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

[FrozenNorth]

If that were true, it would indeed be a problem. Fortunately, it's not. You don't need expertise to contribute, but you can take a feat to get it if you feel it's necessary. In a game with bounded accuracy you don't need ability scores of 20 to be good enough at a skill. You don't need proficiencies at all to contribute to the decision making and role play aspects of the game.

We were specifically talking about new players. My experience with new players is that until they are more experienced, they will look for a button to press on their character sheets.

Rogues have a lot of those buttons, due to having more skills than anyone else and having expertise in some of those skills. As well as the fact that unless someone took the Criminal background, they are likely the only character that can pick locks.

Fighters do not. They also suffer from the fact that they tend to be outclassed in knowledge skills by Int classes, Wis skills by Wis classes, and Cha skills by Cha classes.

 

[Oofta]

We were specifically talking about new players. My experience with new players is that until they are more experienced, they will look for a button to press on their character sheets.

Rogues have a lot of those buttons, due to having more skills than anyone else and having expertise in some of those skills. As well as the fact that unless someone took the Criminal background, they are likely the only character that can pick locks.

Fighters do not. They also suffer from the fact that they tend to be outclassed in knowledge skills by Int classes, Wis skills by Wis classes, and Cha skills by Cha classes.

In my experience, new players can make their own decisions on what kind of players they want and still have plenty of options to contribute no matter what class they play. There is nothing stopping a fighter from being decent at alternative skills. In a game I play with newbies we lost the rogue because the player moved so the dex based fighter is now the substitute rogue. It works just fine. As with all newbies I give hints and opportunities for them to contribute, but that would be the same no matter what class they played.

Fighter works fine for newbies because it's simple. If they want, they can dive right into any class. As long as they start at level 1 and the game spends enough time at lower levels for them to grasp the concepts, several classes work just fine.

 

[Minigiant]

I've never seen this happen or people who've played Champions feel others were having more fun simply because they got to roll dice more often

I have.

Literally "How come he rolls more dice if I'm the master swordsman? "

And I find the idea of people playing monks and sorceres moaning about anything funny. Monk is one of the most popular classes in the games I've played in with lots of attacks, fun abilities, and stunning strike can change an encounter, and sorcerers with twinned spell (the double Chaos Bolt combo if your DM allows--which IME they all do) a sorcerer has a fun and exciting way to potentially cause a lot of damage.

Monk and Sorcerer are actually on the lower side of middle of the pack.

Mostly because their mechanics are wonky and rely on gimmicks and overturned options to work.

 

[Oofta]

I have.

Literally "How come he rolls more dice if I'm the master swordsman? "

Sounds like they shouldn't have been playing a champion then. I mean, I've never heard anyone say that and I've had people that played fighters who would have been better off playing champions because even though they played to 20th level the number of times they used their battle master abilities could have been counted on one hand.

Monk and Sorcerer are actually on the lower side of middle of the pack.

Mostly because their mechanics are wonky and rely on gimmicks and overturned options to work.

I played a monk and had a lot of fun. He was one of the more effective members of the team.

 

[Minigiant]

Sounds like they shouldn't have been playing a champion then. I mean, I've never heard anyone say that and I've had people that played fighters who would have been better off playing champions because even though they played to 20th level the number of times they used their battle master abilities could have been counted on one hand

Exactly.
They should have been playing a subclass that doesn't exist.

Or a class that doesn't exist.

I played a monk and had a lot of fun. He was one of the more effective members of the team.

Monks being fun doesn't mean it lacks pain points and design flaws.

WOTC just put out a video about them fixing a TON of monk issues an hour ago. Which means monks had issues

"I had fun" doesn't mean "Everyone has fun".

 

[Oofta]

Exactly.
They should have been playing a subclass that doesn't exist.

Or a class that doesn't exist.

No. They should have played one of several other subclasses. Or your group should have looked at 3PP. Or accept that nothing will ever be perfect, or perhaps that D&D isn't the right game for them because no game can be the right one for everyone.

Monks being fun doesn't mean it lacks pain points and design flaws.

WOTC just put out a video about them fixing a TON of monk issues an hour ago. Which means monks had issues

"I had fun" doesn't mean "Everyone has fun".

"I don't like a specific class or subclass" doesn't mean "No one likes them". It doesn't mean that based on what people choose to play given a multitude of options that the most likely explanation for popularity is that people choose to play a class because they enjoy playing it. It also doesn't mean that "People like those options or all the other options that fit the game's target audience as reflected by extensive playtesting and surveys." Perhaps it means "I am not the target audience for the game."

 

[Minigiant]

No. They should have played one of several other subclasses. Or your group should have looked at 3PP. Or accept that nothing will ever be perfect, or perhaps that D&D isn't the right game for them because no game can be the right one for everyone.

I already stated officially and unofficially said class or subclass doesnt exist.

Not because the game can't handle it but that the IP holders have a light and there isn't enough money in it for 3PP.

It's not like WOTC didn't try. They UAed the Brute fighter subclass. It just outshined the Champion and thus would pull away from the PHB.

The WOTC of 2005 or 2010 would have created that subclass.

The WOTC of 2022 was on milking mode on half baked products.

 

[nevin]

Bloat is subjective. Since you can always ignore material you don't want to use, I don't really believe in it.

no bloat is extra stuff that isn't needed. It's still bloat even if you want it to be there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

no bloat is extra stuff that isn't needed. It's still bloat even if you want it to be there.

Define what is needed then. Anything past the core books? Bloat is not an objective concept. Its what people call products they don't want to exist.

 

[nevin]

no I think Bloat is when you have a lot of stuff . Now the more stuff you have the more people you have that don't want portions of it. But a lot of people don't want say Druids, or Bards but I don't think they've ever been defined as bloat.