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

[FrogReaver]

They had multiple classes in 3.x, it was confusing and there was a ton of overlap. After a while they were making variations that were just flat out better than what had come before because there are only so many variations on the theme. It was difficult to keep track of all the different options and the core concepts were often much the same, subclasses achieve much the same results of flexibility without the complexity, overhead and confusion. People likely rejected adding more classes when they floated the idea early on because they remembered what a mess it was.

It is, of course, just an option chosen because there will always be compromises and limitations to what any one game can do. If you want more options there's always 3PP.

IMO, some ideas are only unpopular because of poor execution - then again I don't know that if current WOTC would have any chance of better execution.

 

[FrogReaver]

They had multiple classes in 3.x, it was confusing and there was a ton of overlap. After a while they were making variations that were just flat out better than what had come before because there are only so many variations on the theme. It was difficult to keep track of all the different options and the core concepts were often much the same, subclasses achieve much the same results of flexibility without the complexity, overhead and confusion. People likely rejected adding more classes when they floated the idea early on because they remembered what a mess it was.

It is, of course, just an option chosen because there will always be compromises and limitations to what any one game can do. If you want more options there's always 3PP.

I've yet to find any popular 3PP that isn't more powerful than anything a hypothetical WOTC might have published.

 

[Minigiant]

I either want fewer more customizable classes, or many super specialized classes.

As it stands, 5e's current design methodology means that if they botch the execution of any given concept (that's beyond spell caster or sword wielder) there's nothing remotely close to fall back to.

This.
Either a few broad highly customizable classes or a lot of specialized fixed classes.

5e is 2-3 broad customizable classes and 9-10 specialized fixed classes with customization tweaks.

The 5e design and schedule means that if WOTC screws up something or don't support something at the start, it is hard to fix unless the core issue is a spell.

 

[Minigiant]

I've yet to find any popular 3PP that isn't more powerful than anything a hypothetical WOTC might have published.

A lot of 3PP is power creep and high fantasy creep.

That's why the 3PP argument doesn't work. Many of them don't make stuff in line with the base stuff. So you have to use all their stuff (which is smart business).

 

[FrogReaver]

This.
Either a few broad highly customizable classes or a lot of specialized fixed classes.

5e is 2-3 broad customizable classes and 9-10 specialized fixed classes with customization tweaks.

The 5e design and schedule means that if WOTC screws up something or don't support something at the start, it is hard to fix unless the core issue is a spell.

Even then, the subclass structure pigeonholes the super specialized classes into an ability schedule that doesn't always feel good. It's part of why classes that get their subclass features early always tend to be my favorite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm wondering what support classes get currently. Besides new spells or new subclasses and a few variant features sprinkled in, is there anything else?


I either want fewer more customizable classes, or many super specialized classes.

As it stands, 5e's current design methodology means that if they botch the execution of any given concept (that's beyond spell caster or sword wielder) there's nothing remotely close to fall back to.

Yes, this is definitely WotC's current design methodology.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've yet to find any popular 3PP that isn't more powerful than anything a hypothetical WOTC might have published.

Define "popular 3pp".

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of 3PP is power creep and high fantasy creep.

That's why the 3PP argument doesn't work. Many of them don't make stuff in line with the base stuff. So you have to use all their stuff (which is smart business).

Give me non-5e Wiki examples of this "power creep" you speak of please.

 

[FrogReaver]

Give me non-5e Wiki examples of this "power creep" you speak of please.

If you have a counter example just post it

 

[CreamCloud0]

I know you do, but I think the community is overwhelmingly against these kinds of things. They are not against more spells I don't think.

Why/how would advanced martial manoeuvres and mechanics be any more complex than any of the spellcasting nonsense we already deal with?

And given the amount of threads I’ve seen between here and reddit I think I can confidently say there’s at least a decent portion of players who would like a more nuanced martial combat system.

If you don’t want to use it that’s fine but don’t take it away from the people who do want it just because you don’t.