D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Has it been a secret unrecognised opinion that people want to play those latter archtypes though? I’ve always felt it’s been quite prominent an opinion at least while I’ve been around, it’s just like you say though, the mechanics didn’t support them well.

I'd love a hybrid of PF2E and 5E. Cool martials, 3 action economy, but less skill feat jank and minutia.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, I don't really see "here is the fighter and rogue, but better" to be useful classes to add to the game.

The 1st problem is the fighter and rogue are seen benchmark

The 2nd problem is that people think fighter and rogue won't outperform the new classes in many areas.

Typically...

Your Warlordly class have bad damage and weak range options
Your Swashy/Duelist have bad defenses or bad offences
Your Warrior Sages are walking gimmicks and they stink if their gimmicks don't work

 

[ECMO3]

DMs ban goodberry. DMs ban revivify. DMs ban or circumvent Speak with Dead. DMs ban Leomund's Tiny Hut. DMs ban or circumvent Wall of Force or Forcecage or Wish or Clone or Simulacrum or or or or...

IME DMs that ban these kinds of spells have problems getting players to the table. That said even when these spells are available, they are not universally taken.

Now, I'm not saying I want Fighters or Rogues or Barbarians or Rangers or Paladins to have these sorts of game-breaking effects... But I think there is clear room for growth and improvement. It shouldn't be that the only things these classes are good at are hitting single target enemies and dealing damage.

That is not the only thing those classes are good at. The reason fighters in particular are only good at hitting single target enemies is because players CHOOSE to make their PCs only good at that.

Most of the people who play fighters that are only good at combart also play fighters with a 14+ in Constitution (usually a 16+). They dump every useful ability in the game, purposely build their character to be good at only single target combat and then complain that they are only good at single target combat. I purposely positioned my ability scores so my fighter is a dumb, irritating clutz and now I can't figure out why no one likes him, why he can't solve and puzzels and he trips over his own shoelaces!

If you want to be good at other things, play a Fighter with a 10 Constitution and a 16 in Wisdom or Charisma and it is a whole different ballgame and that character is still good at melee.

It shouldn't be that the Detective archetype is completely blown away by someone who can speak with the soul of the victim, or ask the housecat what happened.

Why shouldn't it be? Are you honestly going to say that asking the victim who killed her should be less effective at finding the murderer than looking around the crime scene for clues? And keep in mind the decision to have Speak with Dead available is a decision with real, tangible cost.

There is always the option of just banning magic outright, and the game is still very playable like that.

Every full spellcaster eventually has access to a dozen impossible abilities.

If you are talking about spells, this is not actually true until 11th level and every class can do impossible things by that level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's no secret.

Fans know the game doesn't support these archetypes.
These archetypes require new classes.
WOTC aren't making new classes.
3PPs are not incentivize to make "not flashy" classes and mostly make flashy or over the top stuff

Level Up has at least four nonmagical classes in the core book (fighter, marshal, ranger and rogue; adept is iffy) and at least one more (savant) in supplements.

 

[Minigiant]

That is not the only thing those classes are good at. The reason fighters in particular are only good at hitting single target enemies is because players CHOOSE to make their PCs only good at that.

Most of the people who play fighters that are only good at combart also play fighters with a 14+ in Constitution (usually a 16+). They dump every useful ability in the game, purposely build their character to be good at only single target combat and then complain that they are only good at single target combat. I purposely positioned my ability scores so my fighter is a dumb, irritating clutz and now I can't figure out why no one likes him, why he can't solve and puzzels and he trips over his own shoelaces!

If you want to be good at other things, play a Fighter with a 10 Constitution and a 16 in Wisdom or Charisma and it is a whole different ballgame and that character is still good at melee.

Because 16 INT/WIS/CHA and profiency is not enough to be "good" at something past level 5.
Unfortunately many DMs escalate their DCs with level.

Fighters didn't get a class bonus to ability check until TCOE. And they need manevers to do it. And what higher DCs allow is heavily DM dependent.
Tactical Mind isn't a rule nd Skill guidance wont come until later this year.

 

[Minigiant]

Level Up has at least four nonmagical classes in the core book (fighter, marshal, ranger and rogue; adept is iffy) and at least one more (savant) in supplements.

Unfortunately like I said
Level Up isn't flashy enough to see heavy use across the community.

Flashy spells, fancy spellcasters, crazy monsters, and cute pets sell. Flash sells.

That is why it's important the the 1st Party publisher to get the "boring mundanes" right.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The 1st problem is the fighter and rogue are seen benchmark

The 2nd problem is that people think fighter and rogue won't outperform the new classes in many areas.

To your first "problem", yes when discussing improving the fighter or the rogue, I've found it is best to start by looking to the fighter and the rogue. I tried it by staring at a blank sheet of paper once, but it didn't give me much insight on how to... improve the fighter or the rogue.

As to the your second, um, if the fighter and rogue are outperforming these new classes in "many areas" then... they are just better in combat. Because that's about the only area the fighter is any good in. Specifically in damage. And that isn't a great thing to start stripping from a class.

Typically...

Your Warlordly class have bad damage and weak range options

So, you want to design a class, with somewhere around 6 subclasses (about where most of the classes are at at this point) who is bad at dealing damage, and can't fight at range.... who I presume their use in battle will be controlling the other player characters, and buffing them.

So, sure, if you end up being able to make the character make an attack as a reaction, that's pretty nice, but... you are pigeonholing into a single gimmick so hard that you are running a huge risk. That is, if this class isn't better support than the cleric or the bard, then no one is going to take it, unless they are desperate to avoid spells. It is a very niche class.

Yes, people want warlords, but I've never seen people say "and they should suck at combat"

Your Swashy/Duelist have bad defenses or bad offences

So bad defense. And again, how many subclasses do you think you can milk out of a class whose gimmick is "bad defense, good offense, but no magic at all". And, since the main competitors for good offense are going to be the fighter, Barbarian and the Paladin who all ALSO are defensive monsters.... this is going to go poorly.

Heck, I've seen rogues take over as the tank for a party, because even they get decent defensive abilities.

Your Warrior Sages are walking gimmicks and they stink if their gimmicks don't work

This is the single worse idea I've heard for a class. This is the entire Ranger Favored Foe problem, but as a class identity.


You seriously are not selling me on the idea that making more classes is better than just shoring up the weak points in the design on the classes we have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unfortunately like I said
Level Up isn't flashy enough to see heavy use across the community.

Flashy spells, fancy spellcasters, crazy monsters, and cute pets sell. Flash sells.

That is why it's important the the 1st Party publisher to get the "boring mundanes" right.

I don't see why it matters if more people buy WotC than some other 5e publisher, but in any case you know WotC won't be making any new classes, so I don't see the benefit here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

IME DMs that ban these kinds of spells have problems getting players to the table. That said even when these spells are available, they are not universally taken.

And yet my point still stands.

What is banned from the Fighter Class? Not from feats, but from the fighter base class. Have you ever even heard of someone starting a thread with "My fighter reached level [X] and now has [Y] and they just ruined this encounter, how do I prevent this?" Because we hear it constantly for spellcasters.

That is not the only thing those classes are good at. The reason fighters in particular are only good at hitting single target enemies is because players CHOOSE to make their PCs only good at that.

Most of the people who play fighters that are only good at combart also play fighters with a 14+ in Constitution (usually a 16+). They dump every useful ability in the game, purposely build their character to be good at only single target combat and then complain that they are only good at single target combat. I purposely positioned my ability scores so my fighter is a dumb, irritating clutz and now I can't figure out why no one likes him, why he can't solve and puzzels and he trips over his own shoelaces!

If you want to be good at other things, play a Fighter with a 10 Constitution and a 16 in Wisdom or Charisma and it is a whole different ballgame and that character is still good at melee.

So, make the character on the front line more likely to die, and focus on... what? Wisdom and Charisma are only useful if you have... skills.

I mean, sure, yeah, you can build a fighter who has less hp and instead has a high charisma, which allows them to actually succeed at persuasion rolls... But they can't read minds. They can't change their appearance with a single action. They can't charm. They can't suggest courses of action. They can't dominate people into doing their bidding.... But bards can do all that. And a bard with a high charisma is also good at the skills, better with expertise, AND has magic to supplement that.

OR Wisdom, by which you are likely focusing on perception. But... while perception is useful, what can the fighter do that is equal to detect good and evil? Detect Poison? Detect Magic? See Invisibility? True Seeing?

Most people aren't stupid when they build their characters. They give front-liners high Con because they get hit the most, and they don't want their characters dying. But even if a fighter puts a high score into wisdom or charisma... they are still limited. They are limited to the skills and what the DM allows. They can't break out of that.

What if, by level 10 or so, a martial character with Investigation could roll and on a success, they discover enough clues to actually get to "see" what happened in a room? The DM would describe to them, for example, that two men slipped in through the window, startled Mr Darcy, who ran for his sword, but he was hit by a thrown dagger with an ornate handle. The two men dragged him back to his chair, where the second used magic to seal the wound, and make it appear as though he died of natural causes.

This is something that absolutely happens in fiction, with skilled investigator characters, and if the player knew that, they might be far more interested in putting a higher Int on their character, and building towards that ability.

OR, if they want to play the jock fighter, maybe give their athletics a way to destroy scenery more easily, or an ability to ignore environmental damage and effects through sheer toughness (Oden standing for an hour in a pot of boiling oil to save his men from execution)

There are things that would allow us to compete or exceed spells, things we lack, and can't build towards.

Why shouldn't it be? Are you honestly going to say that asking the victim who killed her should be less effective at finding the murderer than looking around the crime scene for clues? And keep in mind the decision to have Speak with Dead available is a decision with real, tangible cost.

There is always the option of just banning magic outright, and the game is still very playable like that.

Should be less effective? No. But at that point, are you really going to say that catching someone on fire is should be less effective than shooting them with an arrow? Taking Firebolt is a decision that has a real, tangible cost too.

So what is the BENEFIT of not taking magic? Armor and HP? Clerics and Druids are going to be running around in heavy armor with d8 HD, Bards have d8 HD and light armor, same as rogues. The highest AC builds are usually magic using characters, like Bladesingers, forge clerics, and Eldritch Knights (which I know is a fighter subclass, but they are the fighter subclass that USES MAGIC, so what is the benefit of forgoing that?)

Damage? I'll admit, Fighters and Rogues are not slouches when it comes to single target damage, but generally, full caster optimizers SCOFF at the idea of building blasters. It is the LEAST effective thing you can do, in their mind. And trust me, I've seen first hand it doesn't matter how much damage you can do if the enemy can't touch you for 10 turns of combat.

So, what I want, is for these classes to have out of combat options, that can at least compete with spells. Sure, Speak with Dead is a great spell for solving murder mysteries. It is also not even a blip on the design space of full casters. Remove it from the game, and most casters won't notice a significant drop in strength. So it shouldn't be hard to ADD competitive options to the skills of martials. Casters will still likely get them first, and maybe even stronger, but it will at least give the martials something to do, built into the system.

If you are talking about spells, this is not actually true until 11th level and every class can do impossible things by that level.

What does the 11th level fighter do that is impossible? Make more attacks? Re-roll a save? That's it. And those aren't impossible things. Those aren't even notable things, in terms of plot impact. No challenge or encounter is going to be circumvented or even significantly impacted by that.

Meanwhile, most casters have a dozen spell options by level 8, and by that point they have access to 4th level spells, which are doozies.

 

[ECMO3]

Because 16 INT/WIS/CHA and profiency is not enough to be "good" at something past level 5.
Unfortunately many DMs escalate their DCs with level.

RAW it absolutely is good with the right choices when you add in class and subclass abilities.

If a DM is not playing RAW then that is a different story, but DCs should not go up with level in the base game design.

Fighters didn't get a class bonus to ability check until TCOE. And they need manevers to do it.

Maneuvers, subclasses or feats and all three of those things are all options on the Fighter chassis.