It absolutely is. It's based on the claim that the rules cause the exact same task to have a DC that scales with the level of the character performing the task. That is false.
Period.
Nope, if your read my post it would be clear that this is not what it is based on, somehow you missed all of that...
4e, like 3e & 5e, had encounter guidelines. They worked rather more predictably, but they were still guidelines, not rules. No matter who slavishly you chose to follow them, they did not make the DC of the exact same task scale with the level of the character performing it, they simply recommended more difficult tasks to provide the same level of challenge to a higher level character. Because the character had, in fact, advanced.
One would have to essentially ignore the guidelines entirely to have a meaningful situation where meeting the same task with the same DC was significant. Not to mention skill challenges, level appropriate skill checks, scaling defenses, which you seem to have skipped over for some reason
Of course, we both know that I was never talking about the fact that the DCs for a specific task did not necessarily change with level if the PC encountered them later, except where I expressly acknowledged that they occurred but were undeniably rare in the 4e system RAW and RAI.
I think the comparison is perfect, yes. In the case of the ranger, you assume the player reads the whole class description, to note that it uses magic, rather than getting as far as weapon proficiencies and jumping to the conclusion that a weapon-user must not use magic, at all. In the case of the fighter, you assume that the player reads weapon proficiencies, and jumps to the conclusion that the character will be equally capable with all weapons, rather than finishing his read of the class and seeing what it's features actually make it good at.
Well, if you are going to argue that reading something and ignoring a major part of it is the same as reading something and picking up on something that is there, then this won't be productive, will it?
Reading the 4e fighter class description doesn't make it clear that using a bow is
essentially bad
in the way or with the clarity that the 5e ranger class description makes it clear that rangers can cast spells. Yet you say it's a
"perfect" comparison? Hard to believe that you could not see the flaws in that comparison...
Probably the most interesting thing to me is this... despite the ridiculousness of the comparison, it almost makes the point even more clear. A ranger who chose not to cast spells would still not be as nerfed as a 4e fighter with a bow.
You denied that there was a non-caster class distinction in 5e. Now, clearly, there are casters in 5e. The only way to take what you said is that there are no non-casters. Thank you for coming around to the fact that there are. They are technically sub-classes, and they all specialize heavily in DPR and are notably lacking in player 'empowerment' (less 'entitled') compared to casters, but they clearly still exist.
Or, you know, you could actually read my post. Here again are the only parts I could find that are pertinent. Please try to read objectively.
I hear people say this, almost entirely those devoted to 4e, and I wonder if they realize that "martial" versus "non-martial" is not really a thing in 5e. When in the end you say "martial classes over spell casters", that is a false paradigm within 5e, there are some sub-classes that don't get any spell-casting by default, but they can pick them up in other ways too.
The "power source" categorization in 4e did not make it into 5e, so if you want to contrast spell-casters with non-spell-casters that makes sense but contrasting them with "martial classes" doesn't.
It can make a big difference when one is referring to a paradigm that was an essential part of one system, but not in another. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point... that martial/spellcaster classes is a false dichotomy in 5e.
Now, if you can take that and say that; "The only way to take what you said is that there are no non-casters." Or that I am somehow "coming around" to the fact that there are, then it gets very hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.
You just insisted that it still does. There are 5 non-magic-using sub-classes in the PH. Two of them are indisputably martial. Two more virtually so. The berserker, perhaps, is debatable. That 5 is less than 30+ is hardly at issue. That's fewer choices, right there.
No, I said the opposite, quite clearly and in plain English. I have no idea what definition of "martial" you are using in 5e, is it the only categorization in the book wherein a spellcaster is explicitly described as a "martial archetype"? Is it the actual English language definition wherein any character in 5e could be martial, regardless of class and subclass? Or is it one that applied in other systems?
The problem with that comparison is that the 5e fighter is about it if you have a 'martial' concept in mind. In 4e, if you had a decidedly 'martial' concept (one that didn't immediately scream 'rogue'), you had more classes to choose from (Fighter, Warlord, Ranger). You didn't need to automatically go Fighter, then apply extreme (3.5) or minimal (5e) system mastery to customize the fighter into a viable take on your concept. You'd choose from Fighter, Warlord, Ranger or Rogue. If you wanted to play an archer, well, the Ranger, alone, had an Archery build pretty obvious choice.
Whether or not the 5e fighter is "about it if you have a "martial" concept in mind literally has nothing to do with the comparisons or the "trap" I raised. The martial paradigm and choices was a completely separate issue.
Mind you, I love the way 5e finally handled STR vs DEX weapons/builds in a way that wasn't unduly restrictive and superfluous-class-spawning. A 5e fighter can be STR-based or DEX-based with minimal application of system mastery. Not /none/ and not the kind of contra-optimization that this discussion has edged into, but it can quite smoothly be done, without having to dig up some special option or other class that gets a big AC bonus unarmored or huge damage bonus with a rapier or anything /weird/.
It isn't even about the fighter though, it is a result of the system. Because delineations such as "martial" are not baked into classes, and because spellcasting is available to any class, and because of bounded accuracy, and because of the fact that "basic" attacks are not terrible, the system is more flexible and less likely to lead to charachters that border on non-viable.
For example,
pretty much any class with reasonable DEX and proficiency can pick up a bow and be more effective with it (relative to the system), than a 4e fighter.
