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

[DND_Reborn]

Can wizards fly and levitate at will? When did that happen?

I think it was upthread someplace... or maybe in one of the other threads on this?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

This is where I see a disconnect. The fighter isn't fine for you. I know this and respect this. But why not ignore the fighter and play the classes that exist already?

Also, personally, I would like to avoid unnecessary bloat. If the new martial does the same thing as, say, a druid, then it is just a reskinned druid with the flavor of being "nonmagical."

Bloat ship sailed when we have useless garbage like the sorcerer and a half dozen other casters. They just added the artificer. Another class, high level feats, and high level maneuvers isnt a big ask.

I can't play the class I want because a few noisy and selfish types are intent on keeping anything that doesnt cast spells in the sidekick realm. At this point, if you dont understand the issue, it because you are willfully not listening.

Reskining is ok but can be a lot of work. So I turn a fly spell into a super jump to attack a flier but then have to land at the end to maintain the reskin so now I'm not getting the full value of out of the resource. Why not have a professional design team tackle this? And many spells are not appropriate to reskin. It's not a one to one despite people claiming otherwise (only the people that don't want this option are claiming this of course).

But who cares what the specifics are at this point? We aren't going to design a new Class by message board.

What we have is an indication that there is a gap in both concept and mechanics for some people. These people both don't want the current Fighter and would find it inadequete and tiresome to reskin other existing classes. We have a directional concept to pursue.

And these people are happy to play within the current bounds of power, versatility, and Narrative control of the Wizard. And these people are happy to leave the current classes as is and design a new Class.

So let a bunch of these likeminded people get together with professional designers to create something that will meet their needs and include it as an optional option.

 

[TheSword]

Those guys didn't go on adventures with D&D casters. I'm sure the BMX Bandit is great in his solo show.

Well yeah, plenty did. Geralt of Rivia did, everyone from Eddings did, everyone from Jordan did.

 

[Neonchameleon]

except compare apples to apples

a fighter level 10 or less with the same weapons and only 1 ASI/Feat more then an equal level cleric with the same weapon and same feats (Minus 1 ASI/feat)

I was. I specifically mentioned subclasses as well as feats - and that good fighter subclasses are ones that give uses for either your bonus action, your immediate action, or both.

• The Battlemaster has Riposte which is an exceptionally easy to get third attack per turn on their interrupt - and recover on a short rest
• The Psi Warrior can throw up a barrier to cancel an attack's worth of damage on their interrupt, repeatedly
• The Echo Knight uses their bonus to create the echo, which can shield a blow - and can then opportunity attack with the echo, giving better use of immediate actions
• The Rune Knight has an immediate to redirect an attack, an immediate to charm, and at higher levels can use their bonus to either go barbarian-tough or use interrupts to force rerolls.

Rangers, paladins, and the rest don't get such good use of their additional actions.

The point about the fighter's third ASI/feat is that a fighter is the only class that can take a full feat before level 10 without giving up a 20 in their primary stat if using the standard array. So yes, that extra level 6 feat is actually pretty meaningful. It's IMO more important than having two extra feats at L16.

Those aren't fighter feats though. Moreover, there's no high level feats like there are with spells. No feat chains. Each subsequent feat is the next best choice.

If the feats had been designed well then this shouldn't be an issue because a feat should multiply your effectiveness so if one makes you 50% more effective two . However normally they clash a bit. An example of two that work really well together are Crossbow Expert (with a single hand crossbow) to give you a bonus action attack and not worry about in melee, and Sharpshooter for the power attack and not worrying about cover or long range. And an ASI stacks with all of that. The impact should be multiplicative.

However that's pretty much a best case scenario. Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master have their main features stacking but the extra attacks from GWM become pointless.

And yeah, monks. Monks are versatile in the sense that they CAN do a lot of stuff. But since almost all of it draws from a very, very limited resource (Ki) that versatility is more theoretical than actual - especially at the levels people actually play. I think the latter monk subclasses (such as way of mercy) have done a decent job at addressing some of the concerns - but it doesn't help the core class (or some of the earlier subclasses such as 4 elements, which could be so cool - but isn't).

This depends on the subclass. The reason the Shadow Monk works is that its extra ability to spend ki points are for exploration (and assassination) while the standard monk's ki points are for combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not true. There are several ranged weapons that key off strength. There are also perfectly good ways of playing a melee fighter that key off Dex.

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

optional option

Huh??? As opposed to a required option? (j/k)



(I know what you meant, it just sounded funny to me.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you're a Strength based fighter, you probably went for Constitution over Dexterity. Let's say your Strength is 18 but your Dexterity is only 12. You're taking a -3 to hit and -3 to damage. And possibly losing even more damage if your primary weapon is magical or you have feats to boost your melee efficacy.

Not to be rude, but that sounds like a personal choice that player made to focus on Strength over Dexterity, perhaps to make use of high-damage two-handed weapons and their associated feats. Even then, they can and should have a ranged weapon handy for situations like the one you describe.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

They can. It’s called the Eldritch Knight. Levitate at 8th level. Fly at 14th level.

In other word one subclass can - and only the one that wiggles their fingers and recites magic words. Most can't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You don't need to go full-on WBL. Let's say the fighter got to choose something like 4 items from a fixed list over the course of 20 levels. That doesn't seem like it would force the whole system to shift to the new difficulty level at all. I mean, the artificer already gets a version of this, and it hasn't broken the game.

Some have argued it comes close...