D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[Clint_L]

My bad - your perspective is clearly more valid.

 

[ECMO3]

It's a statement of focus, not one of balance. (That said, as mentioned, it causes problems with the sorcerer).

It is not, and the mechanics show you are wrong. They show that the Wizard is in fact not just the supreme caster, but the supreme class.

You can't interpret the context of that statement without considering the mechanics

I mean you are saying that it does not mean that the wizards are superior as a class, but the mechanics on the very next page show that they are.

This is the problem. The thing is the fighter should get something awesome in tier 3 and be awesome in tier 4.

No they shouldn't. The fighter should get no more buffs at all in my opinion.

Further this would not achieve balance, people say they want balance, but they don't want to do what would actually provide balance - give the Fighter spells and a full spell caster progression. That would actually balance the fighter with the caster classes (or do a lot better than it is now).

There is no good reason that tier 4 fighters shouldn't leap tall buildings in a single bound and be faster than a locomotive. They just don't - but if they did it would not do one single thing to interfere with wizards being supreme casters.

Spells are the answer here!

If you want them to do this give them spells and then they can cast fly or dimension door or whatever so they can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

If you are not willing to give fighters spells then there is no reason they should be able to do these things.

The fighter should not be running around doing things that a Wizard or Cleric or Druid can't do without casting spells. If the fighter can leap buildings without a spell than those other classes should be able to as well.

One of which you are misinterpreting, as I have shown. And the other one of which is a result of the mechanics being bad and it's being suggested should be fixed.

Where does it say they are broken?

You keep citing this explicit and implicit promise, but then can't provide a reference to such promise. You may not like the references I provided, but they are there.

I have already pointed out that CR is a thing - and works on character level but does not weight for class. And I have already pointed out that adventures are for set levels and do not weight for class. There is no guidance anywhere that says to the DM that you should balance for class.

There are so many problems with this theory:

1. It does not weight for party composition either, or build or experience level of the players. Does that mean D&D promises all those things are balanced? There is an implicit promise that a party of first time players is as poweful in game as a party of experienced players because of the CR tables?

It does even imply that all classes are balanced any more than it implys all players are balanced (and clearly they are not).

2. The CR tables in the DMG apply for groups of 3 to 5 players. This range itself implys your reasoning is wrong. If all classes are supposed to be equal then something that is medium for a 5-member party could not also be medium for a 3-member party that has 40% fewer actions every turn. The CR tables are a guideline for

3. it does actually talk about this in the DMG about tailoring specific encounters to party composition, noting that Rakashas are immune to spells below 6th level and that you need to consider things like that as they could make an encounter more difficult for a specific party than another monster of the same CR. It also talks about modifying it for circumstances, specific "benefits" or "drawbacks". Those things would logicially include class-specific benefits or limitations. If there was actually an implicit promise that all classes are equalnone of this would be here.

4. Finally there is some guidance on party in the basic rules:

"Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party’s chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons."

If I am to accept your argument that all classes are the same because of the CR tables then there would be no need for specific roles or cooperation. I would argue that the CR table is produced with the implied understanding that this is how you are building your party. It is a CR table for an average cross-section of 3-5 member party.

This does not have much to do with balance. To suggest that magic users should be the most powerful is to suggest that there is no value in diversity. That the best party is one made up all of casters. Balance done well makes for a better game because it encourages diversity.

That is not true. The most powerful party would certainly be one made up entirely of casters (probably not all Wizards though). That does not make it the "best" though. The best party is the one that is most fun to play.

Balance done well makes for an awful game in my experience. I have never seen a homebrew rule for balance that actually improved the game and the only balanced version of D&D sucked IMO.

Now you can say that is anecdotal, but the opposite is anecdotal too and the statistical evidence we have does not show anything but it implicitly refutes the idea that a lack of power in the fighter class makes that class less fun to play.

No - they should be within certain bounds. D&D has among other things a strong element of randomness so two identical parties won't fare "the exact same".

Then why do we need to "balance" the classes? If randomness drives outcomes (and it does to a small degree), then imbalance is simply a bias on that random number generator.

 

[ECMO3]

See above. A Wizard that manages things even slightly better than "always targeting exactly 2 targets with fireball" (no expectation that either fails the save) has the room to squeeze in those extra defensive spells--like shield.

Unless it is an evocation Wizard, I think it is more common that a wizard doesn't target anyone with fireball because the opportunity does not present itself to do so in a tactically effective manner. I think 0 enemies hit with fireball in a battle is more common than 2+.

I would say if you have a Wizard with the ability to cast 6 or more fireballs a day (nominally 1 per battle). On average the median number of enemies he will hit with fireball in an encounter is 1, 0.5 or 0.

Also hitting 2 enemies with fireball is probably only around 35 damage total on average when you consider saves.

 

[ECMO3]

If one person is having a very good time, and another is having a bad time, and there are ways which can improve the time of the person having a bad time while (at worst) reducing the other person's time to merely a good one, it seems unreasonable for the person having a very good time to say, "Well, both of our experiences are valid, so we shouldn't change anything."

What if two people are having a good time with how the rules currently are and these changes will lead to one of them (or both of them) having a bad time?

If you make the fighter a lot better at fighting than other classes can be, you will severely hurt the game for a lot of people. Far more I think than you will improve it for.

The fighter as it is now will no longer exist and the people who enjoy playing it will be left out in the cold.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What if two people are having a good time with how the rules currently are and these changes will lead to one of them (or both of them) having a bad time?

Do you have any evidence that that will actually occur? Because if you don't, then at least trying to fix the bad time actually happening seems to be the more important consideration.

If you make the fighter a lot better at fighting than other classes can be, you will severely hurt the game for a lot of people. Far more I think than you will improve it for.

Do you have any evidence that that will actually occur?

The fighter as it is now will no longer exist and the people who enjoy playing it will be left out in the cold.

What is your evidence for this claim? Casters seem to have no problem at all with getting options that make them straight-up more powerful (consider how every new book adds even more spells...)

 

[Tonguez]

It is not, and the mechanics show you are wrong. They show that the Wizard is in fact not just the supreme caster, but the supreme class.

You can't interpret the context of that statement without considering the mechanics

I mean you are saying that it does not mean that the wizards are superior as a class, but the mechanics on the very next page show that they are.



No they shouldn't. The fighter should get no more buffs at all in my opinion.

Further this would not achieve balance, people say they want balance, but they don't want to do what would actually provide balance - give the Fighter spells and a full spell caster progression. That would actually balance the fighter with the caster classes (or do a lot better than it is now).


Spells are the answer here!

If you want them to do this give them spells and then they can cast fly or dimension door or whatever so they can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

If you are not willing to give fighters spells then there is no reason they should be able to do these things.

The fighter should not be running around doing things that a Wizard or Cleric or Druid can't do without casting spells. If the fighter can leap buildings without a spell than those other classes should be able to as well.




Where does it say they are broken?

You keep citing this explicit and implicit promise, but then can't provide a reference to such promise. You may not like the references I provided, but they are there.



There are so many problems with this theory:

1. It does not weight for party composition either, or build or experience level of the players. Does that mean D&D promises all those things are balanced? There is an implicit promise that a party of first time players is as poweful in game as a party of experienced players because of the CR tables?

It does even imply that all classes are balanced any more than it implys all players are balanced (and clearly they are not).

2. The CR tables in the DMG apply for groups of 3 to 5 players. This range itself implys your reasoning is wrong. If all classes are supposed to be equal then something that is medium for a 5-member party could not also be medium for a 3-member party that has 40% fewer actions every turn. The CR tables are a guideline for

3. it does actually talk about this in the DMG about tailoring specific encounters to party composition, noting that Rakashas are immune to spells below 6th level and that you need to consider things like that as they could make an encounter more difficult for a specific party than another monster of the same CR. It also talks about modifying it for circumstances, specific "benefits" or "drawbacks". Those things would logicially include class-specific benefits or limitations. If there was actually an implicit promise that all classes are equalnone of this would be here.

4. Finally there is some guidance on party in the basic rules:

"Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party’s chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons."

If I am to accept your argument that all classes are the same because of the CR tables then there would be no need for specific roles or cooperation. I would argue that the CR table is produced with the implied understanding that this is how you are building your party. It is a CR table for an average cross-section of 3-5 member party.




That is not true. The most powerful party would certainly be one made up entirely of casters (probably not all Wizards though). That does not make it the "best" though. The best party is the one that is most fun to play.

Balance done well makes for an awful game in my experience. I have never seen a homebrew rule for balance that actually improved the game and the only balanced version of D&D sucked IMO.

Now you can say that is anecdotal, but the opposite is anecdotal too and the statistical evidence we have does not show anything but it implicitly refutes the idea that a lack of power in the fighter class makes that class less fun to play.




Then why do we need to "balance" the classes? If randomness drives outcomes (and it does to a small degree), then imbalance is simply a bias on that random number generator.

quite frankly your arguments here seem to be a nonsensical rant.

If a Wizard can be a Supreme caster then why can a Fighter not have ’unparalleled mastery of weapons and armor’? That description would indicate that other classes should not be parallel with fighters when it comes to fighting whether they be a Paladin or a War Caster.

“Fighters are unparalleled in mastery of weapons and armor” If feats are the means to show that mastery then give more to the Fighter, it doesnt need to be balanced against the Wizard - arguing that Fighters should be given spells because Wizards are the supreme class is a huge leap of logic, and pretends that spells aren’t just another resource the game uses to allow players to produce non-standard effects - just like Feats

 

[ECMO3]

Do you have any evidence that that will actually occur? Because if you don't, then at least trying to fix the bad time actually happening seems to be the more important consideration.

Yes. I have played in other versions with more "balanced" fighters and I have played in homebrew games with "fixes" t5o the fighter and both of those things were A LOT worse than RAW. Further none of those games even concluded, every single one of them dissolved. On the other hand almost every campaign I have played in the last 2 years with RAW fighters has actually played until the end.

I will also ask do you have any evidence that making these changes will actually make anyone happier?

Do you have any evidence that that will actually occur?

I personally have evidence that will occur based on my anecdotal experiences. There is also some limited amount of empircal evidence that the imbalance is not a problem.

There are other players posting on this board with anecdotal evidence that the fighter has problems, but those anecdotes are no more powerful than mine and they those who think it shouldn't change.

What is your evidence for this claim?

If you give the fighter more power, especially if you give them abilities like leaping buildings the current class will not exist.

Casters seem to have no problem at all with getting options that make them straight-up more powerful (consider how every new book adds even more spells...)

I dont have any issue with providing more spells for casters. That does not bother me at all, it doesn't cause problems in my games and I dont believe it causes problems in most games.

As a matter of fact providing spells for fighters as a fix would bother me less than many of these other ides.

 

[ECMO3]

quite frankly your arguments here seem to be a nonsensical rant.

It makes as much sense as the desperate calls for more for more power. Claiming my argument is nonsensical does not make the counter argument stronger.

If a Wizard can be a Supreme caster then why can a Fighter not have ’unparalleled mastery of weapons and armor’?

Why not just give that to every class then?

My main concern here is keeping all classes close when it comes to using weapons and armor. The fighter already has advantages in terms of getting proficiencies. Then they go on to get extra attack. That is enough right there, and other classes that get those things thru a class race, subclass or feat should be able to keep up with a base fighter.

There should never be a case that a fighter with basic class abilities should actually be masters of arms and armor combat at a level not achivable by others who use subclass abilities, races and feats.

Also to be clear about wizards, the statement i qouted speaks to the lack of promise if balance, not what mechanics it should have.

That description would indicate that other classes should not be parallel with fighters when it comes to fighting whether they be a Paladin or a War Caster.

In terms of class mechanics they fighters are already. But the class mechanics should not put them ahead of other classes can achieve if built for it with specific subclasses and feats.

Other classes, if built with subclassses and feats to use weapons and armor though those things should be able to achieve a level roughly as good as a fighter without a subclass.

There are a cuple things I would like to see:
1. proficiecy in all weapns. so this includes catapults and balistae, firearms, lasers if they find them. also monsters weapons like the pincer thing koatoa uses or the siked nets used by sahagin.

2. give them advantage on history, investigation or preception checks involving weapons.

Both of these would expand on the whole "master of weapons" idea, putting them ahead of other classes without giving them super-combat powers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I will also ask do you have any evidence that making these changes will actually make anyone happier?

I have players (some good friends, some acquaintances) that have concepts for fighters but wont play them as is... some try to refluff casters (hexblades and sword or valor bards mostly... or a multi class using them), others ask for just a port of 4e fighter. either way there ARE people who would be happy with such a class

There are other players posting on this board with anecdotal evidence that the fighter has problems, but those anecdotes are no more powerful than mine and they those who think it shouldn't change.

If you give the fighter more power, especially if you give them abilities like leaping buildings the current class will not exist.

back a few years ago I would have said just change the fighter... today this is why I argue we need a new class... keep the fighter for those happy with it and give a complex warrior with options for us... let us have a warblade or sword sage or warlord.

 

[ECMO3]

I have players (some good friends, some acquaintances) that have concepts for fighters but wont play them as is... some try to refluff casters (hexblades and sword or valor bards mostly... or a multi class using them), others ask for just a port of 4e fighter. either way there ARE people who would be happy with such a class

And there are people who would not be happier with changing the fighter too.

back a few years ago I would have said just change the fighter... today this is why I argue we need a new class... keep the fighter for those happy with it and give a complex warrior with options for us... let us have a warblade or sword sage or warlord.

An entire other class would be fine with me, although a lot of people would have a problem with that I think.

I still think spells are the best way to do this though. Giving a "non-magical" class the ability to leap buildings without magic seems a bit silly thematically, but if you left the present fighter unmolested AND did not give the class itself more martial capability than then current fighter I would not be against the idea.