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

[FrogReaver]

I don't think the ability to willfully build a bad character ever disappears from any TTRPG, that, y'know, lets you build your character.

It does if all choices are viable as was being advocated for in the post I responded to.

 

[Oofta]

what's wrong with wanting all options a class provides to be viable? and i'm not talking about 'well technically you could build a tanky martial sorcerer with feats and species choice and stat distribution', i mean stuff like how beastmaster ranger or 5 elements monk which are pretty core class themes but which are just executed totally ineffectively.

Every PC I have ever made, no matter what class, has had viable options. But the game can't be everything for everyone. There are a couple of subclasses I don't care for (for that matter I don't care for warlocks) so I just don't play them. Nothing is perfect, I fail to see the issue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It does if all choices are viable as was being advocated for in the post I responded to.

You underestimate willfully ...

...by the same token, no degree of achievable balance precludes optimization.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You really want to be able to make a single classed fighter viable that dumps str, con and dex and picks up int, Wis, cha?

I don’t think that should be a viable option.

i did not say that, in fact in that very message i explicitly stated that sort of thing was not what i meant

and i'm not talking about 'well technically you could build a tanky martial sorcerer with feats and species choice and stat distribution'

i just meant that all the options a class directly presents to you, in subclasses, maneuvres, fighting styles, ki uses, eldritch invocations and all other sorts of class abilities that are part of the class structures should be equally useful for their given applications and that their applications are equally useful, or at least as proportionally useful to the frequency of their potential application

 

[FrogReaver]

i did not say that, in fact in that very message i explicitly stated that sort of thing was not what i meant

I didn’t take that to mean ASI’s werent the kind of thing out of scope - speaking of - why are ASIs out of scope for that kind of thing? And does their being out of scope kind of prove the point that we don’t actually want every choice to be viable?

i just meant that all the options a class directly presents to you, in subclasses, maneuvres, fighting styles, ki uses, eldritch invocations and all other sorts of class abilities that are part of the class structures should be equally useful for their given applications and that their applications are equally useful, or at least as proportionally useful to the frequency of their potential application

Why not ASI’s?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Every PC I have ever made, no matter what class, has had viable options. But the game can't be everything for everyone. There are a couple of subclasses I don't care for (for that matter I don't care for warlocks) so I just don't play them. Nothing is perfect, I fail to see the issue.

not being what you or i want is not the same thing as not being as equally mechanically viable as the rest of the potential options, i am not asking for every class option to cater to my playstyle, i am asking for every class option to be as individually mechanically effective as each other at the things they are each individually meant to do.

it's really not that complicated.

 

[FrogReaver]

You underestimate willfully ...

No. You underestimate the meaning of ‘all options should be viable’ - which necessarily precludes willfully creating a bad character.

...by the same token, no degree of achievable balance precludes optimization.

I agree. But we are talking on the theoretical level and not just the practical.

 

[Oofta]

i did not say that, in fact in that very message i explicitly stated that sort of thing was not what i meant

i just meant that all the options a class directly presents to you, in subclasses, maneuvres, fighting styles, ki uses, eldritch invocations and all other sorts of class abilities that are part of the class structures should be equally useful for their given applications and that their applications are equally useful, or at least as proportionally useful to the frequency of their potential application

Nothing is perfect, I don't expect it to be.

 

[Oofta]

not being what you or i want is not the same thing as not being as equally mechanically viable as the rest of the potential options, i am not asking for every class option to cater to my playstyle, i am asking for every class option to be as individually mechanically effective as each other at the things they are each individually meant to do.

it's really not that complicated.

Which to me means "I don't like the options so therefore they are not as 'individually mechanically effective'" whatever that means.

The different classes, different builds, have different targets and goals. They may or may not hit those targets and goals 100% of the time for each specific subclass because that's not possible. It's also a subjective judgement on what should be important and how well anything hits the goal.

We're just never going to agree. I simply don't think that any measurement of balance, mechanical effectiveness as judged by you, really matters. All that matters is whether people enjoy playing the game and have alternative choices of class or subclass in order to find something that suits their needs. I think 5E does that reasonably well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. You underestimate the meaning of ‘all options should be viable’ - which necessarily precludes willfully creating a bad character.

I wouldn't read that as implying that every combination of options being viable. Like, you could balance stats so that STR and INT aren't inferior to DEX, for instance, but DEX might still be the better way to go with a class that emphasizes, y'know, DEX stuff.

, i am asking for every class option to be as individually mechanically effective as each other at the things they are each individually meant to do.

Which is not an unreasonable ask, at all.

Why intentionally present bad or OP options?