D&D (2024) The Great Nerf to High Level Martials: The New Grapple Rules

[Yaarel]

One, Strength Monks are also a thing.

Two, why does the Fighter need the wrestling archetype? Why not put it in the unarmed combat class instead?

In reallife, unarmed combatants in boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etcetera are called .... "Fighters".

One expects the "Fighter" class to excel at unarmed combat.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

In reallife, unarmed combatants in boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etcetera are called .... "Fighters".

One expects the "Fighter" class to excel at unarmed combat.

I disagree with this anachronistic definition. That is a modern take, not rooted in D&D.

For going on 50 years, in D&D, the fighting man/fighter has been an armored weapon-wielder.

It's like saying Wizards should not prepare spells with spellbooks because the Wizards of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter don't use spellbooks or spell slots.

Other non-D&D definitions are nigh immaterial to the core rules and conceits of D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

I disagree with this anachronistic definition. That is a modern take, not rooted in D&D.

For going on 50 years, in D&D, the fighting man/fighter has been an armored weapon-wielder.

It's like saying Wizards should not prepare spells with spellbooks because the Wizards of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter don't use spellbooks or spell slots.

Other non-D&D definitions are nigh immaterial to the core rules and conceits of D&D.

Fight sport unarmed combatants, and jet fighter airplanes, is what the term "Fighter" means today for hundreds of millions of people across the planet.

With regard to D&D traditions including earlier editions, the Monk is too magical and its Dexterity fails function optimally for a straightforward MMA Strength Fighter concept. One expects the nonmagical Fighter to flourish at "Fighting".

 

[Clint_L]

I disagree with this anachronistic definition. That is a modern take, not rooted in D&D.

For going on 50 years, in D&D, the fighting man/fighter has been an armored weapon-wielder.

It's like saying Wizards should not prepare spells with spellbooks because the Wizards of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter don't use spellbooks or spell slots.

Other non-D&D definitions are nigh immaterial to the core rules and conceits of D&D.

Agree with this. It's like the thread suggesting clerics be deleted because they don't reflect pop culture. D&D is pop culture with, as you point out, five decades behind it. Something being a D&D trope is plenty of cultural cachet, IMO.

 

[Horwath]

a d4 IS an effective option. A fighter with d4+3 for strength is doing 5.5 damage on average. Using a longsword it's only 7.5. A few points difference is trivial.

Is it really trivial difference?
it's an increase of 36% and if you add fighting style to longsword it's 9,5 av damage, 73% increase.

Giant hyena has a 45HP for a CR1 encounter, with 60% hit rate, you need 14 attacks with unarmed and only 8 attacks with longsword and a fighting style. That does not sound trivial.

now, don't get me wrong, as I said, d4 is more than generous for unarmed damage for a human(oid).

 

[Maxperson]

Is it really trivial difference?
it's an increase of 36% and if you add fighting style to longsword it's 9,5 av damage, 73% increase.

People always trot out the percentage as if it's going to definitively prove me wrong. When you're moving from 2.5 to 3.5, yes it's trivial. It's 1 freaking point. The 36% is nothing but ONE POINT. It's like when news folks try to scare you into listening or reading an article by telling you that if you drink a beer your chance of butt cancer goes up by 100%, but then you realize that your chances went went from .000001 to .00001 or something.

I certainly wouldn't give up on a weapon that I liked for my character concept over a point or even a few points of damage, especially in 5e where everything is a big bag of hit points, so the bits of damage don't really matter in the short term, and individually all fights are short term.

Giant hyena has a 45HP for a CR1 encounter, with 60% hit rate, you need 14 attacks with unarmed and only 8 attacks with longsword and a fighting style. That does not sound trivial.

It is, because you aren't getting either one of those numbers outside of a white room. In the vast majority of actual play you have a party with you so it dies in 3-4 rounds no matter which weapon you are using.

now, don't get me wrong, as I said, d4 is more than generous for unarmed damage for a human(oid).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

People always trot out the percentage as if it's going to definitively prove me wrong. When you're moving from 2.5 to 3.5, yes it's trivial. It's 1 freaking point. The 36% is nothing but ONE POINT. It's like when news folks try to scare you into listening or reading an article by telling you that if you drink a beer your chance of butt cancer goes up by 100%, but then you realize that your chances went went from .000001 to .00001 or something.

Which would be a 900% increase (x10)...

... sorry. But that had to be corrected.

A 100% increase would be x2, so
.000001 to .000002

Other than that I mostly agree.

Optimizers value to hit bonuses more than damage bonuses in general. This does not take into account what you showed with your example.

In a white room, a +1 to hit bonus increase your damage most (by 100%), if your chances to hit are 1 in 20. So you go from 5% to hit to 10%.
In the white room, that seems fine, in actual play you should not bother to hit with that kind of chance.
Also a +1 to hit bonus only shows in 1 in 20 rolls.

And if you are a level 20 fighter with continual advantage and action surge, where that increase (5% to 10%) might actually show, you probably did something wrong to begin with.

On the other hand, damage bonuses are stronges when your chances to hit are already good. And it is not a 1 in 20 chance where you get the jackpot, but you have a steady income which often is better, even if the average increase is lower (standard deviation is also lower, which is good most of the time).

The only time I'd clearly prefer to hit bonuses is when you can apply a very debilitating status effect like stunning strike. Just attack as often as you can and just try to get it in once. And if you did it is an instant win.

 

[Vikingkingq]

In reallife, unarmed combatants in boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etcetera are called .... "Fighters".

One expects the "Fighter" class to excel at unarmed combat.

Yes, but in real life, they also called Norse berzerkers fighters too, and yet the Barbarian class deserves to be a distinct archetype in D&D just as much as the Monk does.

I'm frankly not very impressed by Merriam-Webster argumentation.

 

[Vikingkingq]

With regard to D&D traditions including earlier editions, the Monk is too magical and its Dexterity fails function optimally for a straightforward MMA Strength Fighter concept. One expects the nonmagical Fighter to flourish at "Fighting".

One, the Monk is substantially less magical than they were before.

Second, since when is a "Mixed Martial Artist" not a "Martial Artist"? (Or for that matter, since when does someone in MMA not train in agility and precision just as much as raw strength?)

 

[Yaarel]

One, the Monk is substantially less magical than they were before.

Second, since when is a "Mixed Martial Artist" not a "Martial Artist"? (Or for that matter, since when does someone in MMA not train in agility and precision just as much as raw strength?)

When "mixed martial arts" expressly includes European wrestling and boxing.

In these mixes, wrestlers turned out to be the most effective, causing most martial traditions to adapt.

It is bodyweaponry as a human species principle.

Meanwhile the Martial Fighter is a "martial" "fighter".