D&D 5E The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.

Hussar

Legend
choices of 4 skill proficiencies
choice of 4 skills to get expertise in
choice of subclass
choice of 4 feats or ASIs

That is 13 explicit choices you have made as a Rogue-Assasin between 1st and 12th level and that is before you consider the choices made with your false identities, which are really only limited by the available time and gold.
Proficiencies are chosen at character generation. 4 feats are also something all classes get, not something you get from the Rogue class.

And, no you don't really get to choose 4 skills to get expertise in, you get to get expertise in 4 of the skills you already have proficiency in. Wow. Again, be still my beating heart.

Talk about grasping at straws here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



ECMO3

Hero
Proficiencies are chosen at character generation. 4 feats are also something all classes get, not something you get from the Rogue class.

And, no you don't really get to choose 4 skills to get expertise in, you get to get expertise in 4 of the skills you already have proficiency in. Wow. Again, be still my beating heart.

Talk about grasping at straws here.

I am not grasping at straws, here is my original statement on this, note underlined which it seems people are ignoring:

I think they do have a lot of choices. Not as powerful choices at high levels but enough available through spells, subclasses and other class choices.

The things I mentioned are all choices. You might not like them, but they are all choices and they are all part of the Rogue class specifically.

Also as a point of fact, no other class except Fighter gets 4 feats by 12th level. So while you may not agree with my post, and claim I am "grasping at straws", your post is factually and objectively incorrect.
 
Last edited:

ECMO3

Hero
That's what the vast majority of the defense of imbalanced classes are. Grasping at straws.

This was not stated in defense of imbalanced classes. It stated in response to someone who said martials do not have many choices. They have many choices, with literally Trillions of viable build combinations.

I have never once suggested that there is balance across the classes, not on this thread and not on any other.

I do think people who tend to harp on the imbalance don't consider a lot of nuances in their arguments though. I think their arguments are based on generalities and faulty assumptions. They fail to consider the variance over level range and subclass which changes the imbalance dramatically, and when they do bring a subclass in the discussion it is almost never one of the stronger martial subclasses.

You can build a Wizard to be the strongest character in the game at 10th level+ and they will unequivocally be better than other classes can achieve with the same ability scores. But that assumes high level and it assumes the Wizard is purposely built for this, when they rarely are in play and it is the characters that are actually played that matter. This is also specific to high level, you can build some extremely powerful martials RAW in the 3-8 level range that will severely press Wizards and be better than most Wizards in this level range. Yet people don't use these examples, when people make this argument though they assume this "God Wizard" (without amplifying on that build), while throwing up a weak straw man martial like a Champion or a Battlemaster (or in this case an Assassin).

I am happy to talk about the specific martials I've playedand I am happy to talk about the casters I played and I generally enjoyed playing most of them from both catagories. I can also tell you there are classes I don't enjoy playing (Artificers, Barbarians and Druids) and the way I solve this problem is I just don't play those classes, but I don't tell the people who like those classes that they need to be changed so that I would enjoy playing them.
 
Last edited:

Tony Vargas

Legend
It stated in response to someone who said martials do not have many choices. They have many choices, with literally Trillions of viable build combinations.
I was into trying to defend the 3.x fighter design back in the a day, and I did the math on possible fighters. It was, IIRC (and the oughts are not my prime decade for recall), thousands maybe tens of thousands. The 5e fighter has significantly less choice.

I have never once suggested that there is balance across the classes, not on this thread and not on any other.
(y)
I do think people who tend to harp on the imbalance don't consider a lot of nuances in their argument.
Sadly, even nuance favors casters. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I frankly don't care about balance. That's never been my argument. I find balance arguments largely tedious.

But if we're counting PROFICIENCY choice at 1st level as a "class choice", then, well, that's not even based on class. EVERYONE gets that. @ECMO3's argument is based on some bizarre definition of "choice" where he's counting every single possible variation as a choice. Sorry, but, no. The point is, a non-caster class has "trillions" of variations, but, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the variations of a caster class.

And THAT'S the issue at hand.
 

Clint_L

Hero
But, we're not even talking about optimization or anything like that. That's so subjective anyway - what's optimized in one game might not be in another. That's not the point.

It's the "obviously" part that's the problem. Why should it be "obvious"? Why shouldn't non-casters get to make just as many choices as casters when they level up? Other than tradition, of course. And, it's not like it's even close. If you're playing a non-caster, the only choices your class gives you is at 3rd level when you pick your sub-class. Maybe a feat or two? That's about it. IOW, the non-casters get less choices over their entire career than casters get by level 3.
Except my "obviously" was in response to the question of who had more choices (obviously spell casters), so you misconstrued my point entirely.

You whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that have more choices is better. I disagree. It is different, but whether it is better or not is a subjective experience. For D&D, I am happy to argue that having some classes with more choices and some with fewer is better design that serves more players, and as evidence I present the popularity of the game as it is designed, and the relative unpopularity of the one edition of the game that moved away from that model (hard to narrow that down to just one factor, though). Given that fighters are the most popular class and it isn't close, and other non-spell casting classes are also popular, it seems that quite a few players are happy to play classes with fewer choices to make.

Speaking from personal experience, sometimes I want a complicated class, and sometimes I just want to play the barbarian, and most players I know feel the same way. So the premise that "more choice=better" in the context of D&D is an unfounded assumption.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I was into trying to defend the 3.x fighter design back in the a day, and I did the math on possible fighters. It was, IIRC (and the oughts are not my prime decade for recall), thousands maybe tens of thousands. The 5e fighter has significantly less choice.


(y)

Sadly, even nuance favors casters. :rolleyes:

I would almost go as far as saying objectively the 3 X fighter is the worst D&D fighter across all the editions.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top