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

[Zardnaar]

You mention the Rune Knight as if it is a fighter subclass in 5E, but it should not be regarded as available by your logic and statements.

Your exact quote above:
"No fighters cant swap subclasses"

Replacing your words above with the Rune Knight subclass:
"No fighters can't be Rune Knights"

If one of those statements is true because of optional rules, then both statements are true.



Right, but you talk about one of these things like it is available in 5E and then point to another and say explicitly it isn't available, going as far as saying you "can't" do it.

Rube knight may be available but the fighter swap isn't. Or vice versa so it's not a contradictory thing.

Both are cgeck with DM first if you want to use those rules imho.

Just because one may be allowed doesn't mean the other makes it in because both are technically optional.

Archetypes are generally allowed mire than rules like fighter swaps or the flanking rules.

 

[Zardnaar]

For me personally in the games I DM, any WOTC character build choice is available. Period. I see that as part of player agency. If players want to "ruin the game" with OP options being used outside of how they are intended or in combinations that the designers did not forsee that is their purview. Some may say it breaks the story, but the PC character build is mostly the player's story, not mine. So as long as it is within the rules, I won't get in the way of that. If other players have an issue, that is kind of on the players to solve between them or in the social contract before session 1. IME it is rarely/never a problem for other players.

When you consider things like Dragonlance or Strixhaven backgrounds, those are explicitly OP options compared to other backgrounds, yet I have never banned them outside of those settings. I have also never had a player want to choose one of them outside of Dragonlance (I have never played Strixhaven).

As far as being a problem for me as DM. I have the ultimate trump card. I can scale encounters and I can challenge any possible build, making new monsters from scratch if necessary. Players can build an OP character, but they can not build a character too OP for a DM to challenge.

Rules that are not part of character design or character build are typically discussed in session 0. Things like tumble (usually allowed), flanking (never allowed), climb on monster (always allowed), marking (typically not allowed) .....

Usually, I know what I like best and works best for games I have played before, but usually I am up for a discussion if someone really wants or does not want something. If I was faced with the "martial issues" many on this thread have seen I would allow marking every time. I have played with it, and in generally think it is a negative, but I could be swayed if players wanted it, but when I have used it, it has been an overall negative. Flanking has been a huge negative when we have used it.

In games I play as a player it varies, but in general most DMs allow most if not all character build options.



This is something I find irritating on this board. I know it is me and I shouldn't, but rolling is the default method and a lot of players do it. I would venture more roll abilities than any other single method.

It does generate wide variation in balance, yet it has been the primary way to generate abilities for most of the nearly 50 years of D&D and the game did well with it. This is part of why I don't think balance is the holy grail many do.

More like if you're discussing rules online you need some common ground. Rolling has a lot of variables.

I've seen good monks being played in 3.5 and 5E. But in both scenarios said players rolled very well.

Under stat array I wouldn't pick one.

 

[FrogReaver]

But where do you draw the line? The Optional Class Features in Tasha's are used fairly regularly, as I understand it, so that's an optional rule that is used a lot. But then this other optional rule in the same book is somehow not worth discussing?

Personally, that the things I have a strong notion are common amongst most tables. That get's a bit messy and subjective - but that's the line.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't imagine seeing most DM's being ok with "oh sure, just switch your subclass", mostly because I endured decades of "retraining" being considered a dirty word (even in 3.5, you had to jump through a great many hoops to do it, and that was a game where you had to plan out characters levels in advance, and most new books came with great new options gated behind very specific choices)!

Well, in older versions especially, there was a notion that strong later options were gated behind sucky now options. Being able to willy nilly change aspects of your character would break that 'balance framework' - not that it was a particularly compelling one, but I get why under that kind of design that retraining was seen as 'bad' almost like 'having your cake and eating it too', which most people associate with 'cheating'.

It's like how Feats, Multiclassing, and Magic Items are all optional, but discussions about classes always mention the first two, but everyone admits that the third is this hazy and nebulous thing that's very campaign-dependent, when, really, all three are.

All 3 are generally allowed for most tables - the issue for magic items isn't whether they are allowed, but player control of magic items isn't assumed anymore and so making a character reliant on any particular selections of them isn't reliable.

Or how rolling for ability scores is the default rule, but in discussions, it's treated as "lol if you want to destroy game balance" and optional point buy is assumed, lol.

1. In practice I think point buy is now more prevalent than rolling. 2. Fairly impossible to discuss class design and balance when a well rolled character of a class and a poorly rolled one will be quite different in potential effectiveness.

Our discussions are based around unwritten assumptions and there's no clear indication of what those assumptions are (outside of just posting for awhile and seeing how people tend to react...or making a poll or something, I guess).

Yes. But those particular unwritten assumptions exist for a reason. We didn't just make them up by fiat.

 

[James Gasik]

Ever since point buy became the default for a lot of tables, I've pointed out that how "balanced" it is, really depends on the class. Some classes do just fine with one or two high ability scores (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue), others can flounder unless they have several (looking at you, Monk*).

*I know the Monk has it better than say, 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, but being pulled in two directions simultaneously to determine offense, defense, and save DC's isn't great for a melee-focused class, IMO.

Sure, rolling can create lopsided characters, where one player will struggle while another seems to live a charmed existence. I've attempted a lot of different ways to combat this over the years. In my current game, each player rolled an array and the players could choose whichever one they wanted. I've also tried higher point buy or more generous rolling techniques (some of which have totally backfired, lol).

I do think balance is important, but I don't agree that point buy is some pinnacle of fairness either. Not that I'm going to persuade anyone otherwise, lol.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ever since point buy became the default for a lot of tables, I've pointed out that how "balanced" it is, really depends on the class. Some classes do just fine with one or two high ability scores (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue), others can flounder unless they have several (looking at you, Monk*).

Casters generally need 3 high stats. Dex/Str, Con, Relevant Mental Stat.

But yes, Fighters, Rogues only really need 2. Moon Druids don't really need any. But outside those most classes need 3 stats.

*I know the Monk has it better than say, 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, but being pulled in two directions simultaneously to determine offense, defense, and save DC's isn't great for a melee-focused class, IMO.

Sure, rolling can create lopsided characters, where one player will struggle while another seems to live a charmed existence. I've attempted a lot of different ways to combat this over the years. In my current game, each player rolled an array and the players could choose whichever one they wanted. I've also tried higher point buy or more generous rolling techniques (some of which have totally backfired, lol).

Point buy has 1 parameter that is rarely ever adjusted but probably should be - the total points.

It would make the method alot more interesting.

I do think balance is important, but I don't agree that point buy is some pinnacle of fairness either. Not that I'm going to persuade anyone otherwise, lol.

I think if you step back from trying to compare to absolute fairness, it's simply - of the alternatives, point buy is the most fair.

 

[Zardnaar]

Casters generally need 3 high stats. Dex/Str, Con, Relevant Mental Stat.

But yes, Fighters, Rogues only really need 2. Moon Druids don't really need any. But outside those most classes need 3 stats.


Point buy has 1 parameter that is rarely ever adjusted but probably should be - the total points.

It would make the method alot more interesting.


I think if you step back from trying to compare to absolute fairness, it's simply - of the alternatives, point buy is the most fair.

Point buy/default arrays the best for discussing balance.

Spellcasters like 1 high score two moderate ones. You can always get a minimum of 14,14,16 under default array.

Monks like 3 high scores, dex wisdom, con. d12 hit dice would help a lot with default array.

Pretty much every class is SAD up to a point with 12/14 or 14/14 in your secondary and tertiary stats being fine.

Except monks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Point buy/default arrays the best for discussing balance.

Spellcasters like 1 high score two moderate ones. You can always get a minimum of 14,14,16 under default array.

Monks like 3 high scores, dex wisdom, con. d12 hit dice would help a lot with default array.

Pretty much every class is SAD up to a point with 12/14 or 14/14 in your secondary and tertiary stats being fine.

Except monks.

IMO. Monks are fine with 14/14 in secondary and tertiary stats. It's just like most skirmishing classes they are a little squishy early on.

 

[Zardnaar]

IMO. Monks are fine with 14/14 in secondary and tertiary stats. It's just like most skirmishing classes they are a little squishy early on.

That's most of the game that matters.

Hence why I said d12 hit dice mostly fixes them. Con becomes less important as they can focus on dex ad wisdom.

Got the d12 idea from Castles and Crusades. Comparatively their monk just looks better than the 5E one.

AC will be lower (12 to 14) but must C&C early gane monsters only have +1 or 2 to hit so functionally similar to 5E.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's most of the game that matters.

Hence why I said d12 hit dice mostly fixes them. Con becomes less important as they can focus on dex ad wisdom.

Got the d12 idea from Castles and Crusades. Comparatively their monk just looks better than the 5E one.

AC will be lower (12 to 14) but must C&C early gane monsters only have +1 or 2 to hit so functionally similar to 5E.

In 5e - Assuming a 16/14/14 a monk has 15 AC. That's more than a rogue at level 1 with a 16/14/14.

 

[Zardnaar]

In 5e - Assuming a 16/14/14 a monk has 15 AC. That's more than a rogue at level 1 with a 16/14/14.

True I found my monk very good level 1-4.

It's the lack of feat support that gets you.

I had rolled stats wood elf master of fists. Barely bothered using stunning strike just flurry and tripping a lot.

Stats were something like 16, 18, 20 best 3.