Martial Arts

[GalacticAxekick]

A recurring problem in D&D and derivatives is linear warriors, quadratic wizards. Martial classes can only become so much more versatile and powerful, while spellcasters are defined by their ability to do the impossible.

I think a solution for this, though, would be to translate the Cantrip-Spell system into a Drill-Manoeuvre system for martial classes: martial arts in lieu of spellcasting! What's more, while spellcasters accomplish the physically impossible (sweeping foes with flames, healing wounds instantly, etc), martial artists would accomplish the mechanically impossible (taking more actions, moves or reactions than normally possible) as a way of illustrating their physical prowess in the game's systems.

Just as spellcasting systems differ between each class, martial arts systems would differ. For instance:

5e Warlocks are spontaneous spellcasters who sling powerful cantrips, cast all spells at max level, and recover spell slots frequently. They are, however, quite limited in spell selection and spell quantity per rest. Fighters would parallel this! Instead of powerful cantrips and high-level spells, Fighters would gain extra attacks as they level to use more drills and manoeuvres per turn. And like Warlocks, they would recover expended slots after only a short rest.
5e Wizards are prepared spellcasters who use school specialization to magnify their abilities with certain spells and overall get better at one task. Rangers would parallel this, preparing traps, poisons, equipment, and commands for their animal companion instead of spells. They would specialize in one of those 4 axes.
5e Sorcerers are spontaneous spellcasters who use metamagic to improve and alter their abilities. Monks would parallel them, using manoeuvres spontaneously like Fighters, but burning Ki points to preform impossible feats of human strength, grace and fortitude. While Fighters are superior when facing armed foes in true combat, and while Rangers the superior when facing beastly foes as both hunter and hunted, Monks boast superiority facing arcane and divine foes. I'm also thinking Monk subclass would use mental abilities instead of Str or Dex for attacks: Int for a meticulous, offensive style, Wis for a cautious, defensive style, and Cha for a spirited, agile style.
5e Clerics and Druids can prepare any few Cleric/Druid spells at all, rather than drawing from a limited spellbook, but specialize in some specific domain within which spells may be cast spontaneously. Rogues would parallel this, preparing traps, poisons and equipment (as Rangers) from a massive list, but specializing in some martial manoeuvres (as Fighters) to be used spontaneously. Rogues would be less adapt at direct combat than Fighters, Rangers or Monks, but would excel in their skill monkey dimension and provided a variety of indirect ways to defeat enemies, from poisoning to trapping to confounding to sneak-attacking.

The only class I've yet to figure out is the Barbarian, which would not have an analogue in 5e spellcasters but would still use the manoeuvre-instead-of-spell system. I'm thinking Barbarians would be spontaneous martial artists (like Fighters) defined by their ability to use extra/unlimited manoeuvre slots while in Rage, with a penalty proportional to excess manoeuvres used when Rage ends. With none of a Fighter's learned martial skill, nor a Ranger's survival skills, nor a Monk's power of mind, nor a Rogue's guile, Barbarians would specialize in using sheer physical power to overcome choice obstacles, after which they'd have to step aside and lick their wounds.

Thoughts?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

The idea has potential, I'd be up for ToB-ising 5e. Though it would make Martials a lot more complicated (potentially removing some of the attraction for newer players), and I don't see that it could address the other side of caster-martial disparity, the far greater out-of-combat options of many casters.

[clash]

I think you are solving a problem that doesn't exist in 5e personally. A high level fighter with action surge can out damage any caster ona round by round basis and Paladin nova can outdo single round spell dmg. Sure casters have more utility, but thats what there for. The martial can outdo them for dmg.

[GalacticAxekick]

I think you are solving a problem that doesn't exist in 5e personally. A high level fighter with action surge can out damage any caster ona round by round basis and Paladin nova can outdo single round spell dmg. Sure casters have more utility, but thats what there for. The martial can outdo them for dmg.

Actually, somebody ran the math using optimized damage over a standard adventuring day against average AC and saves. Only Clerics, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards were included, but the spellcasters came out decisively and consistently more powerful.

I'd include the link if I weren't too new to be authorized. Instead, look up Is the old “Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards” problem still around in 5e Basic?

Bottom line, they have DPS and utility. Action surges in the odd encounter can't match turn after turn of high level spells.

[GalacticAxekick]

The idea has potential, I'd be up for ToB-ising 5e. Though it would make Martials a lot more complicated (potentially removing some of the attraction for newer players), and I don't see that it could address the other side of caster-martial disparity, the far greater out-of-combat options of many casters.

I think it has more potential than you'd think, but it would take some work.

Fighters are tricky, because they're defined by their combat ability. What I'd do is divide subclasses by paradigm. Sentinels (Tanks) defend themselves, their allies and their space, Skirmishers (AoE) weave in and out of melee (or fight from range) to disrupt the enemy, Duelists (DPS) focus on mighty foes and outmatch them in single combat, and Warlords (support) command and buff their allies to magnify their abilities.

The Sentinel's paradigm, to defend and resist, might earn them manoeuvres to resist social forces (Charm, Fear, Cha skills), forced movement (shoves, falls), psychic invasion (mind reading, psychic damage). Maybe even more active abilities, like the power to select a target (creature, door, item) which you forbid select others to interact with. When they do, you may use your reaction to charge and either attack or take a nonviolent action, interrupting the forbiden interaction. Compare Abjuration!

The Skirmisher's paradigm, to evade and disrupt, might earn them manoeuvres to improve mobilit: moving through difficult terrain, tight spaces, even occupied spaces without penalty. The Skirmisher's experience picking targets from the thick of melee might earn them bonuses when tracking creatures in a crowd, shuffled objects, targets behind partial cover/camouflage, etc. Compare Transmutation!

The Duelist's paradigm, to scrutinize and overpower single foes alone, might earn them manoeuvres to read the motivations/traits/powers of other creatures, to keep track of a selected target, to keep crowds passive in awe/splendor/shock, and to predict the actions of a given target. Compare Divination!

The Warlord's paradigm, to command and conquer, might earn them manoeuvres to and influence and manipulate others, to improve the saves/skills of allies, and to bluff outrageously. Compare Enchantment and Illusion!

Classes like Ranger and Rogue, which would prepare equipment, would lend themselves much more readily to non-combat prowess. Classes like Monk and Barbarian, with superhuman abilities, might have borderline miraculous non-combat powers.

[GorinichSerpant]

I'm not sure that fighters should have many abilities that reset at a short rest like Warlocks. As one of the draws of fighters is that everything they do is always on, and that they can outlast anyone.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure that fighters should have many abilities that reset at a short rest like Warlocks. As one of the draws of fighters is that everything they do is always on, and that they can outlast anyone.
Given that the external balance points (monsters, other classes) are the same, I don't see why you couldn't keep the simple versions around for players who want such a thing.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'm not sure that fighters should have many abilities that reset at a short rest like Warlocks. As one of the draws of fighters is that everything they do is always on, and that they can outlast anyone.

Oh, Fighters would be quite able to outlast most anyone. Much like Warlocks get absurd mileage out of their Eldritch Blast variations (and extra rays), Fighters would get mileage from their many drills and multiattack. Even without Manoeuvre Slots to spare, a Fighter could use drills to knock enemies prone, deny them reactions, parry or riposte attacks as reactions, etc.

[quinron]

Actually, somebody ran the math using optimized damage over a standard adventuring day against average AC and saves. Only Clerics, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards were included, but the spellcasters came out decisively and consistently more powerful.

I'd include the link if I weren't too new to be authorized. Instead, look up Is the old “Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards” problem still around in 5e Basic?

Bottom line, they have DPS and utility. Action surges in the odd encounter can't match turn after turn of high level spells.

Here's the link. (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44856/is-the-old-linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards-problem-still-around-in-5e-basic) I believe this is the post you were talking about. The poster mentions, with the second table, that considering monsters with stats closer to those actually presented in-game (which should be significant), fighters keep up and eventually surpass casters.

By focusing on basic damage output, these tables miss one of the martial classes' most important features: survivability. All the martial classes (except rangers, arguably) receive - through heavy armor proficiency, high hp, and/or abilities like Cunning Action and Evasion - some way to reduce or avoid damage without spending resources. At the high tiers of gameplay where casters genuinely outshine martials, the enemies you're facing are likely intelligent enough that tank-and-spank tactics aren't going to work; there's a reason rule no. 1 of combat is "Take the wizard out first."

While martial arts may make the martial classes a bit more satisfying to hit with, they're already getting significant increases to combat aspects not related to damage.

[GalacticAxekick]

The poster mentions, with the second table, that considering monsters with stats closer to those actually presented in-game (which should be significant), fighters keep up and eventually surpass casters.
The poster said exactly the opposite: "However, If I change the defences of the monsters to something less reasonable in the game, such as giving a Dex and Con save of 5 and an AC of 10, we see the fighter keeping up with the wizard and again surpassing it at level 20." Martial classes can only keep up with spellcasters if the enemies have improbably low AC and improbably high spell saves, and even then, some classes (like the Rogue) fall behind.


By focusing on basic damage output, these tables miss one of the martial classes' most important features: survivability. All the martial classes (except rangers, arguably) receive - through heavy armor proficiency, high hp, and/or abilities like Cunning Action and Evasion - some way to reduce or avoid damage without spending resources.
Except Arcane spellcasters get Mage Armour for 13+Dex AC (high as a medium armour without the penalty to Dex bonus or stealth) 8 hours a day. Clerics even get medium armour (sometimes heavy) and shields. And spellcaster damage is coming mostly from long range, where they are largely protected.


At the high tiers of gameplay where casters genuinely outshine martials, the enemies you're facing are likely intelligent enough that tank-and-spank tactics aren't going to work; there's a reason rule no. 1 of combat is "Take the wizard out first."
"In modern warfare where artillery genuinely outshines infantry, the enemies you're facing are likely intelligent enough that they won't waddle through a phalanx or firing squad on their way to the silos; there's a reason rule no. 1 of combat is 'Don't march on Moscow'"

You see, casters being prime targets doesn't mean that they're balanced. On the contrary, suggests that they're the most valuable members of the team.

[Amnoriath]

The poster said exactly the opposite: "However, If I change the defences of the monsters to something less reasonable in the game, such as giving a Dex and Con save of 5 and an AC of 10, we see the fighter keeping up with the wizard and again surpassing it at level 20." Martial classes can only keep up with spellcasters if the enemies have improbably low AC and improbably high spell saves, and even then, some classes (like the Rogue) fall behind.


Except Arcane spellcasters get Mage Armour for 13+Dex AC (high as a medium armour without the penalty to Dex bonus or stealth) 8 hours a day. Clerics even get medium armour (sometimes heavy) and shields. And spellcaster damage is coming mostly from long range, where they are largely protected.


"In modern warfare where artillery genuinely outshines infantry, the enemies you're facing are likely intelligent enough that they won't waddle through a phalanx or firing squad on their way to the silos; there's a reason rule no. 1 of combat is 'Don't march on Moscow'"

You see, casters being prime targets doesn't mean that they're balanced. On the contrary, suggests that they're the most valuable members of the team.
1. A Dex. and Con. of 5 is pitifully small and by no means is something highly unlikely. By the time the spell-casters get the big guns is about the time they realize their competent enemies have modifiers or effective defenses that dwarf their spell save DC as well as having possible abilities to save out-right. It is also the same time that all such spells they have rely on their save DC. As such they need a plurality of different save types to remain competent which precludes optimal and consistent damage output. Using a CR 1 stats to judge effectiveness of the growth of these classes is what makes them lose the point from the get go.
2. Hmm, yes you can have the same AC a Fighter has by investing 3 ASI's meanwhile in maxing your casting stat your constitution modifier sits just above 0 for half of the day. While that may be the case the Cleric often relies on their Domain for variation as what I talked about is more predicetable than the Wizard or Sorcerer.
3. Exactly so, why are you trying to say over all that non-magic classes have roles that magic classes trounce them on?
P.S. It isn't that I am not intrigued by your idea, but I think you are overthinking this locking in the classes too early before sub-classes while making it more complicated.

[quinron]

Except Arcane spellcasters get Mage Armour for 13+Dex AC (high as a medium armour without the penalty to Dex bonus or stealth) 8 hours a day. Clerics even get medium armour (sometimes heavy) and shields. And spellcaster damage is coming mostly from long range, where they are largely protected.

This is true, but arcane casters have to spend daily resources (or class features like warlock invocations) to get that armor, where clerics and martials don't, and a suit of armor can't be dispelled like mage armor can.


"In modern warfare where artillery genuinely outshines infantry, the enemies you're facing are likely intelligent enough that they won't waddle through a phalanx or firing squad on their way to the silos; there's a reason rule no. 1 of combat is 'Don't march on Moscow'"

You see, casters being prime targets doesn't mean that they're balanced. On the contrary, suggests that they're the most valuable members of the team.

Yes, casters are going to be prioritized both for attack and defense. But when the average enemies you're facing include things like dragons and beholders, it becomes increasingly difficult to protect a wizard with a human shield or distance, and with their low hit dice they aren't going to endure many attacks.

I'm not arguing against your idea; quite the contrary, I think it would be nice for martial classes to have a few more out-of-combat toys. But if you're trying to bring martial classes in line with casters in terms of damage, you're missing part of what makes the classes viable.

[Rerem115]

I've never really had an issue with the damage of martial classes. At early levels, they can keep up with, and in many cases exceed, the damage of a caster. At later levels, at least according to your chart, the raw damage of the caster may exceed that of the fighter, but in practice, I've found that's not usually the case. There are three reasons for this:

1. Sustained damage. Casters are all about burst, martials are all about sustain (Except for warlock, but they're weird anyway). Yes, the sorcerer can cast an empowered twinned fireball, but if that (or the next couple of fireballs) doesn't kill the enemy, they have a problem. They just used almost all their damage, and the enemies had plenty of plenty of time to get close and spank his 7 x level hit points. Meanwhile, the fighter (or even better, barbarian) can keep whaling on them until one of them dies, and can stand there and tank for quite a while.

2. Location. Casters are best at hitting a lot of enemies at the same time. If you're in a tight hallway (ie, a dungeon), you're not going to be able to deal anywhere near your full damage potential. Martials, on the other hand, prefer 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 conditions of hallways, since they can stand in the front to protect their party while they focus all their damage on one person.

3. Bosses. Similarly to location, casters lose a lot of their potential when fighting a boss. Bosses tend to have lots of hitpoints, so they can't be bursted down. They tend to have excellent saves or flat out ignore magical status effects, which means that casters have trouble with their save or sucks.

With this in mind, I don't really have a problem with martial damage output. Increasing it would unbalance the game from a damage perspective, and if you're just bored with basic attacks every round, adding enhanced options would turn into "use best enhanced option every round".