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

[Zardnaar]

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

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

Noticed this in all editions even 4E.

Who cares about status effects if dead.

Works in other games as well. Rebuilt my fire and poison builds in Assassins Creed Odyssey so now have death assassin, death hunter, death warrior and super tank with side helping of death.

For highest difficulty level.

 

[Zardnaar]

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....

Oarty if specialty priests built to kill stuff faster.

From memory Azuth, Kossuth, Mystra, and eonething like a Ranger/Druid of Mielekki or and a crusader/tempus SP is more or less fine.

Best party Eva!!

You came do something similar in 5E.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Which is honestly really sad to me, and has decreased the quality of the game.

 

[mamba]

it’s not obvious from the name and theme that it is a defensive oriented subclass.

guess it was cavalier about its offense

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's mildly amusing to watch some of the little epicycles that occur in these discussions.

"You don't need the classes to balance, it's a cooperative game, everybody should be happy to see the party succeed...."

...to everything turn, turn, turn....there is a season turn, turn, turn....

"....this isn't a cooperative game, you don't need the classes to balance, everybody can be happy just doing their own thing."


Like, D&D has always been cooperative, with classes that could help cover eachother, even "needed" eachother...
(.... just, back in the day, some groups (and I feel like, from reading his stuff, EGG expected it), it was a combination of cooperating for survival and competing for the best rewards. Cooperative rivalry, maybe? )
Obviously, the big one was Cleric. You've always needed Clerics to heal you, but, it was always a less popular class. Post-TSR, you got more alternatives to the cleric, making the role easier to fill.

The Fighter has (or "martials" more generally) often been talked up for it's role in protecting other members of the party, especially in response to the martial/caster gap.

 

[ECMO3]

Like, D&D has always been cooperative, with classes that could help cover eachother, even "needed" eachother...

This is not true in 5E. You can have a party of 4 PCs all of a single class and will generally be effective.

There are roles, but largely they can for the most part be covered by many classes and with bounded accuracy often they can be covered even if the class is not designed and not optimezed for such.

For example, you have to try hard to build a cleric in 5E that can't tank at all. Some of them are not great at it, but most are at least serviceable and if your Trickery Cleric is your best tank you probably have other areas you are really good.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That was one of the “sins” of 4E. It was explicitly a squad-based cooperative game. Most D&D players don’t want that.

I don't know about that. 1e and 2e were very much team-based. Niche protection was a big deal. That said, it does seem to me that people wanting every class to be as good at literally everything as every other class (the individualism thing you're talking about) is a lot more than it was back then.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think a couple operative game us goid. You don't need to gard code and straight jacket it like 4E eg if you want to be an archer be a Ranger vs a fighter.

Or the leader/striker/defender mechanic and recommend each role is filled and +1 defender type thing.

4E big sin large involved that. My order cleric for example is 4E inspired but it's not on a warlord.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't know about that. 1e and 2e were very much team-based. Niche protection was a big deal. That said, it does seem to me that people wanting every class to be as good at literally everything as every other class (the individualism thing you're talking about) is a lot more than it was back then.

I don;t think every class is "as good", however with bounded accuracy one class being optimized to come out a little bit worse than another class which would be the best at something means you are still really, really good at that thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

eg if you want to be an archer be a Ranger vs a fighter

That's a particularly weak edition war talking point, resting wholly on class name. You could play whatever martial concept you wanted in 4e and have a viable character. You cannot say the same of 5e. Nor any other edition.

This is not true in 5E. You can have a party of 4 PCs all of a single class and will generally be effective.

It's not true that 5e classes can help cover for eachother in 5e? So, a Cleric wouldn't heal a Monk that got hurt in melee? A Wizard wouldn't cast Magic Weapon so a Fighter could harm a monster resistant to normal weapons? A Druid wouldn't cast Pass Without Trace on a Rogue trying to sneak up on a particularly observant enemy? A Warlock wouldn't cast Silvery Barbs to help the Barbarian pass a saving throw and keep his rage going...?

Is it that these things don't happen, or the game is so easy you don't need to work together...? Because, as iffy as CR is, I don't think counting on every fight being that easy is practical, unless the DM is just going to adjust everything on the fly to assure the party's success (or at least survival -which, honestly, not a bad idea, given 5e CR).

As far as an all-one-class party being generally effective in 5e, well, all one full caster class or all paladins is likely to be pretty robust, and that's more than half the classes, right, there, so close enough to 'generally,' sure, granted. But an all-fighter party couldn't handle many things that an all-rogue party could, and vice-versa, while an all-Bard party could handle all that and more.

OK, I guess you might be right, 5e may have arguably abandoned the age old D&D-ism of the Big 4 and the balanced party. It has certainly abandoned class balance.