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

ECMO3 said:

Then clearly fighters can't be Rune Knights, since that is optional and in Tashas. They may be able to subject to their individual DM.

But your original post talks about RK's as if they are fighters in 5E .... just like my post talks about fighters switching subclasses in 5E as if that is something they can do in 5E.

Can fighters be Rune Knights in 5E?
Can fighters switch subclasses in 5E?

Do you not see this is the same thing, using an optional rule? Do you not see the double standard here?

Click to expand...

It's not a double standard. I'm not claiming anywhere the Rube Knight is actually available it's up to the DM.

It's two different things. A player might be able to play a Rune Knight a Fighter may be able to change subclass.

Player, PC two different things. One or the other, both or none may be available.

Zardnaar said:

It's not a double standard. I'm not claiming anywhere the Rube Knight is actually available it's up to the DM.

Click to expand...

You mention the Rune Knight as if it is a fighter subclass in 5E, but it should not be regarded as available by your logic and statements.

Your exact quote above:
"No fighters cant swap subclasses"

Replacing your words above with the Rune Knight subclass:
"No fighters can't be Rune Knights"

If one of those statements is true because of optional rules, then both statements are true.

Zardnaar said:

Player, PC two different things. One or the other, both or none may be available.

Click to expand...

Right, but you talk about one of these things like it is available in 5E and then point to another and say explicitly it isn't available, going as far as saying you "can't" do it.

There's certainly a "tier list" for what elements of the game most DM's are cool with and which are not. I don't think optional retraining is quite on the same level as a subclass, but there are DM's who have banned Twilight Clerics, and I wouldn't assume that any Rogue I play automatically has Steady Aim without asking the DM first (unless I was playing in AL or something).

ECMO3's point is valid in that we can't have a discussion about options available to classes until we have defined what options are on the table. This is one of the reasons I don't particularly like "everything is optional", because it's hard to have a discussion about the game if two people play the game differently. You can easily get responses like:

"Sharpshooter isn't a problem because I don't allow Feats."
"Fighters are great because I give out lots of magic items and I give them extra attunements."
"Wizards aren't a problem because I never let them find scrolls or spellbooks."
"Monks are great because they can use Muskets!"
"Rogues should be in melee, so I don't allow Steady Aim but use Flanking in my games."
"The only classes you can multiclass with in my games are Fighter and Rogue, so Hexblades are just fine."

James Gasik said:

There's certainly a "tier list" for what elements of the game most DM's are cool with and which are not. I don't think optional retraining is quite on the same level as a subclass, but there are DM's who have banned Twilight Clerics, and I wouldn't assume that any Rogue I play automatically has Steady Aim without asking the DM first (unless I was playing in AL or something).

ECMO3's point is valid in that we can't have a discussion about options available to classes until we have defined what options are on the table. This is one of the reasons I don't particularly like "everything is optional", because it's hard to have a discussion about the game if two people play the game differently. You can easily get responses like:

"Sharpshooter isn't a problem because I don't allow Feats."
"Fighters are great because I give out lots of magic items and I give them extra attunements."
"Wizards aren't a problem because I never let them find scrolls or spellbooks."
"Monks are great because they can use Muskets!"
"Rogues should be in melee, so I don't allow Steady Aim but use Flanking in my games."
"The only classes you can multiclass with in my games are Fighter and Rogue, so Hexblades are just fine."

Click to expand...

ECMO3’s point was more, if it’s in a rule book it’s valid. That’s way too far the other direction IMO.

FrogReaver said:

ECMO3’s point was more, if it’s in a rule book it’s valid. That’s way too far the other direction IMO.

Click to expand...

But where do you draw the line? The Optional Class Features in Tasha's are used fairly regularly, as I understand it, so that's an optional rule that is used a lot. But then this other optional rule in the same book is somehow not worth discussing?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't imagine seeing most DM's being ok with "oh sure, just switch your subclass", mostly because I endured decades of "retraining" being considered a dirty word (even in 3.5, you had to jump through a great many hoops to do it, and that was a game where you had to plan out characters levels in advance, and most new books came with great new options gated behind very specific choices)!

It's like how Feats, Multiclassing, and Magic Items are all optional, but discussions about classes always mention the first two, but everyone admits that the third is this hazy and nebulous thing that's very campaign-dependent, when, really, all three are.

Or how rolling for ability scores is the default rule, but in discussions, it's treated as "lol if you want to destroy game balance" and optional point buy is assumed, lol.

Our discussions are based around unwritten assumptions and there's no clear indication of what those assumptions are (outside of just posting for awhile and seeing how people tend to react...or making a poll or something, I guess).

DM's and Players have been tinkering with all of those things since the game was invented. It used to be possible in 1e to basically play 2e before it was published, if you used enough of the articles published in the Dragon Magazine. All of us get stuck in our own past when we make statements about what will and what won't work. The honest truth is you can run a game with 3 dice rolle em in order and if they suck they suck and it can be done just fine. Any of the other options it's the same thing. Use em don't Use em the game can go just fine as long as everyone at the table is ok with what your using.

Bruh an optional rule to retrain a subclass is not that big of a deal. sometimes, a player really ends up not enjoying the subclass. Thats ok. If your table doesnt have that problem, cool, but it isnt a big deal.

I don't think it's a big deal. If I'm in a game and someone is not having fun, by all means, they should be allowed to change their character. But I've encountered in the past people who don't like it because "it doesn't make sense" that a character could just "forget" how to use abilities and gain new ones. There was a time when this sentiment was strong in the game, and when an official system to allow retraining appeared, it involved all sorts of suggested hoops to jump through in an attempt to assuage people who didn't like the concept. Some examples:

I think we went on a tangent.

The question isn't "should be able to retrain fighter subclasses?"
It's "why the fighter subclasses went not designed with a structure so that subclass retraining isn't more important?"

None of the fighter subclasses follow similar design structure nor power levels.
That's by definition: wonky design.
The same wonky "make whatever feels right" design that screwed up 3e.

James Gasik said:

But where do you draw the line? The Optional Class Features in Tasha's are used fairly regularly, as I understand it, so that's an optional rule that is used a lot. But then this other optional rule in the same book is somehow not worth discussing?

Click to expand...

For me personally in the games I DM, any WOTC character build choice is available. Period. I see that as part of player agency. If players want to "ruin the game" with OP options being used outside of how they are intended or in combinations that the designers did not forsee that is their purview. Some may say it breaks the story, but the PC character build is mostly the player's story, not mine. So as long as it is within the rules, I won't get in the way of that. If other players have an issue, that is kind of on the players to solve between them or in the social contract before session 1. IME it is rarely/never a problem for other players.

When you consider things like Dragonlance or Strixhaven backgrounds, those are explicitly OP options compared to other backgrounds, yet I have never banned them outside of those settings. I have also never had a player want to choose one of them outside of Dragonlance (I have never played Strixhaven).

As far as being a problem for me as DM. I have the ultimate trump card. I can scale encounters and I can challenge any possible build, making new monsters from scratch if necessary. Players can build an OP character, but they can not build a character too OP for a DM to challenge.

Rules that are not part of character design or character build are typically discussed in session 0. Things like tumble (usually allowed), flanking (never allowed), climb on monster (always allowed), marking (typically not allowed) .....

Usually, I know what I like best and works best for games I have played before, but usually I am up for a discussion if someone really wants or does not want something. If I was faced with the "martial issues" many on this thread have seen I would allow marking every time. I have played with it, and in generally think it is a negative, but I could be swayed if players wanted it, but when I have used it, it has been an overall negative. Flanking has been a huge negative when we have used it.

In games I play as a player it varies, but in general most DMs allow most if not all character build options.

James Gasik said:

Or how rolling for ability scores is the default rule, but in discussions, it's treated as "lol if you want to destroy game balance" and optional point buy is assumed, lol.

Click to expand...

This is something I find irritating on this board. I know it is me and I shouldn't, but rolling is the default method and a lot of players do it. I would venture more roll abilities than any other single method.

It does generate wide variation in balance, yet it has been the primary way to generate abilities for most of the nearly 50 years of D&D and the game did well with it. This is part of why I don't think balance is the holy grail many do.