Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9182810" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>Unfortunately, nobody can agree on the design of what that would look like, even as WotC seems fairly committed to devoting much of their design to new spells than new mechanics for subclasses or feats.</p><p></p><p>Like I get it, spells are easy to design for, you don't need to tie them into any other effect. A subclass has to have a theme, and they'd rather put passive abilities there as opposed to active ones. But when that design is walled off from classes unless they have an explicit "magic coupon" to ride that ride, it's pretty damning.</p><p></p><p>I mean, 9 years of 5e and what have martials gotten? More subclasses, sure, but outside of that? A couple of alternate class features in Tasha's, a very limited selection of new Feats (because <strong>optional</strong>!*), and only now, weapon masteries (with almost no new weapons outside of the PHB).</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, casters get all that <strong>and</strong> new spells in just about every book. Why is the lion's share of design aimed at casters? Because spells are easy to design, they don't need to be tied to any other bespoke mechanic, they don't need to fit a theme with other spells, and if you can cast spells, all it takes is putting it on your spell list.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, someone will mention I ignored the new Battlemaster maneuvers. Sorry, toys for <strong>one</strong> subclass of <strong>one</strong> class doesn't really help other martials very much. Plus, I mean, it's even easier to design maneuvers than spells! We could have a hundred maneuvers by now easily!</p><p></p><p>Mini-rant: also, can I just say, the idea of walling off certain content as <strong>optional</strong> feels like such a copout. <em>Everything</em> is optional in D&D! A DM can decide races, classes, subclasses, weapons, even spells don't fit the theme of their campaign! The only thing labeling something as optional does is say "yeah so, we didn't really balance this well, so use at your own risk", despite the fact that public play uses Feats, and their adventures have magic items in them, <strong>and</strong> they keep making new magic items!</p><p></p><p>It's especially heinous when their optional rule comes with a safeguard (attunement). Wait, if it's optional to even use magic items, why are you suggesting a limit on them?</p><p></p><p>Mini-rant 2: and why do we even use attunement anyways? Because WotC suggested it? What other version of D&D has limited how many items you could have (outside of item slots, I suppose). If the DM controls the magic item acquisition, why even have attunement as a thing?</p><p></p><p>And nobody has a problem with this, not even people who profess a love of the old school style of D&D, which had no such mechanic either! It's a jarring change to one of the most fundamental and awesome parts of Dungeons and Dragons, to the point it almost* doesn't feel like D&D, yet I never hear anyone gripe about it!</p><p></p><p>*I say almost because there are a few magic items that actually do something extra when attuned, which really makes you feel like you've "mastered" the magic item. Kind of like being able to resist the domination of a sentient item or artifact, and getting to use it's full power. But these items are rare, and the only one I can think of off hand is the berserking axe from Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, which, when attuned, gives you....5 more hit points. Wow.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9182810, member: 6877472"] Unfortunately, nobody can agree on the design of what that would look like, even as WotC seems fairly committed to devoting much of their design to new spells than new mechanics for subclasses or feats. Like I get it, spells are easy to design for, you don't need to tie them into any other effect. A subclass has to have a theme, and they'd rather put passive abilities there as opposed to active ones. But when that design is walled off from classes unless they have an explicit "magic coupon" to ride that ride, it's pretty damning. I mean, 9 years of 5e and what have martials gotten? More subclasses, sure, but outside of that? A couple of alternate class features in Tasha's, a very limited selection of new Feats (because [B]optional[/B]!*), and only now, weapon masteries (with almost no new weapons outside of the PHB). Meanwhile, casters get all that [B]and[/B] new spells in just about every book. Why is the lion's share of design aimed at casters? Because spells are easy to design, they don't need to be tied to any other bespoke mechanic, they don't need to fit a theme with other spells, and if you can cast spells, all it takes is putting it on your spell list. Yeah, someone will mention I ignored the new Battlemaster maneuvers. Sorry, toys for [B]one[/B] subclass of [B]one[/B] class doesn't really help other martials very much. Plus, I mean, it's even easier to design maneuvers than spells! We could have a hundred maneuvers by now easily! Mini-rant: also, can I just say, the idea of walling off certain content as [B]optional[/B] feels like such a copout. [I]Everything[/I] is optional in D&D! A DM can decide races, classes, subclasses, weapons, even spells don't fit the theme of their campaign! The only thing labeling something as optional does is say "yeah so, we didn't really balance this well, so use at your own risk", despite the fact that public play uses Feats, and their adventures have magic items in them, [B]and[/B] they keep making new magic items! It's especially heinous when their optional rule comes with a safeguard (attunement). Wait, if it's optional to even use magic items, why are you suggesting a limit on them? Mini-rant 2: and why do we even use attunement anyways? Because WotC suggested it? What other version of D&D has limited how many items you could have (outside of item slots, I suppose). If the DM controls the magic item acquisition, why even have attunement as a thing? And nobody has a problem with this, not even people who profess a love of the old school style of D&D, which had no such mechanic either! It's a jarring change to one of the most fundamental and awesome parts of Dungeons and Dragons, to the point it almost* doesn't feel like D&D, yet I never hear anyone gripe about it! *I say almost because there are a few magic items that actually do something extra when attuned, which really makes you feel like you've "mastered" the magic item. Kind of like being able to resist the domination of a sentient item or artifact, and getting to use it's full power. But these items are rare, and the only one I can think of off hand is the berserking axe from Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, which, when attuned, gives you....5 more hit points. Wow. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)
Top