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

[TheSword]

So martials get these awesome combat options but casters don't need to bother with them because "why should they get their hands dirty?" well OK.

Players aren't idiots. If they see the DM allowing good results on opposed checks they'll likely adapt. So the Wizard player will firebolt the curtain next to the baddie, dropping it on him and entangling to give the fighter optimal hitting chance (to pound the baddie into goo). And the Wizard didn't even get his hands dirty.

But this is the issue :

1. The opposed check mechanic (for fun results) is Ill defined and requires a DM both willing and able to implement it well. That's not a small hurdle ;

2. Assuming you have such a DM, casters can take full advantage of the mechanic too AND they have magic on top.

So what. Fixing the disparity isn’t about power. It’s about every player having interesting tactical options.

An argument was made that fighters don’t have interesting tactical options and when that was refuted, the response seems to be ‘those don’t count because other characters get them too!’

This argument is split on ideological grounds. I would have a lot more sympathy for the argument martials were it not for one simple fact...

...Fighters are the most popular class in D&D and Rogues are the second most popular. By a significant margin.

All this hand wringing doesn’t seem to have any impact on whether a person plays them or not. So please remind why should WOC should change their two most successful and popular classes.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Well, in a way the Hexblade already sort of does this (short rest slots for smite or for being hard to hit as a technique), but you've got a bunch of re-flavoring to do so eldritch smite and crown of stars feel martial. Well, and utterly replacing the specter - what an awful level 6 feature.

Yes this is the work around we use half to three quarters of the time mixed with a bunch of boons we call “martial training booms” that often end up unbalancing the games and are major work in progresss

 

[DnD Warlord]

So what. Fixing the disparity isn’t about power. It’s about every player having interesting tactical options.

An argument was made that fighters don’t have interesting tactical options and when that was refuted, the response seems to be ‘those don’t count because other characters get them too!’

This argument is split on ideological grounds. I would have a lot more sympathy for the argument martials were it not for one simple fact...

...Fighters are the most popular class in D&D and Rogues are the second most popular. By a significant margin.

All this hand wringing doesn’t seem to have any impact on whether a person plays them or not. So please remind why should WOC should change their two most successful and popular classes.

Fighters and rouges are popular so we should not change them...

okay. Then have WoTC make a (warlord/war blade/sword sage/battle mind/whacamcallit) class that has complex choices and hard coded rules like wizards, but flavor of the more popular classes...

see win/win. We get a mew class to play

 

[ph0rk]

An argument was made that fighters don’t have interesting tactical options

My argument has been that their list of options does not change very much (if at all) throughout their career (and so in the later tiers feels rather short). In the case of the Battlemaster, they are adding options they didn't want the first time. The Rune Knight is possibly an exception to this, but similarly, you'' have access to the 2-3 runes you really want early.

An EK, is, of course, solving the problem by adding magic. A Psi Warrior is solving the problem by adding magic (yeah, I said that) and is even less complex than a BM/EK/RK.

Choice is interesting, meaningful choice is even more interesting.

Martials are Checkers, Casters are Chess.

I'd like a Martial that feels like Go.

 

[Mort]

So what. Fixing the disparity isn’t about power. It’s about every player having interesting tactical options.

An argument was made that fighters don’t have interesting tactical options and when that was refuted, the response seems to be ‘those don’t count because other characters get them too!’

These "interesting tactical options" are

1. Only there if the Player plays "mother may I" with the DM, something new players shouldn't have to do;
2. By and large are inferior to the martials existing attack options except for niche situations and DM allowance.

So the argument is lacking.

This argument is split on ideological grounds. I would have a lot more sympathy for the argument martials were it not for one simple fact...

...Fighters are the most popular class in D&D and Rogues are the second most popular. By a significant margin.

All this hand wringing doesn’t seem to have any impact on whether a person plays them or not. So please remind why should WOC should change their two most successful and popular classes.

I 100% recognize that fighters are by an large the most popular class - and that's great. It means people like the way they play, so why on earth would WoTC change that. recognize that too.

But this is a message board of, largely experienced, gamers talking about theory.

This particular discussion is not about economic reality and should WoTC change anything. It's about is there a power/versatility divide between casters and martials. Popularity and desire for change are separate topics from the one here.

 

[ph0rk]

This particular discussion is not about economic reality and should WoTC change anything. It's about is there a power/versatility divide between casters and martials. Popularity and desire for change are separate topics from the one here.

Indeed. It is already pretty clear they don't need to do anything more than they have done, with respect to balance, to sell units.

Arguing that because they are already selling units they need not change anything (or that the product is perfect) is the is/ought problem. It is this way, so it should be this way.

 

[TheSword]

"Most spells can be mimicked through other means with enough time and effort"

Thats not actually the quote. You got it the wrong way round...

“The majority of spells mimic things that could be done by other means and a bit of effort.”

It’s not that a fighters abilities should mimic spells. It’s that most spells just offer shortcuts to things that could happen mundanely.

 

[Mort]

Thats not actually the quote. You got it the wrong way round...

“The majority of spells mimic things that could be done by other means and a bit of effort.”

It’s not that a fighters abilities should mimic spells. It’s that most spells just offer shortcuts to things that could happen mundanely.

And yet a 1st level wizard can jump down a 50' cliff float down using feather fall and move on his merry way.

While a 200HP barbarian jumping down that same cliff (and willing to take the relatively measly 5d6 to do so) will (at many tables) trigger an hour long discussion on "good faith gaming" and how the player's character shouldn't "know" that he can easily survive the fall. There was a (long) thread on this very board where posters were arguing that a player who has his character jump down that cliff "for the wrong reasons.." Should just have the HP mechanic bypassed and be instantly killed.

My point is: the first is set, the second is dependent on table and DM.

 

[Oofta]

My argument has been that their list of options does not change very much (if at all) throughout their career (and so in the later tiers feels rather short). In the case of the Battlemaster, they are adding options they didn't want the first time. The Rune Knight is possibly an exception to this, but similarly, you'' have access to the 2-3 runes you really want early.

An EK, is, of course, solving the problem by adding magic. A Psi Warrior is solving the problem by adding magic (yeah, I said that) and is even less complex than a BM/EK/RK.

Choice is interesting, meaningful choice is even more interesting.

Martials are Checkers, Casters are Chess.

I'd like a Martial that feels like Go.

Sometimes I want to play checkers. Many people I've played with are better off and have more fun with fewer options, not more.

If you want a more complex martial warrior you have plenty of options. Leave the fighter alone for those people that prefer dirt simple.

 

[TheSword]

1. Only there if the Player plays "mother may I" with the DM, something new players shouldn't have to do;
2. By and large are inferior to the martials existing attack options except for niche situations and DM allowance.

So the argument is lacking.

What is the issue with asking the DM to adjudicate something? Is the world populated by unreasonable DMs? Do you not have an open and honest symbiotic relationship with your DM?

How is asking if you can pull a curtain down on someone’s head to entangle them different to asking if your player can use their knowledge of Arcana to read the runes on a chest. You seem to have a massive issue with the first, but the second would be bread and butter to most players and DMs.

Everything in the game is DM allowance, from the monsters you face, to whether or not that door is locked and whether you can break it down.

Suggesting DM allowance is a reason something wouldn’t work is very perculiar.