D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[Minigiant]

Aren't Barbarians the monstrous warriors?

Yes and no.

WOTC is toying with giving Barbarians monstrous features but it can't go too far because there is little design space to do more than bite and claws.

And I am not exactly sure why a pseudo-medieval fantasy game needs a "scientific" warrior. The only "scientific" class in the game is the Artificer, and they're pretty blatantly using magic, not science.

No good old fantasy Renaissance man with clockwork gadgets and unreliable 18th and 19th century technological prototypes that blow up in their face?

That's classic tinkerer medieval fantasy.

 

[Remathilis]

TBH I wish we got MORE lightly flavored frosting... even if the main push was FR (my least favorite D&D setting) the 2.5 ravenloft books are a great example of how we could see more (.5 becuse of revamped base in the box).

1 adventure, 1 supliment... imagine doing that for Darksun, Birthright, Spell Jammer, and more (those are my 3 favorites after ravenloft) even if we say adventure 1 (like curse of strahd) came out 2023, adventure 2 (like curse of strahd) and supliment 1 (like vanrichten but linked to adventure 1) both in 2024, then adventure 3 and supliment 2 in 2025 ect ect... then suggest in the back of each to go to the DMs guild and buy previus edition books to add more flavor if you want to continue to run those settings.


I actually think artificer (and a 4ewarlord or 3.5 warblade) added to the 50th anniversary book would round out the classes nicely... and not be adding anything we don't already have/want... a new warrior and an alchemist seem like easy softballs over the plate. Even if the new warrior would be shut down by loud voices... I can't imagine anyone saying artificer doesn't fit in it's newest form right next to warlock, wizard, sorserer ect.

As for you

It's less that I want the flavor being lighter as much as I want more cupcakes of certain flavors and more diversity of flavored icing. Luckily, DMs Guild does an adequate job of providing more, even if they are home-baked and of varying quality.

That said, I can see an argument that artificer isn't appropriate for all settings, though these days they are about as sore thumb as monks or barbarians, and I find places for both of them in all my games. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of leader-warrior (and a dedicated psionic) class, but due to the polarizing nature of both, I'm perfectly happy to see them in an Guide to Everything book instead of the PHB for now.

 

[HammerMan]

That said, I can see an argument that artificer isn't appropriate for all settings, though these days they are about as sore thumb as monks or barbarians, and I find places for both of them in all my games. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of leader-warrior (and a dedicated psionic) class, but due to the polarizing nature of both, I'm perfectly happy to see them in an Guide to Everything book instead of the PHB for now.

I can see some homebrew setting cutting (or wanting to cut) a class or two... and you pretty much nailed the ones I would think of (unless I was cutting clerics for no gods or something) but the generic D&D worlds (Forgotten realms, Ebberon(duh), Ravenloft, Strixhaven, Birthright, spell jammer, greyhawk, plane scape, Dragon lance, even darksun(if you aloow any casters)) seem to be a good fit for an alchimist, a battle smith or an artillerist as an artificer.

is there a setting that (current 5e) half caster tinkerer would not fit (again darksun being the hardest I can think of... but I would rather a mad max tinker artificer then a wizard)

 

[payn]

My eyes have glazed over with all this sugary discussion.

 

[Oofta]

you should check out birthright... it has good systems for all of that. However for now I am fine with only being the leader of the small force inspireing a few people... I don't need an army (although I do miss birthright)

and I am argueing to change that.

I have to say - this is the first time anyone has mentioned taking fighters back to the very old school leadership role. Since it's never been mentioned before, I'm assuming the old school "gain men at arms" from previous editions. There are 3PP supplements such as Matt Collville's Strongholds and Followers for this kind of stuff if your group is into it. But if you go that route, leaders are not really limited to one class, they have a strongholds by class section.

I guess I'm just missing how that would fit into the whole "small party" vibe that makes up modern D&D, or why you need a special class or rules support for it. Birthright was an interesting concept but it's pretty far removed from the core concept of a group of 4-6. But it's not like PCs in my group never get allies, just that it will be to further specific goals of the campaign. Those goals are all over the place. Depending on group size you can add in sidekicks as henchmen, but that would only seem to work well with smaller groups.

The closest thing to Birthright in the current version of the game is Collville's. I'm assuming there may well be others it hasn't been a genre my players have ever expressed any interest in. I don't think WOTC will ever go that route again, that's what 3PP is for.

 

[Oofta]

For those who feel that the fighter is basically fine as is, how would you rate the three pillars in terms of importance in your game?

I would say at my table it's roughly 40% combat, 30% exploration, and 30% social. Exploration and social can have a profound impact on the course of our campaigns, but we enjoy a lot of combat as well.

The reason I ask is that I'm curious whether there's any correlation between those who place a heavier emphasis on combat, and the opinion that the fighter is fine as is. I thought about making a poll, but I don't think there's any way to correlate a single factor (whether the fighter should be adjusted) with a grouping of factors (how you rank the pillars).

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about whether such an adjustment could be accomplished via optional class features like those in Tasha's. Then those who want a more well-rounded fighter could use those features, whereas those who feel that the fighter is fine-as-is could simply ignore them. I think it's a better approach than something like a new subclass, because you're not as constrained in terms of the power budget.

When I run fighters I make them reasonably well rounded in at least one non-primary aspect. So either insightful and observant, reasonably intelligent or charismatic. But that's only for people that care about that kind of thing. This is supposed to be about martials vs casters, right? Most things a caster can do in the social realm can either be replicated with magic (hat of disguise instead of disguise self) or have drawbacks. Sure the wizard can charm someone, but they know they were charmed after the spell wears off. Modify memory is powerful under the right circumstances, but it's a high level spell and what happens when evidence contrary to their memories?

But again, it comes down to details which seem to vary wildly. In my campaigns? Everyone seems to contribute to non-combat somewhat evenly, although I do struggle with it a bit myself. For example I want the content of what people say and previous influence with an NPC if any to matter more than a persuasion check. But I still want a persuasion check to matter. Maybe I just focus more on decisions and actions than mechanics.

 

[jayoungr]

I always stay out of these fighter-versus-caster discussions because I feel like nobody wants to hear my anecdotal opinion, but maybe this is the thread for it.

I have played two pure martial characters up to level 12, and I am perfectly satisfied with the experience compared to my experience playing casters. The characters in question are a thief rogue and a drunken master monk. I have taken no feats that give them any kind of magical abilities.

The main things that make me happy about them are all the skills of the rogue and the crazy mobility of the monk. Huge movement speed, free disengages with a flurry of blows, running across liquid and up walls ... all of that makes every turn I play as the monk feel extremely flavorful.

For comparison, I also play a level 13 abjuration wizard, and I sometimes feel like that character's toolbox is less useful because I have to accurately predict which spells I'm going to want each day. There's nothing more frustrating than thinking, "Wow, I wish I'd prepared enlarge/reduce today."

So whenever people go on the "martials suck" rants (or the "monks suck" ones), it doesn't match my experience. I feel like they're trying to persuade me that I'm having less fun than I am, and I don't want to be persuaded of that!

 

[Fanaelialae]

When I run fighters I make them reasonably well rounded in at least one non-primary aspect. So either insightful and observant, reasonably intelligent or charismatic. But that's only for people that care about that kind of thing. This is supposed to be about martials vs casters, right? Most things a caster can do in the social realm can either be replicated with magic (hat of disguise instead of disguise self) or have drawbacks. Sure the wizard can charm someone, but they know they were charmed after the spell wears off. Modify memory is powerful under the right circumstances, but it's a high level spell and what happens when evidence contrary to their memories?

But again, it comes down to details which seem to vary wildly. In my campaigns? Everyone seems to contribute to non-combat somewhat evenly, although I do struggle with it a bit myself. For example I want the content of what people say and previous influence with an NPC if any to matter more than a persuasion check. But I still want a persuasion check to matter. Maybe I just focus more on decisions and actions than mechanics.

I'm already well aware that in your opinion there isn't an issue. What I'm interested in is how would you rate the three pillars in terms of their relative importance in your game?

 

[HammerMan]

I have to say - this is the first time anyone has mentioned taking fighters back to the very old school leadership role. Since it's never been mentioned before, I'm assuming the old school "gain men at arms" from previous editions. There are 3PP supplements such as Matt Collville's Strongholds and Followers for this kind of stuff if your group is into it. But if you go that route, leaders are not really limited to one class, they have a strongholds by class section.

I don't know how you missed it but Warlord was the break away best class in 4e in my mind.

I guess I'm just missing how that would fit into the whole "small party" vibe that makes up modern D&D, or why you need a special class or rules support for it.

imagine a 5e warlord that only gets a second attack at 11th (not at 5th) maybe has d8HD (I would want D10 but I have been told that is too op) has some fighting styles to choose from... and got 2 dozen 4e warlord powers set up as options at levels... thigns that buff others and things that grant attacks to others and a few debuffs

'healing' inspireing word can even just be 1/per short rest (I would prefer 2/short rest) or 2x prof per day an ally within 30ft that can hear you can spend a HD and when they roll to heal it they add 1d6+your cha mod to the healing

the song of rest of bard I would grab too... and the mastermind rogue aide improvement.

give them all weapon and armor prof.

give them an aura (not unlike the paliden) at some point that when allies do X they get Y bonus based on int or cha (my hope would be make int more improtant since cha has so much spellcaster love)

Birthright was an interesting concept but it's pretty far removed from the core concept of a group of 4-6. But it's not like PCs in my group never get allies, just that it will be to further specific goals of the campaign. Those goals are all over the place. Depending on group size you can add in sidekicks as henchmen, but that would only seem to work well with smaller groups.

yeah I like BR but I agree it is one of the 'out there' D&D concepts... maybe even more then D&D mad max or D&D in space with fish ships

The closest thing to Birthright in the current version of the game is Collville's. I'm assuming there may well be others it hasn't been a genre my players have ever expressed any interest in. I don't think WOTC will ever go that route again, that's what 3PP is for.

I don't see why wotc wouldn't give it a try.

 

[Umbran]

WOTC is toying with giving Barbarians monstrous features but it can't go too far because there is little design space to do more than bite and claws.

Flatly stating there is no design space is not convincing. I think you'll need to give some support for that before I buy it.

Moreover, I think you'll need to go into what you mean by "monstrous". What features are you expecting?

No good old fantasy Renaissance man with clockwork gadgets and unreliable 18th and 19th century technological prototypes that blow up in their face?

In my experience, D&D doesn't go into the Renaissance much, in terms of its tropes. It is mostly Gandalf, not much da Vinci. And, by the way, most would say the Renaissance is done in the 17th century. 18th century is the Revolutionary period, and the 19th century is the darned Industrial Revolution, Victorian period, which is out of scope for typical D&D. In those periods, the dominant weapons were firearms, not swords and armor.

That's classic tinkerer medieval fantasy.

1) The classic tinker you are invoking is not a warrior.

2) The classic tinker may appear in Renaissance fantasy an later, but not in Medieval fantasy. While there is some overlap, in real world history, there is rather less overlap in fictional tropes.