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

[Asisreo]

Earlier on, you said that for that reason, you shouldn’t send solo monsters against the party.

Yes, precisely. I still hold to that.

Of course, encounters involving multiple monsters tend to favor casters.

Not necessarily. Multiple monsters can be AoE'd but multiple monsters can also just threaten the concentration of the caster that is concentrating.

The Purple Worm example would hardly work if there was a second or third monster that attacked your character afterwards, especially if it does as little as 22 damage in their attack.

However, the Mummy Lord can get OTK'd by a fighter almost completely regardless of any secondary monster.

And that's just the benefit of single-target damage. If you can kill a monster, permanently, you've completely taken them out of the fight without worrying about concentration or having less buffs. If you just banish/polymorph/Hypnotic Pattern the monsters, their allies can simply threaten your concentration and nothing really changed.

Wizards and fighters can work together on this, but that just means they each can contribute in the fight.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Torches guarantee fire damage. If he's a dueling fighting style, he can do (1+7)*2 damage per attack. Action surge means that's 8*8. Add in the battlemaster manuevers per attack, that's (1+7+4.5)*8 = 100 damage, which kills the mummy.

When I posted by wizard example, you argued that I was relying on assumptions, namely that the wizard had Polymorph prepared and that he had a 4th level spell slot.

Let’s apply that to your example. In order to OTK, you are assuming a particular subclass, a particular fighting style, and that the character would have a lighted torch in their hand instead of their shield or their main weapon.

 

[Asisreo]

When I posted by wizard example, you argued that I was relying on assumptions, namely that the wizard had Polymorph prepared and that he had a 4th level spell slot.

Let’s apply that to your example. In order to OTK, you are assuming a particular subclass, a particular fighting style, and that the character would have a lighted torch in their hand instead of their shield or their main weapon.

At level 11, every fighter, regardless of subclass can kill in one turn. Torches are starting equipment and unless the fighter somehow lost all 10 of them, he'd have it.

And, as I've been saying, using equipment other than your standard biggest damage stick can be more effective in certain scenarios.

This is showing that choosing specific circumstances works both ways. A more effective discussion would be to discuss what exactly happens in the case that these possible instant wins fail. Because instantly killing isn't guaranteed just because the chance to succeed is >50%

 

[Minigiant]

3.0 Came out in 2000
3.5 came out in 2003
Complete BOOK SERIES came out between 2003 and 2007.

It added FIFTEEN NEW CLASSES

CAN A BROTHER GET A NEW OFFICIAL WARRIOR CLASS?

If you wanna add a new caster as well, cool.
But what's the argument against a new warrior class?

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Torches deal a single point of fire damage on a hit, I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to add modifiers as fire damage as well, that doesn't really make sense.

 

[ph0rk]

A lot of the assertions about ‘what is needed’ and what ‘people’ want, really doesn’t survive in the wild.

This is, again, trying to derive an ought from an is.

At level 11, every fighter, regardless of subclass can kill in one turn. Torches are starting equipment and unless the fighter somehow lost all 10 of them, he'd have it

Lit and in-hand?

There are modules where you lose all your equipment immediately (OOTA)

CAN A BROTHER GET A NEW OFFICIAL WARRIOR CLASS?

I concur. I'd also argue there's still room for an arcane-feeling (or eldritch feeling, or both!) half caster. The failure of the paladin, here, is the structure of the list and the word "divine" everywhere. Artificers are interesting but really their own steampunk (or arcanopunk) monstrosity.

There's probably room to fix/correct/supersede the Arcane Archer on the new arcane 1/2 caster chassis.

In fact, these could be the same chassis, and the mundane abilities can thus be balanced against half casting.

Warrior-poet or Warrior-saint seems like a start point for a skilled tactician sort, akin to Miyamoto Musashi; and his Book of Five Rings even has some (granted book of nine swords esque, but this is clearly the OG) ideas for abilites: Fire and Stones Cut to break an enemy's held weapon (tweaked for balance - won't break a magical weapon but instead knock it 15' away), Intelligence to initiative based on his predilection to get to a duel early and hide in case the opponent cheated or brought allies. Bonus to AC at the cost of attack bonus without losing attacks when dual wielding; the option to dual wield one versatile and one light weapon without a feat, etc.

"Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help."

Anyway - there's plenty of room in the ecosystem for this, and it would leave the champion the champion.

As has been mentioned repeatedly - the champion isn't going to change , because WotC doesn't do that (it is part of the SRD!). Mentioning that the champion or fighters in general don't scratch this particular itch isn't putting the champion at risk. So, you can stop defending it as if it is somehow one button-press from deletion.

 

[Oofta]

3.0 Came out in 2000
3.5 came out in 2003
Complete BOOK SERIES came out between 2003 and 2007.

It added FIFTEEN NEW CLASSES

CAN A BROTHER GET A NEW OFFICIAL WARRIOR CLASS?

If you wanna add a new caster as well, cool.
But what's the argument against a new warrior class?

I have no argument per se, I just don't know what it would look like that we don't already have between classes and subclasses. Throw in backgrounds and feats that give you expertise.

Without changing the structure of the game while making it more complex and codifying improvised actions of course.

 

[ph0rk]

I have no argument per se, I just don't know what it would look like that we don't already have between classes and subclasses. Throw in backgrounds and feats that give you expertise.

Without changing the structure of the game while making it more complex and codifying improvised actions of course.

So, the game is as it is, deal with it, and a side order of you can't imagine the game changing or anything new being added. Is that about right?

 

[Minigiant]

I have no argument per se, I just don't know what it would look like that we don't already have between classes and subclasses. Throw in backgrounds and feats that give you expertise.

Without changing the structure of the game while making it more complex and codifying improvised actions of course.

It's really easy and has been expanded tons of times by many people. We had official books that did it and a whole edition that did it.

"I don't know how to do it" should not be a constantly repeated response anymore.

 

[TheSword]

I have no argument per se, I just don't know what it would look like that we don't already have between classes and subclasses. Throw in backgrounds and feats that give you expertise.

Without changing the structure of the game while making it more complex and codifying improvised actions of course.

I concur.

My biggest concern is that cool things that a character can do becomes codified as class abilities unnecessarily. Leading to the 3e issue of not being able to do cool things.

What we need (because people can’t do it themselves apparently) are rules for how to strike a weapon with an attack @ph0rk not a sub-class that can strike weapons. The first is inclusive the second is exclusive.

Int to Initiative and being able to wield weapons differently is all well and good. But is it not better suited to a feat or a subclass.

I’ve yet to see a suggestion for a full class that doesn’t either cleave too close to the battlemaster fighter or just provide additional damage/attacks on what a fighter could do which again is a solution looking for a problem. That includes the suggestions made by @Minigiant earlier in the thread.