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

[TheSword]

And yet a 1st level wizard can jump down a 50' cliff float down using feather fall and move on his merry way.

While a 200HP barbarian jumping down that same cliff (and willing to take the relatively measly 5d6 to do so) will (at many tables) trigger an hour long discussion on "good faith gaming" and how the player's character shouldn't "know" that he can easily survive the fall. There was a (long) thread on this very board where posters were arguing that a player who has his character jump down that cliff "for the wrong reasons.." Should just have the HP mechanic bypassed and be instantly killed.

My point is: the first is set, the second is dependent on table and DM.

Or they could use a rope to get down, or climb down. The feather fall is just speeding that process up. It offers a short cut to getting down the cliff by other means.

In short. Feather fall adds no narrative control, it just speeds up the game. Or saves some damage if the wizard is shoved off the cliff by a martial with one of their many creative attack options

 

[ph0rk]

And yet a 1st level wizard can jump down a 50' cliff float down using feather fall and move on his merry way.

As I see the quote, that's still in keeping with it.

Wall of Stone does what building a stone wall would do, but much much faster. You could still build a wall the mundane way.

This does not mean access to Wall of Stone is not more powerful than access to a mason - quite the contrary, the instantaneous nature (or 10 minute concentration time for a permanent wall) is clearly superior to building a wall the normal way. You get a wall both ways, but magic is markedly faster.

So: the quote isn't about power balance at all.

 

[ph0rk]

If you want a more complex martial warrior you have plenty of options. Leave the fighter alone for those people that prefer dirt simple.

For the nth time: another, complex martial does not necessitate changing the fighter. Nor did I claim that the fighter should be changed in that post.

Fighters, as they exist, are not Go.

 

[TheSword]

As I see the quote, that's still in keeping with it.

Wall of Stone does what building a stone wall would do, but much much faster. You could still build a wall the mundane way.

This does not mean access to Wall of Stone is not more powerful than access to a mason - quite the contrary, the instantaneous nature (or 10 minute concentration time for a permanent wall) is clearly superior to building a wall the normal way. You get a wall both ways, but magic is markedly faster.

So: the quote isn't about power balance at all.

My comment about mimicking the mundane was not about power, it was about narrative control, and how most spells don’t offer more narrative control than the party already creates.

Having wall of stone would not have given the seven samurai more narrative control. They still would have erected defenses to protect the village and then manned them. Wall of stone would just have made them more substantial.

 

[Mort]

What is the issue with asking the DM to adjudicate something? Is the world populated by unreasonable DMs? Do you not have an open and honest symbiotic relationship with your DM?

How is asking if you can pull a curtain down on someone’s head to entangle them different to asking if your player can use their knowledge of Arcana to read the runes on a chest. You seem to have a massive issue with the first, but the second would be bread and butter to most players and DMs.

I don't - but many DMs I have played with do. Why? Who knows? Anything from failure of imagination, to hesitance to "break the game" to the the sadly very real for some "fighters can't have nice things."

Everything in the game is DM allowance, from the monsters you face, to whether or not that door is locked and whether you can break it down.

Suggesting DM allowance is a reason something wouldn’t work is very perculiar.

There is a a lot more guidance with spell adjudication than skill adjudication (and there's still a lot of ambiguity!)

I can certainly see why DMs would be hesitant to adjudicate skills, especially during the rush of combat!

But that wasn't the important part of the post.

 

[Oofta]

What is funny to me is that it is my fighter players that hated 4e the most. It wasn't the wizards trying to keep the fighters down. For my flavor of game, it is the people who play those classes that are martials that object.

Yeah, fighters in 4E didn't work for me either. My "mundane" fighter felt like a toon without even a passing resemblance to what a person could do without magic*. I don't care how much you waved your hands or said "it's not supernatural because there's a different label!" they felt supernatural. How the **** can a totally mundane rogue throw a single dagger and blind multiple opponents in a burst? Why can my fighter pull in enemies by "insulting them" when facing monsters that don't understand my language or even have one? Do I tell that wolf that it's mother was a rabbit and it's father was a chipmunk? The list goes on.

In 5E we have some fighters and rogues that explicitly lean on some supernatural abilities for those that want it. In 4E? It felt like you didn't have a choice. I don't even want encounter powers, I don't want anything that has an arbitrary cool-down period for game balance unless that's the type of PC I want to play.

End of the day, I want a game that can come close to mimicking a somewhat grounded fantasy novel or an action movie. Give fighters too many special abilities that feel supernatural and I can't do that. It's shoved in my face that I'm just playing a game.

So that's why I'm always leery of "martial characters need more [fill in the blank]". Want a more complex PC? Don't play a champion fighter or focus on things other than combat and combat using just the options in the PHB.

*Yes, fighters in 5E can do amazing things. Just like most protagonists in action movies. I'm okay with that.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sometimes I want to play checkers. Many people I've played with are better off and have more fun with fewer options, not more.

If you want a more complex martial warrior you have plenty of options. Leave the fighter alone for those people that prefer dirt simple.

if that is true why should we have complex casters why not make everything checkers so to speak?

 

[Oofta]

For the nth time: another, complex martial does not necessitate changing the fighter. Nor did I claim that the fighter should be changed in that post.

Fighters, as they exist, are not Go.

I have no idea what you really want or what "Fighters, as they exist, are not Go." even means.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have no idea what you really want or what "Fighters, as they exist, are not Go." even means.

it is building on your checker metaphore.

 

[Oofta]

if that is true why should we have complex casters why not make everything checkers so to speak?

Because sometimes I want to play checkers and other times I want to play chess? Because some people like simple, some people like complex? It's fun to have different styles and ways of contributing to the team?