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

[ph0rk]

Morrus; Looks over his new Level UP product.

To be honest. That’s really the major solution because you can’t write a book in 600 pages that covers everything. Just can’t be done.

In the past, they solved this with extra books. They sell books, so it seems reasonable to do this with 5e, but they haven't. Instead they've magick-ed up some new archetypes.

(And that's before we even start to talk about the abomination that is TCoE psionics - and not the cool kind of abomination, either. The bad kind.)

 

[Minigiant]

To be honest. That’s really the major solution because you can’t write a book in 600 pages that covers everything. Just can’t be done.

You can sell new books of 200 pages with the optional rules in them. Drowning you with books used to be WOTC's MO.

 

[Sithlord]

You can sell new books of 200 pages with the optional rules in them. Drowning you with books used to be WOTC's MO.

I actually think the 2E PHB is an awesomely well written book. Almost every rules is optional. Every rule on initiative is optional.

 

[Garthanos]

I actually think the 2E PHB is an awesomely well written book. Almost every rules is optional. Every rule on initiative is optional.

I loved the descriptive flavor of 2e it didnt seem to have the mechanics to back that but it is hands down my favorite fighter flavor text ... beating every other editions.

 

[Mort]

I’m the opposite i can’t understand how someone can’t see all the options available to materials to materials these days. Especially with all the expanded books.

90% of the options available to martials (especially fighters) are combat options. Fighters are fine in combat but take them out of it and they have few options outside of "get creative with your skills.."

A charismatic fighter with expertise persuasion is just one example. Not counting all the maneuvers available these days. I just don’t get it.

Sure, but first a fighter has to get persuasion - not too hard, but it's not on their skill list. That means getting a race that can provide it or a background that can - which may not be optimal. And if the fighter "just" takes the skill they'll be pretty bad at it. Basically their role will be to assist the guy who's good in the party (to give them advantage). Assisting is all well and good, but, sometimes, you want to be the actual guy!

So to not be completely terrible at it (regardless of proficiency) they need to have at least an "ok" CHA since that's normally 3rd or 4th (or lower) on a fighters priorities they have to sacrifice something to get it up there.

Then you mentioned expertise - only way a fighter gets that is either through prodigy (assuming feats are allowed) which means variant human or 4th level - and fighters need their feats (and ASIs) A LOT more than casters, so that's a TRUE sacrifice. Or the fighter could multiclass (assuming that's allowed) but that's a whole different discussion.

Even the current option in Tasha's - take commanding presence to be able to add a superiority die to (some) charisma checks is a massive investment as fighters don't get all that many maneuvers (or dice for that matter as every use will impact their next potential combat).

I just don't see the harm in exploring some serious options to help in out of combat utility (such as giving fighters an out of combat dice pool and maneuvers).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, the game is as it is, deal with it, and a side order of you can't imagine the game changing or anything new being added. Is that about right?

To be fair, some changes should wait for the next edition. For example I feel that completely separate new 'complex warrior' class would be confusing at this point. Within the context of the current edition Battlemaster is 'the complex warrior' and expanding that theme should be done via adding new manoeuvres. More fundamental redesign is matter for the next edition, but of course discussing what we want from the game is completely valid and indeed an important information for the designers when they eventually start to plan the sixth.

 

[Minigiant]

90% of the options available to martials (especially fighters) are combat options. Fighters are fine in combat but take them out of it and they have few options outside of "get creative with your skills.."


Sure, but first a fighter has to get persuasion - not too hard, but it's not on their skill list. That means getting a race that can provide it or a background that can - which may not be optimal. And if the fighter "just" takes the skill they'll be pretty bad at it. Basically their role will be to assist the guy who's good in the party (to give them advantage). Assisting is all well and good, but, sometimes, you want to be the actual guy!

So to not be completely terrible at it (regardless of proficiency) they need to have at least an "ok" CHA since that's normally 3rd or 4th (or lower) on a fighters priorities they have to sacrifice something to get it up there.

Then you mentioned expertise - only way a fighter gets that is either through prodigy (assuming feats are allowed) which means variant human or 4th level - and fighters need their feats (and ASIs) A LOT more than casters, so that's a TRUE sacrifice. Or the fighter could multiclass (assuming that's allowed) but that's a whole different discussion.

Even the current option in Tasha's - take commanding presence to be able to add a superiority die to (some) charisma checks is a massive investment as fighters don't get all that many maneuvers (or dice for that matter as every use will impact their next potential combat).

I just don't see the harm in exploring some serious options to help in out of combat utility (such as giving fighters an out of combat dice pool and maneuvers).

I think it WOTC did 5.5e, they'd give every class and most monsters a bonus skill and expertise in one skill for free.

I already do this at my table.

 

[tetrasodium]

It would be a mistake IMHO to read anything more into that than "fighters are the most played class" as you appear to be doing here. This sort of ad populum is definitely not a solid argument to make as there may be a multitude reasons for this that may or may not be relevant to the issues discussed in this thread. We can get hints of this, for example, on D&D Beyond where typically the most popular subclass for a given class is the free or basic version. Is their popularity indicative of their quality or is it simply a result of their accessibility? Can people still play something but still be somewhat dissatisfied with aspects of it? Does it live up to their expectations? We don't know. We only have data that more people play this than any other class. So try not to read too much into so little.

Actually you are mistaken about your criticism of fighter being the most played class. It shows a number of important things. It may not show why we have a breakdown of 13% fighter 11% rogue 9% warlock 8% barbarian 8% wizard 8% cleric 7% bard monk sorcerer paladin 6% druid & 1% artificer , but it shows things like...

• if the fact that a fighter needs to use athletics or a rope to climb down a 50 foot cliff face rather than leaping off with featherfall is a negative that negative is not a significant factor, is compensated for in other areas the class has strengths, is actually a boon as the subjectively better method (cooler/less costly/more flexible/etc), or similar.
• The Combat pillar is unquestionably the primary focus of d&d and most sessions at most tables. Weaknesses at combat in classes less effective in the combat pillar might have some bearing on why those classes are so underrepresented. As a result those topics should be credibly discussed or investigated in good faith rather than dismissing them with complaints about how they can do something in the other pillars a way different from how the most popular class does it.
• The top three classes are all in possession of the most effective at will combat options. Given the popularity of high damage classes in MMOs & other games that at will capability almost certainly has a nonzero impact on why those three lead the pack. If making every class have the same damage output is a bad thing (I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise) then discussing & investigating the nondamage combat pillar shortcomings of those bottom classes has merit. Some of the examples that have been put forward are overuse of concentration magic resist legendary resist & energy resist/immune. Other examples are too much focus on fighting the LFQW problems of past editions in too many ways resulting in a collective overcorrection & the stagnation of spell slot accumulation as levels progress.
• out of 13 classes in 5e 7 of the bottom 8 are casters, the top 3 warlock exception has an at will ability that functions more like the fighter's than what is available to any other caster. System elements & design tenets that predominantly effect casters in negative ways should not be ignored from the discussion & investigation of the above points. They may even be worth serious good faith discussion &investigation of their own.
• so on & s forth,

 

[DnD Warlord]

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.





View attachment 137268

Olive Garden is doing great business... so is McDonald’s. Neither make the best food. If you could get Five Guys quality food in as many places as fast as McDonald’s then the Golden Arches would go out of business.

being in business doesn’t make you the best.

I don’t know anyone who turns down going to Olive Garden. I also don’t know anyone who thinks Olive Garden is the best Italian restaurant....

 

[DnD Warlord]

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?

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.

If you don’t want to restart the edition wars knock it off. 4e outsold 3e. 4e was the 2nd most played edition.