What should martial characters get?

[Prince Vine]

I've noticed that almost every time a new sourcebook is released there is a wave of people having the issue that spellcasters get a new set of spells (and occasionally items like a focus or staff) thematically linked to whatever the book is, but that non-spellcasters do not get as many (or any) new mechanical content.

My question is: what would you put in for non-casters?

I was discussing it with a coworker and we could not come up with anything that fits the bill well. There is no modular class feature like spellcasting for them so anything built would have to be fairly specific and likely entail just building a while new subclass. Fighting style might be the closest, but it tends to not have that dramatic an impact when new ones are introduced as there is usually only one chance to get one and the base ones are usually more worthwhile than anything more specialized. Feats would be the most likely thing, but it leads to crazy 3e feat creep and has the same problem of there already being some very obvious choices for many builds (the +10 feats, crossbow or polearm master, warcaster, resilient) that people would just complain that they aren't worth taking.

Do we just have to accept that martial characters legitimately can't get new class abilities with each new setting/supplement without going to a 4e all abilities are the same model?

[NaughtyTiger]

battlemaster manuevers
4e options
class specific weapons

[Prince Vine]

So 'spells' and gate more magic items behind class?

[Pex]

So 'spells' and gate more magic items behind class?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

There could also be feats warrior classes would like.

[Waifu Collector]

There’s just so much more you can add to a spellcaster than a warrior.
As for fighting styles, there aren’t many different styles of play to really make more fighting styles for (besides buffing two weapon fighting somehow).
Class specific weapons? I don’t really see anyway to do that besides magic Items. Maybe stuff that only a fighter can use, like the greatsword of a legendary warrior of old that could take an army all on his own. For barbarians perhaps a greataxe of a similar ilk.

[stoutstien]

It's the nature of splat books. Spells are expected and so included.
Ideas that would be nice but mostly I know I will have to Homebrew.
-Higher level battle master maneuvers. They could drop this in about any point.
-Same goes for arcane Archer shots.
-high lv totem barb feature to allow totem swapping.(or magic item)
- champion only weapon (maybe make a class lv pre req)
-feat options seem to be the way they did it in the phb and could be expanded by finalizing weapon focus feats.(you can get one of these for free to fighter/barb at a certain point.)

Spells are a big part of the game. I'd say half of all published material is in some way related to it.

[Prince Vine]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

There could also be feats warrior classes would like.

I find class a weird requirement for items, I kinda get it for spell sticks because I assume it is short-hand for 'attunement by a character who can cast spells X, Y and Z' which is easier to just mention whose lists have it, or a realization that they forgot to distinguish different kinds of spellcasting (since I think Arcane and Divine as mechanical concepts are gone).

For example I personally can't think of a non-arbitrary reason only a 'fighter' could use a thing as opposed to any other trained warrior. I'm not sure (but have more wiggle room) that even something like a rage ability fundamentally alters your ability to use something, but that is at least something a bit more tangible, and hey, magic is weird.

[The Jack]

My most interesting answer is a cheat answer
The Eldritch Knight (and to a lesser extent, the arcane trickster) is an interesting idea that is neither actualised or extrapolated upon. The school limitations are bull, I'd rather have a spellbook, and there's the nagging feeling that they're the only things stopping INT being a universal dumpstat for everyone but wizards. At the very least, we should choose what schools we pull from. More optimistically, all schools should be open and we should have all the more similar variations:
Bestowed Sword (warlock)
Holy Warrior ( more cleric-light than paladin)
Warrior of the land (druid. Yes, It steps on the ranger's toes and no, I care not.)
Warrior Poet (bard)
Psionic Knight

(For AK; Bestowed Knife, Blessed theif, Nature's agent, Charlatan, Mind-knife)

My next most interesting answer, again a more-fighter centric view, is to have fighters and rogues able choose a different subclass each turn (they're already rich on feats, It's kinda their thing to be able to branch out. I would recommend only one 1/3 caster though)

I think Monk should be a theme of subclasses for fighter/rogue/Barbarian. Monk as it's own thing... Look, it'd just work better/be more organic. Monks are contrived and only make sense to people who really loved that hong-kong action era. An Immortal warrior or thief is more organic; Historical warrior monks used armour and weapons like normal people, whilst an assassin who learns unarmed techniques and perfect body stuff... The proficiency of the current monk seem entirely arbitrary to those not 40. It's dated/arguably racist.


Equipment/Weapon wise.
I think 3.5/Pathfinder had a bunch of fantasy BS I didn't care for. Double axes belong in hell. That said:
I have a few issues with the current weapon tables:

Most things are pretty balanced, but there's a few outliers. Using the system of -Martial is bad, heavy is bad, light is good, reach is good, throwing is good
The greatclub should do a d10
Light axes are OP and should either lose damage or become martial.
The trident should do a D10, be a reach weapon, or a simple weapon.

Other complaints: pike weighs a ton but doesn't offer better reach than any other reach weapon, and you could probably spend time doing variations of spears (Mixing up heavy, versatile, martial and reach)

Would like to see a buckler (+1) and Pavise (+2, but maybe some two handed/deploy use for it to count as good cover)

[Unoriginal]

A good share of 5e's sourcebooks didn't have new spells.

Getting new spells to add to the list of spell that exist isn't an issue, as long as those spells don't outshine what already exist to the point of making it obsolete.

The problem comes when, like in the Ravnica book, casters get a free perk (a boost to how many spells the characters can select) when the rest get nothing.

It could have easily been avoided if they had also given the martials something.

As for what to give them? 5e has something called Boons, which are literally additional perks a character could have. Giving them something that is of that level of power would have been both appropriate and easy to do.

Things like "Expertise to one proficiency" or "advantage to CON saves" or "can regain 1dX HPs once per long rest" or anything of that caliber.


All that "martials can't get new things unless it's spells/4e style powers lol" is just denying the options that exist.

[Misterwhisper]

Make weapons have the variety they used to.

Weapon focus and specialization options.

[JNAProductions]

Make weapons have the variety they used to.

Weapon focus and specialization options.

How would you do that?

[Kane0]

Skill options
Feats
Equipment (magic, nonmagic and pseudomagic)
Alternate Class/Subclass Features
Fighting Styles
Battlemaster Maneuvers
A new subsystem (ToB said hello)
Hit Die fueled mechanics
Exhaustion fueled mechanics
Nonweapon Proficiency/Specialization mechanics (AD&D had some good ideas)

Just off the top of my head

[jiriku]

For example I personally can't think of a non-arbitrary reason only a 'fighter' could use a thing as opposed to any other trained warrior. I'm not sure (but have more wiggle room) that even something like a rage ability fundamentally alters your ability to use something, but that is at least something a bit more tangible, and hey, magic is weird.

Magic items that integrate with martial class features would be one method. For example, how about a weapon allows you to recover or improve superiority dice, or grants a specific benefit when you rage, or grants you a buff when you perform a sneak attack? Perhaps a suit of heavy armor that buffs you when you use action surge or gloves that restore ki points when you crit with unarmed strikes. Technically members of any class could use these items, but only members of specific classes fully realize their benefits. Also, the simple fact of making a weapon a martial weapon will restrict its use by classes that do not have martial weapon proficiency.

There's lots of options. The trouble, though, is that in 5e a spellcaster can choose to learn a spell, but a martial character can't choose to acquire a magic item in the same way. Huh, maybe what's needed is set of "legendary swordsman" archetypes that allow you to create personal-use magic items, similar to the shadowcraft assassin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?572839-Shadowcraft-Assassin-a-rogue-archetype) archetype I built.

[Nifft]

- Spellcasting reduces magic item slots. Maybe each level of spells you learn costs one slot? Or each tier of casting (1-2, 3-5, 6+) costs one Attunement slot? Or you need to equip yourself with a lot of focus items that compete with regular magic items? Something like that.

- Books which print new spells also print new magic items. These two types of magic are available to each character in inverse proportions.

[Misterwhisper]

How would you do that?

Not every weapon should crit on just a 20 and for only x2.

Make a third tier of weapon training just for martial called specialists weapons.

Let critical hits also multiply static bonuses.

In other editions people would talk about how someone got lucky with a crit at the right time for years.
In 5e unless you are a rogue, who cares when you crit it is just an added like 2d6 at most.

Let weapons have a variety of traits, let some have more than one damage type.

Have exotic weapons that only a fighter gets trained in.

In a book that has spent 100s of pages detailing all the things you can do with spells, there is one page of weapons and one page of descriptions.
Outside of campaign specific weapons, which are almost all just a variant of a weapon already around they have introdeced exactly 1 weapon. A weapon immediately banned at every table I have see. And is not legal in AL play because of how badly it was designed.

People used to build entire concepts around a certai. Weapon or build type.

Now it is just, this is the hunk of metal I hit with roll a die.

Unless you have CBE/PAM/SS which are leagues better than someone without them.

All the work on weapon combat was left to two maybe 3 pages of afterthought.

[Kite474]

A good share of 5e's sourcebooks didn't have new spells.

Getting new spells to add to the list of spell that exist isn't an issue, as long as those spells don't outshine what already exist to the point of making it obsolete.

The problem comes when, like in the Ravnica book, casters get a free perk (a boost to how many spells the characters can select) when the rest get nothing.

It could have easily been avoided if they had also given the martials something.

As for what to give them? 5e has something called Boons, which are literally additional perks a character could have. Giving them something that is of that level of power would have been both appropriate and easy to do.

Things like "Expertise to one proficiency" or "advantage to CON saves" or "can regain 1dX HPs once per long rest" or anything of that caliber.


All that "martials can't get new things unless it's spells/4e style powers lol" is just denying the options that exist.

The problem with Boons is they arent expected in a normal game, nor are they something that is suported well.

That and they inherently rely on you having a GM who is willing to just hand out gifts with not much support or justification.

Compare to spells which are supported (in all the books) codified (they tell you what they do) and are expected (spells are spells and people tend to not have beef with them)

Theres also the issue in having to make up stuff for Fighters is already one putting the GM with more work and second it has the problem of varying power depending on your GMs ability to balance (which about 95% of the time they tend to be bad)

[Unoriginal]

The problem with Boons is they arent expected in a normal game, nor are they something that is suported well.

That and they inherently rely on you having a GM who is willing to just hand out gifts with not much support or justification.

Compare to spells which are supported (in all the books) codified (they tell you what they do) and are expected (spells are spells and people tend to not have beef with them)

Theres also the issue in having to make up stuff for Fighters is already one putting the GM with more work and second it has the problem of varying power depending on your GMs ability to balance (which about 95% of the time they tend to be bad)

I'm talking about the 5e designers writing down codified "Martial Boons" or such to be given in certain contexts, as to remove the GM workload and make it more systematic.

Like, you join a Ravnica Guild? Casters get the Guild's spell list, Martials get the Guild's martial boon.

[BoxANT]

I would like to see more options (variety) in usage of the attack action, and specifically Extra Attack.

Right now there is shove & grapple, which are great, but more fleshed out rules would help martials.

Like weaker battle maneuvers, perhaps linked to specific weaponry.

[Willie the Duck]

The problem with Boons is they arent expected in a normal game, nor are they something that is suported well.

Supported well is the overall problem. The critique that 'martials never get nice things' is certainly valid, but the system in place doesn't do a good job of letting one easily insert something as useful and modular as spells.

[The Jack]

Not every weapon should crit on just a 20 and for only x2.


They should. All this technical nonsense is what turned me off of pathfinder. Its not intuitive, it's not realistic, and it's there for minmaxers. For the vast majority of players All it does is slow the game down and limit choices.

Exotic weapons are a mistake. They're dumb stupid things. They work in an over the top setting like Warhammer, but they don't work in most settings, and they're mostly really cringy star-wars-kid type stuff like double axes and whatnot. The mechanic itself is just an obstacle; oh yeah, you're dwarf's a beast with axes but he can't use an orcish axe because it's exotic... No thank you.


Give more people battlemaster moves; They're really cool, rather intuitive, and you can build around them. Contrived weapon tables are a strict no.

[Misterwhisper]

Supported well is the overall problem. The critique that 'martials never get nice things' is certainly valid, but the system in place doesn't do a good job of letting one easily insert something as useful and modular as spells.

The issue is that they knew this going in, and did not care.

[Misterwhisper]

They should. All this technical nonsense is what turned me off of pathfinder. Its not intuitive, it's not realistic, and it's there for minmaxers. For the vast majority of players All it does is slow the game down and limit choices.

Exotic weapons are a mistake. They're dumb stupid things. They work in an over the top setting like Warhammer, but they don't work in most settings, and they're mostly really cringy star-wars-kid type stuff like double axes and whatnot. The mechanic itself is just an obstacle; oh yeah, you're dwarf's a beast with axes but he can't use an orcish axe because it's exotic... No thank you.


Give more people battlemaster moves; They're really cool, rather intuitive, and you can build around them. Contrived weapon tables are a strict no.

Not intuitive or realistic that it is easier to critical hit someone with a rapier than an axe?
It is not intuitive that getting in a critical hit with said axe should do more damage than the one from the rapier.

[Willie the Duck]

The issue is that they knew this going in, and did not care.

You're right, they didn't care, and it makes sense that they didn't. I hate to say it, since I agree with the premise, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. Martials are generally considered fun to play again by a lot of people (by at least being good at what they are supposed to do, if not 'getting' things the way casters do), the edition is selling better than the books and editions that 'solved' the problem, and the only place I've seen complaints about the martial-caster divide is on forums like this where the people who were elbows deep in the edition wars bitd are keeping the flame alive. I'm well aware of the reasons why their design decisions aren't the best from some esoteric concept of fairness, but in a butts-in-seats level of analysis, LFQW seems to have won the war. And handily.

[Tvtyrant]

I would play the heck out of 4E with 5Es bounded accuracy and lack of fiddly numbers instead, but I think most people either prefer 5E or Pathfinders ethos.

[Unoriginal]

LFQW seems to have won the war. And handily.


Casters don't overshadow martials in performance, unless a "test" that gives additional advantages to casters is used.

Yes, casters have more options. But it doesn't make them better.

Problem is that people who likes the character building minigame have more fun with the spell-list-building thing, so they translate "I have more fun with this class" to "this class is better".

5e martials are fine. 5e casters are fine. They were clever with how they did things, with a few exceptions.

But yes, spells are easier to add. 5e still refrained from adding tons of new spells with every supplement, and none of the ones they introduced since the PHB break the game or the like.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm talking about the 5e designers writing down codified "Martial Boons" or such to be given in certain contexts, as to remove the GM workload and make it more systematic.

Like, you join a Ravnica Guild? Casters get the Guild's spell list, Martials get the Guild's martial boon. Or they could resist the temptation to bloat and try to balance the splat books with the original Bounded Accuracy and balance template. Power creep .. is it really inevitable?

none of the ones they introduced since the PHB break the game or the like.
But they did mess up with that "I never sleep invocation" which opened the door to Coffeelock ... but yeah, technically that wasn't a spell.

Here is something that I want to see; if unarmored, any Fighter will have a boost to armor class equal to his proficiency bonus.
But I doubt that will happen.

[Unoriginal]

Or they could resist the temptation to bloat and try to balance the splat books with the original Bounded Accuracy and balance template.

*shrug* they wanted to give a campaign/setting-related perk. It's legitimate, and doesn't have more impact on the game than a DM deciding to give everyone a free feat at level 1.



Power creep .. is it really inevitable?

No. Power creep has been avoided so far, and will likely keep being avoided.

[The Jack]

Not intuitive or realistic that it is easier to critical hit someone with a rapier than an axe?
It is not intuitive that getting in a critical hit with said axe should do more damage than the one from the rapier.

And then we'll be getting into discussions like 'falchions or messers' and half the players won't know what either is.
Thinking beyond wrestling logic: No, that's not intuitive. The axe is wider and messier, but maybe that means it's more likely to hit a vital artery? Meanwhile, the rapier isn't going to make so much of a surface mess, but the damage is simply deeper.

[Willie the Duck]

Casters don't overshadow martials in performance, unless a "test" that gives additional advantages to casters is used.

Yes, casters have more options. But it doesn't make them better.

I know. I'm not saying otherwise. I am saying that the model that has been in place since oD&D (with martials mostly being able to 'fight' or 'skill' better, and casters getting modular little rule packets from a list... one that expands as new books comes out) is in place because it is what people seem to want. I get why the people who did like Bo9s and 4e are complaining. But it isn't crazy that WotC isn't meeting their desires, since when they have in the past, the edition (and book, in bo9s's case) didn't exactly fly off the shelves.


But yes, spells are easier to add. 5e still refrained from adding tons of new spells with every supplement, and none of the ones they introduced since the PHB break the game or the like.

Certainly not break the game, no. With the exception of Healing Spirit and the SCAG cantrips, I can't even think of any that radically altered builds or playstyles or caused any huge online debates.

[Misterwhisper]

*shrug* they wanted to give a campaign/setting-related perk. It's legitimate, and doesn't have more impact on the game than a DM deciding to give everyone a free feat at level 1.



No. Power creep has been avoided so far, and will likely keep being avoided.

Power creep:

One book into the system the introduce a cantrip that includes making a melee attack with it. A straight upgrade to anyone who just makes one attack.

Revenant double blade and it’s feat.

Races with amazing bonus beyond base book races.

Now the worst of the bunch: join a guild gain new spells for free, and magic items have gotten a lot better.

It is not as bad as 3.5 but that is more because there are no new classes or prestige classes.

[stoutstien]

So far power creep has happened less than any of the other editions and to a lesser extent.
Melee cantrips. Most ppl love them but they are clear "better option" for a lot of builds
Volo races. Bugbear. Just why. Only a few are bad, most are great.
Healing spirit
Xan rangers. Expanded spell list on memorized casters is big.

[ed57ve]

The Midgard campaign setting does something really nice, every weapon give you 1 or 2 different Option for attack in your turn, a bit like maneuvers but depending on the weapon you are using

I was thinking of doing something like that for house rules and adding movement to combat styles too

[Pex]

I find class a weird requirement for items, I kinda get it for spell sticks because I assume it is short-hand for 'attunement by a character who can cast spells X, Y and Z' which is easier to just mention whose lists have it, or a realization that they forgot to distinguish different kinds of spellcasting (since I think Arcane and Divine as mechanical concepts are gone).

For example I personally can't think of a non-arbitrary reason only a 'fighter' could use a thing as opposed to any other trained warrior. I'm not sure (but have more wiggle room) that even something like a rage ability fundamentally alters your ability to use something, but that is at least something a bit more tangible, and hey, magic is weird.

A fighter could use it better. Perhaps he knows a specific maneuver of a battlemaster to utilize the feature. Maybe because he can be precise a bit more, a Champion critting on a 19, allows him a special thing. Perhaps a combination of using magic and then attacking with the weapon in the same round unlocks something in the weapon for an Eldritch Knight. A weapon is more deadly when someone is raging. There could be lesser versions of a holy avenger, perhaps dedicated based on Oath.

[Darth Ultron]

Skill options
Feats
Equipment (magic, nonmagic and pseudomagic)
Alternate Class/Subclass Features
Fighting Styles
Battlemaster Maneuvers
A new subsystem (ToB said hello)
Hit Die fueled mechanics
Exhaustion fueled mechanics
Nonweapon Proficiency/Specialization mechanics (AD&D had some good ideas)


Sounds about right.

[Gilrad]

Given the setting (Ravnica, where peasant women peddle home-made enchantments to ward off illness in infants), simply giving everyone magic seems like enough.

Something like, Magic Initiate, but limited to guild domain spells only. Granted at level 3 to all classes that don't gain spellcasting.

In addition, the simple fact that the setting is super high magic kind of blunts the impact spellcasters have. In a vanilla setting, I wouldn't expect a DM to allow a medicine kit to fix a broken leg and let the injured person move around as if nothing happened; that's the sort of stuff you really want access to healing magic for. In Ravnica however, I would totally expect healing kits to have a bit of healing magic infused that can serve the purpose of magical healing.

In other words, having mundane adventuring gear all magical in small ways closes the utility gap casters generally have, and best of all, it all makes sense from an in-universe perspective.

[Willie the Duck]

Given the setting (Ravnica, where peasant women peddle home-made enchantments to ward off illness in infants), simply giving everyone magic seems like enough.

Honestly, if we are sticking just with Ravnica, I'm fine saying that fighters should be EKs because of course they are, and make a 1/3 caster archetype for barbarians (and maybe a ki-cost-less one for monks). I think the grander picture is what will happen when something like this feature from Ravnica comes out in a non-MtG book (or just the overall march of new spells in splats).

[Asmotherion]

Well, most new Spells are optimal for Gish builds anyway, and can be obtained by 1/3 casters one way or an other. So what this is really about is "how to make a cool character that does not relly on magic" I suppose, which there are already some ways to do so in D&D, but D&D is more oriented towards magic, and the vast majority of the players likes it better this way.

Other than that, exotic weapons and armors is a good way to go, as well as Feat oriented Fighting Styles perhaps?

There were the Martial Maneuvers in 3.5, but what it was really about is a alternative caster/gish system. Overall, one can play a Hexblade or Eldritch Knight, and fluff it as "not using spells but maneuvers" just fine in 5e, the effects will be the same game wise (at least, if you pick the right spells).

[Foxhound438]

I don't think it's that big of a deal. while new spells give casters fun new toys with any book that brings them, martials tend to get new subclasses as well- everyone has new things to work with, the only issue being for ongoing campaigns where the casters in the party can suddenly pick up a bunch of stuff while the martials are stuck being sad that they can't switch out to a fresh new subclass.

If I were to hazard a guess as to what would be good, there's two good routes in my mind:

1) more weapons with different special properties. Obviously you have to be wary of power creep (hello double bladed scimitar), but if you aren't making a strictly better longsword or anything I think you can get a lot of value out of having weapons that can, say... trip opponents rather than rolling extra crit damage, or wrap them and restrain them, or maybe some kind of crew-serve gatling-crossbow where you get an extra attack if an ally uses an action to feed arrows into it or something. And on a similar note, it would be really cool if we could get some higher level alchemists fires or acids, scaled similarly to potions.

2) more feats. Xanathar's ended up with what I think is a pretty good balance of stuff due to the new feats for races. Even the ones that outwardly don't do anything for weapon users (drow high magic, fey teleport, fade away) can give a nice boost to the utility available to such characters. If we got some feats that did work for specific weapons or types of weapons like the UA on that subject, I think it would be pretty good, so long as you don't stack to many good feats onto a single weapon type. Halberds are already nuts with PAM and GWM, I don't think they need any more, but something like the war pick that has no purpose or identity getting some kind of benefit might be cool.

Skill options
Feats
Equipment (magic, nonmagic and pseudomagic)
Alternate Class/Subclass Features
Fighting Styles
Battlemaster Maneuvers
A new subsystem (ToB said hello)
Hit Die fueled mechanics
Exhaustion fueled mechanics
Nonweapon Proficiency/Specialization mechanics (AD&D had some good ideas)

Just off the top of my head

Those all look to be good ideas too. Particularly alternate class features. give me anything better than natural explorer and favored enemy, please don't make me play a vanilla guy with bow for a level if I ever want to be a ranger.

[GreyBlack]

Well.... because of how AL centric the base books seem to be (content-wise), I doubt there's much they can add. If a martial character were to use any of the options included in the book, it would either cut them off in constructed play from using other books due to the "PHB+1" rule (which becomes all sorts of wonky when these martial classes are still only limited to the stuff in the PHB, so they couldn't expand any archetypes published outside of the PHB), or it makes one book a "Must Choose" if you're playing a martial character. That second option is bad game design because it's literally a First Order Optimal strategy for martial characters and limits what characters you can play.

Disregarding the constructed play option, though, our options become more diverse. In Pathfinder, there are character options that you can take based on class that you can take in place of a feat; I'm especially thinking of stuff like the Bard's Masterpieces and such that can either be taken as a feat or as a spell choice. Implementing a system like that (maybe replacing fighting style or an ASI?) in exchange for a ridiculously fun ability might be an option; let martial characters learn these insanely deadly strikes and counters when they use certain weapons or fighting styles.

ETA: I'm going to start hearing people saying that we see this with stuff like PAM and GWF. That said... the reason people take these feats is because they're fun and it feels like it makes a difference when taking them. Maybe add something slightly more limited in scope (especially if you allow them to take it in place of a fighting style) but still feels fun for the player.