D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[ECMO3]

f the game is meaningfully balanced and Fighters effectively don't bring anything to the table but "ME FIGHT GOOD," then non-Fighters must be distinctly behind it, especially if the Fighter has minimal resources to make them stronger.

Balance is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. 4E was balanced and it sucked. Every other version is inherently unbalanced. The unbalance between the classes is one of the things that makes 5E the most popular, and IMO the best version of the game.

So..."you get to play 3/4ths of a class, while everyone else gets to play a full class" is "part of the class design"?

You get to play whatever you want. I am playing in 3 campaigns right now and I am currently playing a single class fighter in 2 of them and I am having fun.

If you want to play a God then play a Wizard. It really is that simple.

Absolutely not. This is like saying, "There's nothing unfair about offering only a six-inch chicken teriyaki sandwich while all other sandwiches are footlongs, so long as the customer chooses the six-inch. Which costs the same amount as a footlong."

So you think it is unfair that Subway lets some people buy a 6-inch sub, while also allowing other people to buy a foot long sub?

A 6-inch Chicken Onion Teriyaki at Subway costs MORE than a Footlong Veggie Delite and about the same as several other footlongs. Do you really think that is unfair for subway to offer that sandwich?

These options are presented to us as commensurate. They are not equal, but they are meant to be peers. You should not be punished for choosing to play Fighter instead of choosing to play Wizard. (Or, if you prefer, "you should not be specially rewarded for choosing to play Wizard instead of playing Fighter.") But by your own description, a Bladesinger Wizard brings 3/4ths of the combat capacity of a Fighter without spending a single spell slot. The Fighter brings none of the class-derived non-combat capacity of the Wizard, regardless of what resources they might spend. That is the unfairness. Why is it okay to punish people who just prefer Fighter flavor/feel/story over Wizard flavor/feel/story?

No one is being punished.

Nothing is unfair. No one is being forced to play a fighter or buy a Chicken Teriyaki. People who play a fighter WANT to play a fighter and people who buy a Chicken Teryaki WANT to buy a Chicken Teriyaki.

Why do you say people are being punished? I am playing two fighters right now and no one is punishing me!

 

[ECMO3]

So what is the Eldritch Knight supposed to be?

I think the intent for the EK is to be a fighter with a few primarily defensive or damaging spells.

And why is it ok that the Bladesinger accomplishes the goal of being "caster + almost as good melee fighter" so well, but Eldritch Knight can't be a "good melee fighter + almost as good caster"?

Because that is what the bladesinger is supposed to do. It is right there in the mechanics.

The EK can be altered to be a better caster, but the way to do that is to give him full caster progression. Giving an EK 3 more feats will not make him the near equal to casting as a Wizard. You would need to give him better and more spells to do that.

Does balance have no place in the game?

Striving for balance over thematics makes the game worse. That is what the 4E fighter was - balanced with classes that should have been more powerful .... and it sucked to play one.

If you really think balance is necessary then give the fighter spells. I think that is not what the fighter is supposed to be thematically and that is not a direction I would want to go, but it will make for a better game than trying to balance the game by giving the fighter more combat ability with weapons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Balance is not a good thing. It is a bad thing.

Absolutely not.

So you think it is unfair that Subway lets some people buy a 6-inch sub, while also allowing other people to buy a foot long sub?

No. It is unfair to FORCE people who want chicken teriyaki to ONLY get a six-inch, but pay the cost they would pay for a footlong when all other sandwiches cost exactly the same amount for a footlong.

No one is being punished.

Yes, they are. Anyone who likes being a Fighter is punished by getting an inferior class.

Nothing is unfair. No one is being force to play a fighter or buy a Chicken Teriyaki. People who play a fighter WANT to play a fighter and people who buy a Chicken Teryaki WANT to buy a Chicken Teriyaki.

Why do you say people are being punished? I am playing two fighters right now, no one is punishing me!

Because you are a literal second-class character! As you just said yourself:

If you want to play a God then play a Wizard. It really is that simple.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Striving for balance over thematics makes the game worse. That is what the 4E fighter was - balanced with classes that should have been more powerful .... and it sucked to play one.

Uh...no, it didn't.

Fighter was consistently the most popular class in 4e. The only class that ever threatened its popularity was Warlord. Those two were far and away the favorite classes in 4e.

 

[ECMO3]

Absolutely not.

Based on what? We actually have data on this. Unbalanced versions of D&D are objectively more popular than balanced versions and most think they are better.

You are making claims with no data at all to back them up, which can be further refuted by the limited data we have.

We can't objectively show causality between unbalance and popularity, but we can show correlation between unbalance and popularity and that refutes the idea that balance is necessary for people to like the game.

No. It is unfair to FORCE people who want chicken teriyaki to ONLY get a six-inch, but pay the cost they would pay for a footlong when all other sandwiches cost exactly the same amount for a footlong.

No it isn't and not all the sandwiches cost the same at Subway. You buy what you want to buy and if Chicken Teryaki cost $1000 it would still not be "unfair" to have it on the menu.

Just don't order it if you don't think it is a good value.

Don't play a fighter if you don't like what you get out of it.

Yes, they are. Anyone who likes being a Fighter is punished by getting an inferior class.

No they aren't If they like playing a fighter then they like the mechanics.

I am playing a fighter (actually 3 fighters, 2 single classed fighters and a multiclassed fighter/Wizard) and I am not being punished AT ALL by playing an inferior class. Not a single little bit and I don't believe anyone playing the game is actually being punished as long as they are making the choices and decisions to play what they wanted.

Because you are a literal second-class character! As you just said yourself:

So what?

In real life I can't play basketball as well as Lebron James. Does that mean I am being punished because he is a better basketball player and I am a second rate Basketball player? Does that mean I can't have fun playing Basketball or that I am being "punished" any time I pick up the ball?

 

[ECMO3]

Uh...no, it didn't.

Fighter was consistently the most popular class in 4e. The only class that ever threatened its popularity was Warlord. Those two were far and away the favorite classes in 4e.

It is consistently the most popular class in 5E as well, but the game itself was not as fun and playing a fighter in 4E was not as fun as playing a fighter in 5E.

It is not the fighter specifically that suffered by balancing the game it is the game itself.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's the subclass I suggested a while ago:
D&D 5E - My Super Simple Idea for a Better Fighter

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is consistently the most popular class in 5E as well, but the game itself was not as fun and playing a fighter in 4E was not as fun as playing a fighter in 5E.

Now there's a truly subjective statement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"You opened the box!"

gets popcorn

 

[Aldarc]

Balance is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. 4E was balanced and it sucked. Every other version is inherently unbalanced.

4e was balanced and it was a great game. See? I too can present a personal opinion as if it were a fact.

The unbalance between the classes is one of the things that makes 5E the most popular, and IMO the best version of the game.

5e is the most popular version of the game, but it's a far more difficult argument to make that it's due to its imbalance as opposed to a wide variety of other factors.

You get to play whatever you want. I am playing in 3 campaigns right now and I am currently playing a single class fighter in 2 of them and I am having fun.

If you want to play a God then play a Wizard. It really is that simple.

So you think it is unfair that Subway lets some people buy a 6-inch sub, while also allowing other people to buy a foot long sub?

A 6-inch Chicken Onion Teriyaki at Subway costs MORE than a Footlong Veggie Delite and about the same as several other footlongs. Do you really think that is unfair for subway to offer that sandwich?

No one is being punished.

Nothing is unfair. No one is being forced to play a fighter or buy a Chicken Teriyaki. People who play a fighter WANT to play a fighter and people who buy a Chicken Teryaki WANT to buy a Chicken Teriyaki.

Why do you say people are being punished? I am playing two fighters right now and no one is punishing me!

Cool. So I will make the Eldritch Knight a 9th level caster in addition to its normal features. I know you will be cool with it because it's unbalanced, which is good. If you want to play a god mode character, then you will play an Eldritch Knight rather than a Bladesinger.

It is consistently the most popular class in 5E as well, but the game itself was not as fun and playing a fighter in 4E was not as fun as playing a fighter in 5E.

Lol.