D&D 5E A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.

[FrogReaver]

It does address the issue of fighters not getting to do wizard-like things, however. You have your new mythic warrior many have requested, and the people who like the fighter as is still have him. I don't see a problem here.

The people that like the Fighter as is still want him to be balanced against Wizards...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The people that like the Fighter as is still want him to be balanced against Wizards...

Short of nerfing wizards (which won't happen outside of a home game) that is not going to happen.

 

[FrogReaver]

Short of nerfing wizards (which won't happen outside of a home game) that is not going to happen.

Okay and there's a reason this thread has 'houserule' in the title.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay and there's a reason this thread has 'houserule' in the title.

I know. We've just come a long way, and I was thinking of other ways to deal with the problem.

 

[James Gasik]

So two things, no, I'm not saying the Bard or the Wizard uses Extra Attack in the same way other classes do. But the fact that they can acquire it, and it's not uniquely a "martial" thing is telling; the developers don't see it as a toy only martials get. So we have this scenario where magic classes can take martial toys. Now it's true that martials can get some spells and magical abilities, but some people don't like that flavor- which leaves them with "pure martial" subclasses that have sharp limits on what sorts of abilities they can have.

The second thing is, if they really made a Fighter who was rebalanced to be more like a caster, as I said before, I don't think it could coexist with the Fighter in the same game. It would end up, if not more powerful (though I'm not sure how it could be any weaker), a great deal more versatile.

It'd be like having a pocket knife and an omnitool. One is a better weapon, but the other can still hurt a man, and do so much more.

 

[Mordhau]

You did not show that an argument leads to absurd results, which was the point. You took the argument to an absurd length which misrepresents the argument by stretching it far beyond the actual context of the discussion, which is textbook reductio ad absurdum.

The point I was responding to with the reductio was not the whole post. I don't usually split up replies, but I thought that doing so in that case made that obvious that I was responding to a single line.

The point I was responding to was the argument that because it's fantasy then anything goes. If anything goes then it follows Fighters flying by flapping their wings goes as it's an example of anything going.

That is the reductio part. (I just picked on that because the idea that "it's al just fantasy" is just really tiresome and silly.)

If it does not refute other points then that then that's because it wasn't intended do (hence why they got separate replies).

I hope that clears that up.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, it's just unfortunate that you have such a limited pool of maneuvers. I'd happily give up the bonus damage for more maneuvers.

If they removed the extra damage, Goading Attack could just be a thing a Fighter can do all the time. Make it cost a bonus action to goad someone you attacked this turn, then it becomes a thing you can balance against other options like using a shield bash to push or using your off hand weapon to do an extra attack. It gives big weapon guys a thing to do with their bonus action. If you want to keep it contained, make it so at low level you need a share a language with the target (prompting the Fighter to actually WANT extra languages! Which, BTW, should just be a thing you can get if you have a bonus to INT, just to give it more use outside the Wizard and Artificer) but you can give them the ability to goad through body language at a later level.

If you MUST you can even make it a basic combat option, except that for anybody it takes a standard action and is more difficult.

Similarly, I feel like the Barbarian should get Menacing Attack as an at-will ability. They're scary after all.

Not a fan of marking. Feels very artificial to me. Good luck on that in your own game though.

Goading Attack doesn't really work like 4e Marking, but it's a good substitute because it does roughly the same thing but it's more narrative based.

It's just so silly.

You say something provocative that causes your enemy to lose their composure and attack.. No way. Ridiculous.

You say some magic words that cause your enemy to lose their composure and attack.. Well when you put it that way..

I assume the only difference between these two actions is that the casters say "please"

Please IS the Magic Word, after all!

It does address the issue of fighters not getting to do wizard-like things, however. You have your new mythic warrior many have requested, and the people who like the fighter as is still have him. I don't see a problem here.

Fighters don't need 'Wizard-like things', what they need is relevant and RELIABLE things. They need to be able to DO stuff that isn't constrained by some nerds' idea of 'reality'. A Fighter, at high level, should be able to exceed real life world records while wearing their full armor. Just because they're that good. Jumping, climbing, swimming, all in full plate, should be child's play. Being able to trip larger creatures should also be possible.

And more importantly, they need stuff outside of combat that is not reliant on 'DM may I'. The Wizard doesn't need the DM to go out of their way for their character to be relevant, so why should the Fighter?

Maybe some sort of weak point finding technique where you can take disadvantage on your attack but ignore the target's resistance on that same attack? Just a thought...

A lot of it also depends on changing people's perception of the Fighter as the 'default' or 'commoner+' class. The Fighter is allowed to have nice shiny things that other class envy. Sometimes you end up with people saying things like "Well if the Fighter does X then EVERYBODY should be allowed to do X!" but if someone wants a spell from the Wizard's exclusive list, suddenly that's stepping on toes and it's all about 'niche protection'.

The Fighter should have a niche of its own dangit... which is why I've advocated for the Warlord to just steal the name Fighter in a future edition if they're not giving us a new Warlord that is

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

It does address the issue of fighters not getting to do wizard-like things, however. You have your new mythic warrior many have requested, and the people who like the fighter as is still have him. I don't see a problem here.

This.

Some people want non supernatural warriors. Fighter seems fine for this as long as they choose subclasses appropriately.

Some people want mythic /supernatural warriors. There are classes & subclasses for this too, and if not, home brew one.

Why are some people so fixated on changing fighter for this? Why not other classes / subclasses / home brew?

What is it about fighters that can't be left non supernatural for those that like it that way?

 

[Vaalingrade]

We want non-supernatural fighters that are also interesting to play. There are people who vehemently don't want us to have them because they want all the interesting play to be tied to magic and the supernatural. That's the problem.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The point I was responding to with the reductio was not the whole post. I don't usually split up replies, but I thought that doing so in that case made that obvious that I was responding to a single line.

The point I was responding to was the argument that because it's fantasy then anything goes. If anything goes then it follows Fighters flying by flapping their wings goes as it's an example of anything going.

That is the reductio part. (I just picked on that because the idea that "it's al just fantasy" is just really tiresome and silly.)

If it does not refute other points then that then that's because it wasn't intended do (hence why they got separate replies).

I hope that clears that up.

Ah to be clear then, you were trying to prove that the premise that anything goes in fantasy taken to its logical conclusion yields "absurd" results..The fighter flapping his arms to fly.

Fortunately, one of the ways to disprove a reductio is to prove that result is not absurd.

I contend that your arm-flapping flying warrior is not absurd, or at least no moreso than the mumbling sign linguist who can fly

..or the charming banjo player who can fly
..or the dirty hippie who can turn into a bird(!) and fly
..or the giant talking elemental lizards who can fly
..or the giant talking eyeball with smaller eyeball appendages who can fly
..or the skinny folk who live a thousand years just being pretty most of the time
..or the short folk who live hundreds of years and build entire cultures underground
..or modrons,
..or mimics,
..or mind flayers
..pseudodragons and quasits and gelatinous cubes..etc.. etc...etc...

Why it is that some people feel a non-magical warrior must clear some bar of absurdity, when little else in the setting has to is a mystery to me.