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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Kudos for trying to get people here to see things from the opposing viewpoint. I fear it’s an uphill battle.

Those who most strongly oppose buffing martials and/or nerfing casters, what do you say are the best reasons for someone to support doing so despite your clear objections? What are their best arguments, in your opinion?

The most convincing argument made is that people who enjoy martials that feel like superheroes and do extraordinary things are entitled to want to play that way. Even if it feels off to me. Self determination should be encouraged where it doesn’t spoil things for other folks.

Secondly, adding these into the game as a new Class takes nothing away from everyone else if it’s an optional rule a-la Tasha then it can be ignored by those that don’t want it. The existing options will remain as is. In other words what’s the harm.

Edited slightly above in bold and I think that is fair enough.

I don't think there is any lack of understanding at this point. At least for the inclusion issue.

The issue is that there doesn't seem to be any room for engagement between the two sides if one side is just saying No to an option they don't like or understand, even if it does no harm to them.

So the conclusion is that they are just not being good citizens or they do feel like it does them harm?

Let's assume good intent and they feel it does them harm.

A harm that I saw earlier was that WotC could spend resources on other things instead. It's true, but hard to have a conversation about this?

There are some other harms mentioned, but if they can be removed by ignoring the optional class than I don't see the way to engage here either?

So is there a harm(s) from this optional new Class that can't be removed by ignoring this optional class?

If I was in the "prefer current camp", for the sake of my fellow gamers, I would just get out of the way and let people who are excited about this advocate for it and have it appear as an optional class.

It all comes down to preference but one side is advocating for expanded options without removing existing ones, while the other side is trying to deny a new option from existing for reasons I can't understand.

Here is my summary of the conversation:

"For various reasons, I'd like to have an optional mythic martial class added to the game that will do extraordinary things at high level and get closer but not exceed the power, versatility, and narrative control of the current WIzard."

"I don't think that's neccessary. The current Fighter is fine. I've never seen these various reasons manifest at my table for x,y,z reasons. Anyway, regardless I don't really like the concept of mythic martials anyway and don't want them in my game."

"Sure, I respect that and glad the current Fighter is good for you. It doesn't work for my table and I ask that even if you don't understand why it's needed you support me in getting this option into the game. I'll make sure it isn't more powerful, versatile, and narrative controlling than the current Wizard so as not to upset current class power levels. This new Class option would greatly increase my group's enjoyment of the game and since optional you can ignore and play the current game to your hearts content. Sound ok?"

"I can't ignore this optional Class. If this is put into the game, I just won't play D&D anymore."

"?"

I don't understand where to engage with this stance?

 

[tetrasodium]

I know things get spicy in this thread and others that deal with the Martials-vs.-Casters dynamic, but in keeping with Asisreo's original ambition for the thread, perhaps we could harness the energy this discussion has generated.

Those who most strongly oppose buffing martials and/or nerfing casters, what do you say are the best reasons for someone to support doing so despite your clear objections? What are their best arguments, in your opinion?

I don't oppose it in principle, but martials already have strengths and those strengths need to be taken into account for purposes of things like where the tradeoffs come in rather than designing strained whiteroom scenarios unlike normal play that discard them. levelup does a great job of showing this with the martial classes where fighter for example loses action surge & extra feats in exchange for a boatload of choices at various levels that allow them varied combat & noncombat options. The question of where the tradeoffs should come in when calls for making fighter stand shoulder to shoulder in the realm of areas nonfighter classes consider their strengths or even prime niche is not only discarded by advocates pushing martial buffs but actually looked upon with disdain for the very idea as post 557, 592, 594, 595, & 596 chain show. Post 680 even does a good job of showing how detached from any normal form of gameplay the examples supporting these no tradeoff buff calls often get by putting it in terms of gameplay.

As to nerfing casters those suggestions also tend to come with tortured whiteroom scenarios like fighters with no magic items unlimited long rests for casters to enjoy permanent 5 minute workdays & gestalted quantum spell lists that always have the perfect spell in any situation while discarding the actual strength/weaknesses of martials/casters in that or similar scenarios resembling actual gameplay

 

[DND_Reborn]

So is there a harm(s) from this optional new Class that can't be removed by ignoring this optional class?

You know, another analogy this reminds me of is when people order a pizza:

DM: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight?"
Chorus of agreement follows.
DM: "Ok, what do we want? Pepperoni? Mushrooms? What?"
Chorus of "Pepperoni is good" follows.
A: "Oh, lets add mushrooms as well!"
A couple heads nod agreement.
B: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms!"
A: "You can just pick them off."
B: "Um, no thanks. I'll just eat something else instead."

So, B gets no pizza. Frankly, mushrooms ruin pizza.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You know, another analogy this reminds me of is when people order a pizza:

DM: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight?"
Chorus of agreement follows.
DM: "Ok, what do we want? Pepperoni? Mushrooms? What?"
Chorus of "Pepperoni is good" follows.
A: "Oh, lets add mushrooms as well!"
A couple heads nod agreement.
B: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms!"
A: "You can just pick them off."
B: "Um, no thanks. I'll just eat something else instead."

So, B gets no pizza. Frankly, mushrooms ruin pizza.

If everyone played the same character you'd have a point. This is a primadonna so fussy they demand others not get mushrooms on their own personal pizza. Most people would agree that's crappy behavior.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wouldn't a more apt analog be that they're getting half mushroom and peperoni, half peperoni as it take literally no work to not use something?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If everyone played the same character you'd have a point. This is a primadonna so fussy they demand others not get mushrooms on their own personal pizza. Most people would agree that's crappy behavior.

Or the people who want mushrooms, but it is just extra and would be happy with pepperoni, want one person to suffer so they can be happy?

Wouldn't a more apt analog be that they're getting half mushroom and peperoni, half peperoni as it take literally no work to not use something?

If you can order half of just one topping, some places don't like doing that IME. Of course, we usually just end up ordering from some place else next time...

Personally, I would just order two pizzas and make the people each pay for the type they wanted.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

What in the world does that last paragraph have to do with anything that we're talking about? I'm non-binary for petes sake, and I'm here to say that yes, we can talk about Martials vs Casters without having to deal with issues of my integration into the hobby first.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

You know, another analogy this reminds me of is when people order a pizza:

DM: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight?"
Chorus of agreement follows.
DM: "Ok, what do we want? Pepperoni? Mushrooms? What?"
Chorus of "Pepperoni is good" follows.
A: "Oh, lets add mushrooms as well!"
A couple heads nod agreement.
B: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms!"
A: "You can just pick them off."
B: "Um, no thanks. I'll just eat something else instead."

So, B gets no pizza. Frankly, mushrooms ruin pizza.

Yeah I'm pretty sure it's more like:

A: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight? Pepperoni like usual?"
B: "Oh, but lets add mushrooms today as well"
A: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms! No way"
B: "Let's order half mushroom/pepperoni and half pepperoni then."
A: "Um, on second thought let's just order Chinese."
B: "Wait you don't want pizza?"
A: "No, I really want pizza but just pepperoni"
B: "But your half is just pepperoni. You dont have to touch the mushroom side?"
A: "Yeah, but it's ON the pizza."
B: "You are bad friend"
A: "Yeah, I know but I can't help myself."

 

[HammerMan]

You know, another analogy this reminds me of is when people order a pizza:

DM: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight?"
Chorus of agreement follows.
DM: "Ok, what do we want? Pepperoni? Mushrooms? What?"
Chorus of "Pepperoni is good" follows.
A: "Oh, lets add mushrooms as well!"
A couple heads nod agreement.
B: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms!"
A: "You can just pick them off."
B: "Um, no thanks. I'll just eat something else instead."

So, B gets no pizza. Frankly, mushrooms ruin pizza.

so that is admitting that the change would be popular enough to see play but you personally don't want them...

Yeah I'm pretty sure it's more like:

A: "Hey, you guys want to order pizza tonight? Pepperoni like usual?"
B: "Oh, but lets add mushrooms today as well"
A: "Yuck! I hate mushrooms! No way"
B: "Let's order half mushroom/pepperoni and half pepperoni then."
A: "Um, on second thought let's just order Chinese."
B: "Wait you don't want pizza?"
A: "No, I really want pizza but just pepperoni"
B: "But your half is just pepperoni. You dont have to touch the mushroom side?"
A: "Yeah, but it's ON the pizza."
B: "You are bad friend"
A: "Yeah, I know but I can't help myself."

yup... in fact it in this example the guy is going to go on message boards to argue why NO ONE should have anything but pepperoni.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wouldn't a more apt analog be that they're getting half mushroom and peperoni, half peperoni as it take literally no work to not use something?

I do think part of the issue is that having something in the game that one does not want, even if someone else is playing it, does color the game such that those things are part of the world and accepted.

Also, if WotC decided to devote resources to something you don't want, you have less to get excited about, and they might decide to continue making things you don't like moving forward, eventually leading to a game you don't like.

Of course, I still don't think WotC is going to "fix" this problem anyway, so the point is moot.