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

[Zardnaar]

My response is that you can always dumb down a class and play it simply. If you build a class with mechanical depth, Autoattack and not engaging with feats or resources is still an option. But the reverse is not true.

If you just rolled all the battlemaster fighter features in to the base fighter class, nothing would be lost, no-ones class fantasy would be ruined, and people who found it too confusing can still just autoattack.

In practice they don't do that.

Early in 5E one of my experienced players piloted tge Battlemaster and I ran a Monk as thru mechanics were a turn off for everyone else.

After that we started to see the other players started picking more complex options.

 

[Trasvi]

You know the only people I have seen at the table disatisfied with the fighter they were playing are actually people who took the Pole Arm Master feat. I've seen this more than once. In one example he could not do squat for damage with his non-magic pole arm (and GWM) at 10th level. Most combats for the 2nd half of the campaign he was fighting with a magic mace ...

TBH I count this as a failing with 5e. Martials are encouraged to specialise in to particular weapons with Feat fighting styles and even basic ability scores, but 5e provides no RAW way to spec out of Feats, and changing fighting style is only available at ASI levels as an optional rule.

This puts you in a situation where either:

• your DM customises loot to fit the players and you get a magic polearm and have a blast
• your DM just rolls random loot and you never get your magic weapon and your build feature is useless.

Thankfully all my DMs have chosen the first option.

 

[jgsugden]

...You know the only people I have seen at the table disatisfied with the fighter they were playing are actually people who took the Pole Arm Master feat. I've seen this more than once. In one example he could not do squat for damage with his non-magic pole arm (and GWM) at 10th level. Most combats for the 2nd half of the campaign he was fighting with a magic mace and doing pretty good damage, but the polearm master feat was pretty much useless for the 2nd half of the game. I am sure they thought like you did when they took it and thought it would be a cool feat to have.

That character would have been better with any other feats instead of GWM and PAM! ...

Your experience and mine were very different when it comes to these feats. I'm curious why.

A fairly recent example was a Variant Human Fighter that took PAM at level 1. They attacked for 1d10+3, 1d4+3, and often and additional 1d10+3 each round. At 4th level they took GWM - and acquired Gauntlets of Ogre Power. At 5th level they were sometimes attacking 4 times in a round for 4d10+56 damage (or as low as 2d10+1d4+42). The DM put a magic polearm into the game for them to find a bit later, but it was a +1 weapon with a minor perk on the side. They had various tricks to enhance their chances to hit, including ways to gain advantage and ways to gain the effects of bless (they hired a low level spellcaster to follow them around - from a mostly safe distance).

The PCs in the game were efficient, but not super optimized builds designed to bust the game. This PC was the central damage figure and provided significantly more damage than the other PCs - especially when it came to taking big targets down. They also used their subclass features to control the battlefield (it was a Homebrew - but generally less powerful than Battlemaster - it created leadership auras that discouraged enemies and encouraged allies).

At 11th level the attacks increased and the PC was utilizing a 25 strength from a belt of Fire Giant Strength (which they sought out - they wanted higher strengthm researched how to get it, and convinced the group to go adventure for it) - and picked up the capability to enlarge to large size a few times a long rest. The campaign has been on hold for a bit, but this was a pretty typical experience with PAM and GWM in my experience. It would be pretty easy to duplicate it in BG3, for example.

Why was the experience you referenced so much worse? And why would someone capable of using any weapon in the game select a mace?

 

[FrogReaver]

TBH I count this as a failing with 5e. Martials are encouraged to specialise in to particular weapons with Feat fighting styles and even basic ability scores, but 5e provides no RAW way to spec out of Feats, and changing fighting style is only available at ASI levels as an optional rule.

This puts you in a situation where either:

• your DM customises loot to fit the players and you get a magic polearm and have a blast
• your DM just rolls random loot and you never get your magic weapon and your build feature is useless.

Thankfully all my DMs have chosen the first option.

There is a third option. Accept that over specializing is a gamble that doesn’t always pay off. If you can’t live with the gamble don’t do it in the first place.

 

[Trasvi]

There is a third option. Accept that over specializing is a gamble that doesn’t always pay off. If you can’t live with the gamble don’t do it in the first place.

For one, I don't think it's a 'gamble'. It's something that the game design clearly intends for fighters especially to do. If the game traps you for doing something it encourages, it's bad game design.

It's also a problem that doesn't exist for casters. There's no "wand master" feat. The closest that casters get is probably "elemental adept" which overcomes the problem of resistance which would be the equivalent of caster specialisation.


If this were a typical boardgame that you wrap up in under an hour, this would be more acceptable. Sometimes the cards don't come up your way, and you can try again next time.
DnD has a play time of YEARS. People develop emotional attachment to their character. Coming back to the table every week until the campaign finishes, knowing that your character concept isn't being honoured by your DM, when they have an incredibly strsughtforward way to resolve the issue... I'm glad that I haven't run in to DMs like who want to punish me for years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For one, I don't think it's a 'gamble'. It's something that the game design clearly intends for fighters especially to do. If the game traps you for doing something it encourages, it's bad game design.

It's also a problem that doesn't exist for casters. There's no "wand master" feat. The closest that casters get is probably "elemental adept" which overcomes the problem of resistance which would be the equivalent of caster specialisation.


If this were a typical boardgame that you wrap up in under an hour, this would be more acceptable. Sometimes the cards don't come up your way, and you can try again next time.
DnD has a play time of YEARS. People develop emotional attachment to their character. Coming back to the table every week until the campaign finishes, knowing that your character concept isn't being honoured by your DM, when they have an incredibly strsughtforward way to resolve the issue... I'm glad that I haven't run in to DMs like who want to punish me for years.

Players developing such an emotional attachment to their PC that they can't handle not getting exactly what they want all the time is, IMO, part of the problem.

 

[Trasvi]

You phrase it like that, I phrase it as "DM should work with players to honour their character concepts and ensure everyone has fun."

 

[Micah Sweet]

You phrase it like that, I phrase it as "DM should work with players to honour their character concepts and ensure everyone has fun."

You can't ensure everyone has fun. All you can do is create an environment in which people can have fun, including the DM, and people have fun doing different things.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your experience and mine were very different when it comes to these feats. I'm curious why.

A fairly recent example was a Variant Human Fighter that took PAM at level 1. They attacked for 1d10+3, 1d4+3, and often and additional 1d10+3 each round. At 4th level they took GWM - and acquired Gauntlets of Ogre Power. At 5th level they were sometimes attacking 4 times in a round for 4d10+56 damage (or as low as 2d10+1d4+42). The DM put a magic polearm into the game for them to find a bit later, but it was a +1 weapon with a minor perk on the side. They had various tricks to enhance their chances to hit, including ways to gain advantage and ways to gain the effects of bless (they hired a low level spellcaster to follow them around - from a mostly safe distance).

The PCs in the game were efficient, but not super optimized builds designed to bust the game. This PC was the central damage figure and provided significantly more damage than the other PCs - especially when it came to taking big targets down. They also used their subclass features to control the battlefield (it was a Homebrew - but generally less powerful than Battlemaster - it created leadership auras that discouraged enemies and encouraged allies).

At 11th level the attacks increased and the PC was utilizing a 25 strength from a belt of Fire Giant Strength (which they sought out - they wanted higher strengthm researched how to get it, and convinced the group to go adventure for it) - and picked up the capability to enlarge to large size a few times a long rest. The campaign has been on hold for a bit, but this was a pretty typical experience with PAM and GWM in my experience. It would be pretty easy to duplicate it in BG3, for example.

Why was the experience you referenced so much worse? And why would someone capable of using any weapon in the game select a mace?

That's tge DM being an idiot and funneling sone of the vest items to the best builds.

I do not tailor nag8c items to the PCs I fo give them a players guide as t9 what t9 expect.

. Eg ancient Greece type gane. Magic shortshwords, bows, spears, hoplite ensemble are the most common armors and weapons.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why was the experience you referenced so much worse? And why would someone capable of using any weapon in the game select a mace?

They said that its a magic mace. That is probably why. My Paladin played almost all the way until level 12 wielding a mace, because it was the only magic weapon she had. At 1d6+1, a mace does as good damage as any other one-handed option, and we were fighting a lot of creatures that required magic to hurt.
She commonly prepared Magic Weapon for the Ranger's bow as well.

If this were a typical boardgame that you wrap up in under an hour, this would be more acceptable. Sometimes the cards don't come up your way, and you can try again next time.
DnD has a play time of YEARS. People develop emotional attachment to their character. Coming back to the table every week until the campaign finishes, knowing that your character concept isn't being honoured by your DM, when they have an incredibly strsughtforward way to resolve the issue... I'm glad that I haven't run in to DMs like who want to punish me for years.

Players developing such an emotional attachment to their PC that they can't handle not getting exactly what they want all the time is, IMO, part of the problem.

Tell me, how did you read the above, then come out with that statement? Was it a deliberate choice to set up a quintain to joust at, that was nowhere near the stated position of the person you are responding to? Or do you honestly believe that the situation of someone not allowing their friend to get full use out of their character for years is synonymous with "not getting exactly what they want all the time"?
Is this a translation issue? Do you need Trasvi to rephrase for you?