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

[HammerMan]

That would no longer feel like D&D to me. I sincerely doubt I'm in the minority on that.



I could see beefing up the mage slayer to interrupt spells, but it looks like they're going away from giving "spells" to monsters and NPCs by giving the "powers" instead.

But take flying for example. It's far less disruptive to the core concepts of the game to just give the fighter the uncommon item boots of flying than to have the fighter flying just because they feel like it.

I don't think that i am in the minority either... so we are even there... I also don't think I said flying, but if someone having boots of flying is okay why isn't it okay to just fly?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. You are acting as though there are only two options: "anything goes" and "absolutely perfect ironclad balance." It is possible for there to be more effective balance; the fact that absolutely perfect ironclad balance is unachievable and even potentially undesirable has nothing whatsoever to do with whether some more balance is (a) achievable, and (b) desirable.

Unless and until you actually take seriously the argument that, yes, perfect absolute balance is not worth it but partial, better-made balance may be, you're not taking the rebuttal seriously. You're dismissing an easy strawman ("perfect balance is unachievable, and undesirable even if it could be achieved!") rather than the actual thing being said ("the balance we have could be improved to a worthwhile degree.")


Let me return your question with another: Are the pillars actually what they're presented as being?

We've been told, many times over the years since the D&D Next Playtest, that these are the three fundamental things the game is about. That while it is possible to construct an artificial situation where one or more of them is irrelevant, in practice no game can avoid interacting with them except by actively trying to do so. If that is the case--if these are the three things the game is designed to focus on, even if some groups choose not to interact with one portion or another--then yes, these contributions have to include out-of-combat utility.

It is unfair and unreasonable to provide class options that have no meaningful way to interact with the things the game is designed to focus on. This does not mean that every class needs diamond-perfection equality in everything. But it does mean that some meaningful, class-specific contributions should be found in every class. Again, it does not matter if some subset of players choose not to engage with things the game was specifically designed to do. What matters is that the developers have told us that that's what the game was designed to do explicitly, and have implied, over and over and over, that each of the classes is meant to have a fair shot at playing the game as designed. You cannot have a fair shot at playing the game as designed if you literally don't have tools to do so when others do. As stated, it is not unreasonable to consider the impact of things available to every character; pretending like such things don't exist at all would be foolish design. But pretending like such things are sufficient to balance the classes is not acceptable; the whole point is that any of those things that a Fighter (etc.; the class is emblematic) can allegedly do, a Wizard (etc.; again, emblematic) can do too, while the latter also has a whole bunch of other things.

Unless and until the books explicitly tell us, "The classes are not designed to be peers; some classes are simply better-equipped than others," I cannot and will not accept any argument of the form "but Fighters (etc.) can do [thing every character regardless of class can do]" or "but Fighters (etc.) can have/acquire [items or features that anyone can have/acquire, especially if said things depend on DM fiat.]"

(It's worth noting, here, that some things can look like these arguments without actually being them, e.g. "Fighters get more feats," which can allow them to have a feat--in the frustratingly-unlikely event that DMs actually allow feats--when someone else might not. The main problem is that, for the vast majority of the game, the Fighter is at most a single feat ahead of anyone else, and while feats in 5e are much better on average than they were in 3e, just one of them is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap....especially when those feats are competing with the almost always more powerful, and infinitely more boring, ASIs.)

If the game of D&D has been designed to be about combat, exploration, and socialization as the core, fundamental game experiences, then yes, either every class should have meaningful contributions to offer in all three, or the game should be open and honest about the fact that some classes are simply better at playing the game than others. I grow fatigued and weary with the song and dance. And since I am quite confident that neither WotC nor any company worthy of carrying the brand would ever contemplate straight-up telling Fighter fans, "Sorry Fighters, your class was designed to be less powerful than Wizards (etc.), if you want a more powerful class consider Paladin instead," because they would be quite keenly aware of the dramatic and deserved backlash such honesty would generate, I would be extremely surprised if they chose that option. That leaves only "maintain the charade of commensurability," or "actually make the classes the peers they've been implied to be for decades."

TL;DR: Stop pretending the classes are (more or less) "equal" if they aren't. Either make them actual peers, or admit that they aren't--and since admitting that would be brand suicide, it seems the only rational option is to make them peers.

Edit:
Or, if you like it structured in the form of a question...

Why is it that all classes do have to have combat components (e.g. cantrips/Sneak Attack/Extra Attack) but there is no analogous need for all classes to have support for non-combat utility functions? If all three pillars are meant to be about equally important from a design perspective, why is only one pillar something everyone gets a guaranteed provision of class-specific competence, while the rest of the game is "eh, some classes get diddly-squat, others get phenomenal cosmic power"?

Why do Wizards get cantrips and sleep and fireball, all the combat options they could want unless they actively opt out? If it's supposed to be that some classes just don't interact with some pillars in any meaningful way (and no, I don't consider the hilariously-named Remarkable Athlete to interact with other pillars in a meaningful way), why is it that there are no pure-utility, zero-combat classes, ones that can't even choose to interact with combat even if they want to, other than through absolutely generic resources?

They're not going to make the fighter more powerful, because they can't do that without making it more complicated, which would affect their precious new players. Maintaining the charade is the only option.

 

[HammerMan]

Because combat is generally the longest and deadliest parts of D&D. If a character is bad at combat, they likely are going to die and they won't be a character anymore. Combat is also generally one of the most fun aspects for, from my experience, most players. Social and exploration are a more niche category of the game and players use those to get to the next fight quite often. It's important to know "social" and "exploration" is distinct from narrative.

and as long as you think combat is the only major part that will remain

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A fighter doesn't have to worry about being asked to do much at their own risk or detriment. Nor are they expected to. They get to enjoy the game with less interactability and less expectations. I don't see this as a bad thing.

My question: why should I?

Because people can always choose not to engage with rules they don't want to.

It's a hell of a lot harder to find ways to engage with rules that don't exist.

(And that doesn't even touch on the other side of this: people who like Fighters but want to have something meaningful to do during all the non-combat portions shouldn't have to make a choice between "playing what they actually like" and "playing something that will actually be enjoyable.")

More importantly: who said having meaningful contributions meant having complicated things? Meaningful contributions don't have to be complicated. It IS possible to design this way. It's certainly not trivial to do so, but if designing it were trivial it would be unforgivable that 5e doesn't include it. It is reasonable to ask our designers to actually...you know...do the work of designing things. That's literally what we pay them for.

Plus like...for real? "Some people like being able to not play, so we should force anyone who likes Fighters to not play just to help those folks" is a pretty damn bizarre argument.

 

[Asisreo]

and as long as you think combat is the only major part that will remain

I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that, though?

 

[HammerMan]

A fighter doesn't have to worry about being asked to do much at their own risk or detriment. Nor are they expected to. They get to enjoy the game with less interactability and less expectations. I don't see this as a bad thing.

My question: why should I?

so as long as it had an opt in opt out (either by being a different class, or being a variant of the class) would that handle that issue... "Sure some rogues might have expertise in thieves tools but I don't"

 

[Guest 7034872]

Okay, so now I'd like to go back to Asisreo's original question for the thread: "What do you say are the best reasons for saying the dynamic is imbalanced and the best for saying it isn't?" Because I think that's a really good question for the lot of us to get our heads around, you know? "For the moment, never mind what my own position is: what are the best reasons that some people disagree with me and what are the best reasons that some others agree?" That's the sort of question I always like to hit myself with when I really want to understand something.

Best Reason for Saying "Fuhgeddaboudit" and Carrying on as Normal:
The Law of Unintended Consequences, I'd say. In a game with so many open variables and as many House Rules as book rules, there is peril in fussily, obsessively trying to fix every last thing. You've as much chance of breaking elements that do work well as you have of fixing the ones you say don't. I've run into this in my own life many, many times.

Best Reason for Getting in There and Fixing What's Ailing:
John Lewis, borrowing from Rabbi Hillel, once wrote, "If not us, then who? If not now, then when?" Declining to fix something is a choice we make no less than trying to fix it is. So I'd say the best argument for trying to fix this is that martial classes (I'd say Fighters especially) have lagged behind casters over the years since 5e hit the shelves and, from what I've seen, this issue has increased over time, not decreased. I definitely don't think it's just Vaalingrade, HammerMan, and a few others who have this opinion; I think it's a lot of players and DMs. When one of my soon-to-be players was DM recently, he had exactly this complaint (and I will note this man is not known for making hasty, unmeasured judgments). I'd say the cumulative evidence that there is a problem is nigh on overwhelming. From that fact it does not immediately follow that WotC ought to fix it, of course, but what does follow is that they ought to fix it if there are no sufficiently strong countervailing reasons.

Anyway, that's my current take on the original question.

EDIT: Oh--let me add one little postscript here: I also continue to wonder how much of this is truly a problem of the martial/caster dynamic and how much of what bothers some players and DMs in this comes down to level advancement becoming too equalized. I mean, supposing a party went back to XP for leveling up and also brought back weird, old ideas like "1 GP = 1 XP;" might not play style start doing a lot more to govern which players are more powerful then?

 

[HammerMan]

I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that, though?

you can be okay with it... but with new adventures catering to less combat do you understand that the problem comes up when you play that stylle?

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not going to pretend to sympathize, though. I want to actually sympathize, but I need to understand otherwise I'm just patting people on the back saying "there, there. Maybe one day WoTC will do what you want.

No one is asking you to pretend to sympathize with people but I do think that you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding rationalized or fully thought-out explanations before you are willing to extend sympathy to others.

And I'm trying to give those who want to explain in full a platform. It's easy to say what you want, but being questioned allows you to explain how and why you want what you want.

People tend to be receptive to genuine invitations to provide or explain their preferences, but, IMHO, tend to be less receptive to have those preferences or explanations interrogated and cross-examined. Again, that tends to put them more on the defensive as they can feel like they having to justify or validate their preferences.

 

[Asisreo]

Because people can always choose not to engage with rules they don't want to.

It's a hell of a lot harder to find ways to engage with rules that don't exist.

That's homebrew. And a flavorful homebrew is extremely easy to do, so if it's about having a character have the core mechanics of a certain caster but all mundane in flavor, it can be homebrewed. Even if they can't be counterspelled or don't need components, it's not the most world-breaking homebrew.

But also, my point is that most players will be expected to use those rules and some may not enjoy that experience of being expected to do things. Every feature comes with the expectation of being used when it's the optimal choice in a party.

So that father of 3 who only opens the Rulebook when they level up can play alongside the hyper-focused rules lawyer and neither feel like they're handicapped when it really matters: when their characters might die.