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

[Willie the Duck]

So what do you want? Because to me being a dirt simple fighter is fun. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but you have plenty of options even with just fighter subclasses.

Y'see, I like playing that character role, and wish it worked better in the game we have. It does work better in other systems (example: in Hero System I can make a character who has nothing but equivalents to Str, to-hit bonus, defense, damage reduction, HP, and speed and it feels on the same footing as they guy with a complex magic user character. Add in some easy-to-justify non-magical abilities like boost ally stats (through morale) or a little uncanny luck, and you never need magic (assuming decent ranged attacks and blindfighting skill can solve the flying or invisible enemies, etc.).

the most interesting fighter subclasses add magic...

Well sure, but imagine if they made some interesting ones that didn't?

 

[Composer99]

Although I do have my Views™ about Cats vs. Dogs Marvel vs. DC Casters vs. Martials, one thing I would like to see is more formal support for multiple styles of play in the core rules.

For instance, IMO folks who feel the current situation is satisfactory (or at least satisfactory enough) and folks who want a higher ceiling for martials, and folks who want a lower ceiling for casters should all be able to sit down and play D&D out of the box and feel they're getting what they want out of the game, even if they might feel unsatisfied playing at the same table as one another. IMO the likes of @Oofta and @HammerMan should both be able to have fun playing D&D in more or less the way they want, even if they might not have fun playing together at the same table.

I state that because D&D, on account of its market share and history, does present itself to some extent as a game for everyone. Likewise, the promise of such modularity was discussed at some length during the playtest period. Should not a game with pretensions to universality have the (mechanical) guts to back up such a pretense?

With that stated:
(1) One of the selling points of D&D 5e in particular is its streamlined, rulings-over-rules nature. This nature is also a strong part of its design aesthetic. I don't think it's to the good for the game writ large to go the way of 3.X, much less systems such as GURPS or RIFTS. So it would be for the best for added subsystems to try to stick to that aesthetic. In fairness, this might mean that at least some (most?) "gonzo martial" stuff might have to be relegated to a supplement - although I daresay that if so, such a supplement should be very swiftly published after core rules. (Maybe some of the existing "gonzo magic" stuff should be so relegated as well?)
(2) Here I should note that there's still plenty of room for supplements to support less broad playstyles, the way Van Helsing's Richten's Guide (oops!) goes into more detail about running a horror game, or the way Ghosts of Saltmarsh adds new layers to waterborne adventure, so they're not cluttering up the core rules while still expanding the way people can play the game, for those as want such things.

 

[HammerMan]

What type of bells and whistles? I assume "without spells" means without magic in general. So a large list of descriptions and effects that aren't useful in-combat, but very useful outside of combat?

yeah that would be good...

And I assume they work similarly to spells in that they don't require a roll to successfully use it.

i have no problem with them 'just working' and don't think that makes them anything like spells.

Okay, that's what you want and it's fair to want something in a game that you supposedly enjoy. But what does this have to do with "disparity" or "imbalance?"

I'm osrry did you just say I supposedly enjoy...why would I lie?

I want healing to be back where it belongs in the "necromancy" school of magic, but I don't think it causes any sort of practical issue in-game, for example. It might have an interaction with necromancy wizards with access to multiclassing, feats, or a magic item but that doesn't mean there's a balance issue with it.

me

 

[Umbran]

So what do you want? Because to me being a dirt simple fighter is fun.

Mod Note:
Do note that this is a (+) thread. If you aren't on board with the basic premise of the discussion, this probalby isn't for you.

 

[Asisreo]

I'm osrry did you just say I supposedly enjoy...why would I lie?

I didn't want to assume that you enjoy 5e. I imagine some people may dislike 5e for any number of reasons, but may want to join in the discussion. I may have missed it if you did clarify that you enjoy 5e.

 

[Mind of tempest]

the most interesting fighter subclasses add magic...

which is a problem in itself.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The posts about exploration and social being (relatively) inconsequential confuse me. Has no one ever run/played a session with zero combat but high stakes? I wouldn't say they're common at my table, but I would estimate they happen at least once in any a campaign and are incredibly fun for me (oftentimes, not so much for whoever is playing the fighter though).

At our table, a potential discovery (exploration) or tense negotiation (social) can have a more dramatic impact on the outcome of a campaign than all of the combat encounters combined. Is that atypical?

Agree 100%. Though I must say, the DMG does not do a good job providing tools to support DMs on this.

 

[HammerMan]

I didn't want to assume that you enjoy 5e. I imagine some people may dislike 5e for any number of reasons, but may want to join in the discussion. I may have missed it if you did clarify that you enjoy 5e.

I have been playing since 91. I loved 2e but was ready to switch when 3e came, and switched to 3.5 the gen con the books came out... 3.5 kind of pettered out for me and my group and by the time 4e was announced we have moved away from D&D... but 4 brought us back...then splintered us between 4e, pathfinder and people who just said neither was worth it... when 5e was announced and playtest was the first time I didn't want a new edition. I would love to have had a retro clone of 4e the way pathfinder was for 3. However slowly we moved over... and 5e is better then 3e ever was. I do enjoy bunches of it... however I still miss 4e.

however my friends and I are hesitant to split the group again... and 5e is the middle path. I have not (at least yet) gotten sick of 5e, but I would love for it to flow better and have better martial representation... I especially love the 2 newest books I have (dragons, and witchlight) and think that a less combat focused game would be great and what they are leaning toward. I like the tasha updates, and am okish with the multiverse book updates.

overall D&D is a big part of my life (even if it is virtual right now). If they came out and said 6e is 2024 I would feel like I did in 1999 when 2e was ending... it was fun but I hope the next one is better.

 

[Yaarel]

I assume "without spells" means without magic in general.

Actually, many players who want a zero-magic Fighter, like the idea of this Fighter wielding powerful magic items.

So, balancewise, there seems a way to buff the Fighter class magically at the higher tiers, but these features require the character oneself to be explicitly nonmagic, and the features must acquire these magic items in a way that where the Fighter lacks magic and in a way that makes narrative sense.

Maybe one narrative is:

Magic items transmit the intention of their creator, at least residually. Thus magic items often emanate subtle influences to seek out a worthy wielder.

 

[HammerMan]

Agree 100%. Though I must say, the DMG does not do a good job providing tools to support DMs on this.

the newer adventures (Strixhaven and Witch light) seem to be giving some GREAT ideas that maybe should influence all future projects.... the idea that a test can be important and not life or death...