Chaosmancer
Legend
You know, it Bruce failed at what he was trying to do as often as someone with Expertise does, Bane would be out of a job and we'd all be stuck with Azreal.
He has hot dice.
You know, it Bruce failed at what he was trying to do as often as someone with Expertise does, Bane would be out of a job and we'd all be stuck with Azreal.
The issue with D&D is their poster boy for a Mundane Martial is a Clumsy Dumb Slow but Strong Tank. Unless you remove some of the negatives, you lock yourself into the archetype needing or being supernatural.
I just want the "Snipe you for XDX bonus damage at 1000 feet away" like the high level nonsupernatural martials of various media.
That's the core issue.
I don't think that is the limit for nonsupernatural combat skill.
Hawkeye is also a master in swordmanship, improvised weapons, and unarmed combat.
Proficiency is not mastery.So is every fighter, ranger, paladin, ect ect ect.
Those classes represent characters who have mastered bows, crossbows, axes, poleaxes, hammers, polehammers, spears, long spears, and a dozen different sword styles, along with club, staff, mace. morningstar, blow pipe, whip, and dagger combat. Yes, they also are all masters of improvised weapons and trained in unarmed combat.
Maybe because of Ronin you could convince me Hawkeye deserves a whole TWO fighting styles, could maybe get me with three of them.... Take the fighting style feat twice. Done. He has a fighting style for unarmed combat, dueling, and archery. Is your 4th to 5th level fighter feeling like a man who can take on Demogorgon?
You keep forgetting how LOW the bar is. Mastering a weapon style is a low-level feat. A 5th level fighter who took the fighting style feat twice, and went battlemaster is a BETTER fighter than hawkeye, who has mastered MORE weapons than Hawkeye.
Very much this and although it isnt a perfect comparison if you think of Spells as "Feats of Magic" then a level 16 Wizard gets 22 Spell slots with which to do cool stuff, compared to the Fighters measly 6 feats. Its quite ridiculous really, doubling the number of feats a fighter could get (even if constrained by Fighting style or Manouveres) would be something...You can only take Skill Expert and Fighting Initiate once each.
Combat and noncombat aspects complete for feats and most editions give limited feats or require using many feats to excel.
And in 5e, it competes with your ASI too.
There are artificial non-genre limitations on horizontal growth for the sake of "simplicity".
Only 6 ASI/feats for your level 16 fighter. The class that gets the most. Why only six?
That's why everyone jumps straight into magic and supernatural. Because the limitations are off or lower. And you get more customizable slots if you go magic.
I like this.One thing I absolutely think would help is getting back to basics and looking at the environment.
True Fact! There is no roll for climbing a normal climbable surface. The rules state that climbing rolls can be made in extreme conditions. So, let's say the rogue/fighter wants to run into an alley and free-hand climb a three story house... Well, they can climb at half movement speed, and as long as there is no time limit, they can just do that. It would take them six seconds to clamber up that building if they dashed.
True Fact! Baseline high Jump rules allow a character with a 16 strength to jump and their feet clear a six foot height. A fighter/rogue with a high strength (or using the thief dex abilities) can casually jump over the head of most humanoids. Additionally, a 16 strength fighter can reach a ledge that is (on average) 14.745 ft above them. This means that they can trivially, without rolling or major exertion, run up to a two story house, jump, grab the edge of a window, and pull themselves up it.
These are feats of level 1 characters. A level 3 Rogue Thief should be able to, in a single span of six seconds, run into an alley, jump up and grab a second story window, kick off that to land on a third story balcony across the alley, then proceed to climb up the ivy on the side of the building to a height of approximately the 7th story of the building.
There are two things that should be added to this.
1) Let Fighter/Rogues add their proficiency to their jumps and adjust long-jump distances as well as fix the weirdness of its interaction with movement speed (you shouldn't only jump 5ft instead of the 30 you should clear, just because you ran up first). I like the idea of calculating sets of 5 ft based off their bonuses (so a fighter with a +4 strength and +3 prof jumps 35 ft) and leaving non-martials with the strength score method.
2) Let Martial Characters destroy the environment more. Right now, a 20th level fighter with a normal warhammer is potentially destroying a stone wall in three to four swings... the exact same that a 1st level fighter might accomplish. And that is even if the DM allows it, and that is even if the players think of it. A DM might allow an Ogre to charge through a wooden wall in a dramatic flair to attack the players, but they almost never allow the players to bust through walls or destroy floors or ceilings in the same manner.
How many fighter/rogues have been allowed to stab an enemy through a wooden wall? Or pull the classic of reaching through a wall to grapple an enemy? Wooden walls and doors should not make you safe from a mid-to-high level fighter. Hiding inside a wagon shouldn't make you safe from the rogue shooting you through the wagon's walls. These people live in a world that is destructible, let them feel like they are capable of shattering wood and cracking stone with ease.
And, after you implement such rules REMIND the players. Your rogue isn't used to thinking of the fact that they can jump OVER the knight's head to escape, your fighter isn't used to seeing a barred wooden door and realizing it isn't actually an obstacle that can stop them. And once you have players who are used to thinking in this way, then you are going to see a change in how those classes feel to those players.
There is a possibility that I'm being misquoted/misremembered/misunderstood.I’m with you and understand how you might feel that way having never heard these suggestions, but I’ve heard them enough such that they don’t appear to be ‘fringe’ or ‘extreme’.