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

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. Exacerbated by the fact that wizards are SO versatile that even other casters can pale in comparison . For ex. It is MUCH harder to design a well rounded sorcerer (one not just built for combat) than a wizard!

And yeah, monks. Monks are versatile in the sense that they CAN do a lot of stuff. But since almost all of it draws from a very, very limited resource (Ki) that versatility is more theoretical than actual - especially at the levels people actually play. I think the latter monk subclasses (such as way of mercy) have done a decent job at addressing some of the concerns - but it doesn't help the core class (or some of the earlier subclasses such as 4 elements, which could be so cool - but isn't).

There are several better versions of the four elements monk out there on the interwebs. Probably a good mythic noncaster too. I really think folks need to stop being afraid of third party material. WotC is never going to make all the changes people want, but other designers have almost certainly already done so.

 

[Mort]

I would love that, but it will never happen. They tried to lower the power of casters in 4E and it was a full fledged riot. Pathfinder responded by UPPING caster power (and nerfing martials even!), like a recently divorced dad showering their kids with gifts and privileges on visitation weekend. The caster crowd learned a new magic word - verisimilitude! Invoke it and designers quake in fear at the loudest voices with such limited imagination they couldn't even fathom who would WANT to imagine their character jumping 30 feet without spending a spell slot and breaking a grasshopper leg.

So naturally all the headway that was gained in 4E was tossed out like a sack of moldy tangerines. And we're back to the caster power fantasy that 5E is. Since it's a superhero game for the vast majority of the classes, they may as well bring the 4 outliers up to par.

5e actually HAS nerfed and clamped down on casters HARD. It's just even with that, some classes can't keep up. But the potential is there.

I love what 5e has done with paladins. They are a versatile, fun and top tier class (some claim overpowered, but I always prefer raising classes up unless necessary).

I love what 5e has done with rogues. Rogues can be excellent in all tiers of play, and can do so, mostly, without magic.

I love how WoTC has finally course corrected the ranger (as of Tasha's). The gloomstalker puts to rest any "rangers are underpowerd..." worries and the new rules for animal companions actually make them, not only fun, but actually effective. There is some work that can be done with the core class - but big steps in the right direction! the course correction on the ranger gives me hope that they can course correct the fighter in a fun, interesting and yet effective way.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, but the real question is that if WoTC decided to open playtest such a class that would be in addition to today's classes would you stand aside and let people that want this in their game design it, or would you threaten to light your self on fire in front of HQ unless your parameters of martial were adhered to in the new class?

LOL nothing so drastic, I just wouldn't play it.

I didn't really care much for 3E when it came out, so I continued to play AD&D for over a decade longer before I took a break. I met some people playing Pathfinder, looked it over and said no to that as well. I only got into 5E because the people who wanted to play D&D had the new edition, so I went with that (as none of them had ever played a prior edition). At this point, they are all heavily invested in 5E, so reluctantly I keep playing it because it is still better than no game at all. But, as you know, I house-rule, homebrew the sh!t out of it because I am not happy with it over all.

So, if 6E comes out and they have ultra-super-uber-awesome stuff that is way over the top for my style, I won't play that, either.

However, given the different directions the game seems to go, I don't think one game can have it all and still be D&D to everyone. Just won't happen. From my poll (as small as it was), I think the best solution is to expand the game to a full 30 levels, and offer overlap between styles so mundane/action-hero is levels 1-20, heroic/Xena is levels 6-25, and super-heoric/Marvel is levels 11-30. I can see my games then easily going to level 20, and someone who wanted a super-hero from session 1 just starts at level 11-15 or so.

In short, they will lose a customer, but if they gain two because they are making what people actually want to play, I certainly won't begrudge them or the people who play the new edition. If it is a lose one, but only gain one, then yeah, kind of annoyed because they could improve the game I enjoy without alienating me. It is the concept of keeping a customer satisfied or getting a new customer and losing the old one, which frankly always ticked me off when any company places more value on a new customer than an old one.

 

[nevin]

Or conversely it's what high level D&D has been except for when a few spells and abilities dragged things off the rails. That's the point -- no two people have the same idea about what the game is supposed to look like, and the game -- be it 5e specifically with the martials and casters being so far apart or the game as a whole across editions -- has been completely scattershot about the issue, effectively ignoring any dissonance the rules (or just rules support, as in the case of anemic non-magical resolution mechanics rules or heck the whole keep and lordship and domain rules which was in theory the perk fighters got in the TSR era in comparison to magic user plane-hopping or wish-making) create.

I lay a lot of blame at Gary's feet, what with the combined 'what kind of chump needs rules for levels 11+? You're never going to get there.' and 'what kind of chump needs to defeat gods for their power fantasy, now excuse me while I put out more books of artifacts, level 7-9 spells, and actual combat stats for said gods' attitude. However, what I really blame is the issue D&D has had with trying to have it both ways as to whether it is a specific implied setting or a generic fantasy RPG engine (thus leaving the exact tone and epicness of the game an open question, and thus one where opinions naturally diverged).

Lol. This is what happens when the purist has to run a company and pay the bills. No version of any game needs more than three or 4 books but more books means more money

 

[Mort]

There are several better versions of the four elements monk out there on the interwebs. Probably a good mythic noncaster too. I really think folks need to stop being afraid of third party material. WotC is never going to make all the changes people want, but other designers have almost certainly already done so.

It's not that I'm afraid of 3rd party material. It's that I had to wade through A LOT of 3rd party garbage in the 3e era and that has made me gun-shy!

But yeah, some great stuff out there. Heck Level UP has some truly great additions to the game (I REALLY need to take a deep dive into it - books are ready and waiting, just haven't).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why not? Its the reality of high level D&D save for a handful of chump classes.

No, it is your reality. I've played up to level 20 and it was nothing like the sort of things people are asking for here. I'm not saying you can't play that way and I had a player who like such things, but no one should assume their reality or style of play is the most universal one in existence.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Lowering casters, particulaly in the versatility department is really the better way to go. I actually don't want river diverting martials either if we can help it, but the casters have upped the arms race, which is why we are considering it in the first place. D&D spellcasting resembles comic book spellcasting much much more than common fantasy tropes which has put us in this position in the first place. But that would require an entirely new edition at this point. Adding a single class within current parameters is perhaps easier.

Hopefully this is the direction WotC will go, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Lowering casters, particulaly in the versatility department is really the better way to go.

I'd really rather not hurt other classes to get what I want.

I'm not a 5e playtester.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd really rather not hurt other classes to get what I want.

I'm not a 5e playtester.

Ba-dum-BUMP!

 

[TheSword]

And if the target is hovering say 20 ft. off the ground, your average melee fighter will have the opportunity to do approximately zero damage per round unless they have some javelin handy (which do less damage, are difficult to attack more than twice with, in a round, and are less likely to be packing significant magical modifiers).

It is trivially easy to trivialize melee martial PCs and is that easy at all levels of play. We're not talking wall of force or globes of invulnerability or prismatic walls..we're talking 20 feet of elevation (and you might not even really need that)

So just bear in mind that most adventures the enemy wants to engage with the PCs not avoid them. Occasional encounters may make this relevant, however in most cases enemies do more damage in melee as well.

That fighter can draw a ranged weapon like a throwing axe or javelin and be doing reliably large amounts of damage. Meanwhile the enemy is flying 20 ft away and able to do very little.

It’s also worth noting that in most cases enemies in D&D are either guarding something or trying to block the PCs. If that enemy is flying, you simply walk away - or take cover. The enemy is then either neutered or forced to engage. In a dungeon setting, the party just walk away and close a door.

The flying enemy argument for saying fighters aren’t very good doesn’t hold up in the wild.