D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[jasper]

D&D was never set up to have the same damage per round match in all the classes. Video games do that.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

D&D was never set up to have the same damage per round match in all the classes. Video games do that.

First of all this thread has little to do with damage dealing.

Secondly, if you are arguing the hypothetical that it is fine for casters to be better at damage dealing than fighters, then what is the purpose of fighters in the first place?

 

[aiouh]

First of all this thread has little to do with damage dealing.

Secondly, if you are arguing the hypothetical that it is fine for casters to be better at damage dealing than fighters, then what is the purpose of fighters in the first place?

I like to play a Fighter at AL when I am too tired from the work week, don't want to have large turns and still want to engage in role play. Stick my ass in the middle of the battle, trigger opportunity attacks, rip out cheesy one-liners, break down a door or two, have 3 beers, have a grand old time.

I also used to DM for people with 0 video game and TTRPG experience, they were already overwhelmed with keeping track of 2-3 abilties and remembering they have Turn Undead and Healing Word and the problem only exacerbated when they got to level 3.

I like to think that easier and lower impact classes are a feature, not a bug. The thing is, on ENWorld, almost everyone is a ttrpg veteran, gamer or of the "GM Class", so they think the Fighter class is boring because if you have a min-max mindset, the class does not have enough meat, but D&D is for the mainstream masses that are already plenty engaged being a dude*tte with a sword in a fantasy world. If you don't interact with D&D media all day, this is still exciting stuff.

In the last 10 years they could have plugged the numbers easily to balance the classes, steal ideas from 4e, PF2e, yet they still did not. As much as I loathe Hasbro, I don't think this is a design oversight, it's a feature of 5E.

 

[ezo]

I also used to DM for people with 0 video game and TTRPG experience, they were already overwhelmed with keeping track of 2-3 abilties and remembering they have Turn Undead and Healing Word and the problem only exacerbated when they got to level 3.

This happens to me with about half my players, even those with more than sufficient video game experience and 1-2 years of TTRPG under their belts.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I like to play a Fighter at AL when I am too tired from the work week, don't want to have large turns and still want to engage in role play. Stick my ass in the middle of the battle, trigger opportunity attacks, rip out cheesy one-liners, break down a door or two, have 3 beers, have a grand old time.

I also used to DM for people with 0 video game and TTRPG experience, they were already overwhelmed with keeping track of 2-3 abilties and remembering they have Turn Undead and Healing Word and the problem only exacerbated when they got to level 3.

I like to think that easier and lower impact classes are a feature, not a bug. The thing is, on ENWorld, almost everyone is a ttrpg veteran, gamer or of the "GM Class", so they think the Fighter class is boring because if you have a min-max mindset, the class does not have enough meat, but D&D is for the mainstream masses that are already plenty engaged being a dude*tte with a sword in a fantasy world. If you don't interact with D&D media all day, this is still exciting stuff.

In the last 10 years they could have plugged the numbers easily to balance the classes, steal ideas from 4e, PF2e, yet they still did not. As much as I loathe Hasbro, I don't think this is a design oversight, it's a feature of 5E.

This is not an answer to what I was asking.

I was asking about what the purpose is with a fighter in the context I gave above. That is: The hypothetical scenario that the fighter is worse at dealing damage than a wizard.

In my opinion the hypothecal is a hypothetical because I think fighters in general have more reliable high damage than many casters even though there are certainly exceptions (particularily in the case of high level optimisation).

Soooo... I repeat. If we accept that the fighter is worse at damage dealing than the wizard, then what is the point of the fighter?

Whether or not the fighter is complex to play or not and whether this is good or bad is besides the point.

 

[aiouh]

Fighter gets to deal consistent higher than cantrip damage for free. This is important as to preserve high level spell slots and not waste them on excess damage. They also zone off mobs from backline with high AC, also for free. At least in theory.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

That is also outside the scope of the hypothetical, because the hypothetical assumes that the fighter deals less damage than the wizard. That's the point of it being a hypothetical. It does not need to be true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This thread is tagged D&D2024. Why wouldn't we be using 2024 rules?

Because the questions raised are equally relevant to multiple versions of 5e?

 

[Zardnaar]

This happens to me with about half my players, even those with more than sufficient video game experience and 1-2 years of TTRPG under their belts.

I play with a lot of newer players. Similar thing. Evenn5 year veterans still like champions occasionally.

 

[Voadam]

This is not an answer to what I was asking.

I was asking about what the purpose is with a fighter in the context I gave above. That is: The hypothetical scenario that the fighter is worse at dealing damage than a wizard.

In my opinion the hypothecal is a hypothetical because I think fighters in general have more reliable high damage than many casters even though there are certainly exceptions (particularily in the case of high level optimisation).

Soooo... I repeat. If we accept that the fighter is worse at damage dealing than the wizard, then what is the point of the fighter?

Whether or not the fighter is complex to play or not and whether this is good or bad is besides the point.

Tanking. In 4e terms defending.