D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Don Durito]

Why should WoTC dedicate effort to cater to the audience that wants complex martials to exist?

Does this even matter at this point? That's what puzzles me about this. We could argue about this until we're blue in the face, but it seems evidence to me that WOTC were going to do this, they would have done it. Clearly they have decided not to provide these options (Perhaps they think it will lead to confusion for new players or something - I don't know and it doesn't really matter.)

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks they should do if they're clearly not going to do it.

I'm not really sure what there is left to argue about. Surely this aspect of discussion is best just focused on homebrew solutions to the perceived issues?

 

[Undrave]

There are tactical advantages to changing weapons. And please be considerate. To me, not changing your weapon is like only casting Fireball. Sure, its effective for what it is, specializing in it can boost that effectiveness, but you're actually seriously hindering your tactical abilities by overlooking this key part of gameplay.

Switching weapons is a core part of the fighter class. It doesn't matter your ability scores, it could be +5 STR and +1 Dex or vice-verse and you'd still have a decent reason to change weapons based on situations.

LOL what advantages?! The closest thing you can think about is range. Beyond that your options are still "I attack that guy" or "I attack that other guy".

Don't kid yourself, switching weapons is not a core part of the fighter class. If I have +5 STR and +1 DEX I'm not even gonna bother wasting my time with a bow and arrow. I'll chuck some throwing hammer or javelins while I approach the target and that's it. And if I got +1 STR and +5 DEX and someon comes in close, I'll disengage or pull out a finesse weapon. Or maybe I have Crossbow Expert and I'll just point blank shoot them in the guts with my crossbow. Heck, it would probably be worthwhile to use my bow in melee instead because I'd have the same bad chance to hit but I'd still get my full +5 to damage instead of whatever STR weapon I could bust out that does Xd+1 on a hit. Especially if Archery gives me a +2 to hit. Maybe I can burn a Superiority Dice on Precise Attack if I'm a Battlemaster, or wait to see if I hit and use Pushing Attack so I don't need to disengage to run away.

Look, I'd LOVE to see a Fighter gets benefits from switching out weapons mid fight, but there is no mechanical incentive to do so 90% of the time. Throwing Javelins or pulling out your finesse weapons are desperation moves.

This has confused another poster. Allow me to word it better.

Why should WoTC dedicate effort to cater to the audience that wants complex martials to exist?

Is essentially my question. What makes this group of players important enough that WoTC messed up in choosing a design choice that doesn't satiate them?

Why not? Why would WotC even create an Artificer class? Is there enough of a demand for it? Maybe waste multiple years creating Psionic subclasses?

To sell product to us, that's why? If you don't think there's enough of us to warrant that, well that's a completely different debate. Our taste and wants are just as valid as the folks who clamor for Psionic options or wanted the Artificer back or a better Ranger or more Pet classes. I don't see what makes THOSE niche options anymore special than 'Complex Martial character'. Frankly, I don't understand why YOU care so much that WotC would 'waste their time'. WotC are parts of Hasbro, a large toy making and entertainment company, they're not your friends. If they want to 'waste their time' on something they think will sell, it's their damn perogative. Honestly you just come off judgement when you keep harping on 'why should we care about YOUR taste?' as if yours were superior.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this is something I just disagree from experience. When I change weapons, its for a purpose that was tactically important. I swapped Greatsword for Glaive because I simply needed reach, not because I thought it was nifty. Alternatively, I swap Glaive for Greatsword because a potential extra 4.5-6 points could go a long way each turn, a decent 18-36 extra damage isn't anything to sneeze at.

You swapped out of need, not want. A noncasting weapons user almost always swaps to the most damaging weapon of the appropriate range.

This is different from having the options of single target damage to a enemy leader, AOE damage to a group, controlling a group, or buffing an ally that a caster quickly gets.

 

[Asisreo]

I would like to offer an example.

I'm playing a fighter with +5 Str and +1 Dex and I took the Archery Fighting Style.

I'm fighting a Berserker. Perfect, they don't have access to ranged weapons. So I'll kite them with my longbow. Simple.

Next encounter, there's a spy. Well, I noticed that when the spy has sneak attack. I know that getting next to them forces them to attack me (as a tankier class) rather than a squishy in the back. So, I stow my bow and shove/prone them. Next round, regardless if they managed to escape, I'm pulling out my greatsword and making sure they can't get a distance attack without at least taking my Opportunity Attack, which can deal an average of 8 damage if I hit. As a Battlemaster, its possible my opportunity attack trips or invokes disadvantage anyways by frightening/goading or reposition an ally if its about the spy's ally.

If I'm fighting a creature with relatively high damage output, I may just equip a longsword and shield just because the extra +2 AC might be the difference between taking their high damage and narrowly avoiding it, thanks to bounded accuracy.

 

[Undrave]

I'm not really sure what there is left to argue about. Surely this aspect of discussion is best just focused on homebrew solutions to the perceived issues?

Yeah but whenever we start working on a Warlord homebrew or something, there's always some party poopers who come in like "Why we need this!" "this is dumb!" "It's too complicated!" and some more... Augh.

You swapped out of need, not want. A noncasting weapons user almost always swaps to the most damaging weapon of the appropriate range.

This is different from having the options of single target damage to a enemy leader, AOE damage to a group, controlling a group, or buffing an ally that a caster quickly gets.

This! Switching weapons doesn't provide any advantages, it counters disadvantage. It's not the same thing at all!

 

[Don Durito]

Yeah but whenever we start working on a Warlord homebrew or something, there's always some party poopers who come in like "Why we need this!" "this is dumb!" "It's too complicated!" and some more... Augh.

Yeah that's fair.

 

[Asisreo]

Does this even matter at this point? That's what puzzles me about this. We could argue about this until we're blue in the face, but it seems evidence to me that WOTC were going to do this, they would have done it. Clearly they have decided not to provide these options (Perhaps they think it will lead to confusion for new players or something - I don't know and it doesn't really matter.)

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks they should do if they're clearly not going to do it.

I'm not really sure what there is left to argue about. Surely this aspect of discussion is best just focused on homebrew solutions to the perceived issues?

Its because if we can discern if this is an actual, genuine problem, then WoTC might bring back a Warlord-type class in 6e. Or they may remove a class and replace the flavor.

And its important because WoTC is going to need to know if this is actually a step in the right direction. They could go back to how 4e works, uniform complexity but unique contributions. Many people are comfortable with that, but I can't introduce my little nephew to 4e because he can't quite keep up with everything going on in 4e's combat. And to be frank, I can't either.

Pinpointing the problem can actually give WoTC some direction beyond a simple "make martials complex." The issues are more nuanced than initially given.

That's why I press. Not to be annoying, I know it can be frustrating answering questions you think are obvious, but its to have a real, actionable resolution to these issues that could help make D&D better with each generation rather than having to make huge design decisions based off of...basically trial and error.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah that's fair.

I still want to go back to work on my Warlord class though... but I really need to streamline it.

 

[Minigiant]

The real issue is many in the community only want one system. One system for martials. One system for casters. There is still resistance to warlocks and sorcerers. We were lucky to get the "simple caster" back in warlock.

One thing that has become apparent is that WOTC doesn't know how to expand warriors in a world where martial classes are not hard locked into skills. There's 2 "Magicky Fighters" in TCOE, 1 in XGT, 1 in EGTW and 1 in the PHB. WOTC is pretty much dumping any magicky idea into fighter in lieu of creating new classes and attempting to force new tactics into the class.

But to me, there just isn't room to fit a simple and complex martial character in the same class. Same way merging the wizard and warlock would kill both's flavor and features. A Complex Fighter and maybe a Complex Rogue could solve many of the issues.

Personally, 5e cannot go another 3 years without adding a new class. The ideas in TCOE were cool but its scrapping the bottom of the barrel for the fighter and rogue. And the poor barbarian is just getting painted with another type of magic for each new rage.

 

[Asisreo]

The real issue is many in the community only want one system. One system for martials. One system for casters. There is still resistance to warlocks and sorcerers. We were lucky to get the "simple caster" back in warlock.

One thing that has become apparent is that WOTC doesn't know how to expand warriors in a world where martial classes are not hard locked into skills. There's 2 "Magicky Fighters" in TCOE, 1 in XGT, 1 in EGTW and 1 in the PHB. WOTC is pretty much dumping any magicky idea into fighter in lieu of creating new classes and attempting to force new tactics into the class.

But to me, there just isn't room to fit a simple and complex martial character in the same class. Same way merging the wizard and warlock would kill both's flavor and features. A Complex Fighter and maybe a Complex Rogue could solve many of the issues.

Personally, 5e cannot go another 3 years without adding a new class. The ideas in TCOE were cool but its scrapping the bottom of the barrel for the fighter and rogue. And the poor barbarian is just getting painted with another type of magic for each new rage.

Its about that time that news/rumors about 6e may come out. Possibly within the next year or two.

They had a "solution" in the playtest, an oft echo'd one, that every martial class should have universal maneuvers with level progression and certain maneuvers unique to the specific classes.

Playtesters disliked it because when they played a fighter, they wanted to play fighters and not wizards but sword.

Its my main criticism with 4e and exactly not the direction I'd personally want to see this. I don't have a problem with anyone getting this "complex caster," and I'm not opposed to its existence in the slightest. I'm just afraid the only difference in complexity between a fighter and wizard is just the names of the spells/maneuvers/powers.