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

[Micah Sweet]

So, for context (apologies for those getting tired of seeing it), a definition of balance that I've encountered that has seemed helpful to me, goes
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

Now, yes, meaningful can be quite subjective, and tolerating some added choices that seem meaningless but turn out to all get chosen with some enthusiasm, can be just fine.
Viable, OTOH, can be downright quantifiable, and speaks to the contribution the choice makes to completing the game successfully.

So, rhetorically, this time: How do non-viable choices provide imagery or support theme?

Well, they don't, quite the opposite, the non-viable choices will tend to exclude or marginalize some of that imagery and undermine the theme.

How do meaningless choices?

Possibly by having meaning specific to the theme (so not actually meaningless, once viewed from the proper context), or perhaps, by representing imagery that part of the theme, so even tho ultimately meaningless, it's familiarity and association with the theme helps to support it.

Why would a game need to punish players who fall for trap choices, to support a theme?

It wouldn't, doing so would undermine the theme in the long run as players learn to avoid those theme-supporting choices. If said choices are contrary to the theme in the first place, they should simply excluded or weighted differently, rather than being falsely resented as good, while actually failing to deliver.

Is the theme just "lol, sucks to be you?"

There's maybe a strain of that, like hazing the newbie. Fraternities perform hazing rituals for a reason, afterall.
Building in extra rewards for system mastery amplifies the distinction between new/casual and experienced/serious players. Thing is, complex games, like TTRPGs have a great deal of room for acquiring & displaying system mastery, even if very carefully balanced, as long as the game isn't over-simplified by paring away 'traps' until few choices remain (which is not actually improving balance, by the definition, above, but it can be thought of as 'fixing' imbalance - I'd say it's just being more honest about it).


So, when you said:

You meant the opposite, that opposing improved balance is about deviating from or subverting the classic fantasy genre, rather than preserving the themes & bits of that genre?

I mean, do you still think opposing balance is about sticking up for the theme's and imagery of classic fantasy?


Standard-issue appeal to popularity aside, balance doesn't tear down unique archetypes, it just makes them all distinct & viable within the same game, assuring that they can each be chosen by players without undue negative consequences to the play experience.

That is, unless the defining quality of those archetypes is that some must be strictly inferior to others, in which case, we are back to simply hating balance.

Magic can do things not-mahic can't. Let's make this simple: what can not-magic do that magic can't?

 

[FrogReaver]

Magic can do things not-mahic can't. Let's make this simple: what can not-magic do that magic can't?

Fight in anti magic fields

 

[CreamCloud0]

Magic can do things not-mahic can't. Let's make this simple: what can not-magic do that magic can't?

keep being consistently effective in extended periods of endurance play?

 

[Micah Sweet]

keep being consistently effective in extended periods of endurance play

Great! Now the question becomes, "Is that enough?" I really want to drill down to what people want, and whether or not it can reasonably be achieved.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Great! Now the question becomes, "Is that enough?" I really want to drill down to what people want, and whether or not it can reasonably be achieved.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D is it's own genre.

However, except for iconic spells, D&D and it's fans either refuse to define what that genre is or disagree with what it is.

This is why the fighter, ranger, and monk are always problems.

And the bard, paladin, and barbarian just left the problem area because they sorta got defined.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Magic can do things not-mahic can't. Let's make this simple: what can not-magic do that magic can't?

This can get into weird territory real fast.

Trying to design, for example, character trials it's difficult to design trials that cannot be trivially bypassed by a wizard (even if the trial is not intended for casters). Because the only limitation magic has is anti-magic (which is another form of magic). The whole thing is stupid.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic can do things not-mahic can't. Let's make this simple: what can not-magic do that magic can't?

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.

keep being consistently effective in extended periods of endurance play?

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

 

[FrogReaver]

Great! Now the question becomes, "Is that enough?" I really want to drill down to what people want, and whether or not it can reasonably be achieved.

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.

 

[ECMO3]

Oh?

Right here. You are stating that it has no value. That's the only possible meaning this can have.

No I didn't say it and that is not what that even says. Read what you quoted. What I said (and what you even quoted) is that "there is no evidence at all that [balance is a good thing]. NONE."

That is fundamentally different than saying it has no value.

It sold well. It did not meet the mechanical goals for which it was designed.

The goals when it was designed were to gain players and some of the specific changes purposely moved away from the very balanced design that existed in 5E.

If you don't believe that, then please tell me exactly what these "mechanical goals" are for which the game was designed? Please cite them.

Nope! They've given the Warlock several power-ups, including a once-a-day refresh of their abilities. The 5.5e Warlock is significantly juiced up compared to its current equivalent. The two are "backwards-compatible" in name only. No one should play the original version when they can play the new one--and that's a good thing, because the original one was flawed and needed replacement.

Wait a minute here. Warlocks were already, in the old design more powerful than martials. In 5.5E they are more powerful than they were and the game is more unbalanced than it was between Warlocks and say Monks or Barbarians then it was before.

Yet you are saying here that everyone should play the new, more unbalanced design?

Uh...no, it's not. Sorcerer is widely regarded as the second-weakest "full spellcaster." Warlock, of course, being the weakest. (This, of course, is speaking only of mono-class power. Multiclass dips that blend Cha-based classes--such as Sorcerer/Warlock aka "coffeelock," or Warlock/Paladin--are quite a bit stronger.) Sorcerers are burdened with a tiny list of known spells that they must heavily optimize in order to actually get good results from.

I think Sorcerers are widely regarded as the second most powerful caster, especially because of access to Wish. It does depend on level though. In any case they are well above the average class and well above the non-casters.

Even if this is true and they are the "second weakest full caster", that means they are #4 out of 13 classes. Making them stronger unbalances the game more than it was before.

The argument to strengthen sorcerer so it is closer to Wizard is similar to the strawman I posited earlier to weaken the fighter so it is better balanced with to the Monk.

There is no way around this, making the Sorcerer stronger unbalances the game overall because they are already stronger than most classes and if balance is the holy grail people say it is then making a strong class stronger would not be a good thing.

With Warlock and with Sorcerer you point to things that increase the unbalance between casters and martials and state they are good things. TBH I don't know a whole lot about the Warlock changes, but I do like the Sorcerer changes and I like them, even though they unbalance the game more.

Have you frequented optimization discussions of spellcasters in 5e? Wizard is of course the strongest, but Druid is a close second, and now with the stuff from Tasha's, Cleric is a close third. Metamagic isn't enough to save the Sorcerer; it merely gives some gimmicks.

To start with this is entirely dependent on level. Cleric and Druid are the strongest classes at low levels, with Druid falling off rapidly in tier 2 and Wizards and Sorcerers growing into the strongest classes at high levels.

Regardless though, Sorcerer is not a weak class overall, and was not before they gave them more spells.

You talk about limited spells - A 17th level Sorcerer with Wish can cast any Warlock, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard or Sorcerer spell of 8th level and below. They have literally the entire spell list up to 8th level at their disposal. They can also do it as an action, speeding spells like Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Druids Grove or Hallow. .... actually check that, they can cast those as a bonus action! Spells like these were purposely designed with a long casting time so you could not use them in combat, and Sorcerers (along with Wizards and Bards) have a way around that.

Wish in play, especially in combat, is one of the most unbalanced, if not the most unbalanced, mechanics in the game.

Perhaps. I think you will find that actually good, well-made game design is quite a bit harder than you think. Hence why it requires so much testing.

A good game well made game, sure that is difficult. A balanced game no, not hard at all. As a matter of fact that is part of why I believe balance is not essential or even desirable.

As I noted elsewhere on this thread - just give martials more spells and they could be easily balanced.

No, they are not. They deign to allow the caddies to do some stuff, in ways that actually hurt the party's success chances. That's the whole point. The non-casters are simply irrelevant at high levels, and at low levels,

I play D&D all the time, and I have played with players throughout the world and this is factually not the case in the games I have played. Right now I am playing a Monk and contributing.

I played a fighter in a 1-20 campaign I finished a month ago and I was relevant at all levels.

I realize others may have different experiences, but there are many, many high level non-casters who are not irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Like...seriously. It is irrelevant that one person can get the necessary favoritism or exhibit extraordinary effort in order to contribute far above and beyond what their class features provide.

In a game I am in now we have a Barbarian who is dominating the game, not because of mechanics, and not in a good way.

The only time in 5E I had to exhibit extraordinary effort to contribute is when I have played with really poor ability score rolls, and I played a Wizard in that game specifically because my rolls were so low.

f the same player were playing a Wizard rather than a Monk, they would be able to do far more. Period. That is why it is imbalanced.

It is imbalanced. I never said it wasn't and with some caveats I agree with the above statement. With the same ability scores at levels above 5 a Wizard can do more than a monk, a Wizard can do far more than a Monk at levels above 9 and that is largely true regardless of subclass. But a Monk can do more than a Wizard from levels 1-3.

In any case saying a Wizard can do more is fundamentally different than saying that a Monk can't contribute or that it detracts from the enjoyment of the game.

I for one enjoy playing Monks and I am playing one in a game right now. I also enjoy playing Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Rangers, Fighters and Rogues. I don't play Druids or Barbarians at all because I don't enjoy playing them.

At the end of the day, play what you want. If you can't have fun unless you are playing a Wizard then you should probably play a Wizard.

The same player, working just as hard, with an equally supportive DM, will achieve significantly more--will have a far greater positive impact--than if they had played a Monk.

This is not true. There are many problems with this statement,. to start with, it does not account for player personailty. This theory rests on the premise that players are all competing for maximum impact or recognition.

That is not typically true.

There are many quiet and shy players who do not want to contribute as much as other players. There are also many players who want to be the center of attention and want to have more impact that others at the table and these are both true regardless of classes those players are playing. It will primarily be these player traits that determine who has the most impact at the table, not the mechanics of their selected class.

That is directly counter to the cooperative teamwork design D&D has explicitly said that it offers since at least 2nd edition. And that, too, is a design goal--that no class can do everything alone, that you actually need others, not simply because they're pieces on the gameboard, but because they genuinely can do some stuff you can't, and you genuinely can do some stuff they can't.

You do not need a diversity of classes in 5E. You can argue no character can do it alone (although even that is game dependent), but certainly a group of characters of one class can usually do it all and TBH a group of characters from any single class can do it all.

If you take any WOTC published adventure, I think they could be completed with 4 players of the exact same class and I think you could do that with any of the classes.

Take Tyranny of Dragons, or ROTFM or DIA or any of them and you could do that with 4 Wizards or 4 Fighters or 4 Clerics or even 4 Monks. You would need some diversity from race and feat options I think, but not necessarily from classes. 5E is designed around needing multiple character abilities and skills (using the English definition there, not the game definition), but the 5E game is not designed around the idea of needing specific classes to be the mechanic which implements that diversity.