D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Seramus]

Call me when the classes get epic boons at level 10+ as part of their chassis that the player controls. Thor should be created without hoping the DM deigns to drop the gear you need. The weapons and armor should be magic because they are worn by a badass, not because they happened to drop.

To be fair, Thor lives in a setting where NPC artificers create high level magic items for many player characters.

 

[Sithlord]

how is a warrior with manoeuvres a wizard? unless they seem to spell slot like.
also, why go back to the just run up and hit it warrior instead? And

What do u have in mind? Something Like the book of 9 swords?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Oh, sure, and I don't expect them to (they've certainly done basically nothing for the PHB Ranger Beastmaster, despite many UAs). I don't think they'd have even touched the Bladesinger but for the desire to fix the racial restriction.

Balance is loose enough and death is hard enough that it doesn't matter that much - and people make bad tactical decisions at tables all the time (sometime because it is fun). But if the argument is the champion gains effectiveness in trade for its relative simplicity, I don't think that's true (it certainly isn't relative to other fighters, and the hexblade is competitive with them). Even the Samurai (which is rather simple) has better tools (for employing GWM and/or SS particularly).

But, I'm not terribly interested in the merits or failings of the champion because I'd never play one. but for a three level dip perhaps. It's a distraction from the larger discussion, spurred by someone else entirely implying the the champ was, somehow, uniquely suited to protect and support teammates.

Specifically, this:

I mean, you could say the same about an archetype-less fighter, or a Warrior sidekick.

champion does well because last time I checked it is completely free and fighter is many peoples first class.

 

[Sithlord]

champion does well because last time I checked it is completely free and fighter is many peoples first class.

Yes. And beginners need an easy class. And more experience players will want more complex classes. So spread the archetype out. Some
Simple some complex. Some in between. Not everyone wants complexity. But both should be there for Those that want them. Except the wizard. No way around it. But the warlock is as supposed to be for the wizard that didn’t want complexity. Not sure how that is working out.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes. And beginners need an easy class. And more experience players will want more complex classes. So spread the archetype out. Some
Simple some complex. Some in between. Not everyone wants complexity. But both should be there for Those that want them. Except the wizard. No way around it. But the warlock is as supposed to be for the wizard that didn’t want complexity. Not sure how that is working out.

I think a warlock is far more complext to play than a wizard. The rest mechanic is more complex, upcasting everything of lower level adds complexity and in terms of story design, working the patron into the game with the DM is complex. This last bit makes Warlock overall the most complex character to play.

 

[Mort]

Oh, sure, and I don't expect them to (they've certainly done basically nothing for the PHB Ranger Beastmaster, despite many UAs).

The Primal Companion rules in Tasha's are meant to replace the beastmaster's companion feature. They are a HUGE improvement and vault the beastmaster from lackluster to pretty good.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What do u have in mind? Something Like the book of 9 swords?

ideally less complex and a hell of a lot more modular I do not need the character to change abilities every long rest but adding cool stuff at levels or with new books would go along give it some more replayability and make it more fun.
will also need some out of combat buff as martial often end up meat shields which gets dull like playing the healer.

Yes. And beginners need an easy class. And more experience players will want more complex classes. So spread the archetype out. Some
Simple some complex. Some in between. Not everyone wants complexity. But both should be there for Those that want them. Except the wizard. No way around it. But the warlock is as supposed to be for the wizard that didn’t want complexity. Not sure how that is working out.

two points.
easy and simple are to the same I find it has more to down ith inability to teach how to set things up or how to use something and not that fighter must be babies first class.

I would argue wizard is a flat out badly designed class that needs both to be easier to explain and build ideas for as it is an odd beast that resits proper structure and theme out of nostalgia and inertia more than anything else.

 

[Seramus]

The Primal Companion rules in Tasha's are meant to replace the beastmaster's companion feature. They are a HUGE improvement and vault the beastmaster from lackluster to pretty good.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I've already seen a half dozen tables disallow Tashas material. In one case, specifically because the Primal Companion "wasn't balanced" against the other beasts you could pick.

 

[ph0rk]

champion does well because last time I checked it is completely free and fighter is many peoples first class.

I'd love to know how you're sampling that population of people that won't pay for any source material.

I don't doubt the champion is popular, but I don't think it being in the SRD is the chief reason.

The Primal Companion rules in Tasha's are meant to replace the beastmaster's companion feature. They are a HUGE improvement and vault the beastmaster from lackluster to pretty good.

Better for sure, but the Hunter will still stick around; only the Bladesinger is actually errated.

I would argue wizard is a flat out badly designed class that needs both to be easier to explain and build ideas for as it is an odd beast that resits proper structure and theme out of nostalgia and inertia more than anything else.

The wizard is already stretched about as far as it can be considering its Vancian roots.

I'd, instead, let the sorcerer and warlock be two takes on spontaneous casting and return the wizard to Vancian prepared slots. If that means a couple spells need to be tweaked in strength, so be it (but I don't think that is necessary).

As it is there are few mechanical reasons to pick a sorcerer and they can end up playing very much the same, but for the relative utility of Cha proficiencies vs Int ones.

 

[ECMO3]

at any level the longbow with sharpshooter or GWM+greasword will out damage agonizing eldritch blast with rotpk+1. Leveled spells don't save your claim either.

This depends entirely on the AC of the foe, the number of attacks and the encounter design. The -6 on the attack roll (-5 for extra damage, -1 for not taking an ASI) bites deep into the extra damage potential. When you consider you are hitting far less and doing a point worse base damage, you are probably looking at 2 points extra damage per attack effectively, compared to someone using the same weapon without the feats. It will be more than that at low ACs, it will be worse than that at high ACs, and worse than a character who took an ASI at very high AC.

Further, with these two feats, unless you have both of them (and the abilities to back them up) you can't count on being in position to use them effectively every turn. The sharpshooter gets nerfed when an enemy closes with him and he either has to disengage, cause an AOO, deal with disadvantage or use a melee weapon. Then GWM has to deal with turns where he is not close enough to an enemy to melee. Both of these things happen occasionally, usually once or twice a battle. An AB warlock can use EB just about every turn in combat unless he chooses to use a more effective spell. Also unless you are an actual fighter specifically, the 3rd ray at 11th and 4th ray at 17th will mean 4 attacks by a blaster vs 2 attacks by non-fighter martials.