D&D 5E Should the game have extensive weapon lists?

[thedjally]

They can swing on chandeliers and ropes and slide down banisters and across tables. Trip up foes or shove them into pits. Create bottlenecks or use foes as human goblin shields. They can use every aspect of the environment to their advantage and often do. I'm not aware of any variant rules I'm using to run any of this...



It might help to create more varied encounter types; think about using the environment or presenting more varied win/lose conditions than "they die/you die". You might be surprised how inventive players get when you give the room and encouragement to try tactics other than "I hit it until it's not a problem anymore."

It's actually a lot easier to take advantage of the environment as a caster as well, but that's a good point with regards to overcoming it via superior GMing.

However from a game design perspective thats less than ideal and there's still precious little to represent things like disarming, hamstringing, actually using a grappled enemy as a body shield and having that do more than give you +2 AC, or anything that approaches what actually fighting someone feels like.

As someone with a background in combatives that might be the source of my discontent - when I play a wizard I feel like an arcane master, when I play as a paladin I feel like the embodiment of divine fury. I do not feel like an expert combatant when I play martial classes (and let's rope in the hunter archetype for ranger here even if the class is technically semicaster).

 

[Gradine]

Why would my martials do any of that?

Because it's fun and interesting and gives them advantage(s) (either tactical advantage or mechanical Advantage, or both)? Because they hate being stuck just attacking over and over again?

The casters can do all of that from a range of 60ft and fly to boot.

Theoretically they can; in practice they only get a handful of options and generally don't memorize/learn the situationally useful spells. Of course they can also try to do all of the other things I mentioned to but they tend not prioritize the abilities and skills that make such maneuvers successful.

 

[thedjally]

Because it's fun and interesting and gives them advantage(s) (either tactical advantage or mechanical Advantage, or both)? Because they hate being stuck just attacking over and over again?



Theoretically they can; in practice they only get a handful of options and generally don't memorize/learn the situationally useful spells. Of course they can also try to do all of the other things I mentioned to but they tend not prioritize the abilities and skills that make such maneuvers successful.

Meanwhile the martial classes are straight up BARRED from the spells. So they can't even attempt it.

 

[Gradine]

It's actually a lot easier to take advantage of the environment as a caster as well, but that's a good point with regards to overcoming it via superior GMing.

However from a game design perspective thats less than ideal and there's still precious little to represent things like disarming, hamstringing, actually using a grappled enemy as a body shield and having that do more than give you +2 AC, or anything that approaches what actually fighting someone feels like.

As someone with a background in combatives that might be the source of my discontent - when I play a wizard I feel like an arcane master, when I play as a paladin I feel like the embodiment of divine fury. I do not feel like an expert combatant when I play martial classes (and let's rope in the hunter archetype for ranger here even if the class is technically semicaster).

I recognize I'm being glib; I understand the frustrations in the lack of presented options for martial characters in combat; but my point is that D&D has always been about those types of improvisational actions; it wasn't until 5e that you really saw consistent complaints about Fighters doing nothing but "attack attack attack", because it was 4e that gave them a lot more "powers" but unfortunately codified the concept that you can't do it if it's not on your character sheet (which wasn't actually true in 4e either, but it did tend to lend itself more towards sticking to the established tactical combat rules). It codified a type of game play that was fairly different from the play styles encouraged in earlier editions, but the return to 5e has felt like an abandonment of interesting (explicit) options for martial characters (when it truth they've got it better now than they have ever have, 4e excluded).

 

[Gradine]

Meanwhile the martial classes are straight up BARRED from the spells. So they can't even attempt it.

Attempt what? Flight? That's literally the only action that's been mentioned that they can't attempt (one could argue that martial characters could attempt flight, but would likely meet with disastrous results). What is the bar for martial characters to be able to do without magic to make them feel equivalent enough for you?

Or would it be preferable to take those options away from casters?

 

[thedjally]

Attempt what? Flight? That's literally the only action that's been mentioned that they can't attempt (one could argue that martial characters could attempt flight, but would likely meet with disastrous results). What is the bar for martial characters to be able to do without magic to make them feel equivalent enough for you?

Or would it be preferable to take those options away from casters?

So I ignored it last time with the rapier comment but you're​ being painfully pedantic again. We're trying to have a discussion here and that type of deliberate misconstrual of what I meant (the large number of effects and abilities provided by spellcasting which of course as I have been talking about this whole time are not available to marital classes) doesn't add anything to the topic.

To be precise we also talked about the ease of using the environment, and being invisible on top of flight but in each case these were depictions of the TYPE of additional utility / function that are available to spellcasters on top of their offensive capabilities which is the TYPE of in combat utility I'd like to see. I'm not specifically asking for these specific effects but the idea that one could do more than apply damage (status effects would be a great start, as would sundering items and non variant disarm rules)

As a band aid I'd like subsets of the manouvers to be tied to fighting styles and / or classes and / or weapons, and have the battle master archetype provide some of the old warlord functionality.

Ideally I'd like to see a combat system that at least pretended to care about martial classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As a band aid I'd like subsets of the manouvers to be tied to fighting styles and / or classes and / or weapons, and have the battle master archetype provide some of the old warlord functionality.

Ideally I'd like to see a combat system that at least pretended to care about martial classes.

It cares about them: it cares about them being simple to play, and about combats being fast. General combat options get in the way of the latter, class-specific ones in the way of the former.

Or would it be preferable to take those options away from casters?

Some of the more problematic ones, maybe. Or, at least, bring them in at a higher opportunity cost - fewer spells known, less flexibility in which known spell you can use how often, that kinda thing.

I recognize I'm being glib; I understand the frustrations in the lack of presented options for martial characters in combat; but my point is that D&D has always been about those types of improvisational actions

Care to give some direct quotes from 0D&D illustrating that? ;P

Seriously, though, D&D has always presented high-impact, limited-use, push-button abilities - mostly in the form of spells. So it's not always been /all/ about desperately groping about for something outside-the-box to do because you have no mechanical options.

it wasn't until 5e that you really saw consistent complaints about Fighters doing nothing but "attack attack attack"

Nah, it was a pretty old complaint. 2e C&T, for instance, introduced a lot of tactical rules & options, because we had been missing any sorts of options beyond hitting things for the preceding 20 years or so. With 3.0 we got the actual rules for actual maneuvers in combat (even if they worked pretty badly until you invested feats in 'em).

because, it was 4e that gave them a lot more "powers"

That's a major contributor, true. 4e had more or less balanced martial & caster classes for the first time. It did it by greatly reducing the number of 'daily' spells casters got, reigning in their power significantly, pushing high-impact effects to much higher levels, removing the last few particular restrictions on magic, and giving the non-caster an unprecedented number & variety of choices & resources that was actually comparable to that of casters (still narrower in scope and lesser in flexibility, but comparable in effectiveness).

but unfortunately codified the concept that you can't do it if it's not on your character sheet (which wasn't actually true in 4e either, but it did tend to lend itself more towards sticking to the established tactical combat rules).

It wasn't true, but it was an accusation repeated often enough that you have to acknowledge there are folks that believe it in spite of that.

Either way, whether because you experienced the fun of balanced martial classes with many tactical options in actual play, or because you looked on in horror at 'fighters casting spells' from the edition-war trenches, the point is that D&D has been able to give martial characters meaningful options & depth, and 5e has chosen not to explore that potential much, as yet.

It codified a type of game play that was fairly different from the play styles encouraged in earlier editions, but the return to 5e has felt like an abandonment of interesting options for martial characters.

The options were actually removed, so there's no 'felt like' about it.

Meanwhile the martial classes are straight up BARRED from the spells. So they can't even attempt it.

EK & AT can, and if feats are in play, there's Magic Initiate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Imean I play battlemasters​ so I do all kinds of... Without variant rules you can also do what, grapple or shove?

Whatever action you declare, just like everyone else.

Why would my martials do any of that?

Boredom.

The casters can do all of that from a range of 60ft and fly to boot.

And they can do a lot more to 'improv' using spells as a starting point. If you can change the environment, you can do any improv action taking advantage of the environment that anyone else could do /and/ you could change the environment to something that relates to an improv action you'd like to take.

The idea that a push-button resource like a spell locks you into just pushing buttons is absurd. They can be leveraged to do a much wider range of improvised actions than you could without them.

It's actually a lot easier to take advantage of the environment as a caster as well

nod.

...there's still precious little to represent things like disarming, hamstringing, actually using a grappled enemy as a body shield...

Hps are very abstract, as are attacks in combat. Damage is very abstract. If you're stabbed in the gut or your ankle broken or whatever, you should 'realistically' be impaired, same with being burned by a raging ball of flame. But you're not...

...except, sometimes the system decides you are. Someone casts glitterdust and you're blinded. By some dust. That glitters. But don't worry about that fireball, it won't even dry your eyes out, leave the Visine in your bag of holding, you won't need it. A ray of frost might slow you down (I forget, actually, if it still does) but of Cone of Cold doing 10x as much damage or a dwarven war-hammer to the knee? Nuth'n.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I recognize I'm being glib; I understand the frustrations in the lack of presented options for martial characters in combat; but my point is that D&D has always been about those types of improvisational actions; it wasn't until 5e that you really saw consistent complaints about Fighters doing nothing but "attack attack attack", because it was 4e that gave them a lot more "powers" but unfortunately codified the concept that you can't do it if it's not on your character sheet (which wasn't actually true in 4e either, but it did tend to lend itself more towards sticking to the established tactical combat rules). It codified a type of game play that was fairly different from the play styles encouraged in earlier editions, but the return to 5e has felt like an abandonment of interesting (explicit) options for martial characters (when it truth they've got it better now than they have ever have, 4e excluded).

Nah, it started in 3e at the latest. IIRC, there were complaints of exactly the same nature before 3 launched.

You are right about 4e being percieved by many people as codifying the idea that you can only do what is directly allowed by your chosen mechanical options, even though improv was actually really easy and intuitive to rule for in 4e, whether you used to dmg guidelines or not.

Anyway, IMO the game needs guidelines/better rules for things like hamstringing, taunting, shield bashing (ie forced movement, and creating openings), feinting, etc than it has, and more of it needs to be more strongly in the player's hands.

 

[Gradine]

So I ignored it last time with the rapier comment but you're​ being painfully pedantic again. We're trying to have a discussion here and that type of deliberate misconstrual of what I meant (the large number of effects and abilities provided by spellcasting which of course as I have been talking about this whole time are not available to marital classes) doesn't add anything to the topic.

No deliberate misconstrual; in my defense your response was vague and linked directly to my specific response. But I will respond to your larger point, I have to ask again; is the problem that martial characters can't do enough or casters can do too much? Again I ask, what is the bar martial characters have to meet? Does the bar lower if we take away options casters? Exactly how much does a martial character have to be able to explicitly do (without magic, even) in order for there to be parity? Or does there have to be completely symmetric class design in order to satisfy?

To be precise we also talked about the ease of using the environment, and being invisible on top of flight but in each case these were depictions of the TYPE of additional utility / function that are available to spellcasters on top of their offensive capabilities which is the TYPE of in combat utility I'd like to see.

Now we're getting somewhere, but there's an issue with this; most of the utility stuff casters get access to aren't self-only. They're meant to be applicable to anyone else in the party, and are often most beneficial to be cast on the martial character. I think a big part of the problem with the whole "caster supremacy" narrative is that this really only holds true when each character is held separately and alone in a vacuum; in actual play PCs work together casters using utility spells to increase the range of options... for everyone, not just themselves. Unless we're talking about druid shapechangers. Screw those guys. Jerks

I'm not specifically asking for these specific effects but the idea that one could do more than apply damage (status effects would be a great start, as would sundering items and non variant disarm rules)

I'll posit that the play-style you're talking about already exists in 5e; the "hit the enemy plus effect" is the battlemaster's shtick; and I don't understand why that shtick needs to be given to every martial character (and to be honest, there's a feat for that). I'd love to see more maneuvers myself, but everything else you're talking about is dropping layers of 3.X combat chapter shenanigans that make my eyes go cross. I won't oppose such a thing being dropped as an optional add-on but I'm glad it was kept out of core for sure.

As a band aid I'd like subsets of the manouvers to be tied to fighting styles and / or classes and / or weapons, and have the battle master archetype provide some of the old warlord functionality.

I think that's adding needless complexity to a class archetype that was designed to be as customizable as possible. I don't want to have to switch to different weapons to trip or push back an enemy with my attack, or else stick to maneuvers that only fit with the theme of my preferred weapon. This is actually restricting the range of options available to martial characters, you realize?

I'm not going to touch the warlord with a ten foot pole. I'll add that my core 4e warlord builds just fine in core 5e.

Ideally I'd like to see a combat system that at least pretended to care about martial classes.

5e cares more about providing interesting options to martial character than any previous edition. I'll argue even moreso than 4e; why not, I'll die on that hill. It's just that too many of those options either look too much like, or actually are explicitly, magic, that it somehow makes those character's no longer "martial" (those comments about the Ranger, f'rex). But that's a whole other can of worms (or nits to pick at, depending on your point of view). Frankly, I think the very nature of "martial" is overly pedantic; a holdover from 4e's design philosophy of "separate but equal" that vastly limited the potential of what a martial character could or should be expected to do in a high fantasy setting.