D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
Yes, though I'm coming from a different perspective about fighters outside of combat, I also was left scratching my head over the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster sub-classes. Not that those aren't excellent archetypes, but they always struck me as examples of multi-classing. Personally, I think the use of magic to make martials types "special" does a disservice to both casters and warriors.

My preference is for added out-of-combat utility that allows each class to retain their niche. This could be mythic level abilities like you describe (bounding a 100 ft or crushing a boulder with your bare hands), but it could also take other forms like versatility outside the class structure via extra NPC, Dominion, or Item support baked into the class. For example, how 9th level fighters used to get a stronghold and followers. The idea here is not to duplicate everything a wizard can do, rather it is, to quote [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]:

My thought experiment goes as follows: for any specific scenario, can a balanced group accomplish the mission? If we swap any class for any other is the mission still accomplishable albeit differently?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ghter-versatile-out-of-combat-look-like/page8

 

[KarinsDad]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
My preference is for added out-of-combat utility that allows each class to retain their niche. This could be mythic level abilities like you describe (bounding a 100 ft or crushing a boulder with your bare hands), but it could also take other forms like versatility outside the class structure via extra NPC, Dominion, or Item support baked into the class. For example, how 9th level fighters used to get a stronghold and followers. The idea here is not to duplicate everything a wizard can do, rather it is, to quote Nagol:

"My thought experiment goes as follows: for any specific scenario, can a balanced group accomplish the mission? If we swap any class for any other is the mission still accomplishable albeit differently?"

If it is a balanced party, the players can typically get past most obstacles. Even a party of all rogues can fight, or convince the town mayor for a better deal, or arrange for magical transportation with a wizard in the city, or whatever. The time it takes and the resources required might differ, but typically, there is more than one way to achieve the same goal since most goals can be achieved via skills/combat ability, and roleplaying, and monetary/other resources. Spellcasters can only do so much in the shortcut department.

As for strongholds and followers, yes, that was kind of fun. And it allows for more organic types of scenarios. Unfortunately, it can also allow for heavy solo player interaction if not careful. It sometimes tends to get boring if a given player is handling his keep and followers (or guild, or temple, or network of spys) while the other players just sit there. Granted, some of that can be handled between games, but that also depends on how invested a given player is in the game and the time/opportunities people have between sessions (e.g. some people have families, and jobs, and many other more important real life responsibilities). Also, some elements have to be handled in game. If the reoccurring villain doesn't start poisoning the fighters followers until after the PCs acquire the mcguffin, then a lot of that could be in game. It might be fun for players to try to help those followers, but then again, it might not. Other players might think that there are bigger fish to fry and other goals to accomplish. Strongholds and followers can also be like dogs in the real world. One has to kennel them if gone for long periods of time (i.e. arrange for someone to take care of them in the case of strongholds and followers).

 

[KarinsDad]

Have you ever seen a system with an in-depth combat model?

You mean like the 5E Hero system which had 83 pages on the subject? No thanks.

Sounds to me like you're misrepresenting people's arguments.

Seems to me that in 5E, if a player wants to do something, in combat or not, the DM can say "give me an xyz roll".

It's pretty darn simple.

Example

 

[Morty]

Seems to me that in 5E, if a player wants to do something, in combat or not, the DM can say "give me an xyz roll".

It's pretty darn simple.

Example

Or they're a spell-casting class, in which case they expend their magic juice and make things happen, while retaining their ability to improvise if they want to or need to. Back to square one of this discussion, I guess.

 

[Juriel]

Seems to me that in 5E, if a player wants to do something, in combat or not, the DM can say "give me an xyz roll".

It's pretty darn simple.

Or the DM may say 'hah, no'.

Whereas a caster has a feature that says 'this thing WILL happen, no arguments'.

Like, you needed GM leniency and three rolls to go your way for that example to work out? A caster needed one knockback from a spell that was likely going to do stuff on top of that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Or the DM may say 'hah, no'.

Whereas a caster has a feature that says 'this thing WILL happen, no arguments'.

Like, you needed GM leniency and three rolls to go your way for that example to work out? A caster needed one knockback from a spell that was likely going to do stuff on top of that.

Or the fighter can use a shove, or a Battle Master can use a pushing attack and push further.

Or, the caster can use Thunderwave which still requires a missed saving throw.

Spells are not always automatic.


If the DM says no, he says no. Where does this sense of entitlement come from that all players must be able to do any hairbrained idea that comes into their head? Most DMs adjudicate reasonably. If you come up with an unreasonable request, sure the DM will probably say no. The simple solution is, come up with reasonable courses of actions and many DMs will at least give the player the chance to roll. Many DMs prefer for their players to come up with cool ideas. It makes the game come alive. The difference is that many DMs are unwilling to put up with some of the nonsense that comes spewing out of some players mouths. Oh well. Suck it up.

And it was totally ok with me if that particular DM would not have wanted my player to do what he was trying to do. It's simple. Make the DC really difficult for very unusual or difficult ideas. Or, disallow it completely (I suspect that the DM in my example there would not have normally allowed it, but our bacons were really in the frying pan, probably due to the DM putting in too difficult of an opponent, and he was willing to give us a shot).

 

[Tony Vargas]

There will still be plenty of core competencies that the wizard will have that the rogue can't emulate!

Yeah, but it's /funny/. However much the wiz may show up the rogue (and a rogue over-invested in INT isn't going to be too optimal), the rogue knows more about *Arcana* than he does. It's poetic revenge.

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
I also was left scratching my head over the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster sub-classes. Not that those aren't excellent archetypes, but they always struck me as examples of multi-classing. Personally, I think the use of magic to make martials types "special" does a disservice to both casters and warriors.

The multi-classing rules are optional, so those sub-classes allow you to access the fighter/magic-user and magic-user/thief archetypes even when MCing is unavailable. Same logic goes for the Paladin and Ranger, I suppose.

 

[Ashkelon]

There is really no point talking anymore about the fighter. It is what it is. It will never be a versatile class with a myriad of options and capabilities. It will always be limited to substandard capabilities outside of combat, and it's combat capabilities will be limited to dealing damage and taking damage. It can't grapple, push, or knockdown huge + sized enemies, and even most large size enemies will be stronger than the fighter.

No, what we need is a brand new class. Something like the 3e Tome of Battle classes. Something that can give the fighter interesting abilities both in and out if combat. This class still couldn't hope to match the versatility and capabilities of a spellcaster. How could it. Even the least versatile spellcasters get to learn 20+ spells that each are far more potent than anything you can accomplish without magic (auto success to skills and capabilities that are orders of magnitude above skills). But, just having something more interesting to do than "attack" every round would be huge.

Here re is my attempt at making such a class:
http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2dkt62/the_5e_swordsage_looking_for_feedback/

 

[Andor]

Yes, though I'm coming from a different perspective about fighters outside of combat, I also was left scratching my head over the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster sub-classes. Not that those aren't excellent archetypes, but they always struck me as examples of multi-classing. Personally, I think the use of magic to make martials types "special" does a disservice to both casters and warriors.

Here's the deal (standard disclaimer, all IMHO, YMMV, etc.etc.) In D&D magic is technology. Just like iron working, bronze Casting, and curing leather. Would you expect a fighter who, for whatever reason, weilded a rock tied to a stick while wearing uncured leather armour to be as effective as on weilding a steel greatsword and wearing plate armour? You might insist that your idea should be just as viable as any other, and in some systems you'ld even be right (HeroQuest for example) but the majority of D&D players that I have met would have little sympathy with your position.

Likewise if we were playing a modern day GURPs game and you made a TL 2 caveman, there is not much you could contribute to the game, even built on as many points as the rest of the party, because you can't drive or use a cell phone or any of a thousand other miraculous things we take for granted, like this message board.

When you make a 5e character who doesn't have any magic whatsoever you are deliberately making that caveman. This was argueably not true is earlier editions, where magic was rarer, more in keeping with the swords and sorcery fiction which was one of the inspirations of D&D. In 5e however magic is, for adventurers, commonplace. Every class has magical options, every single one. Some classes, specifically Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues also have non magical options, hewing back to the earlier days of D&D and it's fictional roots. And while some of those options are potent, they are never going to let you fly, because D&D is not generally run at a tech level which permits non-magical flight. And no matter how brilliant you are at swordsmaship you are never going to defeat a guy who can fly up invisibly and fireball your salle then fly away laughing if you cannot catch up somehow. Just like in the modern game where your caveman will never outrace a guy in a car.

Now the Antimagic Field spell is sitting right there in the players handbook. There are corner cases where everyone gets their toys taken away. Everyone but the magicless guy. And in that time and place that character is going to shine, just like the caveman can probably clean up in a tavern brawl or survival situation.

Is it legitimate to play a magicless character in D&D? Yes. In fact the system strongly supports it. The system does not however pretend that magicless people can do everything magicians can, anymore than GURPS pretends that stone age tribesman make good hackers and pilots.

Just my 2¢

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I'd love to hear more anecdotes about this plays out in actual play. Like, when your party is level 5, the wizard has 8-9 spells prepared and can cast, what, two third-level spells? Seems like enough room to prepare some utility but probably not enough slots to use it freely without risking a situation where you can't save the day with fireball because you decided to bypass a spike pit with fly. But I can see that changing at higher levels, maybe?