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

[Vaalingrade]

Are they wanting it because it's magical or because the non magic options kinda suck?

The sucking part.

The game simply doesn't even really try to do many abilities that aren't magical in some way, and these that do seem to be treated as WAY more powerful than they are and relegated many, many levels higher than magical counterparts, often tied to that Short Rest you're not going to get.

Edit: Or else still predicated on the idea that you're straight up not going to get to use abilities during most encounters and resort to Attack Attack Attack.

 

[Minigiant]

This really does not show this to be true for two reasons.

First off all of the PHB options are the most popular, because the PHB is the most popular book and those subclasses are the most available to use. Many tables do not use other books and in fact in 2020 a lot of gamers were using Adventurers League and they used to limit the number of books you were even allowed to use at the table. This is underscored by the fact that Eldritch Knight is third on that list, is not non-magical at all and is in the PHB. This conflates availiblity with popularity.

I didn't say everyone wants to play nonmagical fighters.
I say many want to play nonmagical fighters.
I also said many don't like WOTC's OS design for nonmagical fighters.

2 of the 4 nonmagical fighters that aren't in the PHB are at the bottom of the list despite being more available. One the Gunslinger was free. The other is Samurai and Samurai will always be cool.

WOTC straight up stopped making nonmagical fighters after XTGE. So it's Champion or Battlemaster as most people's only options for a nonmagical nonSamurai fighter unless your DM is running firearms.

hen you have to contend with the #1 fighter subclass WOTC produced had sub-60% satisfaction until 2023.

The WOTC produced nonmagical fighter options are just not beloved. Except Samurai.

This also does not mean non-magical fighters are actually popular unless you are also looking at races, feats and subclasses. It just means those subclasses are popular, but it does not mean their characters are not magical.

I can't remember a single non-magical fighter PC in play in 5E beyond level 4. I have seen a lot of Battlemasters and Champions and a few Cavaliers, also one PDK and one Samaurai in play on the tables I played at. All of those are non-magical class/subclass combos but all of them also brought substantial magic to the table from other parts of their character build.

It was your earlier post about what 5E fans want, and your assertion that the original PHB fighters are OSR designs that really brought me to that conclusion. You do see people playing those "old fashioned" PHB subclasses, but they modernize them with magic through other options outside of the class and subclass.

That begs the question.

Are DMs allowing 3PP nonmagical fighter subclasses?

If not, then a boom of fighters with nonmagical subclasses but magical feats and races to boost their versatility or power to want 5e fans want would be expected.

My suspicion is that many fans have adjusted those Old Fashioned Fighters with magic feats and races to update them. They'd prefer not to, hence the low Champion satisfaction score in 2020.

 

[ECMO3]

I didn't say everyone wants to play nonmagical fighters.
I say many want to play nonmagical fighters.

I don't think that is true, except for as you alluded to a few grodnards left over from earlier editions. I think most 5E players do not want non-magic characters of any kind.

I also said many don't like WOTC's OS design for nonmagical fighters.

I think this is true as far as the Champion and Battlemaster, but I think the lack of magic in them is itself the biggest problem with them.

WOTC straight up stopped making nonmagical fighters after XTGE. So it's Champion or Battlemaster as most people's only options for a nonmagical nonSamurai fighter unless your DM is running firearms.

In many if not most 5E campaings gunpowder or smokepowder itself is explicitly magical, so calling a gunslinger or firearms non-magical is a bit of a stretch in 5E. It is non-magical in some, but not most.

In Dragon Heist for example Dispel Magic will render firearms inoperable.

I agree that WOTC stopped making non-magic fighters and I think that is because most players don't want non-magic fighter. They will play them and make due by getting magic elsewhere, but I don't think players generally want that in the modern game.

That begs the question.

Are DMs allowing 3PP nonmagical fighter subclasses?

Few are IME.

I did play a non-magic 3P sublcass in one campaign. It was Zhentilar's finest and it was a blast, but it was not particularly powerful in combat, not any better than Battlemaster I don't think. It did have some cool things it brought to the table in terms of ability to intimidate people that was fun though. I also played as a Shaddar-Kai and multiclassed to a Fey Wanderer. So while it was a 3P "non-magic fighter subclass", it was not a non-magic PC.

That is the only 3P fighter subclass I have seen played personally.

If not, then a boom of fighters with nonmagical subclasses but magical feats and races to boost their versatility or power to want 5e fans want would be expected.

My suspicion is that many fans have adjusted those Old Fashioned Fighters with magic feats and races to update them. They'd prefer not to, hence the low Champion satisfaction score in 2020.

My suspicion is fans don't want non-magic PCs of any type. Boosting your fighter with race and feat options is not very powerful compared to other methods and in terms of feats, once you have chosen fighter and a non-magic subclass it is generally less flexible than non-magical feats like Skill Expert or Prodigy.

I think it is like someone said earlier, a fighter is iconic and people want to play a "fighter", but they don't want to play something that is tied to weapons and armor and skill checks and can't cast spells or use magic-flavored effects.

Obviously there are some leftovers from 1E or 3E that want that kind of PC, but I believe most don't in the modern game.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this is true as far as the Champion and Battlemaster, but I think the lack of magic in them is itself the biggest problem with them.

I disagree.

I think the biggest issue is the limited number and limitiations of nonmagical options.

Magic/Artificer/Eldridge Adept and X of the X Giant/Dragon offer more customization and versatility than the nonmagical subclasses.
The nonmagical fighter subclasses are all either MOAR DAMAGE or bad. Because they were geared to grognards.

Even feats and multiclasses were optional and poorly balanced as a concession to grognards.

And since 5e has a slow schedule, the creep out of Grognardia to the New Age was slow. And magical.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I assume you're referring to 4e? I thought they were quite good in the TSR editions as well.

They were effective in the old editions (loved having good saving throws), but... I remember how overshadowing having an elf fighter/magic-user along was even then, someone who could choose from multiple things to do.

 

[James Gasik]

asking as someone who has little to no knowledge of AD&D, care to elaborate on that/the nature of magic items in that edition?

ECMO3 covered most of this, of course. The idea is that 1) magical items were more common overall, and the frequency they appeared rose with level. There was a good mix of utility and effectiveness in items, with some truly oddball items that just oozed flavor. You had looser restrictions on how many you could use, so a decently high level character likely has quite a few low powered items at their disposal.

In addition, the magic item tables (and presumably, the adventures) were skewed to provide items tailored to warrior types.

 

[FrogReaver]

NOTE: I've pretty much given up on this conversation because it never, ever goes anywhere. Just pointing out that when people play, being flashy isn't all that important for some of us. I still feel like I contribute just as much or more to overcoming combat and non-combat encounters overall when I play a fighter.

I keep hearing this, but the one thing those that say fighters contribute equally never do is show numbers of any kind to back that up. Be they white room, actual game play, etc.

 

[ECMO3]

I keep hearing this, but the one thing those that say fighters contribute equally never do is show numbers of any kind to back that up. Be they white room, actual game play, etc.

Those that say fighters can't contribute as much never show numbers either.

As I have said previously, class mechanics are not what drives level of contribution, player personality, table dynamics and story elements are. Class mechanics are almost irrelevant to level of contribution.

For my part I have given multiple specific examples good and bad from games I am playing or have played in. As for "numbers", I offer the following real games streamed on Youtube:






All of those videos have fighters in them and you can get hard numbers if you take a stopwatch and record the amount of time each specific character is doing something. If you do that you will find a pretty even dispersion on how much contribution the fighters get in comparison to the other PCs at the table. In some of those games the fighters get little time, others have fighters in the middle and most importantly on one of those streams has 2 fighters and 3 full casters in the party and the 2 fighters get the most screentime of any of the 5 players.

Do those videos count as good examples for this discussion?

 

[FrogReaver]

Those that say fighters can't contribute as much never show numbers either.

As I have said previously class mechanics are not what drives level of contribution, player personality, table dynamics and story elements are. Class mechanics are almost irrelevant to level of contribution.

For my part I have given multiple specific examples of this from play on this very thread. As for "numbers", I offer the following from real games on Youtube:






All of those videos have fighters in them and if you take out your stopwatch you will find a pretty even dispersion on how much contribution the fighters get in comparison to the other PCs at the table. In some of those games the fighters getting little time, others with fighters in the middle and I will note one of those streams is a level 20 with 2 fighters and 3 full casters in the party and the 2 fighters get the most screentime of any of the 5 players.

Do those videos count as good numbers for this discussion?

IMO No. Screen time can be balanced independently of mechanical contribution. It’s like talking about oranges when the rest of us talk apples.

 

[FrogReaver]

Those that say fighters can't contribute as much never show numbers either.

Also, this is flat out wrong