot of little stuff in a turn, but the instant that doesn't include "attack" all the mechanics break down and it's hard to justify anything else.
I like all of these and think they all have potential. I'd throw in False God's Sunder ability as well.

A Fighter gaining a Magical Firesword, good.
A Fighter gaining the ability to cast Searing Smite all on their own, bad.

I feel like there's a disconnect that I can't quite grok, I guess.
Try phrasing it a different way.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter gaining the ability to cast a spell. There's a subclass that does that.

What I am at least saying is that I don't think all fighters should unilaterally be spellcasters because some people think "the system requires it for balance reasons".

That's not to say I don't think warrior classes should have short/long rest abilities that represent powerful strikes, etc. Abilities mentioned before like a stab through the heart or some other grievous wound could all be appropriate.

But tacking spells on to everyone not only breaks the theme but also strikes me as unimaginative and like taking the easy way out, to put it nicely.

I have an intense disdain for players who dig in their heels, that say that because of the (bad) choices they make, they shouldn't be hamstrung, and at worst, should be rewarded for making poor choices.

Then, when the solution presents itself, that solves their problems, they don't take it.
The thread is asking for abilities to give martials. Telling them to stop being martials seems like not a helpful answer.

I have an intense disdain for non-spellcaster characters, in Tier 3 and above. The only reason a character in that world wouldn't learn magic by Level...12? Is because the author (read; player) refuses to allow them to.
And I have disdain for anyone that treats the game as a foregone conclusion, like D&D pretends to be a Choose Your Own Adventure Path style of experience, but in reality is a railroad that requires you to play a very specific way, as ordained from on high by people that know better than you on the internet.

"Man, D&D really breaks my immersion sometimes."
"I know, like, how can dragons fly? They're so massive!"
"No, not that. I mean like how can a guy with a sword fight a demon?!"

Yes, let's turn all warrior classes into the Final Fantasy version of themselves because some people need their D&D games to be hyper-realistic lol.

"It's not realistic to me that your knight would engage in this fight and actually be useful, or not in serious danger."
"Ok, tell me more about your realism."
"Well, it would make more sense to me if your knight pointed his sword at the archdevil and summoned thirty longswords out of the air that impale the demon, dealing it radiant damage, because the swords are made out of pure light. That seems pretty deadly. Then, if your knight is attacked, he could push the B button on his controller and use an Aegis ability where his shield radiates a bubble of Force energy around you that stops all incoming attacks. What do you think?"
"Yeah, this is practically a virtual reality simulator."

If WotC wanted non-spellcasters to be effective past Level 12, they would have put that in the game. However, since they didn't put that in the game, we can assume that WotC doesn't want non-spellcasters to be effective past Level 12.

...Is that the argument? Did I get it right?

I don't think we really want to go down the road that whatever is or isn't in the rules is what the designers intended.
Yes sure. We'll let you guys just rant and rave about how high level non-spellcasting martials can't possibly exist in the game, and we'll ignore the fact that the game has, currently, and in every edition prior, high level martials without spellcasting abilities in the game. Very convenient.

"It doesn't mean anything guys, let's not go down this road!"

My character's specialty is useless in this fight. I wish there was something I could do in this fight.
Well, to be fair, eventually, I'm is going to put you in a challenging situation where your specialisation may not be effective as you want it to be - maybe even outright useless. Hell, I might have even done it by accident. It's not even a tailored encounter against you. It's just where the story goes. Sorry. It sucks. But it's gonna happen and a lot of the time it does happen I probably wont even mean it to. I haven't used a certain monster in a while and wouldn't it be fun to- Oh...Oops. Stuff like that, you know?
That's fair. But like...How do I make sure that doesn't happen? Like those encounters aren't fun for me and I want to stay engaged, but that's really hard to do if my character sucks.
Well, you might be better off generalising your character build. Like you have to have more than one option in a fight. I think your character just needs to be able to do more than the one trick.
You're right. It would be really cool if we started adding more abilities to my character.
I meant more like taking different Feats, maybe? And multiclassing. Cantrips and skill proficiencies (in)famously scale off of character level, not class level. So with even one level of-
I'll stop you right there. I'd prefer redesigning the game. I already have the Feats I want and I don't want magic. I designed this character at Level 0 with a specific build in mind and I'm not gonna change it when things get difficult for me at Level 13.
I mean I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't-
Have you tried designing your encounters better? You could just try being a better DM and doing extra work. If you made different choices in your encounter design we don't have to have this conversation.
...I see what you did there.
Did anyone catch why this thread is such a problem that we are getting responses like this? I thought we were all just musing. Didn't realize this was an attack on DMs or something, that now needs to be defended on the hill of "Just multiclass you unreasonable jerk!".

[tw0jaye]

I wouldn't add anything to the PHB class chapters.

I'd add to the creature description other things that can inflict damage to it/defeat it, how those other things can be found near or around regions/lairs you find the creature, or where one could buy such a thing or build such a thing. And DCs for players finding out with a recall information check.
For example a "shadow wraith" might be immune to all attacks while in dim light or darkness, and vulnerable to physical attacks when in direct sunlight.

Then I'd add a section that warn the players that some creatures are immune to direct attacks under certain conditions and the players should investigate how to overcome that immunity and use that knowledge to change the circumstance and make them vulnerable.

This works great. In a oneshot I played recently, the BBEG was immune to all of my weapon attacks, but the fight happened on a series of floating platforms and falling into the void below dealt damage and teleported you back up.

Most of the party members went for the switches around the arena that caused some of the platforms to disappear. My barbarian, the only party member able to withstand the BBEG's melee damage, simply either shoved her off the ledge or grappled her and jumped off.

[Dr.Samurai]

This works great. In a oneshot I played recently, the BBEG was immune to all of my weapon attacks, but the fight happened on a series of floating platforms and falling into the void below dealt damage and teleported you back up.

Most of the party members went for the switches around the arena that caused some of the platforms to disappear. My barbarian, the only party member able to withstand the BBEG's melee damage, simply either shoved her off the ledge or grappled her and jumped off.
That's awesome! :smallcool:

[Psyren]

A Fighter gaining a Magical Firesword, good.
A Fighter gaining the ability to cast Searing Smite all on their own, bad.

I feel like there's a disconnect that I can't quite grok, I guess.

Both are fine. The difference is that any Fighter can get the former, while people don't necessarily want any/every fighter to be able to do the latter.

In other words, if you want more overt magic in your Fighter, Eldritch Knights and Rune Knights are both fun. But people still want Champions and Battlemasters to exist too, and for them, finding an external magic sword is as overt as they care to get.



My character's specialty is useless in this fight. I wish there was something I could do in this fight.
Well, to be fair, eventually, I'm is going to put you in a challenging situation where your specialisation may not be effective as you want it to be - maybe even outright useless. Hell, I might have even done it by accident. It's not even a tailored encounter against you. It's just where the story goes. Sorry. It sucks. But it's gonna happen and a lot of the time it does happen I probably wont even mean it to. I haven't used a certain monster in a while and wouldn't it be fun to- Oh...Oops. Stuff like that, you know?
That's fair. But like...How do I make sure that doesn't happen? Like those encounters aren't fun for me and I want to stay engaged, but that's really hard to do if my character sucks.
Well, you might be better off generalising your character build. Like you have to have more than one option in a fight. I think your character just needs to be able to do more than the one trick.
You're right. It would be really cool if we started adding more abilities to my character.
I meant more like taking different Feats, maybe? And multiclassing. Cantrips and skill proficiencies (in)famously scale off of character level, not class level. So with even one level of-
I'll stop you right there. I'd prefer redesigning the game. I already have the Feats I want and I don't want magic. I designed this character at Level 0 with a specific build in mind and I'm not gonna change it when things get difficult for me at Level 13.
I mean I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't-
Have you tried designing your encounters better? You could just try being a better DM and doing extra work. If you made different choices in your encounter design we don't have to have this conversation.
...I see what you did there.

Out of curiosity, which fights are you envisioning martial specialty as useless in? As long as you give them a magic weapon, they can take on everything in the Manual, unless it's something D&D just isn't designed for like a dragon dropping barrels of acid from orbit etc.

[Ionathus]

I have an intense disdain for players who dig in their heels, that say that because of the (bad) choices they make, they shouldn't be hamstrung, and at worst, should be rewarded for making poor choices.

Then, when the solution presents itself, that solves their problems, they don't take it.

I have an intense disdain for non-spellcaster characters, in Tier 3 and above. The only reason a character in that world wouldn't learn magic by Level...12? Is because the author (read; player) refuses to allow them to.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

If I ask for biking tips and you tell me "just drive a car," you have not provided a solution.

As both Dr. Samurai and Psyren have pointed out, single-classed mundane martials have been playable since first edition. Your entire argument is based around people not doing the "correct" thing in your mind, but people have been ignoring your "correct" choice and having fun with the game for decades.


Did anyone catch why this thread is such a problem that we are getting responses like this? I thought we were all just musing. Didn't realize this was an attack on DMs or something, that now needs to be defended on the hill of "Just multiclass you unreasonable jerk!".

Starting to suspect that Cheesegear is in the pocket of Big Multiclass :smallcool:


But tacking spells on to everyone not only breaks the theme but also strikes me as unimaginative and like taking the easy way out, to put it nicely.

This, also. A common complaint about PHB Four Elements Monk is that they don't have many unique mechanics -- with the exception of, like, the fire snake thing, they mostly have a crappy inefficient method of casting a half-dozen already established spells. That does nothing to make the Four Elements Monk feel unique.

Papering over every shortcoming by copy-pasting from a spell list is lazy design. I would rather have unique 4th edition powers than "everybody gets a selection from the same 100 spells."

[PhoenixPhyre]

This, also. A common complaint about PHB Four Elements Monk is that they don't have many unique mechanics -- with the exception of, like, the fire snake thing, they mostly have a crappy inefficient method of casting a half-dozen already established spells. That does nothing to make the Four Elements Monk feel unique.

Papering over every shortcoming by copy-pasting from a spell list is lazy design. I would rather have unique 4th edition powers than "everybody gets a selection from the same 100 spells."

On this at least, we are in absolute agreement.

[False God]

On this at least, we are in absolute agreement.

Fire snakes are a great example of good design. They're unique to the class, they're clearly based off popular media, and the emulate the media well, as well as just generally being a good ability.

You could build an entire class around "I hit things with fire snakes!"
Melee attack? My fists become snake mouths!
Near-melee attack? The extend into snake-whips!
Ranged attack? They fly at my enemies!
Defense? I wreath myself in fire snakes!
Something is immune to fire snakes? Lightning snakes!
Immune to magic? Oh I can just punch it like normal.
Capstone? I BECOME a fire snake!

Lord I feel like an 8-year-old even conceptualizing this but I just sounds so gosh darned COOL to play!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fire snakes are a great example of good design. They're unique to the class, they're clearly based off popular media, and the emulate the media well, as well as just generally being a good ability.

You could build an entire class around "I hit things with fire snakes!"
Melee attack? My fists become snake mouths!
Near-melee attack? The extend into snake-whips!
Ranged attack? They fly at my enemies!
Defense? I wreath myself in fire snakes!
Something is immune to fire snakes? Lightning snakes!
Immune to magic? Oh I can just punch it like normal.
Capstone? I BECOME a fire snake!

Lord I feel like an 8-year-old even conceptualizing this but I just sounds so gosh darned COOL to play!

Yeah. I've conceptualized this as "every class needs a few Unique Cool Things, and the rest of the class should build off of those UCTs". "Build off of" doesn't mean double down on, but as you say, give alternate ways to use, allow choices that handle some of the flaws/shortcomings, provide counterbalances to, etc.

To me, Spellcasting (and even Pact Magic) aren't particularly Unique. Cool, sometimes. Same with getting more ASIs. Or even getting more attacks.

A barbarian who can cut through magic, immunities, etc. just because he's that darn unstoppable (possibly while raging)? Cool! Doesn't even have to be explicitly magical. He's the guy who really can chop through anything. Wall of force? Weapon immune monster? Not to him! Give him an axe (because that's thematic, but a sword works too), heck, just give him his fists. He'll break through eventually.

A rogue precise enough to find the weak points, even if those are too fleeting for anyone else? (Mechanically, downgrades immunity to resistance if they have advantage, maybe?) Sign me up.

These are all things that aren't possible in our real world, but don't have to be flashy "my sword is on fire" abilities.

[False God]

Yeah. I've conceptualized this as "every class needs a few Unique Cool Things, and the rest of the class should build off of those UCTs". "Build off of" doesn't mean double down on, but as you say, give alternate ways to use, allow choices that handle some of the flaws/shortcomings, provide counterbalances to, etc.

To me, Spellcasting (and even Pact Magic) aren't particularly Unique. Cool, sometimes. Same with getting more ASIs. Or even getting more attacks.
I think part of the problem with spellcasting is that the lists overlap so much not just literally with overlapping named spells, but also with general effects. Spellcasting, to me, is a lot like the 4E AEDU system. Several classes all get the same thing that function in the same way and progress in the same manner. It's actually what I liked about 4E, they realized this, and built upon it. Not the most unique end result, but the realization that "Hey, all this looks pretty darn similar!" was refreshing introspection on WotCs part.


A barbarian who can cut through magic, immunities, etc. just because he's that darn unstoppable (possibly while raging)? Cool! Doesn't even have to be explicitly magical. He's the guy who really can chop through anything. Wall of force? Weapon immune monster? Not to him! Give him an axe (because that's thematic, but a sword works too), heck, just give him his fists. He'll break through eventually.
I've always felt like Rage was a good concept, but almost universally, regardless of edition, poorly implemented. I never feel like I'm "raging" when using it. As you suggest, there are no, or very few cool riders to it. It doesn't really do anything beyond giving me a mild buff and it's time and attack limitations means it's difficult for me to keep it up when combat slows for a moment, even if we all know it will pick up a few moments later.

I'd love to see a rage that increases for every enemy you kill. You get faster, stronger, tougher. It gives you a reason to push yourself, and enemies a reason to stop you or run away. I'd love to see the animal totem variants more fleshed out into a spiritual lycanthropy, as you level up you can take on more and more the form of the animal.

---
When 5E came out, I had hopes that subclasses would be used for this exact kind of execution. "Hey here's a really niche concept that doesn't need its own class or totally independent mechanics but we thought had a really cool core identity!"

Instead it became an excuse to make the base class even more generalized and generic. Even the subclasses are generic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think part of the problem with spellcasting is that the lists overlap so much not just literally with overlapping named spells, but also with general effects. Spellcasting, to me, is a lot like the 4E AEDU system. Several classes all get the same thing that function in the same way and progress in the same manner. It's actually what I liked about 4E, they realized this, and built upon it. Not the most unique end result, but the realization that "Hey, all this looks pretty darn similar!" was refreshing introspection on WotCs part.


Having overlapping things is, IMO, fine. Having a "parallel progression track", especially for things like utility effects works quite well.

Where spellcasting (IMO, and this is a big IMO) goes wrong is that it's become THE Cool Thing. It's subsumed all the Cool Things from everyone else (and the playtest doubles down on this), mashing them together into generic genericness.

And because they're generic and selectable (rather than known-present), you can't really build on them like you can on class features. Since you can't expect them to exist for any given character (outside of domain spells and the like, which means you're stuck at the subclass level where you just don't have enough feature space to really do much heavy lifting thematically), you have to write your features generically, suitable for a broad range of things. Which drastically limits the class-based thematic depth. Instead, you shove it onto players to cobble together thematicness from a bunch of different elements that don't fit very well together (try making an acid mage!).



I've always felt like Rage was a good concept, but almost universally, regardless of edition, poorly implemented. I never feel like I'm "raging" when using it. As you suggest, there are no, or very few cool riders to it. It doesn't really do anything beyond giving me a mild buff and it's time and attack limitations means it's difficult for me to keep it up when combat slows for a moment, even if we all know it will pick up a few moments later.

I'd love to see a rage that increases for every enemy you kill. You get faster, stronger, tougher. It gives you a reason to push yourself, and enemies a reason to stop you or run away. I'd love to see the animal totem variants more fleshed out into a spiritual lycanthropy, as you level up you can take on more and more the form of the animal.


I could see that being cool, definitely. In my rework, I'm separating out the defensive/utility benefits and the offensive ones. And using the offensive one gives you a resource you can use to do other class things (either at all or for "free"). Still very much WIP though.



---
When 5E came out, I had hopes that subclasses would be used for this exact kind of execution. "Hey here's a really niche concept that doesn't need its own class or totally independent mechanics but we thought had a really cool core identity!"

Instead it became an excuse to make the base class even more generalized and generic. Even the subclasses are generic.

Some subclasses do a good job. IMO, one issue is when you try to start with a generic class. Subclasses just don't have enough design space. They're great for adding variation and specializing, but when 90% of your design budget is locked up in the base class...in a very generic mechanic like spellcasting...you just can't do much at the subclass level.

That, plus a lot of WotC's utter timidity at doing anything significant with stuff that isn't spells. They've gotten into the "oh, here's a cool thing, but we can't risk it not being available to other classes. So make it a spell." Anything else gets chopped off at the knees. CF the itty-bitty-tiny weapon feature stuff they gave warriors in the last playtest. None of which really moves the needle in any kind of thematic or interesting ways--it's just "more numbers". While they gave casters lots of "cool things"...that all happened to be "you cast <new broken spell here>."

[Psyren]

I'd say Rage is defined as much by what you can't do as what you can. The fact that you can neither cast spells nor concentrate, and that you have to actively ensure it keeps going (whether by attacking and putting yourself in danger like in 5e, or paying a bonus action cost as an alternative measure in One) is what sets it apart from other damage boosts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say Rage is defined as much by what you can't do as what you can. The fact that you can neither cast spells nor concentrate, and that you have to actively ensure it keeps going (whether by attacking and putting yourself in danger like in 5e, or paying a bonus action cost as an alternative measure in One) is what sets it apart from other damage boosts.

Yeah. It does. But not in a good way. Everyone else gets damage boosts for free, but barbarians have to pay for theirs. Yay. Much cool. Such win.

[Psyren]

Yeah. It does. But not in a good way. Everyone else gets damage boosts for free, but barbarians have to pay for theirs. Yay. Much cool. Such win.

I mean, do they get theirs for free? Rogue has a laundry list of restrictions as well as only applying to one attack, Ranger's needs spell slots and concentration (at least until One), same with Warlocks, Paladins are manual scaling and have to be applied per attack etc. I think the Barbarians' restrictions are reasonable, they just need more reason to be okay raging outside of combat, which it looks like they're getting via the increased duration + PK.

[Ionathus]

Fire snakes are a great example of good design. They're unique to the class, they're clearly based off popular media, and the emulate the media well, as well as just generally being a good ability.

You could build an entire class around "I hit things with fire snakes!"
Melee attack? My fists become snake mouths!
Near-melee attack? The extend into snake-whips!
Ranged attack? They fly at my enemies!
Defense? I wreath myself in fire snakes!
Something is immune to fire snakes? Lightning snakes!
Immune to magic? Oh I can just punch it like normal.
Capstone? I BECOME a fire snake!

Lord I feel like an 8-year-old even conceptualizing this but I just sounds so gosh darned COOL to play!
:smallbiggrin:
I have at least 2 different TTRPG groups that would adore a full 5e homebrew class for "Fire Snakes User"

[False God]

:smallbiggrin:
I have at least 2 different TTRPG groups that would adore a full 5e homebrew class for "Fire Snakes User"

If I were any good at making up 5E classes I'd write it up.

And just to be clear: anyone who reads this, even a WotC designer, is free to take this concept and run wild with it.

[Cheesegear]

If the system designers are going to put 20 levels of progression on the fighter class, it's incumbent on them to ensure that being a 20th level fighter isn't a poor choice.

In 2014, that was true. Unfortunately the PHB was out for longer than 15 minutes, and all the mistakes were laid bare.

In 2023, we know all the mistakes by now and how to play the game because of them.


the system must be designed to make sure they have it.

...And yet it wasn't. We know it wasn't. So the system "must" not have to do anything except be what it is.


The thread is asking for abilities to give martials. Telling them to stop being martials seems like not a helpful answer.

AFAIC, that thread was over on Page...3?

Warriors can do right now, no changes at all:
Knock things Prone, Grapple and/or Restrain them.
Impose Disadvantage on the hostile's attack rolls, and hand out Advantage to their allies' attack rolls.
Alchemist's Fire, Acid Vials.
"Use the environment"
...Although frankly I find reliance on magic items, a lame thing to have.
What could Warriors be able to do? They could:
Impose Blind, Deaf, Fright, Paralyse, Stunned...Maybe Unconcious? ...More or less just make improvements to the [I]Grappler Feat?
Taunt. But like...Better than "You have Disadvantage if you don't attack me...OooOooo...I hope you don't have +6 or more to hit." As a Bonus Action, make an opposed [Persuasion or Intimidate] check against the target's Insight. The target must attack or target you at least once on their turn.
Scale Alchemist's Fire and Acid Vials like Healing Potions? Easy enough. But not what I think people actually want.
If it breathes; Inhaled Poisons?
"Crafting"
...Thread over? We did it?
...I think I saw traps mentioned once or twice. To me that doesn't work unless you control the encounter, which nearly 100% of the time, you wont.


Did anyone catch why this thread is such a problem that we are getting responses like this? I thought we were all just musing.

We already did the boring part. The OP's question has been answered for quite some time.


In other words, if you want more overt magic in your Fighter, Eldritch Knights and Rune Knights are both fun. But people still want Champions and Battlemasters to exist too, and for them, finding an external magic sword is as overt as they care to get.

I would prefer Battle Masters not to exist, and have their abilities spread throughout the regular Fighter progression. Maybe base it off of Intelligence, while they're at it? "But then MAD!" ...Yes. I believe that every class should use every ability score, and that having an 18 or higher in an ability score probably means you're missing out on something else that you want. Jeremy says you only need 14s, but nothing in the game actually reinforces that design. What is reinforced, is having 20s. So c'est la vie.

All Fighters should know some maneuvers. All Fighters should be able to "know their enemy." ...I don't know why they're locked behind a subclass. See page...3?


Out of curiosity, which fights are you envisioning martial specialty as useless in? As long as you give them a magic weapon, they can take on everything in the Manual

Uhh...The entire thread is based on the premise of a hypothetical monster immune to weapons. I'm pretty sure we're talking about homebrew monsters.

If the DM were to put a homebrew'd monster into their encounter (i.e; Not in the MM), how could or would the DM and/or the Warrior player be able to ensure that they have fun, given that "weapon damage" is useless?
See above.
Find ways for them to deal non-weapon damage.
Almost everything aside from "Deal non-weapon damage" has been addressed already. We're past everything else. But, as I've discovered...Apparently people don't want Warriors to be able to deal non-weapon damage. Non-Weapon Damage is reserved for filthy spellcasters...You will have Sword! And You Will Like It!

Further questions include "If the creature is immune to weapons, what makes you think you can eye gouge it? If you can't eye gouge it, then changing Grapple rules to force Blind doesn't actually help. Why is the creature immune to weapon damage? Is it a Ghost? If it's a Ghost it's immune to a lot of other things, too. There's a rabbit hole and I've fallen in so far Lewis Carrol is jealous."

...But also I guess we're also talking about the divide that has existed since the Tome of Battle. It's either the best book ever printed because it gives Warriors ****-tons of options that allow them to compete with spellcasters; Or it's the worst book ever written because it gives Warriors ****-tons of options that people don't want Warriors to have.


As both Dr. Samurai and Psyren have pointed out, single-classed mundane martials have been playable since first edition.

Partial disagree. Also Prestige Classes existed for a while and that threw the entire single-class model out the window.


I would rather have unique 4th edition powers than "everybody gets a selection from the same 100 spells."

Agreed. But that requires a system redesign, rather than a slight modification to how things already work.


A barbarian who can cut through magic, immunities, etc. just because he's that darn unstoppable (possibly while raging)? Cool! Doesn't even have to be explicitly magical. He's the guy who really can chop through anything. Wall of force? Weapon immune monster? Not to him! Give him an axe (because that's thematic, but a sword works too), heck, just give him his fists. He'll break through eventually.

As I asked earlier; Monks have a few abilities tied into their Class progression; Slow Fall, Punch Ghosts and "I think you'll find that I'm not Charmed at all."

If Monks can punch Ghosts, is that magical? ...If it isn't magical (and I don't think it is, I think Monks have Force of Will), then can we use that for other classes? You can roleplay it however you want for the class. But then you fall back to "Every Class should be unique.", and if Monks can overcome resistance, then should a Barbarian be...Allowed...To, if Monks already have that ability?


A rogue precise enough to find the weak points, even if those are too fleeting for anyone else?

Isn't that kind of just what Sneak Attack is?

Then again, you could have that a Rogue can expend Sneak Attack dice to perform...Stuff. You hit a target with Sneak Attack. If you deal 3d6 damage; you can expend 2d6 to give the next attack roll against the target, Advantage, and then only deal 1d6 Sneak Attack. "Attack the monster where I just hit it."

...But then doesn't Sneak Attack just become a different version of Superiority Dice? (Keeping in mind that I believe that every Fighter should get Superiority Dice)


(Mechanically, downgrades immunity to resistance if they have advantage, maybe?)

...That kind of feels a kind of poison you could apply to a creature, rather than an offshoot of Sneak Attack. Also to the point; I do however, think immunity should mean immunity. The closest thing in the game is Elemental Adept and that only reduces Resistance to nothing - it has no effect on immunity.

[Amechra]

Hey Amechra, would you be interested in system redesigns, or is this more aimed at class features and what types of abilities you can give to the actual classes?

I ask because I like the idea of monster immunities having conditions or caveats, such as in the last couple of posts that mention a circle of salt bypassing the immunity, or the immunity only existing under certain conditions. But that's not really "giving something to martials", unless I'm understanding the OP incorrectly.

Both are good!

This isn't something I expect practical results out of, I just want people to stop and think about how martial classes are designed, and how they'd change stuff. We get too weighed down in complaining about what is sometimes that we start to think that that's how things ought to be, and, like... this is a fantastical game of make-believe where all of the rules are made up.

...

Also, put me down as a vote for "Fire Snakes: The Class". That's something that sparks joy.

[animorte]

:smallbiggrin:
I have at least 2 different TTRPG groups that would adore a full 5e homebrew class for "Fire Snakes User"

If I were any good at making up 5E classes I'd write it up.

And just to be clear: anyone who reads this, even a WotC designer, is free to take this concept and run wild with it.

Also, put me down as a vote for "Fire Snakes: The Class". That's something that sparks joy.
You know... There may be a relevant link in my signature for the current 5e base class contest where something like this here fire snake may find itself.

[pothocboots]

For the Firesnake class, This is what I have so far.

Firesnake Class (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/z4os1_XQq29v)

[Amnestic]

Well look at my brain going crazy at 1am because I wanted to get the thoughts down on (digital) paper.

Presenting the Fire Snake class, the Inheritor of Ouroboros (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/hF6zNnv6Gpzu).

Wielding the flames of an otherworldly primordial serpent, their body and mind are their weapon and armour. With three subclasses (Medusa, Charmer, Slither) and a number of passive Manifestations that further customise your Fists of the Fire Snake, the Inheritor punches a lot of fire at people. At their highest peak, they can even manifest themself as an Aspect of Ouroboros.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a monk subclass currently being play tested that's basically the fire snakes, but more fire fists. Leans into the phoenix motif more than serpents, though, with rebirth aspects.

I may post it when I'm at home tomorrow.

[Psyren]

Is the fire snake a reference? I feel like I'm missing something.

[animorte]

Is the fire snake a reference? I feel like I'm missing something.
For me I can't stop thinking about Aladdin and Jafar facing off at the end. J has A trapped in a ring of swords which turns into flame, then A calls J a snake and J responds, "Let me show you just how snake-like I can be!"

Sorry, calls him a cowardly snake, I believe.

[Cheesegear]

Is the fire snake a reference? I feel like I'm missing something.

Maybe you did.

On the Four Elements Monk, the only Discipline that really stands out as a unique ability is well...The Fangs of the Fire Snake...Page 81. Right there.
Obviously Fire Snake both sounds cool and has some meme potential.

[Kane0]

Water whip used to be good too, until it wasnt a bonus action anymore

[Rukelnikov]

On our first campaign a friend of mine played a 4E monk, with the buff that ki spent on hit with Fire Snake added damage to all attacks in the turn rather than only the hit in question, it started as a misreading of the feature, but the DM decided to keep it that way when we realised how its supposed to work, that monk did very well, even with a Sorlock and a Vengeance Pally in the party.

[Psyren]

Maybe you did.

On the Four Elements Monk, the only Discipline that really stands out as a unique ability is well...The Fangs of the Fire Snake...Page 81. Right there.
Obviously Fire Snake both sounds cool and has some meme potential.

I just thought there might be more to it than taking one of their random abilities and building a class around it.

[Amechra]

I find it kinda interesting that both of the Firesnake classes that people posted are Intelligence-based, with the Inheritor of Ouroboros being hilariously Intelligence-SAD. I'm not sure I would've associated FIRE SNAKES with academic brilliance, but here we are. :p

[Amnestic]

I find it kinda interesting that both of the Firesnake classes that people posted are Intelligence-based, with the Inheritor of Ouroboros being hilariously Intelligence-SAD. I'm not sure I would've associated FIRE SNAKES with academic brilliance, but here we are. :p

My reasoning was to have an intelligence-based d10 hit dice class, since we've already got rangers (wis) and paladins (cha). Entirely meta. Them being Int-SAD also kinda plays into that since Int is the 'weakest' of the mental stats; you'll still want to have semi-decent dex (initiative, saves) and wis (perception, saves) even if your core is Int+Con.

After that it was a matter of backfilling a pseudo-warlock "investigating the far realm" and making up a giant snake to fit it \o/