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

[FrozenNorth]

How did they get into your hand in the first place? It's a very much niche case here.

In short you can throw things competently if and only if you actually invested a feat. Great.

You hadn’t heard of Schroedinger’s Fighter? He has two extra feats, but has taken Dual Wielder, Crossbow Expert, non-combat feats to improve versatility and melee combat feats.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There's a pretty significant difference between something that is explicitly allowed (spells) and has to be explicitly banned by the DM if they don't like it, and something that must be explicitly allowed by the DM in the first place.

If I'm playing with a new DM, I don't ask them whether I can take Magic Missile. If they don't allow it, it is upon them to inform the players as such. However, I do ask whether feats are permitted, because they are optional and I have played in games where they weren't allowed.

Well, we're talking about player agency vs. DM agency. For me, it is no contest, DMs win. That holds true whether I am a player or the DM.

My point was just why would I allow something that the player can decide would dictate what happens in the game when it is the DM sets the stage. The players can do whatever they want within the framework their characters experience, but that framework is completely decided by the DM.

Okay, you've got a 14/14/14 split build at level 1. What fighting style do you take? How do you spend your ASIs leveling up? The difference might only be +1/+1 at level 1, but if you keep trying to split your build then you will rapidly fall further and further behind more focused builds.

Look, I'm not going to plan out a full build just to demonstrate how you can have a fighter who is evenly good at both melee and ranged, it isn't hard. Of course, if you hyper-focus on melee or ranged, the other will suffer, but that is the price you pay for being a specialist instead of a generalist.

As for holding three spears in your shield hand, that's very much DM ruling / house rule territory. I realize that you're essentially going for a hoplite concept, but D&D spears are arguably heavier than what they used and a DM could easily say nix the idea.

Yes, that's the idea, but who said spears? Javelins are thrown weapons and held more easily, have a better range, and to equal damage. Regardless, 2 spears is only 6 lb. and you have the third in your other hand.

Also, WotC's design was horrible from the get-go when you talk about thrown weapons. Sure, you can pull an arrow, notch it, draw, aim, and shoot as an action, but pulling a handaxe or even a dagger from your belt isn't part of the attack?

At least Tasha's gives an option for it, but IMO it should just be part of the action, especially if the weapon has the light property. (FYI, that is one of my house-rules. )

If the DM said no, even after I showed them how real-life soldiers did such things in the past, I would find another DM.

Also, since I don't feel like making a separate post to address it, the throwing fighting style is a fighting style, of which non-champions only get one. Therefore, you need to weigh the opportunity cost of taking that against the other options you could have taken. Unlike a wizard, you can't simply swap it out the next day if you don't think you'll need it.

If your PC is primarily focused on throwing weapons to deal with flying foes (not a common encounter IME, but it does happen of course), then you take the style to match it. Just like dueling, great weapon fighting (though it sucks), archery, and so on. Any style you take is a trade-off for something you aren't taking--it is the same with every aspect of the game. The choices you make matter.

Wizards don't need to choose between stats to cast spells. They just need Intelligence. It'd be different if you need Constitution for Evocation, Intelligence for Transmutation, and Charisma for Illusions, but that's simply not the case.

I agree to a point, and again that is a failing of the game design. Also, Fighters don't need more than one score either. They have d10s for hp, which is sufficient, can wear any armor as well. CON is helpful, as is DEX, but STR is primary (unless you are doing a DEX build...).

Wizards benefit more from CON for concentration checks and much needed hit points since they only have d6. DEX is also highly advisable given the low hp and no armor, so ACs tend to be low unless you are in a very high magic game...

The fighter is supposedly the best at combat, and that supposedly justifies their virtually non-existent utility. But they're really not.

Oh, I definitely agree! Fighters should be the best, but for WotC decided to make every class good in combat, so Fighters only (barely) stand out if you want to optimize your build. Again, WotC's design choice--not mine. So, I homebrew and house-rule the crap out of 5E to restore a more balanced game.

Why can the 20 Strength fighter only toss a javelin as far as an 8 Strength wizard? If the fighter is the king of weapons, shouldn't they be better than that? It's not as though it adds any real complexity if (for example) the fighter's throwing range increases by 5 feet for every point of Strength they have. And really, quick draw should be something every fighter gets IMO. They're the weapons guy, let them switch between weapons easily and use extra attack with thrown weapons.

Agree 100%. But, again, 5E is about simplicity. Would it have hurt the game for them to make the ranges a base, but add 5 feet per point of Strength modifier? Of course not! My Long Thrower feat allows you to double your ranges with thrown weapons, for example. Yes, anyone can take it, but I doubt the Wizard would while the Fighter might.

I mean, think about this, with Crossbow Expert you can use all 4 attacks with a heavy crossbow in 6 seconds! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY BULLSH!T! It would take a 2-3 rounds (most often longer) to load and fire a heavy crossbow if the game was designed to model real life.

So, yeah, 5E has a lot of crap rules... no shocker there.

Both Strength and Dexterity fighters should be able to be effective in melee and at range. Then, if you want to specialize in one over the other, you should be able to be exceptional at it. Not losing 50%+ of your damage after 4th level because you didn't want to take the thrown weapon fighting style.

Not really. If you have a better STR, you should be better at melee, and a better DEX at ranged.

Otherwise, I agree, thrown weapon rules (along with dozens of others) in 5E are garbage really, but that is what over simplification gets you. So, I answered the questions with options as they are in the game, the fact those answers don't satisfy you (or others) just shows how poorly the rules work as they are.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It would be lucky if fighters go plenty of feats and fighting styles. Unfortunately unless the fighter is a Champion they get one fighting style. And they don't get many feats, especially if they want to use ASIs as ASIs.

But the idea they get "plenty of feats and fighting styles" doesn't actually match up to the rules of 5e.

I assume he was thinking of 3e when they got Bonus feats at 1st, 2nd and every even level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You hadn’t heard of Schroedinger’s Fighter? He has two extra feats, but has taken Dual Wielder, Crossbow Expert, non-combat feats to improve versatility and melee combat feats.

Extra ASI/feats that you have to take to be as good at range as a cantrip... wow how cool.

even not withstanding the d10 cantrips, lets just put it at d8's a 2d8 cantrip at 5th level is equal to a thrown 1d6+5ish (min better for thrown but average is close but max is better on the cantrip)

now when you get 3d8 boy is that fighter in trouble... even throwing 2 1d6+5 thrown weapons is hardly keeping up... when the cantrips hit 4 oh boy.

and someone said warlock up thread... 2d10+your best stat vs 1d6+ your second or third best stat...

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the thing. 5e was designed as if feats, multiclassing, and magic items were optional. But it wasn't really.

The fact that Throw Weapon Fighting fighting style wasn't printed until 5 years after PHB shows that the designers were not playing by the rules. It meant that the design team played at a table where a fighter could throw 2+ handaxes or spears a turn or always "found" a +X longbow. That a fighter's unarmed strike did more than 1 damage. That a champion could do weaker versions of manuevers. etc,

5e was more or less designed with the expectation that that DM was going to adjudicate things in favor of the fighter. Or that the DM was not supposed to put fighters in unfavorable positions often.

 

[Asisreo]

Here's the thing. 5e was designed as if feats, multiclassing, and magic items were optional. But it wasn't really.

These are some of the things I think D&D should prioritize first.

Feats are 100% unbalanced. Introducing them turns entire classes useless or underpowered and they don't even help with what people call a disparity because casters keep their breadth but they also get to cover their weaknesses without much consequence.

Playing a martial with feats just adds more damage. Playing a wizard with feats is playing a god. That's why I don't play with feats in most of my games, and the game is much better balanced. The weaknesses of casters actually matter.

This is also what I mean when I say that the discussion muddies the water.

I can't imagine the character you want to play is so much more important than fixing these actual issues inherent in the game design. I can't see why the lack of Hercules does anything but inconvenience some when the fact that there are so many broken pieces of actual mechanical aspects in the system that can hurt the experiences of all players and DMs.

 

[Undrave]

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.

So much this! Way too many D&D fans treat the Fighter as the 'default classless class'. There's a big undercurrent of 'If the Fighter can do it then why can't everybody else?' or that a random town guard is totally an example of a Fighter when the PHB specifically say it is not the case. I think it dates back to when class had pre-req stats and if you didn't roll high enough in the ones you wanted you 'defaulted' to Fighter.

This entire attitude needs to be changed.

It’s lucky that fighters get plenty of feats and fighting styles then hey? An extra +2 damage on every attack. Yum yum.

They totally don't. You get ONE fighting style. Unless you're an absurdly high level champion. An Extra fighting style would have been a way better bonus for the Champion than a stupid crit range.

The fundamental issue from my perspective is that magic is too reliable and skills are too unreliable / too limited. Trying to accomplish anything meaningful without magic/powers in WotC D&D is basically agreeing to shoot craps.

I have never meaningfully run into this disparity in any rolplaying game not based on D&D.

What skills there were in AD&D still required a roll, I believe. I will admit that it was much easier to mess with spellcasters in the old days. Too bad no one will stand for that anymore.

I miss the long casting times and being able to interrupt spellcasting. But, no, wizard fans would never allow for that now.

Spellcasting should start at your initiative and the effect resolve 10 points lower in the iniative order so if you get it you need to do a Concentration Check to not lose your spell. Or something like that. Except for Cantrips who go off as you cast them.

Or, how about the Caster has to give us their move action to use a spell beyond a Cantrip? Now you have to plan ahead your range more efficiently. You gotta maneuver before you do your big spell. Maybe use readied action to move outside your turn. Anything to make it less point and click.

 

[Undrave]

Way too much of the game design was done by WOTC bending over backward to please all those whining Wizard fans. Wizard fans don't care about game balance or game design, all they want is THIS scenario to repeat all the time:

Party: We want to go over there.

DM: OBSTACLE blocks your way!

Fighter: Oh no! I try to trounce OBSTACLE with my MUSCLES!

DM: OBSTACLE remains.

Rogue: Oh no! I try to trounce OBSTACLE with my LIES!

DM: The polyhedron says no. OBSTACLE remains. If you want to get passed OBSTACLE you will need to obtain PLOT COUPON by doing this lengthy SIDEQUEST mwuahaha!

Fighter: Drats! We'll waste so much time!

Wizard: That won't be necessary, for I have prepared this SPELL COUPON specifically in case of such a situation! With it, the OBSTACLE is no more!

DM: Curses! Foiled again! You're too smart for me, Wizard!

Wizard: And don't you forget it!

Fighter and Rogue, applauding : HURRAY FOR WIZARD! He's so smart, what would we do without his foresight and knowledge?

Anything that doesn't specifically facilitate this little fantasy is considered BAD and to have RUINED D&D FOREVER. Especially if you allow players who find Wizards too complicated to play the ability to do the same thing. Being a WIZARD PLAYER is a super special badge of honor that only he most ELITE and SMARTEST players can obtain.

 

[Minigiant]

These are some of the things I think D&D should prioritize first.

Feats are 100% unbalanced. Introducing them turns entire classes useless or underpowered and they don't even help with what people call a disparity because casters keep their breadth but they also get to cover their weaknesses without much consequence.

Playing a martial with feats just adds more damage. Playing a wizard with feats is playing a god. That's why I don't play with feats in most of my games, and the game is much better balanced. The weaknesses of casters actually matter.

This is also what I mean when I say that the discussion muddies the water.

It's not that Feats were unbalanced.

It's more that 5e was designed to match how Mearls, Crawford, and Thompson played and playtested. With their houserules and the way they used feats. Hence the huge gaps in rules and heavy emphasis of DM adjudication.
Especially Mike Mearls. I really feel Mearls' preferred style of D&D is very different from base 5e.
This is also why Tasha's and Xanatar's changed so much. They noticed that not only they they play different from base 5e, a huge chunk of D&D fans had much different ideas.

Feats really should have been tiered and have additional benefits or fewer restrictions if you were a member of certain classes.
Fighting styles should additional benefits as you leveled instead of feats. Same with Reckless Attack and Martial Arts.
Every class that got a fighting style should have got additional fighting styles in some way outside of feats (Int mod, Training, by level)

 

[Minigiant]

So much this! Way too many D&D fans treat the Fighter as the 'default classless class'. There's a big undercurrent of 'If the Fighter can do it then why can't everybody else?' or that a random town guard is totally an example of a Fighter when the PHB specifically say it is not the case. I think it dates back to when class had pre-req stats and if you didn't roll high enough in the ones you wanted you 'defaulted' to Fighter.

This entire attitude needs to be changed.

People forget that you needed STR9 CON7 to be a fighter in 1e. Literally higher than the magic user's INT 9 Dex 6.

Even Gary thought Fighter were supposed to be exceptional individuals.

If you rolled bad, you were supposed to reroll your PC.