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

[doctorbadwolf]

Adding one more class, particularly a non spellcaster class, which we don't have many of, would bloat the system?

I don't get the 2nd position at all. So we have this hypothetical person who thinks Wizards are too powerful and there IS a disparity. Adding a martial class that is closer in power to the Wizard would be problematic because although this person doesn't like they can live with Wizards being crazy powerful (currently plays 5e) but not an additional martial class that is as at most as powerful? THAT would make them leave the game?

I mean, I get the fact that some people want spellcasting completely redesigned and want to consider martials in that new framework but that isn't happening any time soon. Why deny a mythic martial under the current framework though?

As I mentioned, people can play all caster parties at high level now anyway so the game would not be more broken with the mythic martial addition. It would just add something that would appeal to a group of people that want to participate in high level in a different way. The martial "purists" can still play their champions.

This walk away POV makes no sense other than people wanting to deny others their form of fun. It's 5 year old "I'm taking my ball and going home" nonsense.

Yeah tbh this is why I ended up with two separate monk rewrites, one that is very magical and one that is if anything a bit less magical by default than the monk (though still with mystical, academic, and mysterious order of the hermetic weirdo esoteric, elements and general vibe).

I just see more room for that mythic martial when you have a resource to spend.

The Assassin, as well, is close to martial, with some non-Spellcasting supernatural stuff and some ritual magic stuff, but otherwise just very good at murder and stealth, with subclass and specialized tool choices deciding what social and exploration stuff you’re really good at.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I think that folks who want "mythic martials" want something that is very different from 5e's design, so it should be recognized that this is not feasible for OneD&D.

It's precisely because of 5e design that people want the mythic martial though. High level spellcasters create a very superhero / mythic framework for spellcasters. It is entirely feasible and within design parameters to add a separate mythic martial class that is no more versatile and powerful than the wizard. It's just a choice.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think that folks who want "mythic martials" want something that is very different from 5e's design, so it should be recognized that this is not feasible for OneD&D. It is just not going to happen. Offer these up as optional rules for a D&D variant game, and I wouldn't even comment. Do what works for you.

And I get frustrated that so much of the argument is predicated upon hyperbolic statements that run contrary to evidence, so that casters are depicted as the greatest at everything and martial classes as basically useless. Or, as above, that basically no one is playing martial classes because they are just so useless. It is hard to have a good faith discussion when there seems to be little distinction between fact and hyperbole.

My experience is that martial classes range from quite good (fighter and barbarian) to decent (rogue) to weak (monk). See all of them chosen regularly by players. I think that fighter and barbarian tend to become more limited not in terms of their core utility in combat but in terms of flexibility, and that sub-class can be particularly relevant here. I am not 100% convinced that this is a flaw, given that some players manifestly prefer a very simple playstyle.

I do not know what you mean when you say that mythic martials are very different from 5e's design. Are you speaking mechanically, thematically or otherwise?

I believe there are contrary arguments along both axes such that your statement is not self-evident either way, but I honestly would like to know what you mean and why you think it's true.

I'm sorry for your frustration at the hyperbole in this thread. With that said, the hyperbole is not restricted to either side and painting it as such is itself, hyperbolic.

To be clear for myself. My position is that:

Casters options for utility at high levels outstrip martials' options by an order of magnitude.

and..

Casters' options in combat are also significantly greater than martials though to a lesser degree

and..

Martials' contribution within the damage dealing and damage taking niche is not even fully secure such that they can be overshadowed there too.

We can discuss how often all three of these are true within a given game at a given table and at what severity, but I think the underlying game design is such that all of these will generally be true, especially at high levels, at most tables absent conscious DM intervention to balance things.

I am also not convinced that the solution needs to be complex. Take the Shadow Monk as an example. In most any conversation about monk weaknesses, when you get to the Shadow Monk, most folks will go "oh they're basically all right". And the main difference is the teleport. It is a flexible potent tool with broad applicability in and out of combat.

I think one or two options with comparable potence, flexibility, and applicability would go a long way to helping assuage the feeling that martials get left behind at level 10.

 

[Minigiant]

think this is a really good point that gets to the crux of the problem with high level play. Most often in 5e people learn to play through examples. Well written pre-published adventures which sufficient hints tips and preparation to allow a DM to react reasonably with the relevant rules and info available.

The truth is, there are only a handful of these for groups above 11th level and almost none for groups above 15th. Even Paizo, famed for making the three big 1-20 campaigns, stopped a year or two into Pathfinder and started capping them at 14-16th level.

When you look at the challenges built into these Old 3e/Paizo APs the last book or two’s real challenges are almost all combat based. Which in truth are the least satisfying element of high level play by my book. Often very straightforward and only tangentially related to the world around them

That's the thing.

There is no guidance for high level D&D because both WOTC and TSR shirked the duty to define high level play.

So after 50 year no one can agree what high level play is in order to guide others into it.

I've played video games that have high level content.

D&D hasn't established what a high level fighter or what a high level wizard does on a high level adventure.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

According to the stats we’ve been shown, fighters are the most popular class in the game, and it isn’t close. There are four largely mundane classes, out of thirteen total, yet they make up about 35% of characters, according to WotC. In other words, slightly over represented.

I can’t speak to your personal experience, but if you don’t see non-caster characters once in a while, that is very unusual.

I mean this needs to be read in context. Most games are played at lower level. At lower level Fighters are fine.

Also no data but it could also be that one of the main reasons most games are played at lower level is that the system breaks down at higher level due to caster power...

It could also be that there are a lot of casual players. The first and foremost like the fantasy of martial hero. It could be that if a mythic martial existed that many of these casual players would pick the mythic martial over the champion. I think the casual player would be least likely to be caught up in "I want my martial to stay mundane" as they just want to play a cool hero that primarily does physical stuff.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Yeah tbh this is why I ended up with two separate monk rewrites, one that is very magical and one that is if anything a bit less magical by default than the monk (though still with mystical, academic, and mysterious order of the hermetic weirdo esoteric, elements and general vibe).

I just see more room for that mythic martial when you have a resource to spend.

The Assassin, as well, is close to martial, with some non-Spellcasting supernatural stuff and some ritual magic stuff, but otherwise just very good at murder and stealth, with subclass and specialized tool choices deciding what social and exploration stuff you’re really good at.

Yeah, unless D&D puts in Fate points or some such I think high level martials need to be "magical" in some way. This can be class magic items for the mundane he
ro with gear archetype.

Just like the old marvel FASERIP game did it for gadgeteers and suit wearers, you could have the menu of class abilities and you could choose whether to put this into equipment or manifest it innately.

 

[Scott Christian]

D&D hasn't established what a high level fighter or what a high level wizard does on a high level adventure.

I could be wrong, but isn't Dungeon of the Mad Mage and Candlekeep both to level 20?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think the casual player would be least likely to be caught up in "I want my martial to stay mundane" as they just want to play a cool hero that primarily does physical stuff.

Very much this.

I don't think I've ever seen a D&D player express thematic angst over getting a cool ability to use.

 

[Emberashh]

and incomplete because we can't even settle on what precisely the skill system is or does.

it's that the level of utility they provide isn't universally accessible.

2+2...

Good to note that end effects can (and should) be achieved via very different mechanical and flavor means within the same system. The flavor and mechanics behind an end effect are generally immaterial.

Why deny a mythic martial under the current framework though?

WOTC is denying it either way. We're no closer to a mythic martial than we are a caster overhaul.

But there is the argument that Casters as they are aren't what the game needs (nevermind more of), so if we were to assume we were getting such substantive changes to the system, then theres debate to be had over what to set as the baseline to revolve those substantive changes around.

I and others obviously think the Martials are, if not at the ideal baseline, at least closer to what it ought to be than Casters are.

Thats ultimately something I don't think many have touched on. Does everyone still posting here actually want busted demigod Casters?

Some I think may well be taking their existence as granted when thats probably not the ideal place to come at this from, despite what any practical observations of WOTCs own preferences might suggest.

 

[Remathilis]

I am also not convinced that the solution needs to be complex. Take the Shadow Monk as an example. In most any conversation about monk weaknesses, when you get to the Shadow Monk, most folks will go "oh they're basically all right". And the main difference is the teleport. It is a flexible potent tool with broad applicability in and out of combat.

I think one or two options with comparable potence, flexibility, and applicability would go a long way to helping assuage the feeling that martials get left behind at level 10.

I think the key bit to remember is what sets a shadow monk apart from the regular monk is its supernatural abilities. Three out of the four abilities a shadow monk gets are magical, one is outright spellcasting! Invisibility, teleport, illusion magic and free OA: a rogue wishes it could do all that. And there is a narrative reason for it; the monk is tapping into the power of shadow mixed with ki.

Supernatural power + supernatural power source = fun, effective noncaster class.

Now I'm sure someone will point out the way of shadow monk isn't necessary and we could just give monks teleport, invisibility and opportunist as core features after 11th level. They don't need to be shadow powers, in fact they don't need to be explained at all. But I find that mixture of story (a monk who learns to manipulate shadow) and mechanics is what makes them exciting.