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

[CreamCloud0]

In my view, the difficulty for the Fighter is noncombat. To some degree, this relates to a lack of utility that can bypass certain impossible combat situations.

I dont think the Fighter needs to deal more damage.

Inflicting conditions or area-of-effects − sure − why not? But this isnt part of the balance problem that the Fighter deals with at the highest tiers.

Don’t worry I’m definitely aware that non-combat is where fighter most lags behind in high level play but for a class called the fight-er who’s primary purpose is fight-ing they’re painfully average at actually doing so, so I take the opportunity to brainstorm a little for them in that department too

 

[Yaarel]

That's more part of the fun options side then raw power but think it's still important. Conditions and movement denial, AoE, etc. should be part of their toolkit. And there should be fun options as well that speak to being a mythic warrior at high level instead of just attack hard.

Spellcasters are essentially spending hit points to cause effects and conditions instead. A Fighter that chooses nondamage effects would need to do similarly.

But agree non combat and some situational combat is even worse. What are some of the combat and non combat situations that high level martials should be able to contribute through class abilities (not through the vague skill system that anyone can use, DM fiat, etc)?

-- flyier enemy -- should be able to ground the flier or do a damaging ranged attack even if strength focused (why not, ehh?). Could have grounding attacks, able to pick up large objects and throw, sonic clap, super jumps, etc

-- barriers -- should be able to break through/circumvent barriers even magical ones. Break through, super jump, smash and climb making own handholds

-- movement -- should be able to get to hard to reach places without real world climbing restrictions and 10x checks. super jump? narrative control?

-- social -- in typical fantasy warrior types often have a lot of face abilities -- respect or infamy. how to represent that?

-- tactical acumen. often the warrior is a more seasoned battler. how to represent that?

-- leader. often the warrior is the leader in fantasy not the spellcaster. how to represent making the team better, both on and off the battle field? Keeping morale up and the team together.

-- heart and sole. often the martial is the "resistor" of corruption, magic, etc. How to represent that?

what else?

At least in my own games, flying foes havent been a problem for player Martial tactics. It is normal for a Fighter to use a bow, either competently or superiorly.

The range of bow is vast, far beyond most spell ranges, and all flying creatures. A Fighter can even land several rounds of arrows at a flying target that is trying to escape.

But the opposite, yikes. Many monsters lack a range attack, and flying heroes can easily "kite" invulnerably against a hapless monster.


Things that are painful for a Fighter player:

Physical barriers, travel distances, plane shiftings

Social tactics (including charm and frighten, procuring things for negotiations that potential allies want, etcetera).

Any player character must be able to function as a competent leader, including a Fighter.


Lets think of specific problems that are painful for a high tier Fighter player. For example, I know the Forcecage spell specifically is a pain point, that must be fixed.

This is different from a wish list for cool stuff.

Once the balance stuff heals a bit, there is more room to focus on cool stuff, and finding ways to deal with the painful stuff will probably inspire cool stuff as well.

 

[Yaarel]

I think it's a breadth issue equally.

Imagine if

Wizard -- each wizard can do mostly AoE damage spells and only ONE of the following 1) battle field control, 2) movement/travel, 3) divination, 4) charm/dominate, etc.

Druid -- ok warrior, survival stuff and travel spells only, limited use shape change so can be an excellent warrior or scout a few times a day. No direct damage or control spells.

Much easier to balance against I would think and the lack of breadth opens up other space for others to shine.

I love love love magic. I am all for each caster being more thematic, and choosing between spell lists that each have a tighter thematic focus.

 

[Yaarel]

Don’t worry I’m definitely aware that non-combat is where fighter most lags behind in high level play but for a class called the fight-er who’s primary purpose is fight-ing they’re painfully average at actually doing so, so I take the opportunity to brainstorm a little for them in that department too

Class "balance" means the "Fighter" contributes as much to combat as a Wizard or any 5e class does.

Thats great. But. The goal of "balance" must also mean, the Fighter contributes as much to noncombat as the other 5e classes do.

 

[Minigiant]

It should go to notice that WOTC solved a lot of the barbarian class's disparity in the Playtest but not the fighter's,

Why?

Because the Barbarian is well defined whereas the Fighter is vague.

Because the Barbarian is well defined, WOTC could go "Wellwhen the barbarian rages it channels energies right. Usually its primal but it could be divine with a zealot or arcane with a wild soul. And sometimes its just anger and sweat. Well what if this anger lets the barbarian use their Strength modifier for some skill checks. And at high levels a barbarian is so strong that their muscles can't give aresultlower than their score. Because MUSCLES AND RAGE!"

Some might see it a bit weird but if you accepted the barbarian so far as the rage monster, a little more rage into noncombat is not the last straw and fits the archetype. The question becomes what is the DC to jump an extra 20 ft up?

But for the fighter, the fighter on just the nonmmagical side represents:

1. The Brute: The strong tough and fast bruiser who focuses training on athleticism.
2. The Knight: The strong warrior of a warrior caste/class/culture/country who masters the combat arts and cultural ideals of warriors of his heritage
3. The Warlord: The general of the tactics and strategy who puts emphasis on the mental side of combat and the positioning of combatants.
4. The Weaponmaster: The master of the very art of weapons combat and the technical and philosophical aspects of the duel

Each one of these fighter archetypes would handle high levels differently. A Brute would just jump at the flying dragon whereas the Warlord goads the dragon down with insults and Weaponmaster switches to a bow. A Knight might have skills in Diplomacy whereas the Brute might pull a barbarian and trade Cha for Str in Intimidation while the Warlord and Weaponmaster use Insight to give the Rogue hints into what words triggered responses in the cornered foe.

Because the fighter itself is not a family of honed archetypes like other classes, there is no single feature that could represent them all. And a subclass lacks the space to provide a substitute.

This displays how it breaks down at high levels. 14 Charisma and Animal Handling Proficiency might be enough to be a chivalrous mounted knight at level 5. But at level 15 not only is it not enough, others can copy that easily and it isn't enough to mimic epic knightly actions.

 

[CreamCloud0]

-- movement -- should be able to get to hard to reach places without real world climbing restrictions and 10x checks. super jump? narrative control?

THey get climb and swim speeds from a specific fighting style (mariner iirc) but honestly I think they could just have them.

-- social -- in typical fantasy warrior types often have a lot of face abilities -- respect or infamy. how to represent that?

Bring back fighter proxy military rank, your fighter is of X level, they are important enough to arrange an impromptu meeting with anyone of Y station,
Maybe too rogue-y but the fighter is in tune with the citizens and has advanced to pick up information and word on the street stuff from them.
Let them rally the citizens for things, construct a building, raise funds, guards to protect something while they’re away,

-- tactical acumen. often the warrior is a more seasoned battler. how to represent that?
-- leader. often the warrior is the leader in fantasy not the spellcaster. how to represent making the team better, both on and off the battle field? Keeping morale up and the team together.

Providing/receiving better flanking bonuses, hell just having better attack bonuses, auras like the paladins even,
getting to make bonus action checks to discern information about their enemies including stats, tactics, weaknesses and even what they’re going to do next turn, perhaps something similar to find ways to exploit the environment/battlefield,
Actions that can move allies up and down the initiative order as needed or let them act out of turn,
Marking/taunting/drawing aggro,

 

[Emberashh]

I think it's a breadth issue equally.

Imagine if

Wizard -- each wizard can do mostly AoE damage spells and only ONE of the following 1) battle field control, 2) movement/travel, 3) divination, 4) charm/dominate, etc.

Druid -- ok warrior, survival stuff and travel spells only, limited use shape change so can be an excellent warrior or scout a few times a day. No direct damage or control spells.

Much easier to balance against I would think and the lack of breadth opens up other space for others to shine.

To take this opportunity to keep bringing up my own game, my idea for the Wizard (in the scheme of the mages) is that they won't have much AOE; they'd be very focused on single target damage, and would not be great practioners of elemental type magic.

Sorcerers, instead, would be your blaster types, raining down destruction and tearing up the battlefield as they do it.

The Wizard in contrast would be more precision oriented; more magic like Magic Missile and less like Fireball. But thats not all, as they'd also be Illusionists and Edificers; conjuring, well, illusions and edifices. A lot of control and exploration focus, is what Im saying, and its subs are going to drive that point home.

They'll also, in the scheme of how each mage interacts with Corruption, be the ones to embrace it. Each Corruption would have the potential to be converted into a runic sigil on the Wizards body, and as they accumulate them they'll get a variety of buffs, and they can expend these Runes to empower their spells, making them more accurate, more damaging, etc.

Druids meanwhile Im going to be pushing towards the Weather Mage angle; as they won't be Shapeshifters in LNO, their core ability is one it shares with the other 4 Nature classes (Druid gets Heart of the Wild; think Natural Explorer from the OG Ranger but dramatically better and tuned for Mages), and its other abilities will be tuned towards, well, weather stuff. A sort of cross between the Wizard and the Sorcerer design wise; a good balance of utility and big booms.

 

[Yaarel]

It should go to notice that WOTC solved a lot of the barbarian class's disparity in the Playtest but not the fighter's,

Why?

Because the Barbarian is well defined whereas the Fighter is vague.

Because the Barbarian is well defined, WOTC could go "Wellwhen the barbarian rages it channels energies right. Usually its primal but it could be divine with a zealot or arcane with a wild soul. And sometimes its just anger and sweat. Well what if this anger lets the barbarian use their Strength modifier for some skill checks. And at high levels a barbarian is so strong that their muscles can't give aresultlower than their score. Because MUSCLES AND RAGE!"

Some might see it a bit weird but if you accepted the barbarian so far as the rage monster, a little more rage into noncombat is not the last straw and fits the archetype. The question becomes what is the DC to jump an extra 20 ft up?

But for the fighter, the fighter on just the nonmmagical side represents:

1. The Brute: The strong tough and fast bruiser who focuses training on athleticism.
2. The Knight: The strong warrior of a warrior caste/class/culture/country who masters the combat arts and cultural ideals of warriors of his heritage
3. The Warlord: The general of the tactics and strategy who puts emphasis on the mental side of combat and the positioning of combatants.
4. The Weaponmaster: The master of the very art of weapons combat and the technical and philosophical aspects of the duel

Each one of these fighter archetypes would handle high levels differently. A Brute would just jump at the flying dragon whereas the Warlord goads the dragon down with insults and Weaponmaster switches to a bow. A Knight might have skills in Diplomacy whereas the Brute might pull a barbarian and trade Cha for Str in Intimidation while the Warlord and Weaponmaster use Insight to give the Rogue hints into what words triggered responses in the cornered foe.

Because the fighter itself is not a family of honed archetypes like other classes, there is no single feature that could represent them all. And a subclass lacks the space to provide a substitute.

This displays how it breaks down at high levels. 14 Charisma and Animal Handling Proficiency might be enough to be a chivalrous mounted knight at level 5. But at level 15 not only is it not enough, others can copy that easily and it isn't enough to mimic epic knightly actions.

Personally I want to see the Fighter split into two main classes.
• Knight ( ≈ heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher ( ≈ light infantry)

The Knight is heavy armor and heavy weapon, and often with an "aristocratic" education for Intelligence knowledge and tactics and Charisma politics and morale. But the Knight that selects a way to absorb massive damage, can function as a Brute. Subclasses like Cavalier and Samurai go to the Knight.

The Skirmisher is light armor and high mobility with athletic stunts, often for quick, perceptive, and stealthy "tip of the spear" operations. This is pretty much what the nonmagic Ranger is, and is Strength oriented. The AC bonus comes from Strength in the sense of vigorous athletic dodging and blocking. The Skirmisher can select a way to focus on multiple nonmagical Unarmed Strikes.

The Rogue picks up the Dexterity combat.

The Barbarian becomes more overtly magical.

 

[Hussar]

The other side of the coin is that the skill system could use some definitions. What does a DC 25 or DC 30 actually let you do? The DMG kinda sorta has some guidance, but, not really? If you have a character that can routinely hit a DC 25, that's already pretty close to superhuman. That's stuff that most of us wouldn't even try to do because it's so difficult. And DC 30? That's right off the charts.

Yet, a high level rogue can certainly hit DC 25's routinely. Heck, with Expertise and Reliable Talent, a DC 25 check becomes automatic without too much difficulty and a DC 30 is plausible.

So, what does that mean? What can I do with a DC 30 check? Shouldn't I be able to walk on air? But, despite the DMG calling out DC 30 checks as legendary, there's no actual guidance for what you can do with that.

Giving Fighters expertise and then some guidance on what you can actually do with super high checks would go a long way towards helpign fighters out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It should go to notice that WOTC solved a lot of the barbarian class's disparity in the Playtest but not the fighter's,

Why?

Because the Barbarian is well defined whereas the Fighter is vague.

Because the Barbarian is well defined, WOTC could go "Wellwhen the barbarian rages it channels energies right. Usually its primal but it could be divine with a zealot or arcane with a wild soul. And sometimes its just anger and sweat. Well what if this anger lets the barbarian use their Strength modifier for some skill checks. And at high levels a barbarian is so strong that their muscles can't give aresultlower than their score. Because MUSCLES AND RAGE!"

Some might see it a bit weird but if you accepted the barbarian so far as the rage monster, a little more rage into noncombat is not the last straw and fits the archetype. The question becomes what is the DC to jump an extra 20 ft up?

But for the fighter, the fighter on just the nonmmagical side represents:

1. The Brute: The strong tough and fast bruiser who focuses training on athleticism.
2. The Knight: The strong warrior of a warrior caste/class/culture/country who masters the combat arts and cultural ideals of warriors of his heritage
3. The Warlord: The general of the tactics and strategy who puts emphasis on the mental side of combat and the positioning of combatants.
4. The Weaponmaster: The master of the very art of weapons combat and the technical and philosophical aspects of the duel

Each one of these fighter archetypes would handle high levels differently. A Brute would just jump at the flying dragon whereas the Warlord goads the dragon down with insults and Weaponmaster switches to a bow. A Knight might have skills in Diplomacy whereas the Brute might pull a barbarian and trade Cha for Str in Intimidation while the Warlord and Weaponmaster use Insight to give the Rogue hints into what words triggered responses in the cornered foe.

Because the fighter itself is not a family of honed archetypes like other classes, there is no single feature that could represent them all. And a subclass lacks the space to provide a substitute.

This displays how it breaks down at high levels. 14 Charisma and Animal Handling Proficiency might be enough to be a chivalrous mounted knight at level 5. But at level 15 not only is it not enough, others can copy that easily and it isn't enough to mimic epic knightly actions.

I think if we want a mythic fighter with a coherent high level identity you hav two drop the brute and combine the other 3 as facets of the Master of Arms.