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

[HammerMan]

But why can Hercules move a river? He's the son of a God.

why can merlin cast magic...it's not cause he went to hogwarts....
why can Gandalf do what he does.... not cause he studied spell books

every hero has an origin. stop holding origins against people or else we have no wizards either

Superman punch reality? He's an alien who gains power from the sun.

every hero has an origin

They are "magical" in the sense that they aren't mortals.

every hero has an origin... if I say my fighter is desendent of a god or alien is that enough for my fighter to have cool things? is it only humans that can't?

They have special birthrights that set them apart. They aren't normal people who trained hard enough to punch reality.

and none of the wizards of lore are either...

And if the goal is that every class is "Magical" in some way, be it spells, superhuman abilities or whatever, that's fine. Barbarian rage and monk's ki are basically magical in nature, so it's not a giant stretch. The only thing you're losing is the true everyman archetype,

then keep fighter and make a new class "mystic warrior" or warlord, or warblade, or swordsage...

and it wasn't exactly a big one anyway. Now, your fighter isn't just a farmboy who learned to fight, your fighter is a farmboy who found out he's the last survivor of a dead world, or the son of a powerful Force user, or the seventh son of a seventh son, etc.

aand that is true of all literature

EVERY HERO HAS AN ORIGIN...

 

[jayoungr]

this is also why I bring up moving rivers, punching through time and retcon punch... all well within 8th to 9th level spell range... earthquake stomp is easy 8th level...

I think a fighter with those abilities would feel like a caster, to me.

 

[Asisreo]

As I've made clear in my above post there's a difference between magic and spells. If I'm taking actions to cast specific spells with verbal, somatic, and material components and that people can counterspell then I'm an armoured wizard.

By your definition, clerics, paladins, Warlocks, Bards, and Rangers are armored wizards, while druids and Sorcerers are unarmored wizards. I don't think the only thing that makes a wizard is just that they can cast spells with components.

Anyways, that doesn't matter as much as the question of: why do you want to play such a character in D&D.

Simple casters are needed for an obvious reason - people want to play casters but get intimidated by D&D rules.

Are those people numerous enough to cater to? While I sympathize with the adage of "no man left behind," can we truly take into account everyone that might have a bad experience and is it even feasible to try to alleviate them all? If not, then why is this a focus?

However, if you're running something like the new Witchlight adventure, where combat is less of a focus, and the fighter player is bored as a result, then it's a very clear and present issue.

How would this theoretically new class alleviate that issue any more than changing into a Ranger or bard or wizard would?

I'm assuming the player either didn't know the class or didn't know the campaign beforehand. In either case, if they chose fighter initially, the existence of Warlord wouldn't make the fighter any different. The character would have to change classes anyways. So the dissatisfaction would be exactly the same and the situation didn't change: the fighter character was bored and had to switch classes.

So then where does the exclusion of magic come in? It's fair to say that fighters are boring and you'd want to switch classes, that's personal opinion. That doesn't mean the fighter shouldn't exist, and I don't think that was a suggested solution. But somehow a nonmagical martial does what the fighter doesn't and suddenly people aren't finding fighters boring?

And should one utility martial be enough? Let's say warlord is added as the perfect complex martial, whatever that may look like. Well, now martials are boring, except warlord. And that's somehow not a problem? So the player that wants a barbarian-esque character with complex utility has to change classes to a tactical, utility river-mover. Their desired playstyle is still partially left out.

 

[Aldarc]

But isn't part of the problem there isn't a thing on that list that a 7th level wizard can't equally accomplish with a spell? Running and jumping are 1st level spells. Demoralizing a foe is 1st to 3rd. Smashing walls and feats of strength are maybe 2nd-4th level, depending on exact nature.

Now I'm not saying a fighter SHOULDN'T have those kinds of abilities; they should. But we've maybe moved the needle from a fighter having the shenanigans of a first level caster to that of a 6th level caster. Major improvement, but not quite the equality some people are looking for.

Would a high level Fighter performing something analogous to Foresight in combat be out of place for many of the tales, stories, and myths surrounding epic warriors? Or is that also strictly limited to spellcasters?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Not all magic is spells.

This is very true, but D&D has traditionally had a very tight relationship between magic and spellcasting. Magic schools and types slapped onto other magic effects, magic items replicating spells or needing to be crafted through casting spells, etc.

It doesn't really matter, but that's why I prefer "Mythic" abilities or "Fantastic" abilities vs. "Magical".

It's the idea that the martial pulls on the essence of the world itself being a fantastical place rather than a specific spellcaster way of accessing power (prayer, study, etc)

For some people this doesn't matter, but I think for people wanting Mythic Martials it matters a lot to differentiating their abilities.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But isn't part of the problem there isn't a thing on that list that a 7th level wizard can't equally accomplish with a spell? Running and jumping are 1st level spells. Demoralizing a foe is 1st to 3rd. Smashing walls and feats of strength are maybe 2nd-4th level, depending on exact nature.

Now I'm not saying a fighter SHOULDN'T have those kinds of abilities; they should. But we've maybe moved the needle from a fighter having the shenanigans of a first level caster to that of a 6th level caster. Major improvement, but not quite the equality some people are looking for.

1) It's still better than 'attack, attack, yawn, attack'
2) I'm being conservative to avoid the ~verisimilitude~ naysaying. This is levels 1-5. Then we start suplexing triceratopses and punching beam and ray spells aside.

 

[HammerMan]

Person 1: Fighters are fine as they are. I've never had a problem with having high level Fighters and Wizards in my party.

Person 2: Cool, I want to have a real on and off the field martial leader. Here's a draft of the Warlord -- it gets all these powerful cool abilities but I think it's fine because they aren't really better than the Wizard's spells at those levels.

Person 1: Whoa, that's way overpowered. The Fighter doesn't get anything near that.

Person 2: I'm not comparing it to the Fighter, I'm comparing it to the Wizard which you said was fine???

Person 1: The Fighter is fine, but no one will play a Fighter if you add this Warlord.

this is ever conversation... "Hey complex fighter on par with a warlock, weaker and less options then a cleric/wizard or druid... shouldn't be better more powerful or complex then the fighter..." then what is the point.

you can give 2 attacks full weapon/armor and 9th level spells to 1/2 the clerics in the game... if you can't make a class that has weapons armor and options on par with 1/2 casters (6th level spells) then it is BS.

 

[Asisreo]

at this point its' antidote vs antidoet... it's "I want X" vs "I don't want X"

why come to a thread about wanting X just to say you don't want X...

It's funny you say that. I didn't come to this thread, I am the OP. And this thread wasn't (intended) to be about what people want from a complex martial, it is to understand each other and to form a discussion.

 

[HammerMan]

I think a fighter with those abilities would feel like a caster, to me.

okay... so don't take those options...

 

[Fanaelialae]

How would this theoretically new class alleviate that issue any more than changing into a Ranger or bard or wizard would?

I'm assuming the player either didn't know the class or didn't know the campaign beforehand. In either case, if they chose fighter initially, the existence of Warlord wouldn't make the fighter any different. The character would have to change classes anyways. So the dissatisfaction would be exactly the same and the situation didn't change: the fighter character was bored and had to switch classes.

So then where does the exclusion of magic come in? It's fair to say that fighters are boring and you'd want to switch classes, that's personal opinion. That doesn't mean the fighter shouldn't exist, and I don't think that was a suggested solution. But somehow a nonmagical martial does what the fighter doesn't and suddenly people aren't finding fighters boring?

And should one utility martial be enough? Let's say warlord is added as the perfect complex martial, whatever that may look like. Well, now martials are boring, except warlord. And that's somehow not a problem? So the player that wants a barbarian-esque character with complex utility has to change classes to a tactical, utility river-mover. Their desired playstyle is still partially left out.

I think you meant to quote someone else.

Fwiw, while I'm not opposed to new classes, I see that as secondary. I really think that the fighter ought to be improved, rather than focusing on adding new options that make the fighter worse in comparison. With a better fighter, you have more space to add new classes without making the fighter obsolete.