Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8491353" data-attributes="member: 6914290">This is nigh on exactly opposite to how I see things. I'd much rather provide a set of cool things a character can do, and let the players and DM figure out the concept that makes it work. Personally, i think the biggest "problem areas" for 5e martials specifically relate to melee, so powers I'd focus on would be abilities that improve melee. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I might include greater and/or more versatile mobility. Maybe actual flight, maybe teleportation, maybe more effective leaping or climbing or maybe just a faster ground speed.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'd also probably look at including tools to add options to spread or focus damage. The fantasy is to "cleave through enemies like wheat" or whatever, but there aren't many tools to support that fantasy within 5e. Like, if you ever want to kill more than 9 guys on a turn, its just not gonna happen for you. On the other end of the spectrum, there's the "crazy power in a single, focussed strike" fantasy which is similarly unsupported. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I might provide tools more relevant to exploration. Maybe busting through castle walls like the kool-aid man, maybe causing gusts of wind with a flick of your weapon, maybe some version of enhanced perception, hearing heartbeats, feeling vibrations on the ground, smelling fear, seeing the future.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It'd be nice if there were better, more available options for control/debilitation. There are 11 negative statuses (excluding incapacitated and unconscious). Of those, most martials have access to 2 (grappled and prone), and they might get access to one or two more through their subclasses. Does it really make sense that no fighter or barbarian can inflict "blinded", "deafened", "paralyzed", or "restrained"? That no rogue can inflict "poisoned"? </li> </ul>Note these were off the top of my head and are all concept neutral. It's just "stuff they can do". You certainly can organize them and give some version of warrior some of those things, and other versions of warrior different things. The point is to start with what they can do in a general sense, balance, iterate, and flavor to taste.Correct. It was your assertion that Iron Man could be effortlessly modeled by a D&D martial, an assertion you supported with a set of conditions that had near nothing to do with existing martials' class mechanics. And, as you said DM buy-in, has nothing to do with differences between casters and martials.Fair. I think [USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER]  cleared this up. IIRC the original argument was Arthur+Excalibur=Morgana, and this is ok since martials get more/better magic items than casters do. But since our wannabe Arthur is missing the kit, he doesn't get to operate at Morgana's level of power/capability. And he had no control over this beyond failing to choose a spellcaster.The interesting bit about this argument is that it suggests that there might be an issue with the "martials get more/better stuff" argument. That said, I think you've chosen to look at the items with the most easily quantifiable impact at the expense of the most transformative ones (with the possible exception of the belt). Things like boots of flying, goggles of night, several of the rings, some of the cloaks, luck blade, dwarven thrower. The unifying feature for most of these that changes the way a martial is able to play is by giving access to some limited spellcasting.</blockquote>

Verification