Martial Power!!! (Give the martials something to do other than "attack again")

[Bacon Elemental]

Bard's "Black Arrow" is described more in the sense of a family heirloom kept from the great forges of the dwarves, special for its (possible) history rather than being a +4 Arrow of Dragon Slaying

"Arrow!" said the bowman. "Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!"

But honestly I've always liked this scene even if Bard is an outta-nowhere

[Dr.Samurai]

John Henry, Paul Bunyan, Cuhullan.

John Henry died from hammering things to fast. Not sure this qualifies as a "supernatural warrior".

Paul Bunyan is literally a giant, so not exactly a PC fighter.

I don't know who Cuhullan is but not really relevant because there is no need to lump all warriors together and pretend that all warriors are supernatural or demigods.

Lots of famous warriors/folk heroes with supernatural abilities.

And yet people think things need to be 'realistic' in D&D.

People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

[Ralanr]

John Henry died from hammering things to fast. Not sure this qualifies as a "supernatural warrior".

Paul Bunyan is literally a giant, so not exactly a PC fighter.

I don't know who Cuhullan is but not really relevant because there is no need to lump all warriors together and pretend that all warriors are supernatural or demigods.

People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

I’d argue John Henry is probably best represented as a champion fighter.

[OldTrees1]

The point is that bard was (mostly) a regular guy shooting arrows at a dragon. You'll note that people don't suggest "speaking with animals" as an upgrade for high level martials, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant.

People don't? Sure speaking with animals is probably a Tier 2 ability, but it is an out of combat utility feature that would make sense on a Ranger or Barbarian. You could even cast it as advanced animal empathy rather than literal speech for the non magical versions.

Honestly a ranger with 1 mile blindsight due to talking with their animals would be a pretty neat ability. Of course Revised Ranger Primeval Awareness is a 3rd level variation of that ability. So, yeah it is rarely described as high level.

I’d argue John Henry is probably best represented as a champion fighter.

John Henry is a legend. They single handed beat a machine designed to do the work of X (I forget the number) men. John Henry raced that machine non stop for days (weeks?) and eventually won. That is some superhuman endurance in that very human legend.

[Dr.Samurai]

People don't. Sure speaking with animals is probably a Tier 2 ability, but it is an out of combat utility feature that would make sense on a Ranger or Barbarian. You could even cast it as advanced animal empathy rather than literal speech for the non magical versions.

That's currently how I run it with my totem warrior barbarian.

[RandomPeasant]

"Talk to animals" isn't an upgrade for high-level martials because it isn't a high level ability. No one would bat an eye if a starting character who was a "Witch" or a "Shaman" or a "Druid" could talk to animals, so the idea that it would be an "upgrade" at all for martial characters is just codifying "Casters > Martials". But at the same time, it is absolutely a supernatural ability. In the real world, thinking that you can carry on a conversation with squirrels makes you a crazy person.

People who like to play Bronn already have their thing — it's called Fighter levels 3 to 7.

This is the thing people don't seem to get. The game has levels for a reason. That reason is to allow people to play different concepts that aren't compatible in a single game. "Mundane warrior" has to be a level-limited concept, because there are all sorts of concepts that are "mundane warrior, but he got some magic". Look at someone like Kaladin. He's a spear master, and then subsequently gains super-speed, super-healing, and flight. How exactly is our mundane warrior supposed to get enough mileage out of his mastery of non-spear weapons to equal the fact that Kaladin can storming fly?

And all the subclasses are like this! They aren't character-defining most of the time, you're always playing a Fighter first and a subclass second. You cannot give Fighter a Warblade subclass, because to be Warblade, you need more budget than a Fighter subclass.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Your subclass should be less of a big deal than your class, because it is a subclass. A Fighter who is a Champion or a Battle Master or some new subclass like Warblade or Marshall should be recognizably a Fighter. It's just that Fighter needs to do enough to be interesting, or there need to be enough martial classes that some do.

It'd be pretty cool if a high Stealth roll literally made you invisible or something. As-is, we're kinda stuck with the "Guy At the Gym" mentality for skills, which is all that some classes get.

This came up in the last thread, but I've never understood the desire for supernatural stuff to pop out of skills. The game needs a system for handling human-level tasks like "read the ancient runes in the lost temple" or "chart a course using the stars" or "get the palace guard to accept a bribe". Skills do that. You can argue about how well they do that, but that's the core of what they do, and they are pretty okay at doing it. Trying to get the system that does that to also do superhuman stuff doesn't really seem roductive to me. Just let martials get their superhuman stuff from the same place casters do: their class.

It's like trying to model Hulk by writing a bunch of applications for STR checks and having Hulk get 1,000 STR (or whatever other absurd number). Don't do that. Hulk can have, like, 30 STR and abilities that let him jump more than his Athletics check would indicate, or break things more than his STR bonus would allow, or endure amounts of punishment his CON alone can't withstand. Martials should be different from spellcasters because they do different things from spellcasters, or because they do those things in different ways, not because their abilities pop out of a separate part of the system. That's the kind of thing that is complexity for complexity's sake.

I'd say that ToB is a good example of abilities that are not spells but still Extraordinary/Supernatural.

ToB is an example of no one ever defining what the hell they mean by "making martials like casters" in enough detail to properly engage with. ToB is like spellcasting in some ways. There are nine grades of ability. The abilities are divided into schools disciplines. The abilities are written up as discrete powers that are individually activated. But it is unlike spellcasting in other ways. The abilities are flavorfully martial. The abilities are designed to function without daily usage limits. The abilities include very few meaningful utility effects. Personally, while I can understand wanting martial characters who work differently from ToB martials (just as I can understand wanting magical characters who work differently from Vancian spellcasters), I don't think there's a compelling definition of "spellcaster" that includes ToB martials. But people tend not to get into enough detail to evaluate what definition they're even using, let alone how well it captures the distinction between spellcasters and non-casters.

People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

Why does "martial characters eventually gain supernatural abilities" mean D&D can't emulate non-supernatural martials? The fact that a D&D Wizard can be an archmage on par with the various archmages of fantasy fiction doesn't mean you can't also have D&D Wizards on par with the various apprentice spellcasters of fantasy fiction. The point of having a level progression is that characters advance from less powerful to more powerful.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why does "martial characters eventually gain supernatural abilities" mean D&D can't emulate non-supernatural martials? The fact that a D&D Wizard can be an archmage on par with the various archmages of fantasy fiction doesn't mean you can't also have D&D Wizards on par with the various apprentice spellcasters of fantasy fiction. The point of having a level progression is that characters advance from less powerful to more powerful.

Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

Isn't that last bit a bit of a Strawman?

As I've said, you can have magic (ie fantastic abilities) without doing magic (ie being a spell caster). And, in context, a knightly character with nothing else is an NPC. Literally, a CR 5 one. But that doesn't mean you have to be a gish to be fantastic enough to handle a demon prince. Their fantastic-ness can be completely disconnected from casting spells.

PCs are fantastic. They go beyond what normal people (either in-universe or on Earth) can do. That's in their job description. And you can't balance "is basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" with any reasonable set of fantastic abilities, at least without constraining those fantastic abilities way more than even I, with my limited tolerance for gonzo, am comfortable with. Or without breaking the "basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" idea to little shreds so it serves as nothing more than a fig-leaf. Which is something I'm also not comfortable with.

To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept. Because to do so is to reject any idea that his universe makes any sense at all--it's a collection of improbable events (each one theoretically possible, but unlikely) whose collective probability is indistinguishable from zero.

One of my consistent points is that the 5e Champion fighter and Thief rogue are already extraordinary and fantastic. Are they fantastic enough? Not for some tastes. But they're certainly beyond what normal people in the setting (or on Earth) can do. That threshold was crossed by design a long time ago. The system does not, and is not designed to, support the idea of a totally non-fantastic adventurer PC.

[RandomPeasant]

I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn.

What exactly do you envision Aragorn doing in an adventure that's appropriate for Thor? Consider the boss monster of the last adventure Thor was on: Thanos. Thanos manhandles Spiderman, who is not exactly a low-tier superhuman. Of the characters who acquit themselves reasonably when they go mano-a-mano with Thanos (roughly Hulk, Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America with Mjolnir, Scarlet Witch, and Captain Marvel), which of them do you see as being on a power level anywhere close to Aragorn? What does Aragorn ever do in his source material that is impressive as even a mid-power superhero like Black Panther, regular Captain America, or Ant Man? When Thor has to complete a challenge like "restart a forge powered by a neutron star", how do you envision Aragorn contributing to that?

If you want to say "the game should only go as high as Aragorn can" or "imbalance where some people are space gods and other people are skilled swordsmen is okay" or "we should enforce non-overlapping magisteria between magical and non-magical characters even at the cost of verisimilitude and genre emulation so that there is a reason to bring non-magical characters on high level adventures", any of those would be plausible positions (if ones I would personally reject). But the idea that Aragorn is a character that exists on the same level as Thor and Hulk (or even more restrained martials like Kaladin or PGtE's Archer) is simply not one I can credit. There are martial characters who do the things Aragorn does and also other things. It is facially impossible for them and Aragorn to exist as co-equal protagonists of a cooperative storytelling game.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being?

I'm saying that an archdevil that can be defeated by a knight who is noble, pure of heart, and devoted to the principles of chivalry, but not possessed of any abilities that exceed what a mortal man might achieve by skill of arms is not an appropriate opponent for Thor. An appropriate opponent of Thor is the Goddess of Death and Infinite Knives, or The Big Purple Malthusian, or someone who's nickname is "God Butcher".

I mean, turn it around. Should we accept "MCU Thor, as he appears in Endgame" as a valid 1st level character? Is it reasonable to just tune down the numbers on his lightning blasts, and massage the nature of his dual artifact weapons, and pull back from his ability to teleport through space but present him as fundamentally the same in an adventure where the greatest threat the party faces is a single ogre? Of course not. 1st level is different from 20th level. The character concepts that are appropriate at those levels are not the same, in either direction.

To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept.

I think it's reasonable to say that Batman is not personally superhuman. But he is a high-level Artificer (with some combination of multiclassing, background, and archetype that makes him good at investigation and unarmed combat). And that's not an unreasonable character to have at high level. But I think if you showed someone a Justice League lineup and asked them which character they expected their Fighter to be most like at 20th level, a lot more of them would say "Wonder Woman" or "Superman" than "Batman".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it's reasonable to say that Batman is not personally superhuman. But he is a high-level Artificer (with some combination of multiclassing, background, and archetype that makes him good at investigation and unarmed combat). And that's not an unreasonable character to have at high level. But I think if you showed someone a Justice League lineup and asked them which character they expected their Fighter to be most like at 20th level, a lot more of them would say "Wonder Woman" or "Superman" than "Batman".

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking. Not only that, his omni-preparedness is so far on the right edge of the curve that, coupled with everything else, means that the "not personally superhuman" idea is rather threadbare. Any one of those things is a superpower; all of them is a massive collection of super-powers. By any sane standard, at least in my mind. Because otherwise, the setting he's in is incoherent to the extremes.

---off-topic about superheroes--
My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure. Plus the whole "pre-written fiction is not comparable to a TTRPG" problem. Oh, and the fact that any given superhero has dozens of incarnations all varying tremendously in power.

So, for instance, I'd say that any version of Superman is off the table in any D&D game I'd like to play. Because "has whatever powers he happens to need, plus plot armor" isn't a useful character for a team-based game. Wonder Woman I know less about, but the same basic precautions apply. Generally, superheroes are all individual protagonists--even in the combined things like Justice League or whatever, they mostly act independently, with some team-ups. But fictionally, they're all protagonists.

[Ralanr]

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking. Not only that, his omni-preparedness is so far on the right edge of the curve that, coupled with everything else, means that the "not personally superhuman" idea is rather threadbare. Any one of those things is a superpower; all of them is a massive collection of super-powers. By any sane standard, at least in my mind. Because otherwise, the setting he's in is incoherent to the extremes.

---off-topic about superheroes--
My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure. Plus the whole "pre-written fiction is not comparable to a TTRPG" problem. Oh, and the fact that any given superhero has dozens of incarnations all varying tremendously in power.

So, for instance, I'd say that any version of Superman is off the table in any D&D game I'd like to play. Because "has whatever powers he happens to need, plus plot armor" isn't a useful character for a team-based game. Wonder Woman I know less about, but the same basic precautions apply. Generally, superheroes are all individual protagonists--even in the combined things like Justice League or whatever, they mostly act independently, with some team-ups. But fictionally, they're all protagonists.

Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

Right. Which makes using them as a touchpoint for power-sets in a TTRPG, which has to be at least somewhat internally balanced, rather misleading.

Edit: I should note that I'm relatively hard-core in the "D&D isn't a fantasy (or any other genre) emulator" camp. So "I can play as <character X>" is not something I think D&D should concern itself with. If it happens? Great. But that's coincidence, not by design. Instead, D&D should decide what archetypes and aesthetics and power level it wants to enable and build around that. If that means a large swath of characters are off the table (on any axis)? That's fine. As long as it allows interesting characters that grow organically from the rules and from the settings, that's what matters to me.

[SharkForce]

another way to look at it... you *can* be aragorn.

but if you are, you're going to need to accept that when the balrog shows up, your job is to run away while the demigod/angel/whatever keeps it away, get ambushed by standard elves, have a hard time dealing with a cave troll and a few orcs even when you've got several other fighters with you, and so on.

because that's what aragorn is. you're right, he doesn't do crazy stuff. as a result, "we'll just fight our way through moria" is never even presented as an option.

[Dr.Samurai]

This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

Isn't that last bit a bit of a Strawman?

As I've said, you can have magic (ie fantastic abilities) without doing magic (ie being a spell caster). And, in context, a knightly character with nothing else is an NPC. Literally, a CR 5 one. But that doesn't mean you have to be a gish to be fantastic enough to handle a demon prince. Their fantastic-ness can be completely disconnected from casting spells.

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

PCs are fantastic. They go beyond what normal people (either in-universe or on Earth) can do. That's in their job description. And you can't balance "is basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" with any reasonable set of fantastic abilities, at least without constraining those fantastic abilities way more than even I, with my limited tolerance for gonzo, am comfortable with. Or without breaking the "basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" idea to little shreds so it serves as nothing more than a fig-leaf. Which is something I'm also not comfortable with.

To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept. Because to do so is to reject any idea that his universe makes any sense at all--it's a collection of improbable events (each one theoretically possible, but unlikely) whose collective probability is indistinguishable from zero.

One of my consistent points is that the 5e Champion fighter and Thief rogue are already extraordinary and fantastic. Are they fantastic enough? Not for some tastes. But they're certainly beyond what normal people in the setting (or on Earth) can do. That threshold was crossed by design a long time ago. The system does not, and is not designed to, support the idea of a totally non-fantastic adventurer PC.

I'm referring to archetypes. I'm not asking that they don't go beyond normal earth human. Obviously D&D humans can do far more in certain respects than normal people. I'm saying two things:

1. Give martials cool stuff to do at all levels of the game; right now martials are very constrained.
2. This should not require supernatural abilities to keep up at higher levels.

That's what I'm saying. I think your point is that class features are already "supernatural" (or fantastic, as you put), but that's just more a case of how you are using the word than anything else.

What exactly do you envision Aragorn doing in an adventure that's appropriate for Thor?

I think this conversation is all over the place and the things I am saying are being taken very literally. I don't think anyone should actually be "THOR" in D&D. It's hyperbole to stand in for a high level martial character as some people think they should be (with supernatural powers).

Consider the boss monster of the last adventure Thor was on: Thanos. Thanos manhandles Spiderman, who is not exactly a low-tier superhuman. Of the characters who acquit themselves reasonably when they go mano-a-mano with Thanos (roughly Hulk, Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America with Mjolnir, Scarlet Witch, and Captain Marvel), which of them do you see as being on a power level anywhere close to Aragorn?

Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers. He represents the will and the values. He's specifically not there because he has awesome power and can flick Thanos in the face and give him a black eye. This goes back to my example of Sam and Shelob. It means something to not wield super power and still stand up to evil and fight for good. D&D, in my opinion, should absolutely keep this concept in play at all levels. But martial combat needs to be revamped.

Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

The character concepts that are appropriate at those levels are not the same, in either direction.

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

[Dienekes]

I suppose it very much depends on what you think is superhuman. As of now, a level 20 Fighter can survive being submerged in lava for about 12 to 18 seconds. That’s not really possible.

However their “big thing” is making 8 attacks in 6 seconds which is actually very possible. Probably not while also running 30 feet though.

So if you look at that and say “well that’s impossible ergo it must be superhuman” then there you are. A level 20 Fighter is superhuman.

But if for some reason that does not register as superhuman for you, I would probably need you to explain your reasoning.

[RandomPeasant]

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking.

That makes him "action hero tough" not "superhumanly tough". Batman (at least in the movie incarnations that are the best cultural touchstone) isn't really tougher than "generic action hero". Not even to the degree that Black Panther or Captain America are.

My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure.

Not really. Most of the Thor movies would make totally normal D&D adventures, as would Aquaman. Shang-Chi or Doctor Strange have extensive sequences set in modern Earth that are a stretch for D&D, but the basic plot structures of "assassin cult attacks magical village" or "cultist summons eldritch god" are very much stock D&D.

Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

True, but it's not like "narratively interesting" isn't a desirable quality in a TTRPG. D&D doesn't have to include everything (though since you can ask "what kind of dragon" three or four times before you get to a statblock, the idea that it's supposed to be particularly narrow is a tad unreasonable), but you have to pull your archetypes from somewhere. And "fantasy media people are familiar with" is a much better starting point than "random stuff we made up".

And it's true that superheroes aren't balanced, but balance is just math. It's not that Thor and Scarlet Witch (or Wonder Woman or Harry Dresden or Ranger) can't be balanced, they simply aren't balanced, because no one has done the work of fitting them to a power curve.

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

"Why can't this character that I've defined as being different from a high level character exclusively in ways that make him worse be the same level as another character?"

Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up.

Captain America is explicitly superhuman and at this point has multiple artifacts to his name. That is not "mundane" by any useful definition of the term.

Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

Kaladin is a "Human Warrior". Anomander Rake is an "Elf Warrior". The specific characters is how we get from the term "warrior", which encompasses everything from a town guard recruit to the demiurges from Kill Six Billion Demons, to a useful definition of when people become "supernatural" and whether the game should go there or not.

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

So if WotC puts a 20-level Commoner class in 5.5, does that mean "potato farmer" would be an appropriate high-level concept? Why don't you answer the question I asked you first an explain what a mundane warrior is supposed to do to contribute in an environment where "supernatural warrior" is an allowable character concept? Where are the points you are squeezing out of "bow skill" or "shield skill" to equal Kaladin Stormblessed's flight and superhuman physicals?

[Jakinbandw]

However their “big thing” is making 8 attacks in 6 seconds which is actually very possible. Probably not while also running 30 feet though.

They could also make 9 attacks with a Xbow which I think is very super human.

[Ralanr]

They could also make 9 attacks with a Xbow which I think is very super human.

Or it’s a revolving crossbow.

I’d type this in blue. But I don’t see the controls on my phone.

[strangebloke]

If I remember correctly, WOTC was planning on having Spell Slots be a universal resource that almost anyone would use for their Long Rest features, but the players at the time hated the idea. That's essentially why Rangers use slots and Battlemasters don't, even though they play very similarly.

Personally, I love the idea of people learning to utilize magic in their natural movements. It'd be pretty cool if a high Stealth roll literally made you invisible or something. As-is, we're kinda stuck with the "Guy At the Gym" mentality for skills, which is all that some classes get.

IMO if maneuvers were a default option, it would make a lot of sense to reframe the "smite" and "strike" spells as such.

Bard's "Black Arrow" is described more in the sense of a family heirloom kept from the great forges of the dwarves, special for its (possible) history rather than being a +4 Arrow of Dragon Slaying

It's a special arrow with history that was forged by some of the greatest smiths alive and was notably given as a gift and also never missed and was always returned. The Dwarves wouldn't consider such a thing 'magic' but the elves wouldn't consider heathline or lembas or miruvor to be 'magic' either. Nominally there's nothing magic about frodo's mithril coat, but in 5e, that's a magic item. The general principle of a craftsman putting some of themselves into their work and achieving superhuman excellence to create something extraordinary is pretty common throughout the series, and applies both to trivial lesser 'magic' items like the lembas bread, to common-but-potent items like the elven cloaks, and to great artifacts like the rings and the silmarils.

That makes him "action hero tough" not "superhumanly tough". Batman (at least in the movie incarnations that are the best cultural touchstone) isn't really tougher than "generic action hero". Not even to the degree that Black Panther or Captain America are.

The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

Something like Beowulf is far more relevant here. Grappling with such force that shockwaves tear across the meadhall he's fighting in. Swimming on open seas and fighting sea monsters while wearing full plate mail.

This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

I'm referring to archetypes. I'm not asking that they don't go beyond normal earth human. Obviously D&D humans can do far more in certain respects than normal people. I'm saying two things:

1. Give martials cool stuff to do at all levels of the game; right now martials are very constrained.
2. This should not require supernatural abilities to keep up at higher levels.

That's what I'm saying. I think your point is that class features are already "supernatural" (or fantastic, as you put), but that's just more a case of how you are using the word than anything else.

I think this conversation is all over the place and the things I am saying are being taken very literally. I don't think anyone should actually be "THOR" in D&D. It's hyperbole to stand in for a high level martial character as some people think they should be (with supernatural powers).

Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers. He represents the will and the values. He's specifically not there because he has awesome power and can flick Thanos in the face and give him a black eye. This goes back to my example of Sam and Shelob. It means something to not wield super power and still stand up to evil and fight for good. D&D, in my opinion, should absolutely keep this concept in play at all levels. But martial combat needs to be revamped.

Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

I think realistically what you define as a non-supernatural character and what most people define as a supernatural character aren't really that far apart. Using Cap as an example, the guy at one point wrestles a helicopter and wins. That's not something any current high level dnd character could do by RAW, their strength is hard capped to where they can't really do anything even remotely close to that. Of course, even with such blatantly superhuman abilities, Cap seems sort of like a normal guy because in relation to the rest of the avengers he is. In a more low-power cast like that of Falcon and the Winter Soldier cap would be an extraordinarily powerful figure.

But yeah. His strength such as it is isn't his primary "power." He's the team's leader and inspiration, the moral center of the party who improves their fighting through extraordinary tactical insights. He has a shield that is functionally an artifact, that can tank hits from all-powerful weapons like Thor's Hammer of Thunderbolts. Whether such a person is 'mundane' or 'supernatural' isn't really something I'm interested in considering. I think there's a definite place in the archetypes of the game for a 'badass normal' sort of figure who's less overtly supernatural than their peers, while still being able to be relevant purely on the basis of their power.

The thing is, how you model that 'badass norma'? IMO, the best way to do this is by just straight up making a martial spellcaster like a warlord or a warblade who has loads of enumerated powers that can be used both in and out of combat. Something like commander's strike, or the glamor bard's special BI usage that allows him to move the whole party at once.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, and this also reminds me how Trolls in shadowrun with 14 strength (the unaugmented max in 5e) couldn't even throw cars. Or a dodge scoot.

I really think these games need to change the formula for strength scaling. Especially so higher strength monsters are as strong as we think they are.

Just make the scaling quadratic. I did that as a houserule, and now peak human (STR 6) can lift about 200 kg with an effort, and a troll can pick up a car and throw it.

FFXIV is pretty tied to its own lore though, and aether manipulation is pretty important in pretty much every aspect of the game. Plus there are Garleans that are unable to manipulate aether, so they use magitek toys instead. Also I would say that Machinist is also not about manipulating the aether, it's basically a job that uses cool gadgets. Oh, and Gunbreaker according to one spoilery character seems to rely on tools and "magic" cartridges instead.

So, you don't necessarily need everyone to have access to magic for them to use Cool Stuff, you just need to design the abilities properly, and maybe give some toys to play with.

All classes as we get them manipulate aether simply because not doing so would be weird with how much aether we, the hero, have. Machinists use aether converters (that ugly box you get with every single gun) which use your own aether to produce what is basically infinite bullets and charges for other abilities, and Gunbreakers charge their cartridges with their own aether, too. I played a monk in 5e whose Ki points were flavoured exactly as that — bullets charged with his own energy.

I see my analogies are not working as intended.

Yes, a bird told Bard where to aim. No, the black arrow wasn't magical in any overt way.

The bird could easily be replaced by a wizard that divined the information, or a rogue that tricked it out of the dragon's lackey.

The (not)magic arrow could be replaced by a magic bow or just regular hits/hp damage.

The point is that bard was (mostly) a regular guy shooting arrows at a dragon. You'll note that people don't suggest "speaking with animals" as an upgrade for high level martials, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant.

And LotR, as a setting, can fit in the first 5 to 7 levels of D&D, even 5e, considering what the heroes are actually capable of. Bard wouldn't survive being lit on fire with dragon's breath, he never directly fights Smaug — he oneshots the dragon in a clever way, using an arrow that never misses (most things forged by dwarves or elves are actually magical, since they are magical people themselves, compared to humans), while Smaug is ignorant of his existence and is just busy torching the town. Boromir cannot fight off several dozen of CR1 orcs. Aragorn never fights a nazgul 1v1, and Eowyn killed the Witch King by capitalizing on Merry's strike with a magic blade that is anathema to servants of evil.

Simply put, LotR, the Hobbit and so on are not very good representations of what heroes in D&D can do, because they do what they do mostly through single decisive efforts rather than cleaving a slab of HP apart over a few rounds.

This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

*snip*

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

Because the current situation is a result of a severe downgrade to most things that have been high-level enemies. Compare a 3.5 balor or pit fiend to their 5e counterparts. Compare a 3.5 ancient dragon to their 5e counterpart. A lot of enemies lost most of their abilities for the current Fighter to be able to fight them at all. It's scaling to the lowest common denominator, rather than preserving the sense of threat and grandeur for those monsters. A 5e dragon can be destroyed by a hundred archers outside of it's Frightful Presence range, or supported by someone who can make them immune to fear. A general of hell's armies is even easier to tear apart.

Also because a party composed entirely of knights as you describe them probably wouldn't even survive that long, and cannot handle a lot of quests without the GM's intervention handing them magical tools anyway. A party composed entirely of spellcasters, if it survives the first three levels, can do anything eventually. So your high-level knight without anything at all supernatural to them (including the health regen of a champion, by the way — your wounds close before your eyes, that's pretty mythic) is at best a sidekick who gets to do their thing in combat and sits back otherwise. At worst, they're a liability because another character would probably contribute just as much, but not require anywhere as much external maintenance and support from the spellcasters.

Basically, if you want a high-level Fighter to be "just a knight" without anything non-mundane to their name, you'll have to nerf the entire game around them. WotC already did some of that, but they didn't tune the spellcasters down enough for it to be universal.

[Suichimo]

IMO if maneuvers were a default option, it would make a lot of sense to reframe the "smite" and "strike" spells as such.


It's a special arrow with history that was forged by some of the greatest smiths alive and was notably given as a gift and also never missed and was always returned. The Dwarves wouldn't consider such a thing 'magic' but the elves wouldn't consider heathline or lembas or miruvor to be 'magic' either. Nominally there's nothing magic about frodo's mithril coat, but in 5e, that's a magic item. The general principle of a craftsman putting some of themselves into their work and achieving superhuman excellence to create something extraordinary is pretty common throughout the series, and applies both to trivial lesser 'magic' items like the lembas bread, to common-but-potent items like the elven cloaks, and to great artifacts like the rings and the silmarils.


The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

Something like Beowulf is far more relevant here. Grappling with such force that shockwaves tear across the meadhall he's fighting in. Swimming on open seas and fighting sea monsters while wearing full plate mail.



I think realistically what you define as a non-supernatural character and what most people define as a supernatural character aren't really that far apart. Using Cap as an example, the guy at one point wrestles a helicopter and wins. That's not something any current high level dnd character could do by RAW, their strength is hard capped to where they can't really do anything even remotely close to that. Of course, even with such blatantly superhuman abilities, Cap seems sort of like a normal guy because in relation to the rest of the avengers he is. In a more low-power cast like that of Falcon and the Winter Soldier cap would be an extraordinarily powerful figure.

But yeah. His strength such as it is isn't his primary "power." He's the team's leader and inspiration, the moral center of the party who improves their fighting through extraordinary tactical insights. He has a shield that is functionally an artifact, that can tank hits from all-powerful weapons like Thor's Hammer of Thunderbolts. Whether such a person is 'mundane' or 'supernatural' isn't really something I'm interested in considering. I think there's a definite place in the archetypes of the game for a 'badass normal' sort of figure who's less overtly supernatural than their peers, while still being able to be relevant purely on the basis of their power.

The thing is, how you model that 'badass norma'? IMO, the best way to do this is by just straight up making a martial spellcaster like a warlord or a warblade who has loads of enumerated powers that can be used both in and out of combat. Something like commander's strike, or the glamor bard's special BI usage that allows him to move the whole party at once.

I do just want to point something out about the example given in regards to Cap:

Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers.

While Cap is still the heart of the Avengers at that time. Cap is absolutely NOT a peak human when he is facing down Thanos before back up arrives. "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Cap is harnessing the powers of a god at that point.

[Pex]

This came up in the last thread, but I've never understood the desire for supernatural stuff to pop out of skills. The game needs a system for handling human-level tasks like "read the ancient runes in the lost temple" or "chart a course using the stars" or "get the palace guard to accept a bribe". Skills do that. You can argue about how well they do that, but that's the core of what they do, and they are pretty okay at doing it. Trying to get the system that does that to also do superhuman stuff doesn't really seem roductive to me. Just let martials get their superhuman stuff from the same place casters do: their class.

It's like trying to model Hulk by writing a bunch of applications for STR checks and having Hulk get 1,000 STR (or whatever other absurd number). Don't do that. Hulk can have, like, 30 STR and abilities that let him jump more than his Athletics check would indicate, or break things more than his STR bonus would allow, or endure amounts of punishment his CON alone can't withstand. Martials should be different from spellcasters because they do different things from spellcasters, or because they do those things in different ways, not because their abilities pop out of a separate part of the system. That's the kind of thing that is complexity for complexity's sake.

The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

[Ignimortis]

The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

Basically that, yes. Except instead of shoehorning specific abilities into specific classes, you can give classes 1) class skills 2) skill unlocks that can only be used on their class skills, which "unlock" that specific function. So a character without Athletics as a class skill cannot unlock the "jump 10 times higher than expected by the base rule" feature of a skill, and has to rely on their baseline application. So one Fighter can be a jumpy dragoon-like character, but they're not all like that — a different Fighter might be a leader of men with inspiring speeches and maxed Diplomacy, and a third one might be a stealthy skirmisher very similar to a Rogue, but relying more on brawn than various tricks.

[RandomPeasant]

The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

It's not, but it is a much better reference point for the median person's perception of Batman than the cartoons you specifically grew up with.

And LotR, as a setting, can fit in the first 5 to 7 levels of D&D, even 5e, considering what the heroes are actually capable of.

Another thing that's worth considering here is what the game is supposed to look like if we do declare that Aragorn is a 20th level character. That means there need to be twenty levels of advancement between a starting character (who is presumably at least modestly more badass than the average person) and Aragorn. Can you really slice Aragorn's capabilities into twenty chunks that are each exciting enough to be worth getting as a new level? Can you really think of twenty distinct "badass normals" to spread over the game's progression?

Because the current situation is a result of a severe downgrade to most things that have been high-level enemies.

I would say that the problem is more general than that, because you can see the same sort of dynamic even in the way other editions work. The reason the mundane Fighter is problematic at high levels is about the negative space of gameplay. It's not that there are a bunch of situations that come up that he can't handle (though of course there are some that do), it's that his existence constrains certain situations out of the game, and forces certain things not to happen. It's not that you have an extended situation where the Cleric and the Wizard use their high-level magic to solve problems and the Fighter sits in the corner. It's that you don't have that situation at all, because everyone from the designers to the DM to the players understand that it'd suck for the Fighter and doesn't do it. That's the problem.

The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

Sure. That is a way you could do things. But that's not really magic coming out of the skill system. It's just grafting a small failure chance onto martial abilities, or adding some pointless bookkeeping where the Fighter nominally rolls Athletics every time he uses Leap of the Heavens, but can never fail the check. I'm not necessary disputing that you could involve skill checks in high level abilities somehow, I'm asking what the point or benefit of doing that is.

Basically that, yes. Except instead of shoehorning specific abilities into specific classes, you can give classes 1) class skills 2) skill unlocks that can only be used on their class skills, which "unlock" that specific function. So a character without Athletics as a class skill cannot unlock the "jump 10 times higher than expected by the base rule" feature of a skill, and has to rely on their baseline application. So one Fighter can be a jumpy dragoon-like character, but they're not all like that — a different Fighter might be a leader of men with inspiring speeches and maxed Diplomacy, and a third one might be a stealthy skirmisher very similar to a Rogue, but relying more on brawn than various tricks.

How is that better than just letting people pick class abilities and keeping skills and class features separate? The Wizard's teleport doesn't pop out of a high Arcana check, why should the Fighter's equivalent? To give an example of some concrete problems, this seems like it would lock out character concepts like someone who is personally diplomatic but contributes to a high level adventure with travel powers, or characters that have a pile of skills but contribute at high level with magic (like the Bard or Beguiler). It's not at all clear to me that the benefits of this would outweigh those costs.

[Ignimortis]

Sure. That is a way you could do things. But that's not really magic coming out of the skill system. It's just grafting a small failure chance onto martial abilities, or adding some pointless bookkeeping where the Fighter nominally rolls Athletics every time he uses Leap of the Heavens, but can never fail the check. I'm not necessary disputing that you could involve skill checks in high level abilities somehow, I'm asking what the point or benefit of doing that is.



How is that better than just letting people pick class abilities and keeping skills and class features separate? The Wizard's teleport doesn't pop out of a high Arcana check, why should the Fighter's equivalent? To give an example of some concrete problems, this seems like it would lock out character concepts like someone who is personally diplomatic but contributes to a high level adventure with travel powers, or characters that have a pile of skills but contribute at high level with magic (like the Bard or Beguiler). It's not at all clear to me that the benefits of this would outweigh those costs.

You don't need to have a failure chance, really. Just tie the abilities to proficiency tiers, and let martials have more skill advancement. Also, making it so that martials are better at so-called mundane stuff through raw numbers would also be good.

The reason for putting it at least partially into the skills system is simple. Skills do not scale properly in 5e and didn't do that even in 3e, despite the ELH stuff. 5e made things even worse, because a non-Rogue/Bard can't get good at skills, ever. Adding special abilities to skills lets them be relevant over all levels, and once the caster rebalancing is done (I am not one to propose solutions in a vacuum of "only this gets changed"), they can also have a bit of that pie, with Arcana/Nature/Religion skill unlocks, or maybe sacrificing a bit of their magical power to actually get good at Athletics or Survival.

Also, the thing is — Wizard's Teleport is also not a class ability per se, it's a spell that they gain access to through class abilities. But other casters also get access to the same spell, so by making things work through a shared subsystem, you can make things easier for everyone and save on page space.

[Sneak Dog]

Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

Thor smites demons with lightning and hits them with a smithy hammer so heavy noone can lift it. Captain Hobo kills demons with a rusty knife and tosses garbage at them.

That's where you hit an issue: the existence of Captain Hobo at level 18 makes Thor of level 18 look less cool. Captain Hobo is better off being level 1. Aragorn is a level 5ish concept, Thor a level 16ish.

Mind, D&D is also a game where you've HP, and as a weapon wielder you steadily bring it to zero to win. A level 1 and level 5 character can't feasibly bring down a CR 15 demon's HP to zero. Thor can. So when Aragorn/Captain Hobo face a demon, they can either hope for the demon to roll eighteen ones in a row or for Thor to show up.
Meanwhile, in LotR and various other fictions, a powerful being can die from being stabbed once with the right artefact, or in some settings even a literal god dies from a shovel to the back of the head. Different aesthetic, nothing wrong with it (it amuses me greatly even), but it's not D&D.

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

And I am entirely ok for a human without supernatural abilities to be level 16, but not for a human without superhuman abilities to be level 8. At level 16 you take bullet wounds which should be lethal, fall from a height which should kill you and then get smashed with a hammerhead bigger than yourself and you better be in the hole in the ground below said hammer laughing at the puniness of the attempts to get rid of you.
Then you go grab your sword, run up the giant and stab them in the unarmoured neck before leaping 40 ft. to the next giant. In full plate. After which you go fortify your position in five hours well enough with walls, corridors and traps to hold back a trained army of ten thousand for a week with three of you. Because you're supposed to be on the same level as someone throwing tsunamis and summoning castles at a whim, while being called 'fighter'.

Not really magic explicitely, but boy is it far beyond human. That's just what being above level 5ish is.

[Ignimortis]

And I am entirely ok for a human without supernatural abilities to be level 16, but not for a human without superhuman abilities to be level 8. At level 16 you take bullet wounds which should be lethal, fall from a height which should kill you and then get smashed with a hammerhead bigger than yourself and you better be in the hole in the ground below said hammer laughing at the puniness of the attempts to get rid of you.
Then you go grab your sword, run up the giant and stab them in the unarmoured neck before leaping 40 ft. to the next giant. In full plate. After which you go fortify your position in five hours well enough with walls, corridors and traps to hold back a trained army of ten thousand for a week with three of you. Because you're supposed to be on the same level as someone throwing tsunamis and summoning castles at a whim, while being called 'fighter'.

Not really magic explicitly, but boy is it far beyond human. That's just what being above level 5ish is.

A great summary of what a Fighter would have to be to keep up with a full caster above level 13 or so. Also, since you're level 16, when that week expires you could probably just burst out of your quick-castle and slaughter a few hundred people before the rest turn tail and run in fear. All the while you're shrugging off 99% of their attempts at harming you. As someone on this forum had said once, a level 20 Fighter should probably just be Horseman War.

Alternatively, you could severely nerf the casters so that they never get to summon tornadoes or meteor showers, or kill people with a single word, or do anything that is beyond level 5 (circle 5, not spellcaster level 5) spells. Then you can limit martials to some very low-wuxia feats like running on walls or throwing your sword and having it return to you like a boomerang (no magic involved). Basically, stuff that monk already does, but somehow nobody else can, despite being just as physically developed. But I feel like this would elicit even more complaints than making high-level martials mythical.

[Ralanr]

Alternatively, you could severely nerf the casters so that they never get to summon tornadoes or meteor showers, or kill people with a single word, or do anything that is beyond level 5 (circle 5, not spellcaster level 5) spells. Then you can limit martials to some very low-wuxia feats like running on walls or throwing your sword and having it return to you like a boomerang (no magic involved). Basically, stuff that monk already does, but somehow nobody else can, despite being just as physically developed. But I feel like this would elicit even more complaints than making high-level martials mythical.

Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

At some point, it seems like the only thing that would still be D&D is keeping the current status quo of "wizards rule, martials drool".

Not even sure I should highlight that one, because apparently a lot of people think that it should be like this. I've seen enough arguments that magic should be better than anything non-magic to last me a lifetime (not in this thread, and generally not on this forum).

[Ralanr]

At some point, it seems like the only thing that would still be D&D is keeping the current status quo of "wizards rule, martials drool".

Not even sure I should highlight that one, because apparently a lot of people think that it should be like this. I've seen enough arguments that magic should be better than anything non-magic to last me a lifetime (not in this thread, and generally not on this forum).

I mean...I can't disagree if I'm being honest.