D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I watched it and it felt very balanced in terms of everyone shining, but prone in a group with 4 melee experts and a caster who goes giant ape? Obviously that felt powerful, while if they had been built with 4 ranged characters and 2 casters, it would have been seen as much more situational.

Well the caster only went Ape because ranged attacks weren't working out so well.

 

[Minigiant]

I believe a huge chunk of the issue is 5e heavily promotes tropes of one group of people but played majorly by another group of people.

The Super Archmage and the Idiot Warrior in Magic Bling are old school tropes and not popular with 5e fanbase.

"But Fighter and Champion are the most ppopul.."

No.
New players are heavily encouraged to play simpler characters
Fantasy and history skews to containing Warrior
Few veteran 5e players play Champion Fighters unless their DMs run tons of houserules or have tons of experience.

"But these are the facts.."

Is it? The data seems skewed.
Why are all the accounts for Simple Fighters always new players and tired/drunk adults?
How many people are making Champions with a DM with a buch of houserules or experiences?
Why make the whole Fighter class hinge on the ability of 7 year olds and people too tired to think?

D&D vets don't play the Archmage or the Cultured Tin Can. So time to change both.

 

[Incenjucar]

Team tactical play seems like a wonderful outcome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It definitely could be done. But I think those subclasses would look very different from existing class subclasses. So is it worth it so to speak to look that different. Maybe that's a a plus? Not sure.

We do already have models of very flexible base classes in spellcasters to draw from.

There is no reason the mythic martial couldn't have a large list of abilities in the base class that a player could pick and choose from to create many different types of martials.

These could be categorized -- skill, strength, speed, etc. But I'm not sure I see the upside of limiting a player to picking one say. After all, the Wizard doesn't have to just pick conjuration.

I'm assuming there is only going to be 1 mythic martial class in the game and would be nice to have the flexibility to create whatever you want out of it. If someone wants something tightly themed they can pick certain abilities and the subclass would add some theming as well (ala sorcerer, warlock).

But not totally sold either way yet.

Well, since this is coming out of, at best, 3pp or homebrew, it really doesn't need to ape WotC's style so long as it can be used alongside WotC classes.

For that matter, there's no reason to stop at one mythic martial class if the big tent doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I definitely agree with the wings point that it doesn't fit all archtypes. But I also think we can leave that up to the player to choose to some extent.

I'd be careful with putting too many "universal" abililities in and would rather have a large list of abilities the player can choose from,

Perhaps most players would select some kind of unbound Jump as the most commmon, but perhaps someone wants to solve the movement problem with a magic hammer (part of class) that let's them fly and specifically does not want to be a mythic jump guy.

Seems like if it is built on the class ability list design you could even have room for the action heroy guy with equipment -- just pick non overt supernatural stuff for your lower level abilties and have a rule that you can get your abilties through an item(s) if you want and put all your higher level supernatural stuff into your item(s) (class items that are guarunteed and can't be taken away)

No in-universe way to ensure an item can't be taken away, and even if there was it really ties the DM's hands. No class needs to have 100% guaranteed access to their superpowers under all circumstances.

 

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 288844
Can I have my Mythic Fighter now?

I don't get it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I get it and wouldn't mind. Others would though. That said also pointing out that martials can get outcomes / effect oriented abilities and bypass the normal action economy and "discrete" outcomes of move, attack, etc.

We don't have to say you can teleport or take moves, or get +X to your movement. That stuff can be abstracted to get the effects we want if easier / better way to represent it.

That degree of abstraction isn't to everyone's tastes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So on the concept of the "value" of heavy armor- I don't think it's as big a factor as some might think. Consider first, that any class that doesn't have access to heavy armor has at least some reason to invest in Dexterity.

You could built a pure melee Ranger, of course, but they do have a few skills and features that suggest you might want to invest in Dexterity. Indeed, if you are a pure archer, switch hitter, or stealth enthusiast, you can do without Strength entirely, due to the current game's design.

Some classes are built to reward you more and more for an investment in Dexterity; on a long enough timeline, the Barbarian gets more out of raising Dexterity than they would out of investing in armor.

Even a caster class can find value in having a decent initiative bonus.

But even if you invest in the Strength required to wear heavy armor, you've shouldered the financial burden, and are perfectly fine with the penalty to Stealth, the end result is, by endgame, you have an AC 1 higher than most characters. A Mage Armor using caster can gain the same benefit for the trivial use of a 1st-level spell slot. A Monk or Barbarian can even exceed the benefit granted by heavy armor.

This puts heavy armor in a strange place where it's most valuable at low levels, where you can't afford the best heavy armors, pulls ahead at medium levels, but at high levels has a small benefit (with a hindrance attached) or can even be left behind.

Now granted, there is the issue of "what if we're using point buy? Points saved on Dexterity can be spent elsewhere" or "what about ASI's? ASI's not spent on off stats can be used to gain feats!".

But it's worth noting that, regardless of what most tables do, point buy and Feats are actually options- options that the game's design supposedly doesn't even take into account (according to WotC themselves). And further, we see that when options like Multiclassing and Feats are on the table, it's not especially hard to acquire heavy armor if you do want it.

Even worse, racial options exist like the Tortle, who gain a natural AC of 17, almost as good as the best armor in the game, which, with the downfall of racial ability scores, means high AC is within anyone's reach, if they're ok with being a turtle man!

My takeaway here is twofold; if you are "budgeting" heavy armor for a new class, it's not actually worth very much, when compared to, say 1e/2e, as it currently exists.

Which, to me, means that if heavy armor is seriously meant to be a major draw for the classes intended to use it, it needs to be better than it currently is.

DR.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why are all the accounts for Simple Fighters always new players and tired/drunk adults?

They’re not, your confirmation bias is just showing.

Edit: that was rude. I apologize.

Perhaps a better way to say it is, I don’t think there is any evidence of any majority experience of what you’re describing.

Fighter, and Champion, and basic Human, are the most popular choices by too wide a margin to blame “people push noobs toward the simple options” without some fairly strong evidence.

I also don’t know how many players you think are tired and drunk…but I’d need some substantial evidence to take seriously any proposed number above, say, 5%.

 

[Minigiant]

They’re not, your confirmation bias is just showing.

That's what I mostly see from posters, streamers, podcasters, and even D&D designers.