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

[Minigiant]

Sure, let's imagine for a moment what would have changed in Treantmonk's party at level 15.

The Paladin would have had 0 more attacks than he did, just doing more damage. The barbarian would have had 0 more attacks than he did, and really not done much more damage either. The Bladelock would have had 0 more attacks than he did and had more powerful spells that could have caused more saves. The Sorcerer would have had more powerful spells. The Fiend Warlock would have had more Eldritch blasts and more powerful spells. The champion fighter could have made 1 additional attack.

So, let me ask you. Does 1 additional attack suddenly make that entirely beyond gonzo? An extreme carnival of attacks and saves beyond anything they could have handled?

The reason I brought up the level 5 fighter, is because level 5 is when every class except the fighter stops getting new attacks. Two attacks, two saves, that is the limit of what you might expect. That is 4d20. Is rolling 4d20 a round truly such a burden upon play?

Each additional attack is one more saving throw to roll and check and then assess after.

 

[Tonguez]

Relevant to D&D, the trend is:
Str + Dex = Skirmisher
Str + Con = Tank
Dex + Con = Archer

Dont forget:
Int+Wis = Tactician
Cha+Wis = Commander
Wis+Dex = Commando

also been thinking about Battlefield control and taking the concept of ‘Lair Actions‘ as a Mythic Fighter option

 

[Yaarel]

Id appreciate if you would stop putting words into my mouth. There is a distinct difference and nuance between "violates the genre" and "these aren't DND"; busted casters have never been good for the game nor consistent with the genres its mechanically emulating.

Wait. Heh, are you saying on the one hand, D&D is its own unique specific genre, and on the other hand, D&D is inconsistent with the genre that it is emulating?

Anyway, I honestly dont understand the perspective that you are coming from.



D&D is a kitchen sink. It is ok to like some aspects of D&D and to like less other aspects of D&D.

For example, I think using Dexterity for balance "has never been good for the game".

There is a difference between wanting to improve D&D versus declaring D&D itself isnt D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the premise regarding martials and spellcasters, you cannot deny (at least on Enworld) that this "player/table problem" comes up often.

How often does it need to come up, in order for it to be a game problem?
So all these players/tables have limited imagination?

The game's combat speed, especially after level 4, comes up often too. The game's short rest/long rest comes up often too. The game's "adventuring day" and what should be in it comes up often too. The game's weapon list and its lack of influence on attacks comes up often too. The game's skill list, and how it is too detailed or too short, comes up often too. The game's species and their attributed feats comes up often too.

So since all those things come up just as often, do they also need to be fixed? Must we streamline combat so players can only do one thing per turn in order to make it move faster? Must we only use long rest so as to not allow certain classes to have an advantage when using the short rest system? Must we require DMs to have four encounters per day no matter what the storyline says? Must we make weapons more complex, allowing them to interact with different armor or do different damage? Must we expand the skill list to include four of each ability to make sure everything is "balanced?" Must we allow everyone to just choose from a giant list of species' feats?

All of the above have been mentioned many, many times. In fact, the one I left out, removing abilities like strength, dexterity, constitution, etc. has probably been mentioned more times than any of these subjects, including the "fix the fighter" threads. So, should we remove the abilities because a group doesn't like it?

The point is, the fighter IS a problem - but only for some tables. And, from what I have read, these tables don't want to sacrifice anything, they only want to make the fighter stronger. It's guised as under more options. But, in the end, it always boils down to: "My character can't do that, and I want them to be able to do that, but also keep everything they already can do."

Place it under the comparison model: "Compared to the 20th level wizard, my fighter is terrible."
Place it under the microscopic model: "During a round of combat under these exact conditions, I only deal 22.4 points of damage."
Place it under a secondary/tertiary model: "The fighters at my table don't even attempt RP and skill checks because it requires magic."

Place it under any of those, but refuse to place it under the actual model for which it is intended: The player, playing at a table, with other players, under the conditions the DM (who has ultimate control over the environment and encounters) has set. That is what is happening, which is why you have a debate.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Anyway, I honestly dont understand the perspective that you are coming from.

Busted casters aren't any good for science fiction any more than they are epic fantasy or sword and sorcery.

I don't understand as well. But it seems like it's gotten to the point where everyone needs to post their assumptions at the top of every post.

I agree that busted casters aren't good. But I believe the majority that posted over the past day have been working under the assumptions:

1) busted casters will not change and all the existing classes will still exist
2) narrative permission to do anything in a mythic martial class as has been outlined
3) this new mythic martial class will be no more powerful or versatile than the Wizard but otherwise everything else is fair game

And spitballing on what this mythic martial should look like given these assumptions.

It's not helpful to then back up and say -- busted casters should be fixed. You shouldn't be having a discussion under these assumptions at all.

And certainly don't believe that adding a class that is also busted (but no more so) will further bust the game. Not possible.

 

[Scott Christian]

WOTC's data says no one plays high level 5e and people are not excited about it.

So it isn't a me thing or a minority thing.

Very few people play high level 5e and the few who do don't play it for long.

I agree. I have been part of seven different campaigns as a player. Only two made it to 20.

But half the arguments on here are to fix the high-level fighter. How much of a priority should it be if so few people play?

 

[Emberashh]

I think superhero tropes can definitely work in 5e. That's why I used them in my narrative write up.

They can work mechanically, which tracks. D20 is a decent enough system to build a superhero game with (and im pretty certain it has been).

That however is very different from trying to do supers with a SS/EF trenchcoat. The MCU can get away with combining genres because they're actually blended from the ground up. (And incidentally tends to be why some MCU content can miss the mark when they fail to do that blending right. The pseudo horror of the last Dr. Strange movie doesn't work well, despite other shows getting it right)

D&D is its own unique specific genre, and on the other hand, D&D is inconsistent with the genre that it is emulating?

Yes, because if I blend Red and Yellow together and get some green, there's a problem that doesn't go away by pretending green-flecked orange is just "orange".

There is a difference between wanting to improve D&D versus declaring D&D itself isnt D&D.

I repeat: stop putting words in my mouth. You literally quoted what I actually said and you're still asserting something I did not say and have already clarified I did not say.

It's not helpful to then back up and say -- busted casters should be fixed.

Theorycrafting something that isn't going to be entering the game can also just be its own topic. The original premise of this topic isn't really about theorycrafting a separate thing that isn't going to happen.

And regardless, the theorycrafting being engaged in just reveals the problems that have been pointed out, and its worth it to highlight when it does by reiterating how the solution being theorycrafted doesn't actually pan out.

Not possible.

And the tables turn yet again on the "it isn't fair to deny theres a problem just because you don't have a problem with it" issue.

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree. I have been part of seven different campaigns as a player. Only two made it to 20.

But half the arguments on here are to fix the high-level fighter. How much of a priority should it be if so few people play?

When the second half of the game isn't worth reaching it becomes a self-perpetuating problem.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The point is, the fighter IS a problem - but only for some tables. And, from what I have read, these tables don't want to sacrifice anything, they only want to make the fighter stronger.

Forget the Fighter. Keep it in the game as is. I'm pretty sure we've established that most of us want a separate class that fits a different narrative archetype (mythic martial) and is no more powerful or versatile than the current Wizard. Also from what I can tell could be in a splat book and not core and most of us wouldn't care either.

There is all kinds of resistance against this for unclear reasons.

 

[Scott Christian]

Anyone can "think of a solution". Including casters, who also get additional options that just work.

100% correct. The difference is, when one is already given the options and one is not, the one that is not often comes up with a broader range of solutions. It's proven over and over again. So you are correct. The wizard can think of the same solutions. But the real life results in psychology often state they don't. And that is because they are given a block of text that explicitly tells them what they are to do and its intended outcomes.
In other words, it's a game of chance, and human minds like a sure bet. So the wizard will err on the side of the sure bet and not even think about the optional "chance" categories.