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

[Mind of tempest]

My favorite 3rd party publishers are EN Publishing and Mage Hand Press. I would start with those.

and how exactly are we supposed to get people to do something for us they are not going to just do it because we ask nicely?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure why "class bloat" actually bothers you, to be honest. Why would it matter to you or your game that there are new classes out there you don't have to use? What problems do their existence cause for you?

It should be apparent even by this thread. Instead of fixing the existing classes and giving them epic features at higher levels, some people advocate leaving the existing classes to be unsatisfactory and creating duplicate classes instead. Siloing 'epic' into separate classes prevent it going where I want it to be, which is at high level of all classes. Furthermore, making many weirdly specific classes results classes becoming narrow, making them mechanically and thematically too constrained. This has already happened with arcane full casters; I have said many times that there are too many of them. Warlock and sorcerer being separate classes was a mistake, them being one class would have resulted mechanically more flexible and thematically stronger class. And of course the writers have limited amount of time and resources. It is not wise to use that to write duplicate classes, which then need duplicate subclasses like, warlock and sorcerer do, depending on whether the magical being is your ancestor or patron*. And lastly, overlapping bloaty class based game is just system aesthetically unappealing. It is messy and incoherent.

* Celestial/Divine Soul, Shadow/Undead. Great Old One/Aberrant Mind etc. And there should be Fey, Fiend and Genie ancestry Sorcerer, and Dragon patron Warlock, etc but there aren't. It would be far better if there was one coherent class that could represent all these concepts.

 

[Asisreo]

Part of it is just, 5e is a child of 3e (despite many statements about it being "AD&D3," e.g. an alternate successor upholding the Advanced line.) But multiclassing, underlying math, caster power, CR little better than intuition, flawed (both poor and OP) feats, and adventure/encounter pacing issues? That's most of the problems of 3e too. 5e is a toned-down version of 3e, for good and for ill. That ramps up the argument intensity, because we're still litigating the issues we've been hitting for 20 years or more.

And I think D&D should improve in those aspects. The game is more tolerable now then back then, but I do think the inherent problems plaguing the system needs to go.

This may be an issue then. I don't see it as "the dungeon-crawl game." I see it as "big tent," which includes crawling and a lot else besides. (Kinda surprised that you advocate so much for 5e-as-it-is though since, IMO, 4e being so well-balanced in combat makes it better for dungeon crawls.

Then it's a difference in perception. I felt like that was the case. It's not that I want 5e wholly as-is, though dungeon crawling isn't just about the combat. It's about exploring the unknown. Really, what you're able to do comes secondary to what you're able to find and what you do with what you found. So contributing is less about having something unique and meaningful in your statblock and more about what you, as a player, bring to the table.

Even apart from that, I'm skeptical. Damage and defense spells are still great. Many others (e.g. misty step, invisibility; borrowed knowledge or enhance ability; rituals like augury and locate object;, etc.) are still good, perhaps better in confined underground spaces (and those are all 1st or 2nd level too!) If the Wizard can be confident that normal staples like fly aren't worth it, that just means they can focus better on the spells that remain and are worthwhile--which doesn't really reduce their power.

In low tier games, the fact that they're limited resources make them more difficult to justify using. In high tier games, the wards and extremely dangerous traps make casting much more difficult. It isn't about spells not being great, it's that if they're used poorly even if they're generally good, that makes them difficult. For example, thinking the wizard can just cast invisibility and walk in the middle of the room without being seen. That's a luxury at high levels because alot of monsters have truesight or blindsight.

How is that difficult to grasp? I care about it for the same reason I care about the design of classes in FFXIV--I play the game, I spend a lot of my time interacting with the community, I read and understand the statements made by the developers, and I advocate for the things I like and criticize the things I don't. What more do I

You don't need to justify it, I just was looking for an understanding. I suppose your passion for the system overall is what gets you riled up. That's something I can't really relate to. I tend to just pass over things I don't like. I'm not a fan of Pathfinder and 4e, but I don't really want to change much of what's in there because I recognize that it's for somebody out there, just not me. If I don't like it, I don't play it. Maybe the fact that 5e is so popular means that it's harder to avoid, but it doesn't feel like the alternatives have gotten less popular.

Maybe, if such casual play is so goddamn important, we should have more than one class to carry that weight?

There are a few options for casual play, Barbarians and rogues are generally casual friendly. More complex than the champion, sure, but it's more like something refreshing rather than a new subsystem.

I have done my best to avoid any such arguments, hence why I focus on the actual statements made by the developers (e.g. referring to D&D Next/5e as a "big tent" edition, the books explicitly treating the classes as peers) or on abstract principles of game design (e.g. "how should a cooperative game be designed?") That way, I literally cannot be putting anyone down.

I think what they wanted in playtesting is different than their philosophy now. But also, your philosophy for game design doesn't necessarily have to be the same as others. I get that some people don't want to play "tails" from sonic, but some really do want the enjoyment of being present without the consequences or stress of being highly skilled at the game.

 

[Asisreo]

And no, this isn't some insane wahoo way out there request. It's literally, exclusively, "Give the Fighter some meaningful contributions outside of combat." That's it. That's all. I just want the Fighter to be included in the stuff the game says is vitally important to play.

But you have that. That's the problem. The fighter does have the fantastical ability to teleport, fly, hide without being detected.

Your fighter can, quite literally, redirect the flow of a river. Right now, in 5e, base rules, in the PHB. but because it's a spell, that invalidates the entire position I'm making. That's what I'm saying when it feels like there's no compromise.

When there's already such hardened lines, the battlefield breaks out anywhere someone brings up the possibility of changes.

And I don't understand why these lines are so hardened. Why there has to be an all-or-nothing approach.

It's not like I'm all-or-nothing either. I like the Ranger, the Eldritch Knight, the Paladin, the Arcane Trickster. I'm perfectly fine with the types of characters with martial status and utility. I'm just wondering why we have to go even further. But I do want changes to the system and I personally want certain adjustments, but to enhance a playstyle.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But you have that. That's the problem. The fighter does have the fantastical ability to teleport, fly, hide without being detected.

Your fighter can, quite literally, redirect the flow of a river. Right now, in 5e, base rules, in the PHB. but because it's a spell, that invalidates the entire position I'm making. That's what I'm saying when it feels like there's no compromise.

And I don't understand why these lines are so hardened. Why there has to be an all-or-nothing approach.

It's not like I'm all-or-nothing either. I like the Ranger, the Eldritch Knight, the Paladin, the Arcane Trickster. I'm perfectly fine with the types of characters with martial status and utility. I'm just wondering why we have to go even further. But I do want changes to the system and I personally want certain adjustments, but to enhance a playstyle.

we do not want to have to be a part wizard to feel we are valuable to the team those things are part caster we want no caster% but still valuable does this make it clear on what we want?

 

[Mort]

and how exactly are we supposed to get people to do something for us they are not going to just do it because we ask nicely?

Show there's a market for it, plain and simple.

One thing I've been harping on in this thread - give fighters more options in the social/exploration pillars.

My understanding is Level Up 5e did exactly that, at least for the exploration pillar. I'll be taking a look at it, but if that's true - it'll make me pretty happy.

 

[Minigiant]

It should be apparent even by this thread. Instead of fixing the existing classes and giving them epic features at higher levels, some people advocate leaving the existing classes to be unsatisfactory and creating duplicate classes instead. Siloing 'epic' into separate classes prevent it going where I want it to be, which is at high level of all classes. Furthermore, making many weirdly specific classes results classes becoming narrow, making them mechanically and thematically too constrained. This has already happened with arcane full casters; I have said many times that there are too many of them. Warlock and sorcerer being separate classes was a mistake, them being one class would have resulted mechanically more flexible and thematically stronger class. And of course the writers have limited amount of time and resources. It is not wise to use that to write duplicate classes, which then need duplicate subclasses like, warlock and sorcerer do, depending on whether the magical being is your ancestor or patron*. And lastly, overlapping bloaty class based game is just system aesthetically unappealing. It is messy and incoherent.

* Celestial/Divine Soul, Shadow/Undead. Great Old One/Aberrant Mind etc. And there should be Fey, Fiend and Genie ancestry Sorcerer, and Dragon patron Warlock, etc but there aren't. It would be far better if there was one coherent class that could represent all these concepts.

The "fix" old classes is the preferred option. However there is major pushback.

However the "create" option has a lot less resistance because the games of many tables would be unaffected.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The "fix" old classes is the preferred option. However there is major pushback.

Is there though?

Of course someone will oppose everything, but for example in a recent poll here a clear majority wanted high level martials to be superheroic, Captain America level being the most popular. So most people seem to want it, and I doubt terribly many would be that upset by it.

However the "create" option has a lot less resistance because the games of many tables would be unaffected.

And many tables wouldn't get the fix they actually wanted, the designers instead spending their time catering to your super specific and niche desires. It simply is not a sensible or viable approach.

 

[Minigiant]

Is there though?

Yes.

The Number 1 issue on fighter is no one can get a consensus on what fighters should get after level 11.

The only reason why it isn't a riotous debate is because people don't get that high or avoid it because of the reputation of the second half.

 

[Asisreo]

we do not want to have to be a part wizard to feel we are valuable to the team those things are part caster we want no caster% but still valuable does this make it clear on what we want?

It's difficult to understand everyone on different fronts of the conversation. Because what you're saying is that you don't want to have any casting at all, which isn't what EzekielRaiden said. But now I'm not sure if, in your case, it has to be a fighter or if it's just a martial. Because my response will change based on that.

So it's even less clear what you all want because I can't assume you want, word-for-word what the others want.