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

[thedjally]

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?



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'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.



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.



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.

Hey thanks for that last reply I enjoyed reading it. I can't comment on 4e but I certainly would like things to more equal but different.

With regards to the manouvers having different sources I don't agree. In my ideal world they'd all stack so that your fighting style could have manouvers associated with it, and the weapon itself, and classes could as well. While you're right about the battle master losing out here he can only choose a few, and tbh I would have the fighter get bonuses in this system and I think that it wouldn't be too hard to design it in such a way that the fighter gets the most (numerically as well as in terms of options) while providing options to other classes.

One of the guys I play with who reads a lot of 4e stuff for inspiration thinks that 4e would be something I'd really enjoy from the combat - alas I haven't had a chance to try it I wasn't playing DnD during those years. You could totally be right! But I don't think that returning to 3e martial uselessness is good either.

As far as characters and fantasy go I've always been drawn to the guy who achieves power parity through work, discipline, and skill as opposed to magic. I agree that the battle master fulfils this - what I've been trying to express is that I wish manouvers and stuff were similar to spellcasting in that it is a series of abilities that allow a character to diversify themselves.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Mostly obvious questions with obvious answers, and I have to wonder if they're not all rhetorical. Anyway, in reverse order:

Balance doesn't require exact symmetry, but symmetric designs are easier to evaluate for balance, and, incidentally easier to design and easier to learn. Also, the 'symetric design' ship has sailed, been becalmed, torpedoed, burnt to the waterline, and dragged to the bottom of a deep ocean trench by a spiteful kraken. So I wouldn't worry about it showing up any time soon.

Enough to be viable alternatives to the other sub-class options.

Yes.

Balance - which includes having many viable choices that are meaningful - is the typical bar, but not really a meaningful factor in 5e design. 'Player agency,' might be a better one. Viability could still come into it - as individuals contributing to a party, and the viability of all-martial parties.

Yes. 5e presents a range of sub-classes, some with virtually no options, some with a few, some with more, some with orders of magnitude more. In that continuum, the 5 martial sub-classes of the PH are clustered over on the 'virtually-no-to-few' side. Filling in martial classes towards the middle and opposite end - and filling in some magic-using sub-classes on the option-free end (like an Essentials Elemental Sorcerer, for instance), would help address the issue. Nothing need actually be removed.

5e cares more about providing interesting options to martial character than any previous edition....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"

Lol!
Yes, 5e cares about providing interesting magical options to characters than any previous edition. You have cantrips, so even when you run out of spells, you're still magical. You have more flexibility in deciding which spells to cast than ever before. You face fewer limitations & restrictions on casting than ever before.

And, every cast actually uses spells in one way or another, in at least one sub-class.

So, as long as you want to cast spells, it's the edition for you.


But, yes, when people say 'martial character' they often mean it as 'character concepts that don't include innately using magic.' Given the way thedjally has been using the term, and contrasting it so bitterly with the privilege enjoyed by casters, his meaning was quite clear.

Frankly, I think the very nature of "martial" is overly pedantic

You think whether a character employs supernatural powers is overly pedantic?

Would a wizard who was unable to use any magic still be an acceptable wizard? Because, if you think the distinction is merely pedantic, it shouldn't matter to you if he's throwing meteorswarms or doing card tricks.

a holdover from 4e's balanced 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.

Well, 4e martial characters could do a lot more than they could in prior editions or 5e. So I think your definition of 'vastly limited' is every bit as far off as you denial of thedjally's clear usage of 'martial.'

Or, at least, your reasoning is off: Source wasn't particularly limiting in 4e designs, but Role was. The need to keep a 'Defender' from stepping on a 'Controller's' toes did limit what a fighter could do in 4e, for instance - or we could've had a lot more exploits along the lines of C&GI. That's something where 5e could do better than 4e could have done.

 

[Gradine]

Hey thanks for that last reply I enjoyed reading it. I can't comment on 4e but I certainly would like things to more equal but different.

With regards to the manouvers having different sources I don't agree. In my ideal world they'd all stack so that your fighting style could have manouvers associated with it, and the weapon itself, and classes could as well. While you're right about the battle master losing out here he can only choose a few, and tbh I would have the fighter get bonuses in this system and I think that it wouldn't be too hard to design it in such a way that the fighter gets the most (numerically as well as in terms of options) while providing options to other classes.

But again, I think that this already exists within the core; at least if you allow feats anyone can pick up a Battlemaster maneuver or two. I'd admit that what the feat provides is a little lackluster for the cost; I'd beef up maneuvers more across the board personally. But anything a martial character ought to be able to do but isn't explicitly spelled out in the PHB is still something every martial character actually has the ability to do; it just requires some inventiveness on the part of the player and improvisation from the DM. I don't think that's asking too much; these are probably the single most important skills for a player or DM to have to bring to D&D.

As far as characters and fantasy go I've always been drawn to the guy who achieves power parity through work, discipline, and skill as opposed to magic. I agree that the battle master fulfils this - what I've been trying to express is that I wish manouvers and stuff were similar to spellcasting in that it is a series of abilities that allow a character to diversify themselves.

In terms of 4e's siloed power sources, this describes martial character... but it also basically applies to psionic characters also, even in 5e. The Mystic is explicitly a character who achieves their power through hard work and self-discipline. But psionics uses spell psi points so it is basically magic so ew.

One of the guys I play with who reads a lot of 4e stuff for inspiration thinks that 4e would be something I'd really enjoy from the combat - alas I haven't had a chance to try it I wasn't playing DnD during those years. You could totally be right! But I don't think that returning to 3e martial uselessness is good either.

Yeah I think you'd dig 4e for the most part. FWIW I think it did a lot of things extremely well that could have been brought more into 5e (of course I also think people who say 5e didn't take anything from 4e are also wrong), but IMO there were a few questionable design decisions that dragged the whole thing down. 5e's bounded accuracy and magic item rarity were definitely responses to some of those perceived flaws; blurring the lines between the "power sources" is definitely another. All these I think were done to 5e's benefit.

 

[Gradine]

Lol!
Yes, 5e cares about providing interesting magical options to characters than any previous edition. You have cantrips, so even when you run out of spells, you're still magical. You have more flexibility in deciding which spells to cast than ever before. You face fewer limitations & restrictions on casting than ever before.

And, every cast actually uses spells in one way or another, in at least one sub-class.

So, as long as you want to cast spells, it's the edition for you.

So it's okay for wizards to be left doing nothing but "fire crossbow... fire crossbow... fire crossbow" all game, but not fighters? I still don't see how any of this is limiting to so-called martial characters at all. Yes, I would admit it would be nice for the Battlemaster to have a "signature maneuver"; an at-will maneuver without the superiority die (or bonus damage). But that only solves problems for a specific archetype.

Of course, it's a problem that doesn't need resolution. because you don't need explicit powers to do things! Trip that orc! Shove that bandit! Taunt that person you disagree with on the internet! The world is your oyster!

But, yes, when people say 'martial character' they often mean it as 'character concepts that don't include innately using magic.' Given the way thedjally has been using the term, and contrasting it so bitterly with the privilege enjoyed by casters, his meaning was quite clear.

You think whether a character employs supernatural powers is overly pedantic?

When the request is that characters without supernatural powers should have comparable power and versatility to characters with supernatural powers, yes I think the term "martial" becomes a little pedantic. Martial characters, even relatively low level ones, are capable of superhuman feats. The notion that such feats should come from natural talent (but not natural magical talent! Or icky psionics!) is a little pedantic, yes.

4e did it by extremely limiting the scope of supernaturally powered characters' abilities and ironing away any real differences in class design. I was not a fan of that approach, not because of what it did to martial characters, but because of what it did to casters. 5e did it by giving otherwise "martial" characters access to supernatural abilities themselves. I find that to be a rather elegant approach, particularly in a game in which power sources aren't so needlessly siloed.

Would a wizard who was unable to use any magic still be an acceptable wizard? Because, if you think the distinction is merely pedantic, it shouldn't matter to you if he's throwing meteorswarms or doing card tricks.

I don't really understand how this applies at all. In 5e a fighter still fights. A rogue still makes with the stabby-stabby. A wizard doesn't suddenly become not magical when she brains a kobold with a quarterstaff. Why does a fighter become suddenly not martial when they can cast jump on themselves? This is what I mean when I talk about senselessly siloing power sources. Every character is martial. Most are also supernatural in some way.

Well, 4e martial characters could do a lot more than they could in prior editions or 5e. So I think your definition of 'vastly limited' is every bit as far off as you denial of thedjally's clear usage of 'martial.'

My point is that they actually couldn't. My point is that everything that was a martial "power" was something every martial character (every character at all, actually) could do in any previous edition. Sometimes a 3.X character would need a feat to do it, but that's part of the problem with that game's design too.

My point is that a fighter could do those things in AD&D as much as they could in 4e or 5e. The only difference is that in 4e a DM could say "sorry, your character doesn't have that power."

Or, at least, your reasoning is off: Source wasn't particularly limiting in 4e designs, but Role was. The need to keep a 'Defender' from stepping on a 'Controller's' toes did limit what a fighter could do in 4e, for instance - or we could've had a lot more exploits along the lines of C&GI. That's something where 5e could do better than 4e could have done.

Source was extremely limiting in 4e design, especially when it came to martial characters. Other power sources could do whatever the hell they wanted, but every martial power had to pass the smell check of "but does this seem too supernatural?" In 5e they realized that every character was martial and that every character should have access to supernatural abilities if they wanted them. They moved away from primary role niche protection fairly early on in 4e (arguably before they even quite figured out what a "controller" was really supposed to look like) as classes got more and more powers that blurred role-lines and introduced secondary role possibilities. But power source was a strict limitation. Maybe not as much mechanically, but in terms of flavor. And that's what we're talking about here; enforcing a strict idea of what a "martial power" ought to look like, what it ought to be able to do, and it ought to match the efficacy and/or versatility of any other power source. 5e just says "if you want magic, have some magic. If you want something like a 4e martial character, here's a battlemaster." It's not a perfect solution, but then 4e-style tactical combat abilities don't play as well in a combat system in an edition that does not have exact positioning as a default assumption (ie, 5e).

I have to admit not knowing what C&GI is a reference too. Google only gives me a bunch of references to Selena Gomez which makes even less sense to me.

 

[Lanliss]

I have to admit not knowing what C&GI is a reference too. Google only gives me a bunch of references to Selena Gomez which makes even less sense to me.

My google-fu tellls me it stand for "Come & Get It".

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I need more weapons like I need more cable channels.

 

[Lanefan]

So it's okay for wizards to be left doing nothing but "fire crossbow... fire crossbow... fire crossbow" all game, but not fighters? I still don't see how any of this is limiting to so-called martial characters at all.

Sure it's OK. Wizards and their ilk are high-power low-duration weapons, fighters and their ilk are little energizer bunnies that just keep on going. Seems fine to me.

4e did it by extremely limiting the scope of supernaturally powered characters' abilities and ironing away any real differences in class design. I was not a fan of that approach, not because of what it did to martial characters, but because of what it did to casters. 5e did it by giving otherwise "martial" characters access to supernatural abilities themselves.

Neither of which really appeals to me at all.

I don't really understand how this applies at all. In 5e a fighter still fights. A rogue still makes with the stabby-stabby. A wizard doesn't suddenly become not magical when she brains a kobold with a quarterstaff. Why does a fighter become suddenly not martial when they can cast jump on themselves?

If a fighter wants to cast jump on herself she can multi-class into wizard anytime she likes. Otherwise she's just going to have to wait until someone else casts it on her.

I have to admit not knowing what C&GI is a reference too. Google only gives me a bunch of references to Selena Gomez which makes even less sense to me.

It's short for "Come and Get It", which was a 4e feat of some sort I think; all I remember is reading lots of arguments about it when it came out, which is the only reason I even know it exists.

Lanefan

 

[Gradine]

My google-fu tellls me it stand for "Come & Get It".

Ahh.. the fighter taunt power. Something no fighter before or since has ever been able to do.

 

[Gradine]

Sure it's OK. Wizards and their ilk are high-power low-duration weapons, fighters and their ilk are little energizer bunnies that just keep on going. Seems fine to me.

Never been a fan of linear warrior/quadratic wizard myself.

Neither of which really appeals to me at all.

I guess D&D really can't be all things to all people then

If a fighter wants to cast jump on herself she can multi-class into wizard anytime she likes. Otherwise she's just going to have to wait until someone else casts it on her.

Which is a worthwhile use of a spellcaster's resources (which is why the whole "Fighters don't get to do these things!" argument falls flat on its face once you take into account an actual party in actual play). Of course, if she wanted, 5e gives her at least two different options of being able to cast it on herself.

It's short for "Come and Get It", which was a 4e feat of some sort I think; all I remember is reading lots of arguments about it when it came out, which is the only reason I even know it exists.

Lanefan

Yeah, I'm remembering it now. It was that Fighter power that basically allowed them to do damage in a burst radius around themselves and mark multiple creatures at once. It also pulled creatures towards them. Was it mind control? Was it a charm or compulsion? It was one of those "dissociated mechanics" people complained about; or at least people who a) cared about immersion (Fantasy aesthetic) and b) needed martial powers to be explicitly non-supernatural in any way and c) needed hp to represent actual physical damage and not something more abstract. Basically, everyone who hated 4e to begin with

 

[Tony Vargas]

So it's okay for wizards to be left doing nothing but "fire crossbow... fire crossbow... fire crossbow" all game

In 3e that was OK, once they'd cast the several encounter-changing spells they got each day even at 1st level. In AD&D it was OK for them to /throw darts/ after they'd cast their /1 spell/.

In 5e, as in 4e, though, they get to use cantrips and stay all magicky, all day.

Yes, I would admit it would be nice for the Battlemaster to have a "signature maneuver"; an at-will maneuver without the superiority die (or bonus damage). But that only solves problems for a specific archetype.

It's the only archetype that even addresses the issue, however unsuccessfully...

Of course, it's a problem that doesn't need resolution. because you don't need explicit powers to do things! Trip that orc! Shove that bandit! Taunt that person you disagree with on the internet! The world is your oyster!

You don't need to be able to cast spells to be a wizard! Look at Gandalf, he just went around telling people stuff and making fireworks.

When the request is that characters without supernatural powers should have comparable power and versatility to characters with supernatural powers, yes I think the term "martial" becomes a little pedantic.

You could say non-caster or non-supernatural, but martial flows a little more nicely, I think. And no one is actually confused by it.

Martial characters, even relatively low level ones, are capable of superhuman feats.

They /should/ be more broadly capable of superhuman feats, so as to have comparable power & versatility to other character options. But, so far, in 5e, not so much.

4e did it by extremely limiting the scope of supernaturally powered characters' abilities

Meh. It pushed problematic abilities to higher levels and/or to long-casting-time/component-outlay Rituals. It did limit the scope and power of supernatural abilities, and it did greatly expand the scope and power of martial abilities. The result was relatively better class balance (though martial, lacking a controller, was still arguably behind, just not so far behind as to be non-viable in functional contributions other than DPR), and play remaining workable through higher levels than before.

5e un-did all that, not to become broken and 'return' to caster supremacy, but in shifting emphasis away from mechanically-supporting class balance, and towards DM Empowerment and traditional & mechanically-distinct class designs.

I was not a fan of that approach, not because of what it did to martial characters, but because of what it did to casters.

Balanced them. You're not alone, there was a lot of that.

I don't really understand how this applies at all.

You don't understand that there is a distinction between magical and non-magical? Or you don't understand how giving some classes primarily magical abilities, others only non-magical, and still others a significant combination of them would differentiate them?

In 5e a fighter still fights. A rogue still makes with the stabby-stabby. A wizard doesn't suddenly become not magical when she brains a kobold with a quarterstaff. Why does a fighter become suddenly not martial when they can cast jump on themselves?

I think it's fairly obvious. Everyone has non-magical abilities. Displaying a non-magical ability - say, walking across a room - does not make you non-magical. Displaying magical abilities - say teleporting across a room - makes you magical.

I don't see how it could be a much clearer line.

My point is that everything that was a martial "power" was something every martial character (every character at all, actually) could do in any previous edition.

C&GI. Inspiring Word. Blinding Barrage. Commander's Strike. There are many, many more...

However, you are half-right about certain exploits. I call them the 'dancing' powers. You shift, you attack, you move an enemy a little. You often could do something like that in 1E, and can again in 5e, because movement rules were less detailed. In 3.5 you'd need one of the more elaborate feat trees. In 5e you might provoke now and then if you tried to do it /exactly/, so, really, you can't do it, but as long as you finish off each enemy before you move on, you can get the same visual.

My point is that a fighter could do those things in AD&D as much as they could in 4e or 5e. The only difference is that in 4e a DM could say "sorry, your character doesn't have that power."

AD&D and 5e are pretty close, that way. 5e has AoOs that can slightly cramp your style. What you're getting at, is that you could declare an action "I leap over his head and attack him from behind!" in any edition. In AD&D or 5e, it's strictly DM's judgement what happens "you fall on his sword, make a save vs instant death -4" - in 4e, as you already admitted, there were some fairly clear guidelines for the hypothetical improvisations that you "couldn't do in 4e because you had powers."

in 4e design, especially when it came to martial characters. Other power sources could do whatever the hell they wanted, but every martial power had to pass the smell check of "but does this seem too supernatural?"

You're mistaking the invalid edition war criticisms of 4e with it's design process. H4ters would go off on something as being 'too supernatural,' then, when a perfectly natural visualization was offered, as 'dissociative mechanics.'

They moved away from primary role niche protection fairly early on in 4e as classes got more and more powers that blurred role-lines and introduced secondary role possibilities.

Not so much (and 'niche protection' isn't exactly what Roles were about, though they were decidedly limiting). Classes had primary and secondary roles from the beginning. They actually moved away from secondary roles, and, in Essentials, experimented with a sub-class having a different role than the main class, but, no, they never blurred the lines between roles much more than they already had in the PH1, with the Cleric having a nice selection of controller powers and the Paladin having some great leader toys.

But power source was a strict limitation. Maybe not as much mechanically, but in terms of flavor.

Heh. And the flavor text of a power could be changed by the player. So not really any 'limitation' at all. You could describe your power how you liked, it just didn't change the mechanics.

And that's what we're talking about here; enforcing a strict idea of what a "martial power" ought to look like

That's the 5e design philosophy. You start with the concept and build the mechanics to suit. Flavor matters from the beginning of the process, it's not left to players to re-skin that casually, since it will permeate the resulting class.

what it ought to be able to do, and it ought to match the efficacy and/or versatility of any other power source. 5e just says "if you want magic, have some magic. If you want something like a 4e martial character, here's a battlemaster." It's not a perfect solution, but then 4e-style tactical combat abilities don't play as well in a combat system in an edition that does not have exact positioning as a default assumption (ie, 5e).

Actually 5e does necessarily require exact positioning, you can't state all ranges and movement in feet, and all areas in precise geometric shapes, and /not/ require exact positioning. You can leave tracking (or hand-waving) that do the DM, by neglecting to give him any tools, of course. ;P

That's empowerment.

I have to admit not knowing what C&GI is a reference too.

It's one of many martial exploits that did stuff prior-ed and 5e martial characters couldn't begin to do. A very controversial one, for that reason.

My google-fu tellls me it stand for "Come & Get It".

And we probably shouldn't take it any further than that.

Edit: too late.