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

[Aldarc]

Sure. All information needs to be considered based on the reliability of the source.

For example, here's an unreliable source trying to once again read too much into too little and again engaging in their usual ad populum fallacies:

To put it another way. If 4e was the edition that fixed the martial-caster disparity and made martials ‘cool again’ - this issue that is so important it keeps cropping up over and over again - why is there only 0.19% of 4e games being played on Roll20. One quarter of the 3.5e games being played (which has its player base split by pathfinder). Why has 4e been almost completely abandoned. It appears to be literally the least played edition online... which is ironic given its attempt to follow a MMORG. Even AD&D has more players online and we know that those players think VTT technology will lead to the end times!

Your "argument" here says far less about people's attitudes about the quality of 4e or its fighter and more about you wanting a chance to trash-talk 4e.

 

[TheSword]

For example, here's an unreliable source trying to once again read too much into too little:

Your "argument" here says far less about people's attitudes about the quality of 4e or its fighter and more about you wanting a chance to trash-talk 4e.

I don’t believe it’s trash talk to question what it means that a given edition is the least played based on data. Any more than it’s trash talk to recognize that pathfinder 1 is more played on Roll20 than pathfinder 2.

I think the Roll20 data is a lot more reliable than anecdotal forum posts. I notice that you didn’t answer the questions. I’m happy to discuss the limitations of data. But saying I’m not looking at that data as it’s unreliable in X so don’t bother isn’t very persuasive.

Are you saying 4e isn’t the least played edition online? Or are you saying that’s for a reason totally unconnected to it’s changes to player class?

As a history student you learn to take what you can from sources - bearing in mind their reliability.

 

[Aldarc]

Are you saying 4e isn’t the least played edition online? Or are you saying that’s for a reason totally unconnected to it’s changes to player class?

I'm saying that the popularity of 4e or lack thereof has no actual relevance to the actual discussion at hand.

As a history student you learn to take what you can from sources - bearing in mind their reliability.

Is regular appeals to ad populum arguments also part of being a history student?

 

[Stalker0]

Sure. All information needs to be considered based on the reliability of the source.

It does help to put in context this conversation though. Clearly claims of a theoretical disparity in power (suggested by @FrozenNorth) or tactical options (@ph0rk) or a general perceived unhappiness with martial characters in general, clearly aren’t substantial enough to stop people playing these characters. In fact they dominated.

I think one of the reasons the conversation gets such vehement responses is that it’s the equivalent of going into your local Italian restaurant, which is fully booked every night and telling them that they’re making the sauce wrong. Most people in that situation would back the chef up I think, in telling you to do one.

I have no problem with some people wanting more. There’s nothing wrong with someone wanting a martial that has abilities that do the same things as spells. However they should acknowledge that this is down to their own preference and not because there’s anything fundamentally broken with the spaghetti sauce. It’s just not to their taste. If you like your sauce particularly salty, you don’t ask the chef to put more salt in... you add it yourself at the table. All evidence presents that the restaurant is just fine. My advice would be to add some extra at the table, make it how you like it at home. Or find another restaurant that makes it how you want it.

Incidentally, are there successful current alternatives that have martial characters doing similar things to casters?... Not just by dramatically curtailing what casters can do (like say WFRP). Is anyone servicing this supposed demand?

To put it another way. If 4e was the edition that fixed the martial-caster disparity and made martials ‘cool again’ - this issue that is so important it keeps cropping up over and over again - why is there only 0.19% of 4e games being played on Roll20. One quarter of the 3.5e games being played (which has its player base split by pathfinder). Why has 4e been almost completely abandoned. It appears to be literally the least played edition online... which is ironic given its attempt to follow a MMORG. Even AD&D has more players online and we know that those players think VTT technology will lead to the end times!

A lot of the assertions about ‘what is needed’ and what ‘people’ want, really doesn’t survive in the wild.

View attachment 137268

Apparently I need to try some call of Cthulhu, its pretty darn popular!

 

[TheSword]

I'm saying that the popularity of 4e or lack thereof has no actual relevance to the actual discussion at hand.

Okay, well I disagree. I think it’s indicative. Until someone provides a better alternative theory.

Martials need to have the same powers as casters like in 4e... is 4e popular?... well no, it’s the least played edition ever... oh ok. Remind me why I would want to go back to that style again?

Is regular appeals to ad populum arguments also part of being a history student?

Why do I only see criticism of inferring things from bums-on-seats when it contradicts people’s claims. Ad populum arguments are very important when discussing how popular/liked something is. In history as in today. Forum posters have discovered that they are only a tiny fraction of the gamer base, and the most vocal seem to be the most unrepresentative.

 

[Asisreo]

Apparently I need to try some call of Cthulhu, its pretty darn popular!

Call of Cthulhu is a very good TTRPG which I also enjoy, just wish it had, like, a tenth of D&D 5e's popularity.

Okay, well I disagree. I think it’s indicative. Until someone provides a better alternative theory.

There's a barrier in understanding here genuinely because I feel both sides are taking their "obvious" conclusions for granted.

Who's to say this class really won't be popular? Who's to say that it will? We can infer but until we get actual numbers on the board, everybody will just talk past each other.

This doesn't mean that the discussion is doomed to limbo, it just means that we need to gather this data ourselves and present it. At the same time, throwing accusations onto the other camp is just going to cause them to stop listening altogether.

Respectfully presenting your data is just as important as collecting it. And it shouldn't be too hard. We're in an age of constant human contact and the ability to record and analyze this data in front of thousands/millions in real-time.

 

[Aldarc]

Okay, well I disagree. I think it’s indicative. Until someone provides a better alternative theory.

Martials need to have the same powers as casters like in 4e... is 4e popular?... well no, it’s the least played edition ever... oh ok. Remind me why I would want to go back to that style again?

This is such a terribly constructed fallacious argument that I don't even know where to begin.

But let's follow this trainwreck of an argument anyway. Do martials need to have the same sort of powers as casters like in 4e? No. But is there a martial archetype that does have a set of powers, maneuvers, or "spells"? Yes. The battlemaster subclass of the fighter. Is it popular? Incidentally, yes. It's incredibly popular. It's the second most popular fighter subclass behind the "free/basic" Champion subclass. It's also one of the most consistently ranked or optimal subclasses for the fighter in every class guide.

Why is the battlemaster so popular? Could it have anything to do with how it provides the Fighter with greater narrative authority in combat? Would a fighter have been even more popular had it been constructed like the battlemaster as part of the base class?

Why do I only see criticism of inferring things from bums-on-seats when it contradicts people’s claims. Ad populum arguments are very important when discussing how popular/liked something is. In history as in today. Forum posters have discovered that they are only a tiny fraction of the gamer base, and the most vocal seem to be the most unrepresentative.

Why do I only see appeals to ad populum arguments in the absence of substantively meaningful arguments? Both in history and from aspiring novices in history studies?

 

[Don Durito]

I don’t believe it’s trash talk to question what it means that a given edition is the least played based on data. Any more than it’s trash talk to recognize that pathfinder 1 is more played on Roll20 than pathfinder 2.

I think the Roll20 data is a lot more reliable than anecdotal forum posts. I notice that you didn’t answer the questions. I’m happy to discuss the limitations of data. But saying I’m not looking at that data as it’s unreliable in X so don’t bother isn’t very persuasive.

Are you saying 4e isn’t the least played edition online? Or are you saying that’s for a reason totally unconnected to it’s changes to player class?

As a history student you learn to take what you can from sources - bearing in mind their reliability.

I think 4E isn't played that much because there is no SRD or easily available online resource for all the character options.

4E doesn't have an SRD like 3e or Pathfinder. I can look up every option for Pathfinder online. I can do the same for 13th Age or 3e. In addition the 4e powers are scattered across a whole lot of now out of print books. PDFs are available, but they're not particularly convenient. The character sheet is not that easy to use. 4E powers require some setting up of macros or the game slows down (and 4e combat is slow anyway). The old online character builder for 4e is no longer available. Basically, one of the reasons 4e hasn't really survived is that it wasn't set up by WOTC to survive.

In short, while I doubt 4e would exceed Pathfinder in popularity on Roll20, there's a range of reasons why it's not really convenient, and which make it somewhat unappealing to groups that don't already have all the 4e books and know how to play it.

 

[Aldarc]

I think 4E isn't played that much because there is no SRD or easily available online resource for all the character options.

4E doesn't have an SRD like 3e or Pathfinder. I can look up every option for Pathfinder online. I can do the same for 13th Age or 3e. In addition the 4e powers are scattered across a whole lot of now out of print books. PDFs are available, but they're not particularly convenient. The character sheet is not that easy to use. 4E powers require some setting up of macros or the game slows down (and 4e combat is slow anyway). The old online character builder for 4e is no longer available. Basically, one of the reasons 4e hasn't really survived is that it wasn't set up by WOTC to survive.

In short, while I doubt 4e would exceed Pathfinder in popularity on Roll20, there's a range of reasons why it's not really convenient, and which make it somewhat unappealing to groups that don't already have all the 4e books and know how to play it.

Sadly the licensing for 4e means that no one is capable of using 4e to make a retroclone version or do for 4e what Pathfinder did to 3e. I would love to see someone take the 4e system, polish it up, and make a new game out of that, but that can't and therefore won't happen.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Its called a "Glass Cannon" type monster. Very fragile but hits like a truck.

Its also very resistant to alot of magical effects, has dispel magic, and other forms of anti-caster features. Really, the only fullcaster that would be a good matchup against it would probably be a cleric.

If its okay to take a monster that's notorious for being weak to magic, I think its okay to take a monster notorious for its weakness to damage.

So, even against a creature that is apparently notorious for its anti-caster effects, if a wizard fireballs it, let’s see what happens.

5th level fireball: 10d6 fire damage Dex sv for half. Mummy lords have +0 Dex, so even with spell resistance, they need to roll a 17 or better to pass the save.

Then, they either take about 70 fire dmg (if they fail the save) or 35 fire dmg, if they succeed. Not quite a 1hit kill, but almost.

Earlier on, you said that for that reason, you shouldn’t send solo monsters against the party. Of course, encounters involving multiple monsters tend to favor casters.