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

[Vaalingrade]

The Wizard is bloat. If we remove it, we can add more nice things for the good classes.

 

[ECMO3]

Every single person I've played with you ran a Champion when there was another warrior type asked for edits or changed characters.

I've never seen any champion do any changes outside the rules allow. I have seen them change fighting style (IAW optional rules).

Perhaps that colors my judgement. I witnessed 4 champion fighter moaners. 2 monk moaners. And a sorcerer moaner.

I think it probably does. Using optional rules they can change subclass RAW at level 7 or 10. I've never even seen a Champion change subclass, although this has been allowed RAW in every table I have played on in the last 2 years.

The only time I have actually had a character make a change outside of what rules allow is when a newbie Rogue took Defensive Duelist at level 4 and then realized at level 5 this made Uncanny Dodge useless. The player did not actually ask for that. When she was leveling up she asked me about the uncanny dodge mechanics and I realized that she was disappointed. I actually asked her if she wanted to change to a different feat and she said yes. I think she traded it for skulker if I remember correctly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But there lies the bias.

A new martial class is bloat.
A new martial subclass is bloat.
A martial subsystem is bloat.

But wizard gets 8 subclasses, clerics get 7, and a whole chunk of the PHB is dedicated to their spells.

I say nothing is bloat. It's all just content to enjoy or ignore.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not at all.

There are so many base spells in the core book That additions automatically become bloat because there's no room for the spells to go and they end up entering unwarranted space.

Basically the bias towards magic caused this core system to have so much spells that there was nowhere to go but bloat.

The "new spells" are already in the game. That's the bias.

but you called new martial classes bloat. That doesn’t go with the number of spells being bloated as a problem.

 

[ECMO3]

If a game has three pillars and the “simple” class can only really contribute to one of them, that is, in itself a problem.

This is just flat not true if the simple class is a fighter.

I find people who say this tend to dump all their ability priorities into strength, Constitution and Dexterity and then on top of that pick a combat-oriented subclass and or feats and wonder why they suck at the non-combat pillar.

Play the "simple class" on point buy, play a Variant Human Rune Knight, put a 12 in Strength, 8 Intelligence, 10 Constitution, 16 in Dexterity, 15 in Charisma and 14 Wisdom. Take a background that gives you thieves tools and another tool. Take Skill Expert at 1st level, then telekenetic (alternative - inspiring leader), Prodigy, and Skilled. Take Cloud Rune, Fire Rune and Frost Rune

That Character will Dominate the social pillar, be good at the exploration pillar and good in combat.

For example, at level 8 here is how your skills can stack up:
Smith tools +9
Thieves tools +10
Other background tool: +5 to +10 (I like Cartographers tools for this one)
Prodigy tool: +5 to +10 (I like an instrument here so you don't need proficiency in performance to make a performance check, other good options are carpenters tools or land or sea vehicles)
Athletics: +4
Slight of Hand +7 and advantage
Stealth (expertise) +10
Animal Handling +6 and advantage
Insight +5
Perception +5
Survival +5
Deception (expertise)+10 and advantage
Intimidation +7 and advantage
Persuasion +7

With advantage on all those checks, this is pretty darn close to what a maxed Rogue or Bard can do and better than a Rogue in combat.

I know some tables don't allow feats, and if that is the case you should talk to ask your DM about using them so you can make the "simple class" viable in all 3 phases.

Edited to correct tool proficiency numbers

 

[ECMO3]

but you called new martial classes bloat. That doesn’t go with the number of spells being bloated as a problem.

D&D is a fantasy game. In that respect I don't really see lots of spells as a bloat issue, they offer more choices, options and story elements. Spells are a story mechanic.

IMO more or more complex martials is uneeded bloat though. This is just more ways to describe swinging your sword. Keep that part of it simple.

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO more or more complex martials is uneeded bloat though. This is just more ways to describe swinging your sword. Keep that part of it simple.

Whether folks want it simple or not?

 

[ECMO3]

Whether folks want it simple or not?

Few people IME want more complex ways of swinging their sword. Most that do are grognard leftovers from 3E. When the 5E options in the DMG that allow for more complex martial combat are used, they are usually disliked.

Lots of players want more spell options.

 

[Zardnaar]

Very few people IME want more complex ways of swinging their sword. Most that do are grognard leftovers from 3E. When the options in the DMG that allow for more complex martial combat are used, they are usually disliked.

Lots of players want more spell options.

This more spells over the years.

Martials don't even want more complex options eg weapon speed, weapon type vs armor.

Some players do of course but not many.

 

[Minigiant]

but you called new martial classes bloat. That doesn’t go with the number of spells being bloated as a problem.

That was said in the mindset of people who complain about bloat.

People who complain about bloat say new martial classes is bloat but is okay with casters having 5 more subclasses than martials and 100 spells for one caster class in the PHB.

That is the bias.

I say make a new martial.class for newbies. "Wah. It's Bloat!"

WOTC only gives wizard 4 subclasses in new PHB. "Wah! Where's Necromancer and Bladesinger!"