D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[FrogReaver]

Or have that same class be the complex Fighter at the same time...

Simple classes should just be their own thing.

I’m actually not as worried about simple or complex. I just want one functional fighter that either surpasses all other classes at combat or is good at all the pillars of the game.

 

[Shardstone]

Question.

If we have the Warrior Sidekick as a simple class, and if that were offered in the PHB, could you then hve the Fighter be the "complex Fighter?"

Or could we not just completely reimagine the Warlord so that they have subclasses that focus on complex fighting techniques, a subclass for commanding others, a subclass for manipulating the battlefield etc

 

[Baron Opal II]

Is there anyone who plays a fighter but expects the versatility of a wizard?

They feel nerfed and underwhelmed. It's hard to make a character only to realize that the character underperforms in the fantasy you feel like it advertised. And that feeling is inherent with most martial classes since you can't play a mythical warrior fantasy with just the fighter's chassis.

There's also the comparative issue that if you play alongside a caster, that caster is being helpful via their plethora of utility and when you want to join in, you realize that the tools given to you by the martial option not only doesn't keep up, but they don't even come close. Putting that alongside the fact that your combat options have hardly changed since level 1 and you start to feel like martials don't amount to much.

Those are the two arguments that I can't truly argue against.

I am reminded of a scene from Critical Role, of all things.

The party was fighting some kind of flyer / floating creature. Everyone could attack the creature except the barbarian. That player sat on his hands the whole fight.

If he could have made an attack that could have stunned a wing so the creature had to land for a round, or aggro the critter in range, or do a limited wall-run to get him in range every other round, or something I can only imagine that the player, and the team, would have had a better time. Their heavy hitter was wholly useless.

Versatility is really the whole point of a wizard. People who play fighters don't expect that level of versatility in my experience. But they would like to be on par with other fighters in myth and legend.

(I don't concretely remember the episode. I do remember, clearly, Travis sitting on his hands while everyone else could participate.)

 

[Asisreo]

If that's how you feel, then why start the thread? And why continue to participate?

"I really want to understand this and engage in open discourse about it...so much so that i will create my own new thread about it"

And

"I think this discussion is a waste of time and energy that distracts from the real issues"

Seem like contradictory motivations to me.

The connecting factor is that I'm open for new ideas and to have my mind changed. Despite what others might think of me being an unmoving, martial-hating witch who only seeks to invalidate everything from the other side, I've actually gained deeper insight throughout this exceptionally long thread.

I'm thinking that maybe someone will say something I haven't heard before or say it in a way that let's me interpret it differently. I think never listening to the other side, even when you disagree, is more wrong than any rebuttal that can be made.

1) This is the D&D forum. We're gonna talk D&D

Fair. It's hard to tag this as not D&D, though, since it's mostly discussed in D&D.

2) 'Go play another game' is historically how people have tried to punch dissenters out of the community for being threats to 'tradition'.

Sure, but the intention should be held with higher regard than simply the message. Maybe a poor metaphor, but imagine being told "get out of my house, now!" In a regular situation, it could be seen as rude but when there's a fire, it's a courtesy.

In other words, I'm not saying it to kick anyone out or hold onto tradition. I'm saying it to promote the other TTRPG's that need recognition.

And here we see another divide: One where people think D&D should remain a game where you HAVE to have a spell caster (try playing the Curse of Stradh Adventure League campaign when no caster shows up... it was NOT designed for that AT ALL and it's BS) in your party to succeed, and those who think it should be possible to succeed without a caster. Not even an Eldrich Knight or a Monk.

I don't think a "caster" is necessary, but just some form of magic. Even in CoS, there's magic items and other sources of magic for players to acquire that isn't just being a spellcaster.

Why do you see things in such a narrow viewpoint? Why do you keep trying to shut down discussion by saying there's bigger things to talk about? People can talk about multiple things at once. Your line of reasoning here is fundamentally wrong and the fact that you keep going back to this argument itself is an incredibly bad look.

I don't understand the accusations that by disagreeing, I'm shutting down discussions. I'm engaging in discussions and I feel the need to be genuine and not act like the other person is always correct. You don't have to take my words personally and I mean no disrespect when I type.

This is meant to be a type of dialog, which means more than one person gets to say their piece. And it is a discussion, so it doesn't have to be all agreements.

 

[FrogReaver]

Question.

If we have the Warrior Sidekick as a simple class, and if that were offered in the PHB, could you then hve the Fighter be the "complex Fighter?"

Or could we not just completely reimagine the Warlord so that they have subclasses that focus on complex fighting techniques, a subclass for commanding others, a subclass for manipulating the battlefield etc

IMO best to stay away from the Warlord with a 10ft pole. Too many different ideas about what he should be capable of.

 

[TwoSix]

IMO best to stay away from the Warlord with a 10ft pole. Too many different ideas about what he should be capable of.

Yea, to go back to my earlier post, Warlord versus Fighter is as much an aesthetic difference as it is a playstyle one. We should have a complex Fighter type that still does Fighter things; and if you include a Warlord, you can have simple and complex versions as well.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I openly confess I'm still new to DMing and very new to game design, so most of what follows could be naïveté (several of my other posts were...). Still, this has become such a heavily discussed and hotly debated subject that it's got my mind running through ideas when I should be asleep, so please indulge me.

First, I want to publicly upvote something HammerMan said earlier: it's likely we'd all do better and feel better if we'd extend a little more mutual patience. The internet, I realize now, is a difficult medium for such efforts, but I still say it's worth the effort. No one ever got mad at me for trying harder to understand them (and I do think even the most adamant disputants on here are at least trying to understand the other side). I'm grateful for this thread and for all the posts in it: I've learned a lot more than I thought I needed to just from reading this and some related threads. And while sentiments do get riled, I don't think I've seen anyone here post in bad faith.

Now, here's something from Mort that has me thinking again (or maybe it's just my elephant-strength coffee?):

The last several pages have been devoted, again, to fighter DPR. As in, how effective are fighters in combat.

But, once again, ALL classes are good to excellent in combat. Does it depend on build yes, could there be tweaks, yes. But ALL classes contribute in combat and play a decent role. [my bolding]

But, the other 2 pillars? Most other classes, especially casters, have tools built into the class to contribute.

Fighters not only have no active class tools to contribute (thus having to rely on stuff everyone gets such as backgrounds), with a few small exceptions like Tasha's allowing the battlemaster to pick non-combat maneuvers. But, even there, the class actively fights them by demanding that resources be devoted to the one pillar they are supposed to excel in: combat.

That's the problem.

I think this is right, and while I still say folks like Oofta have a perfectly reasonable position, in the end I agree with those who say some meaningful changes ought to happen. Here's why: in all the campaigns my friends and I have had since I got back in the game in 2018, the great, great majority have played some sorts of casters and those that didn't generally went for Rogues and Monks. Fighters especially (but also Barbarians to an extent) just aren't showing up as player choices.

Okay, but why not? Why aren't players choosing the pure martials much?

On one hand, I think what Mort says is on the money: not much to do outside combat except stand around and look tough. But on another hand, I'm starting to wonder if another problem might be that so many other classes have too easy a time fighting and standing around and looking tough themselves. As an example of what I mean, when a buddy chose to play a Druid, his explicit justification was that they're full casters yet they can tank when needed, especially thanks to stuff like Shillelagh. And he was right. What would happen to the Bard in combat if there were no high-damage finesse weapons and if--now, this is an extreme thought experiment--AC had considerably more to do with heavier armor than with DEX? I think that Swiss army knife that everyone loves to hate would start to look a little flimsier, wouldn't it? (Let's set aside the crazy range of spells for my thought experiment.)

Might part of the source of the problem derive not from Fighters and Barbarians lacking options outside combat, but from all the others having too many options inside combat? If the only classes that did well on their own in combat were these two, I suspect we'd see more players choose them. And that is the way we had it way back in AD&D days. Clerics and Druids could fight, but a club or a staff just didn't do the same work a good sword could. Wizards were squishier than throw-pillows, so they always stayed in the back and let people with muscle tissue handle the orcs. Sure, they'd cast some Magic Missiles and what-not, but only where they perceived it'd make a big difference, because casting was expensive and they had basically nothing by way of personal defense.

Now, it seems clear that WotC ain't nevah goin' back to those days, but might there be some way for them to retune the system so that martials are flatly essential to combat and therefore to party survival? It wouldn't address any problems of the other two pillars, but it might still make Fighters more attractive to players, no? Or has this bird already decisively flown? Has WotC resolved never to take this path?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, but the intention should be held with higher regard than simply the message. Maybe a poor metaphor, but imagine being told "get out of my house, now!" In a regular situation, it could be seen as rude but when there's a fire, it's a courtesy.

But not so much when you're the one on fire and they're hastily hiding kerosene behind their back.

 

[TwoSix]

Might part of the source of the problem derive not from Fighters and Barbarians lacking options outside combat, but from all the others having too many options inside combat? If the only classes that did well on their own in combat were these two, I suspect we'd see more players choose them. And that is the way we had it way back in AD&D days. Clerics and Druids could fight, but a club or a staff just didn't do the same work a good sword could. Wizards were squishier than throw-pillows, so they always stayed in the back and let people with muscle tissue handle the orcs. Sure, they'd cast some Magic Missiles and what-not, but only where they perceived it'd make a big difference, because casting was expensive and they had basically nothing by way of personal defense.

Yes, I will continue to advocate for "nerf casters". If casters do good damage with spells, they should have an extremely small selection of utility abilities. If they have great utility spells, they should poor damage dealers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yea, to go back to my earlier post, Warlord versus Fighter is as much an aesthetic difference as it is a playstyle one. We should have a complex Fighter type that still does Fighter things; and if you include a Warlord, you can have simple and complex versions as well.

I don’t think we need a simple Wizard and a complex Wizard. I just think we need a single well designed wizard.

The same goes for me in regards to fighter. My take would be that he gets made as simple as possible while still covering the bases. I think they accomplished this with wizards but not fighters.