D&D 5E What martial options would make those characters feel equal to casters?

[ECMO3]

what could we add to martials to give them a similar level of effectiveness and flexibility?

The easiest thing is to just not play them as classes and encourage those characters to play something they find more effective and flexible.

I am generally not a fan of playing martials (other than Ranger or Fighter multiclass dips), but it is not because the characters are weak, rather they are very powerful but "thin" in my experience compared to other classes and not as fun for me to play. That isn't an argument to change the classes though. It is simply a reason I don't generally play them. Others in my group do play them though, and they have a lot of fun with them.

The great thing about 5E is you don't need a martial in the party, you can play a group of 4 wizards or 4 Rogues and get along just fine. So if the classes are not as good for your players have them pick something else, and you can even do that while keeping the theme they were looking for. If you absolutely want no spells take a strength-based Rogue and expertise in Athletics. Then add a background to the character to emphasize the theme you are looking for - soldier, gladiator, city watch (fighter) ..... uthguard tribe member, athlete, outlander (Barbarian) .... bounty hunter, folk hero, far traveler, Hermit (Ranger) ..... Accolyte, Knight, noble (Paladin). Problem solved, you have a very high utility and highly flexible character with the theme you are looking for.

 

[Stormonu]

As a target, I would put Olympic levels of skill uses at about 6th level. Something like Beowulf swimming the English channel at about 10th. Herculean feats around 15th. That's the sort of things I think we should be shooting for.

So, some ideas:

BASE ABILITIES
Combat: Trip, Disarm, Grapple - damage + effect as encounter/short/long rest rechargable
Skills: Add d4 to skill checks per short/long rest, Cause fear via intimidation
Other: Boost single saves as short/long rest mechanic

5TH LEVEL ABILITIES
Combat: Whirlwind attack, Massive attack, stunning attack, reaction abilities, "sticky", Damage reduction
Skills: Add d6 to skill checks per short/long rest, convince opponents at 1/2 hp or less to surrender via intimidation
Other: squire or other NPCs to help

9TH LEVEL ABILITIES
Combat: controlled Critical hits, magicial equivilant hits
Skills: Add d8 to skill checks per short/long rest, "impossible" stunts (wrestling dragons, punching down stone walls, etc.)
Other: followers and stronghold

13TH LEVEL ABILITIES
Combat: Area effect attacks, weak point strikes (double critical?)
Skills: Add d10 to skill checks per short/long rest, supernatural use of skills ("it just works", leaping up to hit a flying dragon, diverting rivers with a dagger, etc.)
Other: mythic deeds (tracking a BBEG back to his lair by scent, taming Cerebrus without a fight, etc.)

And so on. All of this may mean converting spells into martial abilities, but as long as they can be explained sideways as mundane, it should work. The higher the level (definately past 11th), the more supernatural/superheroic in nature the abilities should be, though they should never be flashy in a way like a fireball. The fighter is using magic at these high levels, but channelling it through the use of their body and endurance. In a way, where the wizard will the world to conform to his wishes, the fighter arm-wrestles it into submission.

 

[Blue]

With regards to your fireball does more than an attack action comment, what level class weapon etc.

• Fireball is easy because it's always going to be 8d6 with a third level slot for an avg of 28 & the scaling is god awful.

You cast your fireballs at a single target? Pick a different spell. That's one of the advantages of casters - they can have a selection of spells for different situations.

And that average assumes failed saves - saves get made as well where the fireball does half damage.

• at level 9 & 11 a rogue with a rapier will be doing 1d8+5+5d6=27 & 1d8+5+6d6=30.5.

That assumes all hits. And where a Fireball does half on a miss, a rapier does nothing.

Seriously, this is what you try to nitpick?

So, a fireball of a mere two targets, half failing a save is averaging 42 by your numbers.

The rogue hitting the time does 15.25 by your numbers.

Really, please.

 

[Minigiant]

So that's maybe the monk and we can work backward...

If 6 seconds cover 60M, but assuming he use his action to dash, its 30M. So his base speed should be about 100ft.

So the high level Monk is 40ft too slow?

Or is the Rogue and Fighter 70ft too slow?

 

[Fenris-77]

So the high level Monk is 40ft too slow?

Or is the Rogue and Fighter 70ft too slow?

Oh hush with your specifics. I just answered a question about olympic sprinters.

 

[tetrasodium]

You cast your fireballs at a single target? Pick a different spell. That's one of the advantages of casters - they can have a selection of spells for different situations.

And that average assumes failed saves - saves get made as well where the fireball does half damage.


That assumes all hits. And where a Fireball does half on a miss, a rapier does nothing.

Seriously, this is what you try to nitpick?

So, a fireball of a mere two targets, half failing a save is averaging 42 by your numbers.

The rogue hitting the time does 15.25 by your numbers.

Really, please.

Well we could look at the gigo table on dmg249 that assumes every single fireball will hit 4 targets in an encounter that has at least 4 targets who are also arranged within a 20ft radius. Do fights not normally last at least 1-4 rounds in your experience? Do casters never use anything but leveled spells?

As to the rogue, missing on the main hand rapier means he will attack with the offhand short sword & dropping to 1d6+5+6d6=29.5. He can do that every round all session long & thanks to advice from wotc can be assumed to have some form of magic weapon that ignores resist nonmagical b/p/s while fire is one of the most common energy resists/nergy immune before we even get into magic resist & legendary resist.
please"

 

[Quickleaf]

A couple things I've played with to fill in the void left by the removal of strongholds/followers from the fighter...

• Ability to carry extra gear & Additional magic item attunement slots. (this was a popular one)
• "Freehold network" of fast travel points.
• Creating / sharing a hit point pool with trusted companions.
• Experience point % bonus. (doesn't work for modern D&D which values everyone at same level & seems to be leaning more toward milestone leveling)
• Gaining qualities of a Legendary creature, like certain Legendary Actions & Legendary Resistances. (only tested the Legendary Resistances part, and that was favored over Indomitable; imagine Legendary Actions would be reserved as capstone).
• Choose a 2nd Background. (I've found how much background features come into play really depends on how mindful players & DM are about remembering)
• Additional "floating" reaction for the player to use as desired.
• Luring enemies in close via a compulsion effect, e.g. so you can then grab onto a flying enemy. (this requires a lot of DM adjudication to work smoothly)
• Called Shots. (exclusivity to one class was problematic for players I tested with)
• Reimplementing a version of 1e gaining # attacks = level against 1 Hit Die enemies.
• Forestalling a condition/effect for a round or a few rounds, buying you time before it takes effect.
• Titles like "Friend of the Giant Eagles" with specific benefits like "once per month, while you can see open sky during a long rest you can summon a flock of giant eagles to transport you and up to 8 companions anywhere within 500 miles." (this was a trainwreck to playtest mostly because it required far more extensive playtesting than my play group had time to tackle)
• Collectable allies as a class feature, allowing you to call in the favor as a Call to Arms when your allies are on hand to make a big attack.
• Bestowable boon turning a commoner NPC into a somewhat effective combatant & granting them immunity to death from damage during a battle in a "heroic mentorship" moment.
• Can declare a Parlay, gaining advantage on certain Charisma checks, and if the NPC/monster they're parlaying with tries to break parlay violently, gain a reaction you can use before they act. (this was also a popular one)
• Epic destinies that kick in at high level. (this one I haven't tried in 5e yet)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Since the beginning of time (roughly 1975), non-casters in D&D have felt like they couldn't equal casters in effectiveness or flexibility.

I'm probably not the only one here, but I'm gonna have to call shenanigan's on that statement.

This is one of those things where someone's experience/outlook/idea is misinterpreted as being "true for everyone else in the world". Non-casters in D&D have never felt like they couldn't equal casters in effectiveness or flexibility... FOR ME (and my group, in general).

EDIT: It occurs to me that I should clarify the last sentence. I am talking from a META perspective of Overall Campaign Time. A one-on-one "what can a fighter do" vs. "what can a wizard do" white-room type thing is NOT what I am talking about. I'm more talking about the concept more in line with a "1e idea of class/race balance"; that is, time. In a 1e campaign, the group is lucky to hit level 9 after playing ever weekend, 8 hours a week, for a year. After that, an average of about 2 levels per year is to be expected. At this rate, 20th level takes about 6 years...which works out to be a bit FAST for my experience (got to level 20 in 1e after 6 years, but we played a REDICULOUS amount of time...I worked it out to be roughly 6500 hours! O_O ). So "non-casters" have MORE than enough time to show how viable and versatile, and FUN, they are to play compared to the casters. Casters never "over-shadowed" the non casters.

I think this belief, as stated by Ath-kethin, comes from a style of play issue. I have encountered other players/DM's that seem to also have this stance. When pressed and when getting into the things they've done in their campaigns and whatnot, one thing becomes apparent: The DM runs the world not as a living, breathing, 'realistic' (insofar as the campaign worlds realism), but more like a episodic TV series. The PC's are the stars of the show, and one or two episodes are them in Country A, fighting against the Evil Hoards of Undead. Episode 3 is the PC's in a town, buying stuff, recovering, then at the 44 minute mark, some McGuffin points them to Country B. Episode 4 is the PC's being attacked as the enter into Country B, by the Evil Soldiers of King Badguy, where they are defeated and taken to town. They meet the King, are told they are to be entertainment, and are tossed into the dungeon below. Episode 5 and 6 is the PC's fighting in the dungeon and ultimately escaping with the Secret Power Stone of Evil King Badguy...who just so happened to have kept the one and only thing capable of defeating him in said dungeon. At the 44 minute mark, Evil King is killed and his castle falls into a pit of green fire. Episode 7 is the PC's riding on a road, into Country C, where...

And so on. Small little "mini-stories", with very little to no actual "continuity" other than "A happens before B which happens before C...", but there is zero "crossover concerns" between "The Evil Undead" and "The Evil King". How did the undead get to be so many? Why aren't they also in Country B? Or country C? How did the Evil Kings destruction have absolutely no effect on the surrounding country A or C?

So...in such an "episodic" but mostly unrelated style of 'campaign'...THEN sure. Casters are 'better/more viable'. Because there is nothing in the world to hinder them or let non-casters, to use a common term, "shine in the spotlight for a bit". BUT, if a DM runs a Campaign more along the line of a current TV Series or Movie Series (ex: The Expanse, Babylon 5, Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica, Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc), things become VASTLY different. Campaign Time and the 'common, every day living concerns' become a notable thing.

Lastly, as an aside, there is nothing wrong with the notion of a Player just wanting to play a simple sword-swinger. Not every Player MUST be the "hero of the story" or the "best of the best". I fear this is a more, er, "recent" (re: last 2 or 3 decades...but mostly in the last 1) Player and DM attitude or preference. So many RPG'ers, and this includes designers, are absolutely convinced that it is impossible for a Player to get enjoyment of playing a 'lowly commoner' when everyone else is playing a 2-classed 18th level character with no stat lower than 16. This simply isn't true (see my initial calling of shenanigan's, above). I've had many a player choose to play a, for lack of a better word, "sucky" PC they rolled up. In fact, some of the most memorable PC's we've seen have been rather average or below average...but it's BECAUSE of this that their actions are note worthy; even if/when they die, they are remembered fondly. And the Players had a BLASTS playing them, and I, the DM, got great enjoyment from watching these 'pathetic' PC's defy the odds and the Player just role-play the heck out of it all. I've even played my fair share of "bad" PC's...either stat wise or just outright "sub-optimized" PC with the backstory to, uh, back it up.

Anyway...no. Non-Casters are not "less viable/interesting/etc" than Casters. At least not in a well-run and "more realistic'ish" based Campaign (re: "Series" as opposed to "Episodes").

YMMV, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming