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

[TheSword]

One of the things that many people who liked 4e will also tell you is that it gave a number of martial characters (e.g., fighter, rogue, warlord, ranger) more meaningful tactical options than simply declaring a basic attack action or making multiple attacks. It was loads of fun IME of playing a warlord and fighter in 4e. I'm far less interested in playing fighters in 5e than I was in 4e.

Ok. I’d respond that in 3e and 5e martials were never just restricted to attack actions.

In 5e alone, there is charging, shoving (to move or make prone), disarming, overrunning, grappling, shoving aside, marking, not to mention a host of feat based options and choices. Then we add activating magic items, attacking with off hand weapons, using maneuvers or subclass abilities. Of course the clincher is that the DMG can use shove and grapple as inspiration for making other responses to what a martial character might chose to do.

The suggestion that a martial character in 5e without spells just decides whether to attack is patently untrue.

Now if your DM won’t improvise combat situations or use the expanded options in the DMG then your beef is with your DM not with the 5e rule set.

 

[Aldarc]

Ok. I’d respond that in 3e and 5e martials were never just restricted to attack actions.

In 5e alone, there is charging, shoving (to move or make prone), disarming, overrunning, grappling, shoving aside, marking, not to mention a host of feat based options and choices. Activating magic items, attacking with off hand weapons, using maneuvers or subclass abilities. Of course the clincher is that the DMG can use shove and grapple as inspiration for making other responses to what a martial character might chose to do.

So what's your experience with 4e again? Skipped it for Pathfinder? Am I recalling that correctly?

 

[ph0rk]

So it's not that the PCs aren't going to have the encounters, it's the number of long rests between encounters that you get. On the other hand if by "slog" people mean "casters can't go nova and use all of their most powerful spells every encounter" then the problem is that you expect casters to go nova every encounter.

Indeed, and this ties in to how the rest schedule affects balance.

A battlemaster that gets a short rest after every 1-2 rounds will feel quite strong.

In 5e alone, there is charging, shoving (to move or make prone), disarming, overrunning, grappling, shoving aside, marking, not to mention a host of feat based options and choices.

Well, technically grapples and shoves are part of the attack action.

I've played at many tables that don't use any of those DMG rules, and shove and grapple are only used because I essentially built for it. IMHO, those actions should all be in the PHB and made more standard. Mark in particular is very useful if allowed for some builds that have other uses for their reaction - like an eldritch knight, or battlemaster, or hell a Goliath. Mark isn't standard in a lot of VTTs, either, which is annoying. See also: cleaving through creatures rules.


That said, even with those options, the list of choices is small, and doesn't change that much over the fighter's career. It certainly doesn't change as much as full casters (and as well discussed, those don't all vary at the same rate, buy they all vary more than most fighters). The special exception being perhaps the Eldritch Knight, but that's just adding casting.

 

[Oofta]

Well, technically grapples and shoves are part of the attack action.

I've played at many tables that don't use any of those DMG rules, and shove and grapple are only used because I essentially built for it. IMHO, those actions should all be in the PHB and made more standard. Mark in particular is very useful if allowed for some builds that have other uses for their reaction - like an eldritch knight, or battlemaster, or hell a Goliath. Mark isn't standard in a lot of VTTs, either, which is annoying. See also: cleaving through creatures rules.


That said, even with those options, the list of choices is small, and doesn't change that much over the fighter's career. It certainly doesn't change as much as full casters (and as well discussed, those don't all vary at the same rate, buy they all vary more than most fighters). The special exception being perhaps the Eldritch Knight, but that's just adding casting.

Bit confused by the bolded. Grapple and Shove clearly state that you can use them as one of your attacks, it's not an optional rule. From the PHB:

Grappling​

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.​

​

Shoving a Creature​

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.​

​

There is no "technically" about it.

 

[Sithlord]

1) It's not the fighter class. It's a while new class.

2) It's D&D. Most lists of anything will be full of damage.

3) A few of my ideas for the lost would be special Dash and Dodge actions. Dash + Spider Cimb. Dash + Ignore Difficult Terrain. Dash + Water Walk (requires magic shoes), Dash Underwater. Dodge + Dash. Dodge and Riposte, Dodge + Disengage, Double Dodge, Dash+ Hide (requires Smokebomb or Flashbomb), Helicopter Spin or Stab Wall to lower fall damage, Pocket Sand. Low Blow + Dash.

Many of these things you are wanting for the fighter are imho best left to the ranger and rogue. If anything I would like to see the fighter having more leadership abilities and being merged with the warlord somewhat, at least for some archetypes. And better maneuvers for then battle master.

 

[Undrave]

This thread makes me want to go back to my Warlord home-brew... but nobody ever has anything to say about it aside from "It's too complicated" :/

 

[ph0rk]

Bit confused by the bolded. Grapple and Shove clearly state that you can use them as one of your attacks, it's not an optional rule. From the PHB:

​

Grappling​

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.​

​

​

Shoving a Creature​

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.​

​

There is no "technically" about it.

There were two points I made: one, you must take the attack action to grapple or shove (so you’re still taking the attack action). Not important, just snark. If the argument is you don’t have to take the attack action, you can shove, well, technically that is still the attack action. Ha ha ha. Also: you can’t sub these for attacks gained via bonus actions, which sort of sucks in some cases. Probably necessary so opportunity attacks did not become stupid.

Two, Mark (as well as Cleaving Through Creatures) are not in the PHB and while I don’t know how widely used they are, I wouldn’t guess they are common.

And a third point: you have all of these at level 1, your options don’t change much.

 

[TheSword]

So what's your experience with 4e again? Skipped it for Pathfinder? Am I recalling that correctly?

Damn right... After giving 4e a go for a few sessions.

Though you’ll notice I restricted my responses to 3e and 5e... that I’ve been playing since it’s inception.

Way to try gatekeep the conversation though.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I agree,

I loved the Bo9S and think it was a great addition to 3e - finally fighters that could keep up.

I also liked the 4e fighter and it BY FAR had the closest parity to the caster classes.

BUT, I guess this must be a minority opinion.

4e introduced the much simplified fighter (Knight or something like that) in the later essentials supplements - clearly because of the whining for the need of a "non caster" fighter (even though the 4e fighter played nothing like a caster) and 5e reversed the whole complex fighter thing (though the Battlemaser does have some options and Tasha's even took some baby steps into giving manuevers that are meant for out of combat use).

I think the end of 4e was the best of both. And 5e could have built on that. Have the fighter be simple and the warlord (or marshal or what ever you want to call it) be complex. Give a tough weapon non spell caster with lots of choices...

a sword sage and a fighter and a rogue and a warlord and a ranger and a barbarian and a war blade and a paliden could each have space for design

 

[Asisreo]

This thread makes me want to go back to my Warlord home-brew... but nobody ever has anything to say about it aside from "It's too complicated" :/

Its certainly a matter of taste for your homebrew. Although, if wizards didn't exist and you homebrewed it exactly as WoTC designed, I would call them too complicated as well.

Why can't they just have 25 spells known? Why do rituals not need preparing yet other prepared classes need prepared rituals? Why is it that they get 1 chance for Arcane Recovery?

That's not even getting into their actual spellcasting mechanics.