D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[James Gasik]

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.

Hm. I mean, I knew the Feat existed, and I know Superior Fighting Technique existed, but I saw those as a way for an existing Battlemaster to get more dice, as they are in short supply. In fact, my own Battlemaster took the Feat just so I could use more maneuvers so I actually could feel like a tank/controller/Mini-Warlord.

But as to the Fighting Style, I have someone in the game I'm playing now who took it (not a Battlemaster) and that 1 maneuver/short rest has rarely been relevant, and the player has expressed that they probably should have taken something with an always on passive benefit because while small, they would feel it's doing something.

Am I missing something with regards to the utility of being able to use a Maneuver once and then nap compared to what other Fighting Styles bring to the table?

Further, saying that "extra Battlemaster Maneuvers is a buff for all Fighters" seems a bit wonky; that's only the case if all Fighters take the option to have them. And it still does nothing for Barbarians, Rogues, or Monks, unless they also take a Feat to have them.

EDIT: and since anyone can take that Feat, by that logic, extra Battlemaster Maneuvers is a buff to all classes.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Hm. I mean, I knew the Feat existed, and I know Superior Fighting Technique existed, but I saw those as a way for an existing Battlemaster to get more dice, as they are in short supply. In fact, my own Battlemaster took the Feat just so I could use more maneuvers so I actually could feel like a tank/controller/Mini-Warlord.

But as to the Fighting Style, I have someone in the game I'm playing now who took it (not a Battlemaster) and that 1 maneuver/short rest has rarely been relevant, and the player has expressed that they probably should have taken something with an always on passive benefit because while small, they would feel it's doing something.

Am I missing something with regards to the utility of being able to use a Maneuver once and then nap compared to what other Fighting Styles bring to the table?

Further, saying that "extra Battlemaster Maneuvers is a buff for all Fighters" seems a bit wonky; that's only the case if all Fighters take the option to have them. And it still does nothing for Barbarians, Rogues, or Monks, unless they also take a Feat to have them.

Only mentioning because I am designing a character with this new knowledge…

Taking both the fighting style and feat I think you can manage two uses per short rest. They would be replenished several times a day.

I cannot say how much buff for a fighter but with my typical blade pact warlock it would recharge with spells/smites and be very useful.

I think it would be much more fun than a +1 to AC.

 

[James Gasik]

Only mentioning because I am designing a character with this new knowledge…

Taking both the fighting style and feat I think you can manage two uses per short rest. They would be replenished several times a day.

I cannot say how much buff for a fighter but with my typical blade pact warlock it would recharge with spells/smiths and be very useful.

I think it would be much more fun than a +1 to AC.

More fun? Yes. More effective? Difficult to say. Or how about +2 damage if you use a shield?

I mean, it's like Flex. Sure, maybe +1 damage on all attacks, stacking with Dueling was really strong. But everyone rejected it because of how boring it was, lol.

OTOH, you can use other Masteries whenever you want, not limited to x per short rest, so it's not quite the same.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

More fun? Yes. More effective? Difficult to say. Or how about +2 damage if you use a shield?

I mean, it's like Flex. Sure, maybe +1 damage on all attacks, stacking with Dueling was really strong. But everyone rejected it because of how boring it was, lol.

OTOH, you can use other Masteries whenever you want, not limited to x per short rest, so it's not quite the same.

All good questions.

With a blade pact warlock you can do some fun things—-including lunge and hit someone without a thrown weapon with a smite. Shoving is tactically interesting! 15ft…off the bridge no less.

Over a whole day maybe a plus 2 damage if using a shield may be stastically “effective” but some of those maneuvers might change a combat in a big way.

Knock and enemy 15 feet back to allow people to run away with not opportunity attack. Knock the enemy back and close and bar the door behind him…

Make an enemy scared and use it to advantage…

It’s not every battle probably…but having say two maneuvers used every other battle or one per would be notable (we usually short rest a time or two per adverting day ymmv

Not earth shattering but I think it could be interesting and fun. It is unusual for me to miss a combo like this so late in the games life cycle. Whatever the case glad I was killing time on ENWorld today

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

In the aesthetics of character concept, particularly in the distinction between martial and spellcaster, making a class a spellcaster would . . . make them a spellcaster.

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).

Well, yes. If one aesthetic is lacking in power, then bringing it closer to balance with the others is going to make it more powerful.

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.

There are currently around six hundred spells in 5e. You want to compare numbers of class ability options between spellcasters and martials, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say . . .

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.

By the same reasoning, all Fighters have access to spells.

 

[Oofta]

In the aesthetics of character concept, particularly in the distinction between martial and spellcaster, making a class a spellcaster would . . . make them a spellcaster.


Well, yes. If one aesthetic is lacking in power, then bringing it closer to balance with the others is going to make it more powerful.


There are currently around six hundred spells in 5e. You want to compare numbers of class ability options between spellcasters and martials, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say . . .

By the same reasoning, all Fighters have access to spells.

It doesn't matter how many spells there are. There could be ten thousand, your PC is still only going to have a few and have even fewer prepared.

That and there are more important things than what's on the character sheet as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ECMO3]

Hm. I mean, I knew the Feat existed, and I know Superior Fighting Technique existed, but I saw those as a way for an existing Battlemaster to get more dice, as they are in short supply. In fact, my own Battlemaster took the Feat just so I could use more maneuvers so I actually could feel like a tank/controller/Mini-Warlord.

I am not talking about the feat, although that is available too. Superior Technique is a fighting style available to any fighter and as I said it is the most common one I take when I play a fighter (with Defense being second and Archery being a distant third)

But as to the Fighting Style, I have someone in the game I'm playing now who took it (not a Battlemaster) and that 1 maneuver/short rest has rarely been relevant, and the player has expressed that they probably should have taken something with an always on passive benefit because while small, they would feel it's doing something.

Then they probably picked a bad maneuver. 1 use every short rest is nominally 1 use every 6-7 rounds of combat if you play 2 battles per short rest. If you play fewer fights then that it is more.

It is difficult to comment specifically because I don't know the build of the player, but on a Ranged fighter Menacing attack is the bees knees, on an EK quick toss is awesome (for the same reason noted on an Arcane Trickster above and because you can use it to finish nearly dead enemies without waiting a turn), on a GWM melee build precision or commanders strike are both great.

The great thing about commanders strike on a GWM build is you use it when you can't easily get into melee position in the opening round of combat when you can't close. So you throw your one javelin and then you have your Rogue take an off-turn sneak attack, without CS you would usually only be making a single attack in those circumstances. It is also great when you down someone, have an attack left and can't make it to the next enemy.

On a Rune Knight grappling strike is pretty awesome letting you grapple giants and dragons and similar without an action.

What makes it ST good though is you can get the maneuver and then get a subclass with better abilities than a Battlemaster. You are not stuck being a battlemaster for them.

Am I missing something with regards to the utility of being able to use a Maneuver once and then nap compared to what other Fighting Styles bring to the table?

Yes it is awesome! Control is almost always more effective than damage. Being able to frighten one enemy once every other battle (more often in most games) will usually eliminate an entire enemy attack action on a failed save.

The only other fighting style that is as effective generally IMO is defense and only then if you are really making a very high AC build and your table sticks to 2 fights per short rest. Archery can boost damage a lot if you also get the Sharpshooter, but then you need to get the feat too, giving up an ASI or another feat. Going Arcane Archer for curving shot is going to boost it more than Archery FS will.

Further, saying that "extra Battlemaster Maneuvers is a buff for all Fighters" seems a bit wonky; that's only the case if all Fighters take the option to have them.

I did not say they were a buff for all fighters, I said they are available to all fighters. You can call that wonky, but it is factually true.

And it still does nothing for Barbarians, Rogues, or Monks, unless they also take a Feat to have them.

As I noted in my post.

EDIT: and since anyone can take that Feat, by that logic, extra Battlemaster Maneuvers is a buff to all classes.

This is also true, but when I expand the discussion to include feats the typical response is they don't count because they are optional.

 

[ECMO3]

In the aesthetics of character concept, particularly in the distinction between martial and spellcaster, making a class a spellcaster would . . . make them a spellcaster.

It makes them a martial spellcaster, absolutlely. Like all Paladins Ranger and some Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Monks.

Characters of every class can already cast spells, and they can do it even if you play without any feats.

Is a Drow Barbarian a martial? Because they cast spells even if you are playing without "optional" feats.

You are really going to have to narrow down the definition of martial if you want it to mean completely incapable of casting spells.

Well, yes. If one aesthetic is lacking in power, then bringing it closer to balance with the others is going to make it more powerful.

Yes, but they don't care about balance except with that aesthetic. That is the point, it is the aesthetic that matters, not the actual balance.

There are currently around six hundred spells in 5e. You want to compare numbers of class ability options between spellcasters and martials, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say . . .

I think my metric was page numbers, not numbers of spells and I think I said specifically in manuals published since the PHB (in reply to someone whom talked about what other books gave us).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It doesn't matter how many spells there are. There could be ten thousand, your PC is still only going to have a few and have even fewer prepared.

That and there are more important things than what's on the character sheet as far as I'm concerned.

Yes? But in terms of the claim that I was addressing ("Most of the class options are found in subclasses, not spells"). I thought that a quick fact check was in order.
And yes, a spellcaster will probably only have (Ability mod + half level) of these class abilities, chosen (often daily) from a few hundred that they can use in addition to their base class and subclass abilities.

It makes them a martial spellcaster, absolutlely. Like all Paladins Ranger and some Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Monks.

Characters of every class can already cast spells, and they can do it even if you play without any feats.

Is a Drow Barbarian a martial? Because they cast spells even if you are playing without "optional" feats.

You are really going to have to narrow down the definition of martial if you want it to mean completely incapable of casting spells.

Gee it sounds like those are all things that a player of a martial class can opt into, rather than base abilities and aesthetic of the class itself.

Yes, but they don't care about balance except with that aesthetic. That is the point, it is the aesthetic that matters, not the actual balance.

Isn't it both? It is the wish to have an Aesthetic (the character concept) that is more balanced with other classes (specifically variety of options particularly out of combat.)

I think my metric was page numbers, not numbers of spells and I think I said specifically in manuals published since the PHB (in reply to someone whom talked about what other books gave us).

If you would rather use that metric, then I eagerly await the figures you are going to provide to back up your claim.

 

[ECMO3]

Gee it sounds like those are all things that a player of a martial class can opt into, rather than base abilities and aesthetic of the class itself.

No. Paladins and Rangers don't opt into that, spells are an integral part of those classes.

Anything you do to boost martial classes is going to be something you don't opt into and will change the aestheetic of the class.

The question is supposedly how to change it to achieve this "balance" some players want and the relevant point in this discussion is that it is A LOT more about advancing the aesthetic THOSE INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS want than it is about actually achieving balance.

I also noted you did not answer my question - Is a Drow Barbarian a martial?

Isn't it both? It is the wish to have an Aesthetic (the character concept) that is more balanced with other classes (specifically variety of options particularly out of combat.)

No it is not this for several reasons.

Firist it is to advance their specific aesthetic, to balance with that aesthetic and to the exclusion of others that don't meet their goals.

Second variety of options out of combat is not a universal commplaint. There are people that want this, but there are also a lot that want to achieve balance in combat, and if you look at the recommendations by the "balance crowd" most of the recommendations are primarily combat related.

Finally, there are already many options and choices for out of combat already based on how you choose to distribute ability scores, subclass selection and feats. The whole idea that martials can't be good out of combat is just plain false. The players complaining about this just choose to build fighters that are not good out of combat.

For example, an 8th Rune Knight can take her extra feat in skilled and have the same number of ASIs left as every other class. Compared to most Rogues of the same race with the same rolls, she will have the same ability distribution, 1 more skill proficiency, advantage on Slight of Hand, Deception, Animal Handling, Intimidation and Arcana checks. In addition to this she gets extra attack, the other combat abilities from the 3 runes, Giants might, Runic Shield, a fighting style (which can be applied to out of combat uses) and action surge. That character can be awesome both out of combat and in combat and that is without even choosing an out of combat leaning race like Half Elf, Damphir, Hexblood or Wood Elf.

If you would rather use that metric, then I eagerly await the figures you are going to provide to back up your claim.

Here are the page counts from the books I currently have with me that have been published after the PHB. Page counts are all rounded up:

VGTR: 4 pages of classes/subclasses, 0 pages of spells
FTOD: 5 pages of classes/subclasses, 4 pages of spells
SODQ: 3 pages on a subclass, 0 pages of spells
XGE: 53 pages of classes/subclasses, 25 pages of spells
TCE: 70 pages of classes/subclasses, 12 pages of spells
SCAG: 21 pages of classes/subclasses, 2 pages of spells

So that is 156 pages of material on classes and subclasses and 43 pages of material on spells published since the PHB in the official game materials I have printed and on hand. I know there are both spells and subclass options published in other books as well, so this is not a complete list. But I don't think it is going to change that distribution significantly.