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

[Zardnaar]

It is RAW.

Everything is by the DMs approval including half the spells people complain about. The rule is not an "optional" rule as many, like feats, and Tasha's optional class abilities are.

Here is the exact verbiage:

Each character class involves the choice of a subclass at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level. A subclass represents an area of specialization and offers different class features as you level up. With your DM’s approval, you can change your subclass when you would normally gain a new subclass feature. If you decide to make this change, choose another subclass that belongs to your class and replace all your old subclass features with the features of the new subclass that are for your new level and lower.

I believe there is similar wording for many of the races. If you DM is not letting you do something with your character that is clearly within the rules, that sounds like a DM problem.

Page 4 TCoE.

Everything Is Optional header.

You can only switch your subclass if DM has said they're using that option from Tashas.

 

[ECMO3]

Page 4 TCoE.

Everything Is Optional header.

You can only switch your subclass if DM has said they're using that option from Tashas.

So nothing in Tasha's is RAW now?

Other examples: Multiclassing is only if the DM allows it, a custom Background is only if the DM allows it, languages are only available if your DM allows it, Armor fitting any size character is by the DMs discretion, A Cleric's god is based on the DMs permission, you can only use the Wish spell if your DM allows it.

Is the Wish spell not RAW? Should we not be allowed to use it as an example during discussions on class balance?

Is it even possible to have a discussion about RAW multiclassing, since multiclassing itself is apparently not RAW?

Being under the DMs purview doesn't make those things not RAW and it does not make this not RAW either. This is a copout because people do not want to recognize it is an option for fighters.

I will point out that my original point was that players are allowed to change subclass in 5E RAW. That is a factually true statement, just like players are allowed to multiclass and use the Wish spell RAW. If some DMs don't allow it, than it is not an option at that particular table, but that does not mean it is not a rule or that using it as described in the rules is not RAW.

 

[FrogReaver]

So nothing in Tasha's is RAW now?

Other examples: Multiclassing is only if the DM allows it, a custom Background is only if the DM allows it, languages are only available if your DM allows it, Armor fitting any size character is by the DMs discretion, A Cleric's god is based on the DMs permission, you can only use the Wish spell if your DM allows it.

Is the Wish spell not RAW? Should we not be allowed to use it as an example during discussions on class balance?

Is it even possible to have a discussion about RAW multiclassing, since multiclassing itself is apparently not RAW?

Being under the DMs purview doesn't make those things not RAW and it does not make this not RAW either. This is a copout because people do not want to recognize it is an option for fighters.

I will point out that my original point was that players are allowed to change subclass in 5E RAW. That is a factually true statement, just like players are allowed to multiclass and use the Wish spell RAW. If some DMs don't allow it, than it is not an option at that particular table, but that does not mean it is not a rule or that using it as described in the rules is not RAW.

I recognize it as a RAW option - just a dumb one - IMO of course.

D&D has always had a solution to fixing big things about a character you don't like, roll up a new one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it is good that switching subclasses is possible in some situations, as the story might sometimes require that. But I wouldn't want characters to be altered that way unless there was a strong narrative reason for it.

 

[ezo]

Just a quick comment on the switching subclasses discussion:

My view is it is ok if (like others) there is a IN-STORY reason for it and you take significant downtime to represent the training required, etc.

Another option I read a long time ago is doing different subclasses when you get a new subclass feature instead of advancing your original subclass. The only issue with this is many subclasses are front-loaded.

 

[ECMO3]

Just a quick comment on the switching subclasses discussion:

My view is it is ok if (like others) there is a IN-STORY reason for it and you take significant downtime to represent the training required, etc.

Another option I read a long time ago is doing different subclasses when you get a new subclass feature instead of advancing your original subclass. The only issue with this is many subclasses are front-loaded.

The downtime is not generally a requirement for subclass abilities. While I get your position there is no downtime for example when a figther goes to 3rd level, selects Cavalier and chooses proficiency in History. He just gets that skill immediately without any training, so why wouldn't someone who changed to Cavalier at 7th level also get it without training?

I get the in-story part, but the player is writing the story so it is up to them to come up with that - "I was visited in my sleep at the inn by the Avatar of Hekaton and he instilled the power of the Giants in me (RK new subclass) .... The dream also seems to have damaged my brain and I have lost the ability to cast spells (EK old subclass). Now let's get on the road to the Gnoll's lair."

I think switching subclasses is generally easier in story than multiclassing into a Warlock mid-campaign. That is the only one I have had trouble with in my campaigns.

 

[ezo]

The downtime is not generally a requirement for subclass abilities. While I get your position there is no downtime for example when a figther goes to 3rd level, selects Cavalier and chooses proficiency in History. He just gets that skill immediately without any training, so why wouldn't someone who changed to Cavalier at 7th level also get it without training?

Because it is assumed for levels 1 and 2 he has been developing the abilities he gains when he obtains 3rd level and becomes a Cavalier.

For subclasses at 1st level, that training is part of their development for the class.

If you allow a "subclass-switch" when a new subclass feature is obtained, you have a few levels since your last one and, again, the development can be assumed during the downtime, etc. between those levels.

For example, our Cavalier at level 3 choose, at level 7, to gain the first features of a Champion (3rd level) instead of the Cavalier features (7th level). He has 3 levels in between to develop the features, whether they are Champion 3rd or Champion 7th.

Now, with Tasha's, being able to "unlearn" your prior subclass features and obtain multiple levels worth of features for a new subclass without making it via some downtime seems less plausible to me and stinks of gamism.

I get the in-story part, but the player is writing the story so it is up to them to come up with that - "I was visited in my sleep at the inn by the Avatar of Hekaton and he instilled the power of the Giants in me (RK new subclass) .... The dream also seems to have damaged my brain and I have lost the ability to cast spells (EK old subclass). Now let's get on the road to the Gnoll's lair."

For some instances, maybe, but for many stuff like that doesn't quite fly for me anyway.

I think switching subclasses is generally easier in story than multiclassing into a Warlock mid-campaign. That is the only one I have had trouble with in my campaigns.

I'm not a huge fan of multiclassing because of such things. What I don't mind is the older versions of multiclassing where you have to keep the levels close. Then it makes since that the PC has been "training" in both classes prior to adventuring, from the beginning, and continues to develop both.

Multiclass "dipping" is a horrid thing IME.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it is good that switching subclasses is possible in some situations, as the story might sometimes require that. But I wouldn't want characters to be altered that way unless there was a strong narrative reason for it.

I've let PCs switch as subclass looked good in play not fo much.
I don't alow it just because.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've let PCs switch as subclass looked good in play not fo much.
I don't alow it just because.

Do you mean during the campaign or during the session? If the latter I agree.

 

[Zardnaar]

So nothing in Tasha's is RAW now?

Other examples: Multiclassing is only if the DM allows it, a custom Background is only if the DM allows it, languages are only available if your DM allows it, Armor fitting any size character is by the DMs discretion, A Cleric's god is based on the DMs permission, you can only use the Wish spell if your DM allows it.

Is the Wish spell not RAW? Should we not be allowed to use it as an example during discussions on class balance?

Is it even possible to have a discussion about RAW multiclassing, since multiclassing itself is apparently not RAW?

Being under the DMs purview doesn't make those things not RAW and it does not make this not RAW either. This is a copout because people do not want to recognize it is an option for fighters.

I will point out that my original point was that players are allowed to change subclass in 5E RAW. That is a factually true statement, just like players are allowed to multiclass and use the Wish spell RAW. If some DMs don't allow it, than it is not an option at that particular table, but that does not mean it is not a rule or that using it as described in the rules is not RAW.

You can but you explicitly said nartials have that option.

They don't.

Having conversation about optional rules is fine but you were claiming an absolute.