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

[overgeeked]

Which is my point- if you make Wizards squishy, you have to build Fighters to defend them. But it really feels like most players don't want to defend anyone, they just want to swing big weapons and do big damage, lol.

I only have anecdotal evidence for this; maybe what's happening at most tables is that enemies just attack the Fighters no matter what they do- maybe it's because they do tons of damage, maybe it's part of a social contract or gentleman's agreement, maybe it's just because that's how things have always been done, maybe it's because the DM is tired of hearing "Shield! Silvery Barbs!"...I dunno.

I just know that good tanking options exist, but since people have a choice between those and the ability to deal more damage and we know that Champions are way more popular than Cavaliers, it sure seems like the player base has chosen.

Or maybe in their game Protection Fighting Style is enough, even though it's 1/turn, I really don't know, because I don't have the data.

But I still think it's telling that something I think would be a baseline Defender ability, like say, "any creature within 5 feet of you that's hostile to you has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another character with this feature. An enemy is immune to this effect if it can't see or hear you or if it can't be frightened", is not only one choice out of several, it inexplicably isn't available until 14th level, lol.

That was one of the “sins” of 4E. It was explicitly a squad-based cooperative game. Most D&D players don’t want that. They have this bizarre notion of rugged individualism that is somehow supposed to lead the group to victory without actually cooperating. It’s bizarre. You see it at the start of most campaigns. No one wants to be the healer. People will gladly play clerics, but not to actually heal.

 

[James Gasik]

That was one of the “sins” of 4E. It was explicitly a squad-based cooperative game. Most D&D players don’t want that. They have this bizarre notion of rugged individualism that is somehow supposed to lead the group to victory without actually cooperating. It’s bizarre. You see it at the start of most campaigns. No one wants to be the healer. People will gladly play clerics, but not to actually heal.

Yeah the whole "the best status effect is dead" approach. Or as Sergeant Zim put it-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B203twyaMfM

 

[FrogReaver]

Which is my point- if you make Wizards squishy, you have to build Fighters to defend them. But it really feels like most players don't want to defend anyone, they just want to swing big weapons and do big damage, lol.

I only have anecdotal evidence for this; maybe what's happening at most tables is that enemies just attack the Fighters no matter what they do- maybe it's because they do tons of damage, maybe it's part of a social contract or gentleman's agreement, maybe it's just because that's how things have always been done, maybe it's because the DM is tired of hearing "Shield! Silvery Barbs!"...I dunno.

I just know that good tanking options exist, but since people have a choice between those and the ability to deal more damage and we know that Champions are way more popular than Cavaliers, it sure seems like the player base has chosen.

Or maybe in their game Protection Fighting Style is enough, even though it's 1/turn, I really don't know, because I don't have the data.

But I still think it's telling that something I think would be a baseline Defender ability, like say, "any creature within 5 feet of you that's hostile to you has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another character with this feature. An enemy is immune to this effect if it can't see or hear you or if it can't be frightened", is not only one choice out of several, it inexplicably isn't available until 14th level, lol.

Your not understanding me.

What I’m saying is that the reason fighters don’t want to defend wizards is because the wizards don’t need it. If they did you would see fighter players wanting to do that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That was one of the “sins” of 4E. It was explicitly a squad-based cooperative game. Most D&D players don’t want that. They have this bizarre notion of rugged individualism that is somehow supposed to lead the group to victory without actually cooperating. It’s bizarre. You see it at the start of most campaigns. No one wants to be the healer. People will gladly play clerics, but not to actually heal.

Are we talking about the 80s, here? "We need a Cleric" is a familiar, plaintive refrain from that era, but it changed as early as 2e specialty priests being a little bit customized and wildly OP....

 

[Tony Vargas]

...doublepost...haven't had one of those in a while....

 

[CreamCloud0]

Your not understanding me.

What I’m saying is that the reason fighters don’t want to defend wizards is because the wizards don’t need it. If they did you would see fighter players wanting to do that.

not to mention it's not exactly easy or efficient to play as an effective defender, people like to be successful as the things they design their character to be good at so people tend not to build characters for unrewarding playstyles.

 

[overgeeked]

not to mention it's not exactly easy or efficient to play as an effective defender, people like to be successful as the things they design their character to be good at so people tend not to build characters for unrewarding playstyles.

Even if they personally found it a rewarding playstyle, the system fights them every step of the way...and it's further compounded by the fact that except in rare cases, it's not necessary because everyone's effective in combat.

 

[ECMO3]

Which is my point- if you make Wizards squishy, you have to build Fighters to defend them. But it really feels like most players don't want to defend anyone, they just want to swing big weapons and do big damage, lol.

THIS!!!

Tanky Wizards are fine if that is what players want to play. Fighters that are expected to primarily defend the Wizard or Clerics that are expected to primarily heal, when that is not what those players want, are big problems IME and lead to players not having fun.

I realize this can vary group-to-group and you really should talk about it up front but a lot of players are going to walk away from a game where they are expected to fill a specific role as defined by their class. If they want to fill that role it is fine, but if they don't they shpuld not be expected to.

 

[ECMO3]

That was one of the “sins” of 4E. It was explicitly a squad-based cooperative game. Most D&D players don’t want that. They have this bizarre notion of rugged individualism that is somehow supposed to lead the group to victory without actually cooperating. It’s bizarre. You see it at the start of most campaigns. No one wants to be the healer. People will gladly play clerics, but not to actually heal.

I would not say it is bizzare and I would not agree that most want individualism. Most want to play the character they want to play and it has been this way since 1E, the difference is the rules are better positioned to enable it now. I remember well the 1980s when no one wanted to play a Thief or Cleric but without those you would almost certainly die so we fought and took turns with who had to play the Cleric. Now in 5E I love Clerics , typically Tempest, Death or Trickery, and who prepare few healing spells.

The difference is in 5E you can be successful without designing, defining and building characters for specific party roles. It is a much more play what you got approach. The game is only generally deadly at 1st and 2nd level and at those levels there is a ton of overlap anyway as spell slots are very limited and many of the important class-defining abilities are not online yet.

In 5E, played at medium difficulty, there is a need to cooperate in-game, real time, to be successful but you do not need to plan and build to how you will cooperate ahead of time, out of game. It is different if your DM plays an extremely deadly game that requires optimization for success, to include team optimization, but this makes the game less fun for most players.

Even if you play a deadly game that requires specific roles and preplanned cooperation, that is still better handled by the DM supplying henchmen or NPCs to fill the missing roles instead of forcing PCs into such a role.

 

[ECMO3]

What I’m saying is that the reason fighters don’t want to defend wizards is because the wizards don’t need it. If they did you would see fighter players wanting to do that.

Not many I don't think, nor do I think most Wizards want to need defending.

When I play a low AC, weak, back-line caster I expect to mitigate being fragile with my own game play, not through the other party members to design a character to "protect" me.