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

[Mind of tempest]

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.

okay, guys huddle up we need to make it clear what we do want instead of what we dislike.

 

[DND_Reborn]

okay, guys huddle up we need to make it clear what we do want instead of what we dislike.

After over a couple thousand posts, people have done that again and again and the issue remains: different people want different things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Have you tried? Most publishers (especially smaller ones) listen to their fans, since that's where the money comes from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I disagree. Different mechanical implementations affect how the class plays and, therefore, how much fun one might have playing it. It is a game, after all, and having fewer classes leads to more genericized characters and less interesting play, imo. Having a class representing someone with special powers (divine gift, special bloodline, radioactive spider bite, etc.) seems like a reasonable niche to me, and I don't see how its existence hurts your game enough to outweigh the enjoyment others would have from having the option.

Besides, I have long advocated for a third party solution to this issue anyway. WotC has neither the inclination nor (to me) the ability to do what people want in this area.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Except that these are broadly differences of flavor and implementation rather than differences in capability. And it's something that your side of the argument takes advantage of.

Poster after poster says:

I want martials to have more utility.

Your side says:

Oh, so you just want magic then.

Some pro martials say "Sure, easy peasey." Some say "I don't think that's really necessary, but if thats what it takes". Some say, "That is absolutely unnecessary, it doesn't take magic to make everything useful"

Your side says:

We're just having a peaceful discussion. You pro-martials can't agree on anything.

Same thing with updating existing classes vs. making a new class. It's so damn perverse, since your side agrees that whatever the implementation or flavor is, it shouldnt exist.

The things we don't agree on are the least important parts of the equation.

So let's keep it simple.

We want martials to have more utility than they have now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is there though?

Absolutely. As shown by this very thread. Asisreo would prefer, as far as I can tell, to change absolutely nothing, or as little as humanly possible, about the Fighter class. And whether or not that actually is their position, many others definitely have expressed that exact view on this forum over the years. The "no! Add no flavor or extra bells and whistles! The Fighter being a blank slate and slightly less flavorful than plain oatmeal is it's greatest strength!" crowd, the ones who continually advocate against even the smallest changes and may even grumble about the existence of things like the Eldritch Knight in the first place.

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.

Then, frankly, you haven't been paying attention to the conversations about it for the past...ooh, 15 years at least? This was a huge part of the 4e edition war, for example. All the talk about Fighters shooting lightning bolts out of inappropriate orifices and such.

The thing is, yes, most folks probably would be cool with superheroic high-level fighters. But most folks aren't super upset about not having them either; martial superheroics has broad appeal, but that support is weak, few are willing to go up to bat for it. Sort of like how decriminalization of marijuana has broad support in the US, but few voters (and fewer politicians) care enough about it for or against to make it a key issue at the polls, leading to the ridiculous nebulous schism where several states are openly violating federal law but the federal government looks the other way. Except that in this case, the vocal groups mostly do oppose it and will loudly and proudly fight against it--even to the point of claiming that the silent majority supports them.

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.

I really, really, REALLY don't think "give the Fighter meaningful contributions outside of combat, even if they aren't necessarily flashy or major," is such a "super specific and niche desire." And I have refrained from setting narrowly specific mechanical goals, speaking instead in generalities and (paraphrasing myself) "this has the concept, but would need to be translated to 5e properly" examples, specifically in order to avoid being "super specific and niche."

The Rogue is...okay. I'd prefer it had more, but it's okay. Bringing the Fighter into a similar ballpark, but not quite as major or focused, would help a lot. Tweaking them both up (e.g. bringing the Fighter up to where the Rogue is now and bringing the Rogue up a bit further) would be decent. I do not have the brain or the energy to give design examples at present. But there are paths forward that can be flavorful, open to a variety of interpretations, and not particularly complex.

And honestly? A big part of the problem is that there are two opposition parties that get along just fine with one another but have mutually incompatible demands of anyone who wants change (assuming they're even willing to permit change at all). You have the (presumed) Asisreo-like group that wants the Fighter to remain pretty much exactly how it is, and will accept no changes to its features or contents, that's their line in the sand. And then we have those like you, the hyper reductionists, who are often opposed to having even as many classes as we already have let alone any new ones; their deal breaker is that nothing, zip zero nada, may be added in terms of new classes.

So...those of us who want change can't ask for the Fighter to get new features because the former group opposes any changes to the Fighter class: "go make a new class and leave my beloved Fighter alone!" And we can't ask for a new class to do the job because the latter group opposes the introduction of any new classes whatsoever: "We already have classes for that, just fix them so they do the job and leave the already over loaded archetypes alone!" At which point we must now content ourselves with no change within and no change without, the only thing that can please all opposition...by denying us literally any of the things we want. Funny how that works that way...and how people get confused at the level of emotion that arises in conversations like this.

 

[FrogReaver]

11 is fine. I may need a few days...I usually have some trouble sleeping but these last three days have been fantastically bad. I've got some preliminary ideas though.

Sounds good.

Some additional proposals (I'm open to alternate suggestions):

• I propose chance to hit with 20 stat and proficiency bonus be 60%. Additions like archery style or magic weapons or GWM would modify that base.
• I propose enemies have a 60% chance of failing saving throws.
• Party Advantage Generation normally greatly favors melee characters over ranged ones and even more so over granting disadvantage to spell saves. I propose for this comparison we don't assume advantage for anything the character itself isn't generating for himself. If you plan to use find familiar to grant advantage, I propose we discuss a reasonable percent that this occurs (since the familiar is so easy to kill).
• I propose an AOE like shatter count as hitting 2 enemies. I propose an AOE like fireball count as hitting on average 3.5 enemies.
• Evoker Wizard subclass has 2 abilities we need to discuss if you plan to use it. Avoiding Friendly fire should reasonable increase the average number of enemies hit per AOE. How his level 10 damage bonus interactions with magic missile is also a very important discussion to have. If you aren't using that subclass we can ignore.
• If the wizard is planning to boost damage with concentration spells then we really need to talk about concentration and the chance he loses said spells.

I'm sure there's some more but those are the biggest things on my mind. Nailing down an agreement on the chance to hit and advantage considerations will let me start calculating the Fighters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We want martials to have more utility than they have now.

Which, unfortunately, is an extremely broad statement.

Utility how?

More application to exploration and social pillars?
More versatility in combat?
More power in combat to rival casters?
And so on...

This has been going on for a couple weeks now and despite attempts, suggestions, etc. no one can really agree, if they even want any changes.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Which, unfortunately, is an extremely broad statement.

Utility how?

More application to exploration and social pillars?
More versatility in combat?
More power in combat to rival casters?
And so on...

This has been going on for a couple weeks now and despite attempts, suggestions, etc. no one can really agree, if they even want any changes.

Was with you until the very last sentence..which is false..and you know it. It is, in fact, an exact example of the behavior my previous post described.

well I guess if you all can't agree on exact specifics for what you want, I guess you must not want anything..

Disgusting.

 

[Mort]

This has been going on for a couple weeks now and despite attempts, suggestions, etc. no one can really agree, if they even want any changes.

Actually, there seems to be widespread agreement that non casters, particularly fighters, can use some support in the non-combat pillars of the game.

Exactly the nature of that support hasn't been ironed out, but there have been plenty of suggestions and even agreement.