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

[Minigiant]

They did that in 3.x and we had dozens of classes. It was a complete and total mess for no reason. I like the flexibility we have with 5E and think the subclass system works well. You play a couple of games, figure out what kind of subclass is going to work best for you and the group.

It was a mess because WOTC was caster biased and kept spewing out new spells and new ways to cast spells. Then abandoned them.

The problem was never the amount of classes.

 

[ECMO3]

What I am implying is that there should have been more than one martial warrior class, more than one monk class, More than one roguish expert class, etc etc.

Each of them exploring different styles of martials fully.

Instead what we got is something like when WOTC attempted to jam the Wizard Sorcerer Warlock and Psion, Artificer into one big Mage class.

I don't see much of a need for this. We have fighters, Rangers, Monks, Paladins, Barbarians and Rogues. Not to mention several martial warrior options available from the full casters.

So I don't see the need for it, but I am not completely opposed to it.

 

[ECMO3]

When my 5E group tried 2E, the player who loved playing Fighters LOVED it. He could kill things in 1 or 2 hits.

“I feel like what I do matters.”

Yeah it’s more lethal but it’s on both sides.

I played 1E a lot and 2E a little bit and I like 5E better than either of those. So do all the players I played with who played both.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I played 1E a lot and 2E a little bit and I like 5E better than either of those. So do all the players I played with who played both.

Cool. All but one of my 5 players liked it. The lone hold out felt under powered. She usually played a Druid so yeah…

Me I’d probably play 1 or 2E or BECMI but Shadowdark seems a good middle ground for new school and old school.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

so your unbalanced completly flawed fighter always has a large number of people playing it. You made my point. It's all about what people actually want when they are not analyzing and planning and are just playing thier game.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that you could actively take away class features and options from the fighter and it would still be popular. You could make it the objectively worst class in the game, and it would still be popular just like it was still popular when it much better balanced (in 4E).

The popularity of the class has nothing to do with whether or not the class is balanced. This is exactly why you cannot say that the class is well designed in terms of balance as is, because people will play it no matter what.

 

[ECMO3]

It was a mess because WOTC was caster biased and kept spewing out new spells and new ways to cast spells. Then abandoned them.

The problem was never the amount of classes.

I did not mind the number of subclasses in 3.5E. What I hated though was the prerequisites and general rules on multclassing the core classes.


If I want my 15th level Dwarf Rogue to all of a sudden take a Bard level I want to be able to do it without an XP penalty ..... especially when the Gnome Rogue sitting across the table can do it. And if I want to take the Bladesinger Prestige class I should not need to have this feat and that feat and a 10 in this skill and a 6 in that other skill and a +5 Base attack Bonus and this many arcane spell casting levels and be an elf. I should just be able to take it whenever I want!

Towards the end of 3.5 (after we decided not to play 4E) we just house ruled away all prerequisites for prestige classes and the multiclass XP penalties. We also got rid of class skills and cross-class skills and it worked a lot better. 5E is still a huge improvement when it came out though.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd argue the problem there is most fixes to martials make them more casterlike or anime like and then people don't play them. just a theory

The problem was WOTC's solution for everything since 2000 was to add spells. And the biggest third parties think the same.

I don't see much of a need for this. We have fighters, Rangers, Monks, Paladins, Barbarians and Rogues. Not to mention several martial warrior options available from the full casters.

So I don't see the need for it, but I am not completely opposed to it.

Not enough for martials me, sorry.

 

[CreamCloud0]

While a ‘martial ranger’ is a fairly established concept I think it would be interesting to see a, if not entirely martial paladin then at least 90% martial one, no more than say, the barbarian with it’s rage, with lay on hands and channel divinity(could be used to fuel the smite spells reworked as abilities), have a special feature that their basic weapon attacks do radiant damage after 5th level or something

And a martial artificer well, it’s design premise is basically halfway to being ‘the nonmagical caster’ already.

 

[Minigiant]

While a ‘martial ranger’ is a fairly established concept I think it would be interesting to see a, if not entirely martial paladin then at least 90% martial one, no more than say, the barbarian with it’s rage, with lay on hands and channel divinity(could be used to fuel the smite spells reworked as abilities), have a special feature that their basic weapon attacks do radiant damage after 5th level or something

And a martial artificer well, it’s design premise is basically halfway to being ‘the nonmagical caster’ already.

I prefer class list includes a nonmagical paladin, ranger, and artificer along with the half caster.
2 more Monkish classes.
A Noble/Swashbuckler class
And a non-rage barbarian
With the fighter split into 3.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I prefer class list includes a nonmagical paladin, ranger, and artificer along with the half caster.
2 more Monkish classes.
A Noble/Swashbuckler class
And a non-rage barbarian
With the fighter split into 3.

Without some supernatural aspect, what's the difference between a nonmagical paladin and a fighter, mechanically? Serious question. I'd like to know where your head is at here.