D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[FrozenNorth]

I think feats favor casters. Multiclassing definitely does.

Magic items are a bit iffy. Things like winged boots tend to help martials more. But when it comes to Wands of magic missile and fireball they may actually outdo magic weapons.

I’m not sure if even magic items narrow the martial caster/gap.

If previously the wizard was casting fly but now he is using that slot offensively, the net result is that he has more slots.

Kind of like the cleric is overpowered on paper, but often feels less overpowered in practice, because the slots used to heal means they can’t use the Spiritual Weapon/Spiritual Guardians combo every fight.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not sure if even magic items narrow the martial caster/gap.

If previously the wizard was casting fly but now he is using that slot offensively, the net result is that he has more slots.

Kind of like the cleric is overpowered on paper, but often feels less overpowered in practice, because the slots used to heal means they can’t use the Spiritual Weapon/Spiritual Guardians combo every fight.

I think I agree but for a different reason.

Flight flat out alleviates a lot martial pain points. It’s a capability they couldn’t get on their own. In that sense it’s stronger for the fighter. BUT wizards gain the capability of being flying and invisible at the same time. Or flying and allowing an ally to fly. Or etc. in short any concentration spell + flight becomes a new combo of something he couldn’t previously do - and that’s a lot of new combos. In this sense i think concentrationless flight can still increase the gap. It’s a matter of perspective though and not very clear either way.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've brought this up in another thread- you can't go back to making casters require martials to protect them. First, you'd have to give all of them the tools to do so. But worse than that, most martial players don't want to.

although as was also pointed out in the other thread,
1-it's hard to build a defender, often at the cost of effectiveness in more useful areas
2-if you do it is a difficult playstyle with minimal unrewarding impact
3-spellcasters typically have the bulk, defences and tools to not especially require defending.

if you made the defender playstyle
-easy to build into
-straightforward to perform and effective to play
-a role that has value in being performed (although not quite the same as a role that needs to be performed)
i'm certain there would more than plently of people who would eagrely wish to play as one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is, that defending other player characters (stopping enemies from attacking them) is nearly impossible.

A normal fighter/Barbarian whatever without specialised feats can only stop monsters hurting other characters, if he kills them first or if he is in in 5 foot wide bottleneck and can physically stop them from going trough.

If we build a defender fighter. Let's take a v.human fighter, level 1, that takes the sentinel feat and the protecting fighting style, now if he is in 10feet wide bottleneck, he can stop one monster with the sentinel feat from passing him and going to his allies.
That doesn't help against a Goblin horde or anything. And single boss Monsters would probably attack the fighter first anyway.

If you want a defender that can really protect other characters, with thencurrent rules, he needs more reactions for the sentinel feat or protecting fighting style to do any good.
And even if a "sentinel" class would have several reaction to stop several monsters from going trough, that still only works in bottlenecks or they just go around him.

That's what henchmen (and other front-line PCs) are for. One more person and now you can defend a 10' gap. One person shouldn't be able to stop all the enemy by themselves with that bottleneck otherwise.

 

[M_Natas]

That's what henchmen (and other front-line PCs) are for. One more person and now you can defend a 10' gap. One person shouldn't be able to stop all the enemy by themselves with that bottleneck otherwise.

Two martials in one party? That is unheard off! ^^
I know I can't generalise experiences but in 90% of my 5e games the parties I played in or DMed for had at most one martial character (and that was 90% of the time a barbarian).
The current campaign I'm a player in has no martials (4 players, Wizard, Cleric, Warlock/Rogue, Warlock/Bard) and the campaign I DM would have two, if the Paladin Player wouldn't have taken personal time off (nominal 6 players, 1 sorcerer, 1 cleric/druid, 1 Barbarian, 1 wizard, 1 rogue, 1 Paladin - who is missing).

Having two martials at the table who can hold a frontline. What a silly suggestion

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've brought this up in another thread- you can't go back to making casters require martials to protect them. First, you'd have to give all of them the tools to do so. But worse than that, most martial players don't want to.

Oh goodie! now I'm the bodyguard for the main character!

 

[Pedantic]

I've brought this up in another thread- you can't go back to making casters require martials to protect them. First, you'd have to give all of them the tools to do so. But worse than that, most martial players don't want to. For instance, the best "defender" subclass for Fighter, Cavalier, is very rarely taken, for example. I submit that most 5e Fighter players are more interested in being damage dealers and wouldn't be happy with being "forced" to take the Defender role (a notable criticism of 4e design).

So putting the genie back in the bottle, and making Wizards "squishy" again, would just result in a bunch of dead Wizards lol. Modern design ensures anyone can have strong defenses, because you can't rely on anyone else to save your behind by default.

I've been suspicious of the "defender" concept in general, because I'm not sure it's really a thing, unless you pointedly force it to be one. Defender actions are just conditional crowd control abilities. I can deny my opponent an action or movement, but only under specific situations and/or only by putting myself at risk. I don't think that's actually particularly special; lots of characters can contribute crowd control, and lots of them can do it from a bigger distance/to more targets/without risking themselves/with less conditions...etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been suspicious of the "defender" concept in general, because I'm not sure it's really a thing, unless you pointedly force it to be one. Defender actions are just conditional crowd control abilities. I can deny my opponent an action or movement, but only under specific situations and/or only by putting myself at risk. I don't think that's actually particularly special; lots of characters can contribute crowd control, and lots of them can do it from a bigger distance/to more targets/without risking themselves/with less conditions...etc.

The concept of a hero protecting others is very common. The particular way the fighter shaped up that way in D&D is a tad suspicious, tho, in that it essentially rests on the Magic-User and Cleric having important resources and few hp, and the Fighting Man having a few more hp - and no resources. That is, the Fighter as Defender has usually been the Fighter as Expendable....
...a bit less heroic than the underlying concept...

 

[Pedantic]

The concept of a hero protecting others is very common.

Is it? At a macro-level, absolutely, you get in front of the invading horde and try and stop them from rampaging through the town, but at the level of a singular squad v. squad fight the only real trope that comes up regularly is heroically stepping in to block/take a blow that was about to fell someone else. That does sound like a reasonable reaction-type ability, something like a counterspell for attacks, but I'm not sure it's a role unto itself.

The whole "tank" idea, as a specific individual inside a small squad who should get hit the most, I think is a self-reflected D&Dism, refined in other mediums and genres of games. You really need multiple people, either doing matching point to point defenses, doing some kind of zone control, or creating physical shield walls and so on to play effective defense, and to what degree is that necessary/appropriate when Evard's Black Tentacles is in play?

 

[James Gasik]

although as was also pointed out in the other thread,
1-it's hard to build a defender, often at the cost of effectiveness in more useful areas
2-if you do it is a difficult playstyle with minimal unrewarding impact
3-spellcasters typically have the bulk, defences and tools to not especially require defending.

if you made the defender playstyle
-easy to build into
-straightforward to perform and effective to play
-a role that has value in being performed (although not quite the same as a role that needs to be performed)
i'm certain there would more than plently of people who would eagrely wish to play as one.

I'd like to think that would be the case, but remember that the last edition had all these things, and it was rejected in favor of Fighters who primarily dish out damage and have to specifically choose to be Defenders, which we know isn't a popular choice because people love to be Champions and Battlemasters, but rarely choose to be Cavaliers. So again, I submit that players don't want to be caster bodyguards, which is why casters don't currently need bodyguards to the degree they once did.

You can't make casters dependent on martials if the martials don't care to protect the casters in the first place.