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

[Asisreo]

Mod Note:

Folks, there's now 50 pages of this. I don't see a whole lot of movement. It looks like people entrenched in their positions, repeating them to each other, over and over, occasionally loudly and rudely.

If that doesn't change soon, this thread is apt to be closed as an attractive nuisance. As always, treat people respectfully.

It seems we've reached over a thousand posts on this subject. There has been some perspectives that have been put forth in this discussion. Some has been very integral to the discussion, others have convinced me to have takeout tonight.

Regardless, I feel there's still some misunderstandings or poor portrayals that are still in this thread, so I want to clear some things about my personal position and where it has moved during this thread:

I'm not against a complex-type noncasting martial, nor have I ever been. More classes, implemented well, is a plus in my book. Though, I wouldn't want a rushed or incomplete addition, which is why I believe a more in-depth discussion about what people's desires for the class is important.

When it comes to the debate, I always wondered precisely why complexity had to be separate from magical ability. To me, it was just a thing that WoTC decided on and ran with. No hostility nor desire to isolate members of the community, they just thought it would be a neat flavor. So I wondered what exactly people wanted from nonmagical characters.

What do I want for nonmagical characters? I was somewhat neutral overall in the beginning, but after reading some things, I agree letting strength-type characters performing superhuman feats of strength with ease would be a cool and appropriate addition in the realm of high-level play.

Though, I also believe there's still something in the community at large that needs to be addressed about how to handle "Guy-at-the-gymism" and how DM's both veteran and new can create both a satisfying experience for high-level martials while staying within an appropriate power scale.

What we want, ultimately, is a fun experience for this edition and future editions. We may not entirely agree with how its done, but I still believe looking these disagreements in the face and coming to mutual understandings will help the community move forward.

 

[pming]

(I didn't read the whole thread...so I'm going to delete this post as I don't want to be covering ground already, er, covered)

 

[Garthanos]

and frankly, expanding their role in it would just lead to the same complaints now being made about the Wizard (that they step on too many toes).

Look at the battlemaster its already doing flexible battlefield roles just not doing them well IMO unless probably feat dependent I do not think making the fighter even more battlefield versatile is some infringement ... that could be the definition of how he is better than others without being "outclasses others" --> in 4e terms he is Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller dependent on choices on the field of battle not during build time.

 

[Sithlord]

Look at the battlemaster its already doing flexible battlefield roles just not doing them well IMO unless probably feat dependent I do not think making the fighter even more battlefield versatile is some infringement ... that could be the definition of how he is better than others without being "outclasses others" --> in 4e terms he is Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller dependent on choices on the field of battle not during build time.

The thing is I like the battle master because they have to decide if they now is the time to use a maneuver or should i save it because I might need it later. I like those kind of feature class builds. Maybe it’s better to do a standard attack and save that ability for later.

 

[Garthanos]

I have no idea what u mean by that in response to what I quoted from me.

I could have read too much but it sounded like a turn about is fair play argument. Basically I meant that just because a hero might be able to time and accomplish some stunt does not mean npcs can manage the same thing with any efficiency. In AD&D if your dm let you basically the spell description indicated that someone could intercept the seed of a fireball or lightning bolt and cause it to blow up or bounce back in the face of the caster. A hero having an ability to do a maneuver that interfered in such a way does not mean every player wizard would likely have captain america npcs throwing their shields at the last minute and a fireball blowing up in their faces.

 

[Sithlord]

I could have read too much but it sounded like a turn about is fair play argument. Basically I meant that just because a hero might be able to time and accomplish some stunt does not mean npcs can manage the same thing with any efficiency. In AD&D if your dm let you basically the spell description indicated that someone could intercept the seed of a fireball or lightning bolt and cause it to blow up or bounce back in the face of the caster. A hero having an ability to do a maneuver that interfered in such a way does not mean every player wizard would likely have captain america npcs throwing their shields at the last minute and a fireball blowing up in their faces.

I have never played in a game where that is a pc was allowed to do it that a NPC was not. So that’s new to me.

 

[Oofta]

I could have read too much but it sounded like a turn about is fair play argument. Basically I meant that just because a hero might be able to time and accomplish some stunt does not mean npcs can manage the same thing with any efficiency. In AD&D if your dm let you basically the spell description indicated that someone could intercept the seed of a fireball or lightning bolt and cause it to blow up or bounce back in the face of the caster. A hero having an ability to do a maneuver that interfered in such a way does not mean every player wizard would likely have captain america npcs throwing their shields at the last minute and a fireball blowing up in their faces.

Anything that PCs can do, NPCs can do in my game and every game I've ever played.

 

[Sithlord]

I have no need for a filet. However I know wonder what you think of the mc rib

It has no place in the game, i mean restaurant. If I want a rib I will go to a place that makes ribs everyday And real good.

 

[Garthanos]

The thing is I like the battle master because they have to decide if they now is the time to use a maneuver or should i save it because I might need it later. I like those kind of feature class builds. Maybe it’s better to do a standard attack and save that ability for later.

You are just talking about resources and that remains even with what I was saying. If I have a parry maneuver and its now written that I can parry an attack against an adjacent pc... I have another choice about how I am using that maneuver. If I can use second-wind as inspiring shout to heal an ally I am still choosing how to use the resource.

However as to the frequency of using special maneuvers.

I dislike that they are basically almost entirely just hit it with my sword with incredibly in frequent does anything else here is something pretty close to balanced the battlemaster now gets a new "attack" form which allows them to spend one of their attacks scanning for openings the attack is a rarely normal difficult skill check (insight/investigation or similar probably). IF that works you gain a superiority die applicable to this fight.

 

[Garthanos]

Anything that PCs can do, NPCs can do in my game and every game I've ever played.

So your wizard has a spell every NPC now uses that spell against the party how fun... for you. Oh right martial abilities cannot be considered special enough that everyone isnt going to bring it to the table.