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

[Krachek]

Some requirement I do have understand, and some questions.

A mythic warrior can’t use spells or fluff spells in any way to perform his mythic prowess.

Skills, expertise, reliable talent is reserved for expert classes especially The rogue.

We can have a pool of points and spent it on abilities. But the monk already do that with a lot of complaint. Still that would be my take to implement a mythic warrior.

Warrior already have the battlemaster and the maneuvers. More use per day, high level maneuvers, combine superiority dice at high level for increase effects? Make the maneuvers the core of all Mythic Warrior?

Then there are others rules.
The jumping, lifting, and many other physical skill rules. do we want a mundane rule set and a mythic rule set?
We got to pay attention with DC, because a non mythic warrior may also succeed high DC with magical help.

Do we want to have a mythic warrior and an actual warrior play aside, and not feel overwhelm by each other?

Do we want a mythic warrior with multiple sub classes as the fighter with his actual subclasses?

 

[CreamCloud0]

In the end, the alignment debates were a system problem.

The biggest solution was eliminating alignment mechanics.

Alignment debates still happen but they are gentler and personal. Now it is about flavor, rather than about whether or not your Paladin has powers anymore.

eh, alignment issues were as much an instructions problem as a system problem IMO, inbuilt penalties for taking certain character actions in a roleplaying game were always going to go over poorly but a secondary issue was the matter of people interpreting what alignments actually meant on their own values causing out of game conflicts due to people 'judging' each other's actions,

i think you could have an alignment system that does work and i love the potential of mechanically and narritively significant alignments but you'd really need a very very clear set of descriptions frameworking what defines each alignment before you even think about starting to apply them mechanically.

 

[Chaosmancer]

With regard to simple and repetitive, for many players this is painful, and for many other players, this is beneficial. The class design needs to find ways to meet the desires of both groups. So far, 5e tries to accomplish this via subclasses, such as "boring" Champion versus "interesting" Battlemaster. Perhaps the design space is insufficient at the low tiers to supply enough diversity of options for those who need interesting.

There is no need to boost the Fighter combat power. The need is to increase combat diversity. Generally this means tradeoffs that remain balanced, such as an attack that deals a condition instead of heavy damage. More mobility is also valuable.

My combat arts system I've posted attempts to address the need for both by giving a choice. A reliable, simple attack that offers nothing beyond damage or a less reliable attack which may offer conditions or special abilities. It becomes a fully opt-in system.

In sum. There is no need to increase the power of the Fighter class. But there is astonishing need to increase the versatility of the Fighter class.

And the first challenge to figuring out a way to assist fighters outside of combat is figuring out the mechanic that can be uniquely theirs. Otherwise you run the risk of just becoming a strength based rogue.

 

[Yaarel]

Bounded accuracy does have its pitfalls.

The way 5e is evolving, the bounded accuracy is loosening.

Between minimal bonuses at the lowest tiers even +0 for certain ability checks, versus at the highest tiers +5 ability, +6 pro, +6 again if expert, +3 magic, and other bonuses such as from spells or features, there can be a significant swing in bounded accuracy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Love how we are back at the "this isn't a real problem, you young people just hate DnD" stage of the discussion. We got a whole 24 hours of progress, so I guess by page 300 we might make a little more.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet casters get all 3. Why?

They don't.

Prep casters (wizard, cleric, druid) get a lot of power and versatility, but at the cost of simplicity.

Known casters (warlock, sorcerers and bard) get power and simplicity at the cost of versatility.

Fighters have simplicity, but power is circumstantial and versatility nonexistent. That's what we're trying to shore up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Love how we are back at the "this isn't a real problem, you young people just hate DnD" stage of the discussion. We got a whole 24 hours of progress, so I guess by page 300 we might make a little more.

At least it's not me this time.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There is no such thing as a gymnast with Dex 16 and Str 10.

Look at reallife gymnasts. They are extremely muscular.

Strength is agile.

gymnasts may require strength but their abilities are not based on it, go ask a runner or a weightlifter to start doing flips and handstands and it quickly become clear that acrobatics and athletics are two separate skillsets.

 

[Chaosmancer]

with the trade off that they have to memorize the spells before they know what they will have to do.

Not true. Not only is One DnD allowing wizards to swap spells with a 10 minute prep time, but everyone is generally aware of needing to participate in combat, and generally aware of the type of combat they will be facing. No one travels into the heart of a volcano and is shocked to find enemies dealing and immune to fire damage.

Or be a sorcerer and operate with limited spell pools.

Which largely have been panned and reduced, because it made sorcerers unbearably similiar to play.

Why do fighters get to be combat utility all day long without playing a guessing game?

Because they should be good at fighting. It is in the name.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

They don't.

Prep casters (wizard, cleric, druid) get a lot of power and versatility, but at the cost of simplicity.

Known casters (warlock, sorcerers and bard) get power and simplicity at the cost of versatility.

Fighters have simplicity, but power is circumstantial and versatility nonexistent. That's what we're trying to shore up.

Why are we back to shoring up the Fighter? I thought we had moved on to the mythic martial which would be more like 1 or 2.

The mythic martial should not be simple. We already have that with the Fighter.

Let's pick 1 since simplicity seems to be a cost/benefit to the player and not the character anyway!

So mythic martial get lots of power and versatility at the cost of simplicity. I want that,