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

[Micah Sweet]

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.




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?

There is no guarantee that you're going to get a magical version of just the weapon you want, no matter what character resources you spent to specialize in such, and IMO the DM should not feel any need to explicitly cater to a PC in this way.

 

[Trasvi]

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.

If the DM is getting fun out of negating their characters abilities then they should stop doing that and go work on themselves as a person.

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

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

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

I think it's fine and probably necessary to have this conversation with your players in Session zero. Clarify that you're doing purely random loot, or loot from a reduced list where some things are rare or don't exist. If a player still tries to build that way, warn them. And even then, if they get halfway through the campaign and their character build isn't working, let them change it up; we're not playing for sheep stations here.
Or a player could ask at the start of the campaign, "hey I want to play this character, do you think we can put a (X item) somewhere in the campaign. I'm playing a 3PP campaign now where as part of the campaign each player gets to choose a legendary item that you will find or build as part of the central quest line


This isn't just a flaw with characters "overspecialising" though. You could have a campaign where you never get a magic 2Her for your barbarian. Never get a magic bow or arrows for your ranger. Never get a magic finesse weapon for your rogue.
Prior to Tasha's this also applied to fighting styles. In PHB it's a choice you make at lv1 and you have to live with it forever, regardless of if your DM is raining 2Hers down on your Duellist. In Tashas it's slightly improved so you can change it every ASI level, and in OneDnD it's every fighter level.
This can of course all be solved by DM fiat - give players items appropriate for their characters - but an even better idea would be to get rid of DM fiat and have the core rules allow players to respec feats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the DM is getting fun out of negating their characters abilities then they should stop doing that and go work on themselves as a person.

Are those your only options? Bespoke treasure with no sense of verisimilitude, or the DM is engaging in schadenfreude?

 

[Trasvi]

Are those your only options? Bespoke treasure with no sense of verisimilitude, or the DM is engaging in schadenfreude?

I don't know, you were the one that phrased it "players getting exactly what they want all the time". Theres a middle ground of "giving players the tools they need to make their character concept work at appropriate points in the campaign".

I suppose there's a few other options. Slavish adherence to random loot dice rolls even when it creates party imbalance or negates character concepts. I don't think that's a good reason.

A lot of DnD loot is randomly rolled inside chests or treasure hoard. This can be whatever you want it to be, and so in my games I'll generally select 1-2 items from the total haul to be useful to members of the party who need items. If an enemy is weilding/wearing a specific item, that will drop with them; but whatever is in their pockets can be tailored. I might even throw a specific enemy at the party that has an item they want. In a Storm Kings Thunder there is a quest to go fetch a Giant Slayer Greataxe. If I left it as a greataxe, none of my party would have wanted it and they just would have skipped the quest. But I changed it to a Rapier and then it was worthwhile for our rogue. I don't think any of those examples remove all sense of verisimilitude at all.

 

[nevin]

There is no guarantee that you're going to get a magical version of just the weapon you want, no matter what character resources you spent to specialize in such, and IMO the DM should not feel any need to explicitly cater to a PC in this way.

if a PC specialized in a specific weapon, I'd say it borders on passive aggressive behavior to not give them loot that let's them use thier abilities effectlvely. That's like having a magic user and only letting them get thier two spells per level with no scroll or spellbook drops. Or all the spell books being full of evil wicked spells the Good magic user might not want to cast. Or as Captain Hook would say "Bad form" not feeling the need to cater is far different that actively ignoring and failing to plan for your players enjoyment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

if a PC specialized in a specific weapon, I'd say it borders on passive aggressive behavior to not give them loot that let's them use thier abilities effectlvely. That's like having a magic user and only letting them get thier two spells per level with no scroll or spellbook drops. Or all the spell books being full of evil wicked spells the Good magic user might not want to cast. Or as Captain Hook would say "Bad form" not feeling the need to cater is far different that actively ignoring and failing to plan for your players enjoyment.

No, it's like getting random or situation-appropriate scroll or spellbook drops, just like any other treasure the party might happen to run across, by chance. Specialization is, as has been said above, risky. If you want something specific as a PC, look for it, quest for it, make it, or commission it. As a DM I would provide opportunities for those options over the course of the campaign. I would never play a PC who is so specialized that those options aren't good enough for me, such that the universe needs to bend in my direction or I can't have fun playing my character.

 

[Trasvi]

The discussion about magic items is kind of funny, because in a lot of other threads about Martial balance a common refrain is that you're supposed to be showering your martial characters with extra magic items to let them keep pace with casters.

 

[FrogReaver]

The discussion about magic items is kind of funny, because in a lot of other threads about Martial balance a common refrain is that you're supposed to be showering your martial characters with extra magic items to let them keep pace with casters.

Only if you assume those positions are held by the same individuals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The discussion about magic items is kind of funny, because in a lot of other threads about Martial balance a common refrain is that you're supposed to be showering your martial characters with extra magic items to let them keep pace with casters.

I like the idea of magic gear for martials. I just don't agree that it should be hand-picked for individual PCs to find.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Be specific. What is something the game design clearly intends for fighters especially to do?

If you mean take feats that improve their capabilities with a particular subset of weapons? Yes - provided you are playing a game that allows feats that's 100% correct - and most games allow feats. No problem there.

But it really sounds like your implication is broader than this - that you believe the game is designed such that a fighter that specializes in a weapon subset should be guaranteed to be better at fighting than a fighter that doesn't. That's why you think it's a trap if that doesn't occur. But the idea that's a trap is based on a presumption I don't find anywhere in the game design - not implicitly, not explicitly, not from developer communications, etc - that presumption being that fighters that take weapon specialization feats will be guaranteed to be overall better at fighting than those that don't.

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.

IMO. Not ensuring your build is the best at fighting just because you picked the weapon specialization feats isn't the same as not honoring your character concept. IMO, the moment your character concept requires anything more than a generic +1 weapon to be fulfilled, its not a character concept supportable by 5e RAW.