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

[Mind of tempest]

Have you checked out PF2e? It is surprisingly also a take on lowering caster power. Lower level casters are even arguably too weak and could use a little boost. Casters catch up and seem fun to play at levels 7 or 9+

It does have some stuff I don't like -- older vanican casting, skill feat gates, a few too many modifiers, etc. -- but it is certainly a better take on caster / martial balance than 5e.

Like 4e, the Fighter is not particularly mythical at higher levels -- they have just tamped down the power of casters especially against "boss" higher level then party types and given the Fighter some tricks to shore up it's traditional weaknesses like a feat to down fliers, etc.

the monk is still wrong.

 

[Asisreo]

It can work okay for a handful of things (as demonstrated by the reverse of this--Rangers having several class features hidden as allegedly opt-in spell choices), but plenty of spells are really hard to justify and having to do so with every new spell makes things really awkward over time. Plus, at least for me, there's always this overhanging "this is ACTUALLY a spell, you're just pretending it's not" aspect that poisons the whole experience; I know that won't apply to everyone, but it does apply to a lot of people.

It might take a bit more thought, but the assumption is that the player wants to play a certain type of fiction. So the player wanting to play Hercules might take Enhance Abilities and Jump, but they wouldn't take dimension door if they didn't have to, which they oftentimes don't.

And we probably don't even have to bring up how they interact with spell-nullifying effects since the DM can just not use them on that character. We could just avoid edge-cases like that.

And, apologizes if this seems cold. But it's a bit ironic that I had been called out several times for wanting perfection but at the same time seeming like having any sort of compromise on the other side's part is impossible.

Really, I've only heard wants but I never heard any exact basis for them other than some form of what you feel like you deserve. It's why I don't understand what the argument truly is.

In the spirit of the original post, and this isn't personalized at you specifically:

A complex martial should fit my vision because I would enjoy it.
Counter: It's not feasible to get what you enjoy at all times. Whether because the company doesn't have the time or doesn't want to do it, you can't expect the game to change immediately and exactly like you want it to. You're only a part of the fanbase and can't really make the hard decisions on what should be done.

counter-counter: I don't want perfection, I'm willing to compromise. I just want what's better than we have because improvements should always be encouraged.

counter-counter-counter: But there's already been compromise and improvement and it's still not enough. Half-casters are a compromise. Multiclassing is a compromise. Rogues and Monks are a compromise. Loose lore is a compromise. Feats are a compromise. Yet there needs to be more because it still hasn't fit an exact mold of your vision. And improvements should be made, but why is the improvement you're prioritizing the one that has to do with your opinion?

Why are you against my fun? It doesn't hurt anything that I ask for what I want.
Counter: I have no stakes in your fun. I don't know what you even do let alone whether you're having fun doing it. But these discussions do hurt things. They muddy discussions and cause flame wars. They instigate hate to not just the product but the people that play them. And most importantly, they distract against the issues that plague the system more than just what you want catered to you. The LGBTQIA+ community still doesn't feel completely safe taking part in this hobby. The black and Asian communities still don't feel completely safe playing the game. Women and non-binary players still get harassed. And while it's not a rules issue, it is a system issue which can be resolved. WoTC has been taking good steps to get there but it take time and resources.

 

[Guest 7034872]

For philosophy and law and debate, you are practicing a certain set of skills with people who are all on the same ground of what you're doing and why.

Playing Devil's advocate is just arguing from a point of view you don't actually have and just serves to muddle the discussion.

No, I definitely disagree here.

I got into philosophy in part because of my desire better to understand the world, but also in part because of my desire better to understand people and positions with whom I did not already agree.

What is true is that there's certain sort of internet trolling that goes by "Devil's Advocate," and you're right to abhor that, as do I. But that's NOT my purpose here. My purpose is to do right by those who think I'm wrong about something so that they can look at my enumeration of what I think are their points and say, "Yes, South by Southwest, you understand me properly." Lately there's been some increasing mutual impatience on some of these threads and much of it seems to stem from people on all sides feeling like their points haven't really been heard properly or given their due consideration. I'm trying to change that.

You see what I'm after?

 

[Vaalingrade]

And most importantly, they distract against the issues that plague the system more than just what you want catered to you.

People can have issues with and discuss more than one issue at once. That's why there's threads.

And it's interesting that you mention these issues as they all partially stem from the same problem in the game itself: The zealous adherence to tradition and lashing out at anything that threatens it, be it better game design or the 'wrong people' playing or being represented in the game or the game slightly less encouraging racist concepts.

You see what I'm after?

I see what you're getting at. I even share part of your background it seems. But you're applying principles in a place where it doesn't work. These sorts of exercises require agreement and buy-in as well as actual knowledge to the concept. Not everyone here has those and so even with good intentions the end result is still just the other type of Devil's Advocate.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If the Dr. Strange spellcaster is deemed integral to the idenity of D&D

That is a BIG IF, though. If you look at what wizards and other casters can do, he really isn't IMO. I'm not a comic book fan, so my exposure is just to the movies.

What do you see him do? Shields, Dimension doors/ Teleports, "Whip/lasso" things, and with an infinity stone bend time. His cape is strong magic as well. But, he can do the first things I list pretty much at will and it doesn't seem to tire him out. Frankly, I see him more as some subclass of mystical monk according to the movies anyway... I'm sure he can do a lot more in the comics, but not all D&D fans are readers of comic books.

Anyway, that was a tangent...

 

[Minigiant]

Me just think Hercules and Achilles should be playable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Me just think Hercules and Achilles should be playable.

This issue I see with that (not saying you shouldn't be able to, btw) is they don't really grow, do they?

I mean, in the stories and movies and everything I've seen, they have certain abilities and features and really don't gain new ones.

The closest adaptation where they do in is Disney's Hercules:

Baby Hercules: (Level 1)

Kid Hercules: (Level 3)

Adult Hercules: (Level 11)

(Demi)god Hercules: (Level 17)

 

[HammerMan]

Me just think Hercules and Achilles should be playable.

This issue I see with that (not saying you shouldn't be able to, btw) is they don't really grow, do they?

I mean, in the stories and movies and everything I've seen, they have certain abilities and features and really don't gain new ones.

I mean the same can be said for wizards. most start out and end around the same. sometimes you have a jump (I will call it Hal getting the ring) where a normal person comes into magic... there might even be a slight learning curve, but they don't grow like D&D wizards.

 

[HammerMan]

And it's interesting that you mention these issues as they all partially stem from the same problem in the game itself: The zealous adherence to tradition and lashing out at anything that threatens it, be it better game design or the 'wrong people' playing or being represented in the game or the game slightly less encouraging racist concepts.

yeah, it's funny we take 2 steps forward then 3 steps back (thanks paula) but at the end of the day the current NEW books seem to want to expand into less combat. (Howmany years ago was curse of strahd? and it really started it) You can play through 10 levels at strixhaven or going through the wild at the witchling and not roll initiative once...

I can't imagine going back to 2004 me (who at the time was already story first lets rp) and telling them 2 adventures came out that way in a year.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why are you against my fun? It doesn't hurt anything that I ask for what I want.
Counter: I have no stakes in your fun. I don't know what you even do let alone whether you're having fun doing it. But these discussions do hurt things. They muddy discussions and cause flame wars. They instigate hate to not just the product but the people that play them. And most importantly, they distract against the issues that plague the system more than just what you want catered to you. The LGBTQIA+ community still doesn't feel completely safe taking part in this hobby. The black and Asian communities still don't feel completely safe playing the game. Women and non-binary players still get harassed. And while it's not a rules issue, it is a system issue which can be resolved. WoTC has been taking good steps to get there but it take time and resources.

Wait... what? It's possible to care about multiple things, and the people who might draft the rules probably aren't the people who are going to somehow magically remove the cruddy gatekeeping in the hobby. There's a discussion to be had on this. In another thread. That would sadly probably get locked.