D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Hussar]

4e's actually a bad place to look, because for all the complaints that Fighters are "too anime"... Fighters in 4e don't have any magical powers. Some handwavey boardgame powers (that I'm not a fan of) but they're purely "big guy with a big stick".

Look at Book of Nine Swords, or its spiritual successors, the Path of War and Path of War: Expanded for what "martial magic" might look like.

If you want something less... gamish... look at Flying Swordsmen, a retroclone of WotC's own Dragon Fist (now, officially, Green Ronin's) the AD&D-based wuxia game.

Personally, I would be happiest with any of the above. All of the above would make me absolutely over the moon.

According to DnD beyond data Fighter is a popular choice.
That create a mystery. Why people like to play a crappy class!

No, I get it. I've repeatedly stated that I KNOW I lost this argument years ago. I don't understand it. I don't get it. And I certainly don't see it. But, I know for a fact that all of us who are arguing for a more complex, more capable fighter is whistling in the wind. It is NOT going to happen.

And I rarely see groups without at least one. The universe is a strange place.

Percy. He took Magic Initiate: Warlock, but IIRC he was 20 levels straight fighter.

And in both cases, the data shows that a lot of people play them. Maybe groups with people like us who overthink D&D tend not to gravitate toward fighters, and in that context I’m an anomaly, who knows.

Kinda shoots the whole "Fighters deal as much damage as everyone else" argument in the foot there doesn't it? Considering according to the stats posted, Percy deals like the least damage in the group? I'll admit, the only thing I actually know about Critical Role is what I saw in the Amazon cartoon. I don't watch it. Don't follow it. So, again, those more knowledgeable can certainly chime in. But, the argument was made that fighters are sucking hind tit when it comes to damage. And that's pretty much straight up backed up by the stats that were supposed to tell me that fighters are the damage kings.

But, like I said, I have no idea who all these people are playing fighters. I really don't. I'd LOVE to be in these groups that didn't play 99% casters. It's endlessly frustrating to me that every time I play D&D, it's so strongly dominated by casters. Again, in my experience. This is what is happening at the tables I play at. I'm not trying to say that this happens at other people's tables. But, I just started a totally new group recently, totally new characters. 2 Rogues, a sorcerer, a monk and a bard. Not a fighter in sight. New Spelljammer campaign just started with my long term group. Five characters, 7th level start, zero fighters. One shot played last week. YAY! Got one fighter. First single classed fighter I'd seen in years.

I dunno who's playing all those fighters but it certainly isn't my table.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I dont follow the rationale.

Shouldnt the fact that the Wizard can sometimes do fast (teleport), sneaky (invisible), and disarm trap (fly) better than a Rogue, inspire more protests on behalf of the nonmagical Rogue?

Maybe the Rogue is simply competent at noncombat challenges, while the Fighter isnt? So the real problem isnt casters − it is that Fighters have been made defective at noncombat?

Maybe, but I think your word choice is important.

Competent.

I was watching a series by the Dungeon Dudes who said something very interesting once, something that stuck with me. Rogues have to follow the rules. We imagine that because of stealth expertise and a high dexterity, rogues are the best at infiltration, correct? But... compare to a druid. If you need to infiltrate a castle, a druid is a superior choice, because they never have to roll a single stealth check. A warlock's invisible familiar? The Bard turning invisible AND having stealth expertise? The Ranger using Beast Bond to see through the eyes of a hawk and use it to scout a path to stealth into? A wizard casting disguise self to just walk through the front door?

At every turn, the spellcasters can constantly break the rules of the skill system. You can only hide when unobserved and you have cover? That only really applies to rogues, everyone else has a way around that.

But, at the same time, with expertise and reliable talent, it becomes hard to imagine a rogue failing at those tasks they have set themselves to do. They are objectively worse at them than anyone with magical abilities, but as long as they follow the rules, we assume they will succeed. Meanwhile, fighters... don't. They just simply cannot. And so it becomes difficult to imagine them succeeding at these things, while the rogue we can at least pretend isn't made obsolete.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, yes and no. While, sure, you can Arcane Eye for exploration, a rogue does do it better (Arcane Eye can't hear, for example). And, while sure, you can replace the rogue with a caster, the rogue is just as good as the spell equivalents - as in you're replacing like for like. So, a group that has a rogue instead of a caster that's doing rogue stuff is pretty equivalent.

When you replace a fighter with a casters, you gain all the things a fighter can do (ie. deal damage and mitigate party damage) PLUS gain all the things a caster can do. Replacing a fighter with a cleric or a druid or an artificer isn't replacing like for like. It's replacing and getting a whole lot more on top.

Well, as I went into, I disagree to a degree. The rogue is good, but the spell equivalents are absolutely better. And the caster is ALSO adding more things the rogue can't do. Rogue's can't do control abilities, but a Druid with Wildshape can be a better scout, provide control abilities, and have healing.

And I think this is another big thing. Other than scouting and traps... we don't talk about Rogues doing anything. Their niche is very very narrow, and very well defined. Which may add to them seeming to fill it better.

 

[Vaalingrade]

According to DnD beyond data Fighter is a popular choice.
That create a mystery. Why people like to play a crappy class!

Fighter is the class people force newbies to play because it's 'simple' and we have no respect for newbies' ability to operate Rage, let alone spell slots.

 

[Chaosmancer]

According to DnD beyond data Fighter is a popular choice.
That create a mystery. Why people like to play a crappy class!

What was that drumbeat for the champion again? "We need a simple class for new players" "Don't give new players complex classes like wizards, give them the simple fighter so they can get used to the rules" "The fighter is a simple class that doesn't have a lot of bells and whistles, perfect for new players"

Hmmm, quite a mystery why a website devoted to making your character for you (and thus being great for people who are new and have trouble tracking a sheet) might show an unusually high level of fighters and champion fighters specifically. Also, what are the free options again? Just the classic four each with a single subclass?

 

[Yaarel]

I dunno who's playing all those fighters but it certainly isn't my table.

Huh. Yeah. If I think about it that is me too.

Of course, as DM I see Fighters everywhere in the adventure descriptions.

But when I am trying to remember the players who are playing "fighters", they are actually, Ranger and Paladin, and earlier Warlord and Warden.

If I recall correctly, the last time I saw a Fighter was a Dwarf character but that was over a decade ago ... and even that character may have been a Cleric.



According to the DnDBeyond stats, Fighters are popular statistically even at the highest tiers. So it is more than a case of people being told to play a "simple class" like the Fighter when learning to play D&D for the first time.

Heh, I see lots of half casters, which personally baffles me. I cant imagine getting slot 4 spells as a class feature while near epic levels. I dont go near half casters. (Tho I have a soft spot for the 5e Paladin because they can do so much magical damage and the flavor of the class is amazingly versatile.)

But, I guess, I dont see Fighter players either.

 

[Eubani]

The only one that talked about taking stuff away was from wizards. I just said if your going to make thier magic unreliable then martials need the same penalty. Its already unreliable in that the wizard has to guess what they need at the beginning of the day and usually 1/2 or more of thier spells are never needed or simply useless in the ensuing events. Making the core class ability unreliable is a bit over the top. but nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

No where in what I wrote did I reference you at all.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You just reinvented Wild magic. Only going fir that if all the martials
Go to a crit fumble table that breaks weapons damages other party memebers etc.
Neither if thise ideas has ever been popular.

Ennhh.. maybe.

I think there are ways it could be tuned. Guaranteed success below a certain spell level relative to character level, mechanisms to improve your chance of success or reduce consequences of failure, etc. and tuning the consequences (reduced or increased durations, smaller or larger areas of effect, higher or lower cost of spell slots, more or less damage, and yes, perhaps for some of the higher level spells some chance of self harm).

Basically how you see magic operate in most genre fiction.

 

[bloodtide]

Of course, a simple fix is to fix this HUGE problem:

Take the beyond classic Mundane vs Magic:

Player "Flying monsters? My mundane pure melee warrior has no ranged attacks? So what do I do for the whole battle?"

DM-"Sucks to be you. Mundane characters suck. Just sit back, do nothing and be quiet while the magic characters play."

VS

Mundane Player: "Humm..wonder if we will EVER encounter something like an anti magic area?'

DM-"ABSOULUTELY NOT! NEVER! It would be SO WRONG to force the player of a magic using character to EVER just sit back and do nothing even for just one round. Er..um...oh, I mean anti-magic is super rare."

Mundane Player ".........

 

[Emberashh]

So they are Sayans or Kryptonians? Because they aren't human.

What counts as human is relative. In some worlds, what we call a horse would be called a human.