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

[HammerMan]

Would a high level Fighter performing something analogous to Foresight in combat be out of place for many of the tales, stories, and myths surrounding epic warriors? Or is that also strictly limited to spellcasters?

nope and I gave it to one no problem in a game just off the cuff

 

[Mort]

I don't think that these people want something that "looks, sounds, and acts like magic," but, rather, something mechanical that lets their warrior characters reliably exert narrative agency over the game fiction.

I think this is a key point. From prior threads, posts - it's become quite clear, in D&D at least, some people are HEAVILY against a character being able to exert significant narrative agency through anything other than magic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think this is a key point. From prior threads, posts - it's become quite clear, in D&D at least, some people are HEAVILY against a character being able to exert significant narrative agency through anything other than magic.

See Also: You want martial taunts, battlecries or intimidation as abilities? That's totally mind control!

 

[Neonchameleon]

By your definition, clerics, paladins, Warlocks, Bards, and Rangers are armored wizards, while druids and Sorcerers are unarmored wizards. I don't think the only thing that makes a wizard is just that they can cast spells with components.

The spells they can cast matter. But they are all definitely spellcasters.

I want a fighter to be larger than life without being a spellcaster.

Anyways, that doesn't matter as much as the question of: why do you want to play such a character in D&D.

And that doesn't matter nearly as much as the question of: why do you personally not want me to play such a character in D&D?

I could give a whole list of reasons about how I find it better worldbuilding, more thematic, and just plain fun to play. But seriously what is it about other people getting fun toys that you don't like.

Are those people numerous enough to cater to?

IME YES

While I sympathize with the adage of "no man left behind," can we truly take into account everyone that might have a bad experience and is it even feasible to try to alleviate them all? If not, then why is this a focus?

Because they are a non-trivially sized group - and even when they aren't burninating things is fun. And the characters are fun.

I'm assuming the player either didn't know the class or didn't know the campaign beforehand.

He'd been playing since 1977. The Elementalist class on the other hand came out in early 2012. I suggested it to him in late 2012 when we started a new campaign.

And should one utility martial be enough? Let's say warlord is added as the perfect complex martial, whatever that may look like. Well, now martials are boring, except warlord. And that's somehow not a problem? So the player that wants a barbarian-esque character with complex utility has to change classes to a tactical, utility river-mover. Their desired playstyle is still partially left out.

Or you could just add more subclasses. This is one of the things 5e does well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Would a high level Fighter performing something analogous to Foresight in combat be out of place for many of the tales, stories, and myths surrounding epic warriors? Or is that also strictly limited to spellcasters?

Yeah, you see the warrior who senses the ambush or wakes from their slumber as an assassin moves in for the kill all the time in stories. No one attributes these things to magic. Even modern day characters in "mundane" stories do these things without the reader's/viewer's suspension of disbelief being disrupted. The warrior is "just that good". I see no reason why a fighter couldn't (or shouldn't) be just that good as well.

 

[Guest 7034872]

It's funny you say that. I didn't come to this thread, I am the OP. And this thread wasn't (intended) to be about what people want from a complex martial, it is to understand each other and to form a discussion.

It's extraordinary how quickly we lose sight of these things. The thread starts off with "What could we all agree are some of the best arguments for and some of the best arguments against making significant changes here?" Two pages later we're in the thick of the same rolling debate D&Ders have had for years and years now.

C'est l'internet, non?

 

[Mort]

Would a high level Fighter performing something analogous to Foresight in combat be out of place for many of the tales, stories, and myths surrounding epic warriors? Or is that also strictly limited to spellcasters?

Foresight as a high level fighter ability is exactly it. An ability that can easily be flavored in a completely non-magical way. Is it powerful - yes, absolutely - and that's the point.

 

[payn]

It's extraordinary how quickly we lose sight of these things. The thread starts off with "What could we all agree are some of the best arguments for and some of the best arguments against making significant changes here?" Two pages later we're in the thick of the same rolling debate D&Ders have had for years and years now.

C'est l'internet, non?

Right, the dozen or so templates that were laid down can pretty much be applied to every post since the template was abandoned.

 

[Remathilis]

When the sorcerer was created it really was a wizard with the serial numbers filed off so it could cast spontaneous spells. It's only gradually escaping that legacy. Warlocks are slightly different - especially as they have invocations.

Why can't the wizard be happy making attack rolls using fighter weapons and claiming Mage Armour and scorching bolts.

Not all magic is spells. Why do you think it is?

But why could Merlin cast spells? He was the son of a cambion. Why could Circe? She was a literal goddess. Why could Gandalf? He was one of the Maiar. Almost every mythological wizard has something supernatural about their ancestry.

If you want to say "fighters shouldn't be able to do supernatural things unless their parents are supernatural" then we should restrict wizards to the abilities of literal real world stage conjurers. Either that or say that fighters are just as entitled to supernatural birthrights as wizards are. Or we can just assume that birthrights are silly.

Not every person who picks up a spell book can become a wizard. Not every priest at the temple is a cleric. Not every plainsman is a barbarian. I'm fine with a fighter tapping into some supernatural source to get thier superhuman abilities. Birthright is one example, you could say they got a godly blessing, drank super-soldier serum, dipped in the magic river as a babe, or discovered the magic of Muscle Power. But if we do so, we are giving up the idea that PCs are ever average people. All PCs are Magical in some way.

 

[Oofta]

5e has (finally) introduced just a a bit of this. Knock being loud, charm spells turning the target hostile etc. But that's about it. 5e magic is expressly NOT dangerous - you know what you're getting when you cast a spell. Sure there are variants, like wild magic. But that's a variant.


Except rogues are the out of combat skill monkey who are also VERY effective in combat. They are good at both.


But rogues aren't just about DPR in combat! Cunning action (which rogues get nice and early at 2nd level) gives rogues a massive amount of in combat options that really allow them to shine in various situations. Again it shows that it's not THAT hard to give fun, meaningful options without resorting to magic.


Assuming the campaign allows feats and assuming the fighter is willing to sacrifice combat effectiveness to do so - a bit of a big ask for a class that already has to do everything it can to keep up.

It just isn't that hard to give the fighter thematically appropriate non-magic, out of combat stuff. The designers have already taken baby steps by allowing fighter maneuvers that can add to persuasion etc.

My point was that I feel like the rogue has been beefed up in combat while the fighter hasn't gained anything in the skills section. That and I'd be okay with a rogue being nearly effective at DPR if they were more of a glass cannon, but they aren't. My wife's rogue has the best AC in the group, which in part is because she cares about that kind of stuff but also because dex is simply too powerful IMHO. I would also say that fighters get combat options and roles that the rogue does not. Attacks can be used for other things than swinging a sword. Maybe they (or at least some subset) should get a good charge ability or similar, but I don't think that's what this thread is about.

The problem is even if you gave fighters more options for skills, such as specialization similar to rogues but fewer, some people would still claim it's not enough because in their games the only things that matter are the big flashy spells. I try to make sure that I balance things out, I have a "cheat sheet" with what people are proficient and good in to remind myself to call for things other than perception, history or arcana checks. On a couple of occasions the fighter has made mighty leaps that others could not have with an athletics check and that exceeded the strength times 10 rule. But that's all in the hands of the DM. Same way with the repercussions of spells, it's pretty much left in the hands of the DM. For example my players know that charming someone may come back to bite them (I'll remind them the target knows they were charmed if I think they don't already know) so they're more careful in their usage.

In any case, we're not adding much here. I agree fighters could use a bit of a boost on the skill side, I'm just not sure how much of a difference it would make. It certainly seems like it wouldn't be enough for some people. Without giving them explicitly supernatural capabilities that I think goes against the nature of the fighter unless you're talking about a specific archetype, I'm not sure what can be done. Then again I didn't see the problem when I played a fighter and don't see it now. Running a wizard or even a more complex fighter isn't for everyone, sometimes people just want to run a PC that bashes head in and drinks ale on their off hours.