Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7072804" data-attributes="member: 57112">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification