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

[Micah Sweet]

i think if it's enough is dependent on to what degree games are expected to be endurance play, and the degree to which casters can face endurance and remain effective, in 5e with the prevalence of easy and frequent resting, the answer to those are no, endurance play doesn't come up frequently enough and casters endure too long, so no, it's not enough that martials can endure as it doesn't happen enough to be a worthwhile boon for them.

Then you have a problem, because it not being enough doesn't change the fact the things not-magic can do that magic can't are pretty darn limited.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In reality, Exist.

In the broader context of fantasy? All sorts of things depending upon any consistent rules that have been established or inconsistent author force that has been applied. For a completely off the wall example, in the short-lived 80s comedy, Wizards & Warriors "wizards can't kill" ("true, but we can put you to sleep for 1000 years!").

In D&D, specifically, there's basically nothing non-casters can do that casters can't. Especially in 5e, where every class has at least one class that casts. True, in the classic game there were outright proscriptions, and Wizard or Cleric literally /couldn't/ use a sword, but they could both still attack with a weapon, so it's just something they couldn't do as well, not something they couldn't do at all.

Magic /can/ stop magic from working, tho, counterspell, dispel, anti-magic, etc.... which is something not-magic can't do... and the mage in the anti-magic zone can't cast spells or use magic items, but neither can the fighter.


In 5e, they have at-will spells, and slots(+HD) represent more endurance for such days than (slightly larger)HD, alone.

Well, there's your problem, and your answer.

 

[ECMO3]

it can be provided that
1. The adventure day is consistently long enough which requires resource recovery pace must be enforced either by
a. The dm
b. some game mechanic

anything to do with a. will also affect the types of adventures that can be ran - it’s much harder to come up with endurance based adventure days as player choice can potentially invalidate the ‘endurance test’ so long as they can also choose when to rest - this can be mitagated by time pressure of some kind but configuring scenarios with the right amount of time pressure also is difficult to get right.

So while technically it can be done, in practice it rarely will be.

Another problem is this largely elminates wilderness campaigns as a viable option. It is reasonable to design and implement mechanics in a dungeon, much less reasonable in a wilderness setting.

For example, it is going to take 3 weeks to walk through the monster-ridden wasteland to get to the castle where we need to rescue the princess. If I want that journey to be significant, that is extremely hard to do while enforcing an adventuring day mechanic.

1. Do I have the party fight 126 different random encounters during the 21 days they are traveling so they get their 6 fights and 2 short rests in every day?

2. Do I just hand waive the "journey through the dangerous monster-ridden wasteland" and say it happens without incident.

3. The third option would be to have a few encounters that advance the story while allowing the party to "nova" on those enemies in a fashion inconsistent with the adventuring day design of the rules and which makes "long rest classes" more powerful.

I think the 3rd option is not perfect but it is far and away the best from a fun and gameplay perspective.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Then you have a problem, because it not being enough doesn't change the fact the things not-magic can do that magic can't are pretty darn limited.

i don't think that the core of the issue is that there aren't things non-magic can do that magic can't, but that magic can reliably do them far FAR too frequently, and martials aren't reliable enough at doing them on their end.

give all martials more skills(and stuff like climb/swim speeds), more expertise, and more common access of stuff like reliable talent and battlemaster maneuvres(with more uses), then significantly cut down on the amounts of spell slots that casters have, this would mean that martials are far more reliable and capable of doing things without magic and there is significant motive for them to do so as casters can't spam their spells, casting a spell to solve a problem would be a significant investment of your resources.

 

[Micah Sweet]

it can be provided that
1. The adventure day is consistently long enough which requires resource recovery pace must be enforced either by
a. The dm
b. some game mechanic

anything to do with a. will also affect the types of adventures that can be ran - it’s much harder to come up with endurance based adventure days as player choice can potentially invalidate the ‘endurance test’ so long as they can also choose when to rest - this can be mitagated by time pressure of some kind but configuring scenarios with the right amount of time pressure also is difficult to get right.

So while technically it can be done, in practice it rarely will be.

This to me reads that the problem is unsolvable. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Minigiant]

Well, there's your problem, and your answer.

Essentially D&D won't fully define its magic users in order to define what they are defined as being bad at

 

[Tony Vargas]

This to me reads that the problem is unsolvable. Is that what you're saying?

It reads to me as "the problem is very real, and D&D has consistently failed to solve it"

Which may be over-generous in that it implies the latest edition tried to solve it.

While I agree that a better balanced game is a better game, and I do like players having varied and good choices to choose from, I have encountered plenty of players who suffer from decision paralysis if they have too many options. I know this line of thinking is why we have Champion Fighters, lol, so I know that there is a downside to limiting complexity, but there likely needs to be an option built into a game to regulate options from say, trickle to firehose as well.

That point has been made a lot, yes, to justify profound imbalance.
I am frankly skeptical of it, I think it's a solution in search of a problem, and its very telling that in 5e we got the Champion, but not the Elementalist.

But, it brings up a question: how do your balance versatility vs specialization? (Because 'simple' seems to mean 'specialized')

And the answer is probably similar to balancing powerful/limited resources vs no resources: only by tightly constraining the scope of play. Like very theoretically, for DPR only, the 5e fighter & wizard balance around the 6 encounter encounter day with less 3 or fewer enemies per encounter. Not very practical.

Like, the Netrunner Problem is well-known, you have a specialist so much better at it's one thing that only that character participates when the specialty comes up. The problem here is the opposite, the specialist is only fully-participating when the specialty comes up, the rest of the time, it's under- or non- contributing.

I guess the bottom line is that one player sitting out 80% of the game vs 4 players sitting out 20% may strike some sort of superficial mathematical balance, but it's not good game balance. It's just not very desirable compared to all players participating.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i don't think that the core of the issue is that there aren't things non-magic can do that magic can't, but that magic can reliably do them far FAR too frequently, and martials aren't reliable enough at doing them on their end.

give all martials more skills(and stuff like climb/swim speeds), more expertise, and more common access of stuff like reliable talent and battlemaster maneuvres(with more uses), then significantly cut down on the amounts of spell slots that casters have, this would mean that martials are far more reliable and capable of doing things without magic and there is significant motive for them to do so as casters can't spam their spells, casting a spell to solve a problem would be a significant investment of your resources.

In that case then does the fact that, even severely restricted in usage, magic can still do things not-magic can't, make spellcasters still worth playing?

 

[Minigiant]

This to me reads that the problem is unsolvable. Is that what you're saying?

It reads to me as "the problem is very real, and D&D has consistently failed to solve it"

More like the problem is solvable with multiple options but D&D won't make a choice in order to leave all paths open which then creates holes in all options until the DM steps in and plugs them


AKA the significant other refuses to choose what to have for dinner so in frustration you are forced to choose and hope you pick right and don't upset them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

More like the problem is solvable with multiple options but D&D won't make a choice in order to leave all paths open which then creates holes in all options until the DM steps in and plugs them


AKA the significant other refuses to choose what to have for dinner so in frustration you are forced to choose and hope you pick right and don't upset them.

I've said the same. Only with 4e did WotC choose a lane. I didn't like the lane they chose, of course, but I respect them making a choice.