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

[TheSword]

You know what makes this whole "your experience with spells doesn't count because your DM did it wrong" thing even worse?

Whenever I mention that a DM might not let a martial do something a little out of line, you know, maybe catch something on fire that can't normally be caught on fire, then I am descended upon by people telling me that Bad DMs aren't the fault of the system and DMs should absolutely be lenient and allow such things.

So.. kind of weird, isn't it? If we say "this is how we used a spell" and it isn't 105% RAW and exactly perfect, then it doesn't count. But if we say martials might not get the chance to do things beyond the 100% literal RAW... we are told no good DM would ever do that, and that DMs should absolutely allow things that are a little outside of RAW.

Or, in other words, we will always be told that the DM should favor the position of the people who disagree with us.

Getting a martial to entangle a foe by pulling a curtain down on them is reasonable and proportional and totally in keeping with the style of the game.

Letting a wizard cast wall of fire on a long wheeled trestle and pushing/pulling it along to set an immense area ablaze because you’ve rationalized it must set things on fire and can be cast on moving objects because the earth turns, is neither.

The action is ‘improvised action’. Not 105% part of the rules just 100%. It sounds like you expect to get ‘improvised spell.’

 

[Emberashh]

Getting a martial to entangle a foe by pulling a curtain down on them is reasonable and proportional and totally in keeping with the style of the game.

Letting a wizard cast wall of fire on a long wheeled trestle and pushing/pulling it along to set an immense area ablaze because you’ve rationalized it must set things on fire and can be cast on moving objects because the earth turns, is neither.

The action is ‘improvised action’. Not 105% part of the rules just 100%. It sounds like you expect to get ‘improvised spell.’

I havent been following your convo with Chaos but I will note that there are spells that explicitly set things on fire with no need for DM fiat; Fire Bolt and Conjure Bonfire.

No other spell TMK includes that capability without homebrew.

I can't be bothered to go quote it directly but Im positive I said this at some point in this topic:

It isn't 5e's fault your homebrew doesn't work.

 

[Hussar]

I’d Love a dm that said my wall of fire was static. I just incinerated the entire crew. Hell, considering ships are only abou twenty feet wide, I’d be able to wipe out multiple ships in one casting.

Ships don’t have brakes after all. A 20 foot wide wall at the bow would hit the entire deck as the ship moved through, killing all the crew and setting the whole ship ablaze.

 

[Minigiant]

Getting a martial to entangle a foe by pulling a curtain down on them is reasonable and proportional and totally in keeping with the style of the game.

At high levels, a caster can entangle as well as a martial or better. At no real cost to the caster.

But again isn't that the whole problem that D&D doesn't provide guidelines on how to play or run high levels, the level where caster PCs and NPCs have tons of resources

And no guidance is given to DMs on running casters that co-opt martial roles like war cleriecs, swords bards, hexblades, bladesingers.

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 feel real problem is that since campaigns don't get to high levels often, high level play tends to be run in game where PCs start at high levels. And fewer encounters because WOTC didn't include monsters that aren;t brain-numbing sloooogs at high levels. And in started at high level, groups will tend to have more casters. At of this means more free-up resources to "invalidate" martials.

 

[FireLance]

Maybe a fairly simple solution may be to offer the fighter early access to Epic Boons, allow the fighter to swap them out, and eventually ignore the prerequisites to take them.

So at 12th level, the fighter can ignore the level prerequisite of Epic Boon feats. After taking a long rest, the fighter can lose the benefits of an Epic Boon feat (except for Ability Score Increase) and gain the benefits of another Epic Boon feat (except for Ability Score Increase).

At 16th level, the fighter can ignore all the prerequisites of an Epic Boon feat.

In this way, high-level fighters get a bit more power, a bit more breadth to do more things than just fight well, and a bit more flexibility to adapt to and overcome new problems when they encounter them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Psionics is magic. Ki is magic. Martial magic is magic. Superheroes are magic.

They might all be supernatural forces that don’t exist on earth but that doesn’t make them all magic, does counterspell or antimagic affect a ki powered stunning strike or the fighter's second wind? No? Then there is merit in distinguishing between these separate forces and identifying them for what each one of them is because they are different, stubbornly insisting it’s all just magic and lumping them together doesn’t help the discussion and causes confusion, they are different things and should be treated as such, let there be nuance.

 

[Scott Christian]

But the TES series is more ore less bailed out by free mods from modders.

Is D&D supposed to be supported by Youtubers doing GMing guides?

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.

 

[Scott Christian]

You had me until here. Why would adding a mythic martial class and keeping all the existing classes lose any players?
.
If someone is cool playing the champion, they can play the champion. If someone is not having fun with the existing martial, now they have a new option. Remember this option is no more versatile and powerful than the existing wizard.

I should have been clearer, sorry.

I really meant adding a mythic martial class that bloats the system. I was responding to making the fighter class more powerful. Some would see that the same way some people here see the wizard being too powerful. I mean, there have been lesser reasons why people leave a game. Balance is just one. So adding a class that appears to make all the other martials look not as good, that could be a tipping point for some.

 

[Scott Christian]

You know what? No. Not that.

I get really sick of so many complaints about the system getting hidden behind "Well, don't you trust your DM? If you trusted your DM this wouldn't be a problem. You need to stop being a problem and just trust your DM."

You know what? Sometimes I'm the DM. And sometimes I don't trust myself. Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I get things wrong, sometimes I have good intentions and mess up and make a bad situation for my players that I need to fix. Sometimes I don't even realize that until my players speak up. Does this make me a naughty word-tier DM? No, I don't think so. More often than not my players enjoy what I do and have a blast. But we need to stop acting like the solutions to problems are to put on blindfolds, gags, and handcuffs and throw ourselves upon the ever merciful, ever competent, perfect DM, who if we just TRUST will make sure everything works out for the best.

I'm a DM. I don't like the situation the game puts me in. I don't like how it makes my player's lives harder. I want it fixed. Trusting me doesn't fix it. Fixing it, fixes it.

Honest question: What exact situation does this game put you in as a DM that needs to be fixed?

And please, stop twisting my words. I never said anything like the hyperbolic statement you gave. I stated that at this point in the game's development, the DM has more control over balance issues than the rulebook. Adult communication between the people at the table have more fixes to the system than anything a rulebook can come up with.

Here is a claim: Each table is different. Your problems are not another table's problems. They have their own issues because the game has a bazillion combinations of races, classes, powers, spells, settings, monsters, players, DMs, dice rolling, and chemistry.

So when your table does find a problem (like the martial class isn't as shiny as the wizard), and you see other tables having the same problem, but you also see many tables that are not, then do exactly what you are doing. Try to find solutions. But try to do it without discounting the opinions of others that do not see the problem. Do not simply think they aren't as experienced as you or don't have your knowledge of game design. They do. It's just their combinations at their tables don't have the same holes.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because some of the fans of d&d don’t want other people to get what they want.

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.