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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Right, but nothing you've stated would give me reason to believe that any fighter improvements would reduce the average player's enjoyment thereof. The average player could vote that the fighter is fine as is, but then after seeing the improvements decide that they prefer it that way.

Exactly my point above.

I do think we should probably just stop talking about "fixing the Fighter" and talk about creating a new martial Paragon class or whatever we call it.

The Fighter is just a bad chasis to start with from a mechanical point of view, and there is too much baggage associated with the label.

I do think there are enough people that do want this mundane, simple Fighter + magic items so of course let's keep it. There are people that want to improve the Fighter inside that paradigmn and that should happen too.

 

[HammerMan]

On the other hand they, painfully slowly, are making some of the changes people want. When the fighter subclasses in the most recent major splatbook were the Psi Warrior and the Rune Knight, and the most recent other fighter subclass was the Echo Knight the idea that fighters should all be martial and without supranatural abilities has taken its proper place (unless someone casts Raise Dead on it). And the Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, Echo Knight, and as of Tasha's the Battlemaster all have significant out of combat ability.

Which just means tuning up the level 12+ mess of the fighter.

and the real reason people tell us to 'forget it wont happen' is because last time a loud group complained on the net WotC DID listen... 'stop talking about it' is the way it will never be fixed... the squeeky wheel

 

[HammerMan]

You can call them whatever you like

Bo9S was a good patch... it didn't keep us with 3e, but if it was worked into the frame work it could have been a fix... 4e did it great

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

These are reasons why I still say Mort's idea of somehow convincing WotC to send a mythic fighter class or sub-class to UA is such a good idea. Oodles of free playtesting data flow from that with no real cost I can see beyond spending a week or two drawing up the class/sub-class. Once that's done, send it to the masses and see what happens. I mean, why fight about this stuff when we can just test it and find out instead??

Yeah, that would be great. I'm pretty convinced after all these threads that the mythic martial will only work as a new class. It has to be benchmarked against the Bard say and go from there.

The "enhanced Fighter" is also something I would be all for too, but let's keep these things seperate.

 

[HammerMan]

Yeah, that would be great. I'm pretty convinced after all these threads that the mythic martial will only work as a new class. It has to be benchmarked against the Bard say and go from there.

The "enhanced Fighter" is also something I would be all for too, but let's keep these things seperate.

I am not married to a name on a sheet.

make a warlord. fix the ranger. make the warblade. fix the fighter. make aparagon.... what ever you want.

All I want is something to give a player that wants to be martial not spell caster but wants power and breath of options similar to casters

 

[Fanaelialae]

Exactly my point above.

I do think we should probably just stop talking about "fixing the Fighter" and talk about creating a new martial Paragon class or whatever we call it.

The Fighter is just a bad chasis to start with from a mechanical point of view, and there is too much baggage associated with the label.

I do think there are enough people that do want this mundane, simple Fighter + magic items so of course let's keep it. There are people that want to improve the Fighter inside that paradigmn and that should happen too.

I really don't think it's an either/or. Folks could try to improve the fighter and create a mythic martial class. The fighter could be the extraordinary version while the mythic is overtly supernatural.

 

[Oofta]

Please pardon the double response, but wanted to circle back to something.

How in the heck are John McLane and Dwayne Johnson suitable exemplars for D&D martials? What is the most threatening thing either of them has fought in direct hand to hand combat in any movie? With McLame its just..people in every movie sometimes in 'large' groups of 2-4 at a time. With the Rock, near as I can tell from limited googling, the answer appears to be also people, though sometimes more and bigger people than McLame fights.

Compare that vs a high level martial. Put all three in a room and have the compare war stories.

The high level martial at the end of such a conversation..trying not to laugh:

"Yes yes, I too remember those early days of adventuring before things got hard. But keep at it and one day one of you might do something extraodinary".

(Edit: Seriously a high level martial can reasonably have been expected to have gone into a dragon's house, kicked its ass, taken its lunch money, and turned its pelt into a fashion accessory. I dont see how either of those jabronis are even in the same conversation.)

I've explained what works for me: action movie heroes. It's not going to work for everyone, nothing ever will. Not sure what else to say. If I brought every fighter I've ever run into a tavern they'd have plenty of stories to share because mechanics don't define the character for me. I don't think a character needs to be flashy in order to contribute to the team, spells and other supernatural abilities are never the most important things we look back upon.

So how about this. I've explained where I stand, and given a general outline of what my limits are. I've given a few ideas which get ignored. If you have anything else to say other than "you're wrong" let me know.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Bo9S was a good patch... it didn't keep us with 3e, but if it was worked into the frame work it could have been a fix... 4e did it great

4e did it pretty well, but I'd say more of it was on the general design side than the actual Fighter class.

After one of these threads, I went back and looked at the 4e Fighter manuvers and was surprised to see nothing really that outrageous even up to 30th level. There are a couple exceptions that push things a little like Come and Get It but those are very, very rare (like 3-4 in a hundred). Most the Figher Martial Exploits are more damage, shrug off effects, multi attack, enhanced movement, multi marking, some martial healing or temp HP, access to all effects like stun, persistant damage, positioning, etc. Nothing crazy at all although admitedly better than 5e. Actually somewhat action heroey and not mythic martial! (the Fighter could get some mythical through Epic Destinies and such).

What made Fighter equals was the totality of design:

• combat spellcasting narrowed while still letting spellcasting/other power sources have a niche or unique expressions-- elemental damage, summons, walls, ranged AoE, teleport, zones, etc.
• any powersouce able to create most status effects reliabily
• reliance on positioning which is fairly action hero level
• limited use abilities allowing tiers of abilities
• rituals for all non combat plot narrative control abilities and generally at higher levels
• abtract skill system and skill challenges that let skills act as equal contirbutors to getting closer to a goal in a more narrative way

So 4e did it a little more on the side of bringing spellcasting down and making skills worth more. The 4e Fighter Exploits in themselves are not really that mythic, even at high levels.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I really don't think it's an either/or. Folks could try to improve the fighter and create a mythic martial class. The fighter could be the extraordinary version while the mythic is overtly supernatural.

Sure. There is room for both. But they are different things and so we are probably better off labeling them differently. And I don't think the Fighter is a good starting point for the mythic martial.

 

[Asisreo]

This thread has gotten farther than I thought too quickly. Oh well, I guess it's catching up time.

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

Flavorful homebrew meant that it kept all the mechanics but changed the flavor. So Cure Wounds has the same stats but it acts like a med-kit in the fictional sense. Making a new class or subclass, I would consider that mechanical homebrew.

Besides, you are yet again talking about perfection--optimality, in this case--when again that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm not expecting Fighters to be "optimal" in non-combat situations.

Fighter can do things that not all characters can do. Especially Battlemasters. Know Your War let's fighters know meta-information about a character just by observing them for 1 minute. Even Battlemasters, at a base long jump distance of 25ft, they have the farthest jump distance without expending any sort of resource. Still, when that's brought up, one of the first things people say is that the wizard will have Jump or Fly. So the obligation goes back to the wizard since it's the most optimal.

And why are we designing rules for people who don't even look at them?

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. We're now designing a game for people who don't actually want to play the things that the designers have explicitly said matter most.

There's a difference between people who want to play and people who want to have to completely dedicate a large portion of time for a game.

Are busy people not allow to play games? Convenience is a huge part of why anyone does most things. Fast food thrives because busy people don't have to be seated and wait for a server to bring them food. The internet thrives because it allows access to billions of resources for information in one central location.

D&D thrives because you can spend less than two hours learning the basics, building a character, and making a story.

Personally, I want that time to be less. Which is why I'm against board overall.