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

[Maxperson]

Now that we have 2 "percentage of combat in D&D" threads here I am confident with these statements.

Based on the way the majority of ENWorlders play, a class that is 90% Combat and has little Out of Combat strength would mechanically be shut out 50% of their games.

Because many Enworlders stop sessions at rests and rarely grind a whole 6-8 encounters in a session, classes who recharge on long rests have an advantage at ENWorlder tables over classes that rely on at-will features.

Therefore due to the way ENWorlders play, most 5e martial characters rely on at-will, short rest, and lower effect feature does not satisfy the gameplay of a large percentage of ENWorlders in their base forms and require favoritism or house rules to maintain fun in them.

What does not grinding out 6-8 encounters in one session have to do with anything? It can happen over 10 sessions.

 

[Minigiant]

What does not grinding out 6-8 encounters in one session have to do with anything? It can happen over 10 sessions.

A lot of groups end sessions at rest points. And some end are long rest points. Especially in nondungeon adventures. This is to make remembering and reengaging the game easier. If half the sessions end with long rest, fighters and rogues get weaker.

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of groups end sessions at rest points. And some end are long rest points. Especially in nondungeon adventures. This is to make remembering and reengaging the game easier. If half the sessions end with long rest, fighters and rogues get weaker.

Then they should switch to the one long rest per week or long rests happen when the DM says so model. They can still stop at rest points, but nothing is refreshed until the 6-8 encounters are done. DM created problems are not a class issue.

 

[Minigiant]

Then they should switch to the one long rest per week or long rests happen when the DM says so model. They can still stop at rest points, but nothing is refreshed until the 6-8 encounters are done. DM created problems are not a class issue.

Your missing the point.

It's a session issue. A REAL TIME issue not a GAME TIME issue.

Enworlders don't run enough run enough combat encounter per session.

Changing the GAME TIME just makes the casters suck and take longer to have their moments. Because now it take 4-5 sessions to complete an adventuring day. 4 sessions can be 4 weeks or 4 months.

 

[Maxperson]

Your missing the point.

I'm not.

It's a session issue. A REAL TIME issue not a GAME TIME issue.

It's not. In real time you stop at a good resting point. That does not = long rest. Making it a long rest is purely a DM created problem and not a real life one. Real life can still stop at a resting point without a long rest occurring.

Enworlders don't run enough run enough combat encounter per session.

That's their decision and not a design problem.

Changing the GAME TIME just makes the casters suck and take longer to have their moments. Because now it take 4-5 sessions to complete an adventuring day. 4 sessions can be 4 weeks or 4 months.

Doesn't matter. They have as many spells available to them over that 4 weeks or 4 months as they would have if the 6-8 encounters were over one session.

 

[Minigiant]

That's their decision and not a design problem.

The point is the design doesn't match how people play.

It's also how the Tasha's race rules came to be.
"What? You want to be a tabaxi wizard? What?"

The way the designers play and designed the game to play is not how the way many of the fans play. Especially new fans who don't do 8 hour sessions every (other) week, talk to shopkeepers and random nobles, for 2 hours, and prefer more fanciful and mythic setting.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So you're just going to ignore that I rejected that, too.

Wasn't particularly clear from your post. Good on you.

 

[FrogReaver]

It may be a quagmire, but it's probably the only argument that actually has logical weight. If martials are so badass in combat that casters can't touch them, can't even come close ever, then there is a legitimate argument that martials shouldn't get an upgrade.

As an argument it beats the heck out of:

"Well that kind of martial just isn't D&D to me..don't ask me why or for any additional detail whatsoever. I either dont have reasons or cant be bothered to provide them"

And...
"Think of the newbies and lazy players..if you make it too complicated, it'll melt their poor wittle brains"

And...
"You whining brats just want magical superpowers that will break the game"

And..
"Well if you can't totally agree on the specifics of the exact changes you want it than you must not want any change"

And..
"Just use skills man, they're like the same as spells"

And..
"You already have mythic martials, just use the casting subclasses."

And...my personal favorite..
"We're devoting all this time and energy discussing this game design topic I brought up in this thread I created, when we should be out solving all the social issues in the hobby."

It's kind of refreshing to discuss something that actually makes sense from a game design perspective.

My thoughts,

• I don't think your caricatures do justice to the positions people are actually taking.
• Perfect assumptions don't exist. I think running some numbers using reasonable assumptions will help shine some light around whether Fighters combat prowess is reasonably strong enough that his lack of out of combat features are justified.
• Unfortunately, from the look of things many are already gearing up to justify disregarding any insight we can gain from computing actual numbers using reasonable assumptions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Druids as a D&D thing are massively far from what Clerics are today, it'd be doing a disservice to the druid concept to strap it on top of a chassis that offers.... Exactly 0 support for it, outside of the vague idea of "They're both devoted to an idea" and "Back in AD&D they were on the Cleric chasis (Albeit after you basically stripped everything out of it and the only parts left over were the HP and the XP track, so it basically was a seperate class even then)"

If we're talking about a universe where sorcerers and warlocks are considered mechanically alike because they have a known number of spells and use charisma then there is a far far stronger case that the two wisdom spellcasters that used to be on the same chassis should go back to that chassis.

Saying "I want to play a character who turns into a bear" and then giving them a character chassis based around mail armor and hitting things with a mace isn't exactly what folks ask for

But what you'd do is turn the druid into a cleric subclass. So they can turn into a bear thanks to a subclass written for that purpose. And druids are proficient in maces and medium armour. They don't wear mail but do wear hide or scale. (Just not metal scales).

Do I think it would be a good idea? No. But if I had to cut one class that would be where I'd start. And it's far far more of a mechanical match than sorcerer and warlock.

 

[Maxperson]

The point is the design doesn't match how people play.

That's not a design issue. If people(and many don't play that way) decide to play the game incorrectly, that's on them, not design.

It's also how the Tasha's race rules came to be.
"What? You want to be a tabaxi wizard? What?"

I think that came about more due to modern social pressures than any sort of design issue. Those pressures are not present with resting.