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

[Tony Vargas]

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?

You could make magic-users strictly inferior, mechanically, and people would still play them. Some players either don't reckon with, or are willing to sacrifice, character effectiveness, when going for character concept.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

This is what I believe cause the most gripe within the community about 4e as a system. 4e made a decision.

1e and 4e were the most balanced editions not because of the focus on balance but because they drilled down and defined the themes and archetypes why wished to support and pointed most of its mechanics to creating them.

However by making the decision, they narrowed down what you could play as and how aspects of fantasy would be expressed or not expressed.

Fundamentally the "5e fighter problem" is that the 5e fighter is supposed to be everything but neither WOTC nor not-WOTC provide everything as a mechanical game expression that fits into the core game seemlessly like the other "everything" classes.

2005 WOTC definitely would have though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wow, that seems like a fairly decent defender power...too bad you get it at LEVEL 14!?!

Half the time, you have to subtract 9 from a ton of abilities to get the level they ought to be at.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could make magic-users strictly inferior, mechanically, and people would still play them. Some players either don't reckon with, or are willing to sacrifice, character effectiveness, when going for character concept.

A concept that applies equally to fans of martial characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is what I believe cause the most gripe within the community about 4e as a system. 4e made a decision.

1e and 4e were the most balanced editions not because of the focus on balance but because they drilled down and defined the themes and archetypes why wished to support and pointed most of its mechanics to creating them.

However by making the decision, they narrowed down what you could play as and how aspects of fantasy would be expressed or not expressed.

Fundamentally the "5e fighter problem" is that the 5e fighter is supposed to be everything but neither WOTC nor not-WOTC provide everything as a mechanical game expression that fits into the core game seemlessly like the other "everything" classes.

2005 WOTC definitely would have though.

No argument from me. I'm a 1e fan from way back, and like I said respect 4e even if I didn't like it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1e and 4e were the most balanced editions not because of the focus on balance but because they drilled down and defined the themes and archetype

1e had basically the same classes that had accumulated in 0e (including one from The Strategic Review) at the point EGG was writing the PH.
And, he did go on about balance in the 1e DMG.
I think it focused on balance, or at least, made a real attempt at balance, however quixotic or ineffectual it might seem today.
(we assume 4e focused on balance because it delivered it, but, IDK, maybe you have a point there)
(FWIW, it looked to me like 2e just kinda forgot that balance was a thing to consider, and 3e was more focused on putting together an SRD and, maybe ...consolidating variants to improve the game in some way?... IDK, 3e sure seemed like an improvement at first glance. And of course, Essentials backpedaled on balance, while 5e ran full tilt.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

1e had basically the same classes that had accumulated in 0e (including one from The Strategic Review) at the point EGG was writing the PH.
And, he did go on about balance in the 1e DMG.
I think it focused on balance, or at least, made a real attempt at balance, however quixotic or ineffectual.

It was balanced enough for me, and OSR iterations have continued to improve upon it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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?

yes casters would still be worth playing, because magic can do things quickly, often with total reliability, and can even do some things that martials can't do, BUT when you use magic it ought to be A Decision To, 'does this task NEED magic to accomplish?' and 'is it WORTH using magic to accomplish it?' these should be questions genuinely asked when your group wants to use magic, a martial still can't cast tiny hut, a martial still can't use healing word in battle, a martial can't use stoneshape or sending or fly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was balanced enough for me, and OSR iterations have continued to improve upon it.

OSR never grabbed me - I dust off the old stuff when the urge to paleogame hits me (and, y'know, I think I feel it comin' on) - but that makes me curious, what's a good example of an OSR game improving on 1e style balance, with it's proscriptions and weighted treasure tables &c? Like, more of the same, or do different directions and mechanism get explored?

 

[Tony Vargas]

1E cleave ability.

Food for thought.

What 1e cleave ability? The 1 att/level vs less than 1 HD monsters?