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

[nevin]

But we know that the class has always been popular regardless of balance.

so your unbalanced completly flawed fighter always has a large number of people playing it. You made my point. It's all about what people actually want when they are not analyzing and planning and are just playing thier game.

 

[nevin]

But Monks are not really as well defined in media either.

When I was growing up as a Catholic, a Monk to me meant a Fransiscan, Benedictine or Jesuit. Translating that into D&D would mean some kind of mystic, spiritual class. Perhaps with an educator vibe as far as the Jesuits go.

If you go back to the middle ages there were militant Monks (Templars) but they are a lot closer to the D&D Paladin than to any other class.

no oriental monks in China well defined. Occidental monks in the catholic church well defined. Oriental monks in Korean literature well defined, problem is most asian countries have thier own take and own myths about what monks do, each religion same thing. Indian monks different again. When the word itself can't be used in a simple sentence without 10 different people having 10 different ideas then, you've lost before just by using the word.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's kinda the point

There 5-7 popular ideas of what a Monk is. WOTC choose maybe the 2nd least popular one and built the whole class around it because of tradition. Then they and everyone else have been throwing kludges at it to fulfill the other 5.

"Kludge" has a clear negative connotation. Do you have a better idea than what various game designers have used?

 

[Micah Sweet]

no oriental monks in China well defined. Occidental monks in the catholic church well defined. Oriental monks in Korean literature well defined, problem is most asian countries have thier own take and own myths about what monks do, each religion same thing. Indian monks different again. When the word itself can't be used in a simple sentence without 10 different people having 10 different ideas then, you've lost before just by using the word.

Modern WotC D&D hasn't really cared about real-life history in a long time.

 

[Minigiant]

so your unbalanced completly flawed fighter always has a large number of people playing it. You made my point. It's all about what people actually want when they are not analyzing and planning and are just playing thier game.

Playing it and Wanting it are 2 different things.
People play Fighter for the subclasses, not the fighter class. The fighter class is just the vehicle. The class is the cup to the subclasses' drinks.
That's why the fighter discussions are dominated by talk about their subclasses and feats.

It's probably more accurate to say there is no fighter class. There are 10 fighter classes.
Because the fighter class features are somewhat both meaningless but too important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

so your unbalanced completly flawed fighter always has a large number of people playing it. You made my point. It's all about what people actually want when they are not analyzing and planning and are just playing thier game.

Its about those things when you're trying to sell the game to the most possible customers. Not necessarily in other circumstances.

 

[Minigiant]

"Kludge" has a clear negative connotation. Do you have a better idea than what various game designers have used?

I called it kludge because kludges were used.

Better idea? You known what I'm going to say. I said it before.
Rhymes with "sore grasses".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I called it kludge because kludges were used.

Better idea? You known what I'm going to say. I said it before.
Rhymes with "sore grasses".

More classes are great, so long as you are open to the idea of literally anyone except WotC making them.

 

[ECMO3]

People play Fighter for the subclasses, not the fighter class. The fighter class is just the vehicle. The class is the cup to the subclasses' drinks.

If it provides the vehicle to what they want to play that is fine by me. Having fun in the end is what is important.

If I want certain mechanics I don't think it matters if those mechanics are called subclass features, feats, class features or things available to all classes. What is important is that I can access them.

It's probably more accurate to say there is no fighter class. There are 10 fighter classes.
Because the fighter class features are somewhat both meaningless but too important.

That is not more accurate at all. There is a fighter class defined in the PHB. Being meaningless (if that were true) is irrelevant to that observation.

What you imply here is you would prefer some of the subclass mechanics were in the class itself. That is fine, but it is fundamentally different than saying there is no fighter class.

 

[Minigiant]

More classes are great, so long as you are open to the idea of literally anyone except WotC making them.

I'm fine with that.

Unfortunately like I said before, most people are and have been designing casters.