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

[Incenjucar]

It doesn't matter who currently plays existing fighters, it matters who wants to play mythic ones.

 

[Scott Christian]

"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.

No offense, but why do you speak for everyone? Why?
At our table, a table full of vets just as experienced as you and anyone else here, we have had people play champions. Guess what? They enjoyed them - no houserules! And those accounts, how can you say they are from newbies that are "heavily encouraged" to play them. There not. I have watched a hundred new kids make characters, and many choose fighter because that is what they wanted, not someone else.

You sound like you don't like the data, so you are just making stuff up. If that's the case, I will do the same.

"Why are the casters less played?"
The casters are less played because the only people that play them are min-maxers.

See how that sounds? That is what your answers sound like.

How about this. You accept the fact that fighters are popular. That many tables like the fighter in its current rendition. But for some tables, there is an issue. But even with though some tables have a problem, most don't - which is why it is the most popular class for a broad player base.

 

[Minigiant]

No offense, but why do you speak for everyone? Why?
At our table, a table full of vets just as experienced as you and anyone else here, we have had people play champions. Guess what? They enjoyed them - no houserules! And those accounts, how can you say they are from newbies that are "heavily encouraged" to play them. There not. I have watched a hundred new kids make characters, and many choose fighter because that is what they wanted, not someone else.

My point is that you are all vets.

My point is the reasons for not changing anything usually uses circular logic. On in the Mages, no reason at all.

It's one thing in WOTC was going to provie ideas, guides, and variants from DMs who have players who want nonmagical high level martials.
But they aren't.
There is nothing in the 2014 D&D.
They haven't said that they are adding it to the 2024 D&D.
And as Treantmonk's playtest describes (and my playtest went the same way) trying to give the martials option with a simple martial leads to bad gameplay.

And if professional game designers can't do it, what do you expect the experience of a DM who only played 5e and doesn't have 10 years of knowledge is?

How about this. You accept the fact that fighters are popular. That many tables like the fighter in its current rendition. But for some tables, there is an issue. But even with though some tables have a problem, most don't - which is why it is the most popular class for a broad player base.

Not one play high level fighters.
Because no one plays high levels. That's WOTC's data.
It the data is that simple and you should dive into it, then 5e is half broken.
The whole top half doesn't work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ill let a couple redditors take this one

View attachment 288851

1) They aren't going to be permanently prone, there are other weapon masteries.

2) Yes, getting advantage in melee is strong... but that is what Vex does, only vex doesn't also give disadvantage to all ranged attacks.

3) Shove action still exists.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It doesn't matter who currently plays existing fighters, it matters who wants to play mythic ones.

True, and I want the fighter to be able to impose status conditions. It is just a simple and fundamental part of the game that they are entirely cut out of in normal play.

 

[Yaarel]

Treantmonk showing precisely why jacking up Martials to the Casters level is a terrible idea. Yeesh.

My impression from Treantmonks particular playtesting is:

The warrior classes were highly effective in a combat encounter, Fighter, Barbarian, and to some degree the Paladin.

But the caster classes seemed less effective in comparison. One of the casters resorted to emulating a melee martial (by becoming a Gorilla) because the spells were ineffectual, compared to how the warriors performed.

The problematic is the UA weapon masteries. On the one hand, the warrior players greatly enjoyed the mechanic. They appreciated having interesting things to do, and loved dealing huge damage reliably.

On the one hand, the weapon masteries mechanically boost combat power. Combat encounters arent where the warriors need a boost. The result actually made them overpowered compared to casters in a combat encounter.

Generally speaking, it is necessary to keep the weapon masteries, because the mechanic really did make the game more fun and engaging for warrior players, and perhaps this is the most important criterion. However, warriors are already extremely powerful in combat, and to make warriors even more powerful in combat guarantees imbalance compared to other classes.


When looking at the mythic warrior at the high tiers, it is important to specify precisely where warriors become ineffectual, and to improve these specific scenarios for the sake of balance.

Mostly the high tier warriors fail at noncombat encounters, and to some degree this can affect a need for certain utility powers in certain combat encounters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I cannot explain or elaborate on the abundantly self-evident.

The supposedly “self-evident” is very often blatantly false, and extremely frequently controversial at best.

And if you can’t explain or elaborate on it, that is your failing, not anyone else’s.

 

[Yaarel]

True, and I want the fighter to be able to impose status conditions. It is just a simple and fundamental part of the game that they are entirely cut out of in normal play.

As long as the action that inflicts a condition is sacrificing damage-dealing, then the trade-off should balance fine.

 

[Gammadoodler]

My impression from Treantmonks particular playtesting is:

The warrior classes were highly effective in a combat encounter, Fighter, Barbarian, and to some degree the Paladin.

But the caster classes seemed less effective in comparison. One of the casters resorted to emulating a melee martial (by becoming a Gorilla) because the spells were ineffectual, compared to how the warriors performed.

The problematic is the UA weapon masteries. On the one hand, the warrior players greatly enjoyed the mechanic. They appreciated having interesting things to do, and loved dealing huge damage reliably.

On the one hand, the weapon masteries mechanically boost combat power. Combat encounters arent where the warriors need a boost. The result actually made them overpowered compared to casters in a combat encounter.

Generally speaking, it is necessary to keep the weapon masteries, because the mechanic really did make the game more fun and engaging for warrior players, and perhaps this is the most important criterion. However, warriors are already extremely powerful in combat, and to make warriors even more powerful in combat guarantees imbalance compared to other classes.


When looking at the mythic warrior at the high tiers, it is important to specify precisely where warriors become ineffectual, and to improve these specific scenarios for the sake of balance.

Mostly the high tier warriors fail at noncombat encounters, and to some degree this can affect a need for certain utility powers in certain combat encounters.

For melee martials, I think "extremely powerful in combat" is limited to "in favorable conditions".. primarily when distances and the enemy numbers are small.

The balance of how often these conditions apply is going to vary significantly from table.
to table.

 

[Yaarel]

For melee martials, I think "extremely powerful in combat" is limited to "in favorable conditions".. primarily when distances and the enemy numbers are small.

The balance of how often these conditions apply is going to vary significantly from table.
to table.

The warriors are extremely powerful in combat encounters − especially at the lower tiers.

The difficulty that warriors face happens in noncombat encounters − especially at the higher tiers.

To boost warrior combat powers even further at the lower tiers looks already breaking or broken.



To be clear, I dont have a problem with warriors inflicting conditions. They conceptually make sense, and tend to be the kinds of things warriors should be doing anyway, like Frightened, Incapacitated, etcetera. But these can be extremely powerful, and must implement in ways that maintain balance.