D&D 5E Are there too darn many spellcasters?

[Arilyn]

Any current class can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and proficient in the Arcane skill.

What do Maesters actually do that is outside that?

I think a class might be created with this concept. They could have a bonus on saves vs. magic, be skilled at disarming magic traps, be able to identify magic items just through their knowledge of such things, they could be so full of knowledge about critters that they would get a bonus on combat in such situations or give buddies a boost, detect magic naturally, be good at removing magical ailments, maybe resistance to certain types of magic because of their constant exposure through study.

Yeah, I think it could be done.

 

[Satyrn]

Fighter?

What sort of thing would you want this [martial artist] class to be able to do?

I don't know. Whatever makes it feel like a martial artist.

And considering I made my comment about wanting the martial artist immediately after (and as a postscript to) my previous post saying "I'd be cool with there being multiple ways to express the same archtype," even if I could do a martial artist with the fighter (and a barbarian, and rogue), I'm not gonna bother answering the question, "fighter?"

 

[Li Shenron]

I have no problem restricting content when running a campaign or a problem creating new content (classes, feats, options). But if I have to go through the trouble of doing a total conversion mod on the rules, I begin to wonder why I'm playing 5e in the first place when I can play something more suitable

Why do you think you have to change the rules? I think you need to change nothing.

 

[Satyrn]

4E had options for a weaponless fighter. Not much damage, but lots of grabbing and dragging. Would that be an example?

Aye. That sounds lke a "martial artist" to me.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't recall an overwhelming number of players during the playtest demanding more and more magic. Rather the opposite really, which fits your comment about fighters and rogues being the the most commonly played classes.

Are you sure? I don't think the feedback results are public.

I certainly am in favor of more non-magic options and no new magic options for a while, but what i see is that the community is not interested. For every discussion about expanding mundane equipment (I'd love to have more armor and shields types) there are like 10 threads just about pricing magic items. Every time I bring up my wish that the upcoming Artificer class was a non-spellcaster (with perhaps only a spellcasting subclass) everyone says that no, of course it has to have spells...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't know. Whatever makes it feel like a martial artist.

Thats . . . not entirely helpful. I'm asking you precisely what sort of thing that you think a martial artist class to be able to do.
So: What would make it feel like a martial artist for you? Battlemaster type maneuvers? Nutation's suggestion for bonuses to shove and grapple? A focus on unarmed and unarmoured combat like the Monk but without the explicit magic?

And considering I made my comment about wanting the martial artist immediately after (and as a postscript to) my previous post saying "I'd be cool with there being multiple ways to express the same archtype," even if I could do a martial artist with the fighter (and a barbarian, and rogue), I'm not gonna bother answering the question, "fighter?"

That's OK. I can clarify.
The Fighter is the archetypal martial artist (outside of the magical martial artist that is the Monk.) You said that you really wanted a martial artist that isn't a Monk. So I suggested Fighter on the basis that even if that wasn't the sort of thing that you meant, it was likely to result in an explanation of why you didn't think the fighter qualified.

Edit: OK. I see that Nutation's suggestions were close to what you're thinking of. How do you think that they should be expressed, and what other capabilities to you think the class should have?

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Why do you think you have to change the rules? I think you need to change nothing.

I dunno:

*Maybe I want a world with only ritual magic or a world where clerics don't exist but wizards have cleric spells or a world where cantrips don't exist or where magic exists but is incredibly dangerous to use.
*Maybe I want a world with herbal healing or where every housewife has her own potion of healing recipe or where hedge magic is common but archwizards are impossible to find.
*Maybe I want a world of knightly orders in plate going about questing and such and would like to mechanically differentiate them to hit home on their ideological and thematic differences.
*Maybe I want to give fighters options other than hitting something with their sword every attack. Maybe I'd like to see high strikes, lunges or hamstrings given some mechanical weight for a dash of tactical complexity.
*Maybe I have a player that really wants to play a half-giant luchadore and suplex some ogres.
*Maybe I have a player that wants to play a viable high-INT, high-WIS, high-CHA fighter.
*Maybe I have a player that wants to play the farmboy on a grand adventure trope.
*Maybe I have a player that wants to play a fighter, but would like to trade out action surge for more consist round-to-round damage.
*Maybe I want to add depth and complexity to the choice of arms and armor--maybe adding strength requirements or different advantages of an axe vs. a sword, for example.
*Maybe I find the guidelines of acrobatic maneuvers, or tracking or swimming or getting through high tea without making a faux pas a bit lacking.

 

[Satyrn]

Are you sure? I don't think the feedback results are public.

I certainly am in favor of more non-magic options and no new magic options for a while, but what i see is that the community is not interested. For every discussion about expanding mundane equipment (I'd love to have more armor and shields types) there are like 10 threads just about pricing magic items. Every time I bring up my wish that the upcoming Artificer class was a non-spellcaster (with perhaps only a spellcasting subclass) everyone says that no, of course it has to have spells...

Oh gear. That's an annoying issue for me. I'd like more options, but there's so little to differentiate one armor from another, one weapon from another. It already feels like there's only 3 real choices when it comes to armor - studded, breastplate, and plate. I'm only settling for something else is I can't afford plate, or I'm playing a druid.

Weapons are almost the same.

It would be neat to see alternate armor tables. Like, give me a table for Maztican armor, and another for Kara-Tur, and maybe even break down the PH armor table and call it the Sword Coast table. Then each table could show 1 armor for each category (plus something for the druid if there's metal in all the choices). I'd be able to use that in neat ways, both as a player and DM.

Obviously, the same could be done for weapons.

 

[jgsugden]

Here are the non-magical notions that I see that are not ideally served by the rules, although you can make something work using existing rules for all of these:

1.) Warlord/Marshall - A Field General that motivates and leads. The PC would not have magical abilities, nor would they be the offensive powerhouse that a fighter or barbarian is - but they would make their allies better. Honestly, I feel like this is something they should have already done as a fighter subclass that focuses on charisma.

2.) The Loremaster/Maester - A hero that uses (non-magical) knowledge to be a hero. Alchemy is one flavor. A nature expert dealing in toxins and drugs might be another. A tactician that can anticipate enemy actions and counter them might be a third (a hero where the REACTION is their primary action use rather than their ACTION). We have some magical flavored versions of this - this would be a non-magical version.

3.) Artillery - While we have archers, I'm really talking about someone that isn't relying so much on their precision and elegant ranged attacks, but instead relies on their ability to make big freaking weapons work that lower the boom all at once. They would hit real hard with contraptions in one ... sick ... thud. Maybe they throw explosive potions. Maybe they fire primitive machine guns. Maybe they drive a frigging assault vehicle with a catapult. However, in the end, the thing that makes them a hero is that they can make their siege gear work - it is all about their stuff, and the stuff is not reliant upon magic.

4.) Mounted hero - We have a lot of characters that can ride a mount, including a few subclasses that have features that specialize in using a mount, but I'm talking a class that is all about the mounted combat. It isn't that they're at their best on a mount, it is that they devoted their entire heroic life to being a mounted hero. All of their 'combat tricks' relate to making the mount do more, protecting the mount, and coordinating attacks with the mount.

 

[Satyrn]

Edit: OK. I see that Nutation's suggestions were close to what you're thinking of. How do you think that they should be expressed, and what other capabilities to you think the class should have?

I don't know. Well, actually, I don't want to bother going into details, because the details don't matter when it comes to me expressing my desire for a martial artist class.

Unless you're offering to write this class for me?