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

[Crimson Longinus]

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!"

Are you sure these are the same people? Like I don't want new martial classes (subclasses sure, if they actually can come up with something) but I also think there are too many caster classes and subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I want Complex Martial rules.

Advanced fighting styles or Expert Maneuvers or Weapon Grandmasteries.

The DMG options were not what people who want these what. The DMG options are half baked throwaways made to shut up dissent.

 

[Minigiant]

Are you sure these are the same people? Like I don't want new martial classes (subclasses sure, if they actually can come up with something) but I also think there are too many caster classes and subclasses.

IME it's there's objection to caster stuff but no objections to caster stuff from the same people.

 

[ezo]

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

I find Rogue a much better basic class. In combat, it is pretty simple. In both the exploration and social pillar, if the player doesn’t know what to do, they generally have at least one skill that applies.

As @Oofta said, this isn't true or a problem. Champions, via Remarkable Athlete if not proficient, can contribute to exploration if they want in many ways. If you want in social, play your PC that way.

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

Is there any class or subclass you believe doesn't have issues???

 

[Minigiant]

Is there any class or subclass you believe doesn't have issues???

Classes? None. 5e wasn't perfect.

Subclasses. Probably a few. Like the Paladin ones. But the class changes would need subclass changes.

 

[ezo]

Classes? None. 5e wasn't perfect.

Subclasses. Probably a few. Like the Paladin ones. But the class changes would need subclass changes.

Well, I appreciate your honesty so thank you. I think I see the problem now. Best of luck.

 

[Hell0W0rld]

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.

I have to ask. In what world can this character be even competent in combat?

You have 10 CON, which means you'll only have HP equal to a standard wizard of the same level with 14 CON.

You have 16 DEX and the only feat you listed that can increase your DEX ability is Skill Expert, so you're falling behind on attack rolls as enemy AC grows.

Cloud Rune is nice, but that's only one use between rests.

Fire Rune is laughable. With 10 CON, the enemy only needs to save with STR against 8 + Proficiency bonus to ignore the effects.

 

[ECMO3]

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!"

I think most people are ok with more martial subclasses, and some recent books have introduced more martial/half-caster subclasses, without introducing more full caster subclasses.

People are not ok with more classes, but I think that goes for both casters and non-casters.

 

[ECMO3]

Classes? None. 5e wasn't perfect.

Personally I don't think any classes have issues.

Some subclasses do, but only a few. A few Monk subclasses and one Wizard subclass come to mind, but I can't think of anything else offhand that is a really poor design. For the most part the subclasses seem to do what they were intended to do and that is what is important IMO.

I do think the lack of a viable Sorcerer melee subclass that gets extra attack is a problem, but that is something that is missing, not something that is a problem with a current subclasses.

 

[ECMO3]

I want Complex Martial rules.

Advanced fighting styles or Expert Maneuvers or Weapon Grandmasteries.

I know you do, but I think the community is overwhelmingly against these kinds of things. They are not against more spells I don't think.