Saying what their issues are and offering examples or experiences are different things.
D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats
Vaalingrade
Legend
Saying you personally think the discrepancy is a good thing, actually is not confirming that the discrepancy is there, but is also just anecdotal evidence at best.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Indeed. Low-level spells used as utility are enablers, often just giving auto-success or greater results for an ability check. As higher level spells are introduced, their capabilities start to accelerate beyond the realms of what non-spellcasters can hope to achieve. As characters get to higher levels, the more higher-level spells are freed up for utility use (since most spellcasters tend to save their highest level spells for combat.)
I have not only personally seen this issue, I have been this issue. I thought I'd play a "utility wizard", one able to support the party with a lot of useful capabilities for a T3 game. It was great fun, working out how to apply the spells I had to a situation to solve, bypass, or remove it for the party. I was pretty happy with my performance in combat as well.
I was asked to tone it down by the group and DM - I had been dominating almost all of the non-combat encounters: the other characters weren't getting their time in the spotlight, and the players were having less fun as a result.
In the end I shifted subclass to artificer to I could support the party more directly with healing and similar.
Shadowedeyes
Adventurer
My biggest issue with the feat approach is that is kinda falls back into the 3e fighter problem I had, which is that it's important to plan out your character's entire progression from the beginning. Even though I don't agree with Ecmo3 that his fighter build is a problem with making the bladesinger look bad, (On that, I don't really care. The bladesinger has full spellcasting, let me pull out a violin if he is sad that he can't fight with weapons as well as a guy who literally put all his resources into it), it is carefully crafted to utilize it effectively. There isn't room to use a cool different magical weapon found, or to invest in a skill or tool that makes sense because of the direction the campaign has gone in. It's not as bad as the 3e fighter that I had planned out feat choices through 20th level because of how feat chains worked, but it still promotes that line of thinking.
Sure but that really has nothing to do with the text you quoted which was about peoples experiences and examples being ignored or invalidated.
And anecdotal evidence is evidence.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
No, it's not—not in the way you want it to be. Anecdotal evidence is useful for existence claims. It cannot prove the kinds of things you want it to prove.
But, in this case, it has proven one thing to me: that I am wasting my time continuing to discuss it with you. So I won't do that anymore.
I think it’s fine that the game offer classes and build that need less management and thinking.
It‘s not all players who want to be the thinker and problem solver of the group, or the social face.
The game can surely add a “magical“ class that require less management and thinking. The warlock do already that job. Few spell slots, few spell known, reliable attack with Eldritch blast.
But we can imagine even fewer options, and kind of magical blaster with only one button!
Could we add more options to martial classes. Surely. The monk offer more options than a fighter-champion. We can use the monk frame to build an armored warrior. There is also the frame of the Ranger or the paladin, but we got the problem of spells that need to be translated into mundane abilities, powerful enough but still not supernatural.
The game is highly adaptable. The OP choose to add feats to martial, but there are a lot of ways to adapt the game.
It‘s not all players who want to be the thinker and problem solver of the group, or the social face.
The game can surely add a “magical“ class that require less management and thinking. The warlock do already that job. Few spell slots, few spell known, reliable attack with Eldritch blast.
But we can imagine even fewer options, and kind of magical blaster with only one button!
Could we add more options to martial classes. Surely. The monk offer more options than a fighter-champion. We can use the monk frame to build an armored warrior. There is also the frame of the Ranger or the paladin, but we got the problem of spells that need to be translated into mundane abilities, powerful enough but still not supernatural.
The game is highly adaptable. The OP choose to add feats to martial, but there are a lot of ways to adapt the game.
EzekielRaidan has a point. A good way to say this might be that anecdotal evidence is not data. Anecdotal evidence does not generalize. Anecdotal evidence is effectively self-selected polling, and does not provide a representative sample from which one can make broad claims.
It is unclear why they should have to relate their detailed experiences to you, personally and specifically. It isn't like they are demanding something from you, personally and specifically.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
that is the 5e answer... give them spells (eldritch knight) or supernatural not spells (rune knight and echo knight) or psychic not spells (psi warrior)
all of those mess with the fluff of the fighter (depending on your concept that can be good or bad) but if you want to play
the best swordsman ever that also is a bit of a gambler and grifter that tricked his way into training with the best weapon masters and now travels telling cool stories, making cover identities and exploring ruins looking for magic items and lost weapon secrets...
to a new player (or one that came from 4e only) that sounds like a charismatic fighter with some cool skill tricks and a fancy background. maybe you should multi into rogue...
the most effective way to make it so you can do it is to be a bard of valor or sword... you can refluff some spells as grifter tricks and refluff some spells into sword maneuvers.
