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

[DND_Reborn]

Adding in player facing magic item selection would help with power/versatility, and could actually balance with attunement. Non-casters get unlimited attunement, minor casters get 4, 9 level casters get the current 3. Have attunement for all permanent items.

By removing this from 5E, they further contributed to the "mother may I" issue with being a non-caster.

Others have suggested more atunement slots in general, but casters have to use them for higher level spell slots and such.

 

[Minigiant]

When moving from 4e to 5e WotC killed the Warlord and gave some of its stuff to the Fighter as some sort of peace offering (if you wish).

I think they went about it the wrong way: they should have killed the Fighter and gave his stuff, and name, to the Warlord.

The old Fighting Man would eventually because master of his own domain and gain followers. The 'Mundane Leader of Man' trope has been in D&D since the start and is the design space the Fighter SHOULD be occupying. Instead of getting random NPC followers, he should just be better at teamwork with the other players. That simple warrior who hits thing with a big stick? That's what the Berzerker Barbarian is for now. We don't need two of those guys.

The 5e Fighter should have been a Warlord in disguise with the Battlemaster as a baseline instead of building the entire chassis to desperately accommodate the Champion... All in an effort to tell 3e Grognards (who probably NEVER play Fighters) "Look! A SIMPLE fighter! He gets more attack and more feats! That's a real Fighter like you like!".

And this is where my "D&D fans have different experiences with media" comes in.

Because the simple "I attack" warrior was never the "fighter". It was always either the Barbarian or the Thug.

The "master of all arms and armor" of my consumed media was always a "martial nerd" who trained complex techniques either taught by his master or a tons of training manuals. Fighters in my media made a point that they weren't simple and had mastered weapon arts the simple common ruffians do not understand.

So the simple fighter was always perplexing. I only really accepted the idea as a compromise for the Basic Rules and for highly improvisational tables.

But I never "got" the "simple fighter" and likely never will. The simple warrior is the Bruiser Barbarian or Brute Rogue in my head.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

LOL yes, sorry about that! My bad.

In which case, use the Ready action and wait until it lands???

If its such a non-issue to get around, why are you opposing a simple QOL upgrade? Spend your perk point* on something other than a griffon mount, boots of flying, or whatnot.

*Whatever you want to call the equivalent of something like an invocation, that the player picks.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I never said it was ideal.

Personally, I would just use a ranged weapon. IME pretty much every fighter has primary melee/ secondary ranged or vice versa. Otherwise, they are only limiting themselves.

If you're a Strength based fighter, you probably went for Constitution over Dexterity. Let's say your Strength is 18 but your Dexterity is only 12. You're taking a -3 to hit and -3 to damage. And possibly losing even more damage if your primary weapon is magical or you have feats to boost your melee efficacy.

 

[TheSword]

Adding in player facing magic item selection would help with power/versatility, and could actually balance with attunement. Non-casters get unlimited attunement, minor casters get 4, 9 level casters get the current 3. Have attunement for all permanent items.

By removing this from 5E, they further contributed to the "mother may I" issue with being a non-caster.

…And then we end up with the Pathfinder power-player build dynamic. With magic items just being another part of character creation. Forcing the whole system to shift to the new difficulty level.

Mother May I? I’m not interested in systems that assume that players need protecting from the DM.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Who mentioned at will? How many so called ‘overpowered’ wizard abilities are usable at will?

You seem to think that versatility shouldn't come with a cost. The cost is spell slots.

The fighter putting a perk point into a flying ability/item/mount? He can ONLY use it for flight.

Which shouldn't be a big deal, since another fighter of a different race can do it from level 1!

 

[DND_Reborn]

If its such a non-issue to get around, why are you opposing a simple QOL upgrade? Spend your perk point* on something other than a griffon mount, boots of flying, or whatnot.

*Whatever you want to call the equivalent of something like an invocation, that the player picks.

Honestly, that is what most DMs have done for the 40+ years I've played D&D. Flying mounts, winged boots, magic carpets have all been used for a long time. I don't think I've ever known a DM who hasn't done such things once you get to the appropriate "power" level to need it.

The premise has always been casters use magic, non-casters use magic items.

But you have the group who want non-casters can just do cool stuff "because" they can and the group who doesn't want non-casters to have to depend on magic items and other groups as well...

 

[Fanaelialae]

…And then we end up with the Pathfinder power-player build dynamic. With magic items just being another part of character creation. Forcing the whole system to shift to the new difficulty level.

Mother May I? I’m not interested in systems that assume that players need protecting from the DM.

You don't need to go full-on WBL. Let's say the fighter got to choose something like 4 items from a fixed list over the course of 20 levels. That doesn't seem like it would force the whole system to shift to the new difficulty level at all. I mean, the artificer already gets a version of this, and it hasn't broken the game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

…And then we end up with the Pathfinder power-player build dynamic. With magic items just being another part of character creation. Forcing the whole system to shift to the new difficulty level.

Mother May I? I’m not interested in systems that assume that players need protecting from the DM.

Why are you so opposed to giving all classes narrative agency? Right now, we have most classes able to say "this happens", save for a few.

Why is magic codified? Seems a lot of MMI protection for the casting classes... Shouldn't the DM just get to decide whatever the spell does?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you're a Strength based fighter, you probably went for Constitution over Dexterity. Let's say your Strength is 18 but your Dexterity is only 12. You're taking a -3 to hit and -3 to damage. And possibly losing even more damage if your primary weapon is magical or you have feats to boost your melee efficacy.

Then you made the design choice to emphasize melee over ranged. If that comes to bite you in the butt once in a while, so be it.