D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm tired of shackling a whole class for players who don't even want to learn the damn game. Moreover, where's my noob caster? My heal bot? Make 4 noob classes and release the fighter for people who enjoy tactics rather than designing it for a theoretical player who spaces out until someone tells them to roll to hit.

this is why I want a class (we can call it fighter) based off the champion fighter but ALSO a more complex warrior class (call it warblade, or warlord, or swordsage, or animeswordguy) and as long as we are spliting the class give us a half caster magus/swordmage/bladesinger/eldtrichknight

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I suppose what I'm actually saying then is that the kind of changes you and I would like to see are far too sweeping to ever meet WotC's demands for public approval, in my view. You are much, much better off, both for your game and your peace of mind, if you turn to third party and homebrew for your fixing 5e needs.

I will not "go sit over there and shut up" and yes I knwo that isn't exactly what your wrote, but it ends the same.

we got 4e when 3.5 had people so annoyed at caster supremacy that everyone was speaking out. We now have many new players to get to win over... once we do we can tell wotc we want balnce.

Why would you need WotC to do it anyway?

becuase that is the defualt owner of D&D.

They're no better than any other content producer.

except they get to be the one that owns it... so instead of spending time and money trying to find "the one" company we instead can just stick to the one that we all agree owns the game...

if I was going to leave WotC it would be for TORG, or World of Darknees, or Savage Worlds... not a D&D like game.

Unless you play a lot of Adventuer's League (in which case you are in fact doomed) you can get your stuff from anywhere you want, from 3PP to other posters to your own imagination.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As long as you don't pick them from the same pool as exploits that do do damage, that could work.

one of the things I played around with in my fantasy best D&D ideal system was combat feats and not combat talents that you could not switch...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For players that veteran players keep insisting don't want to learn the damn game.

In my playtest where there is no simple class, but every class has guidance, I'm not seeing newbies have problems. The only issue I've seen is two powers with similar names tripping them up.

I regularly see newbies go for warlock and sorcerer and even barbarian over figher TBH

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But Wotc will react to audience. 50k, 100k, 1M followers, then you may attract Wotc attention and may influence the game.

you know how you attract people to your cause... you talk about it (here, tick toc, facebook, game stores, cons)

For now Treantmonk a notorious optimizer have 67k followers. Critical role 1.94M. Guess which drummer will influence the future of the game.

so if I get the two guys that run games that talk about mechanics (the one that ran the spell jammer WotC game and the one that runs the CR game) to talk about caster supremacy and the need for a complex warrior class I just win then right?

 

[Micah Sweet]

this is why I want a class (we can call it fighter) based off the champion fighter but ALSO a more complex warrior class (call it warblade, or warlord, or swordsage, or animeswordguy) and as long as we are spliting the class give us a half caster magus/swordmage/bladesinger/eldtrichknight

Splitting the fighter in this way has a very good chance of being read as, "here is the real fighter class, and here's the one for people who can't handle the real fighter class". Nobody wants to have that thrown in their face. Better IMO to just make a complex fighter and use templates to provide decision-free examples.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will not "go sit over there and shut up" and yes I knwo that isn't exactly what your wrote, but it ends the same.

we got 4e when 3.5 had people so annoyed at caster supremacy that everyone was speaking out. We now have many new players to get to win over... once we do we can tell wotc we want balnce.

becuase that is the defualt owner of D&D.

except they get to be the one that owns it... so instead of spending time and money trying to find "the one" company we instead can just stick to the one that we all agree owns the game...

if I was going to leave WotC it would be for TORG, or World of Darknees, or Savage Worlds... not a D&D like game.

Hard disagree regarding WotC's so-called "authority". They just dropped 5e into the CC. The argument can easily be made that they don't "own" it anymore, if you were still under the impression that they did.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hard disagree regarding WotC's so-called "authority". They just dropped 5e into the CC. The argument can easily be made that they don't "own" it anymore, if you were still under the impression that they did.

you can argue that all you want. If I am going to spend time and money to find new systems it will not be a D&D like one.

 

[James Gasik]

Splitting the fighter in this way has a very good chance of being read as, "here is the real fighter class, and here's the one for people who can't handle the real fighter class". Nobody wants to have that thrown in their face. Better IMO to just make a complex fighter and use templates to provide decision-free examples.

And the Champion doesn't do that already?

 

[Micah Sweet]

you know how you attract people to your cause... you talk about it (here, tick toc, facebook, game stores, cons)

so if I get the two guys that run games that talk about mechanics (the one that ran the spell jammer WotC game and the one that runs the CR game) to talk about caster supremacy and the need for a complex warrior class I just win then right?

Honestly, it would go a long way to changing hearts and minds. Not that I would want that, but our opinions are both worth exactly as much at the moment. I'm not looking for a platform to influence people from, however.

 

[Micah Sweet]

you can argue that all you want. If I am going to spend time and money to find new systems it will not be a D&D like one.

By all means, go for it. I just see trying to get WotC to change their "bland kind of backwards-compatible simplicity" stance as something of a waste of effort. IMO, there are better ways to get a better D&D for your table then trying to get the masses of potential that are all WotC care about to demand change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And the Champion doesn't do that already?

I kind of think it does, yes. The champion is garbage and the effort spent making it would have been better spent coming up with more battlemaster maneuvers and creating numerous pre-made examples for new players to choose from.

 

[Clint_L]

Fighter and barbarian are already extremely popular choices that are considered top tier classes. They are great at two really important aspects of the game: delivering and absorbing damage. I don't think they need a buff. So if we are talking about giving them more stuff, such as extra feats, then I think you would need to balance that out by reducing their damage and/or tankiness. I think lumping them in with rogues, and especially monks, is a mistake.

Look at how little attention this thread has paid to monks, a class that is legitimately weak.

The thing with a bunch of extra feats is that it will primarily benefit fighters and barbarians, two classes who need it the least.

 

[James Gasik]

You can't fix Monks. Even worse than Fighters, you can mathematically prove Monks are terrible, and not only do defenders of the class go on about their incredible value as skirmishers and damage dealers, you'll have DM's with horror stories of their entire campaigns being ruined by a Monk player calling for the blood of anyone who would dare give them even a minor buff.

Even WotC knows the class is in bad shape, when Tasha's gives them "alternate abilities" that the DM can decide to just give them for free, without any cost!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By all means, go for it. I just see trying to get WotC to change their "bland kind of backwards-compatible simplicity" stance as something of a waste of effort. IMO, there are better ways to get a better D&D for your table then trying to get the masses of potential that are all WotC care about to demand change.

I don't think I am wasting my time

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I am wasting my time

Fair enough, I'll let it go.

 

[Krachek]

you know how you attract people to your cause... you talk about it (here, tick toc, facebook, game stores, cons)

so if I get the two guys that run games that talk about mechanics (the one that ran the spell jammer WotC game and the one that runs the CR game) to talk about caster supremacy and the need for a complex warrior class I just win then right?

Of course you win, it’s your sole option.

 

[ECMO3]

this is why I want a class (we can call it fighter) based off the champion fighter but ALSO a more complex warrior class (call it warblade, or warlord, or swordsage, or animeswordguy) and as long as we are spliting the class give us a half caster magus/swordmage/bladesinger/eldtrichknight

I would be ok with that, although we need to keep the Bladesinger as a full caster. We could get another class as a half caster if people need that.

 

[ECMO3]

You can't fix Monks. Even worse than Fighters, you can mathematically prove Monks are terrible, and not only do defenders of the class go on about their incredible value as skirmishers and damage dealers, you'll have DM's with horror stories of their entire campaigns being ruined by a Monk player calling for the blood of anyone who would dare give them even a minor buff.

Even WotC knows the class is in bad shape, when Tasha's gives them "alternate abilities" that the DM can decide to just give them for free, without any cost!

I like Monks, but I don't think they are good skirmishers or good damage dealers. They are fast though and they are pretty tough as long as you reserve kid for patent defense and don't waste it spamming stunning strike or flurry of blows.

While most Monks are pretty tough, Long Death is near unkillable at 11th level. They can keep up with any martial and are probably last longer than any martial at that point (again as long as you don't blow your ki on SS and FOB). You could have 1hp left and take 11 more hits, regardless of damage, and still be standing ... and do that after every single long rest. At that level that is about the equivalent of an extra 250hps .... more against spellcasters or AOE effects that do a lot on one hit. The free frightened within 30 feet is pretty awesome too, especially on a Shaddar-Kai or Eladrin.

I find a lot of players don't like that long-game play style where they want to wear down their enemy though. They want to do a lot of damage up front and a Monk is not good at that.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, monks are great by level 14 or so. Unfortunately, 96% of campaigns apparently wrap by level 10.