D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

[DND_Reborn]

The fighter has two bonus ASI/feats (6th and 14th) and five subclass awards (at 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18), how many more points do you need for options???

It's generic features (more attacks, limited self-healing, action surges, and re-rolling failed saves) are more than appropriate for warriors, naturally focused on combat and and survival in combat.

The class is a robust chassis for warriors, the issue is you don't currently have the options to rival the superheroic power levels you want. Obviously, those would need to be developed (by 3PP or WotC or homebrew for your own table).

 

[Vaalingrade]

again this is why you need a more robust Chassis like warlock

Which we're never going to get as long as we're constantly being told to eat our slop and like it because wanting to be a fantasy character in a fantasy game that isn't a spellcaster is wanting to be a superhero.

 

[HammerMan]

The fighter has two bonus ASI/feats (6th and 14th) and five subclass awards (at 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18), how many more points do you need for options???

okay maybe you missed my constant talk about warlock... they pick a 1st sub class 3 at will powers and 2 encounter powers at first level...

It's generic features (more attacks, limited self-healing, action surges, and re-rolling failed saves) are more than appropriate for warriors, naturally focused on combat and and survival in combat.

Yeah, but with no dials or option, no extra exploits... looks at the 4e fighter

The class is a robust chassis for warriors, the issue is you don't currently have the options to rival the superheroic power levels you want. Obviously, those would need to be developed (by 3PP or WotC or homebrew for your own table).

yes we want EQUAL power and options to priests nad wizards.

 

[HammerMan]

Which we're never going to get as long as we're constantly being told to eat our slop and like it because wanting to be a fantasy character in a fantasy game that isn't a spellcaster is wanting to be a superhero.

and this is why when people come into these threads to silence us telling us we want dc comic super heroes we need to push back.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The fighter has two bonus ASI/feats (6th and 14th) and five subclass awards (at 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18), how many more points do you need for options???

It's generic features (more attacks, limited self-healing, action surges, and re-rolling failed saves) are more than appropriate for warriors, naturally focused on combat and and survival in combat.

The class is a robust chassis for warriors, the issue is you don't currently have the options to rival the superheroic power levels you want. Obviously, those would need to be developed (by 3PP or WotC or homebrew for your own table).

I mean it might work if you treat those subclass awards as entirely different than current subclass awards -- magnitudes higher and broader in power. Which you could do. It will just sort of stick out and you have this special set of subclasses that is not like the others.

But if you need those subclass and extra feat to map/ be somewhat equal to existing features then it really doesn't work for the mythic hero (it probably works for your idea of the merely heroic from what I gather).

It's like all these discussions on a 5e Warlord. You start to add cool features for the Warlord and people are like "Whoa Whoa that is so much more powerful than another use of indomitable". Yeah, that's the point. Is it so much more powerful or impactful than what the Wizard can do with a 7th level spell? Not even close.

So I think you theoretically could put all the stuff into a subclass and keep the Fighter chasis, but it may be better starting with the chasis of a power level you are aiming for so it's easier to make the comparison.

 

[DND_Reborn]

okay maybe you missed my constant talk about warlock... they pick a 1st sub class 3 at will powers and 2 encounter powers at first level...

Which really has nothing to do with the point of making a character at tier 4 to rival the power of casters.

Yeah, but with no dials or option, no extra exploits... looks at the 4e fighter

Which is why you can put those options, etc. at the subclass award levels, of which the fighter gets.

yes we want EQUAL power and options to priests nad wizards.

Which must either be equally limited (e.g. spell slots) or diminish but at-will. Other wise, it isn't equal.

and this is why when people come into these threads to silence us telling us we want dc comic super heroes we need to push back.

LOL, then push back, because isn't that really what you want (to rival the archmages, etc.)??

Examples I have seen include Hulk, demigod heroes of old, anime/manga characters which are certainly super-human (as in not common at all).

If you don't want these things (which I certainly classify as superheroic, be it fantasy, sci-fi, or whatever), what, exactly, do you want?

 

[Minigiant]

The fighter has two bonus ASI/feats (6th and 14th) and five subclass awards (at 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18), how many more points do you need for options???

It isnt about opening but feature power.

No fighter subclass feature nor feat is equal to most Cinematic, Mythic, or Wuxia game changing features.

That's against the design of feats anyway as feats are balanced around being accessed at level one.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean it might work if you treat those subclass awards as entirely different than current subclass awards -- magnitudes higher and broader in power. Which you could do. It will just sort of stick out and you have this special set of subclasses that is not like the others.

Which is precisely what I was suggesting. Yes, it would have to be much higher in power than the current subclasses to even come close to what people are asking for. I wouldn't mind seeing toned down subclasses to go in the other direction. Again, the idea being Fighters have these X number of subclasses, A's are mundanish, B's are heroic, C's are superheroic (or super fantasy, whatever).

If you use a chassis such as warlock, with invocations and "spells" to represent mythical super features, it seems too much like just another brand of magic IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No fighter subclass feature nor feat is equal to most Cinematic, Mythic, or Wuxia game changing features.

As they stand, no there isn't. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be made. And having a PC who at 15th level has a subclass feature "Juggernaut" (you can smash through anything) and 18th subclass feature "Level the Field" (which you can slice a mountain in half or something) would seem pretty darn "fantastic and superheroic" IMO.

That's against the design of feats anyway as feats are balanced around being accessed at level one.

Yeah, I miss having more powerful feats with level prerequisites...

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Which is precisely what I was suggesting. Yes, it would have to be much higher in power than the current subclasses to even come close to what people are asking for. I wouldn't mind seeing toned down subclasses to go in the other direction. Again, the idea being Fighters have these X number of subclasses, A's are mundanish, B's are heroic, C's are superheroic (or super fantasy, whatever).

If you use a chassis such as warlock, with invocations and "spells" to represent mythical super features, it seems too much like just another brand of magic IMO.

I mean, you could do what you are saying but I'm not sure why you care so much to preserve the existing Fighter chasis for all types.

As for warlock, I really hate this stance. It's the whole 4e Fighters are casting spells! I mean, I can't tell you how to "feel" about it and clearly you are not alone that this somehow feels like a brand of magic, but how is it not just a mechanic to put limits on powerful abilities? Just refluff to a combination of more intrinsic power source, need the right circumstance, and narrative conceit.

I think there is valid argument that the game might be more interesting if every "power source" has it's own limiting mechanics -- one uses vanican, one power points, one a combination, etc. But there are perhaps only so many simple limiting mechanical frameworks to go around, so at some point limiting mechanics are going to feel a little similar (mechanically).