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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I don’t think that’s all that matters but it’s an important chunk.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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?

Why not ASI’s?

the only reason i excluded ASI was because i felt that ASI's impact on your effectiveness should be directly presented in the mechanics of the game and your abilities, it should be clear what INT does for a wizard and if you choose to directly subvert that impact then that's on you, but if you have two subclasses for that same wizard for which INT vastly benefits one more than the other that's the sort of thing i'm against

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Which is not an unreasonable ask, at all.

why wouldn’t you read ‘every choice should be viable’ as anything else? Like I seriously don’t get it.

Viable does not mean equally effective - which your reply is partly about due to its mention of inferior. Dex can still be better as long as wisdom is viable. It’s like you are moving in and out about what you are talking about without realizing it.

 

[FrogReaver]

the only reason i excluded ASI was because i felt that ASI's impact on your effectiveness should be directly presented in the mechanics of the game and your abilities, it should be clear what INT does for a wizard and if you choose to directly subvert that impact then that's on you, but if you have two subclasses for that same wizard for which INT vastly benefits one more than the other that's the sort of thing i'm against

Okay, but that sounds more like aesthetics than principle.

You want some choices to be non-viable, like a wisdom focused, low str and dex champion fighter, but some other choices should all be viable. That preference is perfectly fine but your not ever goina be able to make a logical case for it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

why wouldn’t you read ‘every choice should be viable’ as anything else? Like I seriously don’t get it.

Because most choices aren't alternatives to eachother.
Like, where do I put this +2 to one stat, is a choice among six stats. Class is a choice among 13 classes. Both those choices can have their options balanced & viable relative to the alternatives. That's every choice being viable.

But you could combine those choices to willfully make something sub-optimal.

You could then proceed to willfully play your character to be a detriment to the party.

The point of balance isn't to make bad play or optimal play impossible - even perfect balance, which is impossible, wouldn't accomplish that.

Viable does not mean equally effective - which your reply is partly about due to its mention of inferior.

Viability is relative to the other options, as well as the difficulty of the game. So inferior is non-viable, and strictly superior renders other choices non-viable.

but if you have two subclasses for that same wizard for which INT vastly benefits one more than the other that's the sort of thing i'm against

That'd be like a 4e "V" class, that had two possible primary stats - there were a few in the PH1. The 'Power' books went to some lengths to fix up those classes, and that sort of design was never seen again.

 

[Amrûnril]

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.

Putting aside the distinction between options and combinations of options, I absolutely want this character to be viable. While many warriors in fantasy and folklore lean heavily on physical prowess, others are unexceptional in this regard and rely on their ability to perceive their opponents' intentions, devise clever tactics, or inspire allies and intimidate foes. That 5e does a poor job of supporting such characters is, in my view, one of its major weaknesses.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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

it has nothing about liking the options the classes provide, it is about all of them being as mechanically competent at the thing they're meant to be doing as the mechanical competence of the thing the next option is meant to be doing, it's about if a fighter who is meant to be effective at fighting hitting 90% of the time if the rogue who is meant to be effective at sneaking and picking locks succedes 90% of the time for that, and for the social bard to succeed 90% of the time on social checks, or if social checks are 50% more powerful than lockpicking and stealth then the bard is comparitively less competent as the effectiveness of making their checks

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

Putting aside the distinction between options and combinations of options, I absolutely want this character to be viable. While many warriors in fantasy and folklore lean heavily on physical prowess, others are unexceptional in this regard and rely on their ability to perceive their opponents' intentions, devise clever tactics, or inspire allies and intimidate foes. That 5e does a poor job of supporting such characters is, in my view, one of its major weaknesses.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a fantasy warrior that dumped str, dex and con. They may not be the best at these things but they have enough to be at least an average warrior. Something like a 12-14 IMO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Putting aside the distinction between options and combinations of options, I absolutely want this character to be viable. While many warriors in fantasy and folklore lean heavily on physical prowess, others are unexceptional in this regard and rely on their ability to perceive their opponents' intentions, devise clever tactics, or inspire allies and intimidate foes. That 5e does a poor job of supporting such characters is, in my view, one of its major weaknesses.

Given the structure of D&D, it'd probably require an additional class. Like an INT-based warrior might be a tactician, and CHA-based one a flamboyant duelist. ....

...actually, prior to 5e, you couldn't just blythely go STR or DEX with your warrior. In 4e, it influenced your choice of class - DEX meant rogue or archery ranger, STR meant fighter or melee ranger, INT/CHA/WIS meant Warlord (and an outre build if not using STR). In 3e you could go DEX, but there was a 'feat tax' or two, and you'd be a bit less effective at melee damage. Prior to that, it wasn't even really on the table, the Rogue was by no means a warrior, and fighters (and paladins and rangers) were locked pretty firmly into STR.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a fantasy warrior that dumped str, dex and con.

One reason "all choices being viable" doesn't really imply that one would have to be doable. It may technically be a possible choice, but it's not a choice presented by the class nor suggested by any concept a player might have...

...oh, OK, I mean, well... Elric... that's one. But he could shore that up with herbal potions, and Stormbringer would pass him superhuman STR/CON from the souls it stole.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That'd be like a 4e "V" class, that had two possible primary stats - there were a few in the PH1. The 'Power' books went to some lengths to fix up those classes, and that sort of design was never seen again.

well i was more talking about one of those theoretical subclasses being SAD with the base class' main stat and the other forcing you to split your ASI distribution to scale your subclass abilities, unless of course the SAD subclass's extra INT features are significantly less powerful than the other subclass's alternate dependant stat's bonuses(or the other one's abilities are comparitively more powerful) to make up for the fact you're splitting your ASI.