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

[Scott Christian]

And no guidance is given to DMs on role stepper spells that let you mimic maartial features like high strength, long jumping, and climbing once caster no longer rely of low level slots for damage.

I'm not speaking for the guidance thing, but it does make me think of a solution for the wizard imitating the martial's features. What if all those spells could only target others? Meaning they just gave bonuses to the martials, who are doing what they are trained to do.

 

[Emberashh]

You should rephrase that to: Some players of D&D think changing the game might have unintended consequences that harm the game.

Do you see the difference? One is from a place of spite, and one is from a place of caring.

It would also be fair to say both things are true. There are genuinely people who act and argue as they suppose, though as far as I can tell this thread has not been graced by the presence of such a person.

 

[Scott Christian]

It would also be fair to say both things are true. There are genuinely people who act and argue as they suppose, though as far as I can tell this thread has not been graced by the presence of such a person.

Fair enough.

 

[Minigiant]

They are not. I have watched young people play the game having only watched CR. I have a DM that got the books for Christmas, and egads, NO! Actually read them! He had no problem running the game for five other young people that had never played before. He never once watched a video. He winged it and did quite well. But it took effort on his part.

So I have to ask, what is wrong with a DMG? It's a pillar book for a reason.

The DMG doesn't guide you how to make adjustments or how to play outside the sweet spot.

The DMG works for new players who are running a basic adventure with basic PCs with no homebrew playing until level 8 or so.

 

[TheSword]

The DMG doesn't guide you how to make adjustments or how to play outside the sweet spot.

The DMG works for new players who are running a basic adventure with basic PCs with no homebrew playing until level 8 or so.

I think this is a really good point that gets to the crux of the problem with high level play. Most often in 5e people learn to play through examples. Well written pre-published adventures which sufficient hints tips and preparation to allow a DM to react reasonably with the relevant rules and info available.

The truth is, there are only a handful of these for groups above 11th level and almost none for groups above 15th. Even Paizo, famed for making the three big 1-20 campaigns, stopped a year or two into Pathfinder and started capping them at 14-16th level.

When you look at the challenges built into these Old 3e/Paizo APs the last book or two’s real challenges are almost all combat based. Which in truth are the least satisfying element of high level play by my book. Often very straightforward and only tangentially related to the world around them.

What D&D needs for high level play to my mind is a campaign with the world building and flexibility that you can set more than just combat challenges. Armies invading, societal changes, high politics and truly wondrous mysteries.

The floating city of Netheril. Rime of the Frostmaiden came close to building that kind of word but didn’t quite pull it off. I think it has a lot of potential more than any other campaign I’ve seen. I’d be really tempted to bump up the difficulty by a factor of 10 and then run that for a party of 11-20th characters maybe working a shadow realm into it and possibly a bit of chronomamcy going back to the time of the creator races/netheril/the age of dragons etc. with the same areas remodeled. The party could discover how these things work over the course of the adventure to the point that they could use some of these things to solve problems.

 

[HammerMan]

You should rephrase that to: Some players of D&D think changing the game might have unintended consequences that harm the game.

Do you see the difference? One is from a place of spite, and one is from a place of caring.

The more time I find to be here and in general on the internet the more I feel that it is pretty split between spite and careing.

 

[Clint_L]

Now I'm confused. I was just told by @doctorbadwolf that I was being totally unreasonable saying that people were insisting that the base class must never be changed. And, yet, a post or two later, now you're telling me that the base class must never be changed.

Which is it? 'cos, frankly, I'm happy either way. A new class - a Mythic Warrior (or a ... what's another word for someone who is the top of something... of war ... nah...) that is built from 1st level through about, say, 7th, to be pretty much standard fighter, only to have a bunch of stuff come online at the double digit levels? Groovy. Maybe someone who could add status effects to allies and enemies. Limited battlefield control. Then at high levels, be able to do all sorts of stuff that changes the nature of encounters.... If only I had seen a class like that before....

Ok, fair enough. That was overboard. I'm still annoyed that Warlords got consigned to the circular file of history. In any case though, I would be perfectly happy with a completely new class. At least then I might see players actually play a non-caster character once in a while. Would be nice.

According to the stats we’ve been shown, fighters are the most popular class in the game, and it isn’t close. There are four largely mundane classes, out of thirteen total, yet they make up about 35% of characters, according to WotC. In other words, slightly over represented.

I can’t speak to your personal experience, but if you don’t see non-caster characters once in a while, that is very unusual.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The more time I find to be here and in general on the internet the more I feel that it is pretty split between spite and careing.

I doubt it's true spite or true care for the broader game in many or maybe even most cases.

I suspect that it's often just personal preference combined with apathy toward the group that feels otherwise.

It's not that folks wish suffering on the people that want the mythic martials, it's that they don't like it, and don't care that much if the people who want it are unhappy.

Maybe this is "care for the game as a whole" but a lot if times it just reads as "I want my martials to be Jon Snow..and that's final"

 

[Emberashh]

Maybe this is "care for the game as a whole" but a lot if times it just reads as "I want my martials to be Jon Snow..and that's final"

Has there really been anyone in this topic that thinks that or is there just a strain of us who seem to simply agree the problem just isn't as severe as posited?

Just speaking for myself, my own "ideal" martials are explicitly built to be capable of engaging thousands of enemies by themselves. That I might not find a specific theming for such a capability appropriate for DND's genre (for both mechanical and fiction reasons) doesn't really conflict with what Id rather see Martials be capable of, particularly given I don't consider the Caster equivalent of that theming to be appropriate either, and for the same reasons.

Theres a lot of underlying assumptions floating here about so-called Toxic Caster players that would throw a fit if we nerfed Casters, but I don't believe theres actually been such a person in this topic anymore than a person who just wants Jon Snow, take it or leave it.

I don't think its terribly productive to focus so much of the back and forth here on people we're only assuming to exist and whom aren't actually participating in this discussion either way.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Has there really been anyone in this topic that thinks that or is there just a strain of us who seem to simply agree the problem just isn't as severe as posited?

Just speaking for myself, my own "ideal" martials are explicitly built to be capable of engaging thousands of enemies by themselves. That I might not find a specific theming for such a capability appropriate for DND's genre (for both mechanical and fiction reasons) doesn't really conflict with what Id rather see Martials be capable of, particularly given I don't consider the Caster equivalent of that theming to be appropriate either, and for the same reasons.

Theres a lot of underlying assumptions floating here about so-called Toxic Caster players that would throw a fit if we nerfed Casters, but I don't believe theres actually been such a person in this topic anymore than a person who just wants Jon Snow, take it or leave it.

I don't think its terribly productive to focus so much of the back and forth here on people we're only assuming to exist and whom aren't actually participating in this discussion either way.

This wasn't meant to cast aspersions. To some extent, I think it's true on both sides of the argument.

The difference is that one side has what they like, and the other doesn't.

Edit: and for reference, I wouldn't classify your position on either "side" or maybe, perhaps, on both.