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

[Undrave]

I find it pretty simple. Being a sword-swinger and being a spell-caster is ultimately a matter of aesthetic. Having simple gameplay with relatively few choices and widgets, or more complex gameplay with more choices and widgets, is ultimately a matter of playstyle preference.

You should be able to combine your preference of aesthetic and your preference of playstyle in as many possible permutations as possible. If there are simple sword-swingers, there should also be complex sword-swingers. If there are complex spellcasters, there should also be simple spellcasters.

There's a divide: people who think like you (and I) that play style and aesthetics should be dissociated, while others who think that, since D&D has always wedded them together, they should remain so.

For me, D&D is a dungeon-crawling system where magic is necessary for survival which might be why I don't quite understand the divide.

And here we see another divide: One where people think D&D should remain a game where you HAVE to have a spell caster (try playing the Curse of Stradh Adventure League campaign when no caster shows up... it was NOT designed for that AT ALL and it's BS) in your party to succeed, and those who think it should be possible to succeed without a caster. Not even an Eldrich Knight or a Monk.

 

[TwoSix]

Presumably a simple fighter could be good at melee combat, ranged, exploration and social all at once.

Take the warrior and expert sidekick classes and glue them together, and you've got pretty well-rounded basic fighter.

 

[FrogReaver]

Take the warrior and expert sidekick classes and glue them together, and you've got pretty well-rounded basic fighter.

IMO. the problem isn’t imagining such a well rounded fighter. It’s trying to squeeze that fighter into d&d without stepping all over the rogue.

 

[Undrave]

Aka marking?

Yes, but designed as to avoid the simulationists calling it 'mind control'

why do so many want the casters to suffer? it is bad for our image.

I don't want them to 'suffer'... just a little harmless nerfing

 

[Maxperson]

2) 'Go play another game' is historically how people have tried to punch dissenters out of the community for being threats to 'tradition'.

I love the spin on this. "Go play another game" is also historically how people for change have tried to punch those in favor of older rule sets for being threats to "progress." It's a weapon both sides use against each other.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Take the warrior and expert sidekick classes and glue them together, and you've got pretty well-rounded basic fighter.

then we would need to buff it to heck and back.

Yes, but designed as to avoid the simulationists calling it 'mind control'

I don't want them to 'suffer'... just a little harmless nerfing

what about making them roll a saving throw?

 

[Undrave]

Take the warrior and expert sidekick classes and glue them together, and you've got pretty well-rounded basic fighter.

IMO. the problem isn’t imagining such a well rounded fighter. It’s trying to squeeze that fighter into d&d without stepping all over the rogue.

Or have that same class be the complex Fighter at the same time...

Simple classes should just be their own thing.

 

[TwoSix]

IMO. the problem isn’t imagining such a well rounded fighter. It’s trying to squeeze that fighter into d&d without stepping all over the rogue.

Yea, it's definitely where having a few "generic" classes in a game mostly built around specific, thematic classes bites you in the butt.

 

[Undrave]

what about making them roll a saving throw?

Make a saving throw against nerfing, take half nerfing on a successful roll.

 

[Shardstone]

I disagree. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and it is an incredibly bad look when the same forum where martials and casters are seen as a monumental problem is the same forum where the sexualization of bikini woman armor in art isn't really that big of a deal. Some people are still upset about that, by the way.

And it doesn't have to be about social justice, the basic mechanics themselves are broken. Simulacrum needs a heavy nerf. Some magic items break the game in ways a DM would be unable to predict. The guidance on creating adventures in the DMG could use some more work. But right now, it seems like the forum finds martials much more important than any of these.

Why do you see things in such a narrow viewpoint? Why do you keep trying to shut down discussion by saying there's bigger things to talk about? People can talk about multiple things at once. Your line of reasoning here is fundamentally wrong and the fact that you keep going back to this argument itself is an incredibly bad look.