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

[TheSword]

That's because 95% OF NONMAGICAL WARRIORS are forced to be Fighters and ALL EXPERTS must be rogues.


It's less about popularity and more there are no other options.

The same would apply for every edition if that was the reason. Believe me fighters and rogues where not the most popular class by a country mile in 3rd edition!

It is exactly about popularity there are about a dozen other options.

 

[Mort]

Then those DMs are the problem and should be called out on it/given feedback to help them improve.

You mean like an expanded section in the PHB or DMG with clearer examples on how to adjudicate skill interactions and skill challenges? The very thing posters in this thread are arguing isn't necessary? Ok then.

There is. Though do you really want WOC to specifically narrow down what can and can’t be done by a given player, when the number of things that can be done is in theory endless.

Do we really want WOC to make these interactions class abilities thus restricting them for other classes? Or try and proscribe everything that can or can’t be done and what the outcome would be?

No, but that's doesn't change the fact that much clearer rules on implementation and adjudication would be great!

 

[Oofta]

You mean like an expanded section in the PHB or DMG with clearer examples on how to adjudicate skill interactions and skill challenges? The very thing posters in this thread are arguing isn't necessary? Ok then.


No, but that's doesn't change the fact that much clearer rules on implementation and adjudication would be great!

But therein lies the madness of 3x. It's something they consciously decided to not do. The more rules you have, the more exceptions you have. The more exceptions you have, the more exceptions you need. It becomes a never-ending search for rules that fit the situations.

The poster child for this is the stealth rules. I know some people hate them, but I think it's better than trying to clarify every possible option. In another example, why define a climb DC for different types of surface when the surface is totally imaginary in the first place?

I agree that it's a compromise and they could have shifted more towards explicit rules. Like all compromises it's not going to be perfect, it just has to be good enough. Considering sales numbers and (on topic) the popularity of fighters and rogues it's good enough for a whole heck of a lot of people.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Yeah, fighters in 4E didn't work for me either. My "mundane" fighter felt like a toon without even a passing resemblance to what a person could do without magic*. I don't care how much you waved your hands or said "it's not supernatural because there's a different label!" they felt supernatural. How the **** can a totally mundane rogue throw a single dagger and blind multiple opponents in a burst? Why can my fighter pull in enemies by "insulting them" when facing monsters that don't understand my language or even have one? Do I tell that wolf that it's mother was a rabbit and it's father was a chipmunk? The list goes on.

In 5E we have some fighters and rogues that explicitly lean on some supernatural abilities for those that want it. In 4E? It felt like you didn't have a choice. I don't even want encounter powers, I don't want anything that has an arbitrary cool-down period for game balance unless that's the type of PC I want to play.

End of the day, I want a game that can come close to mimicking a somewhat grounded fantasy novel or an action movie. Give fighters too many special abilities that feel supernatural and I can't do that. It's shoved in my face that I'm just playing a game.

So that's why I'm always leery of "martial characters need more [fill in the blank]". Want a more complex PC? Don't play a champion fighter or focus on things other than combat and combat using just the options in the PHB.

*Yes, fighters in 5E can do amazing things. Just like most protagonists in action movies. I'm okay with that.

You didn’t like 4e because it didn’t give you the choice you wanted so you come to enworld to argue against 5e or a trhetorically 6e giving us the option we want... makes sense

 

[Asisreo]

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

I think an issue that ties back into how many players want the class is...is this really a gain for WoTC.

WoTC is a company owned by Hasbro, which is a very financially motivated company. In order to design anything, you have to pay for the resources needed to make it. In this case, the human resources and the price of production.

If WoTC's warlord class is something seen as too extraneous that the number of bought copies doesn't meet or exceed the cost of producing it within a viable deadline, that class probably isn't going to happen.

WoTC can't waste too much time. Perfect is the enemy of good and not all returns are linear. There are already quite a few extraneous classes in 5e like Sorcerers, Warlocks, Barbarians, Monk, and Artificers. Removing any of these classes wouldn't have hurt 5e remotely as much as removing rogues, fighters, paladins, etc.

So they maybe even could have replaced the monk with the warlord, but if you notice, most of the extraneous classes aren't the most popular choices in-play. The may even be somewhat regretting putting effort into even these many classes.

 

[TheSword]

Sure but the wizard gets down automatically, no questions asked. The fighter, depending on situation, is going to have to roll to get down.

The counterpoint, of course, is that the wizard expended a fungible resource so should get a benefit. But the fighter doesn't even get a choice.



It kind of does though -it allows the player to bypass the barrier on his terms as opposed to having to interact with the DMs set encounter. Is the climb down easy (DC 5) or because of conditions really hard (DC 20). Is there a hidden trap of some kind that cuts the rope as the character descends? Wizard doesn't care - he's bypassed the challenge - that's narrative control.

But, there are other more clear cut examples. The McGuffin the PCs need ASAP is 1,000 miles away. a 13th level group with a wizard researched the location and boom they're there (even with a bad mishap they'll still get there relatively quickly) - unless the DM uses DM fiat to not allow it. The group without a caster able to cast teleport? They have to either mother may I the DM into finding a way to teleport (or otherwise get there quickly) or resign themselves to a very different trek then the prior group. Because casters can set the pace of play.

Teleport is the greatest example misunderstanding narrative control.

In your example either the players have teleport... in which case the DM knows this and has placed the restrictions of time and distance in place, knowing this is the case. There is no narrative control as the DM has both assumed and required the players to use this spell to be successful.

Or the players don’t have teleport in which case if the DM is imposing a time restriction they have been set up to fail in advance. A campaign plot that requires the teleport spell to be successful is as much DM fiat as anything else.

If the players can travel there mundanely then they are achieving the same narrative result as with the teleport spell. It just takes longer. Though as we don’t detail every step they take this has little or no material impact on the game... unless the DM decided through fiat it did.

Do you realize how many fantasy novels with magic actually have teleportation magic as a regular plot? Not many! Wizards travel by giant eagle, horse, boat, wolf shape, carriage, flying carpet or broom, dragon and other monstrous figures. Most instant travel in fantasy fiction is by portal not by a teleportation spell.

in fact Harry Potter is the only one that regularly features people zipping in and out... and only at the point where they have that ability and the writer creates situations where it’s needed. In fact JK spends most of the time creating situations where it’s irrelevant.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

See, I completely misunderstood @the-Sword’s point.

When he said “why should the wizard get his hands dirty”, I thought he was talking about getting the same effect by cast Mage Hand from 30’ away.

 

[Mort]

But therein lies the madness of 3x. It's something they consciously decided to not do. The more rules you have, the more exceptions you have. The more exceptions you have, the more exceptions you need. It becomes a never-ending search for rules that fit the situations.

The poster child for this is the stealth rules. I know some people hate them, but I think it's better than trying to clarify every possible option. In another example, why define a climb DC for different types of surface when the surface is totally imaginary in the first place?

I agree that it's a compromise and they could have shifted more towards explicit rules. Like all compromises it's not going to be perfect, it just has to be good enough. Considering sales numbers and (on topic) the popularity of fighters and rogues it's good enough for a whole heck of a lot of people.

I totally agree the 3e way is excessive and overly specific BUT I'm not really arguing for it.

I'm saying some greater clarification and examples would be appreciated and maybe a call out early in the combat/exploration chapters stating that this kind of thing really is an option - not forcing the DM to go looking for it.

And, again, I'm not really arguing that WoTC SHOULD do it - they seem to have a very good balance going, why rock the boat?

I'm just saying that arguing it's, clear, obvious and available to all is a bit misleading.

 

[Oofta]

You didn’t like 4e because it didn’t give you the choice you wanted so you come to enworld to argue against 5e or a trhetorically 6e giving us the option we want... makes sense

I'm explaining a preference for having an option for a style of play. One that many people seem to share. Makes more sense to me than just trying to shut down someone's opinion.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm explaining a preference for having an option for a style of play. One that many people seem to share. Makes more sense to me than just trying to shut down someone's opinion.

can you define your preference?