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

[Mort]

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.

It's not actually that complicated - you're just saying humans (including demihumans etc.) have a limit. And outside that limit to achieve things they need help/ a boost:

Clerics get the "boost" from the divine
Warlocks get the boost from patrons (supernatural powerful beings)
Wizards get the boost from magic (whether it's the weave or the world or funny smelling mushrooms)
Bards get the boost from some deep connection to rhythm (or whatever)

So (for you) fighters don't get the boost unless they also get some external aid. Since this is usually in the form of magic items - maybe fighters can get some more formalized way to get the items they want? There can be more than one way to solve the issue. I'd argue that most DMs already do this in an informal manner.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with all of this, which is why I don’t think the problem is that fighters mash together multiple archetypes. The problem is that for fighters each archetype is implemented by excluding others, rather than additive, in the name of “realism”.

Well it's both.

Because martials are mishmish archetypes that are designed to exclude each other, the classes only manage to replicate the very specific versions of different archives with little scale nor wideness.

Which is why the process repeats. The fighter or a subclass perfectly recreates the designer's PCs, but barely replicates yours unless your PC is born of archetypical the same specific reference.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The 4e Fighter Exploits in themselves are not really that mythic, even at high levels.

The fact there were exploits at all was the big thing.

Just having Reaping Strike or Tide of Iron or Come and Get It (the progenitor of the stupid 'mind control' false argument) meant a lot to the class.

 

[Mort]

The fact there were exploits at all was the big thing.

Just having Reaping Strike or Tide of Iron or Come and Get It (the progenitor of the stupid 'mind control' false argument) meant a lot to the class.

4e had an excellent representation of the fighter (at least for combat) - and it played great.

The problem was, on paper, it looked too similar to the way the casters worked. Too many people saw it on paper and refused to even try it in play.

IME that was the biggest problem with 4e. It played much better than it read and a whole lot of people refused to take the step to play it after looking at it.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

What is there to engage on though? Or are you just stating your preferences?

You want action movie heros and maybe the current Fighter is good enough for you or maybe you want to see some improvement, which you have some suggestions for.

Other people want a mythic martial which is very different from what you want.

Can you ackowledge that there is this different thing people want?
Can you acknowledge that there is design space to make this mythic martial as long as it doesn't exceed the power, versatility, and narrative control of the current Wizard or Bard?
Do you care if this exists along side your action hero Fighter?
Do you feel the need to influence the design of the mythic martial even though you will never use it in your games?

If you answers are Y, Y, N, N then there is no discussion. People are just stating preferences. Great.

If you answer N to the first two then the base assumptions are just too far apart to have a discussion.

If you answer Y to the last two then we get into gatekeeping issues. How do you engage with that?

 

[HammerMan]

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

The fact there were exploits at all was the big thing.

Just having Reaping Strike or Tide of Iron or Come and Get It (the progenitor of the stupid 'mind control' false argument) meant a lot to the class.

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.

thats the thing... improving the fighter isn't some HUGE OMG thing...

give tthem (or a class like them) the 4e treatment... they still wouldn't be flying stopping time or breaking mountains... I would just ask you do late 4e when skill powers were a thing becuse even in 4e out of combat things were scarece on the fighter list.

 

[HammerMan]

4e had an excellent representation of the fighter (at least for combat) - and it played great.

The problem was, on paper, it looked too similar to the way the casters worked. Too many people saw it on paper and refused to even try it in play.

IME that was the biggest problem with 4e. It played much better than it read and a whole lot of people refused to take the step to play it after looking at it.

the problem I saw is the same thing I see with this youtube channel that makes jokes about movies and counts up sins... people take the joke and turn it serious.... the number of people I had to explain (at gaming stores and cons not even online) "No this isn't wow and no there are not cool downs" or "No they didn't give the fighter spells, they have martial exploits" or "No the warlord isn't reattaching arms with a word...and neither are clerics now or before" or "yes there is such a thing as a 15th level daily spell but no it doesn't have to be better then wish becuse they redrew the scale"

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

I've asked you to explain how you rationalize your examples as appropriate vs a D&D martial as they compare in their relative fictional contexts.

I've asked this because the fictional contexts are sooooooooo different. If your answer is just "well that what I prefer", that's fine, I guess, but it's not very persuasive.

 

[Oofta]

What is there to engage on though? Or are you just stating your preferences?

You want action movie heros and maybe the current Fighter is good enough for you or maybe you want to see some improvement, which you have some suggestions for.

Other people want a mythic martial which is very different from what you want.

Can you ackowledge that there is this different thing people want?
Can you acknowledge that there is design space to make this mythic martial as long as it doesn't exceed the power, versatility, and narrative control of the current Wizard or Bard?
Do you care if this exists along side your action hero Fighter?
Do you feel the need to influence the design of the mythic martial even though you will never use it in your games?

If you answers are Y, Y, N, N then there is no discussion. People are just stating preferences. Great.

If you answer N to the first two then the base assumptions are just too far apart to have a discussion.

If you answer Y to the last two then we get into gatekeeping issues. How do you engage with that?

Things that I would be okay with and still consider them fighters would include more fighting styles, including the ones in Tasha's, maybe give them two at first level but let them swap out a style for some skill expertise if they want.

For me though it's not necessary. I think fighters are fine as is and it's never been an issue in any game I've ever played or DMed which includes up to level 20 for both. Fighters fill a role in combat and the utility of magic outside of combat is IMHO overrated. Still, if they want to contribute more outside of combat there are options. What I don't want is an inherently magical fighter, we already have archetypes or other supernatural warriors.

Sorry if you don't don't agree. I don't think there is a way to please everyone so I keep trying to bid y'all adios. So again ... adios.

 

[HammerMan]

For me though it's not necessary. I think fighters are fine as is and it's never been an issue in any game I've ever played or DMed which includes up to level 20 for both.

yes and you come into every thread about fixing what you don't think is broken to tell us not to fix it.