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

[TheSword]

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."

Then those DMs are the problem and should be called out on it/given feedback to help them improve.

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.

There is. Though do you really want WOC to specifically narrow down what can and can’t be done by a given player, when the number of things that can be done is in theory endless.

Do we really want WOC to make these interactions class abilities thus restricting them for other classes? Or try and proscribe everything that can or can’t be done and what the outcome would be?

 

[Mind of tempest]

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?

okay, but why make the casters complex and the martials simple?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm surprised that illusions spells being almost totally subject to dm fiat hasn't been brought up, although I'm not sure it would change anyone's mind.

Actually, where I think progress could be made is in deconstructing the term "martial." I don't think everyone's on the same page about what that's supposed to mean.

Martial = weapon user as opposed to full-time caster. This doesn't really have a split - hexblades and EKs fit this meaning and have plenty of player-facing options.

Martial = not a spellcaster (or other innate spell-like ability, ie not Rune Knights or monks) - a little more restrictive here. Battlemaster is pretty good at providing player-facing options, but it could be made better by adding maneuvers. An all-new swordsage or warlord class could do a lot more. But frankly, IMO, by high levels you're going to need explicitly magical boosts to keep your spotlight time - thankfully, magic items are a thing.

Martial = does not use any kind of magic or supernatural ability. (You top out at John McLane.) Does not work well in high-level (11+) play. Even Batman has super-genius and super-rich as superpowers, as well as being an absurd polymath.

 

[Oofta]

okay, but why make the casters complex and the martials simple?

Some casters are relatively simple, some martial subclasses are fairly complex. It's not clear cut.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Some casters are relatively simple, some martial subclasses are fairly complex. It's not clear cut.

they are really not but having a mix of both would be desirable.

 

[Mort]

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.

Sure but the wizard gets down automatically, no questions asked. The fighter, depending on situation, is going to have to roll to get down.

The counterpoint, of course, is that the wizard expended a fungible resource so should get a benefit. But the fighter doesn't even get a choice.

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

It kind of does though -it allows the player to bypass the barrier on his terms as opposed to having to interact with the DMs set encounter. Is the climb down easy (DC 5) or because of conditions really hard (DC 20). Is there a hidden trap of some kind that cuts the rope as the character descends? Wizard doesn't care - he's bypassed the challenge - that's narrative control.

But, there are other more clear cut examples. The McGuffin the PCs need ASAP is 1,000 miles away. a 13th level group with a wizard researched the location and boom they're there (even with a bad mishap they'll still get there relatively quickly) - unless the DM uses DM fiat to not allow it. The group without a caster able to cast teleport? They have to either mother may I the DM into finding a way to teleport (or otherwise get there quickly) or resign themselves to a very different trek then the prior group. Because casters can set the pace of play.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters are the most popular class in D&D and Rogues are the second most popular. By a significant margin.

That's because 95% OF NONMAGICAL WARRIORS are forced to be Fighters and ALL EXPERTS must be rogues.


It's less about popularity and more there are no other options.

 

[Oofta]

Why is this conversation even "A versus B"? Can't we have both A and B for people that like having options? D&D is a team game, it's PCs versus the bad guys, not Bob's PC versus Sue's PC.

I remember a guy who started playing in our LFR (4E) public games. Super nice guy, but not very bright. He didn't last long because even the simplest PC quickly became too complex for him. If he were to join a game now I'd give him a champion fighter and I think he would have a blast. I want ... actually I think the game needs ... options for people like that and for people that simply don't want to think too hard while playing a game.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm surprised that illusions spells being almost totally subject to dm fiat hasn't been brought up, although I'm not sure it would change anyone's mind.

Actually, where I think progress could be made is in deconstructing the term "martial." I don't think everyone's on the same page about what that's supposed to mean.

Martial = weapon user as opposed to full-time caster. This doesn't really have a split - hexblades and EKs fit this meaning and have plenty of player-facing options.

Martial = not a spellcaster (or other innate spell-like ability, ie not Rune Knights or monks) - a little more restrictive here. Battlemaster is pretty good at providing player-facing options, but it could be made better by adding maneuvers. An all-new swordsage or warlord class could do a lot more. But frankly, IMO, by high levels you're going to need explicitly magical boosts to keep your spotlight time - thankfully, magic items are a thing.

Martial = does not use any kind of magic or supernatural ability. (You top out at John McLane.) Does not work well in high-level (11+) play. Even Batman has super-genius and super-rich as superpowers, as well as being an absurd polymath.

I say we should go middle definition as that is the most practical and it fits with my opinions on monks.

 

[Umbran]

My primary point is that on this issue there isn't that much room for compromise. What one side wants the other hates. So it's divisive. That was the point.

If there is already "hate" there, how is it the game that is doing the dividing? The people are already divided, without the game being present. When you say the game is divisive, you are laying blame for the problem on the game, rather than recognizing the different needs of the populations is what divides them.

Indeed, you yourself say that there seems to be no room for compromise. If so, the game cannot fix this, and thus cannot be held responsible for the division.

And when you change a game that is one way into a game that is the other way, you are "forcing" out those who consider the changes unacceptable. I don't see this as all that controversial a statement.

It is an emotionally loaded statement that misrepresents the action, implies directed action that doesn't exist, and places culpability where it does not belong.

Your statements frame this like looking at the game as house that you moved into once, and are forever after entitled to live in, and that a new edition is the same house. It isn't.

The new edition is a new building. They build a new home, and move into it. It is similar to, but not exactly the same, as the old one. You are perfectly welcome to move into it too. But maybe you don't like the paint, or they have made a few changes in the kitchen that annoy you, and maybe that means you don't want to move in. But, them moving away from you is not force upon you.

Their needs and desires changed, while yours didn't. Less "they forced you out" and more "you grew apart."