D&D 5E A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.

[Micah Sweet]

We DO have one: the Goading Attack maneuver of the Battlemaster. You just remove the bonus damage and BOOM! Marking in 5e!

Not a fan of marking. Feels very artificial to me. Good luck on that in your own game though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it's just unfortunate that you have such a limited pool of maneuvers. I'd happily give up the bonus damage for more maneuvers.

A5e fighter has access to a ton of maneuvers. Several other classes to as well, but only fighter can access all of them.

 

[James Gasik]

That's nice to know. If/when tabletop gaming starts back up in my area, I'll take a look.

 

[Gammadoodler]

There's also the Spirit Guardian Barbarian and the Knight with similar mechanics.

Arguably there's also the Armors artificer with the heavy armor and the puling beam.

and the Psi-warrior.

Given, these are mostly magical effects, but the idea is there, indeed.

Cavalier has something too iirc

 

[Gammadoodler]

M

Magic is magic. Anyone who wants some can have it.

It's just so silly.

You say something provocative that causes your enemy to lose their composure and attack.. No way. Ridiculous.

You say some magic words that cause your enemy to lose their composure and attack.. Well when you put it that way..

I assume the only difference between these two actions is that the casters say "please"

 

[Fifth Element]

You are mistaken about what reductio ad absurdum means.

Although you didn't attempt to explain, I suspect I know what you're referring to. There are two uses of the term. One is a form of argument, the other is used to mean a fallacy, by using the argument form in a fallacious way. Since the poster who originally used the term clearly meant the latter (since otherwise, they would have been attempting to dismiss an argument by saying "you are using a particular type of argument", which is not sensible), I continued to use the latter as well.

Strictly speaking, this is an appeal to extremes, which is a fallacious form of reductio ad absurdum. But the fact is that many people use reductio ad absurdum to mean an appeal to extremes, and the poster I was responding to was clearly doing so. And since language is determined by usage, people using it that way means that that's one of the things it means.

 

[ECMO3]

All these people talking about how every NPC should be played 'smart'.

Do ya'll not have people where you're from?

Sure, but I don't want to roleplay a dunce.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, but I don't want to roleplay a dunce.

As DM, you have dozens of characters. A few can be dunces like the rest of us.

 

[FrogReaver]

Although you didn't attempt to explain, I suspect I know what you're referring to. There are two uses of the term.

I don't doubt that. But there is only 1 correct use of the term.

One is a form of argument,

This is the only correct use.

the other is used to mean a fallacy, by using the argument form in a fallacious way.

This is an incorrect use.

Since the poster who originally used the term clearly meant the latter (since otherwise, they would have been attempting to dismiss an argument by saying "you are using a particular type of argument", which is not sensible), I continued to use the latter as well.

The only thing clear IMO was that the term was being misused.

Strictly speaking, this is an appeal to extremes, which is a fallacious form of reductio ad absurdum.

Agreed.

But the fact is that many people use reductio ad absurdum to mean an appeal to extremes,

People can use blue to refer to the color red but that doesn't make that the correct use of the word.

and the poster I was responding to was clearly doing so. And since language is determined by usage, people using it that way means that that's one of the things it means.

Words can be used incorrectly. Do you dispute this?

 

[FrogReaver]

Fighter is a joke compared to paladin or valor bard.

Not in tier 1 and 2.