Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9171130" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>I really don’t know why it’s so hard to get that they’re different things. Having 300 spells in the PHB to split between all the Spellcasting classes is great. Having 300 feats in the PHB would make me not want to play the game. Because they serve different purposes in the game. There are more feats than subclasses, is that a problem? Of course not, because they aren’t like objects. It’s apples to mushrooms. </p><p></p><p>The only game object that is the same type of object as spells are manuevers, and those are limited because it would be absolutely pants on head irrational to have the same number of unique items to choose from for one class and one feat, as for several feats, 8 classes, and at least one subclass for each remaining class. </p><p></p><p>And it would still be just as pants if the 4 non-caster classes had no subclasses with spells and there were no feats that granted them, because 8 classes is obviously and objectively vastly more important than one subclass of one class. Tbh it was buck wild to see so many additional manuevers in a supplement. </p><p></p><p>And they have tried to expand manuvers beyond that subclass and feat, and the community has shot it down every time. The majority of players who care at all about what martial characters have don’t want anyone else to get manuevers, because they see that as entirely the BM’s thing. </p><p></p><p>So…what do you think would be in supplements as a balance to more spells? More expansions on individual martial subclasses? Even more maneuvers for an already over supported subclass? Even more feats in a game that could stand to stop adding more feats? I guess more fighting styles could be cool if they have good designs in mind, but when they tried to get weird with fighting styles people hollered “power creep” and they stepped back. </p><p></p><p>And if none of that makes sense to add, for whatever reason, would you just arbitrarily shrink the spell list in order to serve some misguided sense of symmetry? Because it isn’t balance. 100 spells could be just as powerful as the current number, if those spells are the 100 most powerful spells. The number of spells isn’t a balance issue. It’s just symmetry. It’s no different than making the “ardent” and “battle mind” so that the psionic power source had a leader and a defender, in 4e.* Design symmetry is the enemy of good design in TTRPGs. You don’t need there to be neutral outsider descended people, just because there are tieflings and aasimar. Having fiendish blood and having celestial/angelic blood are both concepts that exist outside of D&D, that D&D is modeling. If you have a concept for fire people, you don’t have to force water people into the game to stand opposite them. You don’t need to have 8 martial classes just because the phb has 8 Spellcasting classes, and you don’t need more feats or other singular options just because you add more spells. <strong>Balance is important (up to a point), symmetry is not. </strong></p><p></p><p>*what it isn’t like is a hypothetical martial controller, which had several strong archetypes but got shot down constantly as people very flalsely claimed it was just grid filling. No, f the grid, we wanted it because there were concepts that could only be approached with existing classes, never actually fulfilled, that a martial controller would have been able to fulfill. </p><p></p><p>4e or 5e. 4e has tons of great feats to take, plenty for 15 feat slots, though you’d have to have feats that give powers, too, but you could go pretty wild with fighter class feats. A lot of the most interesting feats in 4e are class feats. 5e has plenty as well. </p><p></p><p>First, all fighters benefit from a handful of feats like toughness, and the fighter class features could be fighter specific feats with level requirements where necessary. And then stuff like action surge can be more variable in the feats, or a few features could be in the class at 1st, 2nd, and 5th, level, and you could add feats that add to them. </p><p></p><p>Champion super simple guy takes maybe 2 or 3 active feats and the rest are either ASIs or something like toughness </p><p></p><p>the BM gets more manuvers, multiple weapon type specialization feats to be just as deadly with a glaive as with a longbow, with room for more odd stuff like skill expert, alert, actor, skulker, (skill expert stealth and skulker makes you Dex BM basically an alternate take on a stealth rogue) or go all genius swordmaster and take keen mind because you have room to do that with no loss anywhere, and still takes a couple ASIs</p><p></p><p>ignoring CharOp here we got the Cavalier who can take martial adept for the social manuevers, skill expert and/or skilled, dip toes into magic with magic initiate cleric maybe, some of the same stuff as BM but more focused, inspiring leader, maybe healer, etc</p><p></p><p>Eldritch Knight is taking Fey Touched and/ Shadow Touched, maybe a Stryxhaven feat, Warcaster, sentinel, ritual caster: wizard, on top of normal weapon spec stuff, etc</p><p></p><p>Some stuf like arcane archer could just be a feat chain with like 4 feats, and advice on what general feats will support the archetype further</p><p></p><p>And that isn’t even getting into the idea of making all fighter subclasses just be feat chains that require XYZ levels of fighter for each feat, so the class is just literally exactly the 3.5 fighter. (Aside from bab and other stuff that works differently)</p><p></p><p>Damn I kinda wish this is what they’d have done…</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 9171130, member: 6704184"] I really don’t know why it’s so hard to get that they’re different things. Having 300 spells in the PHB to split between all the Spellcasting classes is great. Having 300 feats in the PHB would make me not want to play the game. Because they serve different purposes in the game. There are more feats than subclasses, is that a problem? Of course not, because they aren’t like objects. It’s apples to mushrooms. The only game object that is the same type of object as spells are manuevers, and those are limited because it would be absolutely pants on head irrational to have the same number of unique items to choose from for one class and one feat, as for several feats, 8 classes, and at least one subclass for each remaining class. And it would still be just as pants if the 4 non-caster classes had no subclasses with spells and there were no feats that granted them, because 8 classes is obviously and objectively vastly more important than one subclass of one class. Tbh it was buck wild to see so many additional manuevers in a supplement. And they have tried to expand manuvers beyond that subclass and feat, and the community has shot it down every time. The majority of players who care at all about what martial characters have don’t want anyone else to get manuevers, because they see that as entirely the BM’s thing. So…what do you think would be in supplements as a balance to more spells? More expansions on individual martial subclasses? Even more maneuvers for an already over supported subclass? Even more feats in a game that could stand to stop adding more feats? I guess more fighting styles could be cool if they have good designs in mind, but when they tried to get weird with fighting styles people hollered “power creep” and they stepped back. And if none of that makes sense to add, for whatever reason, would you just arbitrarily shrink the spell list in order to serve some misguided sense of symmetry? Because it isn’t balance. 100 spells could be just as powerful as the current number, if those spells are the 100 most powerful spells. The number of spells isn’t a balance issue. It’s just symmetry. It’s no different than making the “ardent” and “battle mind” so that the psionic power source had a leader and a defender, in 4e.* Design symmetry is the enemy of good design in TTRPGs. You don’t need there to be neutral outsider descended people, just because there are tieflings and aasimar. Having fiendish blood and having celestial/angelic blood are both concepts that exist outside of D&D, that D&D is modeling. If you have a concept for fire people, you don’t have to force water people into the game to stand opposite them. You don’t need to have 8 martial classes just because the phb has 8 Spellcasting classes, and you don’t need more feats or other singular options just because you add more spells. [B]Balance is important (up to a point), symmetry is not. [/B] *what it isn’t like is a hypothetical martial controller, which had several strong archetypes but got shot down constantly as people very flalsely claimed it was just grid filling. No, f the grid, we wanted it because there were concepts that could only be approached with existing classes, never actually fulfilled, that a martial controller would have been able to fulfill. 4e or 5e. 4e has tons of great feats to take, plenty for 15 feat slots, though you’d have to have feats that give powers, too, but you could go pretty wild with fighter class feats. A lot of the most interesting feats in 4e are class feats. 5e has plenty as well. First, all fighters benefit from a handful of feats like toughness, and the fighter class features could be fighter specific feats with level requirements where necessary. And then stuff like action surge can be more variable in the feats, or a few features could be in the class at 1st, 2nd, and 5th, level, and you could add feats that add to them. Champion super simple guy takes maybe 2 or 3 active feats and the rest are either ASIs or something like toughness the BM gets more manuvers, multiple weapon type specialization feats to be just as deadly with a glaive as with a longbow, with room for more odd stuff like skill expert, alert, actor, skulker, (skill expert stealth and skulker makes you Dex BM basically an alternate take on a stealth rogue) or go all genius swordmaster and take keen mind because you have room to do that with no loss anywhere, and still takes a couple ASIs ignoring CharOp here we got the Cavalier who can take martial adept for the social manuevers, skill expert and/or skilled, dip toes into magic with magic initiate cleric maybe, some of the same stuff as BM but more focused, inspiring leader, maybe healer, etc Eldritch Knight is taking Fey Touched and/ Shadow Touched, maybe a Stryxhaven feat, Warcaster, sentinel, ritual caster: wizard, on top of normal weapon spec stuff, etc Some stuf like arcane archer could just be a feat chain with like 4 feats, and advice on what general feats will support the archetype further And that isn’t even getting into the idea of making all fighter subclasses just be feat chains that require XYZ levels of fighter for each feat, so the class is just literally exactly the 3.5 fighter. (Aside from bab and other stuff that works differently) Damn I kinda wish this is what they’d have done… [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.
Top