The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Quertus]

There is, however, one completely non-functional choice that some gamers, and some games, seem determined to pursue, that always ends in tears and/or a broken mangled wreck of a setting -- "I want my utterly non-magical, non-fantastic warrior to be able to beat spellcasters who cast level 9 spells, just by being that awesome" in a setting where the second solution above has not been applied.

Sorry, but in the typical D&D setting, with the typical D&D peasants and shopkeepers and artisans and beggers who are just like real-world people, the 20th level Fighter or Rogue who is on par with a 20th level Wizard is in their own way magical, and just as fantastic and unusual and "superpowered" as any level 20 spellcaster of any sort.

Hmmm... I think that this harkens back to the OP. Could a Fighter 20 - a "better Fighter than anyone in this world" - just take components from a Wizard's hands faster than he could retrieve them? I mean, I think *I* would have a chance of success at that task (having done the equivalent IRL for the span of "longer than a typical D&D combat lasts"), so I think that a *real* Fighter 20 could probably keep several Wizards at bay simultaneously. Could a perfectly mundane Fighter 20 strike critical areas to disable special abilities of monsters? Again, I think I could poke a Beholder in the eye (and then die to the rest of its attacks, but still…), I think a *real* Fighter 20 could probably spend their turn and "mugglify" most any monster.

Or, you know, disable their attacking limbs, or their movement limbs, or their "cry for help" or "perceive the world" organs, or...

Game designers lack imagination.

My first thought: What level of summon monster gets you a monster with at least 60 HP?

That doesn't help the Wizard survive a Fireball, or Sneak Attack damage, or put them over the threshold for various spells (like Power Word…).

People undervalue what the Fighter actually gets. So let's put a GP value on it, before complaining how much they need to spend to "catch up".

Because if it's literally just training, then it represents the an entirely different limit on what the human body can accomplish, other non-adventuring, non-"special" people will still exceed what's possible "IRL", and you get the "farmers don't need draft animals any more" setting change I mentioned already.

Not necessarily. While you could argue that, say, Michael Jordan has some genetic advantages, is there really anything that made, say, Bill Gates or Gandhi special? Any genetic advantages possessed by Vincent Van Gogh or Helen Keller?

Just how "grim dark" are you willing to admit that the world we currently live in really is / isn't?

It may be comforting to think that Navy Seals or Fortune 500 / world leaders have some "special sauce" or "divine grace" that the common man lacks, but is that reality?

(For the record, Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is a firm believer in "grim dark", in "special sauce", in the belief that he is simply incapable of achieving certain things)

What's wrong with the idea that everyone has that potential, but few reach it? And we're playing the few who are achieving their potential, rather than the ones asking, "would you like fries with that?"?

Why does that necessitate world-building on the level of world-altering changes? Our farmers in this world still need "horsepower", despite the existence of Einstein and Jackie Chan.

But then you get into things charm and mind control, where there's no partial effect, a limited space for variable resistance, and other problems.

Again, there is no reason beyond "it wasn't made that way in 3e" that these cannot have partial effects. Several posters have told you this already.