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

[Shardstone]

Use subclasses.

Have Realistic Fighter subclasses, then have fun ones.

Take away two ASIs, add two more subclass features to base, and customizing fighter gets way easier

 

[HammerMan]

The more think about this, the more I like Mort's idea of WotC releasing a bunch of UA material on it to let players and DMs playtest the Dickens out of it and then post public comments on their observed results. It helps not just with questions like "Are these class-types imbalanced?" and, assuming they are, "How best could we rebalance them?," but also with Asisreo's original question of "What are the best reasons for thinking they are excessively imbalanced or thinking they aren't?" Because in a sense, aren't these all ultimately empirical questions, not theoretical ones? And if so, wouldn't an empirical study be the way to answer them?

That's my current post-coffee thinking, anyway.

yeah, if anyone from WoTC is listening(reading) give us 2 months of weekly UA with different warriors with different levels of complexity and power... get the feed back then make a follow (maybe 4-6months later) and that would be great.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think I can boil down the martial problems to two exact points of failure

one is versatility everyone but the rogue is weak outside of combat and this I think we can all agree must be fixed first as right now they just kinda suck.

two awesome lets us face it a level 20 caster is awsome they can do great feats and they have this nice progression system would it not be cool for martial to get something similar as I am comfortable with say having level one be a farmboy with aptitude in the skill whist a level 20 should be rather different how it should be squared away is a separate problem but to be level twenty would clearly make you more than mundane ability.

 

[HammerMan]

Um. Can we not have "realistic" as opposed to "fun" here? I see the distinction you're making, but there are (one must presume) people who find the more realistic approaches to be "fun." Perhaps "gonzo" as an alternative?

how is gonzo not as insulting?

 

[Remathilis]

how is gonzo not as insulting?

Normal is not the antonym of fun, while gonzo can be a lot of fun, depending on your definition of fun.

 

[prabe]

how is gonzo not as insulting?

I have never seen "gonzo" used to describe a TRPG in an insulting manner. I have seen people not prefer it, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

how is gonzo not as insulting?

It's insulting the right people.

 

[Umbran]

how is gonzo not as insulting?

The whole point was that being Gonzo was okay.

 

[HammerMan]

Normal is not the antonym of fun, while gonzo can be a lot of fun, depending on your definition of fun.

I have never seen "gonzo" used to describe a TRPG in an insulting manner. I have seen people not prefer it, but that's not the same thing.

It's insulting the right people.

You know what I am sick of this...

 

[HammerMan]

The whole point was that being Gonzo was okay.

View attachment 151919

no gonzo means crazy... and I am very upset that now a mod is adding to the insult.