D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Umbran]

And, sadly, the mechanical gap between commoner and 1st-level character has been growing wider ever since, peaking with 4e.

Um, "has been growing wider ever since, peaking over a decade ago" seems to lack logical coherence. If it has been growing ever since, the peak is today.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Why don't people who say "I want non-supernatural martials" complain about lack of non-supernatural player, monster, and dungeon support from WOTC, Paizo, and other 3PP who keep grinding out magic magic magic magic magic?

???

I guess define 'supernatural'; there's plenty of options in Pathfinder 2e for Martials that don't have explicit magical abilities, and are mainly super athletics, incredible inventors and investigators, perfect stealth machines, etc.

Don't drag them into this! Pathfinder 2e is a game where the Martial / Caster divide doesn't exist and has quite a number of ways to have non-supernatural based Martials! (Assuming that 'has magic items for support' counts.)

 

[Pedantic]

Um, "has been growing wider ever since, peaking over a decade ago" seems to lack logical coherence. If it has been growing ever since, the peak is today.

I think peak here is referring to an idealized state of the divide, not the magnitude of the difference. "Nadired a decade ago" just doesn't have the same ring.

 

[Oofta]

Not at all, balance is a positive quality that games have to varying degrees.

The Martial/Caster Gap is an example of quite significant imbalance in D&D, generally, and 5e in particular. It in no way implies that the problem lies with the fighter. Nerfing casters into the ground could also close the gap.

In 5e, specifically, IMHO, nerfing casters would be absolutely necessary. 5e went too far in restoring OP spells and expanding caster flexibility, while further removing restrictions from casting rather than adding back restrictions that formerly attempted (unsuccessfuly) to balance that power/flexibility. That 5e also gutted the fighter is almost a minor consideration, especially since every edition has approached fighter improvement by first taking away everything cool the fighter had in the prior ed....

...ah, wait, I see your point!


Yes, scrapping what cool stuff the 5e fighter has in order to try yet another way of balancing it would be unfortunate. Balancing the fighter by (in addition to nerfing casters) expanding options, so players who really wanted to could still choose the kinds of straightforward multi-attacking single-target DPR specialists they are would be better than scrapping everything and starting over.

Really, bringing back everything cool fighters have ever gotten would just be a modest start.

I disagree that balance is inherently better. I want different classes to have different mechanisms, different beats, different goals, different implentations. I think that’s better design because I want each class to have it's own unique feel.

Does that mean that depending on too many options to list here that some classes will at times? I guess, although I've never seen a huge discrepancy.

Having different roles, having some classes that are "flashier" than another does not mean they are not balanced in the long run. Or that most people care.

 

[Oofta]

I assume it goes back to that one presentation where they showed satisfaction rating for some of the 2014 classes with the fighter (some subclass, not sure which) being in the 20s. At least that is what I think the reference was to

We don't know exactly what was asked, how the question was formatted or even what the real numbers are. If the majority of people hated the fighter I doubt it would be the most popular class. Doesn't mean it can't use improvement, but so far the only modifications released for the 2024 playtest have been pretty minor. The suggested changes wouldn't be minor if it was as big an issue as some people seem to think it is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wish I lived in a world in which the word "gish" didn't exist.

But which gish?

Gishyanki? Or Gishzerai?

Honestly, you just need to play AD&D without the Fiend Folio, and you'll be okay.

 

[Scribe]

Don't drag them into this! Pathfinder 2e is a game where the Martial / Caster divide doesn't exist and has quite a number of ways to have non-supernatural based Martials! (Assuming that 'has magic items for support' counts.)

Yeah, I can get it if people have other issues with PF2, but as far as 'balance' (for a given definition of balance) and the martial 'issues' (for a given assumption of issues) PF2 would seem to do things better than 5e, for a segment of the vocal forum population.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Yeah, I can get it if people have other issues with PF2, but as far as 'balance' (for a given definition of balance) and the martial 'issues' (for a given assumption of issues) PF2 would seem to do things better than 5e, for a segment of the vocal forum population.

Considering Pathfinder 2e is pretty successful and doing quite a bit better than even Paizo hoped, I think it does have outreach beyond vocal forum people.

If people are unhappy with 5e's balance, particularly with Caster / Martial imbalance, and particularly for people looking for something that has the same design philosophy as 4e - it is worth trying to get into a game of Pathfinder 2e online.

 

[Oofta]

Considering Pathfinder 2e is pretty successful and doing quite a bit better than even Paizo hoped, I think it does have outreach beyond vocal forum people.

If people are unhappy with 5e's balance, particularly with Caster / Martial imbalance, and particularly for people looking for something that has the same design philosophy as 4e - it is worth trying to get into a game of Pathfinder 2e online.

It shouldn't be a bad thing to say that maybe other games would be a better fit for specific preferences.

 

[Reynard]

It shouldn't be a bad thing to say that maybe other games would be a better fit for specific preferences.

The problem there is that it sounds way too much like a solution, and we can't have solutions and continue to complain.