It is not clear what you mean by meaningless, choices chosen by players are by definition not meaningless to that player and there are very few choices that are not viable.
Last edited:
D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
It is not clear what you mean by meaningless, choices chosen by players are by definition not meaningless to that player and there are very few choices that are not viable.
This is what frustrates me most about the endless martial balance threads. The easiest and most effective option to achieve balance at high levels is to give those martial classes spells and that is routinely dismissed out of hand by those asking for more balance.
This makes it seem like the discussion is not about actual balance but instead about individual players who want their personal favored martial aesthetics improved/advanced.
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
Then you knew what they were talking about.
CreamCloud0
Hero
well that's because 'balancing the martial' by giving them spells would fundamentally make them no longer a martial, or at least change the execution of them so far away from the point of a martial that we might as well have just picked a spellcaster in the first place.
"Oh yes sir, we can fix up your clockwork clock that's getting a bit slow, we'll start by ripping out all those useless gears and cogs and then replace them with this digital display"
we want the martial balanced as a martial, not as another spellcaster in disguise.
I also don't think it's necessary. People talk about players having options and choices as if the only options and choices thrown out there for players have to be something that can only be addressed by something written on their character sheet.
In my experience the things written on the character sheet have far less impact on the overall game than everything else the players decide, say, and do. One of the main decisions a player makes is what the nature of their contribution to the team will be and fighters have always been, and continue to be, valued assets to their team in games I play.
That is an aesthetic, but it is one of many examples. In this example, giving them spells would not mean they are no longer martials. It just means they are balanced against non-martials better at high level. It would change the execution, but that is the whole point of driving towards "balance" isn't it?
When people say they want balance, what they really want is to make their favorite aesthetic more powerful (in this case that martials do not use spells). That is not the only example though, there are plenty of examples of that sort of thing where certain balance options are dismissed for aesthetic reasons.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Unfortunately, nobody can agree on the design of what that would look like, even as WotC seems fairly committed to devoting much of their design to new spells than new mechanics for subclasses or feats.
Like I get it, spells are easy to design for, you don't need to tie them into any other effect. A subclass has to have a theme, and they'd rather put passive abilities there as opposed to active ones. But when that design is walled off from classes unless they have an explicit "magic coupon" to ride that ride, it's pretty damning.
I mean, 9 years of 5e and what have martials gotten? More subclasses, sure, but outside of that? A couple of alternate class features in Tasha's, a very limited selection of new Feats (because optional!*), and only now, weapon masteries (with almost no new weapons outside of the PHB).
Meanwhile, casters get all that and new spells in just about every book. Why is the lion's share of design aimed at casters? Because spells are easy to design, they don't need to be tied to any other bespoke mechanic, they don't need to fit a theme with other spells, and if you can cast spells, all it takes is putting it on your spell list.
Yeah, someone will mention I ignored the new Battlemaster maneuvers. Sorry, toys for one subclass of one class doesn't really help other martials very much. Plus, I mean, it's even easier to design maneuvers than spells! We could have a hundred maneuvers by now easily!
Mini-rant: also, can I just say, the idea of walling off certain content as optional feels like such a copout. Everything is optional in D&D! A DM can decide races, classes, subclasses, weapons, even spells don't fit the theme of their campaign! The only thing labeling something as optional does is say "yeah so, we didn't really balance this well, so use at your own risk", despite the fact that public play uses Feats, and their adventures have magic items in them, and they keep making new magic items!
It's especially heinous when their optional rule comes with a safeguard (attunement). Wait, if it's optional to even use magic items, why are you suggesting a limit on them?
Mini-rant 2: and why do we even use attunement anyways? Because WotC suggested it? What other version of D&D has limited how many items you could have (outside of item slots, I suppose). If the DM controls the magic item acquisition, why even have attunement as a thing?
And nobody has a problem with this, not even people who profess a love of the old school style of D&D, which had no such mechanic either! It's a jarring change to one of the most fundamental and awesome parts of Dungeons and Dragons, to the point it almost* doesn't feel like D&D, yet I never hear anyone gripe about it!
*I say almost because there are a few magic items that actually do something extra when attuned, which really makes you feel like you've "mastered" the magic item. Kind of like being able to resist the domination of a sentient item or artifact, and getting to use it's full power. But these items are rare, and the only one I can think of off hand is the berserking axe from Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, which, when attuned, gives you....5 more hit points. Wow.
The subclasses released for fighters have been pretty powerful, especially at most levels where the game is played. Enough so that fighters, playing a powerful fighter class, are generally ahead of Wizards, Sorcerers and Bards in tier 1 and roughly equivalent to them and other full casters in the first half of tier 2.
This may be an argument that is true for Barbarians and Monks, but if you pick the better subclasses it is not generally true for fighters except at relatively high levels.
I think the lions share of the design for PCs since the PHB is in the subclasses, not in the spells and if you look at the number of pages devoted to spells vs subclasses in the tomes published since then, I think that will proven out, and I don't think martials are generally lacking there.
People repeat the same old arguments to support their position even when those arguments are no longer true and have not been true for several years.
Battlemaster maneuvers are available to EVERY fighter. Not only one subclass! Every single fighter has access to battlemaster maneuvers at 1st level, before they even choose a subclass. It is a core part of the fighter CLASS design now, and has been since Tasha's was published.
Every fighter I have played in the last 2 years has had battlemaster maneuvers. Every single one, and I have not played a single fighter with the Battlemaster subclass in that timeframe.
Last edited:
Warpiglet-7
Lord of the depths
I appreciate you pointing this out. Between superior technique and the martial adept feat you can have two dice and 3 maneuvers?
I somehow have never thought of that…I often go pure blade pact warlock but a level of fighter got more tempting.
I assume besides going battlemaster this as much as you can add?
Anyway cool.
Yes. I love superior technique, it is my favorite fighting style. I don't always pick it, but I usually do. I do get the feat sometimes, but not as much as the fighting style. The recharge on a short rest is pretty awesome too.
As far as a dip, what I really like it on is an Arcane Trickster with a 1-level fighter dip. Pick up Quick Toss and you can cast an offensive spell and still toss a dagger for sneak attack, or Quick Toss a net so you can get advantage if you otherwise lack the requirements for sneak attack (or Catapult the net of you have that spell and then quick toss the dagger).
I played a Human Arcane Archer 7/Arcane Trickster 11 (at games end) with both Martial Adept and Superior Technique. She also had Hex through Fey Touched. With the Maneuvers, Arcane Shots, Curving Shot, spells, Cunning action, Mage Hand Legerdemain, sneak attack and disadvantage on opponents perception she was a blast to play. She was bonus action starved though near games end and I had more I could do with my bonus actions than I had bonus actions available.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
