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

[Minigiant]

Presumably a simple fighter could be good at melee combat, ranged, exploration and social all at once.

Not without being unbalanced and stepping on the toes of every other class hard.

That's the issue. Balancing it requires
the nuance that makes it not simple.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I don’t think we need a simple Wizard and a complex Wizard. I just think we need a single well designed wizard.

I think we already have that in the sorcerer and wizard.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not without being unbalanced and stepping on the toes of every other class hard.

That's the issue. Balancing it requires
the nuance that makes it not simple.

In some ways I agree. In others….

If we cared that the wizards toes got stepped on their would be no sorcerer or bard. If we cared that the clerics toes got stepped on their would be no Druid. If we care that the fighters toes got stepped on their would be no ranger, barbarian or Paladin.

D&D is full of classes designed to step on other classes toes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think we already have that in the sorcerer and wizard.

Doesn’t really seem Either is more or less simple than the other. Or at least not meaningfully enough so to call it out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In some ways I agree. In others….

If we cared that the wizards toes got stepped on their would be no sorcerer or bard. If we cared that the clerics toes got stepped on their would be no Druid. If we care that the fighters toes got stepped on their would be no ranger, barbarian or Paladin.

D&D is full of classes designed to step on other classes toes.

Didn't the wizard players slap an option out of the sorcerer's mouth when some splat was about to drop? I can't remember the details, but it would have let Sorcs prepare spells and that was a stone too far into hurting Special Class's niche.

 

[HammerMan]

I don’t think we need a simple Wizard and a complex Wizard. I just think we need a single well designed wizard.

but we have them...

we have artificers and warlocks, then a step up with sorcerers, then a step up with wizards...

we also have bard, druids, and cleric that depends on your POV were they fit in the caster line up... and 1/2 to 1/3 of those classes are basicly 80% fighter+ spells

The same goes for me in regards to fighter. My take would be that he gets made as simple as possible while still covering the bases. I think they accomplished this with wizards but not fighters.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Most of the complexity is in the spell choice between adventures for the wizard, and the static list for the sorcerer. But, yes, they're not worlds apart.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The connecting factor is that I'm open for new ideas and to have my mind changed. Despite what others might think of me being an unmoving, martial-hating witch who only seeks to invalidate everything from the other side, I've actually gained deeper insight throughout this exceptionally long thread.

I'm thinking that maybe someone will say something I haven't heard before or say it in a way that let's me interpret it differently. I think never listening to the other side, even when you disagree, is more wrong than any rebuttal that can be made.

That is not a connecting thread between those motivations, it is a justification for one of them.

You have sought out and solicited these opinions, points of view, insights, whatever. It seems that you have done so despite your feeling that such discussion is a waste of time and energy, and maybe actually harmful to the community.

If I came to you and said..
"Let's talk about something you care about" . ..and during the course of that conversation also said..
"You know..even talking about this is kind of silly when there are so much more important things to talk about"

It would be fair to question my commitment to sincere discourse on the topic that you care about.

Perhaps that is unfair, but that is how it looks.

 

[Asisreo]

Another thing and if I mentioned it previously and forgot, forgive me.

The whole "martial" and "caster" definitions are odd to center the argument about, because so many different divides could be made that make the game feel bad.

"Have you noticed none of the nature-based casters have Healing Word? Why does WoTC dislike druids that primarily heal?"

"How come striker characters get Evasion but tank characters have to lose hit points?"

"Has anyone noticed the classes with W never get extra attack yet the classes with B has access to it? "

I get that "martial" is a legacy thing, but the rest of the categories never come into this discussion. It's not martials vs divine vs Arcane. Its lumping 4 classes against 8 other classes and saying that the system is unbalanced.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can and do play other systems, but that doesn't change D&D being the most impactful game on the market. What playstyles it supports matters in a way that other systems don't.

Do those playstyles have to be officially supported? Again, I will beat the 3rd party drum here. WotC will never make D&D everything that everyone wants. But someone out there in the uncharted wilds of the internet has already made what you want. You just have to let go of this ridiculous notion that WotC is somehow better than other companies. They really, really aren't. They just happen to own the IP.