D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[JiffyPopTart]

from what i've seen, not really? it takes a long rest to infuse literally anything and you basically only get 2 infusion options per infusion slot. infusions seem to be less "temporary items to fit the specific scenario" and more a stand-in for an actually functional crafting system.

i was also speaking thematically - what's the point of playing as a magic item craftsmen when literally every martial character already has (effectively) crafting their own magic items baked into their class? the entire idea just feels kind of redundant at that point.

Thematically what's the point of wildshape when a wizard/sorcerer/warlock can polymorph?

It's a similar effect but applied differently.

But, as I said, I've never played a 5e artificer so if their thing is really just crafting permanent magical items for the party then I guess it's too much of an overlap.

 

[ECMO3]

Why? When a dragon flies it's not through a spell. When a giant throws the square-cube law out of the window it's not through a spell. Why, when in order to perform like Beowulf or any other mythical hero does a fighter have to wiggle their fingers and say some magical words?

Those would be different races, I would not be against that kind of thing as racial abilities.

Personally I find the restriction of magic to spells and items to be extremely silly thematically especially in the light of hit points. Why does skill need to be held back to a below real world physics level (thanks to hit points among other things) when it is very clear that things in excess of what is physically possible in the real world are a part of the D&D world.

Personally I think that is what spells should be for. I am not that hard over against that stuff anyway, but from a logic point of view if a fighter with a 20 strength can leap a building then a wizard with a 20 strength should be able to as well.

And what I find even sillier is the necessary break of magic into the haves and have-nots while not using Ars-Magica style worldbuilding and rules where it's explicitly about wizards and muggles.

You will have to explain this to me, I don't understand what it means.

 

[James Gasik]

Those would be different races, I would not be against that kind of thing as racial abilities.



Personally I think that is what spells should be for. I am not that hard over against that stuff anyway, but from a logic point of view if a fighter with a 20 strength can leap a building then a wizard with a 20 strength should be able to as well.



You will have to explain this to me, I don't understand what it means.

Ars Magica is a game about playing Wizards in a fantasy version of medieval Europe. Wizards are potentially all powerful, and non-Wizards are actually NPC's (called "Grogs") who are nothing but henchmen and expendable meat shields for the Wizard PC's.

 

[ECMO3]

A lot of discussion regarding fighters and spellcasters and I just would like to point it is frustrating to play high level martials in 5e. I like to play non-spellcasting fighters and barbarians and the moment when they should excel, which is in combat, they are shadowed by the spellcasters killing more enemies with fireballs and finger of deaths. All other things spellcasters can do better than martials, but combat martials should be way better. Otherwise, why would you play a martial?

I love to play fighters, to include at high level. I hate playing Barbarians at both low and at high level. I like playing fighters because I enjoy the class mechanics and thematics. The fact they are weaker than casters is not a concern to me at all. If it was I simply wouldn't play a fighter.

In addition to Barbarians I also hate playing Druids, don't really like playing Bards and used to dislike Paladins although I am coming around on them a bit.

I think a better question is why would anyone not play a fighter?

I think generally people don't chose what to play based on power level. If they did everyone would play a Wizard and that does not happen. I would say overall Wizards are relatively uncommon in comparison to several other classes, including fighter.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I love to play fighters, to include at high level. I hate playing Barbarians at both low and at high level. I like playing fighters because I enjoy the class mechanics and thematics. The fact they are weaker than casters is not a concern to me at all. If it was I simply wouldn't play a fighter.

In addition to Barbarians I also hate playing Druids, don't really like playing Bards and used to dislike Paladins although I am coming around on them a bit.

I think a better question is why would anyone not play a fighter?

I think generally people don't chose what to play based on power level. If they did everyone would play a Wizard and that does not happen. I would say overall Wizards are relatively uncommon in comparison to several other classes, including fighter.

I think the reason germane to this discussion is that half of the phrase RPG is game, meaning the rules and mechanisms you can interact with by playing it.

Fighters (even the battlemaster) have fewer buttons to press in the ruleset, which to some can make them boring to play.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ars Magica is a game about playing Wizards in a fantasy version of medieval Europe. Wizards are potentially all powerful, and non-Wizards are actually NPC's (called "Grogs") who are nothing but henchmen and expendable meat shields for the Wizard PC's.

sometimes D&D feels that way too

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think a better question is why would anyone not play a fighter?

complexity of choose at level up and round to round in combat but also having options that do NOT involve combet

 

[James Gasik]

sometimes D&D feels that way too

The good thing about spellcasters is that their power is potentially greater than non-casters. So in a given play session, there is the decent chance that your spells don't give you an overwhelming advantage. My last session with my own Wizard we had to fight a mad alchemist throwing around potions and weird alchemical mixtures, three Mephits, a Quasit, and an Ochre Jelly. So between Mephit death explosions, oddball resistances, and spread out enemies and allies, my contributions were limited to alpha striking the Dust Mephit (I am still very vulnerable to Sleep, the bane of all arcane casters) and then focusing everything I had on the alchemist and hoping for the best.

Ironically our Way of Tranquility Monk was the combat all-star thanks to a combination of the Ranger's string of bad luck on attack rolls and the Cleric's mediocre Dexterity save.

It just goes to show that playing a spellcaster is like playing the lottery, you get much larger returns when your numbers come up, but great odds is never a guarantee.

 

[James Gasik]

Honestly, what surprises is me is that Paladin isn't the most popular class. There's not a lot that Fighters do that Paladins can't do just as well if not better. You can even play "no thinkum" by just smiting all the things!

I think it likely comes down to people who think the class is more complex than it is, due to it's spellcasting, people who believe the class is more restrictive than it actually is (either due to the legacy of the class or DM's who prefer old school Paladins), people who believe you have to play a Paladin like a stereotype, or people who believe in order to play a Paladin requires interfacing with a made up religion.

If any or all of those are true, Paladin is a class that needs better Public Relations.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I love to play fighters, to include at high level. I hate playing Barbarians at both low and at high level. I like playing fighters because I enjoy the class mechanics and thematics. The fact they are weaker than casters is not a concern to me at all. If it was I simply wouldn't play a fighter.

In addition to Barbarians I also hate playing Druids, don't really like playing Bards and used to dislike Paladins although I am coming around on them a bit.

I think a better question is why would anyone not play a fighter?

I think generally people don't chose what to play based on power level. If they did everyone would play a Wizard and that does not happen. I would say overall Wizards are relatively uncommon in comparison to several other classes, including fighter.

People don't play fighters for at least four reasons:

1. They don't fulfil the intended promise made by D&D Next in the design document which is, in so many words to be the best at fighting. (Something which should be contrasted with the wizard being the best at spellcasting and demonstrate that being the best at something is not intended to make the best class).
2. Outside combat they are the lowest common denominator commoner class, with the fewest skills in the game, armour getting in the way, and no abilities that help them do anything that a commoner with no additional class features can't.
3. In combat they are boring, playing patty-cake with the enemy until someone's hit points run out rather than actually doing interesting things round understanding and meaningfully changing the combat. (This is as much a problem with the 5e hit point escalation as anything)
4. A fighter isn't what they want to play (which is fair enough)

I know several people, myself included who consider the average 5e fighter to be an NPC snoozefest of a class but love fighters who actually get options, whether it's 4e style tactical fighters, echo knights, or other larger than life types. You are literally the only person I have ever seen anything from who likes 5e's weak and generally boring fighters. So could you explain what you like so much about the spamtastic 4e fighter that has no more out of combat agency than a commoner please? Because I have literally never met anyone who had this attitude.

Also your class is far more important than your race. Why should your race let you shatter the laws of physics and your class not unless you use spells?