D&D 5E (2014) Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Crimson Longinus]

Before I begin, I want to reiterate my position that niche protection is bad for the game.

Ok, but...

That said, Rogue get SA because that's their damage source. Fighters get some version of power attack plus a higher BaB/more attacks, or weren't meant to be highest damage at all that one time they had a defined purpose. Despite popular belief, the fighter is the Sword and Board and THF fighter while the rogue is th elight mobile fighter who doesn't get big damage adders outside of sneak attack. That's why it's trivial to proc.

Keeping this is niche protection and it is good thing that it exists.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok, but...


Keeping this is niche protection and it is good thing that it exists.

It's not. Because they're all doing extra damage, they just get it a different way. It's not the same as how sorcerers can't have good spells because the wizard's 'thing' is having good spells, or the whole stupid arcane healing taboo from back in the day.

 

[Voadam]

or the whole stupid arcane healing taboo from back in the day.

Go bards!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Go bards!

Everyone kept forgetting they existed when making the arguments.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not. Because they're all doing extra damage, they just get it a different way. It's not the same as how sorcerers can't have good spells because the wizard's 'thing' is having good spells, or the whole stupid arcane healing taboo from back in the day.

Back in the day, having healing spells on your list was a burden, your spells were going to get sucked up as healing or your party would die. No healing meant you could cast a wider variety of spells.
"We need a Cleric" was a classic refrain from the olden days, the concept was unpopular and the bandaid function unappealing. Subsequent editions tried to address the problem.
1e gave the cleric bonus 1st level spells for modest WIS, which typically all got used to heal.
2e added more-powerful specialty priests
3e gave clerics more spells than ever, extra domain spells, and the ability to cast healing spontaneously using slots in which other spells were prepared... and, perhaps inadvertently, WoCLW... the result was CoDzilla
4e moved the healing burden to the character being healed as surges, re-labeled the healer role as Leader, and made basic healing a minor action. It also provided a leader role class in every source, even Martial, so if Cleric, Shaman or Ardent didn't appeal, maybe Bard, Artificer, or Warlord would.
Oh, look, accidentally back on topic, the Warlord filled the support role adequately, enabling functional parties without supernatural/magical powers.
5e nerfed surges down to HD, made in-combat healing bad, and "eliminated roles." It also cut the Ardent, Artificer, Shaman, and Warlord, but added back healing to the Druid, and, later, the Artificer.
Making healing a generally bad idea in combat did reduce the healing burden on the cleric, tho. Instead, play apparently tends towards short days.

 

[Oofta]

The adjustments literally aren't hard.

The issue is that some fans just don't want some stuff.

There is a difference between "I don't like it" and "It can't be done easily"

A lot of PHB 2024 is doing simple stuff the hard way because WOTC wants to limit additions.

But giving everyone a free level one feat that grants Expertise or Cantrips is just the same thing the hard way.

Sure, it's easy to implement what you want. It's much more difficult to implement something that will make the majority of people happy because that means compromising. It means that some people won't get what they want on either end of the spectrum. There is no "perfect" fighter for everyone, there can't be. Even if you try to make a solution for a fighter that is significantly different, those people that want something different have different priorities.

 

[Staffan]

4e moved the healing burden to the character being healed as surges, re-labeled the healer role as Leader, and made basic healing a minor action. It also provided a leader role class in every source, even Martial, so if Cleric, Shaman or Ardent didn't appeal, maybe Bard, Artificer, or Warlord would.
Oh, look, accidentally back on topic, the Warlord filled the support role adequately, enabling functional parties without supernatural/magical powers.

Another thing 4e did was to make plot-magic (teleport, knock, divinations, long-term condition relief, etc.) into rituals, which only needed a feat to unlock (though you wanted to invest in some of the relevant skills as well). So a high-level party might be expected to be able to teleport vast distances, but that doesn't mean they need a wizard.

 

[Voadam]

1e gave the cleric bonus 1st level spells for modest WIS, which typically all got used to heal.

1e also gave clerics spells at 1st level. OD&D was like later basic in 1st level clerics having turning but no spells.

Going from 1 spell at second level to up to three with a 14+ wisdom at 1st was a big jump.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the classes shouldn't be defined by only one or two core features that are exclusive to them, they should be more than the sum of their parts, you could build a rogue, a fighter and a barbarian all with sneak attack, expertise, maneuvres and rages but still make them all feel entirely unique by the implementations and combination of those abilities that you give them,

a rogue activates their 'flurry of knives' rage ability and it's continuation is dependant on them being able to (attempt to) hit someone with a sneak attack every turn and has the commanding strike maneuvre to they can use themselves to set up other people's advantage, the barbarian gets expertise in athletics and intimidation and their 'brutal opportunist' sneak attack has a low dice cap but isn't exclusive to finesse weapons, the fighter has fighting styles that give them limited uses of sneak attack and rage and reckless attack.

 

[Oofta]

the classes shouldn't be defined by only one or two core features that are exclusive to them, they should be more than the sum of their parts, you could build a rogue, a fighter and a barbarian all with sneak attack, expertise, maneuvres and rages but still make them all feel entirely unique by the implementations and combination of those abilities that you give them,

a rogue activates their 'flurry of knives' rage ability and it's continuation is dependant on them being able to (attempt to) hit someone with a sneak attack every turn and has the commanding strike maneuvre to they can use themselves to set up other people's advantage, the barbarian gets expertise in athletics and intimidation and their 'brutal opportunist' sneak attack has a low dice cap but isn't exclusive to finesse weapons, the fighter has fighting styles that give them limited uses of sneak attack and rage and reckless attack.

But isn't that where multi-classing and feats come into play? One of the things they did that I liked with 5E was giving people additional options for skill proficiencies and it looks like they're giving every character a bonus feat at 1st level.

At a certain point if you give people too many options you may as well get rid of classes altogether and go with a skill tree, I just don't think that would fit the D&D space particularly well.