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

[Asisreo]

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.

Probably. The playtesting of 5e was kind of a mess. I can't say it was a huge failure, though. We just need to improve the base of the bounded accuracy d20 system, the way feats are handled, how multiclassing works, the pacing and structure of adventure encounters, and the actual guidance of the game overall.

All these things could make D&D more amazing and streamlined than it already is.

I've never thought D&D is the game that let's you play as the Hulk or Captain America, I'd look for a marvel TTRPG for that. I just want D&D to focus on its niche and I think that it works best there but the focus on hyper-story utility feels like it will further distance itself away from the Dungeon crawl aspect.

In a dungeon crawl, the limited space and wards make spellcasting difficult even for a high-level wizard and they might start throwing out spells that get nullified or dispelled but the rogue can lead the way and dodge out of traps or observe their surroundings very well at-will.

Flying and teleporting is just meaningless in base game. They can help, but they also come at an intense cost of not just a resource, but the consequences of messing up. Fighters get to be reliable.

But the way D&D has moved to more outdoors and social settings based on stories with complex narratives, the experience means narrative-flavored effects become more important.

 

[FrogReaver]

i did say "but helps you hit better" but I can skip it... that ONLY helps the mage

When you take the time to factor in accuracy you’ll see that the 20 int mage is out damaging the 14 dex fighter with only a longbow.

 

[nevin]

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?

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

My thinking is that if we can get a solid consensus on those questions, not only will we likely become less angry through our efforts better to understand those with whom we disagree, we'll also acquire a much clearer collective understanding of the landscape and so understand our own positions better.

Tentatively, I'm of the opinion that the martials are too underpowered and should be buffed, but not hugely. I'm also of the opinion, though, that if that doesn't happen, I'll be fine with playing martial characters as they already stand, too. I think I tend to be one of those players who instinctively think about the party more than they think about their own character.

Okay, so since I favor making some modest changes, what do I say are the best reasons against doing so?

1. Like I said before, the Law of Unintended Consequences. As a young man, I underestimated the power of this law way too much not to respect it now that I'm middle-aged.
2. Balance isn't really the point. The game was not built on a principle of all classes and all races being well-balanced against each other in terms of strength and flexibility; it was built, I'd say, on Middle Earth being awesome and people wishing we could go there instead of just reading about it. No way are orcs and elves evenly balanced in Tolkien's world. Uh-uh.
3. As my disclaimer intimated, it's been my sense that in D&D teamwork counts for more than individual achievement. Bilbo is a weenie compared to Thorin, and let's not even bother making a comparison with Gandalf. So what? He was just the weenie they needed, and it made for a great story. (This point might fit under (2), but I think it merits elaboration.)
4. Fighters aren't magical and in a world saturated with powerful magic, that almost has to put them at some kind of disadvantage, doesn't it? This objection in particular is one I've seen a lot on this thread (unless I'm misinterpreting folks).

Those, I say, are the best reasons against making any official changes to the dynamic. Nay-sayers to changes, am I leaving out any of your biggest reasons?

I'd like to think you are right but I've watched and participated in this argument since 1977 and what I've usually found is people that won't let this argument go want everyone to play their way. Unlike the 90 percent of the player base that just plays and never participated in these discussions. It does seem that since the idea of balancing the game Via rules became the current groupthink the argument on most forums has gotten more emotional than rational

 

[HammerMan]

But it's like arguing how effective mages are while assuming they know exactly what's coming and have time to memorize the correct spells. These arguments never talk about the encounters where the mage has 60 percent or more of thier memorized spells completely useless because they guessed what they'd need.

this is an important part that often gets looked over...

lets say I am a wizard, cleric, artificer, or druid (so I know a ton of spell but can only prep a few) and I prep wrong. we get to an exploration challenge and I have nothing to cast that will help.
Lets say I am a warlock (most likely) sorcerer, bard, or other spells known lesser caster, and we get to that same exploration challenge and I have nothing known to cast to help at all (unlike above it isn't even I preped wrong I just don't know it)

in both (all 8ish) scenarios you know what that caster DOES have... everything the fighter has... a handful of skills, there stats, there own quick thinking and role playing.

take the 2 above sub sets (didn't prep or doesn't know) and you come to a social challenge and you have 0 spells to help with it... you know where that leaves you? where the fighter is a handful of skills, there stats, there own quick thinking and role playing.

now what about when they DO have a "Helps alot" spell or god forbid and "auto pass" spell preped/known? oh the fighter can't do that?

 

[nevin]

If he was a 15th level D&D Wizard he was a pretty big a-hole

Let's see, I could teleport us to the Loney Mountain but let's just see how they do in Mirkwood...

Actually Gandalf was a celestial who was sent along with all the other celestial's called wizards and they operated under extremely stiff rules that prevented them from altering creation. This he could go all boom boom on the Balrog abomination that should never have existed but could only buff and protect his party. There aren't any real wizards in the Tolkien books. Every one with powers has a connection to the undying lands. Including the 9 who got it by a corrupt attachment to sauron who got his from the god Melkor

 

[nevin]

this is an important part that often gets looked over...

lets say I am a wizard, cleric, artificer, or druid (so I know a ton of spell but can only prep a few) and I prep wrong. we get to an exploration challenge and I have nothing to cast that will help.
Lets say I am a warlock (most likely) sorcerer, bard, or other spells known lesser caster, and we get to that same exploration challenge and I have nothing known to cast to help at all (unlike above it isn't even I preped wrong I just don't know it)

in both (all 8ish) scenarios you know what that caster DOES have... everything the fighter has... a handful of skills, there stats, there own quick thinking and role playing.

take the 2 above sub sets (didn't prep or doesn't know) and you come to a social challenge and you have 0 spells to help with it... you know where that leaves you? where the fighter is a handful of skills, there stats, there own quick thinking and role playing.

now what about when they DO have a "Helps alot" spell or god forbid and "auto pass" spell preped/known? oh the fighter can't do that?

What about when none of their spells are useful at all and the fighter is the only one who can do anything? Do we have to fix that too?.. it really seems that what the balance crowd wants is for everyone to be the exact same kind of special so that no one is special. PF2 anyone?

 

[nevin]

To clarify those handful of stats afor mages are useless in combat the chance to hit is minimal, the damage even on a crit will be minimal. So unless the game swings on a spellcraft check or a knowledge check in those situations the mage is generally dead weight.

 

[Mort]

What about when none of their spells are useful at all and the fighter is the only one who can do anything? Do we have to fix that too?.. it really seems that what the balance crowd wants is for everyone to be the exact same kind of special so that no one is special. PF2 anyone?

Like when? A pure strength challenge? Hope the fighter didn't go with a dex build!

If the DM had to expressly design challenges "to make the fighter feel special..." That kind of makes the point, no?

 

[Asisreo]

That's...really, really awful design. "Just don't use those things, and everything is fine!" That's a straight-up Oberoni fallacy. "If you don't use the rules that might cause problems, then there are no problems!" does not actually demonstrate that there are no problems.

There's a difference between not using rules and not picking options that don't fit your character. That's like being mad that your dwarf cleric has to take the stats of a dwarf because you wanted your dwarf to be an elf.

Just choose the elf.

As for the other bit there, it's not so much what I (or any specific person) "deserves," but rather, what the game itself offers or promises. The game's class options are like a menu, where every item is priced equally, but some items are full meals, and others are just some slices of steak (no sauce, no sides, no breadsticks, no included drink, JUST steak and water)...and not even steak where you decide how it's cooked, you get whatever the chef serves you.

That's just from your perspective. Also, using your metaphor, most people absolutely like steak with no sides at equal price to a sandwich with soup and salad. Because they get to enjoy their steak and they didn't need the soup or salad or anything outside the water. Especially if the steak is well-made.

Bringing it back. You assume we shouldn't be fine with the fighter's design, but I've given my reasons why I enjoy how the fighter is designed. Sure, maybe some damage buffs for the champion fighter, but outside of that, I like the fighter and its more lax game play style.

Going through the list: Half-casters are not a compromise, because they are still casters, and because they are other classes, not Fighter. Multiclassing is not a compromise because that isn't Fighter, and ESPECIALLY if it makes you a caster. Rogue isn't a compromise because it's not Fighter, nor is Monk (though that also because it's still blatantly "magical" albeit not casting spells, due to Ki, which the game expressly says is magic). Loose lore is not a compromise because you're still using magic, you've just given it a new name. Feats could be a compromise, but fall hilariously short for anything except...wait for it...the ones that give you supernatural powers.

They are compromises because they didn't need to exist nor did they need to fulfill the role given to them. What you want is so specific. You don't want a martial with utility. You don't want a martial with utility that doesn't use magic. You don't want a martial with utility that doesn't use magic with fantastical contributions.

You want a fighter with utility that doesn't use magic with fantastical contributions. Compromising means some of those things don't get precisely added.

I don't understand why you're so vehemently on the hill of taking away the current Fighter. People actually enjoy it. You might not, but I don't see why that gives you the need to want to take away from the things others like.

And that's...another thing. I gave Bend Bars, Lift Gates as an example of something like what I'm looking for, though with the caveat that I recognize the flaws of dropping one game's design elements into another without careful thought. Isn't that exactly what you just asked for?

No. I didn't ask for examples. I already understand what you want. I don't understand why you want it so badly.

I still don't understand what exactly you're missing by not playing that character you want in D&D. And how missing that is gamebreaking for you rather than just a mild inconvenience.

What makes this a big deal?

Then why did you even start this conversation, or this thread overall? If talking about this stuff is a distraction from important social issues, why did you create the thread and specifically ask for people to contribute to it?

Despite how it sounds, I have faith that there must be some reason why the absence of this theoretical fighter causes such a huge stir in the community. But I can't tell if that reason is something I should be rallied behind or not.

People come up with huge arguments sometimes to put others down. I don't really care about the well-being of WoTC but I'm not going to blindly rally behind some argument that was generated for no purpose than to express hate to it. That's just not very motivating to me.

People get so mad about this, but for what? Where's the anger coming from. How is it this frustrating that even a thread that started with an innocent basis goes up to 45 pages in less than a week?

Not to mention, If I were to make a homebrew class with a martial, this debate would seep into the homebrew idea. You said it yourself, the critics can tear the homebrew apart. But why? Why can't I just make my contest-based martial without it being the "fix" to the martial debate?

 

[HammerMan]

I'd like to think you are right but I've watched and participated in this argument since 1977 and what I've usually found is people that won't let this argument go want everyone to play their way. Unlike the 90 percent of the player base that just plays and never participated in these discussions. It does seem that since the idea of balancing the game Via rules became the current groupthink the argument on most forums has gotten more emotional than rational

yeah... I honestly think that 90% is a bit high, but not out of the leauge high... most people will play fixed or not fixed, the qustion then becomes how many want it fixed vs don't want it fixed?

is 6% 4% or is it 5% 5% (I doubt it is so exact) and if it is 6/4 or 7/3 or even 8/2... what side is higher. We have no way to know... we do know with the RPG experence growing now is the time for WotC to either poop or get off the pot, if it is 6% want it fixed and 4% don't... now is when even losing the 4% can be recouped with new players.

I feel (no facts but feel) that with the 2 latest adventures being so 'new age/combatlite' that they must at least be considering other pillars.