D&D 5E (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

W'rkncacnter · Jun 22, 2023

Chaosmancer said:
You can't steal their voice.

i mean...an archfey probably could.

Micah Sweet · Jun 22, 2023

Chaosmancer said:
If my character is only viable because I have a magic sword and magic armor, my character is not viable. I don't play a fighter to be a vehicle for cool magical weapons that can make anyone a hero, I play a fighter to be a hero.

Maybe a nonmagical fighter just isn't viable beyond mid level or so then, by your definition. In the D&D we have and are likely to get from official sources, perhaps that's just the way it is.

Micah Sweet · Jun 22, 2023

HammerMan said:
It is about wanting WoTC to fix this in 1d&d

I find this extremely unlikely to say the least. What evidence do you have that WotC even acknowledges your concerns as a problem, let alone one they're willing to re-design the game to address? They are bending over backwards to make OneD&D backwards compatible with a game that has all the problems you describe, to the point where they're not even willing to officially replace the 2014 PH with what they consider better design work, and are instead allowing people to choose. You cannot turn to WotC for help here.

Gammadoodler · Jun 22, 2023

nevin said:
see we did this in 2e and skills made skill monkey's useless because everyone had too many skills. We did this in 3rd edition and no one had a niche because everyone could multiclass or make thier own special classes. Everyone either hated it (most people) or loved it (the minority) .
If a warrior raising an army is not useful then you want low level play. At high level politics, enemies, gods, kings, High clerics and outsiders are all more important than any ability anyone in your party has unless the game is a MMO simulator. If you want an MMO simulator don't play past 10th level for that kind of play it breaks somewhere in the 10 to 14th level range.

Considering that the goal, generally is

"problem solving options beyond just spellcasting"

We did what.. specifically?

I'm not really a D&D historian, so I have no idea how you're trying to connect what has happened in previous editions to the goal stated above.

Indaarys · Jun 22, 2023

Gammadoodler said:
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from these assumptions..

I don't find much utility in taking on assumptions that don't track with what WOTC has shown they're willing to do.

Theres a lot of ways to solve these issues if we assume WOTC will just do whatever we managed to come to a consensus on.

Gammadoodler · Jun 22, 2023

Emberashh said:
I don't find much utility in taking on assumptions that don't track with what WOTC has shown they're willing to do.

Theres a lot of ways to solve these issues if we assume WOTC will just do whatever we managed to come to a consensus on.

Ok. Then you were not actually engaging with the premise of the post you were replying to.

You don't have to do this, but, if you aren't, you should call it out or your "replies" will seem nonsensical.

Indaarys · Jun 22, 2023

Gammadoodler said:
Ok. Then you were not actually engaging with the premise of the post you were replying to.

You don't have to do this, but, if you aren't, you should call it out or your "replies" will seem nonsensical.

Rejecting the premise is engaging with the premise.

Edit: and I think its preferable to not drag the convo into litigating engagement.

bert1001 fka bert1000 · Jun 22, 2023

Emberashh said:
If we're taking that assumption we have to also assume no mythic martial. The same fundamental reason mages aren't going to get reigned in is the same one that keeps Martials from going in the same direction.

I did after all predict perfectly that they were going to buff Wizards, and the most we're likely to get is just a non-committal to the buff.

This was an exercise to show that push back to adding a mythic martial under those assumptions/parameters was either unwarranted or uncharitable.

Even though under these assumptions I would predict adding a mythic martial class would actually grow the audience / make the audience as a whole more satisfied:

People that think there is a disparity -- much more satisfied, some will play that didn't

Causal gamers or happy with the way it is but don't care about mythic martial existing one way or another -- not much change to numbers. probably casual a little more satisfied as this is a archetype they probably expect to be in there anyway. certainly won't turn anyone off.

Anti- having a new mythic martials as a separate class and in a splat book while maintaining all existing classes -- unhappy for unwarranted or uncharitable reasons apparently (see assumptions and reasons given)? predict many will get over it since their mundane martial classes remain in the game and they can play the same game as before if they want, but could be wrong?

It's impossible to read into the designers minds but something is going on. Maybe they like the disparity/gap and think it's part of D&D's identity? Maybe they think putting in the mythic martial will drive a huge portion of people away? Maybe they don't care about high level at all since most people play low level, not realizing the broken high level makes this so? Maybe they don't have the resources to do a full revamp or mythic martial well right now even if it's on the idea board? Maybe since table conventions make it work good enough for many tables, then good enough, ehh? Who knows?

But adding one additional Mythic Martial class that is no more powerful or versatile than the Wizard is not some system shattering thing. It points more toward wanting the aesthetics and disparity to remain.

But things change. Things go in and out of fashion. Executives get fired and teams get replaced, etc. Never say never!