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

[TheSword]

So should a Battlemaster’s maneuvers be spells instead?

Let’s be honest, a battle masters abilities make the battlemaster better at things they are already good at. They don’t let them fly, turn invisible or teleport. They improve skills, or they improve attacks. There are some corner cases that add codify other powers but again things that a fighter could reasonably already do, like healing.

It’s just like a rogue’s abilities like sneak attack or cunning action let them do things they already do, better.

Now a Battlemaster can also use magic. It’s called magic initiate/multiclassing.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I don’t think it somehow makes the Fighter magically more complex if, for example, the higher level Fighter could threaten a larger area in combat than usual or a Fighter could shrug off death.

Or something simple as given the level 8 Fight bonus speed

A 8th level fighter could have +5ft, a barbarian +10ft, and a monk +15ft.

So should a Battlemaster’s maneuvers be spells instead?

I think a big mistake 5e did is tie maneuvers directly to fighters instead of treating them as an external subsystem like spells.

This would allow them to have levels and schools. I mean you can't even Parry + Riposte rn.

Then a PC could choose a fighting style (Superior Technique), feat (Fighting Initiate), or subclass (Battlemaster fighter, Hunter ranger) to gain access to it.

 

[tetrasodium]

What is the specific mechanism that makes magic "work"?

And to be clear, I'm not saying that magic shouldn't exist. There's just no inherit merit in 'magical' explanations for fantasy phenomena. It's not better, just dramatically more convenient.

Usually "fiction".

 

[Aldarc]

Let’s be honest, a battle masters abilities make the battlemaster better at things they are already good at. They don’t let them fly, turn invisible or teleport. They improve skills, or they improve attacks. There are some corner cases that add codify other powers but again things that a fighter could reasonably already do, like healing.

It’s just like a rogue’s abilities like sneak attack or cunning action let them do things they already do, better.

Let’s be honest, who is asking for the Fighter to fly or teleport? Doesn’t your reply just go back to my earlier point how it would be a mistake to argue that people are just wanting fighters to cast spells and magic?

 

[TheSword]

Let’s be honest, who is asking for the Fighter to fly or teleport? Doesn’t your reply just go back to my earlier point how it would be a mistake to argue that people are just wanting fighters to cast spells and magic?

There are two requests - do things they already do, but a little bit better - like lift stuff or kill multiple people in one go. I don’t think anyone objects to these things. Easily covered by feats.

Or it’s complaining that fighters can’t press perceived win buttons like charm person or fly. In which case they can, they just use the tools in the game to get spells.

 

[Aldarc]

There are two requests - do things they already do, but a little bit better - like lift stuff or kill multiple people in one go. I don’t think anyone objects to these things. Easily covered by feats.

Or it’s complaining that fighters can’t press perceived win buttons like charm person or fly. In which case they can, they just use the tools in the game to get spells.

If that is your characterization of the latter argument, then I am not sure if you are getting the point. It again repeats - for the third time or more! - the false idea that people are asking for Fighters to have spells. I gladly welcome you to re-read my posts and ask you to consider that your understanding of what people are arguing for may be false or mistaken. There is no point discussing any of this further if you keep repeating this straw man. None.

Also consider how the Battlemaster interacts with this discussion as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Now that I think of it

1. Maneuvers
2. Arcane Shots
3. Rune Carver
4. Fighting Spirit

should have all been external systems and have their own ranks.

Fighters, rangers, and rogues should just have subclasses that granted them just like how the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster work.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uh...no, I'm sorry, flavorful homebrew is NOT easy to do. In fact, it's EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, that's one of the biggest problems I have with 5e. It presents this idea of being easy but it's actually really really hard to make a new class or a new subclass.

I'm going to half disagree with you. Flavourful homebrew is pretty easy. The flavour is the easy part. It's just it's easy to end up with the crunch of either three day old tapioca or broken glass. And hard to get something in the middle.

 

[TheSword]

If that is your characterization of the latter argument, then I am not sure if you are getting the point. It again repeats - for the third time or more! - the false idea that people are asking for Fighters to have spells. I gladly welcome you to re-read my posts and ask you to consider that your understanding of what people are arguing for may be false or mistaken. There is no point discussing any of this further if you keep repeating this straw man. None.

Also consider how the Battlemaster interacts with this discussion as well.

You may frequently repeat what your idea isn’t.

I’ll openly admit I’m conflating arguments from the endless martial-caster threads. Which can be summarized as why-cant-fighters-have-nice-things/why can’t casters control the narrative but non casters cant. If you’re saying people don’t say this then I’ll link the dozens of places they do say it.

If this isn’t you argument, instead of saying again what it isn’t. Why don’t you say what it is (or link to your post instead of understandably not wanting to repeat yourself)

 

[Aldarc]

You may frequently repeat what your idea isn’t.

I’ll openly admit I’m conflating arguments from the endless martial-caster threads. Which can be summarized as why-cant-fighters-have-nice-things/why can’t casters control the narrative but non casters cant. If you’re saying people don’t say this then I’ll link the dozens of places they do say it.

If this isn’t you argument, instead of saying again what it isn’t. Why don’t you say what it is (or link to your post instead of understandably not wanting to repeat yourself)

If I repeatedly assert that your characterization of the argument is inaccurate, regardless of whether I say what my argument is (which only requires a simple search for user in this thread) then what reason would you say that it is my argument as if it were? Why repeat the straw man in good faith? That doesn’t make sense.