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

[Fanaelialae]

Which is why a return to only gaining spells you find and having make checks to master them would fix that part of the issue, returning the authority to the DM where (IMO) it belongs. To me it is one of the failings of d20 D&D in general, casters still get their spells, but there is no longer other checks and balanced to keep them in line.


One I choose all the time. I don't need to be optimized or the best at ranged or melee when I can be pretty damn good at both.

That's somewhere we differ. I'm of the opinion that it's better to let the players make the build choices for their characters. The DM already controls everything else in the world. The PCs should be the purview of the players.

You've said you play a pretty heavily house ruled game, so I'm not sure whether that's applicable to those who play RAW.

If your split build is RAW, mind sharing how you do both effectively?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why are you so opposed to giving all classes narrative agency? Right now, we have most classes able to say "this happens", save for a few.

Why is magic codified? Seems a lot of MMI protection for the casting classes... Shouldn't the DM just get to decide whatever the spell does?

Spells and magic exist in the world as discrete abilities that a player can learn and activate. Creating similar effects nonmagically as you describe demands a more narrative system, which D&D has never been, is not very good at when it tries, and many, many other games do better.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree short range, but not much of a damage loss IME, if any at all...

I've explained this already, but I'll try in greater detail.

Drawing a weapon requires an object interaction. You get one of those for free each round, and can also use an action (but that's rarely worth it).

Thrown weapons are weapons, not ammunition (which is free to draw).

Therefore, you can typically only throw one weapon a round. (Free action to draw, action to throw.) You might be able to throw two, IF you were already holding a throwable weapon at the start of your turn

After 4th level you gain Extra Attack, which effectively doubles your damage (more at higher levels). Therefore, using thrown weapons results in AT LEAST a 50% loss of damage starting at 5th level.

I don't know about you, but to me that a huge damage loss.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thrown weapons. Which, as I already pointed out, are an enormous damage loss past 4th level. Not to mention fairly short range.

Sure, it's a little easier with a Dex build. Once you have Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert you're golden. Of course, that's contingent on the DM allowing feats in the first place.

Though I'm of the opinion that the classic Strength build fighter ought to be a viable option too.

To be honest, I really don't get why feats are optional anyway. I wouldn't play 5e without them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree short range, but not much of a damage loss IME, if any at all...

Check how the object interaction rules work. It's hard to get that second attack when you can only draw one weapon a turn.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To be honest, I really don't get why feats are optional anyway. I wouldn't play 5e without them.

I really don't get why magic items are optional anyway. I wouldn't play a fighter without them.

 

[Minigiant]

It’s worth checking out the list of fighters from fiction by Tier linked earlier in the other thread. A small fraction of them fitted that description. Most fitted the classic fighter or possibly the eldritch knight, ranger or Paladin.

I see it. And it fits my narrative.

Don't be offended. Don't be offended.

But a lot of the sources of literature discussed are either D&D books... or pretty old and trace inspiration from the same mythologies and legends.

So people of different lifestyles and experiences might not have those same concepts as the cornerstones of their fantasy fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A complex martial should fit my vision because I would enjoy it.
Counter: It's not feasible to get what you enjoy at all times.

Counter-counter. The point of a class based system is that not all the classes are the same and we can tailor different classes to different people. If you don't like a class you don't have to use it.

Why are you against my fun? It doesn't hurt anything that I ask for what I want.
Counter: I have no stakes in your fun. I don't know what you even do let alone whether you're having fun doing it. But these discussions do hurt things. They muddy discussions and cause flame wars. They instigate hate to not just the product but the people that play them. And most importantly, they distract against the issues that plague the system more than just what you want catered to you. The LGBTQIA+ community still doesn't feel completely safe taking part in this hobby. The black and Asian communities still don't feel completely safe playing the game. Women and non-binary players still get harassed. And while it's not a rules issue, it is a system issue which can be resolved. WoTC has been taking good steps to get there but it take time and resources.

Counter-counter: This is pure whataboutery. And your attempt to use LGBTQIA+ people as a shield in order to tell people that what they want shouldn't be allowed is frankly both insulting and ironic.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's somewhere we differ. I'm of the opinion that it's better to let the players make the build choices for their characters. The DM already controls everything else in the world. The PCs should be the purview of the players.

You've said you play a pretty heavily house ruled game, so I'm not sure whether that's applicable to those who play RAW.

Picking magic items so fighters can fly, etc. as others suggest means those items are part of the game, which the DM (for whatever reason) might not want. Also, the DM can remove any spell from the game for any reason, so even if you play RAW and allow casters to choose spells when they level, the DM really has final say.

Like in life, the players purview is deciding what their characters DO, not what they GET. Some DMs don't play that way, I do.

You've said you play a pretty heavily house ruled game, so I'm not sure whether that's applicable to those who play RAW.

Well, for one thing, our house rules curb the power of casters, especially in tiers 3 and 4, and have (in one fashion or another) for over a year now.

If your split build is RAW, mind sharing how you do both effectively?

Well, you can do a melee / ranged DEX build or a melee / thrown STR build or split the difference.

For example, instead of trying to have a 16 in STR or DEX, I'll have a 14 in both. Sure, my bonus is -1 compared to the optimized build, but they are weaker in the other way by typically being 2 or 3 less, as where I am +1 or +2 better than them.

It is just about balance instead of optimizing IMO. One of my favorite point-buy arrays is 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10. Now, even without racial ASIs I can be +2 in three things which are important, but no dump stat penalties. And with the +2 racial ASI, I can still have a 16.

If I do the racial ASIs right, I can even have 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10.

Check how the object interaction rules work. It's hard to get that second attack when you can only draw one weapon a turn.

Not if you already have weapons out, like when you are carrying those extra 2-3 spears in your shield/off-hand.

Also, Dual Wielder allows you to draw two weapons. And IIRC WotC has released either feats or fighting styles in later publications which allow you to draw a thrown weapon as part of the attack.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not if you already have weapons out, like when you are carrying those extra 2-3 spears in your shield/off-hand.

How did they get into your hand in the first place? It's a very much niche case here.

Also, Dual Wielder allows you to draw two weapons. And IIRC WotC has released either feats or fighting styles in later publications which allow you to draw a thrown weapon as part of the attack.

In short you can throw things competently if and only if you actually invested a feat. Great.