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

[TheSword]

Edited slightly above in bold and I think that is fair enough.

I don't think there is any lack of understanding at this point. At least for the inclusion issue.

The issue is that there doesn't seem to be any room for engagement between the two sides if one side is just saying No to an option they don't like or understand, even if it does no harm to them.

So the conclusion is that they are just not being good citizens or they do feel like it does them harm?

Let's assume good intent and they feel it does them harm.

A harm that I saw earlier was that WotC could spend resources on other things instead. It's true, but hard to have a conversation about this?

There are some other harms mentioned, but if they can be removed by ignoring the optional class than I don't see the way to engage here either?

So is there a harm(s) from this optional new Class that can't be removed by ignoring this optional class?

If I was in the "prefer current camp", for the sake of my fellow gamers, I would just get out of the way and let people who are excited about this advocate for it and have it appear as an optional class.

It all comes down to preference but one side is advocating for expanded options without removing existing ones, while the other side is trying to deny a new option from existing for reasons I can't understand.

Here is my summary of the conversation:

"For various reasons, I'd like to have an optional mythic martial class added to the game that will do extraordinary things at high level and get closer but not exceed the power, versatility, and narrative control of the current WIzard."

"I don't think that's neccessary. The current Fighter is fine. I've never seen these various reasons manifest at my table for x,y,z reasons. Anyway, regardless I don't really like the concept of mythic martials anyway and don't want them in my game."

"Sure, I respect that and glad the current Fighter is good for you. It doesn't work for my table and I ask that even if you don't understand why it's needed you support me in getting this option into the game. I'll make sure it isn't more powerful, versatile, and narrative controlling than the current Wizard so as not to upset current class power levels. This new Class option would greatly increase my group's enjoyment of the game and since optional you can ignore and play the current game to your hearts content. Sound ok?"

"I can't ignore this optional Class. If this is put into the game, I just won't play D&D anymore."

"?"

I don't understand where to engage with this stance?

It isn’t quite as simple as you’re making it out. The method by which the new class is integrated makes a difference.

If it’s released in the ‘Book of Gonzo’ characters then its easy to ignore it. Along with all the other characters and rules in that book.

If It’s released in the next update of the PHB then that’s not as easy, without breaking the principle that the core books are, well, core.

It’s also possible that other players might not particularly like that Superman is now overshadowing their own characters, just because the majority think it’s ok. I remember some players feeling that way about the Pathfinder Gunslinger. It really frustrated two of the players in our group even though I didn’t really have a problem with it. Not everybody agrees with everybody else (even within groups). That doesn’t even get close to new players, FLGS and clubs where folks will take unbalancing things without the social restraints in play in a close knit group.

Balance as far as it can be achieved is a desirable aim. It shouldn’t be cast aside lightly. I’m firmly with @tetrasodium that we’ve not heard any explanation of the things that would be removed from the fighter to keep this new super-fighter balanced. It’s why I suggested subclass, because it’s easier to replace within these parameters rather than slicing off parts of the fighter. Same with spells, Same with Feats.

If you want more powerful mythic characters then create a mythic accessory that adds mythic powers to all classes. As Pathfinder did. Simple straightforward. You’ll get no argument from anyone.

 

[Minigiant]

This issue I see with that (not saying you shouldn't be able to, btw) is they don't really grow, do they?

I mean, in the stories and movies and everything I've seen, they have certain abilities and features and really don't gain new ones.

The closest adaptation where they do in is Disney's Hercules:

Baby Hercules: (Level 1)
View attachment 152044
Kid Hercules: (Level 3)
View attachment 152042
Adult Hercules: (Level 11)
View attachment 152043
(Demi)god Hercules: (Level 17)
View attachment 152045

And?

I think there is a popular comic series about children with strange powers who learn to control and use them (class features) better with practice (xp gain)

 

[DND_Reborn]

so that is admitting that the change would be popular enough to see play but you personally don't want them...

Well... maybe it would be popular enough to see play, but I really don't know if it would be popular for WotC to develop it...

Of course, it could be one of those "If you design it, they will play" things?

And for newer players, it is the only D&D they've ever known, and they like it, that's cool for them, too.

For me, personally, no I wouldn't want them or use them. My greatest annoyance would be having to tell my players they can't play them because I am not including them in my game. But then others accuse me of being a "badwrongfun" guy... I am the DM who, frankly, says "My way or the high way" because I know I invest a lot more into the game than my players do. I don't take it personally when I ask someone to leave or they decide to leave on their own, and I hope they find a game more suited to their style.

I know the type of fantasy/D&D I enjoy playing and heroic (possible Xena level antics) is my limit. So the same is true for much WotC as put out over the last couple years (?), I am not using any of it because it doesn't fit my play style.

But, as you know, I am not against others enjoying it, and attempted a couple times to spearhead homebrew content that might help some people bridge the gap.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I do think part of the issue is that having something in the game that one does not want, even if someone else is playing it, does color the game such that those things are part of the world and accepted.

Also, if WotC decided to devote resources to something you don't want, you have less to get excited about, and they might decide to continue making things you don't like moving forward, eventually leading to a game you don't like.

Thank you for explicitly stating these fears as I do believe these are implied "harms" for some posters.

They are certainly real but the pro mythic martials are going out of their way to make sure it's optional, existing options aren't changed, etc. It still might color things a little, sure. A great reason to deny others something that will greatly enhance their play? Not sure.

The 2nd one I don't have a lot of respect for given that the only reason they'd decide to move this way writ large is if a large amount of people wanted it and even if this happened we have many versions of the game that fit in the old paradigmn.

And we ( or I anyway) are just talking about 1 optional Class not a caster nerf or a complete rewrite of the system.

I don't see this as a zero sum game. And the difference is that

• people basically happy with 5e have a system that they enjoy already
• 5e would be greatly enhanced for the people that want the mythic martial -- they don't have a system that they enjoy already
• making it optional means the people that are already happy remain happy and new people are happy.

I like people happy.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I do think part of the issue is that having something in the game that one does not want, even if someone else is playing it, does color the game such that those things are part of the world and accepted.

That can be part of it. Also it can be WotC's design ethos ending up being such that it gives short shrift to something I* like because most everyone else is playing this other way.
*putting myself in the shoes of this mindset

I can even give an example. I, like some other TSR-era fans, really like the idea of a straightforward fighter that doesn't need bells and whistles, they just fight. This is distinct from whether high level martials can leap chasms or wrestle death or reroute rivers (I'm mostly thinking tiers 1-2 anyways). I just mean that when it is time to fight, I just attack - without maneuvers or smites or character build whatsits. I'd like my good-old AD&D fighter (with longbow and greatsword or longsword&shield) concept to work. WotC has an option for this kind of character - the Champion Fighter (needing to dedicate stats to both Dex and Str). It is doable, but it is far and away a suboptimal build I can only use in a table of like-minded individuals who also won't optimize if I want to contribute broadly. WotC didn't have to do that -- the Champion could have been balanced to be a reasonably powerful martial option and a ranged/Str-melee switch-hitting could have been facilitated (perhaps making longbows finesse weapons such that they could use Str instead of Dex, or just making shields not take an action to don/doff) -- but they didn't because it wasn't a priority (since a lot of people like the optimization mini game of builds/feats/etc. and lots of people like resource-decision in combat). I can imagine the people not wanting epic martials can be resistant to the idea for fear that their own preferred style will lose out, designer-attention-and-deference-wise.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

In terms of mythic not spells, what would a non/limited spellcasting shapeshifter class look like? it seems absurd that this sort of thing is tied to to a 9 level caster. Is there a monk subclass that uses the druid's shapeshifting?

 

[DND_Reborn]

And?

My point was already made in the post...

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

If it’s released in the ‘Book of Gonzo’ characters then its easy to ignore it. Along with all the other characters and rules in that book.

If It’s released in the next update of the PHB then that’s not as easy, without breaking the principle that the core books are, well, core.

Some may prefer it, but I don't think many people have a high priority that it is core at this point. The high priority is seeing an official optional version that is creative and well playtested. Splat book like Tasha's is fine or at this point even a big yellow sign that says "Gonzo content -- flee you fools" at the top of the page.

Balance as far as it can be achieved is a desirable aim. It shouldn’t be cast aside lightly. I’m firmly with @tetrasodium that we’ve not heard any explanation of the things that would be removed from the fighter to keep this new super-fighter balanced. It’s why I suggested subclass, because it’s easier to replace within these parameters rather than slicing off parts of the fighter. Same with spells, Same with Feats.

Many of us have argued to not base this on the Fighter. It's not perceived as a good class which is part of the premise. Either start from scratch or use something like a martial Bard or other full spellcaster and start swapping from there.

Let the Fighter be the mundane + magic items and perhaps the action hero.

You don't have to understand anything about this new class except:

1) you won't like it or use it, it's not made for you
2) it's optional so you can exclude it from your games
3) it's no more powerful, versatile, or narrative controlling than a Wizard so that if it somehow slips in, it won't break anything balance wise

How hard it is it say -- "ok, i'd rather WotC didn't spend resources on this but whatever -- if people want it go for it. I'll just ignore it and carry on."

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I can imagine the people not wanting epic martials can be resistant to the idea for fear that their own preferred style will lose out, designer-attention-and-deference-wise.

I can see this as part of a completely new edition, but a lot of the conversation has been around adding 1 new class to an existing game that sounds like it fulfills most of their needs already. So you are pitting refinements to what exists against a clearly perceived gap for others.

 

[TheSword]

Some may prefer it, but I don't think many people have a high priority that it is core at this point. The high priority is seeing an official optional version that is creative and well playtested. Splat book like Tasha's is fine or at this point even a big yellow sign that says "Gonzo content -- flee you fools" at the top of the page.



Many of us have argued to not base this on the Fighter. It's not perceived as a good class which is part of the premise. Either start from scratch or use something like a martial Bard or other full spellcaster and start swapping from there.

Let the Fighter be the mundane + magic items and perhaps the action hero.

You don't have to understand anything about this new class except:

1) you won't like it or use it, it's not made for you
2) it's optional so you can exclude it from your games
3) it's no more powerful, versatile, or narrative controlling than a Wizard so that if it somehow slips in, it won't break anything balance wise

How hard it is it say -- "ok, i'd rather WotC didn't spend resources on this but whatever -- if people want it go for it. I'll just ignore it and carry on."

I suspect many people just don’t understand or can’t visualize what this class looks like.