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

[Mort]

A lot of people try to peg the fighter low like that to make the class look worse than the class is. With all the extra ASIs, the smart fighter will have an 18 dex by 10th level and be kicking flying monster rear when it arrives.

Sure, but, especially with standard point buy, this assumes quite a bit of sacrifice on the strength fighter!

It means instead of juicy feats like great weapon master, sentinel or polearm master, the fighter increases Dex. So he sacrifices his melee capability to be more versatile and well rounded - that may be smart play, but it's hardly fair as the wizard just gets better and better toys (spells). Plus, he has no room to increase Con now- also a big sacrifice! And forget out of combat utility by increasing CHA or a fun feat like prodigy -that's WAY down the list.

 

[TwoSix]

I know right it is not like buffing martials will lead to casters suffering somehow?

Well, some of us are also totally on-board the "nerf casters" train.

Whether you "buff martials" or "nerf casters" is really a question of what you envision higher level D&D should look like.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but, especially with standard point buy, this assumes quite a bit of sacrifice on the strength fighter!

It means instead of juicy feats like great weapon master, sentinel or polearm master, the fighter increases Dex. So he sacrifices his melee capability to be more versatile and well rounded - that may be smart play, but it's hardly fair as the wizard just gets better and better toys (spells). Plus, he has no room to increase Con now- also a big sacrifice! And forget out of combat utility by increasing CHA or a fun feat like prodigy -that's WAY down the list.

Yep. Admittedly, I haven't seen a ton of fighters at the table, but the ones I've seen have generally been specialized.

I agree that fighters should be much more of a generalist class, but the undeniable logic of using feat and stat synergy pushes against it.

 

[Asisreo]

Well when people write long dismissive posts in which they claim that they want to understand the other side, but then take every opportunity they can to dismiss and invalidate those concerns/opinions expressed by those people, it tends to get those people riled up.

I suppose the alternative is to be permissive and validate something when I simply disagree?

Is it frustrating to be questioned all the time? Sure. But I want this to be a stage where you can get past the emotional side and discuss the deeper side of things.

Without further questioning the statements in this thread, the thread has already moved into the stage where people start brainstorming ideas to "fix" this and then others say "it's not enough" and go back and forth.

But we still aren't at the heart of the problem. I don't think I'm just correct on principle but I'm also not going to be bullied into agreeing with others without actually understanding them. If you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to.

I specifically mentioned I would be questioning others, and I was up for questioning. That seems fair, right? Even if we don't like the answers, we can delve deeper and further the discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but, especially with standard point buy, this assumes quite a bit of sacrifice on the strength fighter!

It means instead of juicy feats like great weapon master, sentinel or polearm master, the fighter increases Dex.

He's doing both and having it all by 10th level when more and more flyers are encountered.

Plus, he has no room to increase Con now- also a big sacrifice! And forget out of combat utility by increasing CHA or a fun feat like prodigy -that's WAY down the list.

Yes, it's not perfect, but no class should be, or is. Not even wizards. I will also say this again, since it needs repeating, but I do think that fighters need a some(not a lot, but some) improvement in the other two pillars to be built into the class.

There is disparity, but it's not as great as many are trying to make it out to be.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Can someone sum up with the last 10 pages were about. I really have lost track of this conversation

Well, it started with this:

Went to this:

Had a side tangent/discussion about this:

And is approaching this...

Yeah, I think that about covers it. Anyone know if I missed anything?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it started with this:
View attachment 152091
Went to this:
View attachment 152092
Had a side tangent/discussion about this:
View attachment 152093
And is approaching this...
View attachment 152094

Yeah, I think that about covers it. Anyone know if I missed anything?

Well you didn’t take a side…

 

[Mind of tempest]

my understanding is that it will...

I still imagine a 20th level champion fighter (but with only 10hd, and magic items for a 10th level character) could do well with a war domain cleric of 10th level... but with the cleric still having more options and more 1 button win buttons... so I'm not sure that power helps at all. Giving the fighter MORE POWER doesn't really address the issue.

we have the problems of lack of sufficient awesome and versatility which last time I checked is what the real argument should be about what is the best way to buff those two key areas, not over white room math or what is perfectly balanced.

Well, some of us are also totally on-board the "nerf casters" train.

Whether you "buff martials" or "nerf casters" is really a question of what you envision higher level D&D should look like.

I would take a buff over a nerf as the complaining will be only of the fun kind that I enjoy dealing with.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. Admittedly, I haven't seen a ton of fighters at the table, but the ones I've seen have generally been specialized.

I agree that fighters should be much more of a generalist class, but the undeniable logic of using feat and stat synergy pushes against it.

That and even if we assume having dex and str is superior to str and feats or dex and feats then we still have to talk about out of combat mental stats being low.

 

[TwoSix]

People get so mad about this, but for what? Where's the anger coming from. How is it this frustrating that even a thread that started with an innocent basis goes up to 45 pages in less than a week?

People get mad because the caster-martial divide is a stand-in for a deeper division between visions of what D&D should be like. The game simply can't be packaged as a big enough tent to include everyone's vision because so many concepts are mutually exclusive. People are attached to D&D, so naturally they're going to feel strongly about concepts that are totemic as to what the game is all about.