D&D 5E (2014) Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Unfortunately, the main issue still exists: just how big is the gap?

What do you need such a class to do to satisfy the majority who would want it?

I've seen so many options (superhero from level 1 to superhero later on) that I can't even begin to organize them. How often would their features be usable? At will, a few times? Recharge on short rest? Long rest?

Do they stop at Hercules or Thor or "more"?

And so on...

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

THANK YOU! Great tie in, LOL!

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I think the issue comes not from people who want a "non-supernatural fighter" but from the people who want a "simple fighter".

I have long said that the fighter could be bounded by reality weapon master and work in the D&D reality. The issue is the 5e fighter isn't "that fighter". "That fighter" isn't simple. The issue is that "high level realistic warrior" isn't simple. It's faster than the 5r fighter. It has more skills than the 5e fighter. It has more offenses and defenses than the 5e fighter.

The argument is misguided very often. The problem is the simplicity.

If the 5e fighter is just "more attacks and more damaging attacks" it can't do much when attacking for pure damage is impossible, ill-advised, inefficient, or unhelpful.

This is why in comics and action books, warriors tend to either be more well rounded or have ways to reliably convert attack power into defense or utility.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Ive said this before. Some got offended.

However I've state a long time ago. D&D has grown to a point where many of the fans have such vastly different experiences and views in the various media that many of them have completely different images and expectations of the various classic D&D classes and races.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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)

IT?

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the pizza topping analogy is strained & off the mark at best. The intercharacter balance & question of where tradeoffs should come is too important to dismiss in that fashion becaus d&d is a game where everyone plays with a similarly equal character than falls apart if one class is overpowered from the others to such a degree that it's among the best at everything. Even if someone is sympathetic to improving fighter the question of how much to improve it depends on what tradeoffs are being made & without tradeoffs there needs to be an extremely strong case not being made.

A better analogy might be going to capital griille with friends & agreeing to split the bill, for those not familiar it's a famously expensive chain known for business lunches someone else pays for. The friends should be up front about things like "are we getting drinks" "entrees or just the early bird appetizer things?" & similar. These kinds of questions are akin to asking about the tradeoffs. If everyone agrees to drinks & orders a ~15-20$glass that's ok, but not so ok if bob doesn't mention that he's ordering a glass of macallan25 with three digits before the decimal or a 98$ bottle of wine. Likewise Alice ordering lobster & filet is different than the time Bob ordered the one non-shellfish thing at that seafood place due to a shellfish allergy even if it was a bit pricey.


Bob's macallen25 or 98$ bottle of wine is no good because it makes the friends no longer similarly on the bill like how they are at the table in d&d. The shellfish thing with Alice is likewise a good analogy because it's a very good reason like the beastmaster ranger's pet being shifted from almost useless at its intended purpose to being somewhat useful at it's purpose. We aren't talking about changing a poorly designed feature to bring value worth the cost, it's about things like fighters getting to fly at level 11

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Personally, I would just order two pizzas and make the people each pay for the type they wanted.

Not to beat this to death but that leads to an even worse situation:

"This place has personal pan pizzas!"
"Great I'll order pepperoni"
"Great, I'll order mushroom"
"Wait a minute. You can't order mushroom!"
"Why not, I really like mushroom?"
"Because I don't like mushroom."
"But your not eating mushroom?"
"Well, I can't stand people eating mushroom pizza in the same room as me. So there."

 

[Undrave]

I think the issue comes not from people who want a "non-supernatural fighter" but from the people who want a "simple fighter".

I have long said that the fighter could be bounded by reality weapon master and work in the D&D reality. The issue is the 5e fighter isn't "that fighter". "That fighter" isn't simple. The issue is that "high level realistic warrior" isn't simple. It's faster than the 5r fighter. It has more skills than the 5e fighter. It has more offenses and defenses than the 5e fighter.

The argument is misguided very often. The problem is the simplicity.

If the 5e fighter is just "more attacks and more damaging attacks" it can't do much when attacking for pure damage is impossible, ill-advised, inefficient, or unhelpful.

This is why in comics and action books, warriors tend to either be more well rounded or have ways to reliably convert attack power into defense or utility.

When moving from 4e to 5e WotC killed the Warlord and gave some of its stuff to the Fighter as some sort of peace offering (if you wish).

I think they went about it the wrong way: they should have killed the Fighter and gave his stuff, and name, to the Warlord.

The old Fighting Man would eventually because master of his own domain and gain followers. The 'Mundane Leader of Man' trope has been in D&D since the start and is the design space the Fighter SHOULD be occupying. Instead of getting random NPC followers, he should just be better at teamwork with the other players. That simple warrior who hits thing with a big stick? That's what the Berzerker Barbarian is for now. We don't need two of those guys.

The 5e Fighter should have been a Warlord in disguise with the Battlemaster as a baseline instead of building the entire chassis to desperately accommodate the Champion... All in an effort to tell 3e Grognards (who probably NEVER play Fighters) "Look! A SIMPLE fighter! He gets more attack and more feats! That's a real Fighter like you like!".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not to beat this to death but that leads to an even worse situation:

"This place has personal pan pizzas!"
"Great I'll order pepperoni"
"Great, I'll order mushroom"
"Wait a minute. You can't order mushroom!"
"Why not, I really like mushroom?"
"Because I don't like mushroom."
"But your not eating mushroom?"
"Well, I can't stand people eating mushroom pizza in the same room as me. So there."

What other people play ir do in a game you are participating in can make a difference in your enjoyment. Its not a good analogy.

 

[Asisreo]

Those who most strongly oppose buffing martials and/or nerfing casters, what do you say are the best reasons for someone to support doing so despite your clear objections? What are their best arguments, in your opinion?

They feel nerfed and underwhelmed. It's hard to make a character only to realize that the character underperforms in the fantasy you feel like it advertised. And that feeling is inherent with most martial classes since you can't play a mythical warrior fantasy with just the fighter's chassis.

There's also the comparative issue that if you play alongside a caster, that caster is being helpful via their plethora of utility and when you want to join in, you realize that the tools given to you by the martial option not only doesn't keep up, but they don't even come close. Putting that alongside the fact that your combat options have hardly changed since level 1 and you start to feel like martials don't amount to much.

Those are the two arguments that I can't truly argue against.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They feel nerfed and underwhelmed. It's hard to make a character only to realize that the character underperforms in the fantasy you feel like it advertised. And that feeling is inherent with most martial classes since you can't play a mythical warrior fantasy with just the fighter's chassis.

There's also the comparative issue that if you play alongside a caster, that caster is being helpful via their plethora of utility and when you want to join in, you realize that the tools given to you by the martial option not only doesn't keep up, but they don't even come close. Putting that alongside the fact that your combat options have hardly changed since level 1 and you start to feel like martials don't amount to much.

Those are the two arguments that I can't truly argue against.

Is there anyone who plays a fighter but expects the versatility of a wizard?