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

[Tony Vargas]

So, in the context of lower level play, the Fighter doesn't have as many /any of the balanced issues of high level.

Interestingly at low level a fighter has very little going for it (mainly action surge) in comparison to a Paladin or Ranger... which is exactly what Zard was looking at, and, he was also not considering levels above 10. So, yeah.

Actually, as an old school aside, 1e was full of 'balance' that only applied to the theoretical population of all members of a class. Like, stat requirements didn't actually balance an individual character who rolled very high stats, they juts piled on a more powerful class to the superior stats. There's a faint echo of that in the Paladin & Ranger vs the Fighter class has more Combat Styles than either of them IIRC the Paladin & Ranger divide the available styles between them. So in the old way of thinking the fact a Fighter can get Archery style and a Paladin can't is a balancing factor on the Paladin... but the reality is each individual picks a style. If a Fighter picks Archery he still faces close comparison to the Ranger with Archery.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

We're going back and forth - and all I am seeing is people holding true to a premise despite the metrics that indicate their belief does not hold up. Good luck to you.

We know that the fighter in 4e was as popular as the fighter in 3e and that the 3e fighter was famously crap.

The druid has never been popular, but the druid in 3e was famously overpowered.

The metrics show this.

Given this we can assume that the popularity of a class has to do with things other than balance.

 

[jmartkdr2]

We know that the fighter in 4e was as popular as the fighter in 3e and that the 3e fighter was famously crap.

The druid has never been popular, but the druid in 3e was famously overpowered.

The metrics show this.

Given this we can assume that the popularity of a class has to do with things other than balance.

Which means, among other things, tat people will play weaker classes, consistently and repeatedly.

So even if we accept the premise that fighters are weaker, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a problem that needs to be solved.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which means, among other things, tat people will play weaker classes, consistently and repeatedly.

So even if we accept the premise that fighters are weaker, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a problem that needs to be solved.

Why not?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Remove 9th level spells and give Fighters bonus feats every level starting 16. That'll do for a lot of people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which means, among other things, tat people will play weaker classes, consistently and repeatedly.
So even if we accept the premise that fighters are weaker, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a problem that needs to be solved.

If anything, that makes the problem worse.

Imagine a D&D-like game with some obviously powerful and obviously weak classes, the weak classes are also very unappealing concepts, and no one ever plays them. The result is that only sub-set of the game - a part that may even be balanced, w/in itself - is being played. That's just wasting some space. Another example would be 3.5 campaigns that restricted characters to one or two "Tiers" - so you couldn't have a fighter (Tier 5) and wizard (Tier 1) in the same party. But you could have a party of Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Warblade, and Psychic Warrior (all Tier 3) - but that was a specific mode of play, so was E6.

In mainstream D&D (still sounds like an oxymoron to my grognard ears, but it is much more mainstream than ever before), which isn't presented or played in ways like that, tho, the inferior classes are more like 'trap' choices, that exist to reward savvier players for choosing better options (ie, what Cook called 'Timmeh Cards'), or accomplish that accidentally, if just the result of bad design.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Why not?

Are you asking me to prove the non-existence of a problem? Okay: the users are not changing behavior.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If anything, that makes the problem worse.

Imagine a D&D-like game with some obviously powerful and obviously weak classes, the weak classes are also very unappealing concepts, and no one ever plays them. The result is that only sub-set of the game - a part that may even be balanced, w/in itself - is being played. That's just wasting some space. Another example would be 3.5 campaigns that restricted characters to one or two "Tiers" - so you couldn't have a fighter (Tier 5) and wizard (Tier 1) in the same party. But you could have a party of Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Warblade, and Psychic Warrior (all Tier 3) - but that was a specific mode of play, so was E6.

In mainstream D&D (still sounds like an oxymoron to my grognard ears, but it is much more mainstream than ever before), which isn't presented or played in ways like that, tho, the inferior classes are more like 'trap' choices, that exist to reward more savvier players for choosing better options (ie, what Cook called 'Timmeh Cards'), or accomplish that accidentally, if just the result of bad design.

I still don’t see how that proves a problem in the first place -we have a game with imbalanced classes and people play all of them, favoring the weaker and less flavorful ones. So… sure, I can imagine a world where there’s an issue, but I don’t see that happening in the real world.

Unless the goal of DnD is to be balanced, lack of balance is not an issue by itself. And I don’t see evidence that any edition of DnD was so imbalanced thatit made the game unfun to a large number of people, or hurt sales at all.

 

[MichaelSomething]

-we have a game with imbalanced classes and people play all of them, favoring the weaker and less flavorful ones.

So you're saying making the stronger and more flavorful classes less so will increase their popularity?? I agree!

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you asking me to prove the non-existence of a problem? Okay: the users are not changing behavior.

Not quite. I’m saying why doesn’t imbalance of itself (at least over a certain degree) indicate a problem that needs fixed. Why do you feel it’s contingent on whether people play the class or not?