D&D 5E I think Wizards balances classes using damage on a single target nova over 3 rounds.

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I am fine with any new class (well maybe any except a Warlord, I don't want another one of them).

I am fine with a more powerful Mystic Martial. I am fine with a new caster class that is even more powerful than a Wizard or a new caster less powerful than a current Wizard. I am not fine with changing the current classes, nerfing the current spells or buffing the current fighter in a fashion other than giving it spells. Most of the classes that exist now need to be available at their current power level and with few changes IMO.

This is position that is easy to work with and can make a lot of folks either happy or fairly satisfied with a "consolidation prize" (e.g., they really want spellcasting nerfed but if not...)

I would disagree with the assertion that many who complain about the fighter being weak would be ok with a new more powerful mystic martial class. I think they would be upset that you made that class instead of buffing the fighter. They would say that there is yet another class that is more powerful than the fighter and that the balance is worse and the Fighter needs to be brought up to the same power level as the Mystic Martial. They will say the same things about the Mystic Martial being too powerful much like they are currently saying about the Wizard being too powerful.

At the end of the day I think there is a small minority of players that want a more powerful fighter but don't want that power to come from magic. I think there is a small minority of that small minority that would be satisfied with a new class that accomplished that.

Maybe, it's about the assumptions and context about what else would or would not change though.

It's true, there are a bunch of people that think the Wizard is too powerful and want it (and spellcasting in general) nerfed.

IF that happens or is assumed, then there is a whole different discussion on what martials should be depending on what spellcasters look like.

A bunch of those same people if presented with the assumption that spellcasting/Wizards will NOT change, would prefer there be an equivalent high level martial -- call it the Mythic Martial.

I'm in this camp.

This is what I am talking about in the post above. I think there are a lot of people who will be upset with a 2nd more powerful non-casting, weapon-using martial and will not accept a Mystic Marital because if this.

I don't know if this is a lot of people. But this is definitely the "it must be my way and even adding an optional class that I don't like will ruin the entire game for everyone..." stance that is frustrating.

I haven't seen any good arguments against an optional class (while keeping the existing Fighter).

You can ban it at your table if you as a group don't like the aesthetics of it, or if it's not banned and becomes really popular than I guess that is what your friends wanted to play all along anyway, right?

Personally, I think the reason we don't have a Mythic Martial is a personal preference of some designers, inertia of history, and a lot of causal players that play lower level and are ok with the current Fighter because it works ok at those levels and there isn't any alternative presented. Combine that with a somewhat more difficult design process and it becomes not worth it for them.

That said, I also think that if this Mythic Martial was presented as an optional class that it would be quite popular with the causal player (and others), and actually increase the popularity of the game.

 

[ECMO3]

It's true, there are a bunch of people that think the Wizard is too powerful and want it (and spellcasting in general) nerfed.

I think there are far more that don't want it nerfed at all, and I think the playtest results bear that out.

If you look at the most recent playtest Wizard it is MORE powerful than the current Wizard and the things I have heard people complain about most in the playtest are rebalancing some of the spells and metamagic, most notably Hex, HM, Counterspell and Twin Spell (to be fair I have also heard them complain about the Monk).

A bunch of those same people if presented with the assumption that spellcasting/Wizards will NOT change, would prefer there be an equivalent high level martial -- call it the Mythic Martial.

I think this is number is very, very small. I think there is a significant minority that will want an equivalent fighter, who will not be satisfied by an equivalent Mythic Martial as an alternative.

I haven't seen any good arguments against an optional class (while keeping the existing Fighter).

You can ban it at your table if you as a group don't like the aesthetics of it, or if it's not banned and becomes really popular than I guess that is what your friends wanted to play all along anyway, right?

Personally, I agree.

Personally, I think the reason we don't have a Mythic Martial is a personal preference of some designers, inertia of history, and a lot of causal players that play lower level and are ok with the current Fighter because it works ok at those levels and there isn't any alternative presented. Combine that with a somewhat more difficult design process and it becomes not worth it for them.

I think the reasons we don'[t have it are twofold. First I don't think there is high demand for it and second I think there is a general push for less bloat and less options total.

That said, I also think that if this Mythic Martial was presented as an optional class that it would be quite popular with the causal player (and others), and actually increase the popularity of the game.

I do not think it would be popular at all with casual players. IME casual players do not care about balance at all and don't even understand it as a concept.

I think Fighter would remain the most popular class as it has through all the rule iterations. I don't think a high-powerd non-magical martial will even be within the top 10 most popular classes, especially if it carries a new name that was not previously used. I think most casual players who want more power than a fighter offers are going to want spells and the Mythic Martial will not scratch that itch IMO.

That is just my opinion obviously.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My personal view is it simply isn't possible to create a formula and expect it to work reliably. There are too many variables involved, especially with regard to party composition. To that extent, I think the existence of CR is a problem. People see the number, and they expect it to WORK! I've been creating adventures since 1st edition, when I learned to balance encounters "by eye" so to speak, and have been doing so ever since.

To create something more accurate, you could create "monster fight club" program, run it a couple of thousand times, and create a value that way.

Measuring monsters in terms of orcpower/ogrepower/peshkalipower in a cage fight is actually a pretty nice metric and easy to implement: Shining Sword Arena

Of course, in actual play things like mobility and placement matter more--it's almost never an actual cagefight--but if you choose a number of monsters such that the monsters might win a cagefight, you can have confidence that the players will have to be clever about how they approach the encounter or risk losing it.