So, when people say "Martials", they really mean fighter, right?

[Z3ro]

This is really simple, I think. There's all these threads comparing "martials" to "casters", but given that just about everyone in 5E can be a caster, what do people really mean when they say "martial"?

I'm assuming the big six are casters (bards, clerics, druids, sorcerer, warlock, wizard), but what about the rest? I would call rangers and paladins casters; a huge portion of their class comes from their spells. I'd probably also call monks casters; even their base class can cast some spells, and each subclass gets more spells. Fighters and rogues get spellcasting options, and even the barbarian can cast a couple spells.

Even worse, with the magical initiate and ritual caster feat, any character can have a variety of spells available to cast.

So really, when you say "martial", what do you mean? Just the champion and battlemaster, maybe with the barbarian thrown in? I think it would be helpful to have something like a working definition of just what martial is, for discussion purposes.

[Rfkannen]

Martials typicaly refers to; monks, rogues, fighters, barbarians, and depending to who your talking to sometimes paladin and ragner.

Monks do not get any spells. They are the one class who cant get them If I remember correctly.

[pwykersotz]

Martials typicaly refers to; monks, rogues, fighters, barbarians, and depending to who your talking to sometimes paladin and ragner.

Monks do not get any spells. They are the one class who cant get them If I remember correctly.

Ragner is my favorite class. I particularly like his Hoard-breaker and Valley abilities. :smalltongue:

[Todasmile]

A martial is anyone who doesn't gain spell slots and spells as they level. Or rather, being a martial is the same as not being a caster.

Fighters are martials. They can become half-casters (that is, characters who have half-spellcasting and still heavily participate in martial combat). Just because you can cast a spell does not make you a caster - Shadow Monks aren't casters just because they can cast Darkness using their ki points. Elemental Monks aren't casters, but you could sort of liken them to half-casters.

Casters, half-casters, martials. Complaints aimed at casters don't necessarily involve half-casters at all, but they can.

So Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, Monks are martials
Paladins and Rangers are half-casters.
Bards, Warlocks, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, and Sorcerers are casters.

Most of these classes can gain aspects of other classes. Most martials can gain spellcasting of some kind, with two being half-casting and one being a weird ki point system. Casters can specialize more in martial combat than they would normally - like Valor bards, Blade Pact Warlocks, Moon Druids, and the various martial Cleric domains.

For a simple test:

1. Does it get spellcasting progression? It's a caster.
2. Does it rely heavily on martial combat? It's a martial.
3. Does it have both? It's either a half-caster or a caster which has specialized in martial combat.

[Ziegander]

When people say "martials" what they really mean is "mundane characters," even if they don't know it. In this context, mundane should be understood to mean "non-magical," and any reasonable person talking about "mundane characters" is not actually saying anything about how Fighters or some other "martial" classes suck, but is more appropriately talking about how non-magical characters, rather than classes, are lacking in meaningful options compared to magical characters and how that might be perceived by many as a ProblemTM.

[silveralen]

I honestly have no idea what people mean. Martial is, to me, a character who focuses on fighting and skill with weapons. Which typically includes fighter and every class that has been absed on him throughout DnD's life span, such as barbarian, ranger, and paladin. Plus monk as well.

Some people use it as a power source like 4e, which is odd because it isn't used very strictly. By that definition, a rogue and fighter are both martials, but would continue to be martials even with magical subclasses, as that is not their main power source. In fact, they'd basically eb the only two, since ranger has joined barbarian in primal, and monk is still kinda its own special thing that is vaguely reminiscent of psionics.

Others simply use it as a companion word for mundane, probably due to 4e power sources being applied incorrectly (since there was no such thing as a mundane character in 4e, this makes even less sense).


A martial is anyone who doesn't gain spell slots and spells as they level. Or rather, being a martial is the same as not being a caster.

Fighters are martials. They can become half-casters (that is, characters who have half-spellcasting and still heavily participate in martial combat). Just because you can cast a spell does not make you a caster - Shadow Monks aren't casters just because they can cast Darkness using their ki points. Elemental Monks aren't casters, but you could sort of liken them to half-casters.

Casters, half-casters, martials. Complaints aimed at casters don't necessarily involve half-casters at all, but they can.

How on earth does this make any sense at all?

Being a caster, in your opinion, has nothing to do with whether or not a spell can cast spells.... but because they use a certain resource management system? What? I mean... the root word is right there mate. You literally add an -er to the end.

Please explain what justifies this?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I use the term "martial" instead of "mundane", because the fact that they're not casters doesn't also mean they're mundane within real world logic.

I won't comment on which classes it refers to as I don't have 5e.

[Todasmile]

How on earth does this make any sense at all?

Being a caster, in your opinion, has nothing to do with whether or not a spell can cast spells.... but because they use a certain resource management system? What? I mean... the root word is right there mate. You literally add an -er to the end.

Please explain what justifies this?

Playing soccer does not make me a soccer player. Just because I box doesn't make me a boxer. If I write poems every once in a while, am I a poet? I healed a burn on my pinky once with cold water, does that make me a burn healer?

No, it doesn't. You have to be dedicated. You have to learn. You have to follow the systems. Just because I do X sometimes does not mean that I can be defined by it - otherwise, a Wizard who hit someone with an Opportunity Attack every once in a while is using the martial combat system, and is therefore a martial character.

Doing something sometimes, doing something as a hobby, or doing something as a part of something you normally do does not make you a practitioner of that thing. Otherwise, a family doctor who proscribed you migraine medication for the obvious migraine you have would be a neurologist.

Being a caster is incredibly related to casting spells. All casters cast spells - but not everyone who casts spells is a caster.

[Eslin]

As previously stated, it's pretty simple. Caster, partial caster, martial, done. Simple and self explanatory.

[silveralen]

Playing soccer does not make me a soccer player. Just because I box doesn't make me a boxer. If I write poems every once in a while, am I a poet? I healed a burn on my pinky once with cold water, does that make me a burn healer?

No, it doesn't. You have to be dedicated. You have to learn. You have to follow the systems. Just because I do X sometimes does not mean that I can be defined by it - otherwise, a Wizard who hit someone with an Opportunity Attack every once in a while is using the martial combat system, and is therefore a martial character.

Doing something sometimes, doing something as a hobby, or doing something as a part of something you normally do does not make you a practitioner of that thing. Otherwise, a family doctor who proscribed you migraine medication for the obvious migraine you have would be a neurologist.

Being a caster is incredibly related to casting spells. All casters cast spells - but not everyone who casts spells is a caster.

So why is someone who gains spell progression a caster then? Look at eldritch knight, it makes up a very small portion of the class. They are a dabbler or hobbyist. A paladin can be played well without ever casting a single spell, just burning slots to fuel generic smites, which is actually an effective way to do so. Not hard to imagine that paladin could cast actual spells less often than a shadow monk might cast his, same with eldritch knight.

If your definition is based on frequency, that's fine, but your definition of "anyone who gains spells slots = caster" has nothing to do with actual usage.


As previously stated, it's pretty simple. Caster, partial caster, martial, done. Simple and self explanatory.

Of course, the question of who falls under partial caster is again interesting. As is the name itself, calling someone partial caster, rather than partial martial, seems to put emphasis on spell ability being the defining portion of the character.

[Theodoxus]

I think it would be helpful to have something like a working definition of just what martial is, for discussion purposes.

While I agree it would be helpful, I'm quite doubtful you'll find a definition that everyone will agree with. You've already had the discussion spin into debate over what a caster is (despite you asking what a martial is) - so you can see, the topic is anything but definitive.

For the various discussions on here and similar discussion boards, you'll have to suss out the meaning by context. Sometimes the OP will mean a non-magical melee combatant (Champion, Battlemaster, Frenzy), sometimes they'll mean any class that doesn't have a full caster progression (fighter, ranger, paladin, rogue, barbarian, monk). Sometimes they even mean characters that use martial tactics over spell tactics - add in war clerics and moon druids to the list.

Since the issues surrounding martial combat and the classes that support it vary by opinion, one can't really define a term for all those issues. Is the discussion based on melee combat vs spell combat? A martial is a very broad definition in that instance - and somethings, like half-casters or war clerics, have a slant that others, say, Champion, doesn't.

But if the discussion in based around the idea that martial characters have fewer options outside of combat than casters do, its far less broad a discussion; in that case, a martial might only be someone who doesn't have any spell casting ability at all - as some rituals (garnered from a feat, if nothing else) can provide quite a lot of utility out of combat that someone lacking that expertise will be unable to match, no matter how skilled.

TL;DR: It totally depends on the context of the discussion.

[Theodoxus]

partial martial

This made me giggle more than it really should have.

[silveralen]

This made me giggle more than it really should have.

I didn't even notice it till you pointed it out.

[Freelance GM]

In the context of 5E, I use it to describe the mundane subclasses, the ones without any magic at all. Champion and Battlemaster Fighters, Thief and Assassin Rogues, Berzerker Barbarians, and Open Hand Monks.

Although these classes have some pretty ridiculous abilities that push suspension of disbelief (assuming someone's identity, ki, and rage in general,) none of them are explicitly magical effects.

So yeah, I guess you're right. We probably should be using "mundane" instead of "martial."

[AstralFire]

In the context of 5E, I use it to describe the mundane subclasses, the ones without any magic at all. Champion and Battlemaster Fighters, Thief and Assassin Rogues, Berzerker Barbarians, and Open Hand Monks.

Although these classes have some pretty ridiculous abilities that push suspension of disbelief (assuming someone's identity, ki, and rage in general,) none of them are explicitly magical effects.

So yeah, I guess you're right. We probably should be using "mundane" instead of "martial."

Martial is a much better term than "mundane". Mundane subtly reinforces the notion that they're boring. :p

[silveralen]

Martial is a much better term than "mundane". Mundane subtly reinforces the notion that they're boring. :p

On the other hand, by saying that you are claiming a thief rogue is more martially inclined than an eldritch knight fighter or any type of paladin/ranger..... which doesn't really work for any actual definition of martial which actually involves combat.

I mean... we all do know the actual definition of martial, yes? Something pertaining to war? Look at thief rogue and tell me that fits even the tiniest bit.

The martial/caster distinction is weird because the terms aren't mutually exclusive, or even similar in focus. You can have martial magic, it would be magic that is based around/built for combat, ie eldritch knight.

Even if you don't want to use mundane, ther eis probably a better word. Non magical or muggle if you have to have a single word and don't hate youth fiction. If you want to emphasize how they are impresive despite being "normal" humans, badass normal might work, as could some reference to Charles Atlas (god bless tv tropes). Personally, I'm leaning towards calling them Atlases, just because its fun to say.

[Eslin]

On the other hand, by saying that you are claiming a thief rogue is more martially inclined than an eldritch knight fighter or any type of paladin/ranger..... which doesn't really work for any actual definition of martial which actually involves combat.

I mean... we all do know the actual definition of martial, yes? Something pertaining to war? Look at thief rogue and tell me that fits even the tiniest bit.

The martial/caster distinction is weird because the terms aren't mutually exclusive, or even similar in focus. You can have martial magic, it would be magic that is based around/built for combat, ie eldritch knight.

Even if you don't want to use mundane, ther eis probably a better word. Non magical or muggle if you have to have a single word and don't hate youth fiction. If you want to emphasize how they are impresive despite being "normal" humans, badass normal might work, as could some reference to Charles Atlas (god bless tv tropes). Personally, I'm leaning towards calling them Atlases, just because its fun to say.

Martial works fine - martial as a power source described classes like fighters, warlords, rangers and rogues back in 4e, it seems a pretty useful description.

[silveralen]

Martial works fine - martial as a power source described classes like fighters, warlords, rangers and rogues back in 4e, it seems a pretty useful description.

Well, no. Like I said, as a power source it made sense in 4e, but rogues don't draw on martial power in any real capacity now, the only reason it made sense in 4e was that rogues, like everyone else, were more combat focused. Monks also don't fit martial as a power source anymore than they ever have, their power source is still ki which has been... vaguely linked to psionic power? Is that still canon? The description for it sounds like it. Oh and totem barbarian is primal for sure, as is the current variation on ranger. Well.... you can actually make a case for the current version of ranger being as martial as the 4e incarnation was.

So using the 4e definition of martial, we have... two fighter achetypes and one barbarian archetype. That's.... not useful. That's barely even a thing. One of the best contenders for martial, using 4e definitions, would be ranger, emaning it clearly isn't being used in the same manner by most people right now.

[odigity]

Every High Elf and Tiefling can cast spells. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

Every character can take the Magic Initiate feat. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

---

Here's a simple way to look at it:

1) If it has the "Spellcasting" class ability, it's a caster. Or "Pact Magic", because Warlock just likes to be different. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, you crazy delicious bag of accessories masquerading as a base class...)
2) If it doesn't, it's a martial -- implying that most of it's class abilities revolve around enhancing weapon attacks of some sort.

If you want a more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster.
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? Partial caster.
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

If you want an even more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster. (gain spell levels every two class levels)
2) Does it get 5th level spell slots? Half caster. (gain spell levels every four class levels)
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? One-third caster. (gain spell levels every six class levels)
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

That's as far as you can take it.

---

Did I win?

[pwykersotz]

Every High Elf and Tiefling can cast spells. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

Every character can take the Magic Initiate feat. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

---

Here's a simple way to look at it:

1) If it has the "Spellcasting" class ability, it's a caster. Or "Pact Magic", because Warlock just likes to be different. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, you crazy delicious bag of accessories masquerading as a base class...)
2) If it doesn't, it's a martial -- implying that most of it's class abilities revolve around enhancing weapon attacks of some sort.

If you want a more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster.
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? Partial caster.
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

If you want an even more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster. (gain spell levels every two class levels)
2) Does it get 5th level spell slots? Half caster. (gain spell levels every four class levels)
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? One-third caster. (gain spell levels every six class levels)
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

That's as far as you can take it.

---

Did I win?

Death to the caster-centric illuminati!

No spells: Full Martial
4th level spells: Tertial Martial
5th level spells: Half Martial (or Partial Martial)
9th level spells: Non Martial
Converted class: Marshal Martial
Brady Bunch Conversion: Marsha Marshal Martial

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, "mundane" should be avoided since it conflates the "casting vs non casting" and "magic vs non magic" arguments and treats them as the strawman "casters vs boring" argument.



Personally I come at the term "Martial"s from the mechanics side. It means a class whose point is weaponry(rather than classes whose point is skills or spells). A good example is 3.5 Rogue vs 3.5 Rogue. "Now wait a moment" you are probably saying. Did I just say a class vs itself? That doesn't make sense. Well it does make sense. There were at least 2 schools of thought on how to utilize the 3.5 Rogue. One school focused on the "Fistful of d6s" side and thus ended up with a "Martial" take. The other school focused on the "Skillmonkey" side and thus ended up with a "Skillmonkey" take. Notice that using this taxonomy, we can recognize that the mere presence of a mechanic does not define a class as much as the point of the class defines the class. Likewise we can also note that some classes can be bent to different purposes/points depending on the school of thought.

So with this in 5E we get that most Full Casters are Casters primarily (Bard can swing towards primarily a caster or primarily a skillmonkey). The Martials(using this taxonomy) are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin(swings Martial or Caster), Rogue(swings Martial or Skillmonkey) and maybe Ranger(I have not read ranger to see if it works without casting).

[odigity]

Death to the caster-centric illuminati!

No spells: Full Martial
4th level spells: Tertial Martial
5th level spells: Half Martial (or Partial Martial)
9th level spells: Non Martial
Converted class: Marshal Martial
Brady Bunch Conversion: Marsha Marshal Martial

Well played.

[silveralen]

Every High Elf and Tiefling can cast spells. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

Every character can take the Magic Initiate feat. Can we agree this does not make them a "caster", because otherwise the term is useless?

---

Here's a simple way to look at it:

1) If it has the "Spellcasting" class ability, it's a caster. Or "Pact Magic", because Warlock just likes to be different. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, you crazy delicious bag of accessories masquerading as a base class...)
2) If it doesn't, it's a martial -- implying that most of it's class abilities revolve around enhancing weapon attacks of some sort.

If you want a more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster.
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? Partial caster.
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

If you want an even more detailed taxonomy:

1) Does it get 9th level spell slots? Full caster. (gain spell levels every two class levels)
2) Does it get 5th level spell slots? Half caster. (gain spell levels every four class levels)
2) Does it get 4th level spell slots? One-third caster. (gain spell levels every six class levels)
3) Otherwise, it's a martial.

That's as far as you can take it.

---

Did I win?

Of course listing off how many spell levels someone has tells us nothing particularly useful about selection, spells known, spell dependence, martial ability, or.... well anything remotely useful. Not to mention the difference between someone with access to rituals and someone without.

People need to find terms actually relevant to the edition at hand, constantly looking at it from the perspective of previous editions isn't particularly helpful. Look at the difference in what a "half caster" is this time around for example.

[odigity]

Of course listing off how many spell levels someone has tells us nothing particularly useful about selection, spells known, spell dependence, martial ability, or.... well anything remotely useful. Not to mention the difference between someone with access to rituals and someone without.

People need to find terms actually relevant to the edition at hand, constantly looking at it from the perspective of previous editions isn't particularly helpful. Look at the difference in what a "half caster" is this time around for example.

Your criticism of my post makes zero sense.

[SharkForce]

personally, i tend to use it to apply to anyone who has a primary focus on using weapons and tools rather than spells to solve problems.

i even tend to apply it to the eldritch knight and arcane trickster, personally... yes, they have spells, but they're far more likely to use those spells to supplement their main method of solving problems; using weapons in combat, using various other tools and skills outside of combat. they get very few options for spells, and very few slots.

paladin and ranger get a bit more blurry, but i still tend to think of them as martials, because as a class they're unlikely to be confronted with a problem and check their spell list for possible solutions as a first response in my experience. on the other hand, they've got far more proficiency with magic in general than the 4-level casters.

i suppose at this point if i had to draw a clear, mechanically-defined line, it would probably be "does the class have a spell list of its own?"

but that's just me. i can understand if some people don't include paladins and rangers as martial characters...

as to the name not fitting perfectly, well... if someone else has a better name, i'm happy to adopt it.

[Knaight]

I mean... we all do know the actual definition of martial, yes? Something pertaining to war? Look at thief rogue and tell me that fits even the tiniest bit.

Sneak attack, boatloads of hit points at higher levels (look at soldier stats and similar), weapon proficiencies, the list goes on. D&D isn't a system which really does noncombatants, every character in it is martial in that sense. It's just that casting spells is a stronger defining trait for the casters.

[archaeo]

Your criticism of my post makes zero sense.

I mean, it does insofar as we keep having a "martial vs. caster" debate when what you say really exists is "full caster vs. half caster vs. third caster vs. 'true' martial." Especially when that totally transforms the debate, especially when a lot of those half and third casters will very much feel "martial" for large swaths of play.

Of course, I don't think it matters all that much, given that the debate itself is an intractable tug of war over game design ideology, but silveralen's point isn't meaningless. There are so many different variables within each class that trying to create a bunch of boxes to put them in really doesn't add much to the discussion. We can talk about "martial" and "caster" classes all day, but in play, those distinctions are largely meaningless in comparison to the dozens of other factors that happen within each class at the table.

[silveralen]

Sneak attack, boatloads of hit points at higher levels (look at soldier stats and similar), weapon proficiencies, the list goes on. D&D isn't a system which really does noncombatants, every character in it is martial in that sense. It's just that casting spells is a stronger defining trait for the casters.

That's the thing, people don't use martial to actually mean a martial character. Everything you just mentioned about rogue applies to war cleric or valor bard, with less sneak attacks and more normal attacks.

Martial is not mutually exclusive to caster, nor do they even deal with similar aspects of the character.

Being able to cast spells does not immediately override every other aspect of your character. It is not the single defining trait of a character. In 5e, spell casting is going to be common for players. 3/4ths of the classes/archetypes have at least some limited spell casting. It is not the defining trait it once was in earlier editions.


Your criticism of my post makes zero sense.

Your usage of martial has nothing to do with how martially focused a character is, your definition of caster has the most tenuous connection to how spell dependent a character is.

Is a straight thief rogue more warlike than an eldritch knight? Moon Druid? Paladin? Valor Bard?

Which depends more on spells to supplement their abilities, a moon Druid or Ranger (from what I've seen... it's pretty close).

[Abithrios]

Would you say it slashes, bludgeons, or pierces stuff to death for a living?

If so, it is probably a martial.


Personally, I think there is no single definition, and any useful working definition will have a spectrum of answers to the question of "Is this a martial?"

Any given discussion should probably use whatever definition is most helpful at the time, without too much concern for developing a vacuum definition for the term.

For example, it has been argued that wizards (et al) have more options and versatility than champions (et al). For the purpose of that debate, the fraction of class features that can be used by saying "I attack" is probably a good indicator of which "et al" a character belongs in.

The question of "which class is best at melee combat of a particular kind" demands an entirely different definition. Depending on the constraints given, the answer might be a member of almost any class. The answer could be champion or it could be bladelock.

[TheOOB]

A martial character is a character who's primary impact on battle is attacking. Nothing more, nothing less. A caster is a character who's primary impact on battle is through casting spells. Thus Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are martial classes, and Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, and Druid are casters. Warlock is kind of in between, while they have spells, their standard damage is from either a pact blade or eldritch blast, which blurs the line between attack and spell.

[Rowan Wolf]

A large part of the issue is basically the game genre itself places limitations on the Martial/mundane character that isn't really there from the altering reality/magic can do anything. In fiction the martial usually have plot armor, demi-god status, or are very mary sue, in order to really be memorable.

So when You roll up Bob the fighter (or Bob XII if the game is going rough) there is in many cases an inherent bias again/limiting of option to what is expected of the character.

[archaeo]

A large part of the issue is basically the game genre itself places limitations on the Martial/mundane character that isn't really there from the altering reality/magic can do anything. In fiction the martial usually have plot armor, demi-god status, or are very mary sue, in order to really be memorable.

So when You roll up Bob the fighter (or Bob XII if the game is going rough) there is in many cases an inherent bias again/limiting of option to what is expected of the character.

The "inherent bias" certainly isn't in the system, which provides a huge list of magic items, setting ideas, and plot hooks that can be used to tie even a Champion Fighter to any plot imaginable. Even assuming that the campaign is set in the "default setting" of 5e, which is broadly the Forgotten Realms, a DM who wants their players to get somewhere or accomplish something has a huge toolkit of techniques to make things happen. Even that "plot armor" junk can be represented via backgrounds; it's not really any easier than it's ever been to tie your protagonists into the story, but at least WotC has done a good job providing examples in their adventures of using backgrounds to accomplish that goal.

Now, in a published adventure that's being run strictly by the book, sure. You're at the mercy of the writers, who may or may not have done a good job providing room for everyone to shine regardless of class or creed. I've heard the same from people who claim to have elaborately planned adventures, or extremely well-crafted sandboxes. However, as a general rule, if somebody creates a plot that martial characters can't participate in, that's on them, not the system.

[Z3ro]

However, as a general rule, if somebody creates a plot that martial characters can't participate in, that's on them, not the system.

I feel like in TTRPGs this is a general sentiment all around, kind of the opposite of the Oberoni fallacy, possibly a whole other fallacy of its own.

[Knaight]

I feel like in TTRPGs this is a general sentiment all around, kind of the opposite of the Oberoni fallacy, possibly a whole other fallacy of its own.

It's part of a broader idea that if system problems can be worked around or don't always come up they don't really exist and are the GM's fault instead.

[Rogue Shadows]

However, as a general rule, if somebody creates a plot that martial characters can't participate in, that's on them, not the system.

The problem has never been whether or not the martial character can contribute at all, for the most part. Rather, the problem is whether or not the given class will be noticed for its lack.

A party of four wizards can do everything that a party of four fighters can do. Sure, they might have a different way of going about it, but at the end of the day any dragon can be slain, any door can be burst down, and so on. Conversely, a party of four fighters can't do even a fraction of the things that a party of four wizards can do.

That's the heart of the problem. That has always been the heart of the problem.

[Z3ro]

Conversely, a party of four fighters can't do even a fraction of the things that a party of four wizards can do.


I'm curious; aside from maybe shifting planes (which I hate, that's not an adventure that's a tax), what challenges in 5E, specifically, can 4 wizards accomplish that 4 fighters (potentially using alternate methods) cannot?

[T.G. Oskar]

Yeah, "mundane" should be avoided since it conflates the "casting vs non casting" and "magic vs non magic" arguments and treats them as the strawman "casters vs boring" argument.



Personally I come at the term "Martial"s from the mechanics side. It means a class whose point is weaponry(rather than classes whose point is skills or spells). A good example is 3.5 Rogue vs 3.5 Rogue. "Now wait a moment" you are probably saying. Did I just say a class vs itself? That doesn't make sense. Well it does make sense. There were at least 2 schools of thought on how to utilize the 3.5 Rogue. One school focused on the "Fistful of d6s" side and thus ended up with a "Martial" take. The other school focused on the "Skillmonkey" side and thus ended up with a "Skillmonkey" take. Notice that using this taxonomy, we can recognize that the mere presence of a mechanic does not define a class as much as the point of the class defines the class. Likewise we can also note that some classes can be bent to different purposes/points depending on the school of thought.

So with this in 5E we get that most Full Casters are Casters primarily (Bard can swing towards primarily a caster or primarily a skillmonkey). The Martials(using this taxonomy) are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin(swings Martial or Caster), Rogue(swings Martial or Skillmonkey) and maybe Ranger(I have not read ranger to see if it works without casting).


A martial character is a character who's primary impact on battle is attacking. Nothing more, nothing less. A caster is a character who's primary impact on battle is through casting spells. Thus Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are martial classes, and Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, and Druid are casters. Warlock is kind of in between, while they have spells, their standard damage is from either a pact blade or eldritch blast, which blurs the line between attack and spell.

This pretty much sums what I believe about "Martials". The 4e determination of Martials as a "power source" pretty much cemented the idea of "Martial = Mundane" ,rather than defining Martials as the warrior classes.

I'd use the 2e arrangement of Classes to expose my point. In it, the "Warrior" classes generally had the better THAC0 and better saves, better weapon proficiencies and generally focused on Strength and Constitution. These included the Fighter (as its primary representative), as well as the Ranger and Paladin, which both had their own spellcasting ability. In 3.5 its even easier: anyone with full Martial Weapon proficiency and full BAB was a Martial, with some outliers (Monk, Psychic Warrior, Divine Mind, Totemist, Swordsage and Marshal being the key examples; note I didn't include Factotum, and this is VERY important). The outliers didn't follow the strict definition of the other classes, mostly because they lacked full BAB, but they all have one key thing in common: as OOB says, their primary contribution is "attacking". It's on the "attacking" where I feel there's a larger need for an explanation; what it means is that, when you're thinking about their primary contribution to the party, if the first thing that comes to mind is "take a weapon and attack the enemy" rather than "cast spells" or "use skills/ability checks to solve non-combat situations", which define Casters and Skill-Monkeys respectively. The Rogue and the Monk, strangely enough, are similar in some regards but are more focused in one thing than the other: a Rogue is expected to contribute by taking a weapon and attacking, but its true main contribution is skill-wise; aside from Sneak Attack and the Assassin's subclass features, the Rogue is mostly designed to dodge and skirmish. The Monk ALSO has skills to dodge and skirmish, but it has class features that are meant to disable the target as part of your attack and its focus on skills is secondary to the Rogue, and even to the Bard; note that the Rogue and the Bard are the ONLY classes that have Expertise, which IMO is the hallmark of a Skill-Monkey build the same way spells at 1st level are the hallmark of Casters and Fighting Styles are the hallmark of Martials.

Even then, the definition can muddle up, so rather than focus on the particulars (Paladins and Rangers, as well as Eldritch Knight Fighters and Arcane Trickster Bards, and to an extent Totem Barbarians and Way of the Elements Monks, have a degree of casting or "casting" ability; does that incapacitate them to be Martials?), focus on a broader yet concise definition. Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins and Rangers all have combat as a main focus, and the majority of all builds will focus on being better at combat, specifically on weapon combat rather than spell combat. Note that you wouldn't make a purely caster-based Paladin or Ranger build, since they lack important things like AoE ranged spells and AoE debuffs cast at range, or if they have, they aren't the focus of the build.

The Bard in 5e is, however, a gamebreaker in that regard. Bards in 5e are excellent in combat (they get a good set of proficiencies and have almost the same prowess with weaponry as Martials), are just as good as Martials if they choose College of War, but they still have 9th level spells (another hallmark of Casters) and Expertise (the hallmark of Skill-Monkeys). How would you define it, then? As a Skill-Monkey, it's only secondary to the Rogue, but the Rogue IS meant to be the definite Skill-Monkey, so you're comparing a great thing with the absolute best (or what's perceived as such). As part of the College of Lore, you can see the Bard suddenly challenge the Rogue in its own turf, AND also challenge the Sorcerer on its own turf.

Look at the Warlock, as well. How would you define a Warlock? Pact Magic IS Spellcasting, and thus it would qualify as a Caster, but its method of spellcasting is almost entirely different from that of the "traditional" spellcasters, including the Bard and the Sorcerer which retain their spontaneous nature. Few Invocations provide at-will abilities, and Mystic Arcana can only take you so far. Even then, it's a Caster. One Invocation, though, makes it a pretty respectable Skill-Monkey, as it has more skills than any other.

Say the Cleric now. As it stands, it's a full Caster, first and foremost. Except when it's a War Cleric, where it can almost approach the skill of a Martial character, but never surpass it (the Cleric lacks the Fighting Style, and its replacement isn't like the Barbarian's Rage which allows it to compensate; at most, it can match the Paladin, and the latter has a way to go nova and outdamage the Cleric), and the Knowledge Cleric, where it can tap the traits of a Skill-Monkey by dabbling on additional skills.

Saying that because you have more than a cursory approach to spellcasting (High Elf, Tiefling, you may add the Eladrin and Aasimar; the Magic Initiate feat) you have to define the character as a Caster, and specifically, that a Martial is another word for "Mundane" is pretty much wrong. A Martial Character needs not be Mundane (as I said, Paladins and Rangers focus more on physical combat than spellcasting), and a Mundane Character needs not be Martial (the Thief Rogue doesn't cast spells, and its abilities work better outside of battle than inside). "Martial" is not shorthand for "mundane"; however, it is a coincidence that in 3.5, most of the warriors happened to be mundane, and also happened to be less capable than casters on their own turf. It also happens that half-casters were also hopelessly outclassed, with the Paladin often considered to be inferior to a Cleric in martial terms, and the often-most mentioned solution to that problem is "play a Crusader", which happens to be a pretty much "mundane" character aside from Devoted Spirit maneuvers. The Warblade, while not being a class that outmatches the casters' dominance, still managed to be one step ahead of many other mundane classes while still remaining mundane, but their mechanics made people mindful of spells and thus they aren't liked.

As a final bit: another reason why I prefer the term "Martial" rather than "Mundane" in terms of accuracy is that I believe any character, after a certain level, HAS to tap into the Supernatural, and thus stops being mundane. A Martial character, if equated with a Mundane character, won't be capable of tapping into Supernatural forces because of this; however, if you split the concept of Martial and Mundane for what they are meant to represent (first being "anyone whose primary focus is combat with weapons", second being "a non-magical character"), you could easily have a Fighter who ends up tapping Supernatural forces and yet not be considered a Caster. Or...does everyone who taps into Supernatural sources is automatically a "caster"? Because, if you consider Martials "mundanes", then chances are you consider Supernaturals "casters" as well.

[SharkForce]

i wouldn't downplay the rogue's combat capabilities that much.

for starters, while they only have one offensive ability (sneak attack), it's a really impressive one, enough to keep them in the running for the higher DPS builds.

for another thing, while there are certainly out-of-combat uses for them (such as avoiding traps or detecting spies or withstanding a caster who is attempting to hijack a social situation), uncanny dodge, evasion, blindsense, slippery mind, and elusive are all defensive abilities which can see a lot of use in combat.

additionally, there other abilities (cunning action, reliable talent, stroke of luck) can all be used offensively or defensively in combat. cunning action, for example, can allow you to hide and gain advantage on your attack, reliable talent can be used for grappling or in escaping grapples (as well as helping you hide), stroke of luck can turn an attack roll from a miss to a hit.

then, we look at archetype abilities.

thief: fast hands (*can* be used to poison a weapon, but there's already a use for cunning action in combat anyways), second story work (realistically, only useful in a very rare combat situation where you're climbing in the middle of a fight for some reason), supreme sneak (lets you hide better - good for combat as well as outside), use magic device (using magic items can be either/or, but a lot of magic items are definitely combat-focused), and thief's reflex, which is only useful in combat. so 4/5 abilities are very likely to be useful in combat, with 2 of them being *only* useful in combat.

assassin: proficiencies (disguise kit is non-combat, poisoner's kit is definitely combat though), assassinate (obvious combat applications), infiltration expertise (practically speaking, while you might use it to gain an advantage in a specific combat, this is not a combat ability), impostor (same as infiltration expertise), and death strike (obvious combat application). ironically, the assassin only has 3/5 combat abilities, but they're very significant ones.

arcane trickster: spellcasting/cantrips are potentially combat (depends on choices made), mage hand legerdemain is not, magical ambush can be combat, versatile trickster is pretty much purely combat, and spell thief (definitely combat), so 4/5 combat there.

ironically, assassin has the fewest combat abilities (but the ones that are combat are really big).

but in general, the rogue's abilities, including all archetypes, are fairly combat-centric. most of their abilities are either exclusively for combat or at the very least useful in combat.

[silveralen]

The problem has never been whether or not the martial character can contribute at all, for the most part. Rather, the problem is whether or not the given class will be noticed for its lack.

A party of four wizards can do everything that a party of four fighters can do. Sure, they might have a different way of going about it, but at the end of the day any dragon can be slain, any door can be burst down, and so on. Conversely, a party of four fighters can't do even a fraction of the things that a party of four wizards can do.

That's the heart of the problem. That has always been the heart of the problem.

That's not a problem. A wizard is designed to be a versatile class even compared to other casting classes. A fighter is a very straight forward and specialized class by the standards of non casters.

Of course, the idea that a wizard can overcome any problem really overlooks the fact some problems cannot be overcome by magic. A caster backed up by golems is a good example of a problematic encounter for magic users.


I'm curious; aside from maybe shifting planes (which I hate, that's not an adventure that's a tax), what challenges in 5E, specifically, can 4 wizards accomplish that 4 fighters (potentially using alternate methods) cannot?

Well, they can't explore underwater areas, unless given some magic item, or really lenient skill checks. Then again, it's debatable if magic users can explore those areas without martial characters at their back, the description of verbal components needing clear annunciation to work pretty much rules out verbal spells underwater without a very lenient DM. Try talking underwater, the medium itself distorts the sounds. At the very least it should require some sort of skill check.

Then you have areas you need to fly to reach. Of course, a barbarian can do this to a limited degree (80 ft normally), and depending on how high you need to get you can find other ways to boost that somewhat. If you need to get 300 ft in the air, your options are more limited. You could tame giant eagles with the animal empathy skill, but a lot of people see that as DM intervention because he has the options of saying there are not giant eagles or you can't tame them. Despite the fact he could rule head winds near the flying whatever are too strong for a person under the fly spell to reach, or has a protective antimagic field, or has automatic defenses which target anyone getting to close (one hit on the caster of fly and everyone's plummeting).

Stuff like that.

[Z3ro]

Well, they can't explore underwater areas, unless given some magic item, or really lenient skill checks. Then again, it's debatable if magic users can explore those areas without martial characters at their back, the description of verbal components needing clear annunciation to work pretty much rules out verbal spells underwater without a very lenient DM. Try talking underwater, the medium itself distorts the sounds. At the very least it should require some sort of skill check.

Then you have areas you need to fly to reach. Of course, a barbarian can do this to a limited degree (80 ft normally), and depending on how high you need to get you can find other ways to boost that somewhat. If you need to get 300 ft in the air, your options are more limited. You could tame giant eagles with the animal empathy skill, but a lot of people see that as DM intervention because he has the options of saying there are not giant eagles or you can't tame them. Despite the fact he could rule head winds near the flying whatever are too strong for a person under the fly spell to reach, or has a protective antimagic field, or has automatic defenses which target anyone getting to close (one hit on the caster of fly and everyone's plummeting).

Stuff like that.

Both those spells can be cast by a fighter, not sure how an all-fighter party couldn't handle either situation.

[silveralen]

Both those spells can be cast by a fighter, not sure how an all-fighter party couldn't handle either situation.

Well you see a fighter with spells isn't a real fighter or martial character anymore obviously. The moment he gains spells he loses any previous identity as a martial character regardless of how he actually plays.

That's the fundemental assumption behind this discussion. Enjoy.

[Forum Explorer]

That's not a problem. A wizard is designed to be a versatile class even compared to other casting classes. A fighter is a very straight forward and specialized class by the standards of non casters.

Of course, the idea that a wizard can overcome any problem really overlooks the fact some problems cannot be overcome by magic. A caster backed up by golems is a good example of a problematic encounter for magic users.



Well, they can't explore underwater areas, unless given some magic item, or really lenient skill checks. Then again, it's debatable if magic users can explore those areas without martial characters at their back, the description of verbal components needing clear annunciation to work pretty much rules out verbal spells underwater without a very lenient DM. Try talking underwater, the medium itself distorts the sounds. At the very least it should require some sort of skill check.

Then you have areas you need to fly to reach. Of course, a barbarian can do this to a limited degree (80 ft normally), and depending on how high you need to get you can find other ways to boost that somewhat. If you need to get 300 ft in the air, your options are more limited. You could tame giant eagles with the animal empathy skill, but a lot of people see that as DM intervention because he has the options of saying there are not giant eagles or you can't tame them. Despite the fact he could rule head winds near the flying whatever are too strong for a person under the fly spell to reach, or has a protective antimagic field, or has automatic defenses which target anyone getting to close (one hit on the caster of fly and everyone's plummeting).

Stuff like that.

Water one, sure they can. Potions of water-breathing are pretty dirt cheap, and lets be honest, that's how the all wizard group is getting underwater as well, cause you don't want to fail a concentration check and end up drowning. (or some other magic item instead of water-breathing, there are a few that work) Or be without any other concentration based spells for the duration of the quest.

Flight- well you can get an airship. Those are a mundane item that is for sale. If it doesn't fit in the setting, then I'm wondering how your opponents got into the sky in the first place. Or if it's a flying castle (and the only one in existence) then you get to have fun. My favorite method? Launch yourself via a catapult while carrying 300+ feet of rope or chain to allow everyone else to sneak aboard. Or you can do the boring one and invent a crappy hang-glider and get there that way.

[Z3ro]

Well you see a fighter with spells isn't a real fighter or martial character anymore obviously. The moment he gains spells he loses any previous identity as a martial character regardless of how he actually plays.

That's the fundemental assumption behind this discussion. Enjoy.

There are several posters in this thread who would disagree with you that just because a fighter can cast spells means he's a spellcaster.

Also, the original comment said nothing about it being martial/caster, it said wizard/fighter. It's not my fault there's a fighter subclass that casts spells. Frankly, it seems that in this edition (in part the inspiration for this thread), there's a lot of people who keep forgetting that it's absurdly easy for every class to get spells.

[Eslin]

There are several posters in this thread who would disagree with you that just because a fighter can cast spells means he's a spellcaster.

Also, the original comment said nothing about it being martial/caster, it said wizard/fighter. It's not my fault there's a fighter subclass that casts spells. Frankly, it seems that in this edition (in part the inspiration for this thread), there's a lot of people who keep forgetting that it's absurdly easy for every class to get spells.

Which is why we have caster, partial caster, martial. A champion is a martial, an eldritch knight is a partial caster - so an eldritch knight is overall better, will have more ways to contribute to the party out of combat.

[OldTrees1]

I would quickly like to point out that these terms were born out of people trying to describe their personal preferences and issues they found when trying to fulfill their preferences. So the same term is being used by different people to encompass different preferences. Some only share 1 of these preferences, some share a few, someone might exist that shares them all*.

We have the mundane vs magic preference.
We have the weaponry vs casting/manifesting preference.
We have the At Will vs # uses/time preference.
We have the non caster vs caster preference.
And several more...

So when "solutions" are proposed like the Eldritch Knight subclass, you ought to expect that it is irrelevant to at least 1 of the preferences that has been squished into a single argument.


*For instance I fall under #2 & #3 but don't personally care about #1 or #4 (no comment on the unlisted #5+).

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Having strict definitions of terms may seem like it elucidates or simplifies things, but as often as not that clarity is false. If people stated their specific problems with gameplay experiences directly rather than trying to wrap it in an argument about LFQW or whatever, they might get better results.

For example: there is no point to being a smart fighter in 5e (unless you also cast spells). You don't even get extra skill points to spend on Knowledge: Engineering (was it?) like Roy does under the 3.5 rules. Certainly nothing like a tactical warlord in 4e. To solve this problem, we need more class abilities or feats that use intelligence for non-spellcasting purposes.

You could take that base complaint ("My fighter gets no use from his high intelligence") and try to fold it into a broader system pattern about martial utility or whatever. But by sticking close to the actual problem, you can, you know, solve it.

[archaeo]

Which is why we have caster, partial caster, martial. A champion is a martial, an eldritch knight is a partial caster - so an eldritch knight is overall better, will have more ways to contribute to the party out of combat.

Do you see how this is a goalpost-moving argument that WotC didn't really anticipate? From their perspective, undoubtedly, "martial" meant "primarily fights with weapons," and provided a wide ranges of options to accommodate that desire. There is virtually no way that Mearls & Co. never brought up this issue; it's been a central debate in D&D since WotC took ownership of the game.

When you take the two simplest subclasses in the game, the two options that are deliberately aimed at people who might want to only contribute to the party via their ability to bash in heads, and put them in a box that reads "martial," it skews the debate. That's the whole point of this thread.

[Eslin]

Do you see how this is a goalpost-moving argument that WotC didn't really anticipate? From their perspective, undoubtedly, "martial" meant "primarily fights with weapons," and provided a wide ranges of options to accommodate that desire. There is virtually no way that Mearls & Co. never brought up this issue; it's been a central debate in D&D since WotC took ownership of the game.

When you take the two simplest subclasses in the game, the two options that are deliberately aimed at people who might want to only contribute to the party via their ability to bash in heads, and put them in a box that reads "martial," it skews the debate. That's the whole point of this thread.

Not sure how that's goalpost moving. It's a very simple rule - in general, the better the spellcasting a character has the more overall useful they are. Same problem as in 3.5, just less overwhelming.

[pwykersotz]

Not sure how that's goalpost moving. It's a very simple rule - in general, the better the spellcasting a character has the more overall useful they are. Same problem as in 3.5, just less overwhelming.

It's changing the framework of the debate. They appear to have looked at it more from a class-based perspective, not a has spells/has not spells perspective.

[OldTrees1]

@ZombieRoboNinja
Good point. Unfortunately the mutilated mega-argument has gained a life of its own.



Do you see how this is a goalpost-moving argument that WotC didn't really anticipate? From their perspective, undoubtedly, "martial" meant "primarily fights with weapons," and provided a wide ranges of options to accommodate that desire. There is virtually no way that Mearls & Co. never brought up this issue; it's been a central debate in D&D since WotC took ownership of the game.

When you take the two simplest subclasses in the game, the two options that are deliberately aimed at people who might want to only contribute to the party via their ability to bash in heads, and put them in a box that reads "martial," it skews the debate. That's the whole point of this thread.

Have you considered that those goalposts did not move from Eslin's perspective? This is a complex issue, are you absolutely sure you want to claim Eslin is skewing the debate? I believe the point of the thread was the term "martial" which happens to be a stand-in in the mega-argument for many distinct concepts (as it has been for a long time).

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It's changing the framework of the debate. They appear to have looked at it more from a class-based perspective, not a has spells/has not spells perspective.

But that's not true. The Eldritch Knight started as the draconic sorcerer in an early playtest, was internally tested as a new core class, and eventually folded into a fighter subclass. The core concept ("gish") is what remained essentially unchanged; the mechanical class framework was secondary to that concept.

I can't imagine anyone from WotC saying, "If you want utility as a fighter, you should play an Eldritch Knight." Which is probably a good thing, since the EK isn't exactly brimming with utility magic to begin with.

[archaeo]

Not sure how that's goalpost moving. It's a very simple rule - in general, the better the spellcasting a character has the more overall useful they are. Same problem as in 3.5, just less overwhelming.

In the terms of "martial vs. caster," which is undoubtedly the least nuanced version of this debate, it serves to cordon off classes WotC probably intended to be "martial" (Paladin, Ranger, EK, etc.). Now, instead of talking about the broad idea of a martial class or a caster class, we're talking about "true martials" or whatever. It's hard to see how the goalposts haven't been moved, though I should be clear and say that it isn't you who has moved them.

While I think there's an argument to be made that 5e scales complexity with access to magic to some degree, which is a game design decision that clearly is controversial, it's hardly one that can be reduced to "the better the spellcasting a character has the more overall useful they are." Describing a class' "usefulness" is patently useless in theory debates; it is completely divorced from all the in-game minutiae that will impact how useful a class feels in play. We can talk about options, we can talk about complexity, we can talk about abilities that translate into narrative fiat. But making a PC feel "useful" requires so much more than giving them enough buttons to press when they're playing.

As an example: who do you think feels more useful, the Champion Fighter who commanded the armies that won the war against the Big Bad Lich, or the Wizard who cast all the boring spells that got the Fighter to that point without any recognition? Obviously, a good DM won't let that happen; why should a good DM let the reverse occur, creating a narrative in which the Fighter "feels" useless just because the DM doesn't think they should be able to contribute?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Also, just out of curiosity, does anyone actually think that the elemental monk, totem barbarian, or eldritch knight has more "utility" than, say, a thief rogue?

[Knaight]

Well you see a fighter with spells isn't a real fighter or martial character anymore obviously. The moment he gains spells he loses any previous identity as a martial character regardless of how he actually plays.

People are looking at the older literature for reference, and there's a distinct character type in the older literature defined by being combatants by trade, who don't use spells. That's what people are thinking of with regards to fighters, and that the EK specifically bypasses some of the issues is approximately completely useless when it comes to modeling these characters while retaining a decent range of options.

[silveralen]

People are looking at the older literature for reference, and there's a distinct character type in the older literature defined by being combatants by trade, who don't use spells. That's what people are thinking of with regards to fighters, and that the EK specifically bypasses some of the issues is approximately completely useless when it comes to modeling these characters while retaining a decent range of options.

Retaining? They never had those options to retain. At least this edition a fighter or barbarian can dip a level of rogue, gain some extra skills+expertise, and gain some more utility without becoming a spellcaster. That's literally better than they have ever had it before.

The fact of the matter is, the DnD settings are ones where fighters might be exceptionally skilled, but they aren't demigods. Not being able to access magic means they are "mundane" and to a certain extent will be locked out of certain abilities and groups. That's really not going to change without butchering what makes DnD well... DnD.

So you have them literally do the best they can. Barbarians are really really far on the spectrum of "supernaturally powerful" being able to jump 80 ft or more straight up. Unless he sprouts wings and starts flapping, that's about your limit. Beyond stuff like that, you have the skill system which is both open and allows for abilities like expertise to make a huge difference in success. Or monk, with his array of neat abilities in and out of combat.

Idk, I think they did an amazing job working in everything without losing the essence of DnD. Most of the complaints strike me as nitpicky, or things I'm not entirely sure most people actually want at their table.

[Rogue Shadows]

The fact of the matter is, the DnD settings are ones where fighters might be exceptionally skilled, but they aren't demigods.

And that would be fine, if not for that fact that if you're building a class-based system where each class gets 20 levels worth of stuff then the default assumption going in is going to quite naturally be that each class is balanced against each other across all 20 levels. No one wants to reach Barbarian 20 or Fighter 20 or Rogue 20 and then learn that despite putting in the same amount of work towards leveling up the Wizard 20 or Sorcerer 20 or Cleric 20 will be able to thrash them something fierce and not merely pull of stunts that they will never be able to do, but also pull off their stunts, too.

The idea that "that's the way it's supposed to be" is bull**** from the class-based, level-based system perspective, unless you want to go back to 1st/2nd Edition and make each class gain levels at differing rates, and make it super-hard for casters to get up to very high levels.

But otherwise, when people build a barbarian they want to be like Conan and be able to fight on equal terms with even the most horrible supernatural beings ("Some find their way to Earth, but when they do, they must take on earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs or talons, infernal or terrestrial.") When they build a ranger they want to be like Drizzt, who's fought a balor one-on-one several times (well, the first time with the aid of Guenhwyvar) and won with nothing more than his magic sword Icingdeath. They want to be like Link from Zelda who, whatever magic items he gets, is ultimately just some dude who nevertheless can trounce any wizard he comes across.

And so on, and so forth. And you can talk about how that sort of martial character, who can keep up with the things that D&D wizards and sorcerers and stuff, can do simply never existed in literature, I'd happily point out that neither have D&D wizards. The overwhelming majority of wizards in fantasy literature tended to a very small number of tricks used only sparingly and always surmountable by a dude with a sword. The problem isn't simply on the martial side of things. It's on the caster side, too. They get too much even as martials get too little, and worse the system protects the casters with things like monsters with resistance to mundane weapons (and it's not even like that takes long to set in - gargoyles are CR 2 and have such immunities, banshees are CR 4, cambions and earth elements CR 5, and so on), with spellbooks that can only be used by wizards (in defiance of a classic fantasy trope), and so on.

[Forum Explorer]

And that would be fine, if not for that fact that if you're building a class-based system where each class gets 20 levels worth of stuff then the default assumption going in is going to quite naturally be that each class is balanced against each other across all 20 levels. No one wants to reach Barbarian 20 or Fighter 20 or Rogue 20 and then learn that despite putting in the same amount of work towards leveling up the Wizard 20 or Sorcerer 20 or Cleric 20 will be able to thrash them something fierce and not merely pull of stunts that they will never be able to do, but also pull off their stunts, too.

The idea that "that's the way it's supposed to be" is bull**** from the class-based, level-based system perspective, unless you want to go back to 1st/2nd Edition and make each class gain levels at differing rates, and make it super-hard for casters to get up to very high levels.

But otherwise, when people build a barbarian they want to be like Conan and be able to fight on equal terms with even the most horrible supernatural beings ("Some find their way to Earth, but when they do, they must take on earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs or talons, infernal or terrestrial.") When they build a ranger they want to be like Drizzt, who's fought a balor one-on-one several times (well, the first time with the aid of Guenhwyvar) and won with nothing more than his magic sword Icingdeath. They want to be like Link from Zelda who, whatever magic items he gets, is ultimately just some dude who nevertheless can trounce any wizard he comes across.

And so on, and so forth. And you can talk about how that sort of martial character, who can keep up with the things that D&D wizards and sorcerers and stuff, can do simply never existed in literature, I'd happily point out that neither have D&D wizards. The overwhelming majority of wizards in fantasy literature tended to a very small number of tricks used only sparingly and always surmountable by a dude with a sword. The problem isn't simply on the martial side of things. It's on the caster side, too. They get too much even as martials get too little, and worse the system protects the casters with things like monsters with resistance to mundane weapons (and it's not even like that takes long to set in - gargoyles are CR 2 and have such immunities, banshees are CR 4, cambions and earth elements CR 5, and so on), with spellbooks that can only be used by wizards (in defiance of a classic fantasy trope), and so on.

It's incredibly hard to keep things perfectly balanced, and still maintain that crucial 'feel' of D&D and well as the feeling that each class is distinct. The most common complaint I here about 4e is that it didn't feel like D&D and all the classes felt more or less the same. But it does have a reputation for being really balanced.

Right now, I think 5e has gotten pretty close to pulling off the whole balanced thing. Right now each class does feel more or less distinct, and they've certainly retained the D&D feel. And finally? The barbarians, fighters and other 'martial' classes are still fully playable alongside the wizards, clerics and druids from levels 1-20.

They might not have as much power and abilities, but they can still contribute. They can fight balors, dragons, and mindflayers without really being at a penalty. They can contribute out of combat through skills and dialogue.


I don't know about Conan but for the others, well

You can totally do that with Drizzit. A couple magical weapons, and a lot of luck, and a ranger can 1v1 a balor. Which was basically what happened in the books.

Link is probably best represented by an Eldritch Knight. Cause in many of the different games, he totally casts spells, all the time.

As for wizards, well lets ignore the settings based around D&D first shall we? Then take a look at the others.

Terry Brooks (Shannara and Knight of the Word): Spellcasters are incredibly powerful, almost invincible beings who are far beyond normal mortals. It takes either powerful artifacts, or magic of your own to stand up against them.

40K: Psykers are generally incredibly powerful, and at their best are almost invincible barring specific anti-psyker weaponry. At average they are as vulnerable as anyone else to being shot in their head, but are no more vulnerable to it.

Dresden Files: Wizards basically outstrip mortals on every account due to their magic. If they are prepared, they can counter almost anything, but a surprise bullet to the head still leaves them dead.

Elvenbane: Wizards literally rules everything and normal mortals are slaves. I don't think any normal mortals actually manage to do anything of important in that book.

Lord of the Rings: Disqualified for it's wizards actually being some sort of divine being.

Take a poke at it yourself, see what you find. But the pattern seems to be that magic users are both more powerful and more durable then normal humans. They can generally still be killed by normal humans, but it's never an easy or simple task.

[Gettles]

It's incredibly hard to keep things perfectly balanced, and still maintain that crucial 'feel' of D&D and well as the feeling that each class is distinct. The most common complaint I here about 4e is that it didn't feel like D&D and all the classes felt more or less the same. But it does have a reputation for being really balanced.

Right now, I think 5e has gotten pretty close to pulling off the whole balanced thing. Right now each class does feel more or less distinct, and they've certainly retained the D&D feel. And finally? The barbarians, fighters and other 'martial' classes are still fully playable alongside the wizards, clerics and druids from levels 1-20.

They might not have as much power and abilities, but they can still contribute. They can fight balors, dragons, and mindflayers without really being at a penalty. They can contribute out of combat through skills and dialogue.


I don't know about Conan but for the others, well

You can totally do that with Drizzit. A couple magical weapons, and a lot of luck, and a ranger can 1v1 a balor. Which was basically what happened in the books.

Link is probably best represented by an Eldritch Knight. Cause in many of the different games, he totally casts spells, all the time.

As for wizards, well lets ignore the settings based around D&D first shall we? Then take a look at the others.

Terry Brooks (Shannara and Knight of the Word): Spellcasters are incredibly powerful, almost invincible beings who are far beyond normal mortals. It takes either powerful artifacts, or magic of your own to stand up against them.

40K: Psykers are generally incredibly powerful, and at their best are almost invincible barring specific anti-psyker weaponry. At average they are as vulnerable as anyone else to being shot in their head, but are no more vulnerable to it.

Dresden Files: Wizards basically outstrip mortals on every account due to their magic. If they are prepared, they can counter almost anything, but a surprise bullet to the head still leaves them dead.

Elvenbane: Wizards literally rules everything and normal mortals are slaves. I don't think any normal mortals actually manage to do anything of important in that book.

Lord of the Rings: Disqualified for it's wizards actually being some sort of divine being.

Take a poke at it yourself, see what you find. But the pattern seems to be that magic users are both more powerful and more durable then normal humans. They can generally still be killed by normal humans, but it's never an easy or simple task.



I think the problem is that the martial characters don't "feel" as strong as wizards. A wizard goes from a small baseball sized fireball to inter-dimensional travel and spells that only exist to destroy cities. A fighter goes from being able to trip a troll but not a giant to being able to trip the same troll but the same giant is untripable just with more hp and two more sword swings. So the spell caster goes up in scope while the martial is still held back by the "it's still just a normal dude with a sword" mindset instead of becoming epic.

[Selkirk]

the 20th level wizard is an enemy that high level campaigns are built around. the 20th level fighter is a member of the party going to fight the wizard.

[silveralen]

And that would be fine, if not for that fact that if you're building a class-based system where each class gets 20 levels worth of stuff then the default assumption going in is going to quite naturally be that each class is balanced against each other across all 20 levels. No one wants to reach Barbarian 20 or Fighter 20 or Rogue 20 and then learn that despite putting in the same amount of work towards leveling up the Wizard 20 or Sorcerer 20 or Cleric 20 will be able to thrash them something fierce and not merely pull of stunts that they will never be able to do, but also pull off their stunts, too.

The idea that "that's the way it's supposed to be" is bull**** from the class-based, level-based system perspective, unless you want to go back to 1st/2nd Edition and make each class gain levels at differing rates, and make it super-hard for casters to get up to very high levels.

But otherwise, when people build a barbarian they want to be like Conan and be able to fight on equal terms with even the most horrible supernatural beings ("Some find their way to Earth, but when they do, they must take on earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs or talons, infernal or terrestrial.") When they build a ranger they want to be like Drizzt, who's fought a balor one-on-one several times (well, the first time with the aid of Guenhwyvar) and won with nothing more than his magic sword Icingdeath. They want to be like Link from Zelda who, whatever magic items he gets, is ultimately just some dude who nevertheless can trounce any wizard he comes across.

And so on, and so forth. And you can talk about how that sort of martial character, who can keep up with the things that D&D wizards and sorcerers and stuff, can do simply never existed in literature, I'd happily point out that neither have D&D wizards. The overwhelming majority of wizards in fantasy literature tended to a very small number of tricks used only sparingly and always surmountable by a dude with a sword. The problem isn't simply on the martial side of things. It's on the caster side, too. They get too much even as martials get too little, and worse the system protects the casters with things like monsters with resistance to mundane weapons (and it's not even like that takes long to set in - gargoyles are CR 2 and have such immunities, banshees are CR 4, cambions and earth elements CR 5, and so on), with spellbooks that can only be used by wizards (in defiance of a classic fantasy trope), and so on.

But the fact is wizards can't do everything a fighter can do.

Lets say you are fighting a pit fiend. Your caster's best usage is... buffing the fighter. The lowest saving throw on a pit fiend is +6 with advantage versus all magic, and that's intelligence. For the classic save or suck spells, which mostly target wis and con, he is rocking a +13 and +10 respectively. Resistance to cold and immune to fire, the most common spell damage types. I certainly hope my group has a fighter or something similar. All they need is a silver or magical weapon to be in fairly decent shape. Same case with a Balor, except now lightning resistance and you have to have a magic weapon. In either case, a fighter can knock of half that creature's HP in a single turn, which.... is what I would call impressive. Actually works great with a caster who can drop a power word (or even a really buffed sleep) on the weakened enemy, because teamwork!

But, in all honesty... yeah a fighter could potentially beat a Balor one on one at a high level. In a cave where he can't easily escape or fly around (or he chooses not to try as in the later fight) with a magic weapon made to kill such creatures and protect from their attacks? Yeah, I'll actually do a number analysis in a bit if you want, to get an idea of the level you'd need, but it's quite possible.

I'd also point out the utility of skill contests here, alot of monsters don't have skill prof, so a fighter who uses the normal trip manuever has a better chance than anything which targets a saving throw. Considering most casters cannot target skill/ability checks very well (you'd need athletics prof caster, with high strength, who gets close to enemies and uses their entire turn just for one semi likely check) this is a boon, and if the enemy has legendary resistance it gets even more promising.

The ability to reroll failed saves is also unique to martial characters (fighter and monk), and improved saves in general are a martial thing (monk, barbarian, fighter, paladin, and rogue all gain some ability to boost saves, though for fighter I am counting his extra feats/ability increases).

Near universal damage resistance that can't be knocked off is another, barbarian and monk both get that (barbarian early but only for one type, monk late for every type). Monk can spam stuns and save or die effects like no bodies business. Action surge is arguably one of the most impressive abilities, though it's looked down on by a group of people for "just" being attacks (despite attacks being shoves, trips, disarms, marking, grapples or raw damage before we even start discussing battlemaster).

I will say I'm not a fan of resistance to non magical weapons, I personally think any creature with resistance to normal weapons should have a mundane way to bypass it, be that silver, cold iron, or adamantium (though technically the latter is probably now considered a magic weapon anyways, as adamantine armor is inherently magical).

So I think that a lot of times people tend to overlook well... how well a fighter or similar class fights. Magic users are somewhat secondary in combat this time around, even if the specialize in it they tend to mainly be good at AoE. Max strength scorching ray is 120~ with evocation or dragon archetypes when at will damage for a damage focused fighter can hover in the 80-90 range and skyrocket pretty fast. Not to mention the durability improvement they'd have.

Edit: so here is something I just realized, once you get to the point a lot of enemies have magic resistance, the best person to launch save or suck spells... is the eldritch knight, if he boosts Int. Doesn't have the best list for it, but he has a couple nice ones (confusion and hold person stand out). So that's fun.

[iTreeby]

Am I the only one here who feels like Martials are characters that are melee focused and not range focused? I feel like thats the real world distinction. A fighter can use a bow and no longer be martial? A cleric can use harm spells to be martial?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Am I the only one here who feels like Martials are characters that are melee focused and not range focused? I feel like thats the real world distinction. A fighter can use a bow and no longer be martial? A cleric can use harm spells to be martial?

Yes, you are literally the only person who thinks this. :smalltongue:

But that's why I specifically use martial and not melee. Clerics and druids can be melee, while archers aren't, so it's an incorrect term.

[Eslin]

Am I the only one here who feels like Martials are characters that are melee focused and not range focused? I feel like thats the real world distinction. A fighter can use a bow and no longer be martial? A cleric can use harm spells to be martial?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are.

[Knaight]

Am I the only one here who feels like Martials are characters that are melee focused and not range focused? I feel like thats the real world distinction. A fighter can use a bow and no longer be martial? A cleric can use harm spells to be martial?

It's a large forum. There's probably at least somebody else on it who agrees with this definition, though I have absolutely no idea who they might be.

[silveralen]

Am I the only one here who feels like Martials are characters that are melee focused and not range focused? I feel like thats the real world distinction. A fighter can use a bow and no longer be martial? A cleric can use harm spells to be martial?

I've literally never heard that put forth before, and am somewhat curious as to why that association exists for you. Is there a game (pnp or video) that defines martial in that way, or a book, or is it simply what the word always seemed to mean to you?

You aren't wrong obviously, anymore than we all are because martial is a real word with a real definition that differs pretty heavily from every usage you see in the forum, but it is a unique take.

[JoeJ]

Just off the top of my head, I'd classify them as:

Martials get extra attacks (or a similar mechanic that lets them attack more than once per attack action) and proficiency with both martial weapons and medium armor.

Semi-martials get extra attacks (or a similar mechanic that lets them attack more than once per attack action) or proficiency with both martial weapons and medium armor.

Non-martials have neither extra attacks nor the required weapon/armor proficiencies.

[Sindeloke]

Just off the top of my head, I'd classify them as:

Martials get extra attacks (or a similar mechanic that lets them attack more than once per attack action) and proficiency with both martial weapons and medium armor.

Semi-martials get extra attacks (or a similar mechanic that lets them attack more than once per attack action) or proficiency with both martial weapons and medium armor.

Non-martials have neither extra attacks nor the required weapon/armor proficiencies.

I feel like this is a set of symptoms, the presence of which diagnose the actual definition as I see it:

A martial is a character who is primarily expected to solve problems with physical solutions. In combat, their damage comes almost completely from weapon attacks and class abilities that enhance those attacks. When faced with physical obstacles, they use strength- and dexterity-based skills to bypass them. They protect themselves with physical tools, like armor, or instinctive physical abilities, like evasion or uncanny dodge. They assist their allies and control the battlefield by physical means, such as tripping, hamstringing, or blinding foes, or through masterful use of morale, such as intimidating a foe or inspiring an ally.

A caster is a character who is primarily expected to solve problems with magical solutions. In combat, their damage comes almost completely from spells, and any damage-boosting class abilities work by directly increasing magical damage. When faced with physical obstacles, they use magical solutions like passwall or fly or transform into flying or burrowing forms to bypass them. They protect themselves with magical barriers that have nothing to do with any of their ability scores and don't need to be carried or repaired, but need to be consciously and deliberately activated. They assist their allies and control the battlefield by magically reshaping the terrain, moving or transforming enemies with magical forces, or bestowing tangible alterations like longstrider or enlarge on their allies.

By this metric, rogue and fighter (assuming non-casting subclass), as well as the missing warlord, are pure martials, who have only physical skills. Barbarian and non-elements monk are strong martials, who have one or two magical problem-solving abilities but are still expected to do all of their combat work with physical force. Ranger and paladin are hybrid martials, who have intrinsic magical abilities that are expected to help them solve problems, but still do most of their damage with weapons and spells that improve their weapons rather than dealing direct damage, and don't have much ability magically bypass obstacles or defend themselves compared to their physical skills and defenses. Cleric and warlock are strong casters, who are generally expected to be using cantrips or spells every round in combat and bypass most obstacles with magic, but still have some weapon combat ability and/or physical defense depending on subclass. Wizards and sorcs are pure casters, who pretty much can't do spit without spending a spell slot.

Bards are just... spoony.

[iTreeby]

Is there a game (pnp or video) that defines martial in that way, or a book, or is it simply what the word always seemed to mean to you?

It's kindof just that martial arts don't typically deal with using ranged weapons... Using a gun is absolutely not a martial tactic. Close proximity just seems fundamental,

[SharkForce]

It's kindof just that martial arts don't typically deal with using ranged weapons... Using a gun is absolutely not a martial tactic. Close proximity just seems fundamental,

i would have to disagree there.

martial arts are, essentially, the art of war. that is, the word "martial" has a literal meaning of having to do with war. so ummm...

while they don't *call* it a martial art or give it a fancy name, the basic traing that every single soldier goes through is essentially a martial art at a lower level. further training is continued as you stay in the military within this "martial art"; you may be trained on new equipment, or new weapons, or qualify for new certification. you might become a designated marksman, or part of a tank crew, or pilot a fighter jet, or go on to become a ranger, SEAL, sniper, green beret, or other special forces (and in many cases, training for these will also involve training in other martial arts as well, to provide close-combat and unarmed combat skills).

the same is essentially true for other organizations that train people in the use of guns, though perhaps not quite to the extent of the military, and certainly the training will be different in most cases (for example, most police officers in north america are not going to be expected to use assault rifles on a regular basis, while in the military, most soldiers won't be expected to use a pistol on a regular basis, so i would expect their training programs to differ dramatically in that respect. additionally, police training - at least in north america - most likely focuses more on capturing an opponent, which is not necessarily the case with military training).

and it is all essentially a martial art. it just isn't given a fancy name and taught in a dojo. truthfully, if you look at the names of many martial arts, it's essentially just a description of the martial art. most of them probably sound about as mystical to native speakers as "combat training".

[silveralen]

To be fair, guns do require *less* training to be effective than other weapons. That's part of the appeal, point and shoot. You can certainly benefit from training greatly, but it does have a lower entry point. Considering how they can also be used at very long ranges, I could see how someone might look at it this way.

Not my take certainly, but it is a take on the phrase.

Considering that, by a strict definition of martial, an evocation wizard who specializes in AoE spells for usage in large battles could be more martial than a standard thief rogue who just jacks purses on the street, it isn't like any of us are using the word as the dictionary describes it.

[iTreeby]

i would have to disagree there.

martial arts are, essentially, the art of war. that is, the word "martial" has a literal meaning of having to do with war. so ummm...

OK every character is a martial character, my bad.

[KhorashIronfist]

To be fair, guns do require *less* training to be effective than other weapons. That's part of the appeal, point and shoot. You can certainly benefit from training greatly, but it does have a lower entry point. Considering how they can also be used at very long ranges, I could see how someone might look at it this way.

Most guns are not nearly so easy to use effectively as you seem to think - pistols in particular are notoriously difficult to shoot with accuracy outside of very short range. And even the finest of sniper rifles would be useless at long range in the hands of an amateur. By comparison, 'any idiot' can indeed swing a sword or an axe and break something. The utility of such a weapon is dependent only upon the skill of your opponent.



Considering that, by a strict definition of martial, an evocation wizard who specializes in AoE spells for usage in large battles could be more martial than a standard thief rogue who just jacks purses on the street, it isn't like any of us are using the word as the dictionary describes it.

Here is where you have erred, I should think. Indeed the etymology of Martial means for the purposes of battle or war - going back to the Roman god of war, Mars, known as Ares in Greece. But applying the real-world historical context of the word to the imaginary context of magic is absurd. It is not from the context of within a fantasy realm that something is called martial, only from our outside perspective as players discussing the game. And as such we use the term martial indeed in its original real-world context - of or related to battle or war. But the real world context of this term is relative to the real-world act of war which, historically, was fought with swords, axes, bows, and even guns. It is to such things that the term 'Martial' applies, as opposed to the use of Magic, which is a separate category for obvious reasons. It is by the existence of magic in this setting that we define the word Martial - the ordinary sort of combat. Here Martial refers to the means by which we wage traditional war in our real world, not the potentially fantastic wars of D&D, where a wizard may, with the wave of his hand, decimate a legion of men with by raining fire from the sky. Indeed if such things as bombs existed in D&D, I should refer to them as Martial as well, if they were truly mundane weapons lacking any magical or alchemical aspect.

Do some Fighters step over the line from martial to magic? Indeed, the eldritch knight does so. As does the arcane trickster rogue. Just like in third edition a War domain cleric is more martial than a traditional cleric, and a member of the rogue class in second edition who selects the Bard subclass is more magical than the more martial Thief variant. But, despite the blurring of lines in some instances, in general Martial and Magical are a distinct dichotomy in the game. Care must be taken, of course, to point out that this is only within the context of combat. A Thief is not a purely martial character, just a purely martial combatant - though a Fighter may, in fact, be a purely Martial character. Two forms of combat exist in D&D: Magical and Martial. This is in comparison to our real world where we have only Martial combat - indeed such a term is redundant to us, for the definition of martial is more or less "related to combat".

Whoever said that 'Martial' was a more diplomatic way of saying "Mundane" had the right of it, I should think. In the context of D&D, "non-magical" is ultimately the definition of Martial, and that is what people mean when they say Martial. It is not a black and white thing within the context of a class - a character may be a little bit martial and a little bit magical. But in terms of fantasy archetypes, the three headings under which all classes fall might indeed be Martial, Magical, and Somewhere-in-Between. There are few other prospective roles for a D&D character in combat.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm curious; aside from maybe shifting planes (which I hate, that's not an adventure that's a tax), what challenges in 5E, specifically, can 4 wizards accomplish that 4 fighters (potentially using alternate methods) cannot?

There are none.

Martial usually is used synonymously with mundane to mean Fighter, caster is usually coded as: wizard with access to exactly the spells they need at any given moment (schroedingers wizard).

[JoeJ]

I'm curious; aside from maybe shifting planes (which I hate, that's not an adventure that's a tax), what challenges in 5E, specifically, can 4 wizards accomplish that 4 fighters (potentially using alternate methods) cannot?

Wizards can't return the dead to life. Fighters can't either, but paladins, who are full martials (all weapons & armor plus extra attacks), can.

edit: Forgot about Wish. So wizards and martials can both raise the dead at high levels.

However, shifting planes does not require a spellcaster of any kind. Planar portals exist, and can be used by anybody who knows how to trigger them.

[silveralen]

Whoever said that 'Martial' was a more diplomatic way of saying "Mundane" had the right of it, I should think. In the context of D&D, "non-magical" is ultimately the definition of Martial, and that is what people mean when they say Martial. It is not a black and white thing within the context of a class - a character may be a little bit martial and a little bit magical. But in terms of fantasy archetypes, the three headings under which all classes fall might indeed be Martial, Magical, and Somewhere-in-Between. There are few other prospective roles for a D&D character in combat.

But, as you point out earlier, that distinction is both vague (many people skirt the line) and has no bearing on what martial actually means, only by misapplying the word's context do we reach this definition.

Nor does martial or caster provide any information about your role in combat. At the very minimum a martial character can be damage, tanking, or control potentially, while a caster could be damage, control, or support.

As far as archetypes go, the lines are not very clear. You have someone whose ability is based on skill at arms. Another might draw on abilities they were born with, such as from being a demigod or a sorcerer. One might have other supernatural elements that fuel them, such as a lycanthrope, while another draws power from gods, or their faith, or the earth itself. Trying to claim there are three archetypes is quite stupid, one of the ones you listed is literally "everything else", making such a categorization completely useless.

Martial is not a counterpoint to caster. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor does having one detract form the other's relevance. That word is mundane, which is not the same as martial at all. People dislike using mundane, because the fact is it highlights the flaw in their argument "I want to have impossible supernatural abilities, but still be a mundane non supernatural being". It's infuriating to see, and trying to misuse and abuse the term martial is a big part of that.

[Symphony]

Martial is not a counterpoint to caster. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor does having one detract form the other's relevance. That word is mundane, which is not the same as martial at all. People dislike using mundane, because the fact is it highlights the flaw in their argument "I want to have impossible supernatural abilities, but still be a mundane non supernatural being". It's infuriating to see, and trying to misuse and abuse the term martial is a big part of that.

Let's not lump all dissatisfied posters into the same group. There seems to be several facets of the Martial/Caster debate.

The first is what you have alluded to (a bit incorrectly imo), people that want non-spellcasting ways to do everything that a spellcasting character can do. There are naturally some options that can only be accomplished through supernatural methods, so these people would say that martial != mundane, and instead point to some other classifying criteria.

Another part of the debate is simply a perceived lack of options. It is perfectly possible to add more explicit combat and non-combat options to martial/mundane/non-caster/whatever characters without adding anything supernatural, and that is what often seems to be at the core of many Martial/Caster debates. (Explicit options are good because it gives a baseline for what a character can do and it helps less creative players feel useful, versatile, and cool. Explicit options can also lead to slowing down the game when players feel pressured into evaluating every single option that they have available in order to make the optimum choice at any given turn. But this is not the thread for that.)

To this second group, whether martial means mundane or not doesn't really seem to be the point.

The fact that this whole debate is framed as martial versus caster pretty much tells you how martial is defined (as a character that does not cast spells). As you've said, Martial and Caster are not exclusive, but this argument is, in fact, generally about the perceived imbalance between both extremes (Champion/BattleMaster/Barbarian/Assassin/Thief versus Wizard/Cleric/Druid).

[AstralFire]

I will point out that some people enjoy explicitly supernatural things, they just want it to look more like mythological tales of warriors of old and wuxia and less of the spell-using mechanic. Though I think you could use Warlock as a very effective base for a Tome of Battle type.

[T.G. Oskar]

Martial is not a counterpoint to caster. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor does having one detract form the other's relevance. That word is mundane, which is not the same as martial at all. People dislike using mundane, because the fact is it highlights the flaw in their argument "I want to have impossible supernatural abilities, but still be a mundane non supernatural being". It's infuriating to see, and trying to misuse and abuse the term martial is a big part of that.

I have issues with Casters, sure. I don't have issues with some Casters, but certainly with some others, because they don't allow Mundanes to have fun, or make Mundanes dependent on Casters to have fun. A Mundane character trying to do something cool (supernatural or not) has often too many restrictions (and many times it's solved by DM fiat), but when a Caster does something similar, their spells allow it. Bias or perceived lack of options, that was a huge problem of how Mundanes were perceived in 3.5: unless you are enabled to do so via a feat or skill, you can't do it; however, a caster with the right spell could do so, and there were LOTS of spells. To an extent, this is possible in 5e, though in this system the DM has some more leeway; vagueness of rules can be seen as a boon for some, and a bane for others.

I write that to put the following in context: not everyone, or (really) anyone, follows your mentioned flaw. That flaw requires two things: to treat "Martial" as a synonym of "Mundane" (which is what you don't like), AND to treat "Supernatural" as a synonym of "Caster" (note that you said "impossible supernatural abilities" and "mundane non-supernatural being"). A Way of the Elements Monk uses supernatural abilities that behave like spells, but are NOT spells; are they "Casters" or "Supernatural" beings? Otherwise, you are potentially falling into your same argument, but in the opposite direction.

I am infuriated, just as you do with the "Martial ~= Mundane" issue, of having Fighters and Rogues being incapacitated because of Mundane rules, or their perception of being "Mundane" classes. 5e did very nice things to Fighters and Rogues by adding stuff like Action Surge, Cunning Action, Second Wind and Blindsight; they edge the border between the mundane and the supernatural. They also get a way to cast spells, sure. Just because they cast ONE spell, does that make them Casters, since they stop being "mundane non-supernatural beings" anymore? Does casting worse than Paladins and Rangers make them Casters? Does giving them Cantrips make them Casters?

There is where Martial and Caster serve as a counterpoint: it reflects their focus, rather than their possibilities. A Cleric CAN be a Martial character, but its focus goes towards casting, so it's best to refer them as Casters. Fighters CAN be Casters (via Eldritch Knight), but their spellcasting ability takes a backseat to their choice of Fighting Style and Extra Attacks, thus cementing them in the Martial side. None of them are Mundanes by any sense of the word.

Here is where the issue thickens: what makes you say that, just because a character can't cast spells, they can't be Supernatural? A Dragonborn is definitely supernatural, by virtue of its Breath Weapon (since you can probably justify fire or acid by mundane means, but cold is harder, and lightning is all but impossible by the same rule). Tieflings are Supernatural beings, but not by virtue of casting spells; rather, by virtue of being born from Fiends, which are Supernatural beings of their own. To claim "Supernatural" as a synonym for "Caster" and thus deny Martials (not Mundanes) from abilities that allow them to compare in certain aspects to what Casters do isn't fair.

Now, is that your point? The issue has gone way beyond its scope (yes, a Fighter is a Martial character; no, not all Martial characters are Fighters), and has really gone to "Mundanes vs. Supernaturals". Even as a Fighter, I'd like my character to eventually become supernatural (and be a frickin' hero, dammit!); thus, I can't refer to a Fighter as a "mundane" character if that is to happen. However, I don't necessarily have to call him a Caster if it doesn't cast spells. I take it a bit further, and consider classes such as Fighters and Rangers as Martials because their focus is primarily on combat, and their spells are means to an end (rather than the means themselves). Thus, if I want to mention that "Martials don't get nice things" in the context of 3.5, it's because those classes I consider Martials (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Soulborn, Divine Mind, Marshal and Monk) are often more constrained by Mundane rules than Casters do, and often need to find alternative ways to deal with those while Casters don't. Of those, two are half-Casters, another is a partial Manifester, and the last is the worst Meldshaper around. However, just because they could cast, manifest or shape a soulmeld, doesn't mean they're automatically better than a Fighter or Barbarian who lacked supernatural capabilities; in fact, because of that, they were hammered even harder, and it took some serious support from other books (and intense system mastery) to make good use of half of them, while others were unceremoniously declared worthless. Crusaders, Warblades and especially Swordsages got nice things, and they are considered Martials too; of those, only one is truly Supernatural (and only if it chooses from two specific disciplines), and the other is barely Supernatural (because Devoted Spirit is weird like that). And they STILL can't compare to Casters, because of the way Magic works.

In fact, Sindeloke just made a good distinction, except I'd add "Skill-Monkey" to the mix because the focus of Rogues isn't exactly in combat, but outside of it, and they're not necessarily casters either. In that regard, Martials are to an extent a counterpoint of Casters, and a counterpoint of Skill-Monkeys, in terms of their main focus. Opposites, though? Nope.

[Ghost Nappa]

The problem has never been whether or not the martial character can contribute at all, for the most part. Rather, the problem is whether or not the given class will be noticed for its lack.

A party of four wizards can do everything that a party of four fighters can do. Sure, they might have a different way of going about it, but at the end of the day any dragon can be slain, any door can be burst down, and so on. Conversely, a party of four fighters can't do even a fraction of the things that a party of four wizards can do.

That's the heart of the problem. That has always been the heart of the problem.

The difference between a party of four wizards and four fighters is the amount of time it takes for said party to be able to continue the plot. It's a matter of achievable built in self-sufficiency.


Need to get into the Astral Plane? Wizards can just do it themselves.

But a group of fighters is going to need to go on another quest for that in order to actually acquire the means to do so as they wish. Maybe they get help from a Wizard. Maybe they acquire a magical necklace capable of opening a door between the Material plane and the Astral Plane. Maybe they BUILD a portal. Who knows.

If a group of fighters finds it impossible to do the magical stuff then the DM needs to have a REALLY good reason.

Edit: I still feel this is generally less of an issue in this edition because of how modular everything seems to have been built. It is certainly not an issue in low-level campaigns which are the most likely starting point for a campaign.

[JoeJ]

The difference between a party of four wizards and four fighters is the amount of time it takes for said party to be able to continue the plot. It's a matter of achievable built in self-sufficiency.


Need to get into the Astral Plane? Wizards can just do it themselves.

But a group of fighters is going to need to go on another quest for that in order to actually acquire the means to do so as they wish. Maybe they get help from a Wizard. Maybe they acquire a magical necklace capable of opening a door between the Material plane and the Astral Plane. Maybe they BUILD a portal. Who knows.

Which means that for the all fighter party (or a low level party of all wizards for that matter) getting to another plane is likely to be a significant part of the adventure. Once somebody is able to simply cast a plane transiting spell, one part of the adventure is replaced by that character playing bus driver, so the focus has to be on the other parts. That doesn't make the bus driver character better than the others; some players will find it a lot of fun, others not so much.

[silveralen]

The fact that this whole debate is framed as martial versus caster pretty much tells you how martial is defined (as a character that does not cast spells). As you've said, Martial and Caster are not exclusive, but this argument is, in fact, generally about the perceived imbalance between both extremes (Champion/BattleMaster/Barbarian/Assassin/Thief versus Wizard/Cleric/Druid).

It's interesting the classes you chose. Cleric and Druid are up there, but sorcerer isn't. Despite Cleric and Druid having explicit martial options, and sorcerer not.

Yet, the issue changes a bit if we compare rogue and fighter to sorcerer and wizard. A rogue can very well be claimed to be as versatile as a sorcerer, possibly even more so since the sorcerer has to invest a lot of resources just to be a decent blaster, something rogue always has. A sorcerer can easily end up as damage focused as a standard fighter, and while wizard will win in pure options, a rogue often has convenience on their side (no resource expenditure or 10 min wait, often a higher chance of success).

Similarly, if we compare the hybrids that lean towards martial (paladin, ranger, casting subclass rogue/fighter) to hybrids which lean towards caster (cleric, druid, bard, warlock), we again see that, while a gap can exist, it as big as people make it out to be, and often any loss of versatility is made up for with combat power. Unless you are ranger, because ranger is a little sad right now.

This is part of the annoyance with labeling anyone with spells a caster, it frees people to cherry pick the most versatile classes (who are often actually hyrbrids) and compare them to champion fighter, while ignoring sorcerer or warlock. It turns a mild and often ignorable difference into a gigantic one.


I write that to put the following in context: not everyone, or (really) anyone, follows your mentioned flaw. That flaw requires two things: to treat "Martial" as a synonym of "Mundane" (which is what you don't like), AND to treat "Supernatural" as a synonym of "Caster" (note that you said "impossible supernatural abilities" and "mundane non-supernatural being"). A Way of the Elements Monk uses supernatural abilities that behave like spells, but are NOT spells; are they "Casters" or "Supernatural" beings? Otherwise, you are potentially falling into your same argument, but in the opposite direction.

I've seen people claim that open hand monk isn't a martial character due to his sanctuary ability, though only once, and more commonly I've seen people claim shadow/elemental monk isn't a martial character. So yes, many people take anything even remotely supernatural and decide it keeps a character from being martial. This is a common flaw during this discussion, because even a single spell like ability can disqualify a martial when they use it to mean mundane.


I am infuriated, just as you do with the "Martial ~= Mundane" issue, of having Fighters and Rogues being incapacitated because of Mundane rules, or their perception of being "Mundane" classes. 5e did very nice things to Fighters and Rogues by adding stuff like Action Surge, Cunning Action, Second Wind and Blindsight; they edge the border between the mundane and the supernatural. They also get a way to cast spells, sure. Just because they cast ONE spell, does that make them Casters, since they stop being "mundane non-supernatural beings" anymore? Does casting worse than Paladins and Rangers make them Casters? Does giving them Cantrips make them Casters?

I think the current fighter is a plausible mundane character, as is rogue, and a well done variation on each.

I would consider paladins and rangers martial characters for sure, eldritch knight obviously as well.


There is where Martial and Caster serve as a counterpoint: it reflects their focus, rather than their possibilities. A Cleric CAN be a Martial character, but its focus goes towards casting, so it's best to refer them as Casters. Fighters CAN be Casters (via Eldritch Knight), but their spellcasting ability takes a backseat to their choice of Fighting Style and Extra Attacks, thus cementing them in the Martial side. None of them are Mundanes by any sense of the word.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but again I'd point out it is a spectrum, while most people lump in anyone with spells as _____ caster. Which again is part of my issue with this categorization.


Now, is that your point? The issue has gone way beyond its scope (yes, a Fighter is a Martial character; no, not all Martial characters are Fighters), and has really gone to "Mundanes vs. Supernaturals". Even as a Fighter, I'd like my character to eventually become supernatural (and be a frickin' hero, dammit!); thus, I can't refer to a Fighter as a "mundane" character if that is to happen. However, I don't necessarily have to call him a Caster if it doesn't cast spells. I take it a bit further, and consider classes such as Fighters and Rangers as Martials because their focus is primarily on combat, and their spells are means to an end (rather than the means themselves).

Categorizing people by focus is good, but the problem is caster vs martial discourages that. A fighter and ranger can cast spells, so long as we define martial and caster as distinct things, it leads to the idea you can't have any spells, or even spell like abilities, and be a martial character. It's hard to argue if someone calls a character who casts spells a caster, regardless of focus.

Supernatural vs mundane makes more sense. Then we can see rather the more "mundane" classes and archetypes suffer for being that compared to "supernatural" classes and archetypes.


In fact, Sindeloke just made a good distinction, except I'd add "Skill-Monkey" to the mix because the focus of Rogues isn't exactly in combat, but outside of it, and they're not necessarily casters either. In that regard, Martials are to an extent a counterpoint of Casters, and a counterpoint of Skill-Monkeys, in terms of their main focus. Opposites, though? Nope.

This makes more sense, as we are now talking about ability types.

Martial = Weapon skill an ability, such as attacks and fighting styles

Skills = anything which augments skill ability

Caster = abilities that come through spells.

Still leaves out a large portion of abilities, or at least leaves them ill defined. Monk's ability to run up walls is....? It isn't really tied to combat, weapon training, or anything vaguely martial, isn't a spell, and doesn't rely on skills. Tossing it into martial serves to merely dilute what it means once again.

[SharkForce]

i'm not sold on any separate distinction of skill monkey.

in particular, i'm not aware of any "skill monkey" class that doesn't have a heavy investment into one of the two main types we're talking about.

typically, when people discuss skill monkeys, i see them referring to rogues and bards.

bards have 9 levels of spellcasting and get access to spells from anyone's list regardless of what path they take.

rogues have sneak attack which pretty firmly cements them into the position of being a very competent weapon user regardless of what path they take.

skill monkey doesn't seem to be in any major way a distinct group. being a skill monkey does not seem to be even remotely exclusive. they may not be the absolute best of the best (i would say wizard is the best caster, and the best martial is a bit unclear because the definition is used differently by different people... but it probably isn't the rogue, by most people's reckoning).

other classes (or subclasses) that could be argued to have "skill monkey" aspects likewise do not seem to be suffering greatly in terms of having to give up strength as either a martial or a caster.

so i can't say that i agree on "skill monkey" being a third group, distinct from "caster" and "martial". oddly enough, it feels like wizards don't seem to have considered superior skills to be a major part of the power budget at all (i personally wish they had extended that to giving some of the classes i feel are more boring better skill use, so that we could have them at least *equal* in athleticism to a strength 10 rogue without needing a belt of giant strength to do it).

[Symphony]

It's interesting the classes you chose. Cleric and Druid are up there, but sorcerer isn't. Despite Cleric and Druid having explicit martial options, and sorcerer not.


The reason I chose Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are because they are full spellcasters that can change the spells they have ready to cast on any given day. The other prepared spellcaster is only a half-caster (Paladin), and all other spellcasters can only change available spells when increasing in level. Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks can all get a decent spread of spells from levels 1-9, but by virtue of the infeasibility in selecting different spells to fit the situation are absolutely less versatile.

For example, take the commonly mentioned underwater adventure obstacle. Water Breathing is rarely necessary, so a Sorcerer or Ranger is very unlikely to take it, while any 5th level or higher Druid can have it prepared in 8 hours. It's also a ritual spell, so it's actually a decent choice for a Wizard (assuming they can't find a scroll of it somewhere to add to their spellbook) and they don't even need to take the 8 hours to be able to ritual cast it in that case.

With all that said, I personally don't mind the way things are very much, but it certainly wouldn't bother me at all if 'martial' classes got more and better options.

[silveralen]

The reason I chose Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are because they are full spellcasters that can change the spells they have ready to cast on any given day. The other prepared spellcaster is only a half-caster (Paladin), and all other spellcasters can only change available spells when increasing in level. Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks can all get a decent spread of spells from levels 1-9, but by virtue of the infeasibility in selecting different spells to fit the situation are absolutely less versatile.

For example, take the commonly mentioned underwater adventure obstacle. Water Breathing is rarely necessary, so a Sorcerer or Ranger is very unlikely to take it, while any 5th level or higher Druid can have it prepared in 8 hours. It's also a ritual spell, so it's actually a decent choice for a Wizard (assuming they can't find a scroll of it somewhere to add to their spellbook) and they don't even need to take the 8 hours to be able to ritual cast it in that case.

With all that said, I personally don't mind the way things are very much, but it certainly wouldn't bother me at all if 'martial' classes got more and better options.

So, the issue isn't one of "casters" being absolutely more versatile than "martials", but of the most versatile classes being ones with access to magic.

The subtle difference is that a class which lacks access to some aspect of the game will often be less versatile than a class which can access every part of the game. By defining "martials" by what they lack, and "casters" by what they have, you create a situation where the most versatile characters are virtually guarenteed to be labeled casters, because they can access other parts of the game as well without immediately losing status as a "caster".

For example, a rogue who gains access to magic is no longer a "martial", but a full caster who gains better skill abilities is still considered a "caster". Both are effectively hybridized characters, but the rogue is locked out of his orginally category while the wizard is not. The way people define them virtually guarentees "casters" will always be more versatile. That's the problem with these definitions.

[Symphony]

So, the issue isn't one of "casters" being absolutely more versatile than "martials", but of the most versatile classes being ones with access to magic.

The subtle difference is that a class which lacks access to some aspect of the game will often be less versatile than a class which can access every part of the game. By defining "martials" by what they lack, and "casters" by what they have, you create a situation where the most versatile characters are virtually guarenteed to be labeled casters, because they can access other parts of the game as well without immediately losing status as a "caster".

For example, a rogue who gains access to magic is no longer a "martial", but a full caster who gains better skill abilities is still considered a "caster". Both are effectively hybridized characters, but the rogue is locked out of his orginally category while the wizard is not. The way people define them virtually guarentees "casters" will always be more versatile. That's the problem with these definitions.

Well this is not only true, but the crux of the problem. This is why some people want a martial-only system that provides similar versatility and options to spellcasting. The ability to cast spells is a fundamental part of a character's concept and flavor, and some people care quite a bit about that.

At least, I think so.

Some people want 'Martial' characters to feel different mechanically than "Caster' characters, because the ability to cast spells can change the feel or flavor of a character's concept. The Warlock and Monk are, in my opinion, examples of classes that mechanically feel much different to (normal) spellcasters, and something similar for (other) martial characters are what they want.

A couple possibilities would be more 'Martial' classes that use the Monk's system of a power point pool that fuels special abilities, or maybe a fusion of a Ki-like system with an Invocation-like system.

[silveralen]

Well this is not only true, but the crux of the problem. This is why some people want a martial-only system that provides similar versatility and options to spellcasting. The ability to cast spells is a fundamental part of a character's concept and flavor, and some people care quite a bit about that.

At least, I think so.

Some people want 'Martial' characters to feel different mechanically than "Caster' characters, because the ability to cast spells can change the feel or flavor of a character's concept. The Warlock and Monk are, in my opinion, examples of classes that mechanically feel much different to (normal) spellcasters, and something similar for (other) martial characters are what they want.

A couple possibilities would be more 'Martial' classes that use the Monk's system of a power point pool that fuels special abilities, or maybe a fusion of a Ki-like system with an Invocation-like system.

The problem is, the spell system isn't in anyway exclusive. So any exclusively martial system makes no sense. I would expect every character, regardless of class or other factors, to be able to access at least the basics of such a system without any difficulty at all. That's true of spell casting, I see no reason this should be more exclusive.

Of course, from that perspective, skills would qualify. Different, everyone can access the basics, different characters benefit in different ways. Fighter can use multiple contests per turn, rogue has better checks, barbarian has strength bonuses, etc. The two can intersect just like combat and magic can.

They do feel different. The problem is, people don't actually want them to actually be different and rely on a more open less explicit system, they want them to have a system that gives the illusion of being different without actually being different. We have actual unique martial systems (monk, battle master, skills) people just complain about how they aren't spells or perfectly equivalent to spells.

So... use a point based system that recharges on short rest to access a limited number of abilities? That's pretty unique alright, certainly not like half the "martial" classes in this edition already have that :smallsigh: But sure, I could see an entire supplement about ki classes and ki archetypes. It seems a likely candidate for one of there themed paths.

[SharkForce]

dunno what everyone else is gunning for, but i'd rather see martials get more cool stuff out of combat in general, and be the undisputed masters of combat situations that can only be challenged by a caster expending major resources.

so, for example, when a battlemaster can trip 5 people in a turn at level 20... i'd like that to be *more* impressive than a spellcaster throwing hold person in a level 5 slot (granted, it only targets 4 instead of 5, but the effect is frankly much more devastating to the enemy).

now yes, i understand that tripping with a battlemaster is more reliable. but the thing is, when someone is tripped, it's generally speaking not an instant death sentence for them. the same cannot be said of someone who just got held.

plus, tripping 5 targets in a turn uses most of the battlemaster's maneuvers, leaving little room to do his awesome things for the rest of the battle. meanwhile, the caster (having burned one level 5 slot) still hasn't really even burned *one* of their higher level slots (and may even be able to recharge that slot on a short rest), and may very well have just turned the tide of a battle (presuming there was a small number of targets).

and then we get to the problem of "why can't the battlemaster do that again without an hour of rest?" i mean, mechanically, they're telling me that it's impossible for the battlemaster to pull off that stunt without taking an hour-long break. why not? did he suddenly forget how to do it, and has to work it all out from scratch again? does he have to meditate on the meaning of life? is he at some very specific level of not-quite-fatigue where he is too tired to exert himself a little bit extra under any circumstances, but not so tired that he can't maintain *standard* heavy exertion?

basically, the most devastating status conditions the fighter can inflict are unpleasant. i can understand that it's hard to justify some of the *really* nasty ones, like charm or dominate, but a high level fighter should be practically a force of nature on the battlefield. weak-willed opponents seeing a berzerker in frenzy should run away screaming in terror or even just curl up in the fetal position and whimper. paladins have it pretty good comparatively speaking; their auras give them a presence just by existing. still, they are supposed to be some of the mightiest warriors in the world, if not *the* mightiest, at higher levels. if nothing else, the common folk should be recognizing them as a great hero, a shining example for all people to look up to, someone they can trust and rely on, and respect. these are the people who should be able to pretty much recruit an army out of nowhere.

and so on.

i want the martials to feel larger than life both in battle and out of it. think of the folk tales you hear about legendary people. generally speaking, the most impressive thing about them is not "oh yeah, he totally hit people really hard". legends like beowulf holding his breath for *days* on end and wrestling sea serpents, or davy crockett riding a lightning bolt, and so on.

at level 20, a primary caster can change the world (and i'm not even talking just about the wish spell; at level 20, a caster can make powerful beings do stuff for a year at a time, whether they like it or not. at earlier levels, they've already gained the ability to curse someone permanently, or to enchant large areas with special spells or effects, and so on). why is that reserved for them?

why can't there be a fighter with class features that make them the ultimate general? why can't there be barbarians strong enough to rip trees out of the ground and smash their enemies? why can't there be rogues so clever that they devise almost inescapable plans to defeat an enemy who would otherwise be too strong, or tough, or powerful, to defeat? why can't a ranger fire arrows at targets a mile away and hit them, or track a falcon on a cloudy day?

why can't a magic item be made magic because of the legendary deeds of a great swordsman, or the legendary stealth of a great thief? why can't a barbarian's hide armour be filled with his rage, or why can't a hunter skin a displacer beast's hide so expertly that the skin somehow doesn't die to create a cloak of displacement? why is it that every magical place or object seems to need to be created by a spellcaster, and not by the legendary deeds of great warriors?

why is it that a wizard can potentially make their own magical staff of power, but a warrior must find a flametongue sword that was used by another warrior, who had it made for them by a wizard? why can't the blade be enchanted because the warrior used it to strike a killing blow against a legendary being associated with frost?

sure, some of these things could maybe happen, depending on DM. i for one would like to see these things be a bit less dependant on the DM letting martials be the kind of people who can change the world through their actions in ways that ordinary people could never do.

as it stands, a level 20 fighter is about as awesome as two level 10 fighters, who are in turn less than twice as awesome level 5 warriors, who are thankfully twice as awesome as level 2 warriors (who are most likely fairly common, and not particularly twice as awesome as level 1 warriors).

i mean, it's pretty sad when a group of 4 5th level fighters attack twice as often as a single level 20 fighter, and have twice as many action surges. if they're all battlemasters, the level 5 guys collectively have more maneuvers as well, recover more from their second wind collectively... about all you can say is that the level 20 warrior will have a higher proficiency bonus. and is more resilient against AOE attacks.

in contrast, there's no way you could ever even dream of replacing a level 20 spellcaster with a pair of level 10 spellcasters and not notice a difference. there's even less of a chance that you could do the same with a team of 4 fifth level casters.

how sad is it that by the time you're level 20 as a warrior, you're probably actually less impressive than a party of level 5 adventurers?

[silveralen]

how sad is it that by the time you're level 20 as a warrior, you're probably actually less impressive than a party of level 5 adventurers?

This really shows why no one should take people complaining about martials seriously. Most don't even own the player's handbook. Or haven't read it. Or can't handle actually comparing things.

It doesn't help how you literally describe monk earlier in your post about what you want from fighter.

[Gettles]

This really shows why no one should take people complaining about martials seriously. Most don't even own the player's handbook. Or haven't read it. Or can't handle actually comparing things.

It doesn't help how you literally describe monk earlier in your post about what you want from fighter.

If you don't mind, would you be willing to name a person or character that you think best represents what a Fighter, a Monk and a Rogue should be at level 20. This doesn't need to be a one to one comparison so nothing like "this character never REALLY went into a rage so they can't be a barbarian" just what do you think the capabilities of a character of those classes should be able to do at the highest level.

I think it would give perspective as to where you are coming from.

[Knaight]

This really shows why no one should take people complaining about martials seriously. Most don't even own the player's handbook. Or haven't read it. Or can't handle actually comparing things.

Hardly. There is no reason to assume that a PHB hasn't been read, and while the comparison isn't highly detailed, that doesn't mean it is wrong. I'd argue that it's situational, but given similar items 4 level 5 fighters aren't too far off of 1 level 20. There are some situations where the level 20 fighter has a major edge (anything with a higher AC will make the proficiency bonus count), but there are others where the 4 level 5 fighters are a better option (anything where the 1 fighter isn't likely to actually get their attacks off, as they aren't in 4 places at once). Over a longer course recovery favors the 1 level 20 fighter as they are much less likely to gradually suffer real attrition, but it's a much less pronounced difference than with casters.

I wouldn't call this sad - Even continuing the simple linear extrapolation of power to level (which I'd argue mostly undercuts it, though some levels have much bigger jumps than others), that still leaves a level 20 fighter able to have a fighting chance against two dozen professional warriors.

[silveralen]

Hardly. There is no reason to assume that a PHB hasn't been read, and while the comparison isn't highly detailed, that doesn't mean it is wrong. I'd argue that it's situational, but given similar items 4 level 5 fighters aren't too far off of 1 level 20. There are some situations where the level 20 fighter has a major edge (anything with a higher AC will make the proficiency bonus count), but there are others where the 4 level 5 fighters are a better option (anything where the 1 fighter isn't likely to actually get their attacks off, as they aren't in 4 places at once). Over a longer course recovery favors the 1 level 20 fighter as they are much less likely to gradually suffer real attrition, but it's a much less pronounced difference than with casters.

I wouldn't call this sad - Even continuing the simple linear extrapolation of power to level (which I'd argue mostly undercuts it, though some levels have much bigger jumps than others), that still leaves a level 20 fighter able to have a fighting chance against two dozen professional warriors.

The differences: 6 ability score increases/feats over that period. That includes maxing the combat stat, at least one/two fighting style feats, and additional feats like alert, resilient, or whatever.

More surges, second winds, and indomitable.

The prof score difference and HP differences.

The difference in archetype. Either more powerful maneuvers of a wider array with a higher DC, more crits, regeneration, a second fighting style, or 3rd and 4th level spells.

Comparable? Not even close.


If you don't mind, would you be willing to name a person or character that you think best represents what a Fighter, a Monk and a Rogue should be at level 20. This doesn't need to be a one to one comparison so nothing like "this character never REALLY went into a rage so they can't be a barbarian" just what do you think the capabilities of a character of those classes should be able to do at the highest level.

I think it would give perspective as to where you are coming from.

Achilles, Perseus, or Beowulf seems a decent fit for a high level fighter, monk is just about any character from a martial arts movie or batman (shadow monk mainly), rogue is Odysseus, Puck, or Batman (this requires access to magic items if the setting is low tech). Oh an Hercules for Barbarian, though you didn't ask, though ignore the "holds the entire world" version, I prefer the other variation on that trial in any case.

You'll note that... yeah you can pretty much mimic most of that as is.

I think barbarian and fighter are inherently limited concepts. I wouldn't mind fighter being given a more soldier/commander oriented archetype, or better access to the skill system in general, but I think its solid as is.

[Knaight]

The differences: 6 ability score increases/feats over that period. That includes maxing the combat stat, at least one/two fighting style feats, and additional feats like alert, resilient, or whatever.

More surges, second winds, and indomitable.

The prof score difference and HP differences.

The difference in archetype. Either more powerful maneuvers of a wider array with a higher DC, more crits, regeneration, a second fighting style, or 3rd and 4th level spells.

Comparable? Not even close.

Sure, and up against this we have:

The ability to be in four places at once.
The ability to take more non-attack actions, and just as many attack actions.
Flanking and similar, if the relevant variants are in use.
Resistance to single target effects (at the cost of vulnerability to area effects, but a lot of the nastier things are single target).
Four chances at perception checks, which more than compensates for proficiency differences.


It's mostly that first one that's really a big deal. Numbers count for a lot more in 5e than in 3e or 4e - just look at encounter balancing guidelines. One level 5 and one level 20 aren't comparable, though they are closer than in previous editions. Four? That's more notable.

[silveralen]

Sure, and up against this we have:

The ability to be in four places at once.
The ability to take more non-attack actions, and just as many attack actions.
Flanking and similar, if the relevant variants are in use.
Resistance to single target effects (at the cost of vulnerability to area effects, but a lot of the nastier things are single target).
Four chances at perception checks, which more than compensates for proficiency differences.


It's mostly that first one that's really a big deal. Numbers count for a lot more in 5e than in 3e or 4e - just look at encounter balancing guidelines. One level 5 and one level 20 aren't comparable, though they are closer than in previous editions. Four? That's more notable.

You can't possibly be serious. Be in four places at once and flank the balor/pitfiend/ancient dragon! That way your attacks can still miss more often than the high level fighter, a single area spell can drop you to half health or kill you depending on the creature, and you are almost guaranteed to fail all saving throws. Now imagine I tossed them against something that has hold person as a spell and laugh at their utter uselessness.

You see, a lvl 20 fighter can conceivably beat a pit fiend 1v1, despite it being a deadly encounter for him alone. 4 low level fighters? Oh boy, good luck with that.

[Todasmile]

The differences: 6 ability score increases/feats over that period. That includes maxing the combat stat, at least one/two fighting style feats, and additional feats like alert, resilient, or whatever.

More surges, second winds, and indomitable.

The prof score difference and HP differences.

The difference in archetype. Either more powerful maneuvers of a wider array with a higher DC, more crits, regeneration, a second fighting style, or 3rd and 4th level spells.

Comparable? Not even close.

Actually, they are comparable. Those are all straight number increases - at level 5, a Fighter has basically every option they'll ever have. Aside from a very few examples, one level 20 Fighter isn't doing anything that a level 5 Fighter couldn't do - they're just doing the same things better. By contrast, a level 20 spellcaster has six spell-slot levels and 10 to 30 more spells, and can prepare more spells per day. A level 20 spellcaster is invaluable compared to that same spellcaster at level 5, because they can do things that no number of level 5 casters could ever possibly do. True Polymorph, for example, simply cannot be replicated.

In short, a Fighter does get stronger, yes. But they get stronger in the sense that they have larger numbers; larger HP, more damage, saving more often, better healing, more Action Surge. A spellcaster, specifically a full caster, gets stronger in that they have larger numbers, but also in that they simply have massively increased amounts of things that they can do. It's true that a Battlemaster gets more options, but those options are balanced for level 3 - they don't even have anything on par with a third-level spell, which makes them severely limited.

Fighter gets difference in scale (larger numbers). Caster gets differences in scale AND kind (larger numbers and substantially more ways to use them).

[silveralen]

Fighter gets difference in scale (larger numbers). Caster gets differences in scale AND kind (larger numbers and substantially more ways to use them).

Okay, sorry you dislike fighter. Play a monk. They do have unique special abilities at high level. That's not what a fighter is. He simply gets tougher and more deadly at high levels. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but I love fighter's design. I like just getting better at killing things. it's fun. Being able to do the same things as before, but more often and better, sounds perfect to me.

I prefer warlock and sorcerer as casters because they do allow for this to a degree. Honestly I wouldn't mind a casting focused class that lacked highest level spell access in return for better low level spell access, that'd be enjoyable for me.

I will say you are wrong in one thing though. Casters don't scale naturally very well. Lvl one spell slots are always lvl one spell slots. The only thing that might change is DC, but by lvl 10 that's already maxed, and 2/3rds of the spell slots will never scale in any way. Every bit of fighter scales to some degree, excepting the fighting style.

[Knaight]

You can't possibly be serious. Be in four places at once and flank the balor/pitfiend/ancient dragon! That way your attacks can still miss more often than the high level fighter, a single area spell can drop you to half health or kill you depending on the creature, and you are almost guaranteed to fail all saving throws. Now imagine I tossed them against something that has hold person as a spell and laugh at their utter uselessness.

You see, a lvl 20 fighter can conceivably beat a pit fiend 1v1, despite it being a deadly encounter for him alone. 4 low level fighters? Oh boy, good luck with that.

A single dangerous target was what I explicitly labeled as something the level 20 had an edge in, it's not a representative example. Try something like a bunch of soldiers. The 4 low level fighters can better avoid being surrounded, so they aren't going to be taking 8 attacks a round. If ranged attacks are in heavy use, the four are much better at positioning so that they have clean shots at those behind cover and aren't getting outflanked themselves. So on and so forth.


I will say you are wrong in one thing though. Casters don't scale naturally very well. Lvl one spell slots are always lvl one spell slots. The only thing that might change is DC, but by lvl 10 that's already maxed, and 2/3rds of the spell slots will never scale in any way. Every bit of fighter scales to some degree, excepting the fighting style.
Sure, they just get a whole bunch of newer, better spells. By this logic the 3.5 Psionic classes didn't scale well, as they also had to put more power points in to get a stronger effect. Yet the Psion was one of the strongest classes in the game despite that.

[silveralen]

A single dangerous target was what I explicitly labeled as something the level 20 had an edge in, it's not a representative example. Try something like a bunch of soldiers. The 4 low level fighters can better avoid being surrounded, so they aren't going to be taking 8 attacks a round. If ranged attacks are in heavy use, the four are much better at positioning so that they have clean shots at those behind cover and aren't getting outflanked themselves. So on and so forth.

Why won't they take 8 attacks per round? Not hard to gang up on one of them and pund away. If they have ranged weapons, reach weapons, or move after attacking, you can easily pick them off one at a time.


Sure, they just get a whole bunch of newer, better spells. By this logic the 3.5 Psionic classes didn't scale well, as they also had to put more power points in to get a stronger effect. Yet the Psion was one of the strongest classes in the game despite that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. By not scaling naturally, I meant the individual abilities don't increase in power constantly, not the class as a whole doesn't scale.

Higher level spells are great. But they don't have the same universal scaling as fighter. Every part of fighter scales, every part of wizard does not. Many of his abilities won't gain in power from 8 to 20, while most of fighter's abilities increase in power over time, at the very least becoming usable more often. It is a different type of scaling for the class, I don't think either is inherently superior but it is incorrect to say wizard scales just like fighter plus extra scaling.

[Knaight]

Why won't they take 8 attacks per round? Not hard to gang up on one of them and pund away. If they have ranged weapons, reach weapons, or move after attacking, you can easily pick them off one at a time.

They can hold significantly wider choke points. They can hold multiple choke points at the same time. The threat presented by one of them can deter swarming another because it leaves the ones swarming vulnerable. So on and so forth.

Basically, go ahead and find any squad tactics video game. Then, note how much of that applies just fine to D&D. There are mechanics that can enhance or diminish the effects of numbers that may or may not be there (though AoO's are one of these things and are in D&D and not hugely common elsewhere, though by no means rare), but just being in several places is really useful.

[AstralFire]

So I'm sort of staying on the periphery of these debates mostly because I'm new to 5E, and I don't think I know enough to make cogent arguments about a lot of the finer points yet. I'm really enjoying what I see of the edition, and so far, I haven't really seen a lot jump out at me as the sort of difference that I feel will cause problems in my games.

But when I see dismissals like "you clearly haven't even read the PHB" to someone I can clearly tell has based on his posting history and contributions to other threads, that's not selling me on your side of the argument.

I'd also like to reiterate that I do not see a contradiction in someone wanting to be a supernatural martial; I don't think there's anything unreasonable in wanting characters who are so good at jumping, they leap from cloud to cloud (Journey to the West), or so strong they can redirect a river (Labors of Heracles), or so enduring they can outdrill a machine (John Henry). The methods in which these are accomplished are different from spellcasting in that they do not represent discrete abilities but are part of an overall package; granting Fly to someone might work for the first, but it's a bit odd if they're terrible at tumbling. A "Control Earth" spell that left you unable to do other herculean feats of strength would make it a poor solution for the latter pair.

This point was ignored last several times I've brought it up on these threads (plural).

[archaeo]

when I see dismissals like "you clearly haven't even read the PHB" to someone I can clearly tell has based on his posting history and contributions to other threads, that's not selling me on your side of the argument.

This argument has lasted since before the game came out, AstralFire; it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that patience is wearing thin on both sides. From what I understand, this is pretty tame compared to the great edition wars of the past!

I'd also argue that silveralen has a point; I find it hard to believe that a level 20 Fighter wouldn't, on average, wipe the floor with a party of level 5 adventurers, and I'd be happy to run a combat to test that assumption. I doubt, however, that a level 20 Fighter will always be able to complete any adventure a party of level 5 adventurers could complete, depending on the make-up of the party and the adventure, of course.


I'd also like to reiterate that I do not see a contradiction in someone wanting to be a supernatural martial; I don't think there's anything unreasonable in wanting characters who are so good at jumping, they leap from cloud to cloud (Journey to the West), or so strong they can redirect a river (Labors of Heracles), or so enduring they can outdrill a machine (John Henry). The methods in which these are accomplished are different from spellcasting in that they do not represent discrete abilities but are part of an overall package; granting Fly to someone might work for the first, but it's a bit odd if they're terrible at tumbling. A "Control Earth" spell that left you unable to do other herculean feats of strength would make it a poor solution for the latter pair.

This point was ignored last several times I've brought it up on these threads.

Let me address it in a few different ways to make up for that, then:

First, I don't think 5e sees any contradiction in the "supernatural martial" department; that is fundamentally what Ranger or Monk is. In a very real sense, someone swinging a sword as hard as they can 8 times in 6 seconds, or swinging 4 times, pushing two guys over, and ending with a monster grappled in each hand, is relatively supernatural as well. All of the things you've just described have some analogue in 5e, whether that's Monk's Slow Fall or Barbarian's capstone.

Next, it's important to consider that, in the context of 5e, the designers are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know the playerbase wants meaty martial options; they also know that a substantial portion of the market they want to capture loathes the 4e solution to those options. I imagine Mearls & Co. tried to cut the Gordian knot by providing a wide variety of what they believed players would see as "martial" classes. Naturally, we're having a semantics argument about what that word means, so, hooray.

Finally, I would argue that 5e has no interest in preventing this style of play; it simply doesn't spell it out for you. This is another Gordian-knot-untying trick, from my point of view. The designers say, "ok, the DM is in charge of ability checks, therefore the DM controls to what degree martial characters are supernatural." This is a reasonable solution when you have two motivated and large groups of players that fundamentally disagree about what "martial" means, much less how much supernatural ability they ought to have.

[AstralFire]

This argument has lasted since before the game came out, AstralFire; it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that patience is wearing thin on both sides. From what I understand, this is pretty tame compared to the great edition wars of the past!

It is fairly tame and respectful compared to what's occurred before, which is probably why I'm disappointed. I get spoiled easy. :smallyuk:


I'd also argue that silveralen has a point; I find it hard to believe that a level 20 Fighter wouldn't, on average, wipe the floor with a party of level 5 adventurers, and I'd be happy to run a combat to test that assumption. I doubt, however, that a level 20 Fighter will always be able to complete any adventure a party of level 5 adventurers could complete, depending on the make-up of the party and the adventure, of course.

I personally find it hard to believe too, but SharkForce has shown a pretty strong grasp of the system in the week or two I've been back, and I have years and years of reading Knaight's posts to know that he generally has the breadth and depth of game experience that I shouldn't disregard comments he makes on balance and game design. So, I'm staying out of that particular one as far as the actual content of the argument.


Let me address it in a few different ways to make up for that, then:

First, I don't think 5e sees any contradiction in the "supernatural martial" department; that is fundamentally what Ranger or Monk is. In a very real sense, someone swinging a sword as hard as they can 8 times in 6 seconds, or swinging 4 times, pushing two guys over, and ending with a monster grappled in each hand, is relatively supernatural as well. All of the things you've just described have some analogue in 5e, whether that's Monk's Slow Fall or Barbarian's capstone.

Next, it's important to consider that, in the context of 5e, the designers are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know the playerbase wants meaty martial options; they also know that a substantial portion of the market they want to capture loathes the 4e solution to those options. I imagine Mearls & Co. tried to cut the Gordian knot by providing a wide variety of what they believed players would see as "martial" classes. Naturally, we're having a semantics argument about what that word means, so, hooray.

Finally, I would argue that 5e has no interest in preventing this style of play; it simply doesn't spell it out for you. This is another Gordian-knot-untying trick, from my point of view. The designers say, "ok, the DM is in charge of ability checks, therefore the DM controls to what degree martial characters are supernatural." This is a reasonable solution when you have two motivated and large groups of players that fundamentally disagree about what "martial" means, much less how much supernatural ability they ought to have.

Thanks! I appreciate being heard. :)

I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. I brought this point up in part to contentions that people who want martials to be supernatural are somehow missing the point of what it means to be martial. I do not believe that they are. (I'm sort of undecided, to be honest, for this edition; I won't know where I fall for sure until I have a real 'in play' feel for higher levels).

Regarding your third point: it's possible that that's intended, but I think that's more of an interesting side benefit, one that you've just inspired me to explore a little bit, actually. If they wanted the skill system to be flexible for different degrees of heroism, that could have been done by putting in variant rules with benchmark DCs based either upon realism or myth in the DMG, as they did for several other elements of the sliding scale from gritty to epic. The extreme degree to which they left it open-ended suggests to me that it is primarily intended to reduce book work.

I think it would be a good community project to come up with common benchmarks for different power levels (I'd say realistic <> heroic <> epic would be a good set) so that DMs who don't feel comfortable ad hocing everything have a common reference for allowing this sort of thing through skills. I deeply appreciate the flexibility 5E has given, but I do think we could have done with a few more benchmarks and guidelines while tossing out a lot of the "written in stone" rules.

[Tehnar]

This argument has lasted since before the game came out, AstralFire; it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that patience is wearing thin on both sides. From what I understand, this is pretty tame compared to the great edition wars of the past!

I'd also argue that silveralen has a point; I find it hard to believe that a level 20 Fighter wouldn't, on average, wipe the floor with a party of level 5 adventurers, and I'd be happy to run a combat to test that assumption. I doubt, however, that a level 20 Fighter will always be able to complete any adventure a party of level 5 adventurers could complete, depending on the make-up of the party and the adventure, of course.


I believe the argument was 4 lvl 5's vs 1 lvl 20. While I don't feel like running the calculations now, and as there are many factors included (mostly magic items), we can do a quick calculation.

Lets say the lvl 20 fighter has 225 hp and the best possible AC of 27 (full plate +3, shield +3, protective style).
Lets also say the lvl 5 has a +1 longbow, archery style, DEX 20, champion archetype. He attacks with a +11 for d8+6 (10.5) twice per round (4 action surge). His DPR is (0.15*10.5 + 0.1*15)=3.075 per attack, or 12.3 per round when he action surges.

You need 19 lvl 5 fighters as above to kill the lvl 20 fighter in one round. Take not that this is with the best possible defensive equipment for the lvl 20. With no magic items the number of lvl 5's required goes down significantly.

[obryn]

I believe the argument was 4 lvl 5's vs 1 lvl 20. While I don't feel like running the calculations now, and as there are many factors included (mostly magic items), we can do a quick calculation.

Lets say the lvl 20 fighter has 225 hp and the best possible AC of 27 (full plate +3, shield +3, protective style).
Lets also say the lvl 5 has a +1 longbow, archery style, DEX 20, champion archetype. He attacks with a +11 for d8+6 (10.5) twice per round (4 action surge). His DPR is (0.15*10.5 + 0.1*15)=3.075 per attack, or 12.3 per round when he action surges.

You need 19 lvl 5 fighters as above to kill the lvl 20 fighter in one round. Take not that this is with the best possible defensive equipment for the lvl 20. With no magic items the number of lvl 5's required goes down significantly.
I'm confused; how many skeletons is that?

[charcoalninja]

With regards to treading a fine line between 4e and 3e, all they needed to do was to make the Battlemaster not run out of cool things in a round and a half and give us a warlord who DID have a bunch of discrete maneuvers ala 4e and they would have been fine and everyone would have had their thing. Rogue, Barbarian and Fighter for the freeform hitters, Battlemaster and Warlord for the tactical lovers and 4e folks and casters for all the people that didn't like 4e because magic didn't feel magical. Instead the 4e crowd were almost entirely ignored in favour of making a 3.5 that's marginally less broken (but with an awesome skill system).

[Person_Man]

I think 5E is very well balanced up until level 9ish. After that point, non-full casters tend to get just one or two "big" interesting encounter changing abilities (and tend to just get marginal improvements and additional uses of existing features), whereas full casters continue to get a full range of mid-high level spells, which offer a menu of big/interesting abilities that they can change out every day.

For example, the 1/2 and 1/3 casters (Ranger, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and probably the Monk depending on how you look at it) get 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells at the same levels that full casters are getting 5th, 7th, and 9th level spells.

[JoeJ]

Actually, they are comparable. Those are all straight number increases - at level 5, a Fighter has basically every option they'll ever have. Aside from a very few examples, one level 20 Fighter isn't doing anything that a level 5 Fighter couldn't do - they're just doing the same things better. By contrast, a level 20 spellcaster has six spell-slot levels and 10 to 30 more spells, and can prepare more spells per day. A level 20 spellcaster is invaluable compared to that same spellcaster at level 5, because they can do things that no number of level 5 casters could ever possibly do. True Polymorph, for example, simply cannot be replicated.

In short, a Fighter does get stronger, yes. But they get stronger in the sense that they have larger numbers; larger HP, more damage, saving more often, better healing, more Action Surge. A spellcaster, specifically a full caster, gets stronger in that they have larger numbers, but also in that they simply have massively increased amounts of things that they can do. It's true that a Battlemaster gets more options, but those options are balanced for level 3 - they don't even have anything on par with a third-level spell, which makes them severely limited.

Fighter gets difference in scale (larger numbers). Caster gets differences in scale AND kind (larger numbers and substantially more ways to use them).

To me that's an advantage, not a problem. I don't like having to wait until the game is almost over before I can use my cool class abilities; I'd much rather have all or almost all of those abilities right at the beginning and have the character simply get better at using them as they gain experience. If my character can walk on clouds at 20th level, then they should be able to walk in snow or mud without leaving footprints at 1st level and walk on water by 10th. Unlocking new abilities at certain levels feels very video gamey to me, and creates a problem for my suspension of disbelief.

[OldTrees1]

To me that's an advantage, not a problem. I don't like having to wait until the game is almost over before I can use my cool class abilities; I'd much rather have all or almost all of those abilities right at the beginning and have the character simply get better at using them as they gain experience. If my character can walk on clouds at 20th level, then they should be able to walk in snow or mud without leaving footprints at 1st level and walk on water by 10th. Unlocking new abilities at certain levels feels very video gamey to me, and creates a problem for my suspension of disbelief.

Well while walking on clouds and walking without leaving footprints are similar, there is still a difference in kinds between the two. However I get what you are saying, you want new abilities to seem to be natural developments from old abilities (and start with enough kinds of abilities at level 1). I can agree as long as the natural developments include some differences in kind rather than all be increases in numbers.

[Z3ro]

For example, the 1/2 and 1/3 casters (Ranger, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and probably the Monk depending on how you look at it) get 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells at the same levels that full casters are getting 5th, 7th, and 9th level spells.

Yeah, except that they're getting those 7th and 9th level spells in extremely small amounts. Don't get me wrong, high level spells are cool and powerful and all that, but going from being able to cast one 6th level spell to one 6th level spell and one 7th level spell per day isn't that huge a jump in power.

[silveralen]

I personally find it hard to believe too, but SharkForce has shown a pretty strong grasp of the system in the week or two I've been back, and I have years and years of reading Knaight's posts to know that he generally has the breadth and depth of game experience that I shouldn't disregard comments he makes on balance and game design. So, I'm staying out of that particular one as far as the actual content of the argument.

People sometimes exaggerate to make a point. When they do, I tend to do it right back. 4 lvl 5 fighters do not a lvl 20 fighter make. The idea that being able to block a wider area (when they could just shove one person then funnel through) makes up for the difference in HP, attack power, feats, and other features is a bit absurd, and clearly an over the top reaction.


I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. I brought this point up in part to contentions that people who want martials to be supernatural are somehow missing the point of what it means to be martial. I do not believe that they are. (I'm sort of undecided, to be honest, for this edition; I won't know where I fall for sure until I have a real 'in play' feel for higher levels).

The thing is, we have a range.

If you want your martial to lack supernatural abilities, rogue has their/assassin, fighter has battlemaster/champion, and barbarian has beserker. These are fairly mundane, but functional. The rogue variants manage to be versatile and strong, the fighter variants are amongst the strongest combatants in the game, and the beserker is a bit of a miss but can still be pretty functional.

If you want a martial character who can do more supernatural things, we have monk as a whole (open hand monk is on the border till really high levels), totem barbarian, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, paladin and ranger. Monk and Totem barbarian are more unique in feel, relying on little to no spells or spell like abilities in favor of unique abilities, paladin and ranger have spells that often don't even seem like spells and are tied directly to their weaponry, and eldritch knight and arcane trickster can a large variety of interesting abilities to tinker with (if eldritch knight hand transmutation instead of invocation or abjuration it'd be the perfect archetype for me) even if they do feel like a fighter/rogue heavy gish.

The problem is that when people talk about issues of balance, they more often talk about the first group, assume unfavorable conditions for them (rogue hobbled by a DM who doesn't like the skill system) and treat the second group as not existing or not being relevant to a discussion of martials. If you've seen the arguments where totem barbarian and open hand monk are argued to be casters rather than martials you know what I mean.

This again the crux of why martial=mundane is bad, and treating it as a counterpoint is bad. You gradually lock the martials out of any interesting supernatural abilities, forcing them to be mundane, which many people find boring (I'm ironically an exception, which is why I don't want all the cool mundane classes to vanish).


Yeah, except that they're getting those 7th and 9th level spells in extremely small amounts. Don't get me wrong, high level spells are cool and powerful and all that, but going from being able to cast one 6th level spell to one 6th level spell and one 7th level spell per day isn't that huge a jump in power.

This was what I was trying to get at. When a fighter's abilities improve, they are felt in almost every encounter. When a wizards abilities improve, it usually alters a single encounter. It's different. You have some overlap (cantrips vs multiple action surges), but even then you see the difference, a scaled cantrip doesn't impact encounters much at all while an extra action surge per short rest can effect multiple encounters per day.

It's different. Some people find it to be worse as a matter of preference, but I don't think it's actually worse from an absolute balance perspective. I personally dislike waiting around most of my career to get my coolest ability, the one I really want, at the very end. By lvl 10-11 I want to have access to most of my cool stuff and just have it improve as I finish leveling.

For example, I'm wary of monk this edition, because some abilities that really seem interesting (diamond soul, empty body and quivering palm) come so late. I could end up retiring the character before I access any of that. It doesn't make the class bad, just not my playstyle as much.

[Tehnar]

Yeah, except that they're getting those 7th and 9th level spells in extremely small amounts. Don't get me wrong, high level spells are cool and powerful and all that, but going from being able to cast one 6th level spell to one 6th level spell and one 7th level spell per day isn't that huge a jump in power.

Forcecage. 10 char

[silveralen]

Forcecage. 10 char

Changes 1 encounter a day. Doesn't even end it on its own. Just delays it or gives an advantage during it. Isn't even that widely applicable. For example, an adult dragon may have a 15 by 15 base, but his tail extends a solid 15 ft beyond that, and it isn't that great vs an enemy with ranged attacks who can fire back. The best way to use it is to divide forces to take them on in groups, which is about what you could do with wall of force already.

In fact, I'd hazard to say its just a slightly better walls of force, usable in a couple additional situations. Not a huge gain in power.

[SharkForce]

the level 20 fighter being awesome because he has multiple +3 items is not the fighter being awesome, that's his gear.

you could stick the same equipment on a level 1 peasant, and the AC would be 1 point lower. that's not "wow that's an awesome guy", that's "wow that guy has great equipment".

feats are nice, stat upgrades are nice (though the team of level 5 fighters are likely only 2 points behind in the main attribute by level 5, or alternately have the main feat that would make the difference for the fighter's build - let's face it, one feat is a huge game changer, but a second feat seldom makes a massive difference), but then, so is having almost twice as many attacks (2 attacks at level 5 means those fighters attack 8 times per round collectively, your level 20 fighter probably attacks 5 times per round). and so is having an extra 3d10 collectively in their second wind.

as to saves, your level 20 fighter probably has a whopping +3 over the level 5s. yeah, it's better. it's not exactly the stuff of legends though. it certainly isn't the difference between "hey, that guy is a pretty experienced veteran with no particular distinctions about him" and "wow, that's the guy who held off half a dozen wyverns without falling victim to their venom". and this even presumes proficiency; in saves where the class is not proficient, it's likely to be barely any different at all.

the simple fact is, the things you could do with a level 20 wizard cannot be duplicated by any number of level 5 wizards. the things you could do with a level 20 fighter, well, as someone already asked: how many skeletons and/or zombies does it take before we can do those things? your fighter has a good chance of defeating a group of two dozen level 1 warriors. a level 20 wizard will completely and utterly crush a group of two dozen level 1 wizards without even breaking a sweat. heck, the level 1 wizards may never even *see* the level 20 wizard, because if he's halfway competent he can have minions that can crush those level 1 wizards without breaking a sweat.

as to the skill system being the solution, it really isn't, because in general, martials don't have *any* special advantages with the skill system. going back to our level 5s vs a level 20 fighter, there's a bit of proficiency bonus difference, and a bit of an attribute difference (which may close somewhat in a level or so for the level 6 fighters), so... we're looking at what, +5? that's supposed to be the difference between a person who's a fairly experienced veteran, and the guy who can reroute a river?

if martials typically enjoyed superior skill use as an aspect of their class, i'd say sure, skills are the solution. if martials were described in the skill section as having more leeway with their skills than a caster with the same skill selection, i'd say that could be the solution. but that isn't the case. martials have the same limits on physical attributes for the most part (excepting level 20 barbarians). and they have the same limits on proficiency bonus for the most part (rogues and bards being the two exceptions there). they have largely the same access to skills (specific exceptions exist on either side of the equation), and for the most part no special bonuses with those skills.

so the *only* martial that can even really particularly make a *claim* of their skills being enough to make up the difference is rogue. and even they aren't exactly a huge amount ahead of a lore bard.

[archaeo]

Just as an aside, I would very much love it if WotC could get around to releasing some kind of 5e warlord or something. While I don't personally feel like martials are hugely lacking in this edition, it's not hard to see that "complex martial" is the most in-demand missing class. I have faith Mearls & Co. will deliver at some point in the not-very-distant future.


the simple fact is, the things you could do with a level 20 wizard cannot be duplicated by any number of level 5 wizards. the things you could do with a level 20 fighter, well, as someone already asked: how many skeletons and/or zombies does it take before we can do those things?

I don't know, how many skeletons and/or zombies does it take to talk your way out of a situation without fighting, or lead an army into battle, or gather information for an investigation, or help carry the unconscious cleric out of battle, or, you know, one of the other dozen things that non-undead-thralls can do. If your only goal with the Fighter is to do HP damage, then yes, you can replace them with a pack of skeletons. But that's a self-imposed limitation, not one the system really suggests or expects.

A level 20 Fighter can live a whole lot longer than level 5 Fighters. That can be a very useful quality to have. Naturally, a level 20 Wizard is a different beast, but now we're getting into the realm of personal taste; that Wizard might be able to "do more" if given the opportunity in a campaign, but the same kinds of opportunities can be made for Fighters.


as to the skill system being the solution, it really isn't, because in general, martials don't have *any* special advantages with the skill system.

Except for having more ability score increases and fewer primary stats to worry about boosting to max. That kind of seems like a special advantage.


so the *only* martial that can even really particularly make a *claim* of their skills being enough to make up the difference is rogue. and even they aren't exactly a huge amount ahead of a lore bard.

Not a huge amount, maybe, but it doesn't need to be huge. If you want to have "skills that make up the difference" and you want to play a "martial," you play Rogue Thief. Et voila.

[Tehnar]

I'm confused; how many skeletons is that?

Back of the envelope Id peg that at 100 SSU or 80 ESU, though most of that is due to high ac.
Drop the ac and the efficiency goes up rapidly.


Changes 1 encounter a day. Doesn't even end it on its own. Just delays it or gives an advantage during it. Isn't even that widely applicable. For example, an adult dragon may have a 15 by 15 base, but his tail extends a solid 15 ft beyond that, and it isn't that great vs an enemy with ranged attacks who can fire back. The best way to use it is to divide forces to take them on in groups, which is about what you could do with wall of force already.

In fact, I'd hazard to say its just a slightly better walls of force, usable in a couple additional situations. Not a huge gain in power.

It trivializes one encounter. I dont know how much more power you want? Also if a creature has a space of 15 ft it fits perfectly fine in a 20 ft space force cube. Sure as a dm you can rule otherwise but those are the spacing rules.

[silveralen]

feats are nice, stat upgrades are nice (though the team of level 5 fighters are likely only 2 points behind in the main attribute by level 5, or alternately have the main feat that would make the difference for the fighter's build - let's face it, one feat is a huge game changer, but a second feat seldom makes a massive difference), but then, so is having almost twice as many attacks (2 attacks at level 5 means those fighters attack 8 times per round collectively, your level 20 fighter probably attacks 5 times per round). and so is having an extra 3d10 collectively in their second wind.

as to saves, your level 20 fighter probably has a whopping +3 over the level 5s. yeah, it's better. it's not exactly the stuff of legends though. it certainly isn't the difference between "hey, that guy is a pretty experienced veteran with no particular distinctions about him" and "wow, that's the guy who held off half a dozen wyverns without falling victim to their venom". and this even presumes proficiency; in saves where the class is not proficient, it's likely to be barely any different at all.

the simple fact is, the things you could do with a level 20 wizard cannot be duplicated by any number of level 5 wizards. the things you could do with a level 20 fighter, well, as someone already asked: how many skeletons and/or zombies does it take before we can do those things? your fighter has a good chance of defeating a group of two dozen level 1 warriors. a level 20 wizard will completely and utterly crush a group of two dozen level 1 wizards without even breaking a sweat. heck, the level 1 wizards may never even *see* the level 20 wizard, because if he's halfway competent he can have minions that can crush those level 1 wizards without breaking a sweat.

I won't argue about the skill system, as I generally agree fighter should, by default, have more access to the skill system.

However, I will argue about the rest.

First off, a feat is the difference between +0 to a save and +6. If that isn't a game changer when someone starts tossing around hold person, I don't know what is. A feat can double your damage easily. It can make it so that you are never surprised and almost always go first in a round.

A level 20 fighter can action surge twice per short rest. If he took the alert feat he will most likely win initiative vs most of his enemies. A level five fighter has about 45 HP. If his average damage hovers around 23 (non magic great sword with great weapon fighter style/feat), he could easily take out enemy fighters before they even attack. If he is a battle master using precise strike and riposte, he can potentially end it in a single turn, though two is more likely, and he probably isn't going to have taken much damage.

Even this sort of encounter doesn't highlight the differences well, because a high level fighter probably put a few feats towards boosting saves (why wouldn't he?) and with indomitable it gets better. He'll have more HP as well if he put any points in constitution as he leveled. Being tough isn't exciting for some, but don't ignore it.

Oh yes, lets use a hypothetical situation biased towards AoE, something fighter has none of. The fact is, if the wizard was faced with 4 lower level 5 wizards, he likely would clean them up in about the same amount of time, and with as little risk, as the fighter.

If anything, I'd argue the wizard is in more danger. He likely doesn't have initiative advantage over his lower level versions (less chance of grabbing alert due to fewer ability score increases and equal amounts of MAD (needs to boost con, or at least concentration, in addition to his casting stat). A single failed hold person can leave him open. Or if all four lower level mages try to counterspell his single spell, that's actually good odds they stop it.

Of course they don't have a good way to really pummel him enough to kill him, but that's more due to low level wizards wanting a fighter along for the smashy. Three wizards and a fighter actually creates an interesting dynamic, if the wizards can counter spell for a turn or two and keep the wizard paralyzed, the fighter can potentially go through a lot of his HP. It won't be easy, but it's possible. The above lvl 20 fighter wouldn't struggle if the enemy had some casters though, that's the benefit of indomitable and well rounded defenses.

Of course, if the wizard has prep time.... which is always where it comes back to. Scrhodinger's paranoid wizard who is all knowing and all seeing and lives in a keep where he devotes 90% of his time to casting defensive spells and summoning undead.

So yes, I do think the situation is more complex than you have given it credit for. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be, and I think there is value in how fighter exists currently. If it isn't to your taste, there are other options. Other martial options who do have unique special abilities as they level, like monk.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, except that they're getting those 7th and 9th level spells in extremely small amounts. Don't get me wrong, high level spells are cool and powerful and all that, but going from being able to cast one 6th level spell to one 6th level spell and one 7th level spell per day isn't that huge a jump in power.

Does any non-full caster get anything as remotely powerful as Foresight? 8 hour duration, no Concentration, Advantage to basically everything, plus a bunch of other stuff? How about Simulacrum, Resurrection, Wish, Finger of Death, or Divine Intervention? And have you considered the fact that splat books will contain even more spells, giving full castes an even wider variety of options at no-cost? (Whereas non-full casters will have to trade away subclass abilities or Feats in order to get new options).

Full casters basically get 4-7 awesome Daily Powers between levels 11-20, which they can change out for different awesome Daily Powers after a Long Rest. Non-full casters basically get 1 or 2 comparable abilities (like an additional Action Surge, Thief's Reflexes, Diamond Soul, etc) between levels 11-20, and they are forever locked into the abilities they are given.

Again, I want to reiterate that I think the developers did a mostly excellent job of balancing things at low-mid levels. I just think that non-full casters should get somewhat more stuff at higher levels. I don't care if they are limited to Long Rests, Short Rests, all day, non-magical, whatever. They should just be within the same general ballpark, and should have the option of changing that stuff out somehow.

[silveralen]

It trivializes one encounter. I dont know how much more power you want? Also if a creature has a space of 15 ft it fits perfectly fine in a 20 ft space force cube. Sure as a dm you can rule otherwise but those are the spacing rules.

Sure, that's the spacing rules for miniature play. Which isn't the standard and does not represent the creatures absolute size. If an ancient dragon just attacked someone 15 feet away with there tail, are you going to rule the entire creature is currently in the 20 by 20 cube? It obviously isn't, the tail is quite clearly outside the bounds! This is before we consider that height isn't actually even part of the spacing rules. A creature that takes up a 20 by 20 space could be 10 ft tall or 30 ft tall! Enemies are not gelatinous cubes and forcecage is based on actual size not spacing rules. I would love people to actually apply common sense to the rules.

You still haven't explained how it trivializes the encounter. If its a non magic using creature with no means of escape and no ranged attacks you can shoot it down safely, and if it's small enough you can trap it for an hour. If it fits into the former category, you just trivialized a fairly basic encounter (no ranged or magical ability doesn't strike me as terrifying) and if the latter you merely delayed the encounter. The only way to absolutely trivialize an encounter might be trapping some minions in it while killing the rest. Which makes it easier, but again depending on the number and their abilities, may or may not actually end the encounter. You aren't even likely to catch more than a handful of foes in it. I think you vastly overestimate that spell's power. It might manage to trivialize some encounters depending on enemy composition, and in others might be underwhelming or useless.

[Z3ro]

Does any non-full caster get anything as remotely powerful as Foresight? 8 hour duration, no Concentration, Advantage to basically everything, plus a bunch of other stuff?

Man, foresight. A spell few casters will use, that only lasts half the day. Don't get me wrong, it's powerful, but is it any less powerful than, say, empty body, which can be used multiple times?


How about Simulacrum

Effectively just another character; I can always play two characters if like.


Resurrection

A tax, and never useful for the caster themself.


wish

Very unstable if used wrong, but probably the best of the lot. Just once a day though.


Finger of Death

Just damage, that gives a save. Sure it has a rider, but not exactly a great spell, and potentially only twice a day.


Divine Intervention?

Just once a week, and with low chance of success until level 20. Also, the DM decides exactly how the deity acts.


And have you considered the fact that splat books will contain even more spells, giving full castes an even wider variety of options at no-cost? (Whereas non-full casters will have to trade away subclass abilities or Feats in order to get new options).


Why would non-casters need to trade away abilities? Why couldn't a fighter get new maneuvers, a monk new elemental spells, not to mention rangers and paladins (and EKs and AT) benefit just as much from splat bloat. Plus feats exist.


Full casters basically get 4-7 awesome Daily Powers between levels 11-20, which they can change out for different awesome Daily Powers after a Long Rest. Non-full casters basically get 1 or 2 comparable abilities (like an additional Action Surge, Thief's Reflexes, Diamond Soul, etc) between levels 11-20, and they are forever locked into the abilities they are given.

Awesome is rather subjective. How awesome is a spell slot used on finger of death, one of your examples, when you roll bad and they make their save? Awesome, you used a spell slot and did 25 damage. The problem with spells has always and will always be that how good they are is entirely up to the player.

[Rogue Shadows]

Why would non-casters need to trade away abilities? Why couldn't a fighter get new maneuvers, a monk new elemental spells, not to mention rangers and paladins (and EKs and AT) benefit just as much from splat bloat. Plus feats exist.

They may very well, but not every fighter is going to go Battle Master, nor every monk Way of the Four Elements. And where does that leave Rogues, or Barbarians (non-Totem Barbarians, anyway?)

It's like I pointed out at some earlier point or perhaps in some other thread. A wizard who doesn't like what his spells do can change his spells ready completely with a long rest. A Way of the Four Elements monk who wants Cloak of Shadows, will never get it. A Champion fighter who wants to learn Maneuvers, will never gain access to maneuvers.

[Z3ro]

They may very well, but not every fighter is going to go Battle Master, nor every monk Way of the Four Elements. And where does that leave Rogues, or Barbarians (non-Totem Barbarians, anyway?)

It's like I pointed out at some earlier point or perhaps in some other thread. A wizard who doesn't like what his spells do can change his spells ready completely with a long rest. A Way of the Four Elements monk who wants Cloak of Shadows, will never get it. A Champion fighter who wants to learn Maneuvers, will never gain access to maneuvers.

Two things: 1) Half the casters still need to learn the spell. A wizard can't just wake up and decide to learn teleport, unless he's at a magic shop or leveling up. 2) No one is taking champion fighter because they want options. That's literally the entire purpose of the class; to not have any meaningful options. And even then, they could take the maneuver feat, or presumably a new feat that grants a new ability.

[SharkForce]

i'm just curious why martials would be seen as more single-ability and having more feats.

you need your attack stat. you need con somewhat (or you can just let your HP be about the same as the casters, i suppose). these two are not the same thing.

for a caster, you need your spellcasting stat, you need con somewhat. these two are not the same thing.

that makes two stats for each. in some cases, more (paladins need charisma, rangers need wisdom, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters can use intelligence for spells, monks need wisdom, and rogues in general don't need charisma but can benefit greatly from an investment into it).

then we come to feats. a typical caster does not really need any feats to do their job (with the exception of dragon sorcerers who pretty much need to specialize in their appropriate element so they're useless less often). a typical melee will almost always need one, and sometimes two (for example, polearm master and great weapon master for polearm builds).

i do find it funny that people have been complaining about shrodingers caster having the right spell available all the time when they can frequently be changed on short notice and up to 25 can be prepared at a time, if not more, and which they frequently have numerous available spell slots to cast, when fighters are now expected to always have the perfect feat for the job, which they cannot switch ever under any circumstances. every fighter has alert, and resilience (wis), and 1-2 combat feats, and also has a 20 strength (or dex) and con, and, and, and...

but hey, somehow, that equates to having more ASIs to spend however they want as compared to a wizard.

how many skeletons does it take to talk your way out of fighting? zero, same as the number of fighters you need. to lead an army into battle? zero, same as the number of fighters you need, since fighters do not in fact have *any* class features supporting their ability to lead squat, and have no reason whatsoever to invest in the attributes that would make them an effective leader (int for appropriate knowledges, wisdom for insight into their opponent's mind, charisma to inspire the troops). on the flip side, courtesy of class abilities the wizard actually *has* an army to lead, which is precisely one more army than the fighter has available. how many to gather information for an investigation? again, zero... which is the same as the number of fighters you need. help carry the unconcious cleric out of battle? well, 1-2 actually, unless your cleric is *really* heavy. which, come to think of it, is exactly the same as the number of fighters i would use to do the same thing.

it doesn't much matter whether my *only* goal for the fighter is to deal damage, because the sad truth is that the *only* thing the fighter brings to the table that is particularly exceptional *is* damage. i'd get about as much mileage out of having an unskilled and untalented peasant do most of those other tasks as the typical fighter, based on class abilities alone.

and i don't want to play specifically "skills make up the difference" (not that rogue does that, since i could play a lore bard and have a similarly strong advantage in skills). i want *martial classes* to be able to participate in the "i am awesome enough to change the world" party, not *a* martial class. now, *if* that was going to be done, martial classes in general would need some advantages with skills that casters don't get. the most *logical* place to put those abilities would be *in the class itself*, not as some vague direction that skills can do lots of stuff, and especially not when there is essentially nothing preventing casters from having the exact same skills to do the exact same stuff, if those are intended as a way for martials to do impressive things.

regarding the level 20 fighter being likely to win initiative on 4 level 5 fighters... maybe. it's a fairly decent chance. it isn't remotely a sure thing. one bad roll for him combined with one out of the 4 fighters rolling well is all it takes for that to go straight down the crapper.

but even this is still beside the point. no amount of level 5 wizards could ever dream of replacing a level 20 wizard (and as i noted, in a fight the level 5 wizards would probably never even meet the level 20 wizard, because he can have minions that are stronger than all of them combined). no amount of level 5 bards could ever dream of replacing a level 20 bard. and so on, and so forth, across each of the caster classes (the closest one to being replaced is a warlock, and even then mystic arcanum and access to level 5 spells puts the level 20 warlock ahead).

if the level 5 fighters are behind in some ways, they are also ahead in others. the real point is that the level 20 caster can do all kinds of awesomely amazing things, while the level 20 martial tends to do mostly the same thing as 20 levels ago, only slightly better.

there are exceptions, but even then they tend to be a lot more limited. still, some martials are much worse off than others. martials with a few spells, for example, do better in this respect than otherwise; 4 eldritch knights can try all they like, but they won't cast a haste spell, for example. with that said, that level 20 eldritch knight is doing things a level 7 wizard could have done substantially earlier, and in some cases better (unless we're presuming that in addition to having great strength and constitution scores and half a dozen feats the fighter has also been maxing out intelligence in his spare time).

what i would like to see is more martials designed so that they scale better. so that it's not just a question of how many mooks are needed to replace them, and when you ask that question, the answer is that it cannot be done. some of them are in a much better place right now than others; i'd like to see them all brought up, with the ones that are lagging behind the furthest coming up more.

of course, realistically that's not going to happen. the edition has been released, and WotC is not going to issue errata declaring that several entire classes have been completely changed.

[archaeo]

snip

It wasn't really until just now that I realized what an unproductive low-heat flame war this is. First, semantics and "martial," and then tedious bickering about the same stuff we've bickered about for months/years, and then literally SharkForce Presents The Greatest "Martials Suck" Hits Collection.

(I'm kidding, I recognized it as soon as I stepped in it, lord help me.)

At this point, it seems pretty silly to try and argue. It's not really a big deal! Enjoy not having fun with 5e and instead playing some other game that you like!

[Person_Man]

No one is taking champion fighter because they want options. That's literally the entire purpose of the class; to not have any meaningful options. And even then, they could take the maneuver feat, or presumably a new feat that grants a new ability.

I would argue that some (perhaps most) people that choose to play a Champion Fighter do so because they prefer simplicity and/or hate complex resource management, not necessarily because they don't want options. You can write abilities that are simple to use and manage but still very useful and powerful; Action Surge, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Elusive, etc.

[silveralen]

but even this is still beside the point. no amount of level 5 wizards could ever dream of replacing a level 20 wizard (and as i noted, in a fight the level 5 wizards would probably never even meet the level 20 wizard, because he can have minions that are stronger than all of them combined). no amount of level 5 bards could ever dream of replacing a level 20 bard. and so on, and so forth, across each of the caster classes (the closest one to being replaced is a warlock, and even then mystic arcanum and access to level 5 spells puts the level 20 warlock ahead).

if the level 5 fighters are behind in some ways, they are also ahead in others. the real point is that the level 20 caster can do all kinds of awesomely amazing things, while the level 20 martial tends to do mostly the same thing as 20 levels ago, only slightly better.

4 lvl wizards could be more useful in some ways. They can maintain 4 concentration spells instead of one for starters. Counter spell four spells per turn. I'd take the single lvl 20 wizard 9/10 just like I would the lvl 20 fighter, but there are pros and cons.


what i would like to see is more martials designed so that they scale better. so that it's not just a question of how many mooks are needed to replace them, and when you ask that question, the answer is that it cannot be done. some of them are in a much better place right now than others; i'd like to see them all brought up, with the ones that are lagging behind the furthest coming up more.

Then you remove what it means to simply be a skilled fighter, and become something else. Fine for you, but bad for me. Play a different class, because you don't want to play a someone who is primarily a skilled swordsman, as such a character isn't a world shaper by definition (as we've discussed in other threads).


of course, realistically that's not going to happen. the edition has been released, and WotC is not going to issue errata declaring that several entire classes have been completely changed.

For which I'm glad honestly. I'm glad we don't have every class like that, I enjoy fighter as is.


I would argue that some (perhaps most) people that choose to play a Champion Fighter do so because they prefer simplicity and/or hate complex resource management, not necessarily because they don't want options. You can write abilities that are simple to use and manage but still very useful and powerful; Action Surge, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Elusive, etc.

Right, they want to make almost no choices in combat or when leveling, and just have straightforward useful abilities. In short: they don't want options. Options require thought and system mastery to use well.

[SharkForce]

i don't mind someone being a skilled swordsman as their class.

i just want them to also be a powerful force in other ways too. they can do that by riding lightning bolts and jumping on clouds, but that isn't necessary. i'd be perfectly happy if, for example, they could pick an option to have a reputation as a great warrior and gave a morale boost to an army that follows them, and gained an ability to raise armies, including training their soldiers.

i'd be happy if they became known as a legendary hero or villain and gained some sort of bonus when trying to persuade or intimidate someone.

i'd be happy if their constant training in the art of war gave them the ability to act as a skilled leader and pick apart the flaws in an enemy's strategy or fighting technique, benefitting their allies nearby.

and i don't want any of that to replace them being a skilled swordsman (or skilled in whatever weapon it is that they use). i just want to give them tools to shape the world as well. not necessarily by magic (although i do think that some at least quasi-supernatural options should be presented for those that want them), but simply that these people who are supposed to be the pinnacle of mortal achievement when it comes to being masters of combat arts, should have something more than just doing the exact same thing they (and for that matter, just about anyone else) could do 19 levels ago, only somewhat better.

i want the mechanics to reflect that these people are on equal footing with the casters in the party who *can* change the world.

improvements have been made in that area as compared to 3.x D&D. i'd like to see them go the rest of the way and present martials that feel like they are the pinnacle of what mortals can do when they reach 20th level, who feel like they belong adventuring alongside the people who can summon a god or alter reality with a few simple words and gestures.

[Rowan Wolf]

Just a thought here, but according to some of the definitions placed in this discussion then there are no High Elf martial characters.

[silveralen]

i just want them to also be a powerful force in other ways too. they can do that by riding lightning bolts and jumping on clouds, but that isn't necessary. i'd be perfectly happy if, for example, they could pick an option to have a reputation as a great warrior and gave a morale boost to an army that follows them, and gained an ability to raise armies, including training their soldiers.

i'd be happy if they became known as a legendary hero or villain and gained some sort of bonus when trying to persuade or intimidate someone.

i'd be happy if their constant training in the art of war gave them the ability to act as a skilled leader and pick apart the flaws in an enemy's strategy or fighting technique, benefitting their allies nearby.

And if I just want to be a skilled swordsman? Why is that not allowed to be an option?


and i don't want any of that to replace them being a skilled swordsman (or skilled in whatever weapon it is that they use). i just want to give them tools to shape the world as well. not necessarily by magic (although i do think that some at least quasi-supernatural options should be presented for those that want them), but simply that these people who are supposed to be the pinnacle of mortal achievement when it comes to being masters of combat arts, should have something more than just doing the exact same thing they (and for that matter, just about anyone else) could do 19 levels ago, only somewhat better.

Well, such classes do exist, as do quasi supernatural ones. But what if someone doesn't want any of that? What if they legitimately don't feel the need for those sort of abilities, and prefer a character focused purely on personal combat? Is that not allowed? Is a master swordsman character, whose defining feature and main role is that of master swordsman, not commander or demigod, not a valid character choice?

In the same context, why can't we have a caster who doesn't have access to as many of the high level spells, but focuses on mid level combat spells? Something like warlock, except more spells per short rest and no 6+ spells. Is that also not valid?

Some people don't feel the need for what you describe. Classes for those people are allowed. That class is, in 5e, fighter. I think the fact no equivalent caster exists is an oversight, not that fighter himself is a mistake.

I also think you heavily overestimate the narrative power of spells this edition. Many of the spells that do allow it are borderline exploits (wish+simulacrum for example). But that's a different conversation.

[Xetheral]

In the same context, why can't we have a caster who doesn't have access to as many of the high level spells, but focuses on mid level combat spells? Something like warlock, except more spells per short rest and no 6+ spells. Is that also not valid?

Some people don't feel the need for what you describe. Classes for those people are allowed. That class is, in 5e, fighter. I think the fact no equivalent caster exists is an oversight, not that fighter himself is a mistake.

Multiclass spellcasters, whether dual-caster or single-caster/something-else, fill that niche nicely.

[silveralen]

Multiclass spellcasters, whether dual-caster or single-caster/something-else, fill that niche nicely.

Dual casters still gives you high level abilities, but not much to put there, so you could manage that same style by playing a sorcerer and never taking any spell above lvl 5 if I so chose, using those slots to refill my sorcery points instead. I suppose a dragon sorcerer+evocation wizard would actually have cool stacking features though.

However, I was thinking of something more like a warlock+sorcerer multiclass, lots of mid level spells to cast over and over.

[SharkForce]

And if I just want to be a skilled swordsman? Why is that not allowed to be an option?

sure, it's an option. i recommend playing at low levels, if your goal is to be nobody special. various types of campaigns have been built around that for 3.x, i'm sure you could easily adapt them (i believe the most common one is called E6, though 5e is a bit lacking in feats atm for it to work terribly well from what i understand). at those levels, nobody has world-altering powers.

at that point, you won't be "that guy who swings his sword somewhat faster than usual" in a group with people who can transform pebbles into dragons (which will serve them faithfully for a period of time), command powerful extraplanar beings to do their bidding, control the minds of the weak-willed, trap people's souls, create new demiplanes for their own personal use, control armies of the undead, bring the dead back to life, create earthquakes and control storms, see through all illusions, and so forth.

truth be told, most of the fun i've had in D&D has been with lower level campaigns. they're a great thing.

but when half of the party can basically replace the other half of the party by just summoning a few more creatures, high levels feel a bit weird.

[neonchameleon]

And if I just want to be a skilled swordsman? Why is that not allowed to be an option?

You can play a level 3 character in a level 20 party if you like. But if you have enough hit points that an orc can not take you down in a single critical hit with a great axe (however unlikely) you are more than a mere skilled swordsman. If you can take the heat of the inside of a volcano and not die almost instantly you are supernatural. (And I don't mean inside the larva). If you can be dropped from orbit and reliably walk away you are supernatural. If you can parry a Balor or block its strike with your shield you are almost certainly supernatural.

If you want to be a supernaturally skilled and tough swordsman we're haggling over the exact nature of the supernatural abilities. And whether any of the toughness can map to strength.


What if they legitimately don't feel the need for those sort of abilities, and prefer a character focused purely on personal combat? Is that not allowed? Is a master swordsman character, whose defining feature and main role is that of master swordsman, not commander or demigod, not a valid character choice?

Yes. Unfortunately they turned to a crisp getting too close to the Balor - and even if they survived that they could neither block, parry, nor jump the first swing of its sword. They were unable to force their sword through the dragon's scales - that requires supernatural strength (and a more than mundane sword). They were utterly pointless against the Tarrasque - admittedly they could dodge between its feet but they couldn't do a single thing to it.

If you want a specialist fighter like Hercules that's plausible. If you want a purely mundane one then they should stick to the creatures in their weight class.

But yes, you can play a character you choose to cap at level 5 or possibly even level 10 in terms of ability. You just can't have a mundane swordsman who can throw down with a Balor or an elder dragon.

[silveralen]

sure, it's an option. i recommend playing at low levels, if your goal is to be nobody special. various types of campaigns have been built around that for 3.x, i'm sure you could easily adapt them (i believe the most common one is called E6, though 5e is a bit lacking in feats atm for it to work terribly well from what i understand). at those levels, nobody has world-altering powers.

at that point, you won't be "that guy who swings his sword somewhat faster than usual" in a group with people who can transform pebbles into dragons (which will serve them faithfully for a period of time), command powerful extraplanar beings to do their bidding, control the minds of the weak-willed, trap people's souls, create new demiplanes for their own personal use, control armies of the undead, bring the dead back to life, create earthquakes and control storms, see through all illusions, and so forth.


You can play a level 3 character in a level 20 party if you like. But if you have enough hit points that an orc can not take you down in a single critical hit with a great axe (however unlikely) you are more than a mere skilled swordsman. If you can take the heat of the inside of a volcano and not die almost instantly you are supernatural. (And I don't mean inside the larva). If you can be dropped from orbit and reliably walk away you are supernatural. If you can parry a Balor or block its strike with your shield you are almost certainly supernatural.

If you want to be a supernaturally skilled and tough swordsman we're haggling over the exact nature of the supernatural abilities. And whether any of the toughness can map to strength.

Yes. Unfortunately they turned to a crisp getting too close to the Balor - and even if they survived that they could neither block, parry, nor jump the first swing of its sword. They were unable to force their sword through the dragon's scales - that requires supernatural strength (and a more than mundane sword). They were utterly pointless against the Tarrasque - admittedly they could dodge between its feet but they couldn't do a single thing to it.

If you want a specialist fighter like Hercules that's plausible. If you want a purely mundane one then they should stick to the creatures in their weight class.

But yes, you can play a character you choose to cap at level 5 or possibly even level 10 in terms of ability. You just can't have a mundane swordsman who can throw down with a Balor or an elder dragon.

So, rather interesting, the people decrying the lack of options for martials have also labeled pure martial skill as worthless, and that it shouldn't be allowed at high level play. An interesting stance, though confusing.

So, if I want to be an amazing swordsman who can faced down armies only by virtue of his skill with a sword, that's not allowed in your opinion? Hit points are, after all, an abstraction. Some people play high level characters as being stabbed through the gut multiple times without penalty, others use hit points to represent turning dangerous blows into near misses, and the reduction representing fatigue and general wear and tear until you drop to a certain point.

But what's interesting is we can't even have martial characters survive wounds that would kill others, due to sheer determination and willpower. That's basic action hero material. Are you saying martials in DnD can't match an action hero in combat, without becoming a narratively powerful character by virtue of commanding an army or having supernatural forces at work?

I see some hypocrisy here. People decrying lack of martial options simultaneously disallow martial skill to be awesome in and of itself.

Facing down a Balor as a mere mortal fighter, and holding your own, is amazing. Nor does it strain plausibility. Let me give an example (It probably sounds a little silly, but it was based on how the give and take at one of my table's used to sound):

"He braced himself for the below, somehow deflecting the beast's massive weapon to the side. The flames around around the creature roared, but he ignored the pain, desperately searching for an opening. As the creature raised its arm, for another swing, he saw his chance. With a burst of strength, he threw himself at the creature, his silver blade and body moving as one, faster than he ever had before. His sword became a blur, not even a second passing between each swing. His last blow found its mark, stabbing through the creature's foul chest. With a look of surprise, the creature exploded. The warrior threw himself flat as the heat scorched his back, burnt and battered but alive".

That's what fighter's model. They are people who can fight a Balor and win. They are awesome. They don't need narrative abilities like commanding armies, nor is such a character somehow taboo. They just need a player who can actually appreciate such a character for what he is. Which obviously isn't a lot of people.

Which is fine, I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to play such a character. I do think it's silly to disallow such a concept though, one with a fairly rich tradition in fantasy. I'm fully supportive of people who want to play something outside this, but the mere existence of such a class is not a blight on the edition.

[Rowan Wolf]

Just got done looking at a 2nd edition player's handbook (been a while) and the list of 'famous fighters' kind of messes this whole argument up
List includes:
Hercules (demigod), Perseus (demigod), Hiawatha (skilled orator), Beowulf (rips arm off and beats owner with it, whole different take on armsman there.), Siegfried (magic sword and bathed in dragon's blood for...), Cuchulain (demigod), Little John (outlaw), Tristan (???), and Sinbad. The next list goes on about great generals. So from a very early time (and probably the base the current designers are coming from) the fighter is if not a general with an army behind him, is supernatural is nature is someway.

[silveralen]

Just got done looking at a 2nd edition player's handbook (been a while) and the list of 'famous fighters' kind of messes this whole argument up
List includes:
Hercules (demigod), Perseus (demigod), Hiawatha (skilled orator), Beowulf (rips arm off and beats owner with it, whole different take on armsman there.), Siegfried (magic sword and bathed in dragon's blood for...), Cuchulain (demigod), Little John (outlaw), Tristan (???), and Sinbad. The next list goes on about great generals. So from a very early time (and probably the base the current designers are coming from) the fighter is if not a general with an army behind him, is supernatural is nature is someway.

Uh.... no. You just pointed out many of those aren't supernatural in any way. Sinbad, Tristan, little john, Siegfried, and Beowulf. They do impressive things by virtue of being legendary warriors.

Personally, given that barbarian exists in this edition, I'm inclined to shuffle supernatural strong characters into that class. It's hard to find a better single class barbarian than Hercules. Even Conan is more debatable.

Still, the point is that many iconic fantasy fighters neither led armies nor had supernatural abilities.

[Rowan Wolf]

How is bathing in dragon's blood for invulnerability not supernatural? Also almost forgot a disguised Odin told him to do it.

[silveralen]

How is bathing in dragon's blood for invulnerability not supernatural? Also almost forgot a disguised Odin told him to do it.

Boon of invulnerability granted from a god obviously. That's just a special type of magic item this edition.

[Rowan Wolf]

I can see this argument is going nowhere (and that takes all the fun out of it) as much of the subject is completely based on opinion on fictional figures so entirely up to interpretation so whichever side of the fence a person is no amount of words can change that.

[SharkForce]

considering that the flames in question pretty much instantly KO normal people from the damage, and each time you attack it you get that same damage...

yes. yes, it is impossible for you to be just a skilled swordsman and kill a balor. you also have to be supernaturally tough.

and on a side note, i bet those few you picked out as "ordinary" people are known for more than just being skilled warriors.

in any event, it's not that martial skill doesn't have a place at high levels. rather, martial skill *alone* will only get you so far. can you be a warrior that can defeat an army because you're so skilled?

well, probably not all at once. in fact, considering the kind of army you're talking about at level 20 as a challenge pretty much has to be something that isn't going to get killed by a few fireballs or equivalent (otherwise how is this even an adventure worth writing down?), it's fairly likely that the army itself is comprised of fairly tough and powerful beings, probably in very large numbers, and no, you aren't going to do very well just charging into them, no matter how skilled you are with a sword, unless you are something more than an ordinary person. in fact, those "normal fighters" you listed as legendary would almost certainly have avoided such a conflict entirely, because they'd know danged well they would die.

[silveralen]

I can see this argument is going nowhere (and that takes all the fun out of it) as much of the subject is completely based on opinion on fictional figures so entirely up to interpretation so whichever side of the fence a person is no amount of words can change that.

A warrior slays a dragon and bathes in its blood due to the urging of a god and is granted invulnerability.

The DMG literally has a boon, potentially handed down by gods, called boon of invulnerability, that can be granted for overcoming a difficult encounter, such as slaying a dragon.

Siegfried was a mortal man, albeit exceptional skilled at fighting, empowered to supernatural status via magic weapons and boons.

Of course you could also interpret it as him multiclassing into say totem barbarian, to represent "invulnerability" (bear totem) and his new found bird speaking power.

So, if we accept the system can model him in multiple ways, what's the issue? He certainly killed a dragon with no magic other than a sword (and his horse I suppose?) so it still rejects the idea of mortal skill at arms being useless.


considering that the flames in question pretty much instantly KO normal people from the damage, and each time you attack it you get that same damage...

yes. yes, it is impossible for you to be just a skilled swordsman and kill a balor. you also have to be supernaturally tough.

Alright, basically all classic fantasy or really any fantasy at all disagrees with you, but lets assume for a second that's true:

Every character is magic, regardless of whether or not they have spells. So there is no reason for a character who wants more obviously supernatural abilities to not use the spell system. After all, if these abilities are inherently supernatural, abilities which disprupt the supernatural should work perfectly fine against them. You simply alter the somatic/verbal components to be physical actions and possibly loud sounds and avoid anything that requires a costly material component.

Thus the distinction between caster and martial is unimportant if we accept all classes as being equally supernatural by default.

[Xetheral]

Facing down a Balor as a mere mortal fighter, and holding your own, is amazing. Nor does it strain plausibility.

It also fits the original lore... the Noldorin elf Ecthelion mutually slew Gothmog, the Lord of the Balrogs in single combat. (Although admittedly an argument can be made that Ecthelion was a bard, he's more commonly described as a warrior. Additionally, while bardic music can be amazingly powerful in Middle-Earth, it's rarely (ever?) seen to be used in combat.)

[neonchameleon]

So, rather interesting, the people decrying the lack of options for martials have also labeled pure martial skill as worthless, and that it shouldn't be allowed at high level play. An interesting stance, though confusing.

So, if I want to be an amazing swordsman who can faced down armies only by virtue of his skill with a sword, that's not allowed in your opinion? Hit points are, after all, an abstraction. Some people play high level characters as being stabbed through the gut multiple times without penalty, others use hit points to represent turning dangerous blows into near misses, and the reduction representing fatigue and general wear and tear until you drop to a certain point.

But what's interesting is we can't even have martial characters survive wounds that would kill others, due to sheer determination and willpower. That's basic action hero material. Are you saying martials in DnD can't match an action hero in combat, without becoming a narratively powerful character by virtue of commanding an army or having supernatural forces at work? =

I am saying precisely that. That an action hero is a larger than life character with more than mundane abilities. That action heroes of the sort you are describing are quite literally superhumans in the same way that comic book Batman in the Justice League is a superhero even if he officially has no superpowers.


I see some hypocrisy here. People decrying lack of martial options simultaneously disallow martial skill to be awesome in and of itself.

Because the way D&D is set up martial skill isn't awesome in and of itself. What a fighter can do gets quantitatively better - but it doesn't get qualitatively better. With bounded accuracy you can't play Robin Hood, able to split an arrow in half. With the way hit points escalate, is it even physically possible in D&D for a 20th level fighter in D&D to one-shot an ogre or a brown bear?

To use an example of an action movie hero, let's look at Legolas from the Lord of the Rings film. Can run along snow and is an excellent archer. Utterly out of his league dealing with a Balor/Balrog. I'd estimate Legolas' level as in high single figures. A level 20 archer should be as far beyond Legolas as Legolas is beyond a starting adventurer.

But ultimately for a non-Eldritch Knight there are very few new abilities gained.


That's what fighter's model. They are people who can fight a Balor and win. They are awesome.

Indeed. They are superheroes.


They don't need narrative abilities like commanding armies, nor is such a character somehow taboo. They just need a player who can actually appreciate such a character for what he is. Which obviously isn't a lot of people.

If it's not a lot of people then it should not be the default option in the PHB. Nor one of the core four. But you clearly don't acknowledge your Charles Atlas Superman for what he is. And what does your fighter do better than anyone else outside combat?


Just got done looking at a 2nd edition player's handbook (been a while) and the list of 'famous fighters' kind of messes this whole argument up
List includes:
Hercules (demigod), Perseus (demigod), Hiawatha (skilled orator), Beowulf (rips arm off and beats owner with it, whole different take on armsman there.), Siegfried (magic sword and bathed in dragon's blood for...), Cuchulain (demigod), Little John (outlaw), Tristan (???), and Sinbad. The next list goes on about great generals. So from a very early time (and probably the base the current designers are coming from) the fighter is if not a general with an army behind him, is supernatural is nature is someway.

Yup. The archetypes the fighter was based on have always been supernatural. The attempted retcons that the fighter is a mundane swordsman in a world of magic are just that. Retcons.

But what's really changed is the wizard more than the fighter. As the wizard was designed spells were almost entirely loot and DM determined. The wizard looted spells, the fighter looted weapons. The wizard then got a tower to research at level 10 - and the fighter got a small army as a class feature.

3.0 however broke the wizard archetype. Instead of being essentially someone scavenging for artifacts they barely understood they became people who invented spells and created items - while the fighter remained someone scavenging for artifacts they barely understood.

It also broke the level system. The endgame in AD&D and oD&D starts at level 10 (or even 9) when the wizard gets a tower, the fighter an army and land, and the thief a thieves guild as class features. Spells above level 5 were intended almost entirely for NPCs - and there was no real need for the fighter to keep gaining power above that. They became a general. And high level spells were largely BBEG plot devices. 3.0 took all the leadership away from the fighter and gave them nothing above level 10 that they couldn't get below level 10 (even by the end of 3.5 there was very little). 5e continues in the 3e tradition here.

Basically Charles Atlas Superpowers are sufficient until about level 10. Possibly slightly higher as the wizards have been nerfed. A level 20 fighter in 3.5 is like dropping John McClane into the middle of Dragonball Zeta and taking his guns away. In 5e it's not quite such an extreme gap.

Edit: The Noldor were hardly mortals.

Edit 2: If you're counting Boons From A God as skill at arms, I'm going to claim Iron Man's primary ability is martial arts. Every bit as silly.

[Rowan Wolf]

It also fits the original lore... the Noldorin elf Ecthelion mutually slew Gothmog, the Lord of the Balrogs in single combat. (Although admittedly an argument can be made that Ecthelion was a bard, he's more commonly described as a warrior. Additionally, while bardic music can be amazingly powerful in Middle-Earth, it's rarely (ever?) seen to be used in combat.)

Elves in middle earth is kind of cheating they are like a +1 Mortal of anything you can do I can do better at least.

[archaeo]

Elves in middle earth is kind of cheating they are like a +1 Mortal of anything you can do I can do better at least.

So are protagonists in your D&D campaign, if you want to run it that way.

That's kind of the thesis of silveralen's point: if you want your Fighters to act that way at your table, you can accomplish it easily with good use of ability checks. The designers obviously decided that operatively defining every possible superhuman feat a martial character can do isn't really necessary or desirable, especially when it's clear that the two sides of this argument may never see eye to eye.

[Xetheral]

Elves in middle earth is kind of cheating they are like a +1 Mortal of anything you can do I can do better at least.

True, although I still think the example of a mortal* fighter killing a Balrog fits... maybe when modeled in D&D terms high elves just tend to be higher level than humans?

*I'm using "mortal" in the sense of "not one of the Ainur".

[SharkForce]

elf lords in middle earth are double-cheating, as they are essentially also wizards (or at least, some sort of magic-user).

elrond didn't make the river flash flood into the ring-wraiths or heal frodo by waving a sword around.

[Rowan Wolf]

So are protagonists in your D&D campaign, if you want to run it that way.

That's kind of the thesis of silveralen's point: if you want your Fighters to act that way at your table, you can accomplish it easily with good use of ability checks. The designers obviously decided that operatively defining every possible superhuman feat a martial character can do isn't really necessary or desirable, especially when it's clear that the two sides of this argument may never see eye to eye.

Unless you are in the forgotten realms where is is more of everyone else is busy, find the task boring, or are betting on the sideline on when/if your paladin falls from grace.

[Hiro Protagonest]

sure, it's an option. i recommend playing at low levels, if your goal is to be nobody special.

I think you're confusing the meaning of the word "just" there.

---

The question is: if it looks magic to us, does that really mean it's magic? If a fighter uses his soul to enhance physical ability beyond his limits, or strike a ghost, is that magic? To the fighter, it may just be a standard part of training, where learning to use his soul is as natural as developing his muscle. In Exalted, are Solars that aren't sorcerers using magic? Essence is everywhere in their world. The exalted themselves are powered by basically a soul supercharger.

There are two options to balance a setting: make humans and/or other races more supernatural in our perception, or curb the casters' power by saying that the mortal form is an imperfect conduit or something. Both are valid.

[silveralen]

Because the way D&D is set up martial skill isn't awesome in and of itself. What a fighter can do gets quantitatively better - but it doesn't get qualitatively better. With bounded accuracy you can't play Robin Hood, able to split an arrow in half. With the way hit points escalate, is it even physically possible in D&D for a 20th level fighter in D&D to one-shot an ogre or a brown bear?

But ultimately for a non-Eldritch Knight there are very few new abilities gained.

Max fighter damage in a single hit hovers in the 30-40 range. Max damage in a turn can break 200+. So it really depends on what you mean by "one shot". Barbarian can though, a lucky single hit can be 60-80, with optimization.

Okay, but abilities gained=/= awesome for all people. It simply isn't a big issue for many. Not everyone likes the same style.


then it should not be the default option in the PHB[/I]. Nor one of the core four. But you clearly don't acknowledge your Charles Atlas Superman for what he is. And what does your fighter do better than anyone else outside combat?

If we want to go with majority rule, fighter is perfectly fine. Many people enjoy them, and those that don't have other classes they do find enjoyable.

Who said I care about out of combat? I picked a class literally called "fighter", I'm clearly most interested in destroying things in combat.

Look, plenty of options exist that allow for what you want. They aren't, in this edition, fighter. He clearly is just a supremely skilled and tough mortal, maybe with a dash of spells. Just because he is arbitrarily considered one of the "core four" doesn't mean he has to fit what you want rather than what another player does. He doesn't need to be complicated or a narrative force.

Now, if you want him to be, multiclass into bard. You gain expertise, the ability to inspire troops, and other nifty abilities, while still being an amazing combatant. If your character is already supernatural, you don't even hurt the concept so long as you gloss over the "singing" portion. Be a bard who inspires people with stories of battles and wars fought long ago, who draws on knowledge of those battles to boost his ability to lead troops. Your minor magics are a result of being just that charismatic.


So are protagonists in your D&D campaign, if you want to run it that way.

That's kind of the thesis of silveralen's point: if you want your Fighters to act that way at your table, you can accomplish it easily with good use of ability checks. The designers obviously decided that operatively defining every possible superhuman feat a martial character can do isn't really necessary or desirable, especially when it's clear that the two sides of this argument may never see eye to eye.

Indeed. 5e is an attempt to allow for multiple playstyles, an edition for everyone, which does not mean a single set of perfectly codified rules which appeal to all people. That's literally impossible. It's an attempt to allow you to model whatever sort you want, to adjust things quickly and painlessly to better fit your table.

Of course, that in itself bothers people. They dislike simple options or the option to portray a mundane character while hand waving a few aspects. They dislike the fact not every class is exactly what they think it should be, or that their absolutely perfect ideal class doesn't exist, or that they might have to tweak some fluff to fit their character.

[Segev]

I tend to agree with the proposal that, in 3e terms (I know, this is the 5e forum, but bear with me), (Su) and maybe (Sp) abilities should be something every high-level character class gets. Real-world study of any field tends to lead, eventually, into some level of scientific understanding of the tools and techniques and why they work, because there is a science and technology to the techniques.

When you get into mythic training, such as the great heroes of legend underwent, they learn techniques that harness forces beyond those of the real-world human body. Whether accessing a "mana field" or a "spirit energy" or "ki channeling," or simply demonstrating that the body, through training, becomes capable of Charles Atlas Superpowers that might make some low-end superheroes jealous, everybody who gets to high level should be doing "impossible" things. Not spells, but definitely things which need not be limited by mundane restrictions.

[silveralen]

When you get into mythic training, such as the great heroes of legend underwent, they learn techniques that harness forces beyond those of the real-world human body. Whether accessing a "mana field" or a "spirit energy" or "ki channeling," or simply demonstrating that the body, through training, becomes capable of Charles Atlas Superpowers that might make some low-end superheroes jealous, everybody who gets to high level should be doing "impossible" things. Not spells, but definitely things which need not be limited by mundane restrictions.

The system agrees.... until you hit the everyone "should" part.

You see, your basic premise is that everyone has to gain access to those abilities, that they cannot choose to ignore them. Instead, everyone can choose to gain access to such abilities... or they can choose not to, and stick with abilities that merely skirt the line of supernatural vs mundane.

For abilities that skirt the edge of obviously supernatural and merely exceptional, look at most action movies. HP and implausible combat ability normally tie into this. These characters are realistically impossible, but not overtly supernatural. Such characters are options for a player and table who want them.

In order to make what you said true, we have to be exclusionary, and it provides no benefits. No one is forced to play a mundane fighter, it exists merely as an option.

[SharkForce]

the problem with having a character that has no out-of-combat utility is that it makes any part of the game apart from killing people unbearably dull for that character. it also makes the character pretty one-dimensional.

well, that's part of the problem, anyways. the rest of the problem is that to compensate for their weaknesses, they're usually given extra power in combat, which generally speaking can only go so far before it wrecks the game for everyone else (if you reach a point where challenging one person is likely to kill the rest of the party, it's clearly gone too far and started wrecking the game).

the easiests solution in a class-based system is to design it so that things don't get that far. the people with a combat focus should have enough non-combat stuff to keep them engaged, and vice versa (not that there's really any D&D class yet in 5th that i would describe as having a non-combat focus).

[silveralen]

the problem with having a character that has no out-of-combat utility is that it makes any part of the game apart from killing people unbearably dull for that character. it also makes the character pretty one-dimensional.

well, that's part of the problem, anyways. the rest of the problem is that to compensate for their weaknesses, they're usually given extra power in combat, which generally speaking can only go so far before it wrecks the game for everyone else (if you reach a point where challenging one person is likely to kill the rest of the party, it's clearly gone too far and started wrecking the game).

the easiests solution in a class-based system is to design it so that things don't get that far. the people with a combat focus should have enough non-combat stuff to keep them engaged, and vice versa (not that there's really any D&D class yet in 5th that i would describe as having a non-combat focus).

Except that's not true. I know many people who prefer to limit their non combat actions. I myself tend towards this more often then not, because I use these games to relax and turn off my brain to a degree. I like just being able to toss in some in character roleplaying then kill monsters. I don't really care if my character contributes less out of combat.

Indeed. Some characters are more powerful in combat. How is that a problem? It's a staple of every single roleplaying game I've ever even heard of. Some characters lean towards combat, some non combat, some do both. It isn't a linear trade off, to discourage going fully into one or the other, but if you want you can, and you can certainly end up skewed one way or another.

That's exactly what 5e does. Everyone has skills they can fall back on. That's the minimum range, meaning yes people should be using those skills. A really combat centric character can dip rogue/bard to easily get a big boost out of combat for a small hit in combat, or go for a utilitarian archetype.

[Rogue Shadows]

No one is forced to play a mundane fighter, it exists merely as an option.

Let's look at a variation on this. Everyone who wishes to play a ranger is forced to play a magical ranger, even though I am hard-pressed to think of any examples of magical rangers from folklore, or even from D&D itself. Robin Hood, or Jack the Giant Killer, or Orion (all three identified as rangers in 2nd Edition)? Aragorn? Even D&D's own Drizzt Do'Urden? Sure, you can choose to fluff the spells as one thing or another, but at the end of the day every ranger is a spellcaster even though few if any examples of rangers in folklore and literature can really be said to have been such.


Now, if you want him to be, multiclass into bard.

But I don't want to be a spellcaster. The other benefits of the bard class, sure, I guess, they'll do because Wizards of the Coast saw fit to deny the Fighter anything to do outside of combat, but I don't want spellcasting.

Don't get me wrong, generally speaking I am firmly in the "the fighter should be the fightiest fighter that ever fought" camp, that it should be able to destroy anything it encounters on the battlefield. But at the same time it shouldn't have to multiclass if I want to do things outside of that, particularly not if they're closely related to the idea of a "fighter," like gathering and inspiring troops of followers.

Alexander the Great, Yi Sun-Sin, Horatio Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Scipio Africanus, Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal Barca, and so on, were not noted for their singing prowess, is what I'm driving at.

[Z3ro]

Except that's not true. I know many people who prefer to limit their non combat actions. I myself tend towards this more often then not, because I use these games to relax and turn off my brain to a degree. I like just being able to toss in some in character roleplaying then kill monsters. I don't really care if my character contributes less out of combat.

Indeed. Some characters are more powerful in combat. How is that a problem? It's a staple of every single roleplaying game I've ever even heard of. Some characters lean towards combat, some non combat, some do both. It isn't a linear trade off, to discourage going fully into one or the other, but if you want you can, and you can certainly end up skewed one way or another.

That's exactly what 5e does. Everyone has skills they can fall back on. That's the minimum range, meaning yes people should be using those skills. A really combat centric character can dip rogue/bard to easily get a big boost out of combat for a small hit in combat, or go for a utilitarian archetype.

I think this divide may be the problem. I agree completely with Silveralen; I love rolling up some combat monster and hitting things; out of combat stuff is much less important. Why should I be forced to have out of combat abilities if I just want to smash things in the face with an ax? You're arguing for greater diversity by removing some options you don't like.

[Rogue Shadows]

I think this divide may be the problem. I agree completely with Silveralen; I love rolling up some combat monster and hitting things; out of combat stuff is much less important. Why should I be forced to have out of combat abilities if I just want to smash things in the face with an ax? You're arguing for greater diversity by removing some options you don't like.

Why should I be forced to play a sorcerer when I want to play a rogue? Because as long as the sorcerer is there I literally have no other option than to play it, I can't simply not choose to play the sorcerer but appreciate the option. More options lead to no options!

Or perhaps a little less reductio ad absurdum, giving the fighter more options doesn't oblige you to take nor make use of those options, but it would still be nice to have those options in the first place.

[Forum Explorer]

Why should I be forced to play a sorcerer when I want to play a rogue? Because as long as the sorcerer is there I literally have no other option than to play it, I can't simply not choose to play the sorcerer but appreciate the option. More options lead to no options!

Or perhaps a little less reductio ad absurdum, giving the fighter more options doesn't oblige you to take nor make use of those options, but it would still be nice to have those options in the first place.

You do have those options though. In Eldritch Knight and arguably Battlemaster.

[SharkForce]

Except that's not true. I know many people who prefer to limit their non combat actions. I myself tend towards this more often then not, because I use these games to relax and turn off my brain to a degree. I like just being able to toss in some in character roleplaying then kill monsters. I don't really care if my character contributes less out of combat.

Indeed. Some characters are more powerful in combat. How is that a problem? It's a staple of every single roleplaying game I've ever even heard of. Some characters lean towards combat, some non combat, some do both. It isn't a linear trade off, to discourage going fully into one or the other, but if you want you can, and you can certainly end up skewed one way or another.

That's exactly what 5e does. Everyone has skills they can fall back on. That's the minimum range, meaning yes people should be using those skills. A really combat centric character can dip rogue/bard to easily get a big boost out of combat for a small hit in combat, or go for a utilitarian archetype.

well sure, the other option is to leave one character class just flat out weaker than the others in a large segment of the game without compensating them in any way. that doesn't strike me as terribly good design though.

particularly since it is much easier to just ignore abilities that you do have than it is to spontaneously gain abilities that you don't have.

[Segev]

The system agrees.... until you hit the everyone "should" part.

You see, your basic premise is that everyone has to gain access to those abilities, that they cannot choose to ignore them. Instead, everyone can choose to gain access to such abilities... or they can choose not to, and stick with abilities that merely skirt the line of supernatural vs mundane.

Actually, you mistake my basic premise. What you conclude on is closer to my premise.

Everybody should have access to these options. And, as a practical matter, everybody at high enough level is GOING to have to be able to do some things on that "impossible" scale. It's just part and parcel of being high level.

It is, to me, poor design to claim that level is a measure of power and then deliberately design choices such that a level X [class A] is weaker overall than a level X [class 1]. Especially if that remains consistent or gets exacerbated as X->20.

Yes, build choices might result in differing power levels. I'm not advocating for some rigid same-ness that enforces exact parity. All I'm saying is that we need to avoid having classes and class features who, at high levels, are inherently weaker than other classes, based simply on the notion that it's "not realistic" or it's "magical" to do something fitting of a high-fantasy action star.

[archaeo]

Of course, that in itself bothers people. They dislike simple options or the option to portray a mundane character while hand waving a few aspects. They dislike the fact not every class is exactly what they think it should be, or that their absolutely perfect ideal class doesn't exist, or that they might have to tweak some fluff to fit their character.

Think of it as an investment, silveralen. You're already paying a fair amount of actual money for D&D, and then investing a lot of time and personal energy. For many people, the ideal TRPG allows you to spend the least amount of time for the biggest possible "pay off." If you're investing in a system like 5e, getting a "return" on that investment means that the enjoyment you get outweighs the work you have to put in.


In order to make what you said true, we have to be exclusionary, and it provides no benefits. No one is forced to play a mundane fighter, it exists merely as an option.

To add to this point, there are also no surprises. Everything from levels 1-20 is printed there on the page. You know exactly what it means to choose Fighter.


I'm not advocating for some rigid same-ness that enforces exact parity. All I'm saying is that we need to avoid having classes and class features who, at high levels, are inherently weaker than other classes, based simply on the notion that it's "not realistic" or it's "magical" to do something fitting of a high-fantasy action star.

The problem here is that, while people can credibly claim that Fighters have less out-of-combat utility, it strikes me as hugely specious to suggest that they're "inherently weaker" than other classes at high levels. They have big hit dice, huge ACs, and can be built to have a fair amount of utility and in-combat versatility.

I think actual high-level play would bear this out, as opposed to looking at lists of abilities and spells on the page.

[silveralen]

It is, to me, poor design to claim that level is a measure of power and then deliberately design choices such that a level X [class A] is weaker overall than a level X [class 1]. Especially if that remains consistent or gets exacerbated as X->20.

Yes, build choices might result in differing power levels. I'm not advocating for some rigid same-ness that enforces exact parity. All I'm saying is that we need to avoid having classes and class features who, at high levels, are inherently weaker than other classes, based simply on the notion that it's "not realistic" or it's "magical" to do something fitting of a high-fantasy action star.

Except the two have no bearing. Take action surge. It isn't a particularly "supernatural" ability, it falls under the semi implausible combat ability section eventually, but isn't outright magic or supernatural. Despite this, it is widely considered to be one of the most powerful abilities in the game, at least in terms of combat. Maybe combat isn't important to you? Then don't play a fighter, it's not like I complain how useless rogues are because I don't like playing a sneaky character.


well sure, the other option is to leave one character class just flat out weaker than the others in a large segment of the game without compensating them in any way. that doesn't strike me as terribly good design though.

particularly since it is much easier to just ignore abilities that you do have than it is to spontaneously gain abilities that you don't have.

Except they are stronger in other areas. Ignoring strengths of a character because they are things you don't like doesn't make them stop existing.


But I don't want to be a spellcaster. The other benefits of the bard class, sure, I guess, they'll do because Wizards of the Coast saw fit to deny the Fighter anything to do outside of combat, but I don't want spellcasting.

Don't get me wrong, generally speaking I am firmly in the "the fighter should be the fightiest fighter that ever fought" camp, that it should be able to destroy anything it encounters on the battlefield. But at the same time it shouldn't have to multiclass if I want to do things outside of that, particularly not if they're closely related to the idea of a "fighter," like gathering and inspiring troops of followers.

Alexander the Great, Yi Sun-Sin, Horatio Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Scipio Africanus, Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal Barca, and so on, were not noted for their singing prowess, is what I'm driving at.

Okay, but most also aren't noted for their personal combat prowess. What you are describing isn't really fighter, and to be frank those characters have about as much business being player characters as a mayor or CEO does. Yes they can make big changes to the world, but they don't go crawling through dungeons or participate in squad based combat. It's excellent for an NPC class though.

When people talk about fighter as a leader of men, they tend to think King Arthur, someone who leads by force of personality and mainly shouts charge. Which is... Paladin.

You could make a case for a warlord, as a kind of sergeant/squad based leader, and that's more in line with what a battle master fighter can do, though considering how poorly some of the abilities work I admit there is room for improvement.

But really, the problem is you can't perfectly simulate every single concept in a class based game, certainly not if we ignore multi classing. It's far from a huge sacrifice to take two levels of bard and just reskin the three spells you learn as something else.

[Z3ro]

Why should I be forced to play a sorcerer when I want to play a rogue? Because as long as the sorcerer is there I literally have no other option than to play it, I can't simply not choose to play the sorcerer but appreciate the option. More options lead to no options!

Or perhaps a little less reductio ad absurdum, giving the fighter more options doesn't oblige you to take nor make use of those options, but it would still be nice to have those options in the first place.

You kind of took the opposite of what I was intending to say. I'm arguing for a system where I can play as simple, or as complex a character as I want. I want both the sorcerer and the rogue as option, and I want different kinds of fighters that offer increasingly complex options, much like 5E presents.

Others are arguing that all should have equal options. I don't see how making everything complicated, then telling players to ignore half or more of their character, is like making everyone a sorcerer but telling the player who wants to play a rogue to just use illusion spells. It's not the same thing.

[Vogonjeltz]

With regards to treading a fine line between 4e and 3e, all they needed to do was to make the Battlemaster not run out of cool things in a round and a half and give us a warlord who DID have a bunch of discrete maneuvers ala 4e and they would have been fine and everyone would have had their thing. Rogue, Barbarian and Fighter for the freeform hitters, Battlemaster and Warlord for the tactical lovers and 4e folks and casters for all the people that didn't like 4e because magic didn't feel magical. Instead the 4e crowd were almost entirely ignored in favour of making a 3.5 that's marginally less broken (but with an awesome skill system).

Those abilities are on a short rest. If you run the epic game rules, that's back in 5 minutes. If you just run the base rules, it's only an hour. So they may as well be at will or every combat for all the difficulty it takes to refresh them.

And they get a die if they don't have any at the beginning of a combat, plus basically everything can be done via the infinitely flexible action system.


Forcecage. 10 char

Forcecage does nothing to remove the threat or alleviate the eventual need to deal with said threat. They'll be just as alive and kicking in 1 hour as they were when the wizard wasted that spell slot. It doesn't even give a tactical advantage against the caged enemy, they are entirely protected from spells and attacks.


Does any non-full caster get anything as remotely powerful as Foresight? 8 hour duration, no Concentration, Advantage to basically everything, plus a bunch of other stuff? How about Simulacrum, Resurrection, Wish, Finger of Death, or Divine Intervention? And have you considered the fact that splat books will contain even more spells, giving full castes an even wider variety of options at no-cost? (Whereas non-full casters will have to trade away subclass abilities or Feats in order to get new options).

Full casters basically get 4-7 awesome Daily Powers between levels 11-20, which they can change out for different awesome Daily Powers after a Long Rest. Non-full casters basically get 1 or 2 comparable abilities (like an additional Action Surge, Thief's Reflexes, Diamond Soul, etc) between levels 11-20, and they are forever locked into the abilities they are given.

Again, I want to reiterate that I think the developers did a mostly excellent job of balancing things at low-mid levels. I just think that non-full casters should get somewhat more stuff at higher levels. I don't care if they are limited to Long Rests, Short Rests, all day, non-magical, whatever. They should just be within the same general ballpark, and should have the option of changing that stuff out somehow.

Foresight is ok...but it's basically just evening things out once the Fighter has you grappled and prone (which they will, easily, with 4 attempts per round) at which point the caster is just lucky they don't have disadvantage on things. Foresight closes the gap, but there's still a gap there in favor of the Fighter.

I'd note that the classes that have Resurrection don't have Wish and vice versa, so it's a tad disingenuous to throw those into the same bucket.

Finger of death does a whopping 86 maximum damage on a failed save, that's almost like an entire round of attacks by a Fighter. Almost. So close! At high levels things are going to make that save for a much less impressive 43 maximum. The average is just 30.7 from a level 7 spell slot. That's just so underwhelming (it's less than the average from a magic missile spell cast from that same slot, actually).

I've certainly considered that there may simply be 0 splat books, and even if there are, who's to say they will contain any spells at all?


But if you have enough hit points that an orc can not take you down in a single critical hit with a great axe (however unlikely) you are more than a mere skilled swordsman. If you can take the heat of the inside of a volcano and not die almost instantly you are supernatural. (And I don't mean inside the larva). If you can be dropped from orbit and reliably walk away you are supernatural. If you can parry a Balor or block its strike with your shield you are almost certainly supernatural.

I don't agree at all. Hit Points (HP) are in this edition, as every other, a metaphorical extrapolation of how hard your character is to kill. At 1/2 hp you have been possibly cut up some. So even if that Great Orc does a critical hit with their axe, that might just represent it gouging a chunk out of your armor, winding you badly. It's not until you suffer a fatal wound that you are seriously getting sliced up. There's absolutely nothing supernatural about it.

Arguably the DM can rule however they like regarding falling, volcanos, and the like, but not getting hit by a Balor in this game is a question of armor class. Unless the margin of miss falls within the enchantment of magical armor or other enhancement, it's 100% mundane and (possibly) skill. It's just the Balor not being as good at fighting.

And not having supernatural or magical abilities doesn't mean not having magical equipment.

[SharkForce]

fighters are arguably mildly stronger in combat than a combat-focused spellcaster, in that they can deal more sustained single-target damage (but aren't *that* far ahead of the evokers and warlocks). on the flip side, they tend to be worse at AOE damage, and much much much worse when it comes to control or other areas (like healing, which the fighter can only do once per short rest and only for themselves).

in exchange, their out of combat utility is ridiculously tiny compared to what many casters can do. they have skills, well, so does everyone else. they have few if any class features to boost their skills, meaning that once again, they are no better off than anyone else in that department.

which means that unless there is a simple mundane task that can quickly solve a problem, the fighter is not particularly good at it. and if there is, then just about anyone else would have been equally good to bring along.

[Hiro Protagonest]

which means that unless there is a simple mundane task that can quickly solve a problem, the fighter is not particularly good at it. and if there is, then just about anyone else would have been equally good to bring along.

Why do they have to be simple tasks that anyone else can do? Not just any soldier can spot and bypass traps like Indiana Jones. Batman's detective work isn't something that Wonder Woman handles.

I think you're talking about fighters how they are. Not how they could be.

[neonchameleon]

I don't agree at all. Hit Points (HP) are in this edition, as every other, a metaphorical extrapolation of how hard your character is to kill. At 1/2 hp you have been possibly cut up some. So even if that Great Orc does a critical hit with their axe, that might just represent it gouging a chunk out of your armor, winding you badly.

The problem here is the Critical Hit part. It is physically impossible for an orc with a greataxe to actually hurt you under this model no matter how lucky they get until your HP are down. It's also such things as falling damage.


And not having supernatural or magical abilities doesn't mean not having magical equipment.

It doesn't. But there's a huge difference between War Machine and Thor, despite both being flying bricks.

[archaeo]

fighters are arguably mildly stronger in combat than a combat-focused spellcaster, in that they can deal more sustained single-target damage (but aren't *that* far ahead of the evokers and warlocks). on the flip side, they tend to be worse at AOE damage, and much much much worse when it comes to control or other areas (like healing, which the fighter can only do once per short rest and only for themselves).

What exactly does one mean by "AOE"? A Fighter can conceivably do a healthy chunk of damage to 8 things at once, throwing on bonus damage if they're a Battle Master, and then hit 4 things on the next turn. And what do you mean, worse at control? With a feat or two, or just good use of grappling and tripping, a Fighter can be at the front lines, and when they fail a few checks, they're not going to get immediately murdered for failure.


in exchange, their out of combat utility is ridiculously tiny compared to what many casters can do. they have skills, well, so does everyone else. they have few if any class features to boost their skills, meaning that once again, they are no better off than anyone else in that department.

The thing I don't get about this argument is that Fighter and Barbarian are highly likely to be the only characters in a party that are good at the things they're good at: strength and athletics. There are some things that are just best approached by being really strong and in really good shape, and, in my opinion, it's incumbent on the DM to throw a few of these challenges into the game world, just as one would populate dungeons with traps more often with a party with a Rogue. This also doesn't even really begin to discuss trained skills, since a Fighter is well positioned to help fill niches in the party's skillset. I mean, stat out a Fighter properly, and you don't really need a Rogue.

In other words, sure, Fighter may only have the skill options everybody else does, but if you're putting together a competent party, having a rounded set of skills means everybody gets a seat at the table of gettin' stuff done.

---------

Edited to add:


The problem here is the Critical Hit part. It is physically impossible for an orc with a greataxe to actually hurt you under this model no matter how lucky they get until your HP are down. It's also such things as falling damage.

As I just posted in the other thread, there's an Injuries module in the DMG that may cover this, if HP-as-spirit-or-whatever bums you out. As for falling, after a certain distance and sans some kind of Slow Fall or feather fall, just kill them like a normal person would be killed.

It's not hard to avoid these issues, if they break your suspension of disbelief, and it certainly doesn't break the game to do so.

[silveralen]

fighters are arguably mildly stronger in combat than a combat-focused spellcaster, in that they can deal more sustained single-target damage (but aren't *that* far ahead of the evokers and warlocks). on the flip side, they tend to be worse at AOE damage, and much much much worse when it comes to control or other areas (like healing, which the fighter can only do once per short rest and only for themselves).

in exchange, their out of combat utility is ridiculously tiny compared to what many casters can do. they have skills, well, so does everyone else. they have few if any class features to boost their skills, meaning that once again, they are no better off than anyone else in that department.

which means that unless there is a simple mundane task that can quickly solve a problem, the fighter is not particularly good at it. and if there is, then just about anyone else would have been equally good to bring along.

Actually, fighter is pretty far ahead. Take for example scorching ray cast via a 9th level spell slot. On average that will be 120 damage, assuming they have a damage boosting ability. A fighter using no resources can hit for 80-90, and if they actually use action surges plus manuevers or crits (depending on archetype) they can break 200 damage comfortably. Considering they just used short rest abilities vs the single most powerful single target spell available, that's kinda a big difference.

Now, a meteor swarm is going to be more overall damage, but spread around quite a bit, and has the disadvantage of being based on a saving throw. Why is that a disadvantage? We are in an edition where most big enemies have legendary resistance, high saves, and many have advantage versus all magic, while casters struggle to boost the DC of spells. Targeting saves isn't the advantage one might think.

For an example, versus a pit fiend, which is more likely to restrain them, a grapple check or hold monster? A grapple check actually. Even a maximized caster has only a 19 DC, with a +10 save and advantage, that's not going to land even 25% of the time, but with athletics prof and maxed strength a fighter has +11 to grapple checks vs the pit fiend's +8, meaning he has over a 50% chance.

For big bads, fighter shines, and casters should focus on making the fighter more awesome.

So... they still have out of combat utility? Then they aren't useless.

Fighter is a fighting class. I'm sorry this seems to deeply upset you. They are really good at fighting, if that doesn't happen in your campaign... yeah don't bring them. If your DM balances encounters so that player death is all but impossible, no need for combat power. By the same token, a DM can make most magical utility redundant (or shut it down).

[Todasmile]

Actually, fighter is pretty far ahead. Take for example scorching ray cast via a 9th level spell slot. On average that will be 120 damage, assuming they have a damage boosting ability. A fighter using no resources can hit for 80-90, and if they actually use action surges plus manuevers or crits (depending on archetype) they can break 200 damage comfortably. Considering they just used short rest abilities vs the single most powerful single target spell available, that's kinda a big difference.

This is incredibly misleading. A Fighter's more likely averaging somewhere in the 40-50 range.

Level 20 Fighter, Polearm-spec vs AC 19, hits at +6 (+11 total, -5 from power attacking. Against AC 19, this always produces more damage than not power attacking)

4 hits of:

25%: 1d10+15 = 20.5
15%: 2d10+15 = 26
60%: 0

Averages to 9 damage


1 hit of:

25%: 1d4+15 = 17.5
15%: 2d4+15 = 20
60%: 0

Averages to 7 damage

4*9 + 7 = 43 damage.

And this is from Ashrym in another thread:



GWF (Champion, great weapon fighting style, greatsword (8.33), great weapon master, no magic weapon, 40% accuracy):

Main attack
15% critical damage = 2d6+2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 4.75
25% normal damage = 2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 5.83
60% nada

10.58*4 attacks = 42.32 damage

Bonus attack (47.80% chance from multiple critical opportunities)
15% critical damage = 2d6+2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 4.75
25% normal damage = 2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 5.83
60% nada

Bonus = 5.06 damage
Total = 47.38 average DPR

These are basically the highest-damage builds a Fighter can achieve in terms of "no resources". I could go ahead and give advantage to every hit - EXCEEDINGLY unlikely:

Level 20 Fighter, Polearm-spec vs AC 19, hits at +6 (+11 total, -5 from power attacking. Against AC 19, this always produces more damage than not power attacking) plus advantage

4 hits of:

~44%: 1d10+15 = 20.5
~28%: 2d10+15 = 26
36%: 0

Averages to 16.3 damage


1 hit of:

44%: 1d4+15 = 17.5
28%: 2d4+15 = 20
60%: 0

Averages to 13 damage

4*16.3 + 13 = 78 damage.

And yes, I would come up just around the "80-90" range. But having advantage on every hit is far from what I'd call "easy" OR "comfortable".


Now, a meteor swarm is going to be more overall damage, but spread around quite a bit, and has the disadvantage of being based on a saving throw. Why is that a disadvantage? We are in an edition where most big enemies have legendary resistance, high saves, and many have advantage versus all magic, while casters struggle to boost the DC of spells. Targeting saves isn't the advantage one might think.

A Meteor Swarm is going to be OBSCENELY more damage, in the situations where you're actually likely to cast it. 40d6 damage averages to 140 damage, 70 on a save - about the same as the Fighter's BEST case DPR - to basically every enemy in the battle. You're doing that on 5+ enemies, not just one, so you're essentially condensing five attack rounds into one round.


For an example, versus a pit fiend, which is more likely to restrain them, a grapple check or hold monster? A grapple check actually. Even a maximized caster has only a 19 DC, with a +10 save and advantage, that's not going to land even 25% of the time, but with athletics prof and maxed strength a fighter has +11 to grapple checks vs the pit fiend's +8, meaning he has over a 50% chance.

Yeah, and Hold Monster applies a status effect which is far more powerful. Grappling only stops movement - Paralysis grants free crits. If you also Shove the grappled enemy, you can achieve a weaker, albeit similar effect, but you also just had to succeed on two 50% checks and gave up two attacks to do it, AND it actually made things worse for your ranged attackers. You also had to have a free hand, so you can't use a shield or a two-handed weapon. Grappling is powerful and useful, but it's not nearly as powerful as Hold Monster.

It's true, though, that if ALL you want is to stop movement, grappling is better. You still have to give up an attack, and your shield or your two-handed weapon to do it.

[Rogue Shadows]

Forcecage does nothing to remove the threat or alleviate the eventual need to deal with said threat. They'll be just as alive and kicking in 1 hour as they were when the wizard wasted that spell slot. It doesn't even give a tactical advantage against the caged enemy, they are entirely protected from spells and attacks.

I have admittedly not yet poured over the 5th Edition DMG in great detail, but - if 5th Edition is anything like 3rd Edition, then in fact forcecage does in fact deal with a threat, at least from a mechanical perspective. You get XP for overcoming a challenge, which does not necessarily mean killing it. So if you need to get past, say, a mind flayer in order to get the Ring of McGuffin, and you trap it in a forcecage and continue on your way, then you have in fact overcome the challenge, and get the same amount of XP as if you had fought and killed the mind flayer.


Okay, but most also aren't noted for their personal combat prowess.

Alexander the Great, who fought on the front lines of 17 major battles as the commander-in-chief of those battles, won every single one of them, and never suffered greater than a 16% casualty rate amongst them (and usually as low as 5%), is not noted for his combat prowess? We're talking about the guy who at Gaugamela personally lead a horse charge against a Persian army that outnumbered his own something like three to one, was successful in the charge, and nearly skewered the Persian King Darius (also leading his troops in battle, albeit not from the very, very front as Alexander did) in the process!

Most of the rest of my examples were not nearly so successful as Alexander - there is a reason why the kid is considered to be the best general to have ever lived - but all of them spent a considerable portion of their lives as soldiers, fighting and risking death as much as anyone else in their line. If there's a problem with your line of thinking, silveralen, it's that for some reason you think that a Fighter is a Fighter only until he actually earns some kind of rank or renown that makes people want to follow him, at which point he is obliged to either become an NPC or take bard levels.


When people talk about fighter as a leader of men, they tend to think King Arthur, someone who leads by force of personality and mainly shouts charge. Which is... Paladin.

No. When I think of real-world, high-level fighters (or the closest we can come...in truth in 3rd Edition terms I don't think anyone who has ever historically lived has been much higher than 5th level, while the jury is still out for 5th Edition), I think of Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. Khan is also a good example of a real-world Barbarian or a real-world Ranger, but in the real world people don't have character classes so he can go any which way and mostly I think of him as a Fighter. I might think of an Arthur, but it's the Arthur from the Historia Brittonum or the Annales Cambriae, a Romano-British leader who fought off invading tribes of Anglo-Saxons.


You could make a case for a warlord,

No I can't. There is no Warlord class in 5th Edition, and I would heavily object to the concept. A Warlord martial archetype for the Fighter, however, would suit me...basically fine.


But really, the problem is you can't perfectly simulate every single concept in a class based game, certainly not if we ignore multi classing. It's far from a huge sacrifice to take two levels of bard and just reskin the three spells you learn as something else.

No, 'cause then the casters win. Saying "just multiclass bard" is tantamount to saying "just put ranks in Use Magic Device", in 3rd Edition terms. It's an admission that the only way to equal a caster - here, in terms of options, not power - is to be a caster yourself.

[silveralen]

Alexander the Great, who fought on the front lines of 17 major battles as the commander-in-chief of those battles, won every single one of them, and never suffered greater than a 16% casualty rate amongst them (and usually as low as 5%), is not noted for his combat prowess? We're talking about the guy who at Gaugamela personally lead a horse charge against a Persian army that outnumbered his own something like three to one, was successful in the charge, and nearly skewered the Persian King Darius (also leading his troops in battle, albeit not from the very, very front as Alexander did) in the process!

Most of the rest of my examples were not nearly so successful as Alexander - there is a reason why the kid is considered to be the best general to have ever lived - but all of them spent a considerable portion of their lives as soldiers, fighting and risking death as much as anyone else in their line. If there's a problem with your line of thinking, silveralen, it's that for some reason you think that a Fighter is a Fighter only until he actually earns some kind of rank or renown that makes people want to follow him, at which point he is obliged to either become an NPC or take bard levels.

Again, their most important accomplishments had nothing to do with, and pay attention to the underlined bit as you missed it the first time, their personal combat prowess.


No. When I think of real-world, high-level fighters (or the closest we can come...in truth in 3rd Edition terms I don't think anyone who has ever historically lived has been much higher than 5th level, while the jury is still out for 5th Edition), I think of Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. Khan is also a good example of a real-world Barbarian or a real-world Ranger, but in the real world people don't have character classes so he can go any which way and mostly I think of him as a Fighter. I might think of an Arthur, but it's the Arthur from the Historia Brittonum or the Annales Cambriae, a Romano-British leader who fought off invading tribes of Anglo-Saxons.

Really? That's an odd list. Not a single one of those is an inspiration for fighter in second edition. Those tend to be more "kill stuff" then "tell my men to kill stuff for me". Which made followers fairly odd. I actually recall most of my group ignored their followers due to preferring more personal adventures. I'm struggling to remember how we handled it before skills and powers (which allowed you to actually ditch them for other benefits). I think... we used some classes from darksun? Or features from them? I can't recall.

Which is probably why my stance is such, even in the edition where your variation on fighter actually matched his mechanics, the people I played with didn't actually enjoy those mechanics. Being a general is kinda boring and tedious.Narratively, magic is always so much more convenient and versatile regardless, you might as well take magic.

Lets be honest, would any of those military men have neglected to train in classes which allowed them to reconnoiter areas magically or buff their soldiers, if magic actually existed? They would have been trained soldiers of course, but I doubt they would have overlooked the versatility magic brought them when commanding men, they were all too pragmatic for that. A military commander in a magic setting likely looks different to one in the real world.


No, 'cause then the casters win. Saying "just multiclass bard" is tantamount to saying "just put ranks in Use Magic Device", in 3rd Edition terms. It's an admission that the only way to equal a caster - here, in terms of options, not power - is to be a caster yourself.

Uh, you aren't multiclassing for spells. That'd be poorly thought out to say the least, as the few you'd get wouldn't offer all that much compared to just taking eldritch knight.

You are multiclassing to get expertise and inspiration.

Now, you can actually go with just a level or two in rogue to stay a martial and get your skill boost there (whatever skills you think fit leading men, personally I use persuasion for rallying them and history for tactics), I simply felt inspiration was more appropriate for a military leader than sneak attack and cunning action. It seemed to be more true to the character concept. But apparently not having spells is the defining bit of your character which outweighs every other consideration, so try rogue instead.

With a though process like that it'll be hard to create a lot of character concepts, you have narrowed your options to a bare 25% of the classes. You also don't want a warlord class, so you basically wouldn't be willing to multiclass into a non casting version anyways. Fighter is built around personal combat and has been for three editions, the best you could hope for is a battle master errata where rally actually scales decently.

[Rogue Shadows]

Again, their most important accomplishments had nothing to do with, and pay attention to the underlined bit as you missed it the first time, their personal combat prowess.

No, but then I don't think the Fighter class should be exclusively about personal combat prowess. So here's where we meet our impasse.


Really? That's an odd list. Not a single one of those is an inspiration for fighter in second edition.

Perhaps not, but they are in-line with the historical Fighters that are mentioned. Page 36 of my AD&D Player's Handbook name-drops Alexander and Hannibal both, in addition to Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cú Chulainn, Little John, El Cid, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Of those, in fact the majority (Alexander, Hannibal, Hiawatha, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, Belisarius) are renowned primarily for being great Leaders of Men, and of the remainder Beowulf, Perseus, El Cid, and Little John were all also skilled leaders in their own right, equally as important as their fighting prowess. Only Hercules, Siegfried, and Cú Chulainn are principally remembered only for fighting prowess. And Cú Chulainn would in modern terms probably be a barbarian anyway thanks to his warp-spasm. Hiawatha is of particular note because he's remembered as being a skilled orator just as much as being a skilled warrior. AD&D had a Bard class, but Hiawatha was chosen to represent the Fighter class.


I actually recall most of my group ignored their followers due to preferring more personal adventures. I'm struggling to remember how we handled it before skills and powers (which allowed you to actually ditch them for other benefits).

I'm not saying that modern, 5th Edition Fighters should have a horde of NPCs following them everywhere. However, the Fighter class was clearly, obviously created with the intention of them being Leaders of Men, and felt the lack in 3rd Edition. So we take that concept and give them the ability to bolster their allies in combat situations. This would be easily covered by making a Warlord archetype for the Fighter class. Though it would have been better to have Warlord-type features just be a part of the base Fighter to begin with.

[silveralen]

No, but then I don't think the Fighter class should be exclusively about personal combat prowess. So here's where we meet our impasse.

I'm not saying that modern, 5th Edition Fighters should have a horde of NPCs following them everywhere. However, the Fighter class was clearly, obviously created with the intention of them being Leaders of Men, and felt the lack in 3rd Edition. So we take that concept and give them the ability to bolster their allies in combat situations. This would be easily covered by making a Warlord archetype for the Fighter class. Though it would have been better to have Warlord-type features just be a part of the base Fighter to begin with.

The problem is right there in the name. It isn't the commander class, or warlord class, or sergeant class. It's the fighter. So such aspects shouldn't ever be he focus of the character, his ability to kick arse should be.

Well... It was in the editions where everyone who didn't have spells (and some of them) were clearly intended to be leaders of men. Thieves had thieves guild, Druids had their circle, rangers had a small zoo following them, etc.

Now, if you just want a version of fighter that bolster's allies in combat, all you need to do is fix battlemaster. Make rally not a useless ability by having it actually scale alongside HP somehow (I personally recommend it adding fighter's level, rather than charisma, like second wind. Alternatively, effects one additional character each time the superiority die increases). Alter relentless to something more productive (2 die is a decent idea). Things like commander's strike, distracting strike and maneuvering attack give you some of that already.

For anything beyond that, you really need a different base.

[Rogue Shadows]

The problem is right there in the name. It isn't the commander class, or warlord class, or sergeant class. It's the fighter. So such aspects shouldn't ever be he focus of the character, his ability to kick arse should be.

If this is seriously coming down to the name of the class, then we're at as much of an impasse as we are with regards to whether or not half-ogre player characters are an abomination unto gaming tables.

Do you also complain about how druids are not law-speakers, poets, doctors, and members of the upper class? Because that's what a druid is supposed to be if we're going to call it a druid. Real druids also didn't spend any significant amount of time as bears. Bards, too, were not noted for magical prowess. Barbarians do not all fight with rage, in fact "barbarian" should really be a background, not a class. Plus there's my rant about how we have few if any examples of rangers in fiction who could cast spells.

Besides which, you're undermining your own argument. I didn't say that the ability to be a Leader of Men should be the focus of the fighter, only that it should be included as part and parcel with it in order to give the fighter something more to do both in and out of combat beyond simply finding new ways to hit something with his sword or avoid being hit by someone else's sword. Heck, did I not say Warlord should be a martial archetype, i.e., an optional subclass that you can bypass completely if you feel like it?

[neonchameleon]

Uh.... no. You just pointed out many of those aren't supernatural in any way. Sinbad, Tristan, little john, Siegfried, and Beowulf. They do impressive things by virtue of being legendary warriors.

First, Little John is a low level fighter. No one is saying low level fighters need to be on only distant terms with the laws of physics. When your enemy is The Sherriff of Nottingham and you are taking on his guards most of the time you don't need to be supernatural or to have an army. You're about level five at most. The problem is that this stops working.

Second Beowulf doesn't just do impressive things. There is no plausible deniability to Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm, swimming five nights without rest, or holding his breath for hours on end. That's not skill. That's having the laws of physics decide to give up.

Third, as has been pointed out, Siegfried was invulnerable after he bathed in dragons' blood. He's supernaturally powerful (and wise from eating the heart).

Fourth, Sir Tristan is a romantic lead whose greatest enemy again is an ordinary human. He's a few levels up on Little John but he's still fundamentally not that high level. Eight at the maximum I'd say.

Fifth, Sinbad's a rogue not a fighter.


Personally, given that barbarian exists in this edition, I'm inclined to shuffle supernatural strong characters into that class. It's hard to find a better single class barbarian than Hercules. Even Conan is more debatable.

Due to Bounded Accuracy, the Barbarian doesn't actually solve things.


Still, the point is that many iconic fantasy fighters neither led armies nor had supernatural abilities.

Indeed. Many iconic fantasy fighters were low level. Of the four fighters you just named, one (Siegfried) was explicitly supernatural, one (Beowolf) told the laws of physics to take a hike, and the other two had primary enemies who were ordinary (if powerful) humans.

The problem is you can not have a high level mundane fighter. If you were to make your fighter class only ten levels long it would just about work. In 4e terms, the ordinary fighter is an effective archetype in the heroic tier (and I don't remotely want it removed from there). It just doesn't work above about level 10. The AD&D response was to make fighters great leaders at level 10. This works. You can also give fighters the ability to tell physics to take a hike at level 10. You can further convert the fighter into a type of rogue at level 10 (i.e. incredibly skilled at all mundane skills and as much a trickster as warrior). Or you can cap the fighter and say "This is a ten level class".

[Broken Twin]

I do think giving the Fighter some "Leader of Men" type abilities would be a nice way to give them some non-combat utility. And a Warlord archetype would be AWESOME.

As to the OP's question of what constitutes a 'Martial', in reference to Caster/vs/Martial, I always worked under the definition of a martial class being one in which its primary features are related to physical combat. So all non-casters would be martial, and partial casters may or may not be martial depending on what their other class features are.

[archaeo]

Just something I was thinking about last night: if Battle Master takes Martial Adept, and why wouldn't one, that ends up being 21 uses of maneuvers per adventuring day after level 15, assuming the DMG-recommended 2 short rests per day. Without the feat, you've still got 18. Throw in multiple attacks per turn, and it seems like you'll be making plenty of interesting decisions throughout the day.

It's hard to compare apples and oranges with Wizard's and Fighter's "options," insofar as Wizards will likely have 4 times per day where they bust out something very major, and then more minor effects the rest of the time, whereas Fighters tend to stick to one base level of competence all day. But I think it's hard to say that the Battle Master doesn't get a full day's worth of tactical choices to make on top of what the Fighter already gets.


I do think giving the Fighter some "Leader of Men" type abilities would be a nice way to give them some non-combat utility.

5e just didn't really see the need to separate this out into a class ability, likely because it would niche-ify an entire family of plot devices and storylines. All a Fighter needs to do is either a) hire a bunch of people for not all that much money to have a mercenary army, or b) gain enough renown, prestige, or power to outright have a country or a fiefdom.

I think I prefer "leader of men" stuff as a class-independent metric. I don't want to have to be a Fighter to be a leader.


And a Warlord archetype would be AWESOME.

Frankly, if WotC doesn't introduce a Warlord before the end of the year, they're just not trying. It's a no-brainer, as far as community management goes. I don't think 5e needs the archetype, but it's abundantly clear that it's a huge stumbling block for those who loved what is undoubtedly 4e's most iconic class.

I expect that, once the surveys go out, and WotC inevitably asks "What class do you feel is missing from 5e?" we'll see Warlord way up on top (or neck-and-neck with Psion), and it will appear in whatever they've got planned for GenCon.

[Rogue Shadows]

Bounded Accuracy

Y'know, this article (http://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/) asserts that this term goes all the way back to TSR days, but I've never heard it before coming onto the 5th Edition boards, where now I'm hearing it all over the place. I had to read that article to learn what it is.

But now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

The other half involves guns.


I think I prefer "leader of men" stuff as a class-independent metric. I don't want to have to be a Fighter to be a leader.

Well, you don't have to be, but it still fits with both the historical and folkloric concepts of the fighter, as well as the classic versions of the class, in particular the version of the class that was around the longest (1st/2nd Edition ran from 1977 to 2000, so that's 23 years, and even just AD&D was 13 years). Really, there's no reason why each class shouldn't have some variation on it, though.

[archaeo]

Well, you don't have to be, but it still fits with both the historical and folkloric concepts of the fighter, as well as the classic versions of the class, in particular the version of the class that was around the longest (1st/2nd Edition ran from 1977 to 2000, so that's 23 years, and even just AD&D was 13 years).

I think there's considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the historical and folkloric concepts of the fighter," but I take your point. However, if I take it as given that the Fighter is seriously wanting for more class features, I think there are better answers to be found than "give them followers." 5e may be the anniversary edition, the "iconic" edition, but it left considerable baggage behind from that era, and I feel like this is a piece of luggage best left to the previous century.


Really, there's no reason why each class shouldn't have some variation on it, though.

They do, insofar as any PC in the game can credibly become a world (or country, capital, town, village, etc.) leader, or a general, or whatever other kind of "leader of men" the campaign needs. In my opinion, this allows for much greater flexibility than the model in which only Fighters rise to lead armies and nations.

[Rogue Shadows]

I think there's considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the historical and folkloric concepts of the fighter," but I take your point. However, if I take it as given that the Fighter is seriously wanting for more class features, I think there are better answers to be found than "give them followers." 5e may be the anniversary edition, the "iconic" edition, but it left considerable baggage behind from that era, and I feel like this is a piece of luggage best left to the previous century.

I agree, it's annoying (for many) to keep track of gobs of NPC followers. I did, however, touch on that: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18623954&postcount=171)

I'm not saying that modern, 5th Edition Fighters should have a horde of NPCs following them everywhere. However, the Fighter class was clearly, obviously created with the intention of them being Leaders of Men, and felt the lack in 3rd Edition. So we take that concept and give them the ability to bolster their allies in combat situations. This would be easily covered by making a Warlord archetype for the Fighter class. Though it would have been better to have Warlord-type features just be a part of the base Fighter to begin with.

[SharkForce]

the difference is, for lack of a better way to put it, in the difference those choices make.

a battlemaster can disarm someone with a maneuver. that's pretty bad, i guess. i mean, they'll be losing the ability to make opportunity attacks until it's their turn.

but then their turn starts, they use their free interact with object to pick up their weapon again, and get on with life.

and that's pretty much the trend. the battlemaster does stuff, certainly, and very reliably as well.

but it isn't making a huge difference most of the time. certainly, sometimes there'll be a cliff to throw someone off of, or similar, but it just really doesn't compare to the devastating effect of a hold spell. a battlemaster can't section of a group of enemies and turn one huge challenging fight into two much easier fights. they lack AOE options, and if they do go all out and CC 8 (or 9, i'll assume that by level 20 the battlemaster has a bonus action attack available if desired) enemies in a turn, those 8 enemies will be fairly inconvenienced for a while and the battlemaster just blew every maneuver for the entire short rest on that (plus an action surge).

at high levels, the fighter is ahead in one area of battle (reliable consistent single-target damage), but is unlikely to dramatically outshine combat-focused casters.

outside of combat, the fighter is likely about as useful as a level 20 peasant would be if you dragged them along through all your adventures.

now, fighters are certainly better off than they have been in the past. dealing damage is actually a useful thing in 5th edition, unlike 3rd where it largely didn't synergize with the fight-ending spells a caster could throw out.

but they, and other martial characters as well, are definitely not given the same opportunity to shine as a class that focuses on spellcasting as their main thing.

[Broken Twin]

I would be perfectly fine with the Warlord archetype fulfilling the "Leader of Men" fighter archetype. Honestly, if it doesn't, then something has probably gone horribly wrong. And if WotC DOESN'T release it, then it probably won't be that difficult to homebrew.

In the end though, 5E went a long way towards narrowing the class divide. Enough that problems will rarely show in day to day play, anyway. It's a high fantasy system, and it does what it was intended to do admirably well. I have other options for my other genre itches.

[Rogue Shadows]

but then their turn starts, they use their free interact with object to pick up their weapon again, and get on with life.

Question!

Why don't you use your free interact with object to pick it up?

[SharkForce]

Question!

Why don't you use your free interact with object to pick it up?

1) fighters tend to have their hands full. literally. two-handed weapons, or dual-wielding, or sword-and-board. most likely, i wouldn't have room for *one* weapon, let alone the 8 or 9 i'm hoping for with that nova.

2) it's not in my space (or, if you're looking for a way to describe it that doesn't make you think of a grid, it's not at my own feet). there's a big difference between crouching down and picking up something that's at your feet, and going in between someone else's legs to pick something up, especially when that someone else is hostile.

3) there are many of them. i get *one* free interact with object.

[archaeo]

outside of combat, the fighter is likely about as useful as a level 20 peasant would be if you dragged them along through all your adventures.

now, fighters are certainly better off than they have been in the past. dealing damage is actually a useful thing in 5th edition, unlike 3rd where it largely didn't synergize with the fight-ending spells a caster could throw out.

but they, and other martial characters as well, are definitely not given the same opportunity to shine as a class that focuses on spellcasting as their main thing.

At this point, honestly, I think this point of view says way more about the person espousing it than it does the system itself, SharkForce.

You can choose to work with your party, selecting skills and specialties that fill a niche. You can choose to specialize in protecting your friends from harm with good feat and feature selection. You can leverage background and personality options to become a fully fleshed-out character with agency in the plot. You can select feats that give you more versatility without sacrificing your ability scores. You can work together with Clerics and Bards to become an even more fearsome damage dealer, or work with your Rogue to create endless sneak attack opportunities as a pseudo-lazylord.

In short, you have a huge number of tools that can make you a valuable part of any team. If you end up being a level 20 peasant despite all these things, then you're just working against the system in order to prove a point.

[Rogue Shadows]

In short, you have a huge number of tools that can make you a valuable part of any team. If you end up being a level 20 peasant despite all these things, then you're just working against the system in order to prove a point.

The Twelve Scenarios beckon once again, I see.

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

How does any one given Fighter (that is, remember that an Eldritch Knight has options that a Champion doesn't and never will) meaningfully contribute to each of these scenarios?

[SharkForce]

"the rest of the team can make you more awesome" is not a compelling argument.

they are fairly good in combat, but not massively ahead. they are about as useful as a random schmuck outside of it. the former is not in itself a problem. combined with the latter it is.

the only thing from your list that sounded remotely like something i'd bring a fighter along instead of choosing almost anyone else (barbarians are in basically the same spot, with other martials being at least somewhat ahead of the fighter in this respect) is to give a rogue a shot at sneak attack damage. outside of their turn. that sounds pretty worthwhile, if bringing a big chunk of extra damage is what you're looking for.

[archaeo]

The Twelve Scenarios beckon once again, I see.

Are these supposed to be real things? Whatever.


1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

1. Presumably, you just use words, since I imagine it's the rare Fighter that dumps all the mental stats that could be used to gain an edge in one of these situations. You can be moderately wise, smart, or charismatic without damaging your core stats, and that's before factoring in any feats you might take to become the party face, if you want.

2. Same as 1, I reckon. No Fighter will dump Dex, anyway, providing a decent perception score, and background or other skills can easily come into play. Gathering clues may not even require ability checks, if the DM is just letting players roleplay the search. Edited to add: oops, crossed some wires there. A Fighter can, if they want, be moderately good at any of the core skills needed to be a great investigator.

3. Again, same as 1. A good initiative bonus, along with a modicum of effort in pre-planning, may be all that's necessary.

4. While I probably wouldn't play a Fighter if I was trying to avoid fighting, I doubt that the Fighter is going to be the weak link in the party when it comes to sneaking.

5. The Fighter can use athletics to cross streams, climb mountains, jump over gaps, etc. This is kind of their schtick.

6. This is trickier; an EK could handle it, maybe, or any Fighter that takes Ritual Caster. It might just be easier to spend some of that gold you aren't spending on managing your spellbook on a horse or better mount.

7. Ask questions, look for clues, etc. This and No. 6, however, seem like things the Fighter isn't really even intended to be good at, even in the most generous reading of the class.

8. Use all your attacks on enemies, ask the DM to use the Cleaving Through the Horde module from the DMG, or burn superiority dice on the weaker cleave in that suite. This is, however, not supposed to be the Fighter's deal.

9. Given that one has to make a melee attack to do this in 5e anyway, Fighter seems well-positioned to do so.

10. Make a nature/arcana/whatever check mid-battle to see what the weakness is, I suppose? As long as you're rocking a magic weapon, there aren't many things that are outright resistant to just being hacked in the face anyway.

11. Enter the arena! Fight for gold! Or, you know, just be an adventurer and make money the usual way; the Wizard sitting in his tower all day fabricating plate mail or whatever is probably having fun piling up gold, but they aren't really playing D&D anymore.

12. Take the Criminal background.


I don't think this is a very reasonable way to assess the Fighter's fitness as a class, but I tend to think that the Fighter, with a bit of finesse, isn't at a significant disadvantage in many of these areas, except those that 5e has specifically carved out for other class' niches.

[Rogue Shadows]

Are these supposed to be real things? Whatever.

They were originally used in a thread explaining the Tier system of classes for dummies, in order to help get across the idea that Tier system measures options, not power - power is just a nifty perk. Basically the more scenarios you can contribute meaningfully to, and the easier time you have dealing with those scenarios, the higher your Tier. If your dealing with the scenario entailed using an option available to every character regardless of class (particularly if other classes could do that and could do something else), or roleplaying, however, it didn't affect your Tier ranking. Anyone can buy a horse or carriage ride; not everyone can teleport, for example. Anyone could have ranks in Profession or break into a noble's home or bank, not everyone could cast create object to create bars of gold, or even prestidigitation to create simple gold coins. And so on.

Similarly, magic items don't level the playing field because few magic items are exclusive to a given class. A fighter can use carpet of flying to fly, but then, so can anyone else.


1. Presumably, you just use words, since I imagine it's the rare Fighter that dumps all the mental stats that could be used to gain an edge in one of these situations. You can be moderately wise, smart, or charismatic without damaging your core stats, and that's before factoring in any feats you might take to become the party face, if you want.

Again, though, this is an option that every character has. A wizard could have a decent mental score (in fact his Intelligence is at least guaranteed to be great), and could cast zone of truth, friends, charm person, and a host of other spells to increase his bargaining position. Sure, he might be shooting himself in the foot once the spells end if the noble doesn't like having been charmed; however, the scenario isn't about that.


2. Same as 1, I reckon. No Fighter will dump Dex, anyway, providing a decent perception score, and background or other skills can easily come into play. Gathering clues may not even require ability checks, if the DM is just letting players roleplay the search. Edited to add: oops, crossed some wires there. A Fighter can, if they want, be moderately good at any of the core skills needed to be a great investigator.

Indeed. And a druid can be moderately good at any of the core skills needed to be a great investigator, and can turn into an animal form to help with searching for clues if her own base skills aren't up to the task, and she (and the ranger) could cast animal friendship to get aid in searching the city.


3. Again, same as 1. A good initiative bonus, along with a modicum of effort in pre-planning, may be all that's necessary.

Any character can have this, and the bard, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard have friends and charm person, the druid has charm person, the and the cleric and paladin have command.


4. While I probably wouldn't play a Fighter if I was trying to avoid fighting, I doubt that the Fighter is going to be the weak link in the party when it comes to sneaking.

Really? Because each of the casters have access to numerous spells to aid them (the entire illusion school, basically) and can use their basic skills, the same as anyone else.


5. The Fighter can use athletics to cross streams, climb mountains, jump over gaps, etc. This is kind of their schtick.

Absolutely. And the casters can do this, and fly, become immune to heat, breathe underwater, and so on.


6. This is trickier; an EK could handle it, maybe, or any Fighter that takes Ritual Caster. It might just be easier to spend some of that gold you aren't spending on managing your spellbook on a horse or better mount.

Eldritch Knight or Ritual Caster solves the martial/caster divide by becoming a caster. Note that the distance is not specified, however, and no matter how fast your horse, teleport or teleportation circle is faster, not to mention that the casters can enhance the speed of their horses.


7. Ask questions, look for clues, etc. This and No. 6, however, seem like things the Fighter isn't really even intended to be good at, even in the most generous reading of the class.

The Twelve Scenarios are applied equally to every class, in order to demonstrate how many options a class has, how unique those options are to that class, and how good their solutions are as compared to other classes. Ideally every class would be able to excel at, say, 3 to 5 of them, and be able to meaninguflly contribute to at least 9 of them. In practice any one caster could do all of them with minimal prep time (if any), often in ways that instantly solve them (i.e., getting a horse verses just teleporting there; making a Persuasion check verses just charming someone, and so on), while mundanes tend to only have solutions available to just about anyone.


8. Use all your attacks on enemies, ask the DM to use the Cleaving Through the Horde module from the DMG, or burn superiority dice on the weaker cleave in that suite. This is, however, not supposed to be the Fighter's deal.

Amusingly, though, this is finally something that a fighter has a way of dealing with that a caster cannot easily replicate himself with his own skills. However, even now the fighter doesn't really get to shine, because while the fighter is up close and dirty making attack rolls and probably getting hit himself by all those kobolds (as it can be reasonably presumed that a "horde of enemies" represents a lot of enemies much lower level than the PC's level), the wizard is simply casting any one of a number of area of effect spells that completely end the encounter.


9. Given that one has to make a melee attack to do this in 5e anyway, Fighter seems well-positioned to do so.

Charm person, sleep, forcecage, and a number of other spells can instantly disable someone without killing them.


10. Make a nature/arcana/whatever check mid-battle to see what the weakness is, I suppose? As long as you're rocking a magic weapon, there aren't many things that are outright resistant to just being hacked in the face anyway.

No no, you misunderstand the scenario. A monster with one specific weakness. Every mummy is vulnerable to being hit in the face but a caster has a much easier time than a fighter exploiting its vulnerability to fire, for example.


11. Enter the arena! Fight for gold! Or, you know, just be an adventurer and make money the usual way; the Wizard sitting in his tower all day fabricating plate mail or whatever is probably having fun piling up gold, but they aren't really playing D&D anymore.

These scenarios are intended to be fairly common adventure ideas. No, sitting around making gobs of cash from nothing isn't really an adventure. "Give me 10,000 gp in the next 12 hours or your son dies" totally is. Sure, you can track down whoever kidnapped the kid and go Taken on their asses, but the scenario presumes that for whatever reason you need the tons of money, quickly (I feel you forgot that part), and there simply aren't alternatives (perhaps the baddies are sitting inside Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, thereby making them totally immune to anything you might want to do to them for the 24-hour duration of the spell. Sure, when it ends, everyone comes out, but that doesn't save your son).

Anyone could enter an arena or rob a bank for the cash (and frankly a sorcerer or wizard is probably better suited to either scenario). Only casters could just bypass the entire scenario by casting wish or like spell.


12. Take the Criminal background.

Which any character can do, which rogues can do better (but then, that's their niche), and the casters have a host of additional options on top of that.

[OldTrees1]

The Twelve Scenarios beckon once again, I see.

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

How does any one given Fighter (that is, remember that an Eldritch Knight has options that a Champion doesn't and never will) meaningfully contribute to each of these scenarios?

(I personally don't think 5E Fighter passes, but I should make an honest try)
All fighters get the Fighter Class + 1 Background. This gives them 4 skills(2 of which must be from the Fighter list, 2 must be a background pair and if these overlap then we have free range skills as per pg125) So for Fighter to pass then all 12 tasks need to fall within 4 specific skills or combat prowess.
1) Insight, Persuasion
2) Deception, Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, Survival ... (lots of skills are applicable)
3) Deception, Insight, Intimidate, Persuasion
4) Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth
5) Athletics, Acrobatics
6) Athletics, Acrobatics (assuming there is an obstacle in the way)
7) Investigation, Perception, Survival
8) Combat
9) Combat (pg198)
10) *stumped* some of those are spellcasting exclusive
11) Be an adventurer?
12) Sleight of Hand, Stealth

Athletics, Persuasion, Stealth, Perception (Works with the Sailor Background) should be able to meaningfully contribute to 11/12 tasks. Although those contributions will not be the same as someone with all the relevant skills.

Now based on your first response you are going to say "well everyone can have skills". In response I say "so? The question was whether every anyRace+anySubclass Fighter could contribute to these tasks."

[Rogue Shadows]

Again, though, skills are options available to anyone, and most other classes - but particularly casters - have other options available to them as well. In particular casters tend to have the ability to cast a spell that completely bypasses the need for a check or time elapse. Anyone can buy a horse, and a rogue would be particularly good at stealing a horse, but a wizard can just teleport.

(When the scenarios were first presented to me, I tried using the same argument vis-a-vis the 3.5 Rogue class, who can use skill proficiencies and UMD to solve just about all of them, and so I didn't understand why it was in Tier-4. The answer is because the Tier-3s can do anything the Rogue can do and more besides).

[OldTrees1]

Again, though, skills are options available to anyone, and most other classes - but particularly casters - have other options available to them as well.

(When the scenarios were first presented to me, I tried using the same argument vis-a-vis the 3.5 Rogue class, who can use skill proficiencies and UMD to solve just about all of them, and so I didn't understand why it was in Tier-4. The answer is because the Tier-3s can do anything the Rogue can do and more besides)

so? The question was whether every anyRace+anySubclass Fighter could contribute to these tasks.

Now UMD is a good point. The UMD skill was an option for a Rogue to pretend to be a spellcaster. Not everyone liked that answer for how to make a Rogue that was versatile while still trying to be a Rogue. My response to your 5E question does not try to pretend to be a skillmonkey (It did not take the +3 proficiency feat). Instead it described a Persuasive, Athletic, Perceptive and admittedly Stealthy Warrior. That does sound like some warriors of lore to me (Conan fits that description even if another base class might fit him better).

[Segev]

Indeed, action surge is not, in 5e, a magical ability. In earlier editions, people would have argued taht acting faster would definitely require magic, and thus was inappropriate for "mundane" characters.

It is a good sign that they have made it non-magical and just made it something cool the characters can do.

It is a good example of what I advocate.

[Rogue Shadows]

so? The question was whether every anyRace+anySubclass Fighter could contribute to these tasks.

The Twelve Scenarios were brought up, however, in response to this:

If you end up being a level 20 peasant despite all these things, then you're just working against the system in order to prove a point.

That is to say, sure, the fighter can contribute to each of these scenarios, but no better than anyone else could. In particular a level 20 peasant. Not that we have those in 5E due to a lack of NPC classes, but you get the point. The fighter fights. The fighter only fights. He specifically fights in a specific niche (reliable single-target damage), where he admittedly very good. Outside of that, however, he's not particularly useful over and above anyone else in comparison to the other 11 core classes, and notably worse than many of them. And many amongst the 5th Edition fanbase have a problem with that.

This actually applies to each of the mundane classes, really - barbarians, non-EK fighters, monks (even 4 Elements monks), non-AT rogues. Each fills a specific niche but then is no better at contributing than anyone else when outside of that niche, while the caster classes can cover nearly every niche, often in a markedly easier way than the mundanes. Consider that in my counter-argument to the above, for example, nearly every spell I mentioned a PC using was either a cantrip, 1st level, or 2nd level, so you can't even make an argument about limited high-level spell slots.

[OldTrees1]

The Twelve Scenarios were brought up, however, in response to this:

If you end up being a level 20 peasant despite all these things, then you're just working against the system in order to prove a point.

That is to say, sure, the fighter can contribute to each of these scenarios, but no better than anyone else could. In particular a level 20 peasant. Not that we have those in 5E due to a lack of NPC classes, but you get the point. The fighter fights. The fighter only fights. He specifically fights in a specific niche (reliable single-target damage), where he admittedly very good. Outside of that, however, he's not particularly useful over and above anyone else in comparison to the other 11 core classes, and notably worse than many of them. And many amongst the 5th Edition fanbase have a problem with that.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation (I assume level 20 peasants get 4 skill proficiencies?).

Well with that additional criteria, a passing grade would be combat, having 2 relevant skills, or having an ability relevant to the task(probably requiring the skill too). You can almost do that with +2 skills(Insight & Acrobatics) but it ends up taking +4 skills. So good news for Rogues but that is not a sufficient answer for Fighter unless we start considering the +2 feats Fighter gets.

Fighter with Skilled and Athlete/Skulker would get back to 10/12 but that requires taking Skilled.
Fighter with Athlete and Skulker would get back to 7/12.

So that is -1 by the "pass or fail" test and -2 to -5 by the "better than a 20th level bag of 4 skills" test.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ah. Thanks for the explanation (I assume level 20 peasants get 4 skill proficiencies?).

Honestly, I have no idea, thanks to needing to master two distinct character creation systems in 5th Edition, one for PCs and one for monsters/NPCs. I much preferred the unified system of 3rd Edition that meant that PCs and NPCs/Monsters were built in the exact same way (I call it "transparency," and the lack of it was one of my turn-offs for 4th, too), and I'm strongly considering trying to build "monster classes" and "NPC classes" a la the 3rd Edition setup.

But, to return to the point, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable for Joe Schmoe to have 4 skill proficiencies, and in any event the point isn't so much that a peasant could replace a fighter in most situations so much as that anyone can. The peasant is hyperbole, really what we mean is the ranger, the rogue, the paladin, the wizard, the cleric, and so on.

[OldTrees1]

But, to return to the point, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable for Joe Schmoe to have 4 skill proficiencies, and in any event the point isn't so much that a peasant could replace a fighter in most situations so much as that anyone can. The peasant is hyperbole, really what we mean is the ranger, the rogue, the paladin, the wizard, the cleric, and so on.

Oh. Normally (at least in 3rd) the 12 tasks were used to test if something was good enough. Not testing if something was good at everything in ways unique to them. In other words "Fighter is not versatile enough" vs "Fighter's versatility in not unique enough". Both are important issues for designers to overcome during design, but one is prior to the other. I mistook your criticism about the latter to be a criticism about the former. Both are true in 5E to different degrees though.

[silveralen]

Second Beowulf doesn't just do impressive things. There is no plausible deniability to Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm, swimming five nights without rest, or holding his breath for hours on end. That's not skill. That's having the laws of physics decide to give up.

Third, as has been pointed out, Siegfried was invulnerable after he bathed in dragons' blood. He's supernaturally powerful (and wise from eating the heart).

Indeed. Many iconic fantasy fighters were low level. Of the four fighters you just named, one (Siegfried) was explicitly supernatural, one (Beowolf) told the laws of physics to take a hike, and the other two had primary enemies who were ordinary (if powerful) humans.

The problem is you can not have a high level mundane fighter. If you were to make your fighter class only ten levels long it would just about work. In 4e terms, the ordinary fighter is an effective archetype in the heroic tier (and I don't remotely want it removed from there). It just doesn't work above about level 10. The AD&D response was to make fighters great leaders at level 10. This works. You can also give fighters the ability to tell physics to take a hike at level 10. You can further convert the fighter into a type of rogue at level 10 (i.e. incredibly skilled at all mundane skills and as much a trickster as warrior). Or you can cap the fighter and say "This is a ten level class".

Okay, here is where I'm coming at this from:

Beowulf's abilities fall under the implausible, rather than obviously magical. If Beowulf walked on clouds, I'd say magic. If he had yanked a mountain out of the ground, I'd say magic. But he didn't. He ripped off a large creatures arm and had amazing stamina. It's Charles atlas super powers, which can still be "mundane". Now, as I've pointed out, I actually don't have a problem with this. This is how I'd prefer to have such things handled. Mechanically, fighter can kinda do this. Champion fighter allows him a boost. The problem is, by keeping bonuses low and having champion only apply to straight ability checks, the DCs will often feel lower than they should. I'd argue champion's ability (not unlike part's of battle master) could stand to be fixed to capture this better, but the intent is there. Allowing it to stack with prof and actually give full double prof bonus might help, just make a special case for initiative. So the intent is there, even if execution is sloppy.

Siegfried likely just got boons for killing a dragon. It's really hard to define magical abilities gained from treasure as internal abilities he acquired via leveling up. If Siegfried had killed anything else any number of times, and gotten any amount of experience, he would not have acquired those abilities. His supernatural abilities don't make sense as part of a level system.

The solution to this problem has historically been magical items. Yes, everyone gets magical items, but for mundane characters they opened up access to new things. Again, Siegfried.

Now, 5e does actually give options beyond that, the skill system can certainly model Beowulf's feats, while Siegfried could multiclass into barbarian and wait till he killed the dragon to take the totem warrior archetype (or he jumped three levels at once, if that's allowed this edition). So they added new options to allow for this to a degree. They simply don't make such options mandatory.

If you want Siegfried to be a mortal warrior who got some fancy magic items and boons, you can, or you can make such aspects part of the characters leveling with barbarian. It allows for the player to choose.


This actually applies to each of the mundane classes, really - barbarians, non-EK fighters, monks (even 4 Elements monks), non-AT rogues. Each fills a specific niche but then is no better at contributing than anyone else when outside of that niche, while the caster classes can cover nearly every niche, often in a markedly easier way than the mundanes. Consider that in my counter-argument to the above, for example, nearly every spell I mentioned a PC using was either a cantrip, 1st level, or 2nd level, so you can't even make an argument about limited high-level spell slots.

Caster classes cannot cover every niche this time. Some classes can try, but not every can even attempt it.

Sorcerer, paladin, ranger, and warlock for example have fairly defined niches that they can stray from to a degree, but when they do aren't particularly successful. Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster are interesting in that they actually can a bit, as their spell abilities are mostly gravy on a solid base class, but their limited spell selection tends to prevent it.

Now, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard can perform a lot of roles, but even they struggle to truly do everything, and often fail to perform at a level of the class whose niche it actually is. Party face is an obvious example, they honestly can't outperform a rogue here. Nor can they as trap finder/remover, they will burn through their spells incredibly fast even attempting to replace a rogue in that regard. In single target damage they can't match a fighter or paladin, and against magic resistant enemies they suffer from limited options, and with only one concentration spell they can't even stack spells to accomplish some of these feats.

Now, there is one caveat here: level 9 spells. Yes, they didn't do an amazing job with this. Personally, I recommend most groups be careful with true polymorph and wish+simaculum (spelling). The former is just guarenteed to be too powerful due to how CR works, nothing can really be done to fix that no matter what you do to fighter, unless it outright breaks CR for fighter (this edition comes close to allowing this, fighter can actually take on a monster of his own CR potentially) while the latter is borderline abusive in many ways. I think they compromised a bit much as spell levels got higher and higher, until level 15 or so things go fairly well all around.

[Z3ro]

a battlemaster can disarm someone with a maneuver. that's pretty bad, i guess. i mean, they'll be losing the ability to make opportunity attacks until it's their turn.

but then their turn starts, they use their free interact with object to pick up their weapon again, and get on with life.

and that's pretty much the trend. the battlemaster does stuff, certainly, and very reliably as well.

but it isn't making a huge difference most of the time.

All I can say is that if while playing a battlemaster your maneuvers don't make a difference, you are playing them very differently than the battlemasters I've seen in play. A single maneuver is often all that's needed to swing a fight.

And if you disarmed your opponent, why didn't you pick up the weapon or kick it away?

[Xetheral]

So, as I read the debate, a common argument in favor of martial out-of-combat uselessness goes as follows:

Out of Combat Utility
Fighter (and similar): Skills
Wizard (and similar): Skills + Spells
Rogue (and similar): Skills + Expertise

Because they all have a common term of skills, this line of reasoning then goes on to make the following observation:

Marginal Out of Combat Utility
Fighter (and similar): ---
Wizard (and similar): Spells
Rogue (and similar): Expertise

So, it ends up looking like, compared to a Wizard, a Fighter has zero ability to contribute out of combat. This makes a lot of intuitive sense.

However, there is a factor being overlooked that makes the list above highly misleading... skills and spells are not additive. Indeed, there is a great deal of overlap between what one can accomplish with skills and what one can accomplish with spells. Spells (like any option) are useless to the extent that they replicate outcomes achievable with skills (or any other option). I'd therefore argue that the following is a more accurate way to picture the differences between classes:

Alternative View of Marginal Out of Combat Utility
Fighter (and similar): ---
Wizard (and similar): Spells - Skills (i.e. spells' ability to achieve superior outcomes to skills)
Rogue (and similar): Expertise - Skills (i.e. the relative improvement to skills represented by expertise)

The degree to which wizards "outshine" fighters in out of combat utility is thus limited only to a wizard's ability to use spells to achieve superior outcomes than a wizard could achieve using skills. Of course, there is plenty of room for debate on just how much better spells are than skills, but it's certainly less than the total out-of-combat utility provided by spells. Ultimately, the point is that, even though everyone gets skills, skills are still highly relevant to the question of relative out-of-combat utility.

The central question then becomes: just how big is the marginal advantage of spells over skills, and do wizards sacrifice enough that this advantage is warranted?

I don't have an answer to this question, but here are some factors that influence it:

Wizard combat effectiveness is limited by the number of available spells. Casting out-of-combat spells will thus frequently reduce in-combat effectiveness.
Fighters are much more survivable than Wizards. Wizards can be similarly survivable, but if they're spending spell slots to do so their combat effectiveness will drop further.
The opportunity cost to combat-effectiveness of casting an out-of-combat spell is heavily dependent on the availability of rests, and will thus vary within and between campaigns.
The usefulness of skills is heavily dependent on the DM's style, and will thus vary between campaigns.
The usefulness of spells is somewhat dependent on the DM's style, and will thus vary (although less than skills) between campaigns.
The willingness of the DM to tailor challenges to the character's abilities will dramatically change the usefulness of both skills and spells, and will thus vary within and between campaigns.
The usefulness of both spells and skills is heavily dependent on a player's creativity, D&D experience, and system mastery, and will thus vary from player to player.

[SharkForce]

the key to understanding options is, again, that the casters have the same skill-based options by default, unless we're discussing something boosted by class.

for example, the rogue has an advantage when dealing with traps because they can get expertise in thieve's tools, which is otherwise not available, even to the bard.

so understand that when a caster has an advantage because of, say, detect traps... the advantage is not "I can use detect traps all the time and never run out of spell slots", it's "I can use detect traps when I think I've missed something with the skill to confirm my guess", or "I can use enhance attribute to help in using the skill", or even "I can summon a bunch of CR 1/4 critters that I don't care about and send them ahead of me to trigger any traps, and potentially disarming any single-shot traps" (not recommended for druids that want to stay on good terms with whatever the source of their power is).

it's not so much that detect traps *replaces* the skill. it's that the caster can also have the skill, and can use detect traps *in addition* to the skill when the situation calls for it. you look into a hall full of corpses with darts in them and your skills can't find any traps? well, you can triangulate with your spell, or even just check to find out that it's not a trap, it's a place where someone got ambushed by creatures that use darts.

[Person_Man]

Finger of death does a whopping 86 maximum damage on a failed save, that's almost like an entire round of attacks by a Fighter. Almost. So close! At high levels things are going to make that save for a much less impressive 43 maximum. The average is just 30.7 from a level 7 spell slot. That's just so underwhelming (it's less than the average from a magic missile spell cast from that same slot, actually).

Don't overlook the second paragraph in the Finger of Death spell. "A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie that is permanently under your command, following your verbal orders to the best of its ability."

So in one Action you're killing an enemy (probably a mediocre or badly damaged enemy - as you correctly observed, the damage isn't fantastic), and creating a permanent ally. Zombies are weak, particularly at high levels. But permanent minions have many uses. And there is no limit to how many you can make using this method.

[SharkForce]

unfortunately the spell doesn't seem to allow for a skeleton option, as skeletons are generally much more useful (also much less stinky). though who knows, the more splatbooks come out, the more likely we are to get a spell that does the same thing with skeletons, or that turns zombies into skeletons, I figure =S

but yeah, you don't use finger of death to kill someone... you use finger of death to get a permanent undead minion.

[silveralen]

The Twelve Scenarios beckon once again, I see.

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

How does any one given Fighter (that is, remember that an Eldritch Knight has options that a Champion doesn't and never will) meaningfully contribute to each of these scenarios?

Wait, you are including eldritch knight? I assume the ritual caster feat isn't on the table?

1. Uses a show of force to frighten (intimidate) the noble so much he gladly gives the adventurers their reward and a bonus just to make sure they are positively inclined to remember him.

Suggestion if the eldritch knight uses a spell choice on it (meh, it's not awful).

You could argue the noble background more or less auto succeeds, he isn't going to try and cheat a fellow noble is he?

2. Talks to people? Insight lets him read people, and wisdom isn't a dump stat. Perception can spot clues, or places to investigate (int is a dump stat for many fighters, then you call teammates). Any social skill can work.

I actually don't see much in the wizard list 1-4 that helps. Locate object/creature at the end of the investigation maybe, but the familiar with criteria causes problems.

3. He is the swat team. Hostage negotiations almost never actually end peacefully, he can quickly and efficiently remove enemies without collateral damage.

Intimidate them via social skills, convince them it'll go badly if the don't give up.

Sneak in and try to kill them one by one? That's... dicey.

Again, no spell based solutions stand out on wizard list. Maybe you could try charming them, but oh man if it ends before you convince him and he becomes hostile and knows you charmed him? That's bad. Clairvoyance has the same familiarity issues as locate object/creature.

4. Define evade. Get around without being seen? Just stealth checks, champion fighter has some guaranteed ability there, as do all dexterity builds.

Escape from? He can use trip attack and goading attack to lure the create away and keep ahead of it, then stealth to escape, possibly athletics to perform a jump in a river or climb a tree or something similar.

Web, slow, expeditious retreat, grease and misty step help for the latter, assuming it chases him. For the former, no spells really stand out (invisibility's effect on stealth is listed in book, and it doesn't actually up your base chance). Though invisibility could be the getaway mechanism for the eldritch knight, or fly.

5. Athletics, toss down a rope, or atheltics, swim across, tie a rope to both sides.

Champion can jump larger gaps as well, for whatever that's worth.

The fly/jump/spider climb/water walking spells help. Personally I wouldn't bother with anything but fly.

6. What scale and what sort of location?

This one is really to open to tell. If its a race across an open plain to a temple door, anything which slows people down (spells or the trip effect). Scaring enemies help as well. Urchin works if moving across a town.

For longer distances... honestly there aren't a ton of things that help at any level. I mean, very few things actually outperform buying a horse or chartering a boat. It is very subjective. Even teleport can end up costing you more time than it gains if you going somewhere unfamiliar.

Still, sailor background gives you something. Soldier background gives you a constant supply of fresh horses, places you might stay, and the soldiers can potentially delay your opponents.

Skill wise, survival could help if you are navigating through a jungle/forest or something similar, keeps you from getting delayed and finds it faster.

7. Interrogate an enemy. Use survival to follow tracks, or stealth to shadow an enemy.

Uhhh... Capture an enemy and set him free, following via locate creature/object? That has... serious downsides. As in, they know you are coming and it can easily fail.

8. Action surge sword swinging with sweeping attack.

Fireball.

Action surge+fireball.

9. Take the grappler feat, or just hit him till he is unconscious.

Hold person? That's maybe half a minute if you are lucky. Hit hit till he is nearly gone, then sleep? To be fair, that's literally the same as just hitting him the rest of the way.

10. He can craft any mundane item (free tool prof battlemaster). He can keep an enemy pinned in place for an environmental attack (grapples the master vampire to hold him in the sun/the fire pit, under the river).

Magic covers the remainder, plus elemental damage spells, or damage spells in general. At least they don't eat into your restricted selections.

11. Gladiatorial combat, go clear out a dragon hoard, shake down shop keepers.

A dex based one with criminal background can pull a rogue. Won't be as good as a rogue who specializes, but can match a default.

A very liberal interpretation of "reasonable" plus suggestion can help.

12. Stealth skill, dexterity focus.

The criminal background allows for thieves tools, and potentially allows your to acquire the help of a contact to augment any weakness you have, or even do the job for you.

Non detection can bypass some magical protection, as can dispel magic.

So a few builds:

Strength based two handed guy:Lets go with soldier background, and take our skills as perception, intimidate, athletics, and survival.

From that we can conceivably contribute in some way to any of the first 10 encounters. 11 is hard to justify without DM intervention and 12 just isn't our forte. 4, 5, and 9 can be a little borderline, it really depends on the specifics.

In this case, dump int and keep dex at 10, keeping wisdom high helps as well. I'd try to start with a 15 wisdom and grab resiellent myself.

Dexterity build eldritch knight: Go with a criminal background, our skills are stealth, deception, acrobatics and investigation. For free choice spells, go with fly, magic weapon, and suggestion, maybe greater invisibility instead of magic weapon once you actually get a magic weapon. At lower levels, you could substitute jump for fly, and switch it out later.

That comfortably hits everything but 6 and possibly 11, though the ability to steal makes it kinda justifiable.

That's honestly pretty reasonable, and gives a basic idea of the range you can get, depending how much you work at boosing non combat contribution.


the key to understanding options is, again, that the casters have the same skill-based options by default, unless we're discussing something boosted by class.

Yep, and between feats, races, and archetypes anyone can access magic spells. Thief even gets to use any magic device as a unique ability. Spells are open to all.

For example, if you want your fighter to be more supernatural without being a caster, why not grab magic initiate? Resistance, guidance, and true strike could represent minor supernatural excellence, and while level one spells aren't amazing you can find something useful, and if you are a caster is so is every high elf and tiefling.

[Vogonjeltz]

The problem here is the Critical Hit part. It is physically impossible for an orc with a greataxe to actually hurt you under this model no matter how lucky they get until your HP are down. It's also such things as falling damage.

Technically at 1/2 hp they're being described as being visibly wounded. And it IS an optional rule that if you critically hit something, it gets a lingering injury (so you could lose a limb!).

It's up to you if you take it. Myself, I think I'd reserve it for fun moments, and I'd ONLY ever employ it against the players if they were ok with the concept of characters getting wounded ahead of time.


It doesn't. But there's a huge difference between War Machine and Thor, despite both being flying bricks.

True, I never found Thor very compelling for the same reason I never found the Hulk or Superman particularly compelling, there's basically threat to the protagonist, only their loved ones.

I don't see a problem with playing Perseus from Clash of the Titans (the original of course) who is portrayed as essentially a normal but brave human with some seriously powerful equipment from his dad.


As I just posted in the other thread, there's an Injuries module in the DMG that may cover this, if HP-as-spirit-or-whatever bums you out. As for falling, after a certain distance and sans some kind of Slow Fall or feather fall, just kill them like a normal person would be killed.

It's not hard to avoid these issues, if they break your suspension of disbelief, and it certainly doesn't break the game to do so.

I don't think I would ever kill a PC outright without rolling the damage dice. Even falling into lava has a suggested damage amount, to cover the potentially incredible fortitude of a heroic character. Granted, the number of dice is such that even a level 20 character stands a greater than average chance of dying outright, but they should still be afforded that chance. Plus, it makes it pretty interesting/fun when that villain/hero/random minion miraculously survives being pushed off a cliff and comes back up for revenge!


I have admittedly not yet poured over the 5th Edition DMG in great detail, but - if 5th Edition is anything like 3rd Edition, then in fact forcecage does in fact deal with a threat, at least from a mechanical perspective. You get XP for overcoming a challenge, which does not necessarily mean killing it. So if you need to get past, say, a mind flayer in order to get the Ring of McGuffin, and you trap it in a forcecage and continue on your way, then you have in fact overcome the challenge, and get the same amount of XP as if you had fought and killed the mind flayer.

Good point, if characters trap something protecting a thing or location or what have you, and that affords them the time required to get the goods and flee, then I completely agree they overcame the challenge.

It just seems very unlikely that that exact scenario would present itself on a routine basis. If it requires so little effort to get the goods and go, why even bother using forcecage? Why not just ignore the mindflayer, grab the ring and leave? (Kind of rhetorical, I totally see what you mean about there being some utility for the scenarios in which you don't care about killing, but despite that by and large I'm meh about using a precious spells known for those few times it might be handier than spells that actually incapacitate or deal direct damage). My other concern is, as a certified pack-rat from the player perspective I would never condone leaving loot on the table. (And that Mindflayer probably has at least some pocket change).


No. When I think of real-world, high-level fighters (or the closest we can come...in truth in 3rd Edition terms I don't think anyone who has ever historically lived has been much higher than 5th level, while the jury is still out for 5th Edition), I think of Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. Khan is also a good example of a real-world Barbarian or a real-world Ranger, but in the real world people don't have character classes so he can go any which way and mostly I think of him as a Fighter. I might think of an Arthur, but it's the Arthur from the Historia Brittonum or the Annales Cambriae, a Romano-British leader who fought off invading tribes of Anglo-Saxons.

I agree with your thinking on this. When I think Fighters either mythical and historical I think:
Beowulf, Perseus, Jason, Hercules/Heracles, Ajax, Hector, Achilles, Cadmus, Odysseus, Bellerophon, Theseus, Gilgamesh, Gawain, Galahad, Percival, Charlemagne, Audie Murphy, etc...

Some of the obvious fictional fighters:
GoT: Ned Stark, Jaime Lannister, Bronn, The Mountain, The Hound, Arthur Dayne...basically almost anyone else you care to think of who fights at some point in the books.
Black Company: Croaker, Silent, Raven, Mercy


So we take that concept and give them the ability to bolster their allies in combat situations. This would be easily covered by making a Warlord archetype for the Fighter class. Though it would have been better to have Warlord-type features just be a part of the base Fighter to begin with.

I think doing this is entirely covered by the set of Battlemaster Maneuvers. Rally, Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Distracting Strike, Menacing Attack, and Goading Attack are all basically about aiding allies in some manner.


Make rally not a useless ability by having it actually scale alongside HP somehow (I personally recommend it adding fighter's level, rather than charisma, like second wind. Alternatively, effects one additional character each time the superiority die increases).

You underestimate the value of Rally and the temporary hit points it gives. They stay until depleted or a Long Rest occurs. This means, provided the Fighter still has Dice left over before a Short Rest, they can effectively grant X players an extra hit die. It's better than actually healing them in some respects (they can still be healed, not subject to effects that reduce or prevent healing received).


Third, as has been pointed out, Siegfried was invulnerable after he bathed in dragons' blood. He's supernaturally powerful (and wise from eating the heart).

I'd challenge that this is basically the use of magic items. Siegfried isn't supernatural, the dragon blood he bathed in was. Similarly, The Swordbearer (Glen Cook, 1982) is not supernatural at all, but the sentient sword he's wielding is, well, a sentient magical sword.


I think I prefer "leader of men" stuff as a class-independent metric. I don't want to have to be a Fighter to be a leader.

I agree, but I think typically those who are great leaders of men in myth and fiction are also great fighters themselves. It's not that it's required, it's just that it's easy to be the case.


Question!

Why don't you use your free interact with object to pick it up?

That is exactly what you should do. That or kick it somewhere inconvenient for your opponent, like behind you.


1) fighters tend to have their hands full. literally. two-handed weapons, or dual-wielding, or sword-and-board. most likely, i wouldn't have room for *one* weapon, let alone the 8 or 9 i'm hoping for with that nova.

2) it's not in my space (or, if you're looking for a way to describe it that doesn't make you think of a grid, it's not at my own feet). there's a big difference between crouching down and picking up something that's at your feet, and going in between someone else's legs to pick something up, especially when that someone else is hostile.

3) there are many of them. i get *one* free interact with object.

1) There's no reason you can't kick the weapon aside instead, however, the premise did assume a free hand was available. It's a copout not to address that.

2) It doesn't need to be in your space. For example, doors aren't in your space, but you can most definitely interact with them for free.

3) What? This isn't parsing well. Just because you can only kick away one sword for free per turn doesn't invalidate the benefit of that free interaction.


The Twelve Scenarios beckon once again, I see.

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

How does any one given Fighter (that is, remember that an Eldritch Knight has options that a Champion doesn't and never will) meaningfully contribute to each of these scenarios?

#1 Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and History are all Fighter skill options. There's also the bevy of options available from background. Any of those could be exploited to gain an advantage in negotiations. Intimidation is probably the most direct method, but indirectly any of the others could be used.
#2 See #1.
#3 See #1.
#4 Can we get more specific with the scenario? I mean, simple movement, the use of the Dodge action, the Battlemaster Evasion maneuver, possible use of a spell by the EK, Champion polevaulting over a wall, etc.... There are a ton of ways to avoid a dangerous enemy, more so when we don't even know what that enemy is. Heck, why not just a Stealth check?
#5 Atheltics and Acrobatics, a Fighter is almost certain to have one of these things and be good at it.
#6 Using a vehicle comes to mind, Champions get a bonus to Constitution ability checks so they are definitely capable of running down an enemy on foot.
#7 Insight or Survival check would do, use of Cartographer's Tools (BM Artisan tool proficiency), simple logic (triangulation, using sightings of enemy units in the area to determine likely points of origin) also works just fine.
#8 4 attacks + Best armor in the game.
#9 See #8
#10 Get a weapon of the appropriate type, same as everyone else.
#11 Earning or stealing? Stealing is probably faster than earning. Quests are usually pretty profitable though.
#12 Stealth checks, same as everyone.


They were originally used in a thread explaining the Tier system of classes for dummies, in order to help get across the idea that Tier system measures options, not power - power is just a nifty perk. Basically the more scenarios you can contribute meaningfully to, and the easier time you have dealing with those scenarios, the higher your Tier. If your dealing with the scenario entailed using an option available to every character regardless of class (particularly if other classes could do that and could do something else), or roleplaying, however, it didn't affect your Tier ranking. Anyone can buy a horse or carriage ride; not everyone can teleport, for example. Anyone could have ranks in Profession or break into a noble's home or bank, not everyone could cast create object to create bars of gold, or even prestidigitation to create simple gold coins. And so on.

Similarly, magic items don't level the playing field because few magic items are exclusive to a given class. A fighter can use carpet of flying to fly, but then, so can anyone else.

First define "easy" and "meaningfully contribute".
Any method that requires the expending of spell slots which are precious and few is, by definition, not easy. Any character who can accomplish objective X can be said to contribute meaningfully if their actions result in or advance the cause towards X. So, also by definition, if the character is capable of getting X done, they contribute meaningfully. I see no scenario yet described where that doesn't apply equally to any class mentioned thus far.


Again, though, this is an option that every character has. A wizard could have a decent mental score (in fact his Intelligence is at least guaranteed to be great), and could cast zone of truth, friends, charm person, and a host of other spells to increase his bargaining position. Sure, he might be shooting himself in the foot once the spells end if the noble doesn't like having been charmed; however, the scenario isn't about that.

Arguably Charm Person without the Enchantment school feature leads to the Noble rescinding any benefit within the hour, so it's basically useless except for short term gain, failing the scenario, because the externality of having an angry noble reduces the total reward from net positive to net negative.

Trying to use magic to gain a negotiating advantage is fine, but it's less than useless if it actually degrades the players bargaining position through ham-handedness. As with most things speaking, this is best relegated to whatever PC has the best charisma score and proficiency in persuasion, none of which is actually class dependent.

I was going to continue looking at the rest of what you wrote, but it's all just examples of how other classes are also capable of doing these things. Nothing you wrote invalidates the ability of Fighters to meaningfully contribute to every scenario.


Again, though, skills are options available to anyone, and most other classes - but particularly casters - have other options available to them as well. In particular casters tend to have the ability to cast a spell that completely bypasses the need for a check or time elapse. Anyone can buy a horse, and a rogue would be particularly good at stealing a horse, but a wizard can just teleport.

(When the scenarios were first presented to me, I tried using the same argument vis-a-vis the 3.5 Rogue class, who can use skill proficiencies and UMD to solve just about all of them, and so I didn't understand why it was in Tier-4. The answer is because the Tier-3s can do anything the Rogue can do and more besides).

Schroedinger's Wizard is not now, nor has ever been, an acceptable claim. That was wrong in 3.5 and it's even more blatantly wrong in 5th edition.

And burning a spell slot to avoid a skill check? That's literally the worst trade off of resources in the game. Doing the same thing, but much much worse, is not a recommendation. Players make dozens to hundreds of skill checks a day, that's a huge waste of a spell.


Oh. Normally (at least in 3rd) the 12 tasks were used to test if something was good enough. Not testing if something was good at everything in ways unique to them. In other words "Fighter is not versatile enough" vs "Fighter's versatility in not unique enough". Both are important issues for designers to overcome during design, but one is prior to the other. I mistook your criticism about the latter to be a criticism about the former. Both are true in 5E to different degrees though.

I think a better test would be how often in a day the class can do those 12 things. The answer from a Fighter is: Infinite.
From a Wizard? Once, maybe, if they had the right spells picked that day (statistically speaking based on the number of spells available, they didn't).

I mean, heck, we could just say: There are 23 locked doors. Between each door is a fragile item you must acquire and assemble. Good luck. The Mage automatically fails by being unable to cast knock 23 times. Is that now a fair test because I made up an arbitrary number of things?


the key to understanding options is, again, that the casters have the same skill-based options by default, unless we're discussing something boosted by class.

for example, the rogue has an advantage when dealing with traps because they can get expertise in thieve's tools, which is otherwise not available, even to the bard.

so understand that when a caster has an advantage because of, say, detect traps... the advantage is not "I can use detect traps all the time and never run out of spell slots", it's "I can use detect traps when I think I've missed something with the skill to confirm my guess", or "I can use enhance attribute to help in using the skill", or even "I can summon a bunch of CR 1/4 critters that I don't care about and send them ahead of me to trigger any traps, and potentially disarming any single-shot traps" (not recommended for druids that want to stay on good terms with whatever the source of their power is).

it's not so much that detect traps *replaces* the skill. it's that the caster can also have the skill, and can use detect traps *in addition* to the skill when the situation calls for it. you look into a hall full of corpses with darts in them and your skills can't find any traps? well, you can triangulate with your spell, or even just check to find out that it's not a trap, it's a place where someone got ambushed by creatures that use darts.

The thing is that Wizards don't get all the same skills. Wizards get exactly 2 of 6 skills (out of 18 total skills) and of those 6 skills 4 are from Intelligence and 2 are from Wisdom. This brings in the interesting side question: Of the skills that Wizards don't have access to (12), how many different backgrounds exist for which they can acquire said skill, and how many different skills do they have access to in real terms?

Mathematically, the Wizard class skills are available to 6.67777 other classes on average, as opposed to the Fighter's skill average of 6.5. This is on top of the Fighter having a wider selection of skills to choose from.

So basically the reality is that the Wizard has fewer skills to choose from, and those skills they do get to pick are more often redundant with other classes making them less unique.

Skill Commonality by Background:
Athletics: 3
Acrobatics: 1
Sleight of Hand: 2
Stealth: 2
Arcana: 1
History: 2
Investigation: 0
Nature: 0
Religion: 2
Animal Handling: 1
Insight: 2
Medicine: 1
Perception: 1
Survival: 2
Deception: 2
Intimidation: 1
Performance: 1
Persuasion: 1


Don't overlook the second paragraph in the Finger of Death spell. "A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie that is permanently under your command, following your verbal orders to the best of its ability."

So in one Action you're killing an enemy (probably a mediocre or badly damaged enemy - as you correctly observed, the damage isn't fantastic), and creating a permanent ally. Zombies are weak, particularly at high levels. But permanent minions have many uses. And there is no limit to how many you can make using this method.

I guess it's not the worst rider on a spell for a villain. I still wouldn't use a spell slot on that. The enemies your character is likely to fight at that level are also likely to one-shot said zombie.

[neonchameleon]

At this point, honestly, I think this point of view says way more about the person espousing it than it does the system itself, SharkForce.

You can choose to work with your party, selecting skills and specialties that fill a niche. You can choose to specialize in protecting your friends from harm with good feat and feature selection. You can leverage background and personality options to become a fully fleshed-out character with agency in the plot. You can select feats that give you more versatility without sacrificing your ability scores. You can work together with Clerics and Bards to become an even more fearsome damage dealer, or work with your Rogue to create endless sneak attack opportunities as a pseudo-lazylord.

In short, you have a huge number of tools that can make you a valuable part of any team. If you end up being a level 20 peasant despite all these things, then you're just working against the system in order to prove a point.

You do realise that everything you've just said is something a level 20 peasant can also do?


Okay, here is where I'm coming at this from:

Beowulf's abilities fall under the implausible, rather than obviously magical. If Beowulf walked on clouds, I'd say magic. If he had yanked a mountain out of the ground, I'd say magic. But he didn't. He ripped off a large creatures arm and had amazing stamina. It's Charles atlas super powers, which can still be "mundane".

And here's where we disagree. Ripping the arms off Grendel might be Charles Atlas Superpowers. Holding your breath for hours while being physically active? You're gone way over the line.


So the intent is there, even if execution is sloppy.

Perhaps. But sloppy execution matters.


Siegfried likely just got boons for killing a dragon. It's really hard to define magical abilities gained from treasure as internal abilities he acquired via leveling up. If Siegfried had killed anything else any number of times, and gotten any amount of experience, he would not have acquired those abilities. His supernatural abilities don't make sense as part of a level system.

OK. Let's assume Siegfried's abilities come from magic items. Next time give those same items to the party wizard. Siegfried is pretty much irrelevant - instead you have an invulnerable wizard. This used to work in oD&D when the wizard's power came from items as well - but 3.0 broke it and 5e didn't fix it. Because the wizard's power comes from themselves, but the fighter needs loot. And you can share loot (this was the real reason in oD&D for the cleric prohibition against edged weapons; all the best magic weapons were fighter only, and swords by being good against large creatures were a stealth buff to the fighter at higher levels).


The solution to this problem has historically been magical items. Yes, everyone gets magical items, but for mundane characters they opened up access to new things. Again, Siegfried.

The "solution" works under one of two premises:
1: The fighter leeches more than their fair share of the loot and becomes productive at the expense of everyone else's share of the loot. They are a drain on party resources
2: There are special properties to the magic items that mean that only the mundane characters can wield them. Which was how TSR editions handled it (although it was really cracking by 2e).

Why should Siegfried rather than Merlin get the dragon's blood to bathe in? Siegfried is after all proficient with armour. Or is creating loot something the fighter does?

And with boons the DM needs to turn the fighter into a Marty Stu. Giving them special boosts that no one else gets. To get more magic items and boons than anyone else in 5e, the DM needs to literally intervene on behalf of the fighter.


True, I never found Thor very compelling for the same reason I never found the Hulk or Superman particularly compelling, there's basically threat to the protagonist, only their loved ones.

I don't see a problem with playing Perseus from Clash of the Titans (the original of course) who is portrayed as essentially a normal but brave human with some seriously powerful equipment from his dad.

A character who's a normal human with some seriously powerful equipment is fine under one of two conditions:
1: Everyone's equipment remains more or less static over the course of the campaign. This is not the case in normal D&D campaigns
2: The character can keep getting more loot than other people because they are given loot as a class feature rather than because they need twice as much as normal out of the common pot.

Were there a class called the Heir that every time it levelled up could choose a free magic item of a given level and have it fed-exed to them as a class feature this would work.

Let's take a hypothetical example. "Mini-Perseus." As a first level character Mini-Perseus starts with a +1 sword and +1 armour. This is enough to allow him to kick arse and take names in the middle of a first level party. By level ten, everyone who wants them should have +2 swords and +2 armour (hypothetical numbers). Mini-Perseus also has his +1 sword and +1 armour - but they do not scale. Either Mini-Perseus has grabbed the only +3 weapons, or he has fallen behind.

Gygax and Arneson handled this by making method 2 work. The most common magic item drop in oD&D and AD&D was swords. Wizards couldn't wield swords. Clerics couldn't wield edged weapons. Which meant that the swords were divided between the fighters and occasionally the thieves. Next most common was armour. Wizards and thieves couldn't wear heavy armour - which meant that the heavy armour was divided between the fighters and the clerics. So on a need over greed basis the fighters were far the most likely to have the best loot.

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly, I have no idea, thanks to needing to master two distinct character creation systems in 5th Edition, one for PCs and one for monsters/NPCs. I much preferred the unified system of 3rd Edition that meant that PCs and NPCs/Monsters were built in the exact same way (I call it "transparency," and the lack of it was one of my turn-offs for 4th, too), and I'm strongly considering trying to build "monster classes" and "NPC classes" a la the 3rd Edition setup.

But, to return to the point, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable for Joe Schmoe to have 4 skill proficiencies, and in any event the point isn't so much that a peasant could replace a fighter in most situations so much as that anyone can. The peasant is hyperbole, really what we mean is the ranger, the rogue, the paladin, the wizard, the cleric, and so on.

Basically they don't exist at all. Due to bounded accuracy and how monsters/NPCs are set up there is no such thing as a high level commoner. (There is no NPC classes that I could see for example. (Villain classes are something else))

So any that are made by the DM are, well custom monsters. And they have exactly as many skills and how well they use their skills is entirely up to the DM. But there is no official 'level 20 commoner'.


the key to understanding options is, again, that the casters have the same skill-based options by default, unless we're discussing something boosted by class.

for example, the rogue has an advantage when dealing with traps because they can get expertise in thieve's tools, which is otherwise not available, even to the bard.

so understand that when a caster has an advantage because of, say, detect traps... the advantage is not "I can use detect traps all the time and never run out of spell slots", it's "I can use detect traps when I think I've missed something with the skill to confirm my guess", or "I can use enhance attribute to help in using the skill", or even "I can summon a bunch of CR 1/4 critters that I don't care about and send them ahead of me to trigger any traps, and potentially disarming any single-shot traps" (not recommended for druids that want to stay on good terms with whatever the source of their power is).

it's not so much that detect traps *replaces* the skill. it's that the caster can also have the skill, and can use detect traps *in addition* to the skill when the situation calls for it. you look into a hall full of corpses with darts in them and your skills can't find any traps? well, you can triangulate with your spell, or even just check to find out that it's not a trap, it's a place where someone got ambushed by creatures that use darts.

I don't think anyone is saying that spell casters aren't stronger. But rather that them being stronger isn't disruptive, which is much more important. A Champion Fighter can hang with three wizards, and still contribute to the game without it feeling like the Wizards are always holding his hand. Because it's within your best interests to use skills instead of spells whenever possible, so the Fighter will be using his skills if the party coordinated to avoid overlap (and even if they didn't he'd still likely use them cause his stat bonus might be better). The wizards will save their spells for the situations they don't have skills for, and for combats. And in combat the fighter can keep up just fine unless you are routinely fighting mindflayers or hordes of enemies.

[Scarab112]

I wanted to throw in my two cents. First, I'd like to note that people keep seeming to use a very narrow term for Martial. Whenever I see it thrown around, it usually includes the Ranger but neglects the Paladin, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster. Cherry picking which classes count as casters based on how good they are will always mean casters are better. Seeing as how the Ranger has the ability to cast spells and yet is considered by many to be the worst class in the game, there is clearly a more complex power dynamic than 3.5 had.

Speaking of 3.5, let's try using the class tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=bc18425e5fa73d30e4a9a54889edf4 4e&topic=1002.0) to classify which tiers these new classes would fall into.

The first example I'll go over is the fighter, and seeing as how 12 challenges for competency were already provided, we'll use those. As was pointed out, any type of fighter can cover 11 out of 12 of those challenges through careful skill choice alone without sacrificing any combat ability or other utility. For now, we'll ignore the Eldritch Knight to simplify things.

So, in addition to being a very powerful and durable melee combatant, the fighter has reasonable utility with skills to contribute to a variety of different encounter types, even before accounting for anything else.

Based on this, I believe the Fighter would fall into Tier 3, as follows.

"Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult."

The fighter indeed does one thing quite well, and his skills make him useful outside of that. The Fighter also has a few unique abilities, and while they might not solve encounters, there are certain maneuvers that can potentially trivialize challenges. For example, against a humanoid enemy with a weapon, a battlemaster can easily disarm him and take his weapon, thus effectively nullifying the threat. While these cases might be a bit narrow, they do still exist in some capacity.

Now, as a counter to that, let's examine the wizard. Obviously the wizard is capable of contributing to all 12 challenges in some way, though it does depend on which spells they have prepared (25 at max level, a little under 3 options for each slot), and they only have four high-level slots at max level. This does mean that compared to 3.5, a wizard running out of spells or not having the right spell is a much more serious possibility. While a handful of spells exist that can cause massive problems, these are usually high level and limited in some way. The most notable offenders are Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, and Animate Dead.

So where does this leave the Wizard? Is it still tier 1? I'd argue no. I believe that at best, it falls into tier 2.

"Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways."

While a wizard has those powerful abilities, they're few in number, and it still isn't capable of replacing an entire party of martial characters by itself. While a well placed spell may 'solve' an encounter, it isn't to the same degree as 3.5. Indeed, outside of a few more powerful high level spells, a case could be made for the wizard falling into Tier 3 instead.


Just for completeness, I will also note that I feel the only Tier 2 characters alongside the Wizard are the Bard and Druid. The while the bard class has access to many powerful abilities, a bard character will have a much narrower selection in play. The druid, on the other hand, has a much narrower focus of abilities, but can change from day to day. Wildshape is the real deciding factor, as it is a very versatile tool for both utility and combat potential.

However, as I am counting Animate dead as one of the 'nukes' Tier 2 can use to break the game or replace other characters, I will point out that the fighter is capable of the same trick. An Eldritch Knight is capable of casting spells of up to 4th level, and at level 14 can get Animate dead. While the overall number of skeletons he can field is much lower, it is still a force that can match the damage of other classes.

In conclusion, the classes in 5e are in a much narrower range than in 3.5. While not as narrow as 4e, there are certainly no longer any Tier 1 or Tier 5 classes. All classes are capable of contributing to various problems. While casters hold a few game-breaking options, the list is fairly short for any given class, and can be more easily addressed than in 3.5.

While some casters do seem to hold a slight edge, it is not due to some sort of inherent caster supremacy. I've seen it argued that both mundane forms of the Rogue are more useful than a Sorcerer, and I certainly don't need to remind anyone about the general thoughts on the Ranger. Indeed, one of the most powerful classes, the Druid, isn't considered powerful due to its spells, but rather due to a class feature, Wildshape. While having spells inherently offers some versatility, it is no longer a guarantee of it.

[silveralen]

In conclusion, the classes in 5e are in a much narrower range than in 3.5. While not as narrow as 4e, there are certainly no longer any Tier 1 or Tier 5 classes. All classes are capable of contributing to various problems. While casters hold a few game-breaking options, the list is fairly short for any given class, and can be more easily addressed than in 3.5.

While some casters do seem to hold a slight edge, it is not due to some sort of inherent caster supremacy. I've seen it argued that both mundane forms of the Rogue are more useful than a Sorcerer, and I certainly don't need to remind anyone about the general thoughts on the Ranger. Indeed, one of the most powerful classes, the Druid, isn't considered powerful due to its spells, but rather due to a class feature, Wildshape. While having spells inherently offers some versatility, it is no longer a guarantee of it.

Wasn't the general rule of thumb to keep play within two tiers? 2-4 was generally the sweet spot, with tier three being the ideal. In that regard, 5e did a fairly wonderful job, I don't think any class struggle unduly to reach tier three, even without spells, and the number of tier two classes isn't that high.

[Scarab112]

Wasn't the general rule of thumb to keep play within two tiers? 2-4 was generally the sweet spot, with tier three being the ideal. In that regard, 5e did a fairly wonderful job, I don't think any class struggle unduly to reach tier three, even without spells, and the number of tier two classes isn't that high.

The only classes from 5e I would even be tempted to place in Tier 4 would be the Ranger. It is the closest to fitting the definition 'capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining'. They have an interesting mix of combat ability, combat utility, and out of combat utility, but they're not as good in combat as a fighter without using spells, or a rogue in general. It's quite possible to be an effective ranger, but it requires a bit more consideration than some other classes.

That said, even the ranger has some unique things. The hunter has mundane, at-will AoE from a range, and the beastmaster has some very neat tricks it can pull off, as long as your DM isn't overly strict.

[Eslin]

Wasn't the general rule of thumb to keep play within two tiers? 2-4 was generally the sweet spot, with tier three being the ideal. In that regard, 5e did a fairly wonderful job, I don't think any class struggle unduly to reach tier three, even without spells, and the number of tier two classes isn't that high.

Yep, that was the general rule of thumb, and 5e did indeed make it work. Pretty much everything except the ranger and champion fighter is tier 3, excepting the versatile casters who are tier 2. Even at its most disparate in terms of class usability, everything can be played together - something you had to know what you were doing and have a gentleman's agreement to institute in 3.5, and even then it was easy to accidentally break things.

[silveralen]

So I guess the issue we are left with is that most of the non spell casters are typically in tier 3 due to personal combat ability, often in the form of raw damage. A few people seem to like the idea of them having a different focus, either still combat but more the control/buffing angle, or some narratively powerful general who can leverage charisma and groups of soldiers/peasants/generic npcs to accomplish task. Which is less a balance issue than an overlooked archetype.

Edit: I just realized I described a warlord almost word for word....

[Z3ro]

You do realise that everything you've just said is something a level 20 peasant can also do?


There is no such thing as a level 20 peasant in 5E. There are no npc classes, and npcs are made using a completely separate system, so no, a peasant could not do all those things, as it should be.

[neonchameleon]

There is no such thing as a level 20 peasant in 5E. There are no npc classes, and npcs are made using a completely separate system, so no, a peasant could not do all those things, as it should be.

I know there's no peasant class. But it wasn't my analogy, merely the example the person I was replying to was failing to rebut. A level 20 character with no class features at all would do the same job.

[Z3ro]

I know there's no peasant class. But it wasn't my analogy, merely the example the person I was replying to was failing to rebut. A level 20 character with no class features at all would do the same job.

But you can't have a level 20 character with no class features.

[Rogue Shadows]

There is no such thing as a level 20 peasant in 5E. There are no npc classes, and npcs are made using a completely separate system, so no, a peasant could not do all those things, as it should be.

As I said, the level 20 peasant is a hyperbole* meant to illustrate the fact that whatever the Fighter brings to the table that isn't a specific combat niche, is not something that literally anyone else couldn't also bring to the table. No, there is no such thing as a level 20 character with no class features, but if there were, then when not in combat (and particularly when not in a combat where reliable single-target damage is needed) he would be just as useful as a fighter not in combat.

---
*hīˈpərbəlē; noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally, used to create emphasis or effect; "the bag weighed a ton"

[Z3ro]

As I said, the level 20 peasant is a hyperbole* meant to illustrate the fact that whatever the Fighter brings to the table that isn't a specific combat niche, is not something that literally anyone else couldn't also bring to the table. No, there is no such thing as a level 20 character with no class features, but if there were, then when not in combat (and particularly when not in a combat where reliable single-target damage is needed) he would be just as useful as a fighter not in combat.

---
*hīˈpərbəlē; noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally, used to create emphasis or effect; "the bag weighed a ton"

But your example isn't hyperbole; it's at best a strawman. You're basically saying that if the game were different, it would be different. Obviously. It also tells us nothing.

[Rogue Shadows]

But your example isn't hyperbole; it's at best a strawman. You're basically saying that if the game were different, it would be different. Obviously. It also tells us nothing.

No, it's still a hyperbole, because as I pointed out you can replace the peasant with anyone else and the statement still works:

Out of combat, a ranger can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a monk can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a warlock can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a paladin can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a rogue can do anything a fighter can do.

See?

[Jakinbandw]

Yes. That is true. Anyone can contribute. And isn't that a good thing? Certain spellcasters can do some interesting things some of the time. But so can some Martials. For example, only the monk can do mass save or dies a day. The wizard doesn't even have access to one (they do have a once a day way to kill creatures under a hundred hp) but pretty much all Martials can do similar espially with poison and the like.

There are casters that are strong. From what I've heard Druids are super powerful. But that is one class. On the flip side Rangers are weak and they are casters.

I'm curious. Instead of using wizard or bard when compairing the effect of casting, try using the ranger, or the warlock. One is a pure faster, the other is a half caster, so they should be much better than any martial like the rouge or the monk for options right?

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes. That is true. Anyone can contribute.

It's not that anyone can contribute, it's that the fighter cannot contribute beyond what anyone else can contribute, and most other classes can contribute in some additional way as well. Out of combat the rogue can contribute in any way that a fighter can and, without going into any archetype, gets things like Thieves' Cant, expertise with thieves' tools, and Reliable Talent, for example, all of which contribute to out-of-combat utility. Even ignoring their spells, Rangers are basically Out of Combat Utility the base class, as long as you're in a wilderness environment.

This is particularly vexing for someone like me, who really doesn't consider different aspects of combat to be noteworthy things for a class to shine in. Okay, so the fighter is good at fighting. So's the wizard, or the rogue. Yeah, they go about it in different ways - much more cautiously in the case of the latter two - but at the end of the day all three are capable at overcoming combat encounters. So the fact that the wizard is especially good at area of effect, or the rogue especially good at precision damage, or the fighter especially good at single-target massive damage, doesn't matter. It's all just combat, and the fighter is good at it, but that's the only thing he's good at, and he's not the only one that's good at it.


There are casters that are strong. From what I've heard Druids are super powerful. But that is one class. On the flip side Rangers are weak and they are casters.

Once again we are making the mistake of conflating options and power. I have never been discussing power. A ranger might not be a particularly powerful class (and even then that's only in comparison to barbarian or fighter or paladin; a ranger is hardly helpless in a combat situation), but he still gets things that contribute out-of-combat like favored enemy (bonus language), natural explorer, primeval awareness, land's stride, hide in plain sight, vanish, arguably feral senses, and spells like animal friendship, animal messenger, speak with plants, water breathing, and commune with nature. Before we even get into archetype abilities, the ranger is host to a cornucopia of things to do other than stab people or avoid being stabbed by people. The class might not be powerful, but it will never lack for something to do regardless of the situation ("I'm at a noble's ball and I need to spy on two different people; Squeakers my animal friend, keep an eye on Viscount Alpha while I keep watch on Duke Beta."), and more to the point it can do some things in ways that no other class can, or has difficulty replicating.

[Jakinbandw]

This is particularly vexing for someone like me, who really doesn't consider different aspects of combat to be noteworthy things for a class to shine in. Okay, so the fighter is good at fighting. So's the wizard, or the rogue. Yeah, they go about it in different ways - much more cautiously in the case of the latter two - but at the end of the day all three are capable at overcoming combat encounters. So the fact that the wizard is especially good at area of effect, or the rogue especially good at precision damage, or the fighter especially good at single-target massive damage, doesn't matter. It's all just combat, and the fighter is good at it, but that's the only thing he's good at, and he's not the only one that's good at it.

Once again we are making the mistake of conflating options and power.

So... You don't like the fighter not having special unique things it can do outside of combat. It's not enough the fighter can contribute, they have to have a unique way to contribute. Something no one else does, otherwise they have no options.

That's like saying that prestidigitation is pointless spell because any class can have it if they want. Taking it with a feat, or being a race that gives you a free spell (or using the dmg to create your own race). In fact, by that token, no first level spells matter as far as utility goes because any character can have them. And if everyone can have them they don't count.

I find the idea silly to be honest.

Skills often can be better than spells. Fly uses concentration. Riding a griffon doesn't, and adds an extra set of attacks. Which is better? Why would I want fly when I can take a griffin? Fly becomes a useless option. It's still more options than a fighter, but a choice where there is one clearly best answer isn't a choice.

[Rogue Shadows]

So... You don't like the fighter not having special unique things it can do outside of combat. It's not enough the fighter can contribute, they have to have a unique way to contribute. Something no one else does, otherwise they have no options.

No, otherwise they have the same options, and are replaceable as a result.


That's like saying that prestidigitation is pointless spell because any class can have it if they want. Taking it with a feat, or being a race that gives you a free spell (or using the dmg to create your own race). In fact, by that token, no first level spells matter as far as utility goes because any character can have them. And if everyone can have them they don't count.

No one has uttered the phrase "pointless." Replaceable has been thrown around, but not pointless. Different concept. Yes, anyone can get a cantrip or a 1st level spell. Since anyone can get it, it shouldn't be considered as whether or not it contributes to an individual class' ability to bring something new to the table, because it by definition doesn't bring anything new to the table. Prestidigitation or sleep or what have you are still useful spells but since anyone can get them the Fighter doesn't become more attractive by its ability to get them.

It's like being told that you can either have $500 and a Wii-U, or $500 and an PlayStation 4. The fact that you're getting $500 doesn't really factor into your choices because either way you're getting the money, but the fact that you're getting $500 is hardly pointless.

Similarly, being told that you can be a Fighter and have the Stealth skill doesn't really factor into the decision, because you can be any class and have the Stealth skill. It's not that Stealth is bad or pointless, simply that it has nothing to do with why you'd pick a Fighter over a Barbarian or a Paladin.


Skills often can be better than spells. Fly uses concentration. Riding a griffon doesn't, and adds an extra set of attacks. Which is better? Why would I want fly when I can take a griffin? Fly becomes a useless option. It's still more options than a fighter, but a choice where there is one clearly best answer isn't a choice.

This wholly misses the point. The Fighter can ride a griffin. The Wizard can ride a griffin, too. But in addition, the Wizard can cast fly. No, he might not have it prepared. No, he might not even know the spell. But at the end of the day it's still an option potentially open to the Wizard, and never open to the Fighter (excepting the Eldritch Knight, but, again, this solves the mundane Fighter's problem of not measuring up to casters by turning him into a caster, so it's not a real solution, any more than the Rogue's solution in 3.5 was Use Magic Device). Thus in situations where no griffin mounts are available but flight is necessary, the Wizard has the potential option of nevertheless flying, and the Fighter does not.

In other words, it's not about Guy Riding Griffin Riding VS Guy Using Fly, it's about Guy Riding Griffin VS Guy Riding Griffin But Who Doesn't Need a Griffin to Fly if He Doesn't Want To. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html)

[Xetheral]

It's like being told that you can either have $500 and a Wii-U, or $500 and an PlayStation 4. The fact that you're getting $500 doesn't really factor into your choices because either way you're getting the money, but the fact that you're getting $500 is hardly pointless.

Similarly, being told that you can be a Fighter and have the Stealth skill doesn't really factor into the decision, because you can be any class and have the Stealth skill. It's not that Stealth is bad or pointless, simply that it has nothing to do with why you'd pick a Fighter over a Barbarian or a Paladin.

This is the problem I was trying to highlight with my comment about skills and spells not being additive. With your money-and-game-console example, one can get full utility from both the money and the console. When considering the options provided by skills and spells, you don't get full utility from both... the spells only help to the degree they can provide better outcomes than the skills.

[Rogue Shadows]

This is the problem I was trying to highlight with my comment about skills and spells not being additive. With your money-and-game-console example, one can get full utility from both the money and the console. When considering the options provided by skills and spells, you don't get full utility from both... the spells only help to the degree they can provide better outcomes than the skills.

True enough, but the Wizard at least has the option, and the Fighter does not. Either one can use Stealth to try and sneak by a bunch of ogres, but the wizard additionally could turn himself invisible under his own power. Either one can use Intimidate to interrogate an enemy, but the wizard can additionally use zone of truth. And so on. At the very worst, spells basically provide a free skill retry if your initial attempt at using a skill fails, and at a much higher success rate besides. Using up a resource in the process, sure, but it still leaves you better off than you were before and where the fighter is stuck at, which is with a failed skill check.

[Jakinbandw]

This wholly misses the point. The Fighter can ride a griffin. The Wizard can ride a griffin, too. But in addition, the Wizard can cast fly. No, he might not have it prepared. No, he might not even know the spell. But at the end of the day it's still an option potentially open to the Wizard, and never open to the Fighter (excepting the Eldritch Knight, but, again, this solves the mundane Fighter's problem of not measuring up to casters by turning him into a caster, so it's not a real solution). Thus in situations where no griffin mounts are available but flight is necessary, the Wizard has the potential option of nevertheless flying, and the Fighter does not.

Flying mounts are one of the things that give the fighter utility. Going out and finding one may be an adventure, but do we not play dnd for adventures? And not having one available is no less unreasonable of the dm, than not giving the wizard any spells except what he gains when he levels up.

Also, so that I understand you. When you say martial have fewer options, you are talking about 2 subclasses of a single martial class? That is a very narrow take on martial.

May I ask what you would like to see? You want to play a Mundane fighter (who's job description is fighting.) You don't want any more combat abilities, and you don't consider skills good enough, yet you still want specific unique out of combat. What type of thing do you want? What do you imagine that is completely mundane, and not skill based that would satisfy you?


This is the problem I was trying to highlight with my comment about skills and spells not being additive. With your money-and-game-console example, one can get full utility from both the money and the console. When considering the options provided by skills and spells, you don't get full utility from both... the spells only help to the degree they can provide better outcomes than the skills.

Skills and spells are a ven diagram, with a lot of overlap. Spells can do some things skills can't do, and skills can do things magic can't do.

[Rogue Shadows]

Flying mounts are one of the things that give the fighter utility. Going out and finding one may be an adventure, but do we not play dnd for adventures? And not having one available is no less unreasonable of the dm, than not giving the wizard any spells except what he gains when he levels up.

I still feel you are wholly missing the point and am beginning to wonder if this is intentional on your part. Yes, sure, a flying mount gives a fighter utility. But it also, equally gives a wizard utility. So the fact that a fighter can fly around on a griffin should not be taken into account when determining if you want to play a fighter because anyone can do it. That doesn't make the option bad, it's just that no one has ever uttered the phrase "I want to play a fighter so that I can ride around on a griffin." It's tantamount to saying "I want to play a fighter so that I can kill kobolds." Any class can kill kobolds, and the ability to kill kobolds is not why you pick a fighter.


Also, so that I understand you. When you say martial have fewer options, you are talking about 2 subclasses of a single martial class? That is a very narrow take on martial.

When I say Fighter, I mean Champion and Battle Master, generally, yes, and will generally use the Fighter in that regard because it's the poster child of all the problems facing martial characters as compared to casters.

When I say Mundane or Martial, I mean any class or subclass that does not have a spellcasting table associated with it. So all Barbarians, Way of the Open Palm and Way of Shadow Monks, Champion and Battle Master Fighters, and Thief and Assassin rogues. I probably also mean Way of the Four Elements Monks but to be honest I'm not familiar with the class and as I understand it, it gets spells, just using a ki point system rather than a Vancian magic system.

When I say Caster, I mean any class or subclass that has a spellcasting table. So Bard, Cleric, Druid, Eldritch Knight, Way of Four Elements Monk (maybe, see above), Paladin, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.


May I ask what you would like to see? You want to play a Mundane fighter (who's job description is fighting.) You don't want any more combat abilities, and you don't consider skills good enough, yet you still want specific unique out of combat. What type of thing do you want? What do you imagine that is completely mundane, and not skill based that would satisfy you?

They don't have to be entirely non-skill based, they just need to be able to use skills out-of-combat in a way that other classes can't, and in keeping with the idea of the Fighter class could even largely tie back into combat as well. So, Leader of Men type abilities or Charles Atlas type abilities.

- Bonuses/stuff to do when to interacting alongside other martial-types (sort of a reverse favored enemy, call it "phalanx" or something)
- Bonuses to checks like History and Intimidation and maybe Persuasion, or better yet unique things to do with History and Intimidation and maybe Persuasion like cowing bystanders, giving rousing speeches, and so on.
- An NPC squire/fanatic/whatever in the vein of how casters can get animal companions or familiars.
- Bonuses to damage against objects allowing them to do things like easily bust down doors or walls (i.e. Dungeon Crasher, which has out-of-combat utility).
- Abilities like taunting a foe to give them disadvantage on certain checks, useful in social situations as well as combat ones.
- A d20 game I like called SpyCraft gave their Fighter equivalent (the Soldier) things like bonus action die on attack rolls and Strength- or Constitution-based skill checks; this could be ported into 5th Edition by giving the Fighter something like "superior advantage" a limited number of times per rest (roll 3d20, take the best).
- As well, SpyCraft it gave Soldiers an ability called One in a Million that allowed the Soldier to once per game session (so call it once per long rest) get an automatic Natural 20 on a physical activity, such as an attack roll, Strength-, Dexterity-, or Constitution-based skill check or saving throw, etc. Note I said natural 20 so, yes, it counted as a critical success.

[archaeo]

I know there's no peasant class. But it wasn't my analogy, merely the example the person I was replying to was failing to rebut. A level 20 character with no class features at all would do the same job.

Wasn't I just responding to something you or somebody else had said? I'm not going to bother to look. The comparison only serves to illustrate ideology. It isn't necessarily incorrect -- it's pretty clear a sizable people believe exactly the wacky thing you believe -- but it is coming from a place of ideological conviction about "game design," a topic we're all evidently pretending can be evaluated objectively.

Which is all to say that we're pretty super obviously not making much progress here.

[SharkForce]

for clarification: i don't consider "martials" to only include 2 subclasses of fighter.

however, the fighter is by far the largest offender in terms of the most frequent problems, and those two particular subclasses of fighter are something that nobody ever really steps up and says "oh, those are definitely not martial".

for example, if we were to discuss the monk, there would be 2 sources of confusion:

1) some people consider the monk to be some sort of semi-supernatural non-martial character.
2) the monk is not in nearly as bad of a situation as the fighter, because while it has *fewer* options generally speaking as compared to a typical caster, it at least does have some options that other people don't.

fighters get singled out, not because they are the only martial, but because they are the poster child for the term martial and because they are the worst offender in the "brings nothing special to the party" club. the only thing they are good at is something that even other martials tend to be about equally good at, except that those other martials also still have utility in other ways to boot.

[Forum Explorer]

Wait, here's what I'm hearing here.

The class (Champion Fighter) specifically designed to not have a lot of options, doesn't have a lot of options. Of course it doesn't! That is literally one of the concepts of the class.

Battlemaster lacks out of combat utility. Fair enough. Of course it's called Battlemaster so again, kinda the point.

Eldritch Knight has all the options you want basically. But because they use spells to do so they are disqualified.


Lets move the discussion from Fighter, shall we?

Does Monk lack out of combat utility? Does the Barbarian? Does the Rogue? (By lack I mean, have basically the same as the Fighter)

Otherwise I think the answer to the question in the title of the thread is 'yes.'

[Vogonjeltz]

A character who's a normal human with some seriously powerful equipment is fine under one of two conditions:
1: Everyone's equipment remains more or less static over the course of the campaign. This is not the case in normal D&D campaigns
2: The character can keep getting more loot than other people because they are given loot as a class feature rather than because they need twice as much as normal out of the common pot.

Were there a class called the Heir that every time it levelled up could choose a free magic item of a given level and have it fed-exed to them as a class feature this would work.

Let's take a hypothetical example. "Mini-Perseus." As a first level character Mini-Perseus starts with a +1 sword and +1 armour. This is enough to allow him to kick arse and take names in the middle of a first level party. By level ten, everyone who wants them should have +2 swords and +2 armour (hypothetical numbers). Mini-Perseus also has his +1 sword and +1 armour - but they do not scale. Either Mini-Perseus has grabbed the only +3 weapons, or he has fallen behind.

Gygax and Arneson handled this by making method 2 work. The most common magic item drop in oD&D and AD&D was swords. Wizards couldn't wield swords. Clerics couldn't wield edged weapons. Which meant that the swords were divided between the fighters and occasionally the thieves. Next most common was armour. Wizards and thieves couldn't wear heavy armour - which meant that the heavy armour was divided between the fighters and the clerics. So on a need over greed basis the fighters were far the most likely to have the best loot.

There's also the idea that through their class features they are best suited to exploiting the best magical weapons and armor. If we're strictly comparing Fighters and Wizards, Fighters can use a sword better than a wizard ever could, because they get 4 attacks to the Wizard's 1. They can wear armor better than a wizard can because they are proficient with all types (and until a wearer is proficient they can't even cast in it, so that's a default setback).

In that sense, the method you mention for early D&D is in a similar default position. Arms and Armor are simply better used by Fighters. And courtesy of having more ability score increases (ASI) the Fighter is basically guaranteed to be the best with equipment.


Speaking of 3.5, let's try using the class tier system ... to classify which tiers these new classes would fall into.

I can't think of a single reason to port such a terrible idea into the 5th edition meta commentary.


No, it's still a hyperbole, because as I pointed out you can replace the peasant with anyone else and the statement still works:

Out of combat, a ranger can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a monk can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a warlock can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a paladin can do anything a fighter can do.
Out of combat, a rogue can do anything a fighter can do.

See?

Well, strictly speaking that's not true. Nobody has anything like Know Your Enemy, Student of War is something most other classes lack comparably, ditto Remarkable Athlete and Survivor, Second Wind and Action Surge are not replicated (Cunning Action is similar but infinitely less flexible), the Warlock has some comparable features to the Eldritch Knight (Weapon Bond is similar to the Pact Weapon) and Monk Shadow Step is vaguely similar to Arcane Charge (Arcane Charge has more flexibility with no limitations due to, of all things, lighting).

What a character can do is generally limited by their ability scores and their imagination. So a Rogue typically won't have the str to do anything a Fighter can do. Same can be said of a Warlock and Monk. Rangers probably won't have the Str score, and a Paladin probably won't have identical proficiencies. (A Fighter can have Animal Handling, Survival, and Perception, a Paladin can't).

Actual comparison of the classes reveals your claim that they are similar is hyperbole.


I still feel you are wholly missing the point and am beginning to wonder if this is intentional on your part. Yes, sure, a flying mount gives a fighter utility. But it also, equally gives a wizard utility.

A Wizard can ride a Griffon as well as a Fighter if they picked up Animal Handling. They can have proficiency in that if, and only if, they are multi-classed appropriately (so, not a valid answer when comparing what the wizard brings to the table) or pick the Folk Hero background.

So no, a Griffon won't give a Wizard equal utility to a Fighter, though it might give a Folk Hero that utility.


They don't have to be entirely non-skill based, they just need to be able to use skills out-of-combat in a way that other classes can't, and in keeping with the idea of the Fighter class could even largely tie back into combat as well. So, Leader of Men type abilities or Charles Atlas type abilities.

Take a look at Know Your Enemy. It lets a Battlemaster size up their opponent, or pick a good mark out, an utterly unique ability.
Remarkable Athlete and Survivor allows the Champion to survive what would kill another class. This is clutch given that there are no Constitution proficiencies. (And the closest thing, Jack of All Trades for Bard provides a lower bonus).

That's two examples of class abilities.

[Scarab112]

I can't think of a single reason to port such a terrible idea into the 5th edition meta commentary.

Well, if you read over what I posted, the main reason is to prove that martial classes are not as far behind casters as they were in 3.5 in terms of versatility and ability to contribute to a variety of situations.

While a Tier system for classes is never a very healthy thing to have around, it is a good tool for the purpose of discussing the utility of classes.

[SharkForce]

Wait, here's what I'm hearing here.

The class (Champion Fighter) specifically designed to not have a lot of options, doesn't have a lot of options. Of course it doesn't! That is literally one of the concepts of the class.

Battlemaster lacks out of combat utility. Fair enough. Of course it's called Battlemaster so again, kinda the point.

Eldritch Knight has all the options you want basically. But because they use spells to do so they are disqualified.


Lets move the discussion from Fighter, shall we?

Does Monk lack out of combat utility? Does the Barbarian? Does the Rogue? (By lack I mean, have basically the same as the Fighter)

Otherwise I think the answer to the question in the title of the thread is 'yes.'

champions are designed to be straightforward. that doesn't mean they can't have things to do, it means the things they can do should not be too complex. that doesn't mean that outside of combat, they can't have any special utility any more than it means that they can't have any special utility in combat. even then, the champion still has some resource management; when do they use their action surge, for example? the key to designing options for the champion is not "don't give them any", it's "make them simple".

as to the battlemaster, why would being good at fighting automatically exclude you from being good at other things when most other classes have at least *some* utility and are *also* good at combat (in different ways).

as to the others: monks lack out of combat utility compared to a caster. they are, however, better off than a typical fighter. rogues are likewise better off (truth be told, if we were discussing rogues and only rogues i'd say they have less utility than the best casters, but enough that they at least can typically offer something unique in almost any non-combat situation if built for it). in both cases, they are fully capable of combat in their own way, of equal value to the fighter more or less, and yet they *also* enjoy far more utility than a fighter. barbarians, on the other hand, are pretty close to fighter. totem warriors do have some utility, but it's pretty limited.

the problem is *biggest* when it comes to certain classes (fighters being generally the most egregious example). that doesn't mean there isn't a disparity elsewhere, it just means that the disparity is not equal across all martial classes (for that matter, it isn't fully equal across all casters either).

regarding skill access: you only need enoug skills in your class list that you want to take, and after that background skills tend to take care of themselves for two reasons:

1) backgrounds are supposed to be customized anyways.
2) if you already have the same proficiency as your background would give, you get to pick any proficiency of the same type (language, tool, or skill). i don't need to pick a specific background that gives me the skills i want; i just have to pick a background that gives me skills i already have.

there's also training, but that has it's own drawbacks and difficulties.

[silveralen]

- A d20 game I like called SpyCraft gave their Fighter equivalent (the Soldier) things like bonus action die on attack rolls and Strength- or Constitution-based skill checks; this could be ported into 5th Edition by giving the Fighter something like "superior advantage" a limited number of times per rest (roll 3d20, take the best).
- As well, SpyCraft it gave Soldiers an ability called One in a Million that allowed the Soldier to once per game session (so call it once per long rest) get an automatic Natural 20 on a physical activity, such as an attack roll, Strength-, Dexterity-, or Constitution-based skill check or saving throw, etc. Note I said natural 20 so, yes, it counted as a critical success.

Yet in spycraft 1.0 the best "soldier" was still soldier MC with snoop who took levels in the sniper prestige class later on, so he actually had a big spread of utility skills, abilities, and the combat power of the normal soldier.

Why do i bring that up?

Expanding a combat focused character to have more utility is good in theory, but rarely does it beat simply taking levels in a utility based class. You can do it with little impact on your combat ability and big gains to your utility, so why not? That's exactly why I point out rogue (or, to a lesser extent, totem barbarian) to people. Nothing forces you to stick with single class fighter if you don't want to play single class fighter.

This is honestly what I see looking through the thread: The issue is certain combat focused characters (by which I mean berserker barbarian and champion/battlemaster fighter) are disliked for being overly combat focused. Multiclassing into a higher utility mundane/martial or using a spell casting archetype are both completely unacceptable, because the it doesn't perfectly represent the theme of the character. You cannot interpret a level of rogue as the character simply becoming more skilled in certain fields, or an archetype like eldritch knight as merely superhuman ability using the existing system. Use the spell point system, call them stamina points instead, and you now have a vaguely supernatural character.

I'm honestly not sure what the issue is with barbarian at this point, not enough stuff down the totem line? Personally I'd say 120 ft of flying in a turn (dash+bonus action dash+barbarian move speed, go go eagles!), superhuman strength plus advantage on all strength checks eventually, super vision, the ability to talk to/sorta possess animals, and the ability to scout the area within three miles of you in 10 mins is a pretty decent collection of abilities, on top of basic skills+backgrounds, as someone that is still a primarily combat focused character.

[Forum Explorer]

champions are designed to be straightforward. that doesn't mean they can't have things to do, it means the things they can do should not be too complex. that doesn't mean that outside of combat, they can't have any special utility any more than it means that they can't have any special utility in combat. even then, the champion still has some resource management; when do they use their action surge, for example? the key to designing options for the champion is not "don't give them any", it's "make them simple".

as to the battlemaster, why would being good at fighting automatically exclude you from being good at other things when most other classes have at least *some* utility and are *also* good at combat (in different ways).

as to the others: monks lack out of combat utility compared to a caster. they are, however, better off than a typical fighter. rogues are likewise better off (truth be told, if we were discussing rogues and only rogues i'd say they have less utility than the best casters, but enough that they at least can typically offer something unique in almost any non-combat situation if built for it). in both cases, they are fully capable of combat in their own way, of equal value to the fighter more or less, and yet they *also* enjoy far more utility than a fighter. barbarians, on the other hand, are pretty close to fighter. totem warriors do have some utility, but it's pretty limited.

the problem is *biggest* when it comes to certain classes (fighters being generally the most egregious example). that doesn't mean there isn't a disparity elsewhere, it just means that the disparity is not equal across all martial classes (for that matter, it isn't fully equal across all casters either).


They do have things to do. Just everyone has access to those same things. But for the entire game the Champion will be making skill checks alongside everyone else. They don't have no out of combat utility, but they have no unique out of combat utility and I don't see a problem with that. The class is nice and simple for someone who just wants to make a character, crack some heads, and still contribute now and then outside of combat. And yes there is some appeal to that.

It's a specialization. A wizard who only focuses on blasting spells and the like isn't going to have that much utility out of combat either. Particularly when it's hard to do so without stepping on another class's toes (Ranger for wild, Rogue for sneaky, ect.) Berserker Barbarian looks to fall in this as well.

As for primary spellcasters, they do have more utility that's true. But how much that matters is entirely on the DM's back. Not just in which challenges they face, but for how much using a utility spell costs the character. Personally I feel I've failed as a DM if primary spellcasters are getting to long rest with more then cantrips available (and perhaps 1-3 spells that didn't come up that day) over 20% of the time.

Anyways it certainly seems that other 'martial' classes certainly aren't hurting for utility. Only the Fighter, who is focused on fighting as the name suggests, seems to have any lack. And that lack still lets them contribute with their skills when the opportunity arises.

[NotALurker]

They do have things to do. Just everyone has access to those same things. But for the entire game the Champion will be making skill checks alongside everyone else. They don't have no out of combat utility, but they have no unique out of combat utility and I don't see a problem with that. The class is nice and simple for someone who just wants to make a character, crack some heads, and still contribute now and then outside of combat. And yes there is some appeal to that.

It's a specialization. A wizard who only focuses on blasting spells and the like isn't going to have that much utility out of combat either. Particularly when it's hard to do so without stepping on another class's toes (Ranger for wild, Rogue for sneaky, ect.) Berserker Barbarian looks to fall in this as well.

As for primary spellcasters, they do have more utility that's true. But how much that matters is entirely on the DM's back. Not just in which challenges they face, but for how much using a utility spell costs the character. Personally I feel I've failed as a DM if primary spellcasters are getting to long rest with more then cantrips available (and perhaps 1-3 spells that didn't come up that day) over 20% of the time.

Anyways it certainly seems that other 'martial' classes certainly aren't hurting for utility. Only the Fighter, who is focused on fighting as the name suggests, seems to have any lack. And that lack still lets them contribute with their skills when the opportunity arises.

until the blasting wizard rests and changes that spells he has.

also there is no reason to assume that everyone who wants to play a guy in armor who hits things with weapons (a fighter) wants to do nothing when not in a fight.

also its not like the fighter is 2x as good at fighting as everyone else, past the lowest of levels the full casters are better AND they can do more stuff AND they can change what they can do, the fighter can't.

[silveralen]

until the blasting wizard rests and changes that spells he has.

Sorcerer then.


also there is no reason to assume that everyone who wants to play a guy in armor who hits things with weapons (a fighter) wants to do nothing when not in a fight.

Thank god you aren't forced to. I mean, skills always give you something to do. If you don't like skills, three of the classes that have metal armor and hit things with weapons have spell access! Another guy in armor with weapons has access to things like flying as an at will ability, if for some reason you hate skills and spells. Another class has things like spells that aren't technically spells but more spell like abilities. The most versatile class in the edition who has plenty of both spells and skills has a version that wears metal armor and hits things with weapons.

In case you missed it, eldritch knight,ranger and paladin were ther maigc using guys, barbarian is the one who doesn't rely on spells or skill explicitly, monk has spell like abilities, and valor bard is the most versatile.

[Forum Explorer]

until the blasting wizard rests and changes that spells he has.

also there is no reason to assume that everyone who wants to play a guy in armor who hits things with weapons (a fighter) wants to do nothing when not in a fight.

also its not like the fighter is 2x as good at fighting as everyone else, past the lowest of levels the full casters are better AND they can do more stuff AND they can change what they can do, the fighter can't.

Then play an Eldritch Knight. Or a Paladin. Or even a Ranger. All are not bad in combat, wear armor, hit things with weapons, and have outside of combat utility.

And people have been saying that when it comes to single target damage a wizard just barely surpasses a fighter. When they burn a level 9 spell.

Fighters may not be the strongest or best class, no one is arguing that. But you can play one from level 1-20 and not feel overshadowed by any other class, unless it involves basically no combat. And even then you can still contribute.

[NotALurker]

Sorcerer then.



Thank god you aren't forced to. I mean, skills always give you something to do. If you don't like skills, three of the classes that have metal armor and hit things with weapons have spell access! Another guy in armor with weapons has access to things like flying as an at will ability, if for some reason you hate skills and spells. Another class has things like spells that aren't technically spells but more spell like abilities. The most versatile class in the edition who has plenty of both spells and skills has a version that wears metal armor and hits things with weapons.

In case you missed it, eldritch knight,ranger and paladin were ther maigc using guys, barbarian is the one who doesn't rely on spells or skill explicitly, monk has spell like abilities, and valor bard is the most versatile.

when comparing class you have to ignore anything they all share, so basic skill use has to be ignored. becuase litteraly everyone can do anything with skills a fighter can.

sure if fighters could use skills in any way a wizard could not. but everything a fighter can use a skill for a wizard can as well. the fighter brings nothing to the table any other class does not.

what I want is for "good utility fighter" to not be an oxymoron and for there to be situations where you would say "I wish we had a fighter it would make this situation so much easier"

[OldTrees1]

Then play an Eldritch Knight. Or a Paladin. Or even a Ranger. All are not bad in combat, wear armor, hit things with weapons, and have outside of combat utility.

I notice all your answers contain spellcasting. Does your answer rely on spellcasting? If so, is it really an answer to the question asked or will it be irrelevant to many people the question refers to?


when comparing class you have to ignore anything they all share, so basic skill use has to be ignored. becuase litteraly everyone can do anything with skills a fighter can.
Um. Not quite accurate. You don't ignore common traits since all characters will have common traits. By ignoring common traits you are comparing two fictitious things that will not and cannot exist. Rather you should consider the differences between the classes with the context of their shared traits. So if two classes both can have at least 1 proficient skill for each of 11/12 cases but one gets advantage to 1/12 cases, you consider proficient vs proficient+advantage rather than non proficient vs non proficient+advantage.

[NotALurker]

I notice all your answers contain spellcasting. Does your answer rely on spellcasting? If so, is it really an answer to the question asked or will it be irrelevant to many people the question refers to?

case in point, what if I was DMing a 5e game and I had a player say "I want to play a mage slayer, someone who hates magic and is known for being able to kill them with nothing but a good sword arm." and we are starting at 8-12ish? how could he make that character and not have some major dissidence between his backstory and his character sheet?

[Forum Explorer]

I notice all your answers contain spellcasting. Does your answer rely on spellcasting? If so, is it really an answer to the question asked or will it be irrelevant to many people the question refers to?

Nah, I could have said Totem Barbarian as another option.

At the same time Paladin and Rangers both have abilities that aren't spells that increase out of combat utility. They just happen to also have spells.

I would have said monk but he specified armor.

Multiclassing into rogue works as well.

[OldTrees1]

Nah, I could have said Totem Barbarian as another option.

At the same time Paladin and Rangers both have abilities that aren't spells that increase out of combat utility. They just happen to also have spells.

I would have said monk but he specified armor.

Multiclassing into rogue works as well.

Ah, good. I apologize for my assumption of irrelevance.

From previously reading the 3 you listed previously, I was(and am) under the impression that they could not contribute enough without ever casting spells (convoluted wording).

Totem Barbarian is a salient point.

[GiantOctopodes]

It's not that anyone can contribute, it's that the fighter cannot contribute beyond what anyone else can contribute, and most other classes can contribute in some additional way as well. Out of combat the rogue can contribute in any way that a fighter can and, without going into any archetype, gets things like Thieves' Cant, expertise with thieves' tools, and Reliable Talent, for example, all of which contribute to out-of-combat utility. Even ignoring their spells, Rangers are basically Out of Combat Utility the base class, as long as you're in a wilderness environment.

This is particularly vexing for someone like me, who really doesn't consider different aspects of combat to be noteworthy things for a class to shine in. Okay, so the fighter is good at fighting. So's the wizard, or the rogue. Yeah, they go about it in different ways - much more cautiously in the case of the latter two - but at the end of the day all three are capable at overcoming combat encounters. So the fact that the wizard is especially good at area of effect, or the rogue especially good at precision damage, or the fighter especially good at single-target massive damage, doesn't matter. It's all just combat, and the fighter is good at it, but that's the only thing he's good at, and he's not the only one that's good at it.



Once again we are making the mistake of conflating options and power. I have never been discussing power. A ranger might not be a particularly powerful class (and even then that's only in comparison to barbarian or fighter or paladin; a ranger is hardly helpless in a combat situation), but he still gets things that contribute out-of-combat like favored enemy (bonus language), natural explorer, primeval awareness, land's stride, hide in plain sight, vanish, arguably feral senses, and spells like animal friendship, animal messenger, speak with plants, water breathing, and commune with nature. Before we even get into archetype abilities, the ranger is host to a cornucopia of things to do other than stab people or avoid being stabbed by people. The class might not be powerful, but it will never lack for something to do regardless of the situation ("I'm at a noble's ball and I need to spy on two different people; Squeakers my animal friend, keep an eye on Viscount Alpha while I keep watch on Duke Beta."), and more to the point it can do some things in ways that no other class can, or has difficulty replicating.

If I point out that the Fighter can take Ritual Caster (Wizard) and suddenly have a tremendous amount of unique and meaningful ways he can contribute out of combat, will you accept that it truly means that anyone can find meaningful ways to contribute, or will you take it as another example of how much of an advantage Wizards have over Fighters, that something they get for free adds so tremendously to the usefulness of the class in question in the scenarios you are describing?

One thing that you seem to miss is that this is a team game, and that "just" being able to contribute, despite anyone being able to contribute, doesn't in any way shape or form negate the usefulness of that contribution, as (if you're playing with reasonably intelligent people) you'll work together to cover lots of bases with your contributions, and your fighter being skilled at (as examples) Nature Knowledge, Stealth, Survival, and Forgery (since you don't have a Druid or Ranger in this scenario) doesn't in any way shape or form make it so that you are less useful, because you *could* have been playing a Ranger or Druid, or have been playing with a Ranger or Druid, you are what you are, and as long as you don't overlap with other characters in ways they are meaningfully better than you, you are the best at the table at what you do, which means you have *plenty* to do out of combat.

I understand your point, though, that you could in theory contribute more if you were another class. You discount, though, the greater number of feats a Fighter has. I as a Fighter can have Ritual Caster Wizard, Healer, and Actor, making me incredibly useful in and out of combat and with tremendous variety in what I can do, while still having the same number of ASIs or feats left over that other classes get in total, enough to cover the sharpshooters and crossbow masters or great weapon wielder and sentinel, or mage slayer, or whatever other combat things I want. Ultimately they are where I really feel your argument loses some merit, as you say they don't have other class features which enhance their abilities in that area, but that's simply not true unless feats are not used in a game- otherwise, they have 3 class features for that very thing, freely customizable, which is huge. You don't honestly believe that a Fighter scout with Skilled, Skulker and Observant as their three "free" feats is really no better off than if they did not have those, right? Or that other classes, all of them, have such an overwhelming advantage that three feats (nearly double that which almost all other classes receive) is a paltry thing, right? And if you do, well, honestly, it may simply be that Fighter is not for you.

Personally I'd go Eldritch Knight all the way anyway, so your complaint would be somewhat moot, but the point remains- Fighters have plenty of out of combat utility, and if someone manages to paint themselves into a corner (going champion and all ASIs or combat related feats), it is almost certainly deliberate, a willful decision that they just want to beat things up in combat and not worry about anything else, and I certainly don't begrudge them at all for making it possible for someone to do that. But I hardly think that it being possible, especially when it's such a corner case (many deliberate decisions must be made to lead you there), indicates any sort of problem or issue. Yes, it is possible to make a character who is nigh well useless outside of combat. If you don't like that, don't make such a character- you don't even have to avoid fighter to avoid that scenario, so where exactly is the issue?

[NotALurker]

If I point out that the Fighter can take Ritual Caster (Wizard) and suddenly have a tremendous amount of unique and meaningful ways he can contribute out of combat, will you accept that it truly means that anyone can find meaningful ways to contribute, or will you take it as another example of how much of an advantage Wizards have over Fighters, that something they get for free adds so tremendously to the usefulness of the class in question in the scenarios you are describing?

One thing that you seem to miss is that this is a team game, and that "just" being able to contribute, despite anyone being able to contribute, doesn't in any way shape or form negate the usefulness of that contribution, as (if you're playing with reasonably intelligent people) you'll work together to cover lots of bases with your contributions, and your fighter being skilled at (as examples) Nature Knowledge, Stealth, Survival, and Forgery (since you don't have a Druid or Ranger in this scenario) doesn't in any way shape or form make it so that you are less useful, because you *could* have been playing a Ranger or Druid, or have been playing with a Ranger or Druid, you are what you are, and as long as you don't overlap with other characters in ways they are meaningfully better than you, you are the best at the table at what you do, which means you have *plenty* to do out of combat.

I understand your point, though, that you could in theory contribute more if you were another class. You discount, though, the greater number of feats a Fighter has. I as a Fighter can have Ritual Caster Wizard, Healer, and Actor, making me incredibly useful in and out of combat and with tremendous variety in what I can do, while still having the same number of ASIs or feats left over that other classes get in total, enough to cover the sharpshooters and crossbow masters or great weapon wielder and sentinel, or mage slayer, or whatever other combat things I want. Ultimately they are where I really feel your argument loses some merit, as you say they don't have other class features which enhance their abilities in that area, but that's simply not true unless feats are not used in a game- otherwise, they have 3 class features for that very thing, freely customizable, which is huge. You don't honestly believe that a Fighter scout with Skilled, Skulker and Observant as their three "free" feats is really no better off than if they did not have those, right? Or that other classes, all of them, have such an overwhelming advantage that three feats (nearly double that which almost all other classes receive) is a paltry thing, right? And if you do, well, honestly, it may simply be that Fighter is not for you.

Personally I'd go Eldritch Knight all the way anyway, so your complaint would be somewhat moot, but the point remains- Fighters have plenty of out of combat utility, and if someone manages to paint themselves into a corner (going champion and all ASIs or combat related feats), it is almost certainly deliberate, a willful decision that they just want to beat things up in combat and not worry about anything else, and I certainly don't begrudge them at all for making it possible for someone to do that. But I hardly think that it being possible, especially when it's such a corner case (many deliberate decisions must be made to lead you there), indicates any sort of problem or issue. Yes, it is possible to make a character who is nigh well useless outside of combat. If you don't like that, don't make such a character- you don't even have to avoid fighter to avoid that scenario, so where exactly is the issue?

when talking about the CLASS's out of combat utility, how is a feat anyone can take relevant?

[GiantOctopodes]

when talking about the CLASS's out of combat utility, how is a feat anyone can take relevant?

Because you get three more of them than anyone else. Anyone can take a feat, but you get three of them *on top of* what is provided to other classes. As such, pick any three feats, and those essentially replace class features granted to other classes. I fail to see how it could be considered *not* relevant, though that's possibly my failing. It would be comparable, from where I sit, to say that "well, sure, Rogues get four skills instead of two from their class (two extra), but it's from the same list of skills anyone can draw from, so that doesn't make them any more skilled than other classes". Sure, when talking about the skilled nature of Rogues I'm likely to be talking about Expertise instead, but the point remains. Just because the pool is universal, your extra selections from it are not somehow negated.

[NotALurker]

Because you get three more of them than anyone else. Anyone can take a feat, but you get three of them *on top of* what is provided to other classes. As such, pick any three feats, and those essentially replace class features granted to other classes. I fail to see how it could be considered *not* relevant, though that's possibly my failing. It would be comparable, from where I sit, to say that "well, sure, Rogues get four skills instead of two from their class (two extra), but it's from the same list of skills anyone can draw from, so that doesn't make them any more skilled than other classes". Sure, when talking about the skilled nature of Rogues I'm likely to be talking about Expertise instead, but the point remains. Just because the pool is universal, your extra selections from it are not somehow negated.

the fighter needs more then just "can do what everyone can, but slightly more so" there needs to be something ONLY they can do, something that every fighter would get.

[silveralen]

when comparing class you have to ignore anything they all share, so basic skill use has to be ignored. becuase litteraly everyone can do anything with skills a fighter can.

sure if fighters could use skills in any way a wizard could not. but everything a fighter can use a skill for a wizard can as well. the fighter brings nothing to the table any other class does not.

what I want is for "good utility fighter" to not be an oxymoron and for there to be situations where you would say "I wish we had a fighter it would make this situation so much easier"

Extra attacks allow more effective skill contest usage. Fighter has multiple extra attacks, most casters have none. Thus, fighter is better at skill contests, and can use skills in a way wizard cannot. Need to push someone back over the edge of a cliff 15 feet away? The wizard better have a spell ready, because his max shove distance in a turn is five feet. Fighter can push 15-20 normally, or 30-40 with an action surge. Plus battle master.

Want to break 200 in a single turn versus a boss? That's a fighter thing, the only other ones who can get close on their own are assassin rogue and sorcerer. Sorcerer is burning daily spells to do it, usually 8/9th lvl, while fighter is using encounter abilities (action surge and a couple battle master maneuvers). Rogue can only od it with surprise.

Want to have someone with solid well rounded saves? Battle master/champion is about as SAD as you can get in a class, which means you can spend your feats on resilient, which mixes amazingly with indomitable. Just ask monk, he loves it. In fact, above average saves are kinda a martial thing this edition, the only spellcaster of any variety to get them is paladin, and he his "spells" are basically "i hit them hard with my sword" most of the time.

Honestly, utility fighter is an oxymoron. He is a combat based class, it is in the name. He can grab utility combat abilities, though monk is probably better by default.

If you can't see any reason you want to play or have a fighter, I have to think you want something that the class just isn't designed around at all. There is a lot to love there.


the fighter needs more then just "can do what everyone can, but slightly more so" there needs to be something ONLY they can do, something that every fighter would get.

The ability to take two actions in a single turn? How about more than two attacks in an attack action? That's not slightly more, that';s a lot more, and they are powerful abilities. Fighter's level two ability is actually better than the lvl 20 ability of most classes.

He shares rerolling saves with monk as I mentioned, but surely you don't begrudge monk that?

Honestly, you don't seem to like the concept behind fighter. The thing is, this is the same concept fighter had in most editions of DnD. He was like other people, but a bit better and more skilled, notably in combat and not dieing.

[GiantOctopodes]

the fighter needs more then just "can do what everyone can, but slightly more so" there needs to be something ONLY they can do, something that every fighter would get.

I humbly disagree. I posit that if you feel that way, you should play a class that is not a fighter, they were clearly not designed for your tastes / to your liking. There are plenty of other options. I would never, as an example, play a Sorcerer, but that doesn't mean that others playing them don't have a blast. Just because I feel that everything they bring to the table, a Wizard and / or Warlock does better, doesn't mean that everyone feels they are as useless and non-unique as I do. Some see their metamagic as a unique and useful feature, while I see it as an acceptable alternative to being an Evocation Wizard, but certainly providing little that cannot be obtained from just that subclass of Wizard. I see nothing they can do out of combat, either, that other classes cannot do, as their spell slots and selection are horribly limited and their skill choices are poor, unimpressive, and completely unsupported by any class abilities. They *certainly* don't have that something ONLY they can do, something every Sorcerer gets, when it comes to out of combat utility, so your argument is actually much *more* true for them than it is the class in question. My solution? I don't play a sorcerer. On the other hand, I would have an absolute *blast* with an EK Fighter, using my spells (including what I feel is the nearly mandatory ritual caster spells) and feats to great effect.

I would also point out that if you're looking for the unique class feature, well, Champions and Battle Masters are the ones in question here, right? Remarkable Athlete, though not as good as what Bards get, is certainly more than Sorcerers get, and Battlemasters get free artisan tool proficiencies and Student of War, a unique way to gauge the capabilities of others. It's disingenuous to say they get absolutely nothing only they can do, even if you don't think very highly of those abilities. And besides, as I indicated before, I don't think it's a design requirement for them to *force* everyone to be good in some way at non-combat activities in a certain way, especially the fighter, which is meant to be the most flexible chassis for you to customize as you wish with feats, nor do I think it fair to discount what *is* their unique advantage, which is the greater number of feats.

[Rogue Shadows]

Multiclassing into rogue works as well.

I'm with Paizo's theory (if not execution) in that a class should be designed such that you want to go from levels 1 through 20 in it, while you're provided with more than enough options in that class to be able to provide unique solutions to each of the Twelve Scenarios. In particular the inclusion of class archetypes gives me immense hope that multiclassing will be largely unnecessary for broad character concepts (like Alexander the Great), if not specific builds, and that most multiclass options will be covered by archetypes.

I'm looking forward to things like Rage Mage (a caster barbarian archetype), Warlord (a Leader of Men fighter archetype), Mystic Theurge (Wizard/Cleric), and so on.


If I point out that the Fighter can take Ritual Caster (Wizard) and suddenly have a tremendous amount of unique and meaningful ways he can contribute out of combat, will you accept that it truly means that anyone can find meaningful ways to contribute, or will you take it as another example of how much of an advantage Wizards have over Fighters, that something they get for free adds so tremendously to the usefulness of the class in question in the scenarios you are describing?

1) Feats are optional at the DM's discretion (as made clear in the Chapter 6 header on page 163 of the PHB*). Not every game is going to include them, and I feel no more comfortable assuming that they're automatically included than I would be in assuming that combat facing or the vitality/wound point system discussed in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana is available in all campaigns.

2) When comparing classes, you remove everything about the two classes that are the same and compare how they are different. Comparing a Fighter's ability to cast Rituals and a Wizard's ability to cast Rituals is as meaningless as comparing a Fighter and Wizard's proficiency progression.

3) This is tantamount to the Use Magic Device solution of the Rogue from 3.5. It helped the Rogue have a leg-up on the Fighter (and other Tier-5s) by giving it the option to function as a (bad) spellcaster. It did not give the Rogue the same utility as a true spellcaster, however, for numerous reasons; nor did it fix the problem that mundanes simply could not compete with casters unless they, themselves, became casters.


One thing that you seem to miss is that this is a team game, and that "just" being able to contribute, despite anyone being able to contribute, doesn't in any way shape or form negate the usefulness of that contribution, as (if you're playing with reasonably intelligent people) you'll work together to cover lots of bases with your contributions, and your fighter being skilled at (as examples) Nature Knowledge, Stealth, Survival, and Forgery (since you don't have a Druid or Ranger in this scenario) doesn't in any way shape or form make it so that you are less useful, because you *could* have been playing a Ranger or Druid, or have been playing with a Ranger or Druid, you are what you are, and as long as you don't overlap with other characters in ways they are meaningfully better than you, you are the best at the table at what you do, which means you have *plenty* to do out of combat.

First off, that sentence was really difficult to read due to it being a single sentence. Sorry, normally I don't point of grammatical errors, but this run-on sentence was particularly bad. Secondly, while I acknowledge that the Fighter in this edition has more to do out of combat thanks to a better skill spread and background skill options, it is nevertheless disheartening when every other class can bring distinct out-of-combat utility to the table and the fighter can't. Even the Battle Master's Know Your Enemy gives you information that is pretty much useful only for combat purposes.

[NotALurker]

Extra attacks allow more effective skill contest usage. Fighter has multiple extra attacks, most casters have none. Thus, fighter is better at skill contests, and can use skills in a way wizard cannot. Need to push someone back over the edge of a cliff 15 feet away? The wizard better have a spell ready, because his max shove distance in a turn is five feet. Fighter can push 15-20 normally, or 30-40 with an action surge. Plus battle master.

Want to break 200 in a single turn versus a boss? That's a fighter thing, the only other ones who can get close on their own are assassin rogue and sorcerer. Sorcerer is burning daily spells to do it, usually 8/9th lvl, while fighter is using encounter abilities (action surge and a couple battle master maneuvers). Rogue can only od it with surprise.

Want to have someone with solid well rounded saves? Battle master/champion is about as SAD as you can get in a class, which means you can spend your feats on resilient, which mixes amazingly with indomitable. Just ask monk, he loves it. In fact, above average saves are kinda a martial thing this edition, the only spellcaster of any variety to get them is paladin, and he his "spells" are basically "i hit them hard with my sword" most of the time.

Honestly, utility fighter is an oxymoron. He is a combat based class, it is in the name. He can grab utility combat abilities, though monk is probably better by default.

If you can't see any reason you want to play or have a fighter, I have to think you want something that the class just isn't designed around at all. There is a lot to love there.



The ability to take two actions in a single turn? How about more than two attacks in an attack action? That's not slightly more, that';s a lot more, and they are powerful abilities. Fighter's level two ability is actually better than the lvl 20 ability of most classes.

He shares rerolling saves with monk as I mentioned, but surely you don't begrudge monk that?

Honestly, you don't seem to like the concept behind fighter. The thing is, this is the same concept fighter had in most editions of DnD. He was like other people, but a bit better and more skilled, notably in combat and not dieing.

sure fighters are slightly ahead on single target damage, of course you hardly need to do damage to kill someone or to take them out of the fight if your a caster.
"slightly ahead in single target damage" is not enough for a class to be built on.

a fighter who is "...like other people, but a bit better and more skilled, notably in combat and not dieing" is at most a level 5 character. If the fighter stopped there that would be OK, but by giving them levels 6-20 they are saying they can stand equal to the other classes. This is a lie.

why should a utility fighter be an oxymoron? full casters can do at least as well in combat and have good utility.

again the fighter needs unique stuff for the same reason the wizard does, because the "like a peasent, but has better armor" is not good enough. there needs to be Things ONLY a fighter can do, things on part with spells the wizard of the same level has. no pushing 15ft is not good enough.


I humbly disagree. I posit that if you feel that way, you should play a class that is not a fighter, they were clearly not designed for your tastes / to your liking.

sure point me to the class that is non-magic, as powerful and tacitly interesting as the wizard and I will admit I am wrong and leave.

[Todasmile]

I understand your point, though, that you could in theory contribute more if you were another class. You discount, though, the greater number of feats a Fighter has. I as a Fighter can have Ritual Caster Wizard, Healer, and Actor, making me incredibly useful in and out of combat and with tremendous variety in what I can do, while still having the same number of ASIs or feats left over that other classes get in total, enough to cover the sharpshooters and crossbow masters or great weapon wielder and sentinel, or mage slayer, or whatever other combat things I want.

Two feats do not make up for infinitely more flexibility. This should be obvious. Not all martial characters get more feats than casters do, and when they do, they always replace a class feature. Imagine that they removed Stunning Strike in favour of an ASI. They also remove Frenzy for an ASI. Heck, let's make the entire Fighter ASIs again, just like in 3.5e! No Action Surge, no maneuvers, no improved critical range, no spellcasting, no fighting styles, just feats! Why, with 17 feats (and three extra attacks, just like 3.5e), the Fighter becomes way more powerful than any caster! So many options, such high stats!

No. That would be ridiculous. It's just plain silly. It might be a fun class to try out, just for kicks, but it's not the way to build a Fighter, or any serious class. Classes need features, and casters get anywhere from 15 to 30 more features than martial characters do. A class needs features because it needs something that only it can do, that no other class can, otherwise there's no point in playing it. Most martials have something like that, but they're all severely lacking compared to casters, and pretty much every class is doing better than the Fighter.

Frankly and on another note, I'm not enthusiastic about the ASI / Feat system. The only one who really gets to run wild with it is the Rogue, because they don't need ASIs as much as most classes do - though they like them, for the accuracy and extra skill check points. For most other classes, you end up spending two ASIs on your main stat, maybe one or two more on CON or Dexterity, and there are one or two feats which you end up taking because they fit your playstyle - take War Caster because you're a caster, and advantage on Concentration is more valuable than anything like Dungeon Delver. Take Sharpshooter as an archer, because it improves your damage, makes it possible to stay competitive with the monsters you're facing, rather than taking some Actor skill which will never be useful to you. I like that some of them also give you stats, but what use is it if it's in Intelligence when that's not a stat that you can use? I'd rather that the feat had another effect than that it had a stat boost attached.

I've seen people toying with the "ASI and a Feat" system - does anyone here have any experience with it?