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

[HammerMan]

That's homebrew. And a flavorful homebrew is extremely easy to do

no it isn't... for the last 5 years my group has tested at least 4 whole different house rules to get to work and they have not worked as wanted.
homebrew is easy if you don't care if it works as intended or not. If you want it to work and be balanced it's hard.

there is a reason no one is paying me to write rules.

 

[Asisreo]

No one is asking you to pretend to sympathize with people but I do think that you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding rationalized or fully thought-out explanations before you are willing to extend sympathy to others.

To be clear, I do empathize a little. I have a few classes I'd like to see return or appear in D&D with their own playstyle, but saying I'm even disappointed would be too strong. But I don't understand the difference from what I don't get which I am only minority inconvenienced at best to what others don't get that becomes such a massive problem that it spawns thread with 50+ pages every month.

you can be okay with it... but with new adventures catering to less combat do you understand that the problem comes up when you play that stylle?

I can see that. I'd have to play Witchlight to completely understand, but I can see the issue if an official adventure might make an archetype less engaging.

It depends on how they handle it, I guess.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't have any opinion for or against it. I want to know your POV of this, because right now, if WoTC didn't cater to you, I wouldn't really feel any way. I can't feel motivated to rally behind a cause that I don't understand. It's said that it's a huge problem, but I don't see it. And so far, the only confirmation that it is a problem is from a total of...5 people online that have told me it's a problem, but aren't exactly telling me why.

I think a lot of us have given reasons in this thread, but to be explicit:

• It to me makes for much more consistent and coherent worldbuilding when in a magical setting there are things that are larger than life or even supernatural that aren't spells.
• It to me makes for much more consistent and coherent worldbuilding that people have learned to integrate supernatural abilities in things they've trained to excel at
• We're basing the archetypes on action movies and mythology anyway - not delivering this is not following through on promises given.
• It doesn't make a mockery of the level system in which the fighter doesn't get a single new ability (only extra uses of existing ones) from levels 12-19.
• It doesn't have the fighter basically being a glorified commoner out of combat at all levels.
• It leads to a wider variety of characters I personally find engaging, interesting, and inspiring; I know that others think the way I do here.
• It leads to options that have visibly made my friends have more fun when gaming

Frankly, this case feels overwhelming to me.

The arguments I've seen against it:

• Some people on the internet don't like others to have their sort of fun when it doesn't hurt anyone.
• There are a fewsettings where it's appropriate to have magic users
  • In almost all these settings D&D magic in general and 5e magic in specific is inappropriate; you want something more like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay magic
  • oD&D dungeoncrawls where almost all the wizard's spells are loot is the other exception - but that hasn't been the dominant form of play since at least the mid 80s and probably the early 80s
• Some people seem to think that non-mundane characters will no longer exist, rather than being only a few subclasses (such as the berserker barbarian and the battlemaster; no one is advocating for removing the battlemaster)
• Some people seem to think that if options are added they don't like they'll be forced to play using them.
• It breaks with tradition. And smells of 4e.

I've seen no arguments against that I recall that don't fit these headings.

And going back to basics and ignoring most of the numbers:

• At level 1:
  • A fighter has a basic speed of 30ft walking and in combat swings their sharpened piece of metal hard and fast at a target within its physical reach
  • A wizard has a basic speed of 30ft walking and in combat can cast Burning Hands a couple of times per day.
• At level 20:
  • A fighter has a basic speed of 30ft walking and in combat swings their magically fast piece of metal harder and faster at a target within its physical reach
  • A wizard has possibly True Polymorphed itself permanently into an adult red dragon, which means they fly and can fire breath one round in three - and everything else they can do.

It's not that hard to argue that the level 1 characters are balanced with each other. It's possible but very hard to argue that the level 20 characters are balanced. It's ridiculous to argue that both are.

 

[Remathilis]

I think an easier way to frame this is that all PCs are extraordinary in some way..which should be universally true in a game based on heroic fantasy.

It can be any of the things you've listed or it could just be exceptional genetics, biochemistry, metabolism, etc. It doesn't really matter that much why they can do incredible things as it does whether they can do incredible things.

The why is all flavor at the end of the day

I actually have no problem with that. D&D is high magic and high fantasy, so if every class is tapping into a higher power (magic, divinity, ki, psionics, etc) to fuel thier supernatural abilities, I'm ok with this.

I'm not ok with "my completely normal person can now do supernatural things because he killed enough goblins." Good for you, how's killing goblins allowing you to jump 60 ft or suplex dragons? If the answer is "because I have wellspring of magical power that makes me a superhero" we're cool.

But I do want to emphasize that really does kill the whole "low magic/grim and gritty" play style stone dead. If we're all cool with that, let's do it.

 

[Umbran]

But I do want to emphasize that really does kill the whole "low magic/grim and gritty" play style stone dead. If we're all cool with that, let's do it.

I am not sure D&D over level 10 really serves the "low magic/grim and grity" style well anyway. That really seems to call for E6 or E10, or some other variant.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think Rage has the design space for:

• Breath Weapon
• Wings
• Large size
• Eye rays
• Water breathing
• Scales or Hide
• Spines

It can do some things like elemental attacks or natural attacks. But a barbarian doesn't really shift to a different monstrous style of play.

Why not? Especially as the Path of the Beast and the Path of the Storm Herald both already allow for water breathing. And I see nothing against breath weapons if we already have auras and extra attacks from beast and storm respectively. We've a reaction to reduce damage already from Ancestors, which inflicts damage on the attacker at level 14 so scales or hide shouldn't be hard - and neither should spine. And if the Rune Knight can switch to large why not have a barbarian hulk out?

That basically leaves eye rays (the barbarian is a melee not a ranged combatant) and wings (which is a weird rage transformation).

The D&D 5e nonmagical Tinker would be more warrior than expected due to the base weaknesses or unreliability of advanced tech balanced to the " of the time" tech. Especially with the expectations of combat prowess of all characters.

The D&D 5e non-magical Tinker would almost certainly be a rogue subclass. Probably one mixing Artificer Infusions and explosions because this is an adventurer.

 

[Minigiant]

So, the Barbarian isn't just Rage. For example.

The 5e Barbarian is. Very few barbarian features are not connected to Rage.

That's my point. The class is mostly tied that Rage. And that Rage, via the Berserker subclass, cannot go more than 1 extra weapon attack without taking a level of exhaustion.

Sorry, but now you seem to just be making a wish list of personal ideas, rather than drawing on common extant tropes.

Having your personal wish list is fine, but you can't expect core rules to satisfy them. Build a real Renaissance setting, and include variants of several classes for it, and you'd have something.

It isn't personal. It's modern medieval fantasy. Clocks, explosives, acids, flammables, firearms, and other gadgetry existed in the time of full plate armor and long blades. Many fantasy series of the the genre display scholars and sages of nonmagical arts. Even base D&D rock gnomes tinker.

D&D however also had issues running item based character whose items are powered nor summoned by magic. This is why the default item and took class in D&D is the blatantly magic using Artificer. It is also why nonmagical rangers rarely get off the ground However without magic, the strain of believability would push such a scholar or sage to more warrior or roguish paths.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Because combat is generally the longest and deadliest parts of D&D. If a character is bad at combat, they likely are going to die and they won't be a character anymore. Combat is also generally one of the most fun aspects for, from my experience, most players. Social and exploration are a more niche category of the game and players use those to get to the next fight quite often. It's important to know "social" and "exploration" is distinct from narrative.

If that's your preferred style, that's fine. But you get that it's not everyone's preference, right?

While my table really enjoys combat, we also enjoy non-combat, and it's a lot more important than just using it to "get to the next fight". Non-combat has a much more profound impact on our campaigns than combat.

Even if you would not benefit from a fighter "buff" in any meaningful sense, others certainly would, and it would improve their experience.

 

[Mort]

But I do want to emphasize that really does kill the whole "low magic/grim and gritty" play style stone dead. If we're all cool with that, let's do it.

5e can't justifiably be called a grim and gritty game - certainly not with the base assumptions in place. Especially not with casters at default level!

 

[payn]

I am not sure D&D over level 10 really serves the "low magic/grim and grity" style well anyway. That really seems to call for E6 or E10, or some other variant.

I dont know if that is even possible in the desired D&D as described.