D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[James Gasik]

Sorry Krachek, I want to make sure I understand; you think that combat is only a small part of D&D game play?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Balance is not a good thing. It is a bad thing.

that is far from a common belief. I would go as far as to say that it is the reverse of my experience.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Nothing is unfair. No one is being forced to play a fighter

this is why by the time we quite 3.5 we mostly just used fighter as dips and warblade was our go to (but sometimes knight or swordsage) for 'fighter concepts' and why we refluff hexblades so often to being martial heroes... cause we WANT to play fighter concepts but with more options power and breath of abilities.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fighter was consistently the most popular class in 4e. The only class that ever threatened its popularity was Warlord. Those two were far and away the favorite classes in 4e.

I saw more fighters and warlords in 4e then I have seen fighter. rogues rangers palidens and monks in 5e...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Based on what? We actually have data on this. Unbalanced versions of D&D are objectively more popular than balanced versions and most think they are better.

if that were true 3.5 would be more popular then 5e. Your metric fails hard

We can't objectively show causality between unbalance and popularity, but we can show correlation between unbalance and popularity and that refutes the idea that balance is necessary for people to like the game.

no you can show that the most balanced version out sold the most unbalanced version (4e outsold 3e) but you can show that a less balanced 5e out sold 4e. but at the same time you can show a more balanced 5e out sells a less balanced 3e

 

[Micah Sweet]

I saw more fighters and warlords in 4e then I have seen fighter. rogues rangers palidens and monks in 5e...

I actually think the issue was that in 4e, playing a wizard was far less fun. I know that was my experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

if that were true 3.5 would be more popular then 5e. Your metric fails hard

no you can show that the most balanced version out sold the most unbalanced version (4e outsold 3e) but you can show that a less balanced 5e out sold 4e. but at the same time you can show a more balanced 5e out sells a less balanced 3e

To be fair, you can also show that a less balanced 5e outsold a more balanced 4e.

You have to use all the metrics.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I actually think the issue was that in 4e, playing a wizard was far less fun. I know that was my experience.

I will agree here. the wizard was at best a mid teir class (most controlers were) for fun at table... the most fun I saw people having was being a heroic weapon wielder... but I still saw divine and priomal and even psionic classes...

the Swordmage I think was 3rd or 44th most played I saw (and my 2nd most played by me personally almost 3/4 of my character were warlord, swordmage, or multi iinto warlord)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be fair, you can also show that a less balanced 5e outsold a more balanced 4e.

You have to use all the metrics.

that is correct, 5e outsold 4e though is not proof that unbalanced outsells balanced the other two data points refute that

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is correct, 5e outsold 4e though is not proof that unbalanced outsells balanced the other two data points refute that

True, but you pointedly skipped the data point on his side in favor of the ones on your side. That's unfair rhetoric.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

True, but you pointedly skipped the data point on his side in favor of the ones on your side. That's unfair rhetoric.

I don't see why I need to repeat his data point when I show the two that refute his... he already stated that data point I don't understand why it needed to be repeated

 

[Blue]

And i have been shocked at how much it helps the design of the game and gives martials the power and versatility to be competitive with casters,
...
Feats are a core part of One DnD now, What is the excuse?

The excuse is that martials are already balanced against casters as designed, the problem is that design point is a lot more encounters per day then the average DM actually runs.

So instead of bolting on a change, the correct thing to do in the new edition is to recalibrate that design point to a reasonable number of encounters per day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The excuse is that martials are already balanced against casters as designed, the problem is that design point is a lot more encounters per day then the average DM actually runs.

So instead of bolting on a change, the correct thing to do in the new edition is to recalibrate that design point to a reasonable number of encounters per day.

They are absolutely not going to do that. It would mess with their oh-so-important "backwards compatibility".

 

[Blue]

They are absolutely not going to do that. It would mess with their oh-so-important "backwards compatibility".

Yeah, I know. And frankly, that'll coiem out 10 years after 5e, and it will be around for a number of years, and this flaw gets to be more and more burdensome as it's a foundational issue and affect every campaign.

But you're right, they won't change it in 2024.

 

[FallenRX]

One problem with Martials getting free feats adds complexity. The fighter was one of the worst classes to give beginners in 3e precisely because you had to pre-plan characters to navigate the various feat options that were out there. Building a stronger core fighter (and other martials) would, IMHO, go further than giving them more feats.

I already pointed out the easy solution that One DnD itself is using.
Which is just giving them a default option, making swapping out the feat a alternative, like they are doing for feats in One DnD.

 

[FallenRX]

They are absolutely not going to do that. It would mess with their oh-so-important "backwards compatibility".

I can see them doing that, its honestly not a hard issue to solve, the only reason the encounter day is like that is that short rests recovery all your HP, thats about it

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually think the issue was that in 4e, playing a wizard was far less fun. I know that was my experience.

The question becomes: Was the 3.X wizard only fun because it was overpowered? Or, at the very least, was the difference in fun between the 3e and 4e wizard because it was overpowered?

Because if that is true, then it is, to at least some extent, a good thing that the 4e wizard was less fun. "I'm more powerful than you and that is why I'm having fun" is not compatible with a teamwork-focused gameplay experience, because even when both sides mean well, it leads to "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit."

Of course, I mostly just take Mr. Heinsoo at his word from that interview he gave a while back (I can dig up a Wayback link if you really need it.) He said that he was constantly having to fight against the dev team making the Wizard slightly stronger than every other class, and thus erred on the side of underpowered--but that combined with the scattered, unfocused nature of the Controller role meant that Wizard felt very weak (even though it was only very slightly weak) AND purposeless (even though it totally had a purpose, it was just much more subtle and variable.)

But surely there must be happier mediums that avoid it being a choice between Casters & Caddies, aka the choice between being a mundane and being a "god character" as was explicitly said upthread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The question becomes: Was the 3.X wizard only fun because it was overpowered? Or, at the very least, was the difference in fun between the 3e and 4e wizard because it was overpowered?

Because if that is true, then it is, to at least some extent, a good thing that the 4e wizard was less fun. "I'm more powerful than you and that is why I'm having fun" is not compatible with a teamwork-focused gameplay experience, because even when both sides mean well, it leads to "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit."

Of course, I mostly just take Mr. Heinsoo at his word from that interview he gave a while back (I can dig up a Wayback link if you really need it.) He said that he was constantly having to fight against the dev team making the Wizard slightly stronger than every other class, and thus erred on the side of underpowered--but that combined with the scattered, unfocused nature of the Controller role meant that Wizard felt very weak (even though it was only very slightly weak) AND purposeless (even though it totally had a purpose, it was just much more subtle and variable.)

But surely there must be happier mediums that avoid it being a choice between Casters & Caddies, aka the choice between being a mundane and being a "god character" as was explicitly said upthread.

I'd like to think so, but fifty years of game design apparently hasn't found it. Magic explicitly lets you do things that are otherwise impossible, and doing otherwise makes it less fun.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Magic explicitly lets you do things that are otherwise impossible, and doing otherwise makes it less fun.

That;s my problem with all non 4e D&D in a nut shell.

if 1 sub type of the classes can do things others find impossible, but the others can't do things that type find impossible what is the point of those other classes.

now I have learned to like a lot of 5e, but the caster supremacy that returned (but to a smaller extent) from 3e is not one of it

 

[FallenRX]

That;s my problem with all non 4e D&D in a nut shell.

if 1 sub type of the classes can do things others find impossible, but the others can't do things that type find impossible what is the point of those other classes.

now I have learned to like a lot of 5e, but the caster supremacy that returned (but to a smaller extent) from 3e is not one of it

It wasnt as much of a issue TSR editions, because doing the impossible had very real downsides, from longer xp progression, to being basically very hard to use in combat, and the fact even casting a spell could be a pain.

3e just removed all risk from it, increased their resources, and the game has simply never recovered