D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Remathilis]

Just to be the voice of dissent here.

Fighter types in single digit levels are fine. And when we’re talking about mythic warriors, aren’t we more referring to double digit characters?

Why bother rebuilding levels 1-9? They aren’t really the issue. Isn’t the issue building on a bunch of stuff for later in the game?

I'd prefer greater continuity of abilities from low to high level. Or put another way, I don't like when a class changes feel midway through play. For example, warlock pact magic works a certain way all through low levels (new spell level every 2 levels, 2 slots that recharge on short rest) but once you get to 11th level, you don't continue to 6th level slots. Instead, pact magic stagnates and your high level magic comes through Mystic Arcanum, which has a different set of casting rules. Now I completely understand why they did it; having four 9th level spells per short rest would be OP, but I still don't like that their magic system essentially changes at double digits.

To that end, I would not like at 10 level fighters (or other martial classes) all of a sudden gained "Hero points" or "superhero actions" but would like a ramping into that: a few points and minor effects at low levels to build to more spectacular effects. Not a lightswitch of supernatural for killing enough goblins.

 

[Minigiant]

The core problem is that Simple Martial class features don't scale well.

Action Surge Second Wind and even Rage don't have enough levers in it to adjust to high level

 

[Remathilis]

The core problem is that Simple Martial class features don't scale well.

Action Surge Second Wind and even Rage don't have enough levers in it to adjust to high level

When designing a warrior class, you have three design goals: simple, powerful, versatile. Pick two. You aren't getting all three.

 

[Gammadoodler]

When designing a warrior class, you have three design goals: simple, powerful, versatile. Pick two. You aren't getting all three.

I rather suspect that this not true in any absolute sense.

I'd point again to shadow step. As an ability, it is simple, powerful and versatile (and could probably be made more powerful and more versatile by making it simpler). I think if a class has a few of these, I think you can hit all 3 targets.

I don't think its easy. But I'd disagree that it's impossible.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The core problem is that Simple Martial class features don't scale well.

Action Surge Second Wind and even Rage don't have enough levers in it to adjust to high level

What would be an example, for you of a class feature that scales well?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Not really. Your example text certainly works. You have always had this X inside you. It's just expressing now. ((Sorry, I've kinda forgotten the exact wording of what you wrote earlier, but I think that's the general gist))

So, no, it's not all that different. I do think that the notion of a new sort of sub-sub class, as it were, that grafts overtop of existing subclasses. Or some sort of Prestige Class for 10 levels would work quite well as well. At level 11, you are a Level X fighter/(subclass), 1st level Mythic Warrior. Your actions have triggered some sort of mythic fate - maybe you are touched by the gods, maybe you have tapped into some sort of warrior spirit, whatever. I'm not very good at that sort of thing, so, I'll leave that to others.

But, I do think that that idea of a 10 level fighter only prestige class would function. Plus, as an added bonus, you could easily build a bunch of different ones that mirror different "mythic warrior" archetypes.


I honestly don't agree with this. The whole point of a mythic warrior is that it is about keeping the fighters up with the casters. In the single digit levels, the fighter types aren't lagging particularly at all. Maybe by 9th level, I suppose. 5th level spells have some pretty big guns - teleport, bigger summonings, so on and so forth, but, I'm willing to give a bit of wiggle room here.

This way those who don't want mythic warriors in their game have no problems - just end their campaigns when they normally end them - around 10th level. No harm no foul.

But, IMO, a "Mythic Warrior" archetype is meant for double digit, Tier 3+ play.

I think there are aspects of warrior play that could be addressed earlier. Things like condition application, such that the fighter can have some more interesting options than choosing between

"Do I attack"
and
"Do I attack more"

 

[CreamCloud0]

When designing a warrior class, you have three design goals: simple, powerful, versatile. Pick two. You aren't getting all three.

was it ever really stated that people wanted martials specifically to be simple or was that just something forced upon them?

 

[Emberashh]

When designing a warrior class, you have three design goals: simple, powerful, versatile. Pick two. You aren't getting all three.

My Barbarian disagrees.

 

[Remathilis]

was it ever really stated that people wanted martials specifically to be simple or was that just something forced upon them?

There is a market for characters who just want a few knobs to pull, but otherwise aren't fiddly. But my point is that simple either loses versatility (the current fighter) or power (balancing a lot of simple options and keeping them from being overpowered).

I'm personally fine with losing simple to buff power and versatility, but there might be others who disagree.

 

[Scott Christian]

And if professional game designers can't do it, what do you expect the experience of a DM who only played 5e and doesn't have 10 years of knowledge is?

I expect the most experienced game design team with a proven track record of increasing the game's popularity to try and fix it. But again, it might not be fixed for your table. It will be fixed for many other tables. That is the crux of this problem. You want a game designed for you and a handful of other people that perceive a problem. Yet, there is never really any evidence. It's anecdotal, which for the record, in my book counts. But it counts for your table.
And if the inexperienced DM does encounter the problem of having a 20th level fighter not be able to compete with the caster class using non-magical feats and powers, then they are similar to your table. Maybe you should get together. Maybe you and others should post fixes or an expansion after the new core books come out. But what you should not do is insist that the game designers can't do it.

Of course vets like the champion. It's designed for people who don't want to think about the game part of the game, and D&D has long cultivated the attitude of "if you don't want to think about the game, play a fighter". It's circular. Its designed for the old school grognards who didnt care that their class impacted the game less than magic-users and just wanted to have a beer, chuck some dice, and joke around with their buds. Gygax said "seroius players play magic-users" and designed the fighter for people who just didn't care (or likely ran multiple characters alongside their "real" character, the mage). Anyone who wanted more played a different class or a different game.

As much as you don't like circular arguments, the other side is the same. This insistence that people who are experienced and play fighters are just old-school-drinking grognards that "don't want to think about the game" is ridiculous. It is often the exact opposite. They want to think of creative solutions for problems as opposed to be bound by a section of text that explicitly states what they can and can't do. In other words, they are much more creative and imaginative than the wizard who is going to cast the same three spells in the same order because it allows them to do the most damage.