The Design Choice of Targeted Utility

[Asisreo1]

Have you ever played a class in the game and went:
"I'm not having fun in this class. Its not necessarily weak, but the hoops or burdens I have to take in order to be effective is too boring."

That may not be unintentional. A common design philosophy in this edition is that the class must appeal to the players that enjoy the class.

For an easy example, the Fighter class is a class for players that enjoy fighting. That's what they opt into. You purposely forgo the opportunity to have a spell for every occasion and instead lean into having resourceless resilience and strength. You can help with physical activities but you're fine letting the Wizard cast Banishment on the BBEG knowing that if he fails, you're able to reliably stand toe-to-toe with it and keep the enemy at bay.

Some players feel like they should have the opportunity to raze hell with a single all-or-nothing attack that can decidedly end it all in one turn. WoTC sees this and instead of saying "Here's a fighter subclass that fits this archetype," they say "Have you considered the Paladin?"

A sorcerer who wants to have ritual spells and a bigger spell list instead of Font of Magic and Metamagic gets told to play a Wizard or Bard.

The Main Idea is that this design choice can lead to an isolated experience from players. Someone might want to branch out from their favorite class only to be stuck in a class that plays to their fun antithesis.

Is this a bad thing, though?

WoTC have limited time and resources. They must playtest everything they push out and understand the implications of any additions or changes. Was it wise to focus their efforts on making the classes distinct and fun for those that would enjoy the class regardless? Or should they have cut off whole classes like the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Warlock, and Bard to have well-rounded subclass of Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics so that no matter what class a player tries, there's a subclass or archetype that appeases them somehow?

I'm interested in the community's answers.

[Silly Name]

Is this a bad thing, though?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: if every class were able, through some combination of subclass and feats (plus or minus multiclassing), to do everything that any other class could, then they'd rapidly lose meaning as distinct game constructs. While we can debate all day about why we have character classes, I don't think there's any disagreement that Paladins should play differently from Wizards and so on.

There is, currently, enough variety in the system that I doubt you could pigeon-hole yourself in a completely unfun role unless you were actively trying to, or were forced by the other players (in which case it's a table problem, not a game design problem). If you don't like being expected to heal and patch up your fellow players, you can either take the path of least resistance and play anything but a Cleric, or make it clear that your Cleric will not be a healbot.

Wizards don't get to wear armor (well, ok, they can snatch proficiency with feats, but it's hardly worth it unless that's a specific concept you're working towards). Fighters don't cast fireballs, Rogues don't wield two-handed greataxes and unleash primal fury on their enemies. That's ok, that's more than ok, it's good for the class system to have every class be mechanically (and narratively) distinct enough that you don't feel like your idea of playing a mighty paladin would have been better modeled by going pure Cleric, or that your wily rogue should have been a high-INT Bard.

Now, if you play long enough, there's probably a few characters you haven't enjoyed playing. Reasons may vary, but focusing on those that you would have found mechanically unsatisfying, I tend to look at them as learning experiences: I learnt I strongly dislike summoners because all the added creatures bog down combat; I eventually figured out that playing either pure casters or pure melee is a bit boring to me and that I love gishes, regardless of power or optimisation.

And, hey, if I find a character I've made to be boring or miserable to play? If it's not a one-shot, I can always change it. Talk with the DM and, unless they're unreasonable or you're suggesting something game or immersion breaking, they'll almost certainly let you switch characters.

[Pex]

It's not a problem classes do some things well and other things not well. It's not the fighter's fault he's not a sorcerer. It's not the warlock's fault he's not a bard. Those who want a bit more variety in their character can multiclass. Those who absolutely need more freedom to choose whatever abliity they want anytime to do anything should look at other game systems, usually a build points system. They're entitled to prefer such systems. They don't have to like D&D for this very reason, but D&D is not wrong to have a class system and need not apologize for it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd be inclined to agree if either:

Playstyles were less redundant between the classes
There was more definition on what those spheres of gameplay was for each class as opposed to defining their themes (which is officially irrelevant)


On #1, there's not really that much difference between Dexterity Fighters, Rangers, or Rogues. Sure, there's a little bit of focus on nature in the Ranger, and the Rogue gets a bit more emphasis on skills, but those can all be covered with feats, subclasses, racial powers, etc., which is why you end up with issues like how the Ranger feels generic (despite having some of the most unique powers).

Between a Strength Fighter and a Strength Barbarian, there isn't enough of a playstyle difference to really say that they fulfill different niches. Not in the same way that swapping your party's Cleric for a Rogue would do. Mentally, I just clump anything with either a 1d10 Hit Die or a shield into the same "Meatstick" category and they all fulfill the same jobs. Even a difference of "Well, I use Dexterity instead of Strength, so that's interesting" really doesn't matter when you consider how often Strength checks come up or how often something further than throwing range becomes a problem. That guy is going to deal a bunch of damage, absorb damage so I don't have to, do some random flashy stuff that doesn't matter to me or my strategy, exactly like the meatstick before him.

Not to mention that all of the martial classes rely on the same mechanic: The Attack Action. This is so true that the Fighter has 25% of his levels devoted to enhancing the Attack Action in some way. There generally is very little modification to the rolls related to the Attack Action throughout those levels, other than just increasing beneficial numbers and decreasing bad numbers.

Had they done something akin to "Rangers get a Hunter die each time they hit a target that's isolated to spend on a Ranger power in the same encounter", or "Barbarians move targets they hit by 5 feet", I'd agree.

But the ceiling between "Extremely stale and overdone" and "The weirdest stuff you've ever considered" is dreadfully shallow. Even Divine Smite, one of the coolest attack modifiers in the game, is nothing more than "Add damage to something that was already doing damage".


Ignoring theme, people care about:
Complexity vs. Simplicity, Melee vs. Range, Combat vs. Worldbuilding. That's a pretty easy formula that would need a max of 8 classes to make, yet we have 13 and still don't have a complex melee combatant that rivals anything close to a full caster.

[EDIT]: Thinking about it, some of the recent updates to the Artificer may pull off "Complex Melee Combatant" well, but that's more of a subclass thing than a class thing. It's not like we have "The Simple Fighter and Difficult Barbarian", for instance.

[heavyfuel]

I'd be inclined to agree if either:

Playstyles were less redundant between the classes



Couldn't agree more here. At the end of the day, the Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin are all rolling an attack roll against AC and then dealing damage if they hit. Yeah, one might have a slightly different bonus here and there, but they're not significantly different. Hell, even Warlocks and Monks also do exactly this to different extends. The Monk at least has Stunning Strike and the Warlock has powerful spells (though almost no slots).

However, a Cleric and Sorcerer play completely different.

[MrStabby]

Have you ever played a class in the game and went:
"I'm not having fun in this class. Its not necessarily weak, but the hoops or burdens I have to take in order to be effective is too boring."

That may not be unintentional. A common design philosophy in this edition is that the class must appeal to the players that enjoy the class.

Yeah, I remember my first character. A warlock. As the only short rest based character in the party, the hoop I had to jump through was sitting out encounters to take a short rest by myself. So yeah, the design philosophy there is that warlocks should appeal to the kind of player that wants to go away and not play D&D for half an hour whilst everyone else gets on with the game.

So yeah, I am kind of joking... a little. I get that this is somewhat more down to the DM and the table than the class design, only it isn't. It is the interaction between the class design and the way a particular table plays and it is just as true to say the problem wouldn't arrise if the class were designed differently as it would be to say that the problem wouldn't arise if the table played differently. Whilst I get your point, and whilst I somewhat agree with it I do think that a lot of the things that look like unforced design errors are in fact... errors (which isn't to have a go at the designers, getting it right is hard). Sometimes there is no deeper meaning.

[Danielqueue1]

WoTC have limited time and resources. They must playtest everything they push out and understand the implications of any additions or changes. Was it wise to focus their efforts on making the classes distinct and fun for those that would enjoy the class regardless? Or should they have cut off whole classes like the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Warlock, and Bard to have well-rounded subclass of Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics so that no matter what class a player tries, there's a subclass or archetype that appeases them somehow?

I'm interested in the community's answers.

I feel like having many classes is a very good thing for reasons other than what other people have posted. People who don't like certain playstyles are still not going to like those playstyles regardless of whether they are called classes, subclasses, archetypes or any number of other words. I think there are a healthy number of classes currently.



I'd be inclined to agree if either:
[LIST=1]
Mentally, I just clump anything with either a 1d10 Hit Die or a shield into the same "Meatstick" category and they all fulfill the same jobs. ... That guy is going to deal a bunch of damage, absorb damage so I don't have to, do some random flashy stuff that doesn't matter to me or my strategy, exactly like the meatstick before him.

Wow, I now understand why many of your previous posts have made no sense to me. you choose to ignore differences and so don't see differences.



Not to mention that all of the martial classes rely on the same mechanic: The Attack Action. This is so true that the Fighter has 25% of his levels devoted to enhancing the Attack Action in some way.

Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.

seeing as there are a grand total of about 3 deciding rolls in the game,
Attack rolls,
Ability checks,
saving throws

and with Attack rolls being available to every creature in the game applied in a consistent way throughout, maybe not having multiple classes that specialize in them in different ways would be a massive gaping design hole that people would mock wizards of the coast for not including



There generally is very little modification to the rolls related to the Attack Action throughout those levels, other than just increasing beneficial numbers and decreasing bad numbers.


that does seem to apply to attack rolls, ability, checks, saving throws, and damage dice. to the whole game. This isn't a martial thing. and it isn't broken. it is a core mechanic to the entire system. and is present in every system that uses dice.




But the ceiling between "Extremely stale and overdone" and "The weirdest stuff you've ever considered" is dreadfully shallow. Even Divine Smite, one of the coolest attack modifiers in the game, is nothing more than "Add damage to something that was already doing damage".


Wait, you think that the "coolest attack modifier in the game," is Devine smite? what game are you even playing? expend a spell slot to deal more damage doesn't hold a candle even to the much maligned arcane archer's attack modifiers. let alone anything that a battlemaster can do.




Ignoring theme, people care about:
Complexity vs. Simplicity, Melee vs. Range, Combat vs. Worldbuilding. That's a pretty easy formula that would need a max of 8 classes to make, yet we have 13 and still don't have a complex melee combatant that rivals anything close to a full caster.

"a max of 8 classes to make."
you are strongly stating that all of these things are mutually exclusive. and that a class can only be one or the other with nothing in between. I think this is a very narrowminded viewpoint and I am sorry if I am misrepresenting what you meant to say, but you are totally using an argument that classes should be pigeonholed so narrowly that there would no longer be a functioning game.

Just in character survivability there is Buffer, damage resistance, damage evasion, range, mobiity, egression, speed (usually needs to be paired with range or egression to matter), buffer recovery, crowd control, and hostile elimination (killing them so they can't hurt you). all of these, can be active or passive, use resources or not, along with any number of other modifiers that I haven't thought of. Different combinations of these can make a character "tanky" in different ways, and if a character focuses on any of them they will play massively differently. And that is just in character survivability, that is before getting into any details about any other aspect of a game.

so anyone who says, that a medium sustained melee attack damage dealer with strong burst and nova capability while focusing on strong passive defenses and buffer recovery through slow recharging resources, plays exactly the same as a Strong sustained ranged attack damage dealer with minor battlefield control options and limited burst potential focusing on positioning and battlefield manipulation for survivability while still having reasonable passive defenses and full resource recovery on an accelerated rate really should just pick a different class and stop telling people on forums that there isn't any difference.

(dang that was a long sentence. also this isn't targeted at you specifically, there have been many threads that boil down to people not caring to make a distinction between martial classes and then declaring there isn't one)


Couldn't agree more here. At the end of the day, the Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin are all rolling an attack roll against AC and then dealing damage if they hit. Yeah, one might have a slightly different bonus here and there, but they're not significantly different. Hell, even Warlocks and Monks also do exactly this to different extends. The Monk at least has Stunning Strike and the Warlock has powerful spells (though almost no slots).

However, a Cleric and Sorcerer play completely different.

how so?
At the end of the day, the spellcasters are all having the enemy roll against Save DC and then having the spell go off if they fail. one might have slightly different class features, but they're not significantly different. The sorcerer at least has Metamagic to mix things up,

However an Assassin Rogue with the Skulker feat, and an eldritch knight with Sentinel play completely different.

There's a difference between not enjoying the differences between martial classes so choosing not to play them, and declaring that they are all the same. If you only care about damage dealt (in both directions) or only think about what benefit a caster gains from having a martial around, then you are missing out on a lot.

Also, a lot of players play martials in very boring ways. I could totally see a person who's only played with people who treat martial characters as attack spammers coming to the conclusion that all martial characters are attack spammers. If I played with players who insisted on only playing the "optimized" builds found on these forums I might be of that opinion too. If my first game was full of Crossbowexpert-sharpshooter fighter all attacks all day, teamed up with Sorcadin who only ever uses spell slots to smite, and a Battlemaster GWM, PAM fighter who used all of their maneuvers on precision attack to land more -5 +10 attacks, I would probably agree. but my games are full of Turbo-grapple monk-rogue, Sneaky trap-setting gloomstalkers who switch between weapons to meet the circumstances, battlemasters who use maneuvering attack to let another character charge in and attack and still getting out of range for the wizard's fireball next turn.

People on these forums generally ignore teamplay because it is difficult to quantify benefit to others, while optimizing for pure damage and tankiness is easy to put numbers on.


Yeah, I remember my first character. A warlock. As the only short rest based character in the party, the hoop I had to jump through was sitting out encounters to take a short rest by myself. So yeah, the design philosophy there is that warlocks should appeal to the kind of player that wants to go away and not play D&D for half an hour whilst everyone else gets on with the game.


Sorry MrStabby, your group sounded rather terrible in that regards.

I do think it kind of interesting the polarizing effect of short rests have on forum members, it seems like some people say that 5e is poorly designed because short rest hit-dice are such an easy way to recover HP that healing spells are a waste for anything other than getting an unconscious character back up, while others say that 5e is poorly designed because no one ever takes short rests so classes that recover resources on short rests are hampered. I guess it is just a matter of what the player's current games are like.



In the end, to the OP, I think having classes play differently to the point that some people don't like them while others do is a sign of GOOD game design. and don't take what you find on the forums at face value, people have opinions based on their own experiences. a person who finds the most fun playing casters may have their view of the game warped by only thinking about what benefit their caster gets by having a "meatstick" around, and only play one if they are pushed into it. In the same way that some people feel forced to play a healer for the party despite the many, many options to have healing abilities without being a dedicated healer.

I love the martial classes. I love making interesting combos that are more about battlefield control than damage. but I do admit, if your game's combats are against a bunch of set-piece encounters, with no way to prep, no rhyme or reason, and the NPCs/monsters are just sacks of HP and damage that attack blindly until they or you are dead, then Yeah, Martials can get rather repetitive. (and based on my reading of these forums, A lot of people play those kinds of games so I can understand why people form those opinions)

[Man_Over_Game]

so anyone who says, that a medium sustained melee attack damage dealer with strong burst and nova capability while focusing on strong passive defenses and buffer recovery through slow recharging resources, plays exactly the same as a Strong sustained ranged attack damage dealer with minor battlefield control options and limited burst potential focusing on positioning and battlefield manipulation for survivability while still having reasonable passive defenses and full resource recovery on an accelerated rate really should just pick a different class and stop telling people on forums that there isn't any difference.

(dang that was a long sentence. also this isn't targeted at you specifically, there have been many threads that boil down to people not caring to make a distinction between martial classes and then declaring there isn't one)

I mean, kinda, yeah.

So you deal more damage as a melee character, but does it outdamage the plausible 1st round where a ranged character gets an extra round of attacks in? My numbers say...they are about even.

So you are a bit squishier as a ranged character and suffer a bit in melee, yet your Hit Die is about on par with several melee characters (Monk has a 1d8), have a fairly comparable AC to a melee combatant due to a Dex focus, and you can pull out a Rapier and deal one less damage than a melee combatant. So since you're probably not getting hit in the first volley against your team (due to a range focus), do you still fall that much faster? My numbers say...they are about even.

We are nitpicking the differences between the Champion and the Battlemaster in a simultaneous thread, and the only real consensus that folks can agree on is "They're too damn similar to matter", despite being polar opposite Fighter playstyles.

A Barbarian inherently does better against bosses than swarms, due to the fact that they're easier to hit (when bosses always hit anyone they want) but still halve their damage, while Fighters are best suited for the opposite due to their higher AC. Yet, a Barbarian would not avoid a swarm and a Fighter would not avoid a boss. Make a similar comparison with Wizards or Sorcerers against melee combatants, Beholders, Antimagic Zones, swarms, etc. and it's not even.

Most of the battlefield effects or utility that martials have are fairly limited. Even a big bomb dropped by the Eldritch Knight is something he can only do once or twice a day. There are exceptions (like the Ancestral Guardian), but even those revolve around adjusting your plans around that one character, not the entire map. Yet, an entire encounter can change just because a caster decided to prepare Featherfall that day, or Wall of Force, or basically any Wall/group utility spell. Even the best martial zoning specialist is limited to protecting a 5x5 area from a single enemy at the cost of a shield and two feats.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than another. But I am saying that, if a ranged Ranger tried really hard, he could serve as a melee combatant, and you can rely on him for that position. You cannot rely on a Wizard for healing, where you could have relied on a Cleric. A Cleric doesn't have the manipulation powers a Bard has. A Bard can't kill an army the way a Wizard does.

But if a Barbarian needed to start making ranged attacks compared to a specialist, he basically loses like 30% of his DPS and is limited to 30 feet of range while he spends a round running (and how often do you hear about a target over 60 feet away?).



So, no, what kind of martial you are doesn't really matter too much, as I know you can find a way to improvise enough to do most stuff any other martial can do until you get into an advantageous position, while a caster in a less-than-ideal position panics. Even doing nothing (the Dodge Action) is more efficient with martials, due to the synergy between Disadvantage and a higher AC, while also being better adapted for Opportunity Attacks (not to mention other benefits related to Dodge, like with Monks, the Dwarvish Racial Feat, or grappling).

So you plan around your casters, trust the martials to do "martial things", and it works.


Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.
I think that's a little bit pedantic. An encounter doesn't really change much if a Barbarian hit for 15 damage while a Ranger shot for 12. But there is a great deal of difference between whether Darkness or Heat Metal is cast, despite being of equal power. Positioning matters for martials, that is true, but it's not exactly unique to just them.



I want to iterate, this is something I'm not happy with, and it's why I promote the Echo Knight any chance I get (as it basically gives martials the same combat utility as casters). But even the Echo Knight is pretty rigid in the fact that it's a poor defender at its base and it's basically only good at leveraging any other on-hit utility you might already have (which I feel is already lacking). Without utility, it's just a fancy way of saying "Melee Attacks with 30ft range" (and that's the most complicated martial subclass in the game, made by a 3rd party).

What martials need are more things like a Warlock: Something that can be something simple and predictable, or can still be something incredibly strange that everyone has to adapt to. Right now, martials have a ton of Eldritch Blast builds when we only needed the one.

[Asisreo1]

I mean, kinda, yeah.

So you deal more damage as a melee character, but does it outdamage the plausible 1st round where a ranged character gets an extra round of attacks in? My numbers say...they are about even.

So you are a bit squishier as a ranged character and suffer a bit in melee, yet your Hit Die is about on par with several melee characters (Monk has a 1d8), have a fairly comparable AC to a melee combatant due to a Dex focus, and you can pull out a Rapier and deal one less damage than a melee combatant. So since you're probably not getting hit in the first volley against your team (due to a range focus), do you still fall that much faster? My numbers say...they are about even.

We are nitpicking the differences between the Champion and the Battlemaster in a simultaneous thread, and the only real consensus that folks can agree on is "They're too damn similar to matter", despite being polar opposite Fighter playstyles.

A Barbarian inherently does better against bosses than swarms, due to the fact that they're easier to hit (when bosses always hit anyone they want) but still halve their damage, while Fighters are best suited for the opposite due to their higher AC. Yet, a Barbarian would not avoid a swarm and a Fighter would not avoid a boss. Make a similar comparison with Wizards or Sorcerers against melee combatants, Beholders, Antimagic Zones, swarms, etc. and it's not even.

Most of the battlefield effects or utility that martials have are fairly limited. Even a big bomb dropped by the Eldritch Knight is something he can only do once or twice a day. There are exceptions (like the Ancestral Guardian), but even those revolve around adjusting your plans around that one character, not the entire map. Yet, an entire encounter can change just because a caster decided to prepare Featherfall that day, or Wall of Force, or basically any Wall/group utility spell. Even the best martial zoning specialist is limited to protecting a 5x5 area from a single enemy at the cost of a shield and two feats.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than another. But I am saying that, if a ranged Ranger tried really hard, he could serve as a melee combatant, and you can rely on him for that position. You cannot rely on a Wizard for healing, where you could have relied on a Cleric. A Cleric doesn't have the manipulation powers a Bard has. A Bard can't kill an army the way a Wizard does.

But if a Barbarian needed to start making ranged attacks compared to a specialist, he basically loses like 30% of his DPS and is limited to 30 feet of range while he spends a round running (and how often do you hear about a target over 60 feet away?).



So, no, what kind of martial you are doesn't really matter too much, as I know you can find a way to improvise enough to do most stuff any other martial can do until you get into an advantageous position, while a caster in a less-than-ideal position panics. Even doing nothing (the Dodge Action) is more efficient with martials, due to the synergy between Disadvantage and a higher AC, while also being better adapted for Opportunity Attacks (not to mention other benefits related to Dodge, like with Monks, the Dwarvish Racial Feat, or grappling).

So you plan around your casters, trust the martials to do "martial things", and it works.


I think that's a little bit pedantic. An encounter doesn't really change much if a Barbarian hit for 15 damage while a Ranger shot for 12. But there is a great deal of difference between whether Darkness or Heat Metal is cast, despite being of equal power. Positioning matters for martials, that is true, but it's not exactly unique to just them.



I want to iterate, this is something I'm not happy with, and it's why I promote the Echo Knight any chance I get (as it basically gives martials the same combat utility as casters). But even the Echo Knight is pretty rigid in the fact that it's a poor defender at its base and it's basically only good at leveraging any other on-hit utility you might already have (which I feel is already lacking). Without utility, it's just a fancy way of saying "Melee Attacks with 30ft range" (and that's the most complicated martial subclass in the game, made by a 3rd party).

What martials need are more things like a Warlock: Something that can be something simple and predictable, or can still be something incredibly strange that everyone has to adapt to. Right now, martials have a ton of Eldritch Blast builds when we only needed the one.
I've touched on the whole Martial v Caster thing for quite a bit but essentially:

Why? Why are we separating "Martial" to "Caster" when they're fairly mixed already. Sure, there's "fullcaster, half-caster, and third-caster" but why are those all just considered "Caster" and why don't we consider Paladins and Rangers "Half-Martials" and AT/EK as "Two-Third Martials?"

I think it shouldn't be this "one-side or another" type of discussion but understand there's a spectrum of martial<-> caster.

Martial, Third-Caster, Half-Caster, Spells Known, Spell Prepared.


That is a spectrum of known terms that refer to the classes in the game.

Martial: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Monk
Third-Caster: Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Four Elements
Half-Caster: Ranger, Paladin
Spells Known: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Spells Prepared: Clerics, Druids, Wizards

If you notice, martial classes are only a third of the entire class list and 3/4 martial classes have spell-options. You don't have to play a Barbarian if you want to be a frontliner who also has the capability to teleport or cast a Wall of Force. So you don't have to wait for such a class to exist.

If you like the concept of having multiple situational spells for any circumstance, you want to be further on the spectrum. If you like the concept of reliable and consistent results, you want to be closer on the spectrum.

Why are we gating magic as this cursed mechanic that, once introduced, reigns supreme when really it only adds the variety so many people want on their "Barbarians and Fighters?" Really, its not "magic" that breaks anything. Its a few choice spells that really only appear in the wizard spell list anyways. Outside of Wish, Simulacrum, and Forcecage, the other spells have uses but aren't without an equal cost.

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.

Generally, issues with martial vs caster boil down to

* Schrodinger's Wizards (and wizards specifically, although occasionally bards) who have exactly the right ability set (including things set at character creation) for whatever task is proposed, disregarding the remaining 99.9999% of the game.
* Wizards (again) abusing things like simulacrum.
* People letting spells (specifically a few of them) do way more than they're written to do.
* People demanding realism (and a particularly cramped version that doesn't even line up with real reality) from "martials" (by which they generally mean "sub-class-less fighters and barbarians who don't actually do anything")
* Ignoring the vast majority of characters who don't fit into any of those boxes.
* All of this in white room environments designed as edge cases.
* Oh, and most important: 3.5e envy. Assuming that everything is the same and the game is designed to be played in the same way as that was. Which is rather a bad assumption.

[heavyfuel]

Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.

This quote shows a deep misunderstanding of the game's mechanics.

Yes, the Attack action does have some variety to it, but it's not even in the same ballpark as the variety spells present. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.

[Man_Over_Game]

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.


issues with martial vs caster

The original point of the topic was regarding how simplicity can be a good thing, and so it's likely intentional.

The point I was trying to make is that the playstyles that the game rewards are so similar between Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, that it doesn't really seem correct. Barbarian, as a class, is incredibly simple, and it has simple subclasses. Same with the Fighter, with Rangers and Paladins being slightly higher up on that scale (but not enough to stop you from contributing in the same primary categories that all of these classes succeed at: Making hits, taking damage).

Simplicity, as an option, is great. Simplicity, as a requirement, is not.

I can make a brain-dead Warlock that invests heavily into Eldritch Blast, and I'd still have more tactical utility and choices than most Barbarians (when you consider the options to push or pull for each attack, that Charisma checks are more likely to be used than Strength checks, the fact that I don't need a weapon, and this is before including any other Warlock shenanigans like big spells, pact boons, or spare invocations). How does a Barbarian get utility from his attacks? Through feats, which are a resource that everyone gets. Casters do not need to spend a feat to do more than X amount of damage with their Action, they can do that with cantrips.

Or, from another angle, just ignore the term "martials" and "casters" for a moment. Instead, any time that an entire class's identity revolves around doing the same thing they did the last two rounds, or hell, the last two encounters, that's a failure of a class, especially if it's present in more than one subclass. And I'm not referring to the one time that somebody decided to spend their Action Surge to pick up a downed NPC or something like that, you know what I'm talking about.

Players should be reacting to what is currently going on. It's how they stay engaged, make mistakes or surprises, and otherwise contribute to the experience that's more than just being another Meatstick.

Or you're having to rely on the player to do the work (to be reactive and interesting) from scratch, and that shouldn't be what a game is for. If the best content is the stuff that isn't in the book, why bother with the book?

I'm not saying "Hit It Very Hard" is a wrong way to play the game, but does it have to be every Barbarian's/Fighter's/Ranger's/Paladin's/Monk's? Why should it be so difficult to do otherwise?

[Asisreo1]

The original point of the topic was regarding how simplicity can be a good thing, and so it's likely intentional.

The point I was trying to make is that the playstyles that the game rewards are so similar between Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, that it doesn't really seem correct. Barbarian, as a class, is incredibly simple, and it has simple subclasses. Same with the Fighter, with Rangers and Paladins being slightly higher up on that scale (but not enough to stop you from contributing in the same primary categories that all of these classes succeed at).

Simplicity, as an option, is great. Simplicity, as a requirement, is not.

I can make a brain-dead Warlock that invests heavily into Eldritch Blast, and I'd still have more tactical utility and choices than most Barbarians (when you consider the options to push or pull for each attack, that Charisma checks are more likely to be used than Strength checks, the fact that I don't need a weapon, and this is before including any other Warlock shenanigans like big spells, pact boons, or spare invocations). How does a Barbarian get utility from his attacks? Through feats, which are a resource that everyone gets. Casters do not need to spend a feat to do more than X amount of damage with their Action, they can do that with cantrips.

Or, just ignore the term "martials" and "casters" for a moment. Any time that a class's identity revolves around doing the same thing they did the last two rounds, or hell, the last two encounters, that's a failure of a class. And I'm not talking about the one time that somebody decided to spend their Action Surge to pick up a downed NPC or something like that, you know what I'm talking about. Players should be reacting to what is currently going on. It's how they stay engaged, make mistakes or surprises, and otherwise contribute in a way that's more than just another Meatstick.

Or you're having to rely on the player to do the work (to be interesting) from scratch, and that shouldn't be what a game is for. If the best content is the stuff that isn't in the book, why have the book?

I'm not saying "Hit It Very Hard" is a wrong way to play the game, but does it have to be every Barbarian's/Fighter's/Ranger's/Paladin's? Why is it so difficult to do otherwise?
I want to first discuss the options a "martial" character actually has, then I'll discuss the main point further.


Martials can have great variety in their action/attack. Firstly and most obviously, they have grapple and shove which allows them to control spacing. This could be useful for an obvious Prone->Grapple combo to force advantage until they use their action to escape or force movement somehow. But it can also be used to move characters into AoE spell effects, stop characters from approaching more vulnerable party members, or push them off of you so you can move away without costing an action or taking an AoO.

Secondly, Martials have the option to change their weapons. The obvious use is going from Main Weapon to Magic Weapon to bypass resistance/immunity or Melee to Ranged to attack flying/kiting enemies. They can also completely change their attack strategy by changing melee weapons or using Improvised Weapons (which do usually drop off at higher levels tbf). For example, they can go from Greatsword to Glaive to have the ability to Kite slower enemies like Oozes. Versatile weapons let you go from 2-handed to 1-handed while still applying damage, which is good for characters that want to grapple but want to deal good damage in the meantime.

Thirdly, every martial has some form of choice between last round and the next. Barbarians can either Rage, Reckless, or both. Fighters can Action Surge, Second Wind, or both. Monks can use their Ki-abilities, save Ki but BA-unarmed, or both. Rogues can either Dash, Disengage, Hide, or all three. But none of this interrupts their ability to attack as their main source of contribution. In fact, most enhance their ability to do damage or defend against enemies.

Next, why is it bad to have a character do the same thing every turn, objectively. I can understand if your opinion is that repeated actions are boring, but how can you say its bad if someone else would prefer doing a single thing very well and not having to be relied on in any other mechanical sense? Also, not every Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Barbarian only has "Hit it very hard" strategies.

4-element monks has a cantrip-like ability. Rogues and Fighters have actual spellcasting abilities that let them control the battlefield in some ways. Barbarians have the totem subclass for decent OoC support while their frenzy subclass has a niche but effective-when-capable battlefield control ability which uses absolutely no resources other than an action.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

I've rarely found that classes/builds can "do it all" unless they're playing shenanigan games. Yes, even wizards[1]. But I agree that wizards (in particular) are way too broad. They can't do it all, but they can do way too darn much and have way too little in the way of opportunity cost for doing so. Their spell lists need to drop (roughly by half) and the class needs some real identity other than "books and all the spells!" "Big spell list, the class" is bad design. I have multiple methods for doing this, but haven't finalized any of them.

[Man_Over_Game]

why is it bad to have a character do the same thing every turn, objectively. I can understand if your opinion is that repeated actions are boring, but how can you say its bad if someone else would prefer doing a single thing very well and not having to be relied on in any other mechanical sense?

If there's only one really valid option, amidst a million other options, it gives the illusion of choice. It's railroading, but on the meta level.

Having a dozen ways to say "I deal 10-20 damage to this thing" adds bad complexity to the game, when memorizing a single method would have served just as well and would cut down on information overload (Arcane Archer vs. Ranger vs. Battlemaster).

Lastly, I mentioned it earlier, but forcing players to adapt keeps them aware of everything that's going on at all times. Why should they care about what's going on around them when it doesn't matter?

And I want to reiterate, I'm not saying that casters can do everything while guys with swords can do one thing. Both you and PhoenixPhyre are taking that to extremes. I'm talking about how martial classes need more valid competition with their action resources. Yes, a Barbarian can Rage, but what else is he doing with his Bonus Action? Yes, a Fighter can Action Surge, but what percentage of the time is he spending it on something other than moar damage? Having resources doesn't quite mean the same as having options, those resources must be limited and varied enough that another valid choice must be lost in order for the decision to carry weight, because otherwise what the hell are you deciding?

And as you said:

But none of this interrupts their ability to attack as their main source of contribution. In fact, most enhance their ability to do damage or defend against enemies. I realized you were talking about the same thing, but as a positive. I think having to make hard decisions is a good thing, as it means your choices have more consequences than your actions. Which is a similar comparison to saying that the way someone roleplays is more important than their stats, which should be true even when it isn't.

A Wizard can choose to slow something down with Ray of Frost, or deal extra damage with Firebolt, and both can be equally valid, despite different consequences, and are both useful in many circumstances. Grappling or Shoving, however, are a lot more niche - either they're the best choice of action or the worst - and so aren't great examples of options that add depth or sacrifice.

[Asisreo1]

And as you said:
I realized you were talking about the same thing, but as a positive. I think having to make hard decisions is a good thing, as it means your choices have more consequences than your actions. Which is a similar comparison to saying that the way someone roleplays is more important than their stats, which should be true even when it isn't.

Well, I guess the real question would be: Do you think someone who would rather have easy decision basically cherry-picked for them is playing poorly?

If a player just doesn't care at all about having impactful decisions but want to be impactful, should they not play the game? Or is their playstyle a bad thing? I've always preferred a simpler and limited number of choices in my actions because I find long lists of spells boring and frustrating, like I'm playing Descriptions and Decks of Cards.



A Wizard can choose to slow something down with Ray of Frost, or deal extra damage with Firebolt, and both can be equally valid, despite different consequences, and are both useful in many circumstances. Grappling or Shoving, however, are a lot more niche - either they're the best choice of action or the worst - and so aren't great examples of options that add depth or sacrifice.
Its alot more complex than grappling being the best choice or the worst choice especially with limited information.

The enemy is in melee distance and he's targetting the wizard. If he is stopped by a grapple, he'll simply target you. But you're low HP. If he is attacked, he might die but if not, he'll continue to the wizard and break their important concentration spell. You have ways to tactically consider how you'll engage in this fight and there's no clear winner.

If a creature grapples you, you could use your action to escape or you could grapple it back. Or you could attempt to shove it if you think you can beat its contest.

[Dienekes]

Well, I guess the real question would be: Do you think someone who would rather have easy decision basically cherry-picked for them is playing poorly?

If a player just doesn't care at all about having impactful decisions but want to be impactful, should they not play the game? Or is their playstyle a bad thing? I've always preferred a simpler and limited number of choices in my actions because I find long lists of spells boring and frustrating, like I'm playing Descriptions and Decks of Cards.

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

Because as of now, it's decision complexity is a pretty linear line from has no magic at the bottom to has all the magic at the top.

[strangebloke]

The only thing I would add in defense of the various martial archetypes is that at least two of them (fighter and rogue) are intentionally designed as basic classes that are hyper-accessible and flexible for everyone. They don't have any interesting class features and that's sort of the point. Note that Fighters and Rogues are overwhelmingly the most popular classes in the game.

Rangers are outright poorly designed, with many dead levels. Its also arguable that conceptually they're not broad enough to make dozens of subclasses but I don't really agree with that. TCE made things better, but they still feel weird, even if they're not weak.

Barbarians don't have class features after eighth level. Up to that point they're somewhat interesting, with their fast movement and hyper-reckless playstyle, so I think they work well early on.

Monks probably get the closest to being the 'clever' martial as outlined by Man_Over_Game. They start out promising with their BA ki options and reliance on mobility, but as the game goes on they lose a lot of their distinctive quality, turning into "speedy fighter." I also have a separate problem with them, that they're far too prescripted and always end up the same even if you're nominally trying to go for something weird.

Paladins are the only 'martial' that I think really ends up with a high level of complexity and a good overall theme.

---

To answer OP: Character Customization is what drives DND to a far greater degree than optimization, and its important that players can build simple characters as well as complex ones.

[Asisreo1]

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

A rose by any other name is just as sweet.

What is the difference, other than namesake of abilities, is there between a caster with only one action ability, high HD, high consistent damage, and low complexity with a Barbarian?

Nothing is tied to classes other than mechanics. You can easily be a Barbarian who graduated from Super Prestigious Wizard College and is known as one of the best wizards ever because of his revolutionary spells that buff his survivability and allows him the ability to boost his physical prowess without needing to expend spell slots, using components, or concentrate.

Your War Cleric could easily be "The Commander Knight" who specializes in giving boosts to their allies or themselves while being able to quickly bandage them or give them the spirit to stand with a rousing speech.



Because as of now, it's decision complexity is a pretty linear line from has no magic at the bottom to has all the magic at the top.
But why is this bad? Why is it a problem? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind such a class to exist. Just as I wouldn't mind a class which expends HP to enhance their abilities, but does that mean 5e is broken or problematic or does that mean I didn't get exactly what I wanted?

You may want 5e to separate magic from complexity, and you are free to want as you may. But when do we just take a design decision like "HP exists" and make it a problem?

Because it seems arbitrary. From my point of view, "5e is broken because martials have no options." Is the same as saying "Tekken 7 is broken because you can't tag out to a different character." Its not "broken," its a design choice that you may or may not like personally.

[Dienekes]

A rose by any other name is just as sweet.

What is the difference, other than namesake of abilities, is there between a caster with only one action ability, high HD, high consistent damage, and low complexity with a Barbarian?

The use of magic. That seems a pretty blatantly obvious answer. And who said anything about the caster having high HD or even consistent damage? All I said was low complexity. Could be a class that only gets 1 real spell chosen with the subclass. One of which may be damage, but it could just as easily be healing. Hell, it could even be something like summoning.


But why is this bad? Why is it a problem? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind such a class to exist. Just as I wouldn't mind a class which expends HP to enhance their abilities, but does that mean 5e is broken or problematic or does that mean I didn't get exactly what I wanted?

You may want 5e to separate magic from complexity, and you are free to want as you may. But when do we just take a design decision like "HP exists" and make it a problem?

Because it seems arbitrary. From my point of view, "5e is broken because martials have no options." Is the same as saying "Tekken 7 is broken because you can't tag out to a different character." Its not "broken," its a design choice that you may or may not like personally.

The only one who mentions 5e being broken in this thread has been you. Man_Over_Game has pointed out why 5e is not as pleasurable a game as it could be for him and explained why. I could go on a fair few rants if you want about my own issues with the system. But we're not saying it's broken. The game functions. It clearly does at the very least the minimum acceptable amount to be considered a functional game. If it did not then it would not have become so popular. I would argue it does quite a lot of things fairly well.

But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "These points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.

[MrStabby]

But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "This points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.

Even more weird than this is when someone say "this aspect of the design of the game makes it less pleasurable for me" and the response is "yeah, but the game was designed that way"... like yeah - were the game not to be designed that way there wouldnt have been the comment in the first place.

[Silly Name]

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

Not to discount your point, because I generally agree with the idea that D&D should offer the potential for more complexity and depth to non-spellcasters, the majority of Warlocks I've seen played have been very low on the complexity scale: usually it's Hex+Eldritch Blast on turn one, and then just eldritch blast spam - very similar to how a Barbarian rages and then keeps on attacking in most encounters.

Out of combat the Warlocks have more utility powers, though, and many players find that having so few spell slots hurts a bit and suffer from indecision when choosing how to use their slots, but one of my players got very imaginative with his limited resources and he had lots of fun.

EDIT: Honestly, the modular aspect of the Warlock class is a good precedent. Invocations especially let you choose whether to simply stick to enhancing your attacks and class features, keeping it simple, or engage in expanding utility and getting new powers and abilities. I wouldn't mind seeing this design expanded to the other core classes.

[Asisreo1]

The use of magic. That seems a pretty blatantly obvious answer. And who said anything about the caster having high HD or even consistent damage? All I said was low complexity. Could be a class that only gets 1 real spell chosen with the subclass. One of which may be damage, but it could just as easily be healing. Hell, it could even be something like summoning.

Versatility is a balance trait. Imagine a wizard with d12 HD, full proficiency, extra attack, and the options to rage.

The wizard would be absolutely ridiculous because they are now not only the most versatile, but they have such good defense that they'll hardly ever be threatened.

Wizards are the most versatile class which is why they have the lowest HD, no armor proficiency, and defensive options usually come at certain expenses. Take away their versatility, they're just a 1d6 HD no proficiency martial. Terrible.

A low complexity caster needs something to balance their low complexity.


The only one who mentions 5e being broken in this thread has been you. Man_Over_Game has pointed out why 5e is not as pleasurable a game as it could be for him and explained why. I could go on a fair few rants if you want about my own issues with the system. But we're not saying it's broken. The game functions. It clearly does at the very least the minimum acceptable amount to be considered a functional game. If it did not then it would not have become so popular. I would argue it does quite a lot of things fairly well.

5e not being as pleasurable as you could want it to be because of a design decision, well, that's a natural process of any game designed without you specifically in mind.

People are just plainly going to disagree with what you or I consider good design. I think spells being the complexity scale is an elegant solution to the problem of introducing complexity and customization without confusing newer players (since I often play with newer players).

I do see how a player that craves complexity in mechanics could feel a bit stifled by this decision, but 5e had a goal of appeasing fans of the OD&D as well as newcomers that are intimidated with "feats, powers, maneuvers, spells, actions, math, traps, skills, saving throws of different names, proficiency bonuses, asymmetric leveling, etc." Cutting some of these out does wonders to ease players that aren't going to study and research their next character build but just like hopping in and enjoying their time, which 5e is peak at for players.



But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "These points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.
The reason I jump is because from my perspective its the opposite. Its a defense of what I see as fun. I think its very cool that complexity is tied to classes and spellcasting for the most part because its only one system that I have to know how it works.

I find low complexity martial, high complexity caster to be a very cool and interesting design choice, so when people say that its a problem or needs to be removed, I want to slow down the conversation and let them know that you've only considered your opinion on the matter and not the opinion of those that may enjoy the design choice.

So I don't mind that you would like a different design choice at all. I do mind when its no longer a "preference" that you recognize would make the game more personally tailored and its a "problem" that WoTC needs to fix.

In my opinion, wizards made bards practically unenjoyable but I recognize that's an opinion and I don't necessarily want to remove or change the bards for the people that do enjoy them.

[Pex]

Wanting complex martials but must never use magic to do it falls closely to Guy At The Gym fallacy. I agree they're not the same thing, and I'm introducing the topic, but it's hard to distinguish. Should Paladin be dismissed as a complex martial because it has some magical ability? Nothing wrong with not wanting to use magic, but then what is magic? Is Open Hand Monk using magic? Does Totem Barbarian get dismissed as a Simple Martial because it can do a couple of animal rituals so counts as a spellcaster? If having anything "magical" is so anathema to you for a character, while you're entitled to prefer that that's your own self-inflicted restriction. If D&D can't meet that need for you that's not the game's fault. 5E can offer Fighter Battle Master as a no magic complex martial. If that's not complex enough for you then you're probably looking for a game system that has more realistic combat details. They exist. D&D might be the wrong game for you, but it's not wrong for existing.

[Dienekes]

Versatility is a balance trait. Imagine a wizard with d12 HD, full proficiency, extra attack, and the options to rage.

The wizard would be absolutely ridiculous because they are now not only the most versatile, but they have such good defense that they'll hardly ever be threatened.

Wizards are the most versatile class which is why they have the lowest HD, no armor proficiency, and defensive options usually come at certain expenses. Take away their versatility, they're just a 1d6 HD no proficiency martial. Terrible.

Which is why I did not say take the wizard and remove everything that made them a wizard. I am saying make a simple caster from the ground up. You are correct. Take a class designed to be balanced in one way remove what makes them balanced either positively or negatively would create an unbalanced class. Especially this way, which pretty much just makes Wizard a gestalt.

But even a cursory glance through other systems, editions, and games would show that this is only one way to implement magic into a class.


5e not being as pleasurable as you could want it to be because of a design decision, well, that's a natural process of any game designed without you specifically in mind.

Sure. Never said it was anything else.


People are just plainly going to disagree with what you or I consider good design. I think spells being the complexity scale is an elegant solution to the problem of introducing complexity and customization without confusing newer players (since I often play with newer players).

I do see how a player that craves complexity in mechanics could feel a bit stifled by this decision, but 5e had a goal of appeasing fans of the OD&D as well as newcomers that are intimidated with "feats, powers, maneuvers, spells, actions, math, traps, skills, saving throws of different names, proficiency bonuses, asymmetric leveling, etc." Cutting some of these out does wonders to ease players that aren't going to study and research their next character build but just like hopping in and enjoying their time, which 5e is peak at for players.


And I can also see the reason for it. I don't agree. I think having an easy to read scalability of difficulty would have been just as effective. You can even put it into the stat block: Barbarian; Simple. Wizard: Complex.

And Hell, I can even see why they would set up the current system... 7 years ago. But we are well and away past that now. Filling out the complexity wheel as optional content is well within their wheelhouse of what can be done.



The reason I jump is because from my perspective its the opposite. Its a defense of what I see as fun. I think its very cool that complexity is tied to classes and spellcasting for the most part because its only one system that I have to know how it works.

Fine. But that isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that "It isn't broken." You were not arguing that "I think Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues and specifically those classes being the class that require absolutely minimal thought is a good thing for X, Y, and Z reasons." Preferably these reasons would be based on


I find low complexity martial, high complexity caster to be a very cool and interesting design choice.

Ok. That's fair. Tell me: Why is it cool? What about knowing that all casters are complex and all martials are not makes the game more enjoyable to play while sitting at the table on a round per round in the middle of actual gameplay basis?

For the record, just to head off one path that this could go. If you take the argument that this is because it makes it simple and easy to grasp for beginners. I will point out that easy to grasp for beginners is neither cool or enjoyable on a round per round play basis. It is however a potentially efficient learning tool. But that is a separate issue.

If we wish to discuss effective learning tools that's ok too. I personally don't think the current divide is necessary. Especially after 7 years and the introduction of optional content. There are other methods to get that information across, I'd argue ways that are even better and more clearly defined. I don't think a new player having no idea what they're doing is going to pick up just how complex a caster can become or just how repetitive a fighter is until they get their hands on it and play for a few levels. It requires an outside agent to tell them martials = simple, and casters = complex. Which is a role you seem to be filling in your own table.

It could just be blatantly spelled out though. With a single line of text beneath each class.

Barbarian
Complexity: Simple.

Wizard
Complexity: Hard.

That sort of thing.

[Asisreo1]

Ok. That's fair. Tell me: Why is it cool? What about knowing that all casters are complex and all martials are not makes the game more enjoyable to play while sitting at the table on a round per round in the middle of actual gameplay basis?

For the record, just to head off one path that this could go. If you take the argument that this is because it makes it simple and easy to grasp for beginners. I will point out that easy to grasp for beginners is neither cool or enjoyable on a round per round play basis. It is however a potentially efficient learning tool. But that is a separate issue.

I find it cool because they mesh so well with the idea of magic being something beyond a human's understanding while martial characters don't need to rely on it to be in the face of the most vicious of foes.

A wizard spends their time studying and crafting magic to find the right spells for common situations. They channel everything they know about spells and spellcasting to damage or disorient their enemies while boosting themselves. They have to be careful about how they approach situations because they're desperately trying to recall answers like a student taking an exam.

Fighters, though, need not the complexities of magic to push through their adversities. Weapon in-hand, they can push through the frontlines and go toe-to-toe against devils, dragons, giants, and monstrosities. Fighters don't need to have the solution to everything because they understand what it means to push forward without an answer.

Paladins rely on their sword and their faith to guide them. They support their allies and face the unholy foes with a smile. They can call favors from their deity to grant them an advantage in combat to turn the tides of the battle.

But a cleric has the absolute faith that they can almost wholly rely on their deity's guidance. Calling divine favors after divine favors and trusting the deity to protect them and their allies. Leaving themselves seemingly open, but knowing the protection of their god encases them completely.



If we wish to discuss effective learning tools that's ok too. I personally don't think the current divide is necessary. Especially after 7 years and the introduction of optional content. There are other methods to get that information across, I'd argue ways that are even better and more clearly defined. I don't think a new player having no idea what they're doing is going to pick up just how complex a caster can become or just how repetitive a fighter is until they get their hands on it and play for a few levels. It requires an outside agent to tell them martials = simple, and casters = complex. Which is a role you seem to be filling in your own table.

It could just be blatantly spelled out though. With a single line of text beneath each class.

Barbarian
Complexity: Simple.

Wizard
Complexity: Hard.

That sort of thing.
I completely agree with this. There's hints in the class descriptions but more information about the game itself should be given to players so they can make better informed decisions. (Same for the DMG).

[Snails]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

Just looking at the Wizard class, it seems to be (IMNSHO) an unnecessary Sacred Cow that one character could be casting so many different kinds of very effective spells as baked into the base class. It is as if it would be an unforgivable design decision to not allow every Wizard to have Sleep, Invisibility, Fireball, Haste, Dimension Door, etc. prepared at once.

The general idea of 3e Psions did work, where the class had access to generally good stuff in a broad way, but you needed the right subclass to access the very very best powers. This is how Wizards should work, too.

I am not actually against having the Generalist Wizard in the game. But that should not be the starting point of the base class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just looking at the Wizard class, it seems to be (IMNSHO) an unnecessary Sacred Cow that one character could be casting so many different kinds of very effective spells as baked into the base class. It is as if it would be an unforgivable design decision to not allow every Wizard to have Sleep, Invisibility, Fireball, Haste, Dimension Door, etc. prepared at once.

The general idea of 3e Psions did work, where the class had access to generally good stuff in a broad way, but you needed the right subclass to access the very very best powers. This is how Wizards should work, too.

I am not actually against having the Generalist Wizard in the game. But that should not be the starting point of the base class.

I agree. I think the best way would be something like inverting the usual "bonus spells" design. Instead, you'd only get access to a majority of your spells from your subclass (which wouldn't be necessarily school based). Generalist subclasses would have bits and pieces but none of the good spells. Imagine if shield were only available to abjurers and war wizards. And polymorph to the transmuters. In exchange, they could get real class features.

Plus a bunch of spells should just go off their list entirely as they step on the toes of other classes too much.

[Pex]

I agree. I think the best way would be something like inverting the usual "bonus spells" design. Instead, you'd only get access to a majority of your spells from your subclass (which wouldn't be necessarily school based). Generalist subclasses would have bits and pieces but none of the good spells. Imagine if shield were only available to abjurers and war wizards. And polymorph to the transmuters. In exchange, they could get real class features.

Plus a bunch of spells should just go off their list entirely as they step on the toes of other classes too much.

That would be a fair restriction to magic use and not a "punishing" one as I like to say. This spellcaster doesn't have nor need everything and still gets good suitable stuff for its own sake. Clerics could go back to the Sphere System of 2E. I wasn't a fan of the implementation of it, especially the Priest's Handbook, but the chasis was fitting.

[Asisreo1]

That would be a fair restriction to magic use and not a "punishing" one as I like to say. This spellcaster doesn't have nor need everything and still gets good suitable stuff for its own sake. Clerics could go back to the Sphere System of 2E. I wasn't a fan of the implementation of it, especially the Priest's Handbook, but the chasis was fitting.
It would basically be like Warlocks where they have a smaller spell list and an expanded list of spells they can opt into. For everything said about the warlock, I don't think anyone can dispute the class has some excellent ideas: invocations, pacts(mini-subclass features), expanded spell lists.

Also, it would be an interesting dynamic to see the sorcerer have all of a wizard's spell list including their expanded spell list but still operate on spells known.

[Tanarii]

4e had awesome Martials. That's something that Mearls nixed as early as 4e Essentials. The downside was you needed to play on a battlemat to use them. I do miss those martials, but making 5e battlemat agnostic had some advantages.

5e with no or semi-battlemat has fast combat encounters. A normal combat takes 10-20 minutes, compared to 4e's 45 minutes. It was a fun 45 minutes, but if you want the same kind of fun out of 5e, keep the pacing tight, and most importantly don't let casters dither about the perfect choice of spell to cast.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why not just separate the notion that folks with spell slots have to play similarly, and folks with swords have to play similarly?

Would it be that hard to make a Barbarian that plays like a caster, while another one that spams the attack action?

Couldn't the same premise exist for all the classes?

We have a really silly problem with Sorcerers for this very reason. They have a spell list that is incredibly ideal for a melee combatant, yet they have to be one of the squishing classes in the game regardless of your subclass (unless you pick Dragon, which doesn't have melee support, only a bit of tankiness).

Similarly, a Barbarian that had to choose between casting his class spells or Raging would be an excellent system that relied on a player to think on his feet.

Sure, we can add these things in through multiclassing, but it comes at the sacrifice
of those levels. When you can only choose to be a Wizard OR a Barbarian in a turn, you are not increasing your potential, but instead becoming more versatile (while something like a Paladin/Sorcerers does both).

There's a lot of untapped potential, and it's not like anyone has to lose anything for everyone to be happy. That's the joy of subclasses. So where's my complex, spellcasting Barbarian, damn it?!

[Pex]

Why not just separate the notion that folks with spell slots have to play similarly, and folks with swords have to play similarly?

Would it be that hard to make a Barbarian that plays like a caster, while another one that spams the attack action?

Couldn't the same premise exist for all the classes?

We have a really silly problem with Sorcerers for this very reason. They have a spell list that is incredibly ideal for a melee combatant, yet they have to be one of the squishing classes in the game regardless of your subclass (unless you pick Dragon, which doesn't have melee support, only a bit of tankiness).

Similarly, a Barbarian that had to choose between casting his class spells or Raging would be an excellent system that relied on a player to think on his feet.

Sure, we can add these things in through multiclassing, but it comes at the sacrifice
of those levels. When you can only choose to be a Wizard OR a Barbarian in a turn, you are not increasing your potential, but instead becoming more versatile (while something like a Paladin/Sorcerers does both).

There's a lot of untapped potential, and it's not like anyone has to lose anything for everyone to be happy. That's the joy of subclasses. So where's my complex, spellcasting Barbarian, damn it?!

Why should it exist? What it comes down to is you want a class that has everything. Why not a raging smiting barbarian with sneak attack? Why not a Fire Elemental Wild Shaped Druid Quickening Wall of Force then Turn Undead? Maybe it's hyperbole, but it's not much of a difference. D&D is a class system and chose to gate particular abilities behind those classes. Could be arbitrary. Could be for balance. Could be an on purpose design choice of "Just Because" to have particular concepts that may only exist in particular ways. If multiclassing Barbarian/Wizard is not enough for you to have a raging spellcaster that's your problem, not the game's. As I said earlier, if you absolutely need to be able to choose any ability you want at any time there are other game systems that do that, primarily build point systems like GURPS. D&D is not wrong for not having every combination of every ability possible.

As it happens Pathfinder 1E did have a single class raging spellcaster. Two in fact, Bloodrager and Skald, so it is possible for a class system to have it. Write in to WOTC and ask them for it. Put it in comments in UA surveys. Maybe they'll listen and create one, but 5E is not wrong for not having it now.

[Asisreo1]

Why not just separate the notion that folks with spell slots have to play similarly, and folks with swords have to play similarly?

Would it be that hard to make a Barbarian that plays like a caster, while another one that spams the attack action?

Couldn't the same premise exist for all the classes?

We have a really silly problem with Sorcerers for this very reason. They have a spell list that is incredibly ideal for a melee combatant, yet they have to be one of the squishing classes in the game regardless of your subclass (unless you pick Dragon, which doesn't have melee support, only a bit of tankiness).

Similarly, a Barbarian that had to choose between casting his class spells or Raging would be an excellent system that relied on a player to think on his feet.

Sure, we can add these things in through multiclassing, but it comes at the sacrifice
of those levels. When you can only choose to be a Wizard OR a Barbarian in a turn, you are not increasing your potential, but instead becoming more versatile (while something like a Paladin/Sorcerers does both).

There's a lot of untapped potential, and it's not like anyone has to lose anything for everyone to be happy. That's the joy of subclasses. So where's my complex, spellcasting Barbarian, damn it?!
I think you're looking at this the wrong way, or at least not how WoTC is thinking about it. They don't have "simple casters" and "complex martials" because they're redundant.

You're thinking that there is complex casters and simple martials but I believe WoTC sees it as complex classes and simple classes. They don't have "martials" in the game's name at all except for maybe the feat Martial Adept and the weapon type Martial Weapons.

The apparent theme of 5e is strong identity. Whether you believe all classes hit them are in the air, but WoTC wanted to bring as many classic classes from older editions and bring them out with a strong sense of identity in their mechanics and playstyles. Barbarians just don't work playing a backline control position and wizards can't recklessly be in a demon's face and throw out their favorite cantrip.

So why not a warlord or complex, control-type martial? Because we already have things close enough to them that the identity of another class may be challenged. The warlord being a backline control character that tactically controls from the back impedes on the wizard. The warlord that operates from the front with control features and ally buffs impedes on the Eldritch Knight and the Paladin. The warlord that can be equal parts martial equal parts OoC utility impedes on the Ranger.

Its hard to pin down an exact identity for the Warlord in this edition and while having a redundant class doesn't necessarily break the game, why create a new class that already exists in the game with just another name?

[Asisreo1]

4e had awesome Martials. That's something that Mearls nixed as early as 4e Essentials. The downside was you needed to play on a battlemat to use them. I do miss those martials, but making 5e battlemat agnostic had some advantages.

5e with no or semi-battlemat has fast combat encounters. A normal combat takes 10-20 minutes, compared to 4e's 45 minutes. It was a fun 45 minutes, but if you want the same kind of fun out of 5e, keep the pacing tight, and most importantly don't let casters dither about the perfect choice of spell to cast.
4e martials were all complex martials. They were equally as complex which is a double-edged sword. Powers and therefore exploits were literally spells. At least how 5e knows them (technically the other way around). If you wanted to even play 4e, you had to be a spellcaster.

If a player wants to play a relaxed game of 5e where they're here with their friends and one likes to optimize while he likes to just hit things and get his turn over as quickly as possible so he can continue with roleplay, the optimizer can pick cleric, wizard, or druid just fine.

If a player wants to play a relaxed game of 4e of a similar nature, he must first choose which at-will powers will be effective but not too complicated as well as his encounter and daily powers. He'd have to choose utility exploits and over the course of the campaign basically carry a spellbook of his own. The optimizer is okay with this because this is the gameplay he likes but the relaxed player feels like he's playing bookkeeper.

And the relaxed player who never really uses all of their encounter powers and daily powers and never really changes their at-will exploit from turn-to-turn will never be as effective as those that do these things. And that's before we get into completely bad powers that undermine others.

Players who adequately enjoyed 4e are going to feel something missing playing 5e's fighter, barbarian, or rogue. That's because those classes aren't for your enjoyment. They're for the players who played 3.5e and played 4e feeling like they were missing something. Or even OD&D players. And especially newer players who want an easier introduction to the entire game.

[Morty]

For an easy example, the Fighter class is a class for players that enjoy fighting. That's what they opt into. You purposely forgo the opportunity to have a spell for every occasion and instead lean into having resourceless resilience and strength. You can help with physical activities but you're fine letting the Wizard cast Banishment on the BBEG knowing that if he fails, you're able to reliably stand toe-to-toe with it and keep the enemy at bay.

Some players feel like they should have the opportunity to raze hell with a single all-or-nothing attack that can decidedly end it all in one turn. WoTC sees this and instead of saying "Here's a fighter subclass that fits this archetype," they say "Have you considered the Paladin?"


This comparison would work better if fighters excelled at combat. They don't. They're good enough at what they do, which is make many attack rolls. But other classes have their own combat roles that can match fighters easily. But fighters do give up most of their non-combat utility for it. In just about any other system, if I choose to focus on combat, I'm actually going to be very good at it. D&D fighters are a paradox because they're like a character from another system who gives up non-combat abilities for the sake of fighting... except they don't get their money's worth.

Paladins are actually a good counter-example to fighters, far more so than wizards or clerics. They get basic combat and non-combat skills but also spells and class features that let them shine when they want or need to - if they don't feel like using their spells, they can burn them on a smite. This makes them better than fighters, who do the same mediocre things all day, without being quite as complex and reliant on long rest resources as a full caster would be.

[Dienekes]

I find it cool because they mesh so well with the idea of magic being something beyond a human's understanding while martial characters don't need to rely on it to be in the face of the most vicious of foes.

Interesting, so you see it as nicely synergistic with how you interpret the fluff. I can understand that, though I am curious how you got that interpretation. Since in my mind the mechanics of spell casting mean literally the exact opposite of that. I don’t see how magic can be beyond human understanding when there is a class -arguably the class most closely aligned with the D&D casting subsystem- that is all about how magic is eminently within human understanding.

Wizards study magic. Can pick up books of magic. Learn it through the transfer of scrolls. That’s not magic as mystical and beyond the realm of what us mere mortals can comprehend. It’s literally divided into schools like your average university.

I am curious how classes like the Sorcerer fit into your typology though. Their fluff is the most accurate representation of magic being something alien and unknowable. Where the talent for it can happen spontaneously, perhaps from some ancient prophecy being at work. Or more likely because one of your ancestors did the no pants tango with a dragon.

And I use the word talent instead of skill very literally there. These are -supposedly- not mages that can learn by the transfer of knowledge. They don’t get the ability to pick up a book and learn from it. Instead it comes au naturale. Now I would argue (and have) that the mechanics of the class are particularly bad at representing this, but it is the fluff. The sorcerer does not spend their time studying and crafting the right spell. They just know it. As they grow their “magic muscles” they can do other magical effects. Why would they need to be careful when approaching a situation? Why -in your narrative frame here- are the sorcerers almost as mentally taxing to play as a Wizard, when their fluff tells us that a good portion of them should be essentially Lord Flashheart that can shoot lightning from his crotch?



Fighters, though, need not the complexities of magic to push through their adversities. Weapon in-hand, they can push through the frontlines and go toe-to-toe against devils, dragons, giants, and monstrosities. Fighters don't need to have the solution to everything because they understand what it means to push forward without an answer.

See this is a fine read for me, for the Barbarian. Their class description directly states their decision making process is one that runs on pure instinct. They charge headfirst into battle as a matter of principle partially because they don’t have any competitive ranged options. But also from their mechanics emphasize that their rage only works when they’re dishing out death or taking pain.

And I think that is part of where our disconnect comes from. I read the fighter is supposed to be knowledgeable in all the methods of fighting. They have trained and learned how to be effective as a combatant. Their skill is a direct result of their work they put into it. And well, I’ve done that work myself.

Now I’m not in any way good. But I’ve practiced using the medieval longsword, and a bit of rapier, and spear work. And it is everything but simple. Going in wildly swinging like you describe. Relying on strength and the knowledge that you’ll just push through every obstacle is the quickest way I know to lose a bout. Your mind is constantly thinking. “I think I’ll engage in posta di donna. Yeah that will keep me safe. No wait they’ve shifted guard. Go to Breve. Ahh he’s swinging. I need to catch it in fenestra. Ahh! He’s going for the lunge. Rompere! Rompere!”

Your brain goes a mile a minute trying to get your body to do the specific techniques right. And it takes time and dedication to learn how to do it. So when I read the Fighter description I immediately thought of how complex the thing they’re actually trying to model is.

And I mean sure. You still trust in your strength of arms to pull you through. But it is anything but simple. And you do need to have a solution to most everything. Because you are the one who will be in the front facing everything.

Now I’m not saying D&D should accurately model swordsmanship. If I wanted that, I’d be playing Riddle of Steel and I would instead be complaining how terrible that game’s magic system is. But you could most certainly make a system that at least tries to get the feeling right.

If the goal is reasonable verisimilitude, which is what you stated was why you like the current set up, I can’t help but point out why it fails in that same verisimilitude for me.

I am also somewhat curious on how your outline fits the Rogue. This is the class that is set up in its descriptions as clever and cunning in combat as much as without. They are described as using guile and trickery to get what they want. Literally “shady” is used as a section header.

Which is why it’s somewhat galling that they appear to have exactly one trick to use in combat: Hide, quicker than most people. Some of the subclasses add maybe one “combat trick” ability. And that’s about it. The masters of guile and cunning are remarkably straight forward.

[diplomancer]

This comparison would work better if fighters excelled at combat. They don't. They're good enough at what they do, which is make many attack rolls. But other classes have their own combat roles that can match fighters easily. But fighters do give up most of their non-combat utility for it. In just about any other system, if I choose to focus on combat, I'm actually going to be very good at it. D&D fighters are a paradox because they're like a character from another system who gives up non-combat abilities for the sake of fighting... except they don't get their money's worth.

Paladins are actually a good counter-example to fighters, far more so than wizards or clerics. They get basic combat and non-combat skills but also spells and class features that let them shine when they want or need to - if they don't feel like using their spells, they can burn them on a smite. This makes them better than fighters, who do the same mediocre things all day, without being quite as complex and reliant on long rest resources as a full caster would be.

I don't think the Paladin gets more non-combat utility than a Fighter does; at least definitely not from his spells; truth is, the Paladin spell list is VERY combat-oriented; the non-combat spells that a Paladin gets and eventually uses are basically 4 (zone of truth, locate object, locate person, and dispel magic), and 3 of these (all except Zone of Truth) you will probably have a full caster who can cast it more cheaply. These out-of-combat features can be easily out-done by a Fighter who chooses to, at least in a game with feats, both through just having more feats, but also through being SAD.

That said, I DO think that the Paladin combat spells do make it a more interesting class than the Fighter in combat, but then I'm one of those players who loves having a lot of choices.

[Silly Name]

I don't think the Paladin gets more non-combat utility than a Fighter does; at least definitely not from his spells; truth is, the Paladin spell list is VERY combat-oriented; the non-combat spells that a Paladin gets and eventually uses are basically 4 (zone of truth, locate object, locate person, and dispel magic), and 3 of these (all except Zone of Truth) you will probably have a full caster who can cast it more cheaply. These out-of-combat features can be easily out-done by a Fighter who chooses to, at least in a game with feats, both through just having more feats, but also through being SAD.

That said, I DO think that the Paladin combat spells do make it a more interesting class than the Fighter in combat, but then I'm one of those players who loves having a lot of choices.

Lay on hands counts as out-of-combat utility (healing and removing poisons and diseases), as does Cleansing touch. Paladins also have access to more utility spells than the ones you mentioned, even if they don't use them - Find (Greater) Steed can also be leveraged for utility. In Tier 4, even if it's the least-played level range, they even get Geas and Raise dead. Paladins also make better faces thanks to their natural focus on Charisma.

I don't disagree that Paladins are very combat oriented, because they are, but Fighter and Barbarian are the only classes that don't get much if anything in the way of non-combat utility. Some non-combat utility is still better than none at all.

EDIT: One thing I like about DM'ing 5e is that I don't have to worry about party composition too much. You can have a party that has no primary casters and still has enough resources and class features to deal with any encounter or situation that could be dealt with by the typical four-men adventuring party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard). A party of Ranger, Paladin, Warlock and Bard has enough staying power, damage-dealing capacity and utility abilities that I'd feel comfortable not having to design encounters and adventures around some particular constriction. Heck, a party of four Rogues has enough variety in skills and subclass choices that I'd still be able to put them through standard adventures, although I'd sure hope someone invests in some reliable healing method.

A party of four Fighters is the one that'd worry about, because they don't natively have much in the way of dealing with problems that aren't "whack the bad guy". If I'm running a pure hack-and-slash dungeon crawl they could try their luck, but the moment they need to remove some condition or deal with more complex adventures I'd start to panic about providing them with the right tools that their class isn't giving them.

[diplomancer]

Lay on hands counts as out-of-combat utility (healing and removing poisons and diseases), as does Cleansing touch. Paladins also have access to more utility spells than the ones you mentioned, even if they don't use them - Find (Greater) Steed can also be leveraged for utility. In Tier 4, even if it's the least-played level range, they even get Geas and Raise dead. Paladins also make better faces thanks to their natural focus on Charisma.

I don't disagree that Paladins are very combat oriented, because they are, but Fighter and Barbarian are the only classes that don't get much if anything in the way of non-combat utility. Some non-combat utility is still better than none at all.

Having to have good Cha does NOT mean that they make better faces than Fighters. A Fighter who wants to be a face can have good enough Charisma (say, 14), and then get feats that improve his "Faciness" without directly raising his Cha (say, Actor, or Skill Expert- a Paladin would only take one of those feats if he had an odd Cha, otherwise they'd be worse choices than +2 Cha). Dipping Hexblade and becoming Cha SAD would help, but a Fighter could do the same thing if he really wanted to lean on the face role. There are also several subclass features that improve a Fighter's "faciness", while, off the top of my head, I can't say the same thing for Paladins (I believe the only exception is the Oath of Redemption channel divinity). And all this without mentioning how the Paladin's class fluff, specially their reliance on an OATH for their power, makes almost all of them unsuited for deception, which is one of the jobs of a good face.

Lay on Hands is used for combat, like, 95% of the time, unless your DM really focuses on traps. Healing IS combat-oriented, since it's in combat that having a lot of hit points matter more. Same thing with Cleansing Touch, again, most of the time, specially with 5e's tendency of not having long-duration conditions.

I agree with you about Barbarians, though; subclass features mostly focus on combat (a few on exploration, almost nothing on social), no extra feats, AND they are more MAD than Fighter.


EDIT: One thing I like about DM'ing 5e is that I don't have to worry about party composition too much. You can have a party that has no primary casters and still has enough resources and class features to deal with any encounter or situation that could be dealt with by the typical four-men adventuring party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard). A party of Ranger, Paladin, Warlock and Bard has enough staying power, damage-dealing capacity and utility abilities that I'd feel comfortable not having to design encounters and adventures around some particular constriction. Heck, a party of four Rogues has enough variety in skills and subclass choices that I'd still be able to put them through standard adventures, although I'd sure hope someone invests in some reliable healing method.

A party of four Fighters is the one that'd worry about, because they don't natively have much in the way of dealing with problems that aren't "whack the bad guy". If I'm running a pure hack-and-slash dungeon crawl they could try their luck, but the moment they need to remove some condition or deal with more complex adventures I'd start to panic about providing them with the right tools that their class isn't giving them.

An all-martial single-class party IS worse than an all-caster single-class one, simply because casters (and here I really mean full-casters) can be built a lot more differently from each other. But a party of 4 Paladins would also have the same issue of dealing with problems with only "whack the bad guy"; Fighters could at least "whack the bad guyS" better. Paladins would deal better with long-lasting conditions, though, I grant that.

[Tanarii]

Breaking this down a bit ...

4e martials were all complex martials. They were equally as complex which is a double-edged sword. Powers and therefore exploits were literally spells. At least how 5e knows them (technically the other way around). If you wanted to even play 4e, you had to be a spellcaster. That's not really a correct analogy, 4e powers were something new that used resources. In 5e terms, Action Surge, Channel Divinity, Rage, etc are not spells.


If a player wants to play a relaxed game of 5e where they're here with their friends and one likes to optimize while he likes to just hit things and get his turn over as quickly as possible so he can continue with roleplay, the optimizer can pick cleric, wizard, or druid just fine.

If a player wants to play a relaxed game of 4e of a similar nature, he must first choose which at-will powers will be effective but not too complicated as well as his encounter and daily powers. He'd have to choose utility exploits and over the course of the campaign basically carry a spellbook of his own. The optimizer is okay with this because this is the gameplay he likes but the relaxed player feels like he's playing bookkeeper.

And the relaxed player who never really uses all of their encounter powers and daily powers and never really changes their at-will exploit from turn-to-turn will never be as effective as those that do these things. And that's before we get into completely bad powers that undermine others.It took me a while to get to where you were going with this, but yes, I absolutely agree. The mental overhead of building and playing any 4e character was high. So was the general system mastery required, both for character building and combat rules. even non-combat rules had some system mastery required.

5e has variable mental overhead for character building and playing (and some classes are high in one and low in the other), and very variable system mastery for character building. It has high required system mastery for the combat rules. (Almost all D&D editions do, but if you've played RPGs for years you probably wouldn't even notice.)

The non-combat rules require fairly low system mastery, it's mostly just finding the ability score the DM just called out and adding proficiency if you have the skill they called out. It does take players a while to wrap their mind around what a Dexterity (Stealth) skill means, but at least then when you start calling for Constitution (Athletics) variant skill they aren't totally lost.


Players who adequately enjoyed 4e are going to feel something missing playing 5e's fighter, barbarian, or rogue. That's because those classes aren't for your enjoyment. They're for the players who played 3.5e and played 4e feeling like they were missing something. Or even OD&D players. And especially newer players who want an easier introduction to the entire game.Yes. But comparing 5e "simple" characters to 3e ones (feats required, very complicated to build and play) or OD&D/BECMI ones (extremely simple) isn't really on point to me. 5e characters are a little less complicated that 3e (intentionally streamlined to be so), but miles more complicated than oD&D, BECMI, or even AD&D.

In short: Yes, I totally miss the feel of playing 4e Fighters and Rogues, and I miss Warlords entirely.
But not Rangers, because 5e Rangers feel amazing to play, just for different reasons than 4e.

They may not be for my enjoyment but they did the classes a grave disservice, now that we've been shown what they can do.

[Silly Name]

Having to have good Cha does NOT mean that they make better faces than Fighters. A Fighter who wants to be a face can have good enough Charisma (say, 14), and then get feats that improve his "Faciness" without directly raising his Cha (say, Actor, or Skill Expert- a Paladin would only take one of those feats if he had an odd Cha, otherwise they'd be worse choices than +2 Cha). Dipping Hexblade and becoming Cha SAD would help, but a Fighter could do the same thing if he really wanted to lean on the face role.

But a paladin can take all the feats the Fighter can (well, not as many - Fighter definitely has an important advantage there), and be overall more efficient than the Fighter without sacrificing the stat he relies the most on. I agree you can build any class to fulfill any role, but it's obvious that aligning your class' strengths with the role you want to play is more effective.


There are also several subclass features that improve a Fighter's "faciness", while, off the top of my head, I can't say the same thing for Paladins (I believe the only exception is the Oath of Redemption channel divinity). And all this without mentioning how the Paladin's class fluff, specially their reliance on an OATH for their power, makes almost all of them unsuited for deception, which is one of the jobs of a good face.

Only some oaths have honesty as their tenets. I had lots of fun playing paladins who could lie and cheat since it wasn't strictly against the rules for them.

Obviously a Devotion paladin would have some troubles with ouright lies, but one of my favourite pastimes in 3.5 was also using letter of the law to get around the issue of "paladins don't lie" when it was in-character to do so: Bad guy with a grudge against the rogue wants to know where she is? "I haven't seen her all day" isn't a lie if that's true. ;)

I concede on the fact Fighters have some subclasses with some social focus while Paladins don't really have them, but the Fighters still tend to be pigeonholed into being fighting men and little more, while Rangers and Paladins, for example, get to shape their identity (and by consequence, class features) around fighting and other stuff.


An all-martial single-class party IS worse than an all-caster single-class one, simply because casters (and here I really mean full-casters) can be built a lot more differently from each other. But a party of 4 Paladins would also have the same issue of dealing with problems with only "whack the bad guy"; Fighters could at least "whack the bad guyS" better. Paladins would deal better with long-lasting conditions, though, I grant that.

Curious about what you mean by fighters being better at dealing with multiple opponents. The only downside for paladins I can think of is that for them ranged fighting is always sub-optimal because of the dumb restriction on smites having to be melee weapon attacks, but in general I don't see either group having a radically different experience dealing with the same encounters, unless they were geared specifically to favour one party and disfavour the other.

Agreed on having at least one full caster being a huge boost in utility and versatility, but I wanted to point out how even other mundanes and partial-casters have enough utility and versatility that a party without a single full caster can be reasonably expected to deal with most challenges the "average adventurer party" is expected to encounter. So I could have an ok-ish all-Bard party deal with different challenges as long as they aren't a carbon-copy of each other, or an all-Paladin party, and not worry too much about adjusting encounters and challenges. The all-Barbarian or all-Fighter party has sensibily more trouble planning around such challenges, in part due to lack of variety in subclasses

Now, this isn't necessarily bad - it's ok that some classes are more versatile and others aren't (I'd rank full-casters and Bards as the highest point of versatility, and Barbarian at the lower point), but all classes should be able to interact at least a bit with the various aspects of the game. It's ok for the Barbarian to be laser-focused on doing the big damage and being an unstoppable force of rage, because that's what the class is all about, but they could also expand this theme into other areas without stealing the spotlight of the classes focused on said aspects of the game.

I also think full-casters shouldn't really be so versatile - that should be the realm of Bards and Rogues - but it's infinitely easier to expand options for the other classes than it is to radically change and restrict how wizards, cleric and druids work. In my ideal Sixth Edition, we'd see Clerics more defined by their domains than anything else, for example.

[Tanarii]

An all-martial single-class party IS worse than an all-caster single-class one, simply because casters (and here I really mean full-casters) can be built a lot more differently from each other. But a party of 4 Paladins would also have the same issue of dealing with problems with only "whack the bad guy"; Fighters could at least "whack the bad guyS" better. Paladins would deal better with long-lasting conditions, though, I grant that.
You'd need 2 clerics in an all full caster party. Bards, Druids, and arcane nukes (warlocks/sorc/wiz) are all pretty squishy. It'd be hard to survive through the end of Tier 2 without dipping a martial class for armor.

IMX running Tier 1 and Tier 2, single class, no feat, and party almost always outnumbered by enemies, martials are far more critical than full casters. But you definitely want both.

(Feats and especially Multiclassing dips blur the line between martial and full casters, IMO heavily in favor of full casters.)

[noob]

You'd need 2 clerics in an all full caster party. Bards, Druids, and arcane nukes (warlocks/sorc/wiz) are all pretty squishy. It'd be hard to survive through the end of Tier 2 without dipping a martial class for armor.

IMX running Tier 1 and Tier 2, single class, no feat, and party almost always outnumbered by enemies, martials are far more critical than full casters. But you definitely want both.

Is a 2 clerics 2 valor bards team a good team?

[Tanarii]

Is a 2 clerics 2 valor bards team a good team?
Probably. The Clerics can pull 'tank' duties until the Valor Bards are effective in melee at level 3. Plus lots of bonus action Healing Words for emergencies.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, or at least not how WoTC is thinking about it. They don't have "simple casters" and "complex martials" because they're redundant.

You're thinking that there is complex casters and simple martials but I believe WoTC sees it as complex classes and simple classes. They don't have "martials" in the game's name at all except for maybe the feat Martial Adept and the weapon type Martial Weapons.



They're more than just that, though.

Almost all builds that have heavy armor and other damage-absorbtion lean heavily on the Attack action.

Most cantrips that support melee combat (which are more complex than the Attack Action) are rewarded to classes that don't belong in melee combat.

Long-term buffs would normally be good for Attack-Action builds, except that those buffs require Concentration, which is put at risk each time you are attacked. This becomes a problem when the folks that get the most defensive powers are also the ones that have to lean on the Attack Action, since the person most often you want attacked is the one that can take it and waste enemy resources. What you don't end up with is someone that buffs themselves and still wants to be in melee combat.

So it's more than just "Simple" and "Complex". Instead, the options are locked into "Simple/Attack Action/Defender" and "Complex/Resource Management/Squishy". There may be niche examples of where this isn't true, but they're rare and usually considered exceptions in their field.

I contest that there's no benefit from this. As far as I can tell, the only real reason for DND to behave this way is because that's how it's always been.

All I want is for those groups to be broken up and divided evenly. Or at least us give the option to pursue those goals without feeling like we're handicapping ourselves. Is that asking too much?

[diplomancer]

But a paladin can take all the feats the Fighter can (well, not as many - Fighter definitely has an important advantage there), and be overall more efficient than the Fighter without sacrificing the stat he relies the most on. I agree you can build any class to fulfill any role, but it's obvious that aligning your class' strengths with the role you want to play is more effective.

No. Because the Paladin is MAD, while the Fighter is SAD; a Fighter, from level 8, can just take any feats he wants to diversify, without sacrificing his basic class capabilities. The Paladin? If he wants to top the two stats he needs to be effective, before getting feats? Gets exactly 1, at level 19, if the campaign goes that far (ignoring here V. Human, because it's a tie between them).




Only some oaths have honesty as their tenets. I had lots of fun playing paladins who could lie and cheat since it wasn't strictly against the rules for them.

All oaths require being firmly true to the oath itself. Having that sort of dedication to an ideal is, at least in my opinion, psychologically incompatible with general shiftyness, even if the content of the oath itself is not about honesty. An occasional lie, ok, perhaps, but being the one with proficiency in deception and designated party liar, no. Maybe if the oath required dishonesty, but so far no such oath has been published. The one Paladin subclass that does NOT have such an intense attachment to an oath, the Oath Breaker, is, RAW, not a PC option.



I concede on the fact Fighters have some subclasses with some social focus while Paladins don't really have them, but the Fighters still tend to be pigeonholed into being fighting men and little more, while Rangers and Paladins, for example, get to shape their identity (and by consequence, class features) around fighting and other stuff.

This might be a choice of players who play Fighters, but it's not a limitation of the class, except in featless games; the combination of SADness and extra feats means that you can choose feats that allow you out-of-combat versatility without sacrificing expected levels of combat effectiveness. For a MAD class, that's really not the case.


Curious about what you mean by fighters being better at dealing with multiple opponents. The only downside for paladins I can think of is that for them ranged fighting is always sub-optimal because of the dumb restriction on smites having to be melee weapon attacks, but in general I don't see either group having a radically different experience dealing with the same encounters, unless they were geared specifically to favour one party and disfavour the other.

More attacks, action surge, and, yes, better ranged capability are all things that make Fighters better than Paladins with dealing with a lot of enemies. I believe the one exception is the Ancients Paladin (my favourite oath, for that very reason)


Agreed on having at least one full caster being a huge boost in utility and versatility, but I wanted to point out how even other mundanes and partial-casters have enough utility and versatility that a party without a single full caster can be reasonably expected to deal with most challenges the "average adventurer party" is expected to encounter. So I could have an ok-ish all-Bard party deal with different challenges as long as they aren't a carbon-copy of each other, or an all-Paladin party, and not worry too much about adjusting encounters and challenges. The all-Barbarian or all-Fighter party has sensibily more trouble planning around such challenges, in part due to lack of variety in subclasses

The All-Paladin (and the All-Barbarian) party will REALLY struggle against flying (or even just fast) enemies before level 13. No, I wouldn't say that this is a challenge that an "average adventure party" would never encounter.


You'd need 2 clerics in an all full caster party. Bards, Druids, and arcane nukes (warlocks/sorc/wiz) are all pretty squishy. It'd be hard to survive through the end of Tier 2 without dipping a martial class for armor.

IMX running Tier 1 and Tier 2, single class, no feat, and party almost always outnumbered by enemies, martials are far more critical than full casters. But you definitely want both.

(Feats and especially Multiclassing dips blur the line between martial and full casters, IMO heavily in favor of full casters.)

You ban feats, multiclassing AND hexblades. You also, apparently, always start from level 1, not at level 3. I'm sure it's a fun game, but this eschews your perspective. A Cleric, Warlock (Hexblade, Mark of Storm, to summon tanks if necessary), Bard (Valor) and Wizard (Mark of Warding Abjuror) party is definitely not squishy. And we are not even talking Moon Druids.

[Tanarii]

You ban feats, multiclassing AND hexblades. You also, apparently, always start from level 1, not at level 3. I'm sure it's a fun game, but this eschews your perspective. A Cleric, Warlock (Hexblade, Mark of Storm, to summon tanks if necessary), Bard (Valor) and Wizard (Mark of Warding Abjuror) party is definitely not squishy. And we are not even talking Moon Druids.
Yes, I play with the defaults, except Hexblade.

The party you describe has to somehow make it to level 2 and 3 before the Wizard and Bard have defensive capability. And the Hexblade needs to save up cash for Medium armor and Shield. If you skip that straight to level 3, there's an interesting backstory there.

And they still aren't as defensive as a party with a Paladin, Fighter, or even Barbarian or another Cleric, in place of one of the three full casters other than Cleric.

Or Moon Druid. I definitely wasn't thinking about Moon Druids. They're ridiculous starting at 2nd, because of the way all those wild shape HPs work. Even a non-Moon Druid can milk those bonus HPs nicely.

But that definitely sounds like a fun party, if you can make it to 3rd.

[Asisreo1]

They're more than just that, though.

Almost all builds that have heavy armor and other damage-absorbtion lean heavily on the Attack action.

Most cantrips that support melee combat (which are more complex than the Attack Action) are rewarded to classes that don't belong in melee combat.

Long-term buffs would normally be good for Attack-Action builds, except that those buffs require Concentration, which is put at risk each time you are attacked. This becomes a problem when the folks that get the most defensive powers are also the ones that have to lean on the Attack Action, since the person most often you want attacked is the one that can take it and waste enemy resources. What you don't end up with is someone that buffs themselves and still wants to be in melee combat.

So it's more than just "Simple" and "Complex". Instead, the options are locked into "Simple/Attack Action/Defender" and "Complex/Resource Management/Squishy". There may be niche examples of where this isn't true, but they're rare and usually considered exceptions in their field.

I contest that there's no benefit from this. As far as I can tell, the only real reason for DND to behave this way is because that's how it's always been.

All I want is for those groups to be broken up and divided evenly. Or at least us give the option to pursue those goals without feeling like we're handicapping ourselves. Is that asking too much?
Its quite reasonable. What's the incentive, though?

What you ask for does take careful consideration because there's likely new mechanics, new functions, new flavors, and new rules associated with bringing in these character builds. All of this requires time, money, and brainpower.

Would you have been okay with what you wanted if 5e released today? Would 5e even be successful? There's more to the equation than good ideas, because plenty of good ideas have to be thrown out simply to meet deadlines.

Like I said, there's design challenges to making this "complex martial" while following the vision of 5e and avoiding redundancy or overcompensating on the power. Perhaps they can overcome these challenges, but how many more books will they sell? Will a book providing this new class be enough to cover the expense of the creation of the book?

I'm not against the idea at all, don't get me wrong, but WoTC probably is already looking forward to 6e at the moment and 5e provided them quite a good framework. They might not feel any good incentive to put so much work into 5e when they can address this more easily in the next edition.

[noob]

I also think a simple character could be based on things other than just attacking with weapons.
Blasting for example should be something that could be done without needing to go through the complexity of spell slots or just boringly hit for then tenth time with a cantrip a monster.

[Man_Over_Game]

I also think a simple character could be based on things other than just attacking with weapons.
Blasting for example should be something that could be done without needing to go through the complexity of spell slots or just boringly hit for then tenth time with a cantrip a monster.

Exactly. I had a friend's kid join us, and all he wanted to do was play a blaster and blow things up, so he rolled an Evocation Wizard. Never used any of his wizard features, just ever casted Firebolt and Fireball. It was the closest he could get to what he wanted, but it still was a mismatch because the complexity didn't match the player.

[Man_Over_Game]

Its quite reasonable. What's the incentive, though?

What you ask for does take careful consideration because there's likely new mechanics, new functions, new flavors, and new rules associated with bringing in these character builds. All of this requires time, money, and brainpower.

Mostly just complaining. We have like 4 different ways you can build a "Nature-Based, casting melee warrior", between the Paladin version, the Cleric version, a Ranger or Druid build, so why do they all fulfill similar niches?

It wouldn't be so much extra work if they tried a little hard at not being so redundant in the first place. If we had a bit more diversity with the starting points, it wouldn't be so difficult to pursue those goals.

I talked about it in another thread, but multiclassing is a great example of wasted potential. The reason Paladin/Sorcerers combos are so common are because the Paladin has a feature that can use Sorcerer features (Divine Smite), and the Sorcerer has a feature that can use Paladin features (Booming Blade, Quicken Spell). Sorcerers and Warlocks work in a similar fashion. But there's no benefit for a Barbarian/Wizard in the same way. That particular kind of synergy doesn't exist in many other combos, which makes it seem like an accident. You can't even mix Storm Sorcerer and Tempest Cleric comfortably, and that's a pretty stupid problem to have.

If there was a bit more consideration on diversity, we could just make the things we want. So we're left with complaining.

[Asisreo1]

I also think a simple character could be based on things other than just attacking with weapons.
Blasting for example should be something that could be done without needing to go through the complexity of spell slots or just boringly hit for then tenth time with a cantrip a monster.
People really don't like simple characters deviating from a single option that deals damage. I can understand wanting a simple blasting character, though it would obviously have to be balanced around doing less damage than average over an area.

Its not impossible, in fact its already partially implemented in the Ranger's kit. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that a simple class that revolves around AoE will be seen as low tier or bad simply because they'd consider it more "situational." I mean, that's why colossus slayer is often more chosen over horde breaker and why it apparently feels bad to concentrate on Conjure Barrage by dropping concentration on Hunter's Mark.

So while its possible, I doubt such a class would catch on purely from feedback from the hunter subclass.

[noob]

People really don't like simple characters deviating from a single option that deals damage. I can understand wanting a simple blasting character, though it would obviously have to be balanced around doing less damage than average over an area.

Its not impossible, in fact its already partially implemented in the Ranger's kit. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that a simple class that revolves around AoE will be seen as low tier or bad simply because they'd consider it more "situational." I mean, that's why colossus slayer is often more chosen over horde breaker and why it apparently feels bad to concentrate on Conjure Barrage by dropping concentration on Hunter's Mark.

So while its possible, I doubt such a class would catch on purely from feedback from the hunter subclass.
Fighter have high attack count and action surges some times per day
Having correct single target ranged attack that matches an archery fighter in firepower and some times per day aoe damage would be a comparable in power toolkit(it not a bit weaker) while having a radically different feeling.

[Asisreo1]

Fighter have high attack count and action surges some times per day
Having correct single target ranged attack that matches an archery fighter in firepower and some times per day aoe damage would be a comparable in power toolkit(it not a bit weaker) while having a radically different feeling.
And what would differentiate that from a 4-elemonk or Ranger with liberal uses of spell slots?

Edit: I don't think differentiating ranged vs melee makes a class significantly different without other changes as well.

[Coidzor]

For an easy example, the Fighter class is a class for players that enjoy fighting. That's what they opt into. You purposely forgo the opportunity to have a spell for every occasion and instead lean into having resourceless resilience and strength. You can help with physical activities but you're fine letting the Wizard cast Banishment on the BBEG knowing that if he fails, you're able to reliably stand toe-to-toe with it and keep the enemy at bay.


Some people who play Fighters and want to play Fighters also buy into the whole "the Fighter twiddles their thumbs outside of combat or a situation where physical athleticism can be brought to bear." Others want to be Fighters without that whole paradigm.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some people who play Fighters and want to play Fighters also buy into the whole "the Fighter twiddles their thumbs outside of combat or a situation where physical athleticism can be brought to bear." Others want to be Fighters without that whole paradigm.

Not having explicit buttons to press does not mean that you have to just "twiddle your thumbs". Fighters have the most ASIs and are also almost entirely SAD. If feats are in play, they have tons of room to pick up effective non-combat feats. If not, they can max out several stats.

It's people who believe that only combat is worth optimizing for and that all bonuses/feats are best spent in that arena who drive this myth. Along with those who believe that fighters are incapable of anything but fightering...which is rather circular. And a hangover from previous editions.

[Pex]

People really don't like simple characters deviating from a single option that deals damage. I can understand wanting a simple blasting character, though it would obviously have to be balanced around doing less damage than average over an area.

Its not impossible, in fact its already partially implemented in the Ranger's kit. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that a simple class that revolves around AoE will be seen as low tier or bad simply because they'd consider it more "situational." I mean, that's why colossus slayer is often more chosen over horde breaker and why it apparently feels bad to concentrate on Conjure Barrage by dropping concentration on Hunter's Mark.

So while its possible, I doubt such a class would catch on purely from feedback from the hunter subclass.

Maybe it's cynical thinking, but one could say Warlock is the simple blasting character. The class certainly has potential of more strategic/complicated strategies, but it's very easy to focus on blasting.

[noob]

And what would differentiate that from a 4-elemonk or Ranger with liberal uses of spell slots?

Edit: I don't think differentiating ranged vs melee makes a class significantly different without other changes as well.
The fact it would be considerably simpler than either of those.
The monk can do 5 different things with its ki points.
The ranger have a lot of different uses for spell slots and also have a pet.
Both of those classes have extra complexity that could discourage a new player from playing them.
The difference is not ranged vs melee it is magic vs weapon/punching.
I was continuing a discussion about the fact that magic is associated with complexity while it should not be and suggested a class that felt magical(granting a thing that is mostly provided by spells: aoe damage) but did not have the complexity usually associated with magic (which is spell slots or constantly having a whole lot of options(which is the case of rangers and monks)).

[Man_Over_Game]

Not having explicit buttons to press does not mean that you have to just "twiddle your thumbs". Fighters have the most ASIs and are also almost entirely SAD. If feats are in play, they have tons of room to pick up effective non-combat feats. If not, they can max out several stats.

It's people who believe that only combat is worth optimizing for and that all bonuses/feats are best spent in that arena who drive this myth. Along with those who believe that fighters are incapable of anything but fightering...which is rather circular. And a hangover from previous editions.

You could also swap out Fighter for Barbarian in this instance and still have the same issue (as Barbarians don't get extra Feats). And it's not like most Feats rival a lot of the powers that classes can get (although the option to get Warlock Invocations with a Feat changes that dramatically).

But more than that, let's say I want to be more interesting both in-and-out of combat. Should I have to spend all of my feats to be a little more interesting? Or would it have made more sense to include those options in the first place?

And I want to reiterate, I'm not talking about a requirement, but an option. For instance, a Battlemaster who spends all of his maneuvers using Trip Attack for GWM is incredibly simple, yet can still expand into more.

[diplomancer]

You could also swap out Fighter for Barbarian in this instance and still have the same issue (as Barbarians don't get extra Feats). And it's not like most Feats rival a lot of the powers that classes can get (although the option to get Warlock Invocations with a Feat changes that dramatically).

But more than that, let's say I want to be more interesting both in-and-out of combat. Should I have to spend all of my feats to be a little more interesting? Or would it have made more sense to include those options in the first place?

And I want to reiterate, I'm not talking about a requirement, but an option. For instance, a Battlemaster who spends all of his maneuvers using Trip Attack for GWM is incredibly simple, yet can still expand into more.

I'd say the situation is far worse for Barbarians than for Fighters; not only they have less feats, but they are also locked into melee and are "soft MAD" on 3 attributes. A Barbarian can't really be a party's face, that minimum 14 Dex combined with need for High Str and decent Con makes it impossible unless you roll obscenely well. A Fighter could, if the party was otherwise lacking on Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers or Warlocks.

But to answer your question about how many feats you'd have to spend to be more interesting, I'm afraid the answer is "as many as you want to". You will be perfectly functional in combat just raising your Prime to 18 (perhaps using a half-feat), and then spending all your other ASIs on the feats you'd like; perhaps you want a little extra combat power, and are willing to spend one feat on combat, and the rest on out-of-combat abilities. Or you can spend ALL your feats just improving your combat abilities and choosing subclasses that don't give out of combat benefits, but then it's weird to turn back and complain "I can't do anything outside of combat"; of course you can't, that's how you chose to make your character. It's like a Wizard who only chooses damage spells and then complains that all they can do is damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say the situation is far worse for Barbarians than for Fighters; not only they have less feats, but they are also locked into melee and are "soft MAD" on 3 attributes. A Barbarian can't really be a party's face, that minimum 14 Dex combined with need for High Str and decent Con makes it impossible unless you roll obscenely well. A Fighter could, if the party was otherwise lacking on Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers or Warlocks.

But to answer your question about how many feats you'd have to spend to be more interesting, I'm afraid the answer is "as many as you want to". You will be perfectly functional in combat just raising your Prime to 18 (perhaps using a half-feat), and then spending all your other ASIs on the feats you'd like; perhaps you want a little extra combat power, and are willing to spend one feat on combat, and the rest on out-of-combat abilities. Or you can spend ALL your feats just improving your combat abilities and choosing subclasses that don't give out of combat benefits, but then it's weird to turn back and complain "I can't do anything outside of combat"; of course you can't, that's how you chose to make your character. It's like a Wizard who only chooses damage spells and then complains that all they can do is damage.

Exactly. And, if the DM actually uses the DMG's guidance for ability check DCs (ie very few above 20), you don't need all that much to succeed. In fact, anyone can contribute as long as they don't actively dump their abilities.

A party with 4 people, each of whom has a specialty (say is an 8/10 in that area) and has also tried to cover their weaknesses to some degree (maybe being 5/10 in those) is stronger than a party of 4, each of whom is a 10/10 in one area and a 2/10 in the others. Because inevitably, the wizard's going to have to make an unassisted STR check, the barbarian's going to have to puzzle something out, and the fighter's going to have to do some talking. If not, then you're really playing a hive mind. NPCs should respond to certain people and not to others--the military folks aren't going to listen to the ex-criminal bard as much as to their fellow veteran, the fighter. Even if the bard has better stats. Conversely, the street orphans aren't going to sit still for the noble sorcerer, but might for the street-rat one. Etc.

IMO, expertise (and proficiency to a lower degree) is best used to cover for weaknesses (proficiency is roughly equivalent to having a good raw modifier, so expertise is having a good modifier and proficiency, even if the raw modifier is crap) rather than to boost strengths to obscene heights. A rogue with Stealth expertise can hit crazy heights...that do very little good except in the vanishingly rare (like 1x/campaign) times you're trying to sneak past an ancient dragon. And doesn't help the rest of the team at all. But that same rogue could take a different expertise in something they only have a +0 in and suddenly be an expert with no further involvement. You don't get anything extra by beating the DC by 10+ than you do by beating it by 1. And by late T3, expertise + 0 raw is enough to auto-pass DC 20 checks (with Reliable Talent). Which is as high as normal ones go.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not talking about getting a bunch of damage feats to optimize myself for as much attack damage as I can get, I'm talking about adding interactivity in-and-out of combat.

For instance, say I decide to pick up PAM and Sentinel, because I feel like my combat abilities are really boring and not all that interactive with the team as a Barbarian. Should I have to wait until level 12 before I can do something unique out of combat, as something more than "I'm really strong"? (Comparatively, a Wizard is more than "I'm really smart")

In another perspective, how many feats could it reasonably take for a Barbarian to match the combat utility of a level 3 Wizard? Now how many feats would it take for the same for out-of-combat?

I'd estimate about 3. Of each. And that doesn't really seem right to me.

Unfortunately, DnD isn't the kind of game where a 30 on a Stealth Check makes you Invisible with Nondetection (as much as I wish it was). It's a game generally dictated with specified, special powers, and then using skills as a backup for when those powers don't fit (since you can't actually rely on skills due to RNG without major investment).

It gets even worse for Barbarians, since they have to compete with spells like Enlarge/Reduce (fairly common, level 2) that don't have a check and are relatively affordable. Unless you're having like 1-2 Strength Checks per day, it might be more efficient to roll a Bard as a Strength Specialist than a Barbarian (since they now have E/R), as you still have unique powers for when a Strength Check isn't available. If Enlarge/Reduce can't solve something that a Barbarian could, and it's something you have to solve, I'd say that's probably a problem with your DM being a bit too rigid (based mostly on the fact that E/R is an incredibly flexible spell).

I know that Barbarian is the most extreme example, and kinda makes it unfair to target, but other classes have things that muddy up the comparisons (Fighters & Feats come up a lot), despite basically running into the same issues (like comparing Actor @4 vs. Mask of Many Faces and a second Invocation @2).

As much as we hate to admit it, 5e doesn't address the Guy At the Gym issue very well.

It neither explains how Skills can help perform the supernatural, or how special abilities tie into the real world. Combined, it gives off a natural sense of "Skills are boring, Powers are super", that creates a bias in players and DMs due to a lack of trust and knowledge. I'd say that making skills as powerful as spells is not something covered in the book, and is borderline homebrew, not because that's what I don't want but because there's no evidence in the book for it (when there's more evidence to the contrary, like how skills are rigidly learned yet special powers can be unlearned and trained periodically, or how everyone gets skills but not everyone gets magic, or how skills have RNG when magic doesn't, etc.). Treating skills and powers like equals doesn't come off as earnest, like it's used as a comparison to support a claim as opposed to a fact that has a strong foundation, but I might just be missing something that you're seeing.

This becomes a problem when entire classes are focused towards specific skill-based gameplay (Rogues, Barbarians), while others can still utilize that system without sacrifice or get the best of both worlds (Wizard, Warlock).

Would it be a game-changer if the Ranger was entirely redundant? Obviously not, but would it be fun?

Experience might decide differently, but experience is just a fancy word for "The stuff that reading the book can't teach you". And if you're not learning this stuff from the book, I'd say there's a problem with the book.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) In another perspective, how many feats could it reasonably take for a Barbarian to match the combat utility of a level 3 Wizard? Now how many feats would it take for the same for out-of-combat?

I'd estimate about 3. Of each. And that doesn't really seem right to me.

2) Unfortunately, DnD isn't the kind of game where a 30 on a Stealth Check makes you Invisible with Nondetection (as much as I wish it was). It's a game generally dictated with specified, special powers, and then using skills as a backup for when those powers don't fit (since you can't actually rely on skills due to RNG without major investment).



1) I disagree. In my experience, a "stock" barbarian is better at most tasks in combat than a "stock" wizard. Assuming a variety of fights that don't necessarily just let the wizard stand back and face no danger.

2) I strongly disagree with this. At least in 5e. There just aren't that many specific powers that help out of combat unless the DM sets those as the only options. Most spells are hyper-specific if read correctly and have significant downsides, and there aren't many "win buttons" among abilities. You should only be rolling anything if there's doubt about the outcome. So saying that you can't rely on skills because of RNG is rather missing the point. If a challenge can be trivialized by a single action from anyone, it wasn't a real challenge in the first place (although it could have been a component to a larger challenge). When DMs stop assuming that magic can do more than written (and start enforcing the actual downsides like components, etc) and realize that who the character is (their background, history, personality) has just as much effect or more than their ability scores on what they're capable of, the problem basically vanishes. And once they start using the DCs as suggested (ie [10-20]), everyone gets to contribute. You can contribute even if your action isn't guaranteed to succeed. No single check (for anything) should be do or die by itself. And the party isn't a hive mind where you can always put your best person for any task forward. Narratively, that makes zero sense.

I've got two sorlocks. Both have high CHA. One sucks at face duties. Why? Because his character is that way. The other's ok. But often, it's the paladin (with lower CHA and no particular investment in face skills) who takes the lead. Why? Because the character and the player are that way.

[Segev]

Exactly. And, if the DM actually uses the DMG's guidance for ability check DCs (ie very few above 20), you don't need all that much to succeed. In fact, anyone can contribute as long as they don't actively dump their abilities.

I have a 5e character with an 8 Charisma. Every now and again, he still rolls a 19 total, and can be somewhat persuasive.

[Man_Over_Game]

1) I disagree. In my experience, a "stock" barbarian is better at most tasks in combat than a "stock" wizard. Assuming a variety of fights that don't necessarily just let the wizard stand back and face no danger.

2) I strongly disagree with this. At least in 5e. There just aren't that many specific powers that help out of combat unless the DM sets those as the only options. Most spells are hyper-specific if read correctly and have significant downsides, and there aren't many "win buttons" among abilities. You should only be rolling anything if there's doubt about the outcome. So saying that you can't rely on skills because of RNG is rather missing the point. If a challenge can be trivialized by a single action from anyone, it wasn't a real challenge in the first place (although it could have been a component to a larger challenge). When DMs stop assuming that magic can do more than written (and start enforcing the actual downsides like components, etc) and realize that who the character is (their background, history, personality) has just as much effect or more than their ability scores on what they're capable of, the problem basically vanishes. And once they start using the DCs as suggested (ie [10-20]), everyone gets to contribute. You can contribute even if your action isn't guaranteed to succeed. No single check (for anything) should be do or die by itself. And the party isn't a hive mind where you can always put your best person for any task forward. Narratively, that makes zero sense.

I've got two sorlocks. Both have high CHA. One sucks at face duties. Why? Because his character is that way. The other's ok. But often, it's the paladin (with lower CHA and no particular investment in face skills) who takes the lead. Why? Because the character and the player are that way.

On 1), really trying to stress this, but I'm not talking about numbers or effectiveness. I'm talking about decision points, influencing multiple units on the board to act and think differently, having both players and enemies adapt their strategies around your actions. Barbarians are great level 1 combatants, for when you need something to tank hits and deal damage, but they don't do much more than that. Often times, there's not really much to think about when a Barbarian is near you, since they can sometimes run faster than you, and it's not like they have anything more than the Attack Action, so it boils down to a numbers-crunch.

On 2), I think your solution doesn't quite work with everyone, when free-form mechanics like Inspiration, Advantage, or "Do what makes sense" are supported by in-game rules. For instance, say I add a certain perfume to myself with Minor Illusion, along with choosing to make myself appear more attractive against someone who I think would be manipulated by it. Is it incorrect for the DM to reward me with Advantage on my Charisma checks in this scenario, due to my clever planning and spent resources around it, or would stifling it for balance be more fun for the game? Cutting down on sensible creativity, in a Role Playing Game, doesn't seem like advice that works for everyone.

Or, if I'm missing the mark on what you're referring to when you have mentioned "magic can('t) do more than written", please correct me.

As a side note, I'm not sure if many tables would benefit from things like weight rules or components, due to 5e's relaxed nature, but that might just be a bias.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a 5e character with an 8 Charisma. Every now and again, he still rolls a 19 total, and can be somewhat persuasive.

Right. And even a low-CHA person who has the right background/training/personality/approach can get the auto-success case. Just like a 20-CHA, expertise in social skills character can, by bad choices, hit the auto-failure case. My experience is that auto-success/auto-failure are much more common for most checks than actually rolling for things. Because rolling is only for cases of doubt.


On 1), really trying to stress this, but I'm not talking about numbers. I'm talking about decision points, influencing multiple units on the board to act and think differently, having both players and enemies adapt their strategies around your actions. Barbarians are great level 1 combatants, for when you need something to tank hits and deal damage, but they don't do much more than that. Often times, there's not really much to think about when a Barbarian is near you, since they can sometimes run faster than you, so it boils down to a numbers-crunch.

On 2), I think your solution doesn't quite work with everyone, when free-form mechanics like Inspiration, Advantage, or "Do what makes sense" are supported by in-game rules. For instance, say I add a certain perfume to myself with Minor Illusion, along with choosing to make myself appear more attractive against someone who I think would be manipulated by it. Is it incorrect for the DM to reward me with Advantage on my Charisma checks in this scenario, due to my clever planning and spent resources around it, or would stifling it for balance be more fun for the game? Cutting down on sensible creativity, in a Role Playing Game, doesn't seem like advice that works for everyone.

Or, if I'm missing the mark on what you're referring to when you have mentioned "magic can do more than written", please correct me.

As a side note, I'm not sure if many tables would benefit from things like weight rules or components, due to 5e's relaxed nature, but that might just be a bias.

Either way. I've never seen wizards do any of that fancy influencing the battlefield more than barbarians. One group (Paladin/Bard (me)/Barbarian/Wizard), the most influential on making units think differently was absolutely the barbarian. The wizard was tactically and strategically only good for numbers (fireball!), and the paladin, well, was pretty incompetent. I ran support, but rarely had anything flow-of-game-changing to do. The players make way more difference than the class does.

2) Sure, but the DM should also be giving advantage (which doesn't stack) for non-spell things. Minor illusion is one way, but it's very very limited (stationary). And casting it has verbal components, which is an issue.

I don't play with weight (much), but components? Casting a spell with components can't be hidden (except subtle). And will cause reactions (not always hostile, but frequently).

[ZRN]

Is this a bad thing, though?

I think the answer comes down to how well you think they achieved the goal of matching varied playstyles to varied character archetypes.

As you say in the OP, champion fighter is good for the player who just wants to hit things without worrying about resource management and fiddly spells, and conversely the wizard is good for a player who likes legalistic rules and memorizing a bunch of stuff.

But what about the equally archetypical pyromaniac mage who enjoys blowing stuff up? Sorry, the best 5e can come up with is a wizard who can't switch out his spells but also has to do accounting homework for his class abilities (sorcerer).

[Snails]

But what about the equally archetypical pyromaniac mage who enjoys blowing stuff up? Sorry, the best 5e can come up with is a wizard who can't switch out his spells but also has to do accounting homework for his class abilities (sorcerer).

I would hope that even a novice has sufficient awareness to grab Draconic Bloodline (Red/Gold), Firebolt, Burning Hands before guessing about other spells. And that they manage to find Scorching Ray and Fireball on the spell list when the time comes.

(1) Does anyone actually believe that is too much mental effort for even a novice?
(2) Does anyone actually believe that such a build is too weak to have fun in most encounters?

If #1 is actually an issue, then the problem is that even the Warlock is probably too complex for this player, and I have doubts that any (past of future) version of D&D can provide a primary spellcaster that suits this player's needs.

As for #2, I do not see what the issue would be unless there are lots of Fire Resistant creatures. This might be a real problem for a player who stumbles into Tier 3 and has not bothered to do any thinking or tweaking, but that is not a problem that any version of D&D has or is likely to help with. There is even a Feat to address this, after all.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the answer comes down to how well you think they achieved the goal of matching varied playstyles to varied character archetypes.

As you say in the OP, champion fighter is good for the player who just wants to hit things without worrying about resource management and fiddly spells, and conversely the wizard is good for a player who likes legalistic rules and memorizing a bunch of stuff.

But what about the equally archetypical pyromaniac mage who enjoys blowing stuff up? Sorry, the best 5e can come up with is a wizard who can't switch out his spells but also has to do accounting homework for his class abilities (sorcerer).

I think I woulda liked a system where the more damage you do, the simpler you are, and vice-versa.

Something like being able to permanently reduce your Power for +1 Utility, which could then be spent on utility effects like an AoE attack, conjuring a wall with a defense equal to your Attack Bonus, etc. Where all of your powers are fairly generically described and you can tie conditions or effects to those powers.

For example, instead of having Walls Spells, you just have an "Obstruction" effect, where all Obstructions have a defensive score equal to the Power on that Ability and can't be traversed/targeted through, with a default area of 4 squares. You could then opt to give that obstruction the option to attack nearby enemies equal to its Power. So if that ability had a total Power of 4, you could make a wall (-1) that dealt damage (-1), that had 2 HP and dealt 2 damage. And that's how you make a Zombie Wall.

Or you could just be a pyromancer that had a ranged bolt that dealt 4 damage, a small AoE that dealt 3 damage, or a big AoE that dealt 2.

Then just make a list of conditions that impact the nature of your powers, unique for each character, that are balanced by a negative: Fire can spread on burnable surfaces (-1), but is countered by cold/water (+1).

And add a few general rules to spice things up (Abilities that originate from your location gain +1 Power and deal excess damage to another enemy within range).

Then just add a temporary currency you can spend to add augments to certain things (like increase the size of an AoE, or put out a fire instead of creating one, if you were a Pyromancer).

You get three-or-so Abilities. Each one is identified by its name, any augments to it, and it's Power . So the above example would be Zombie Wall: Obstruction 4, Attacker, Power 2. I could turn it into a Fire Wall by changing Attacker to Damage Aura (which deals -1 damage than normal, but damages a creature as soon as they enter it instead of once per round), or into an Ice Wall with Slowing (which reduces your movement when touching it by its Power).

Might just make it so that your movement, number of abilities, and the Power each ability has are all tied to your Hero Power, which is just a 3 that goes up each time you level.

Fits any narrative you want, everything follows a simple set of structured rules.

Time to hit the drawing board! Might be hard to balance, but that's a tomorrow problem.

[ZRN]

I would hope that even a novice has sufficient awareness to grab Draconic Bloodline (Red/Gold), Firebolt, Burning Hands before guessing about other spells. And that they manage to find Scorching Ray and Fireball on the spell list when the time comes.

(1) Does anyone actually believe that is too much mental effort for even a novice?


No, it's not too much mental effort. But neither was playing a fighter or rogue in 4e, and quite a few people didn't enjoy the added complexity! And in 4e I didn't even have to wade through an 83-page Spells chapter to find the details of each of my powers!

The issue isn't that people are too dumb to play casters. It's that casters can be tedious to play correctly, at least unless you have a lot of time to learn and prepare them, because you have pages and pages of exception-based rules to learn for even a relatively simple caster like a draconic sorcerer.

We're not talking about novices, either. Just as a thought experiment: if a friend called you up right now and asked you to play a level 10 one-shot in an hour, would you be more comfortable bringing a fighter or a sorcerer? (By the way, you have to share the PHB with three other people.) Unless you have an encyclopedic knowledge of 5e spells, the fighter probably sounds less stressful and more fun. Now extrapolate to the many, many people with jobs/kids/xylophone recitals who NEVER have more than an hour of free "prep time" to spend in advance of any given session. Those people aren't necessarily dumb or new or bad at the game - they may even be good tactical thinkers! And they can do very well as a fighter or rogue or monk, but any spell-heavy class is going to trip them up.

3.5e addressed this with the original warlock, which felt like a spellcaster but didn't require reading a million spells. 5e didn't really try.

[Asisreo1]

I think the answer comes down to how well you think they achieved the goal of matching varied playstyles to varied character archetypes.

As you say in the OP, champion fighter is good for the player who just wants to hit things without worrying about resource management and fiddly spells, and conversely the wizard is good for a player who likes legalistic rules and memorizing a bunch of stuff.

But what about the equally archetypical pyromaniac mage who enjoys blowing stuff up? Sorry, the best 5e can come up with is a wizard who can't switch out his spells but also has to do accounting homework for his class abilities (sorcerer).
I'd say fiend warlock would does that somewhat well. Sure, it isn't an automatic pyromancer, you do need to build it. However, you get the best fire spells and the fact you always go at your highest level with any spell makes it so much more powerful.

You can take simple or thematic invocations and be fairly powerful.

Y'know what? I'll build a level 9 one (ability scores aside).

Fiend Warlock, Red Dragonborn.

Pact of the Chain: Imp

Fireball, Stinking Cloud, Scorching Ray, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Gaseous Form, Hellish Rebuke, Misty Step, Flame Strike, Command

Cantrips: Eldritch Blast, Minor Illusion, Prestidigation

Invocations: Misty Visions, Voice of the Chain Master, Sign of Ill-Omen, Agonizing Blast, Ascendant Step.

Its not optimal but its plenty capable. You get resistance to fire damage and a spell slot-free AoE from race. Eldritch Blast is the only damaging thing you have to worry about in combat aside from your Imp. There's quite some spells but not nearly as many as Wizard.

I wouldn't say its super "simple" but it is indeed a fire-based character with a couple of spells and attacks that doesn't wholly rely on fire, just in case.

[Morty]

If it's possible to take an existing casting class and play them in a very simple way, it's not exactly a very strong argument in favor of keeping non-casters dirt-simple. Since it would appear that it's possible to design a more complex class that can voluntarily be played in a very low-upkeep way.

[Man_Over_Game]

If it's possible to take an existing casting class and play them in a very simple way, it's not exactly a very strong argument in favor of keeping non-casters dirt-simple. Since it would appear that it's possible to design a more complex class that can voluntarily be played in a very low-upkeep way.

I mentioned it before, but what's stopping a Battlemaster from spamming Trip Attack with GWM, or an Evocation Wizard ignoring his spell list for Fireball? It's easier to go from Complex > Simple than the other way around when you have a system that specifies what you're allowed to do.

[ZRN]

I'd say fiend warlock would does that somewhat well. Sure, it isn't an automatic pyromancer, you do need to build it. However, you get the best fire spells and the fact you always go at your highest level with any spell makes it so much more powerful.

You can take simple or thematic invocations and be fairly powerful.

Y'know what? I'll build a level 9 one (ability scores aside).

Fiend Warlock, Red Dragonborn.

Pact of the Chain: Imp

Fireball, Stinking Cloud, Scorching Ray, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Gaseous Form, Hellish Rebuke, Misty Step, Flame Strike, Command

Cantrips: Eldritch Blast, Minor Illusion, Prestidigation

Invocations: Misty Visions, Voice of the Chain Master, Sign of Ill-Omen, Agonizing Blast, Ascendant Step.

Its not optimal but its plenty capable. You get resistance to fire damage and a spell slot-free AoE from race. Eldritch Blast is the only damaging thing you have to worry about in combat aside from your Imp. There's quite some spells but not nearly as many as Wizard.

I wouldn't say its super "simple" but it is indeed a fire-based character with a couple of spells and attacks that doesn't wholly rely on fire, just in case.

Two caveats:

1. It took a decent amount of system mastery for you to be able to design this guy. A new player wouldn't be able to do that.

2. On top of your cantrips and spells, most of those invocations are also actually spells, so you're still stuck either memorizing them or going back to the PHB spell chapter to figure out what they do.

Now by contrast, go make a battlemaster, the most "complex" fighter in the PHB. Everything fits in one page!

[Snails]

I would argue that the Effective Simplicity is more the important than the actual underlying complexity. I define Effective Simplicity as the player being able to make a satisfactorily useful choice at a given decision point without a lot of effort (while accepting that the situation might offer a more optimal choice after very careful scrutiny).

People who like simplicity are not necessarily always unwilling to think hard or analyze carefully, but they are, generally speaking, against being required to think very hard in order to have some fun.

Thus the Paladin is a very successful design that is attractive to many types of players. Players who do not feel like thinking hard know that their spell prep guesses are not a big deal because unwise choices mean more smite fuel -- the spell prep Plan B baked into the class is fun enough.

[Snails]

If it's possible to take an existing casting class and play them in a very simple way, it's not exactly a very strong argument in favor of keeping non-casters dirt-simple. Since it would appear that it's possible to design a more complex class that can voluntarily be played in a very low-upkeep way.

I think the argument can be made that some of the non-caster paths should be made very simple. But, no, there is no real argument for making every non-caster very simple, at least at the theoretical level.

The practical limitation is the complexity of the combat mechanics, where you do not want a class rewriting a lot of different things. 5e chose to simplify a number of mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's a couple things being conflated here, or at least a few avenues of categorization that might be useful.

First is the timing of the complexity. Is it Build Time complexity or Play Time complexity?

Build Time complexity is, in my opinion, what most people think of. How many options you have to pick from at level up, when deciding your load out for an adventure, etc. On this measure, absolutely most casters are way more complex than even the most complex non-casters[1]. In the end, most of it is wasted--most people don't really get nearly the benefit from theoretical versatility that guides and internet talk say they do. People generally have their "package" and do it with only minor changes if any. The differences are small enough that you're burning lots of extra cycles for little value a lot of the time. Unless this complexity also produces meaningful play-time complexity. But this is pretty harmless, although a strong barrier to new players.

Play-time complexity is making meaningful choices a the round-by-round level. And I've seen lots of those even with very limited build-time complexity. Who to attack, whether to risk that AO, how to handle specific things, plus resource use decisions are all complexity. Boiling it down to "well, they just Attack" is over-reductionist. On the flip side, most of the caster "complexity" in this arena is, well, overstated. By that same over-reductionist measure, they basically get to "Cast a Spell" all the time. But they take 3-5x the time to do so. So play-time complexity is a double-edged sword. If everyone took as long to play their turn as the (worst) casters do, I'd go mad. In fact, I'd prefer if most casters got trimmed down tremendously. Having a huge hand and ending up just doing the same things anyway is a waste of everyone's time (and not exactly meaningful). If you had 32 abilities and 90% of the time used the same 3, you don't really have 32 meaningful abilities.

I'd prefer to see the vast majority of caster "versatility" turn into class-agnostic versatility. Turn basically all the utility spells into Incantations that anyone can learn (given level prereqs). And then enforce strong thematicness on everybody. No more generalists (am I sounding like a broken record here? Good. :smallwink:).

------------
The other dimension is complexity vs depth. Complexity is how much work you have to do, the full set of options available. Or at least it's a function of option count. Depth is the amount of meaningful choices. Which is less well correlated with complexity than one might think. In an extreme case, if there are 100 options and they're all carbon-copies of the same ability (maybe with the colors changed), the depth is negligible. Whereas if another system has 10 options, all of which are different, the latter system has much more depth. It's easy to add complexity. It's hard to add depth. And I feel like most casters really aren't that much deeper than non-casters, merely more complex. But that may be personal opinion.

[Asisreo1]

Two caveats:

1. It took a decent amount of system mastery for you to be able to design this guy. A new player wouldn't be able to do that.

2. On top of your cantrips and spells, most of those invocations are also actually spells, so you're still stuck either memorizing them or going back to the PHB spell chapter to figure out what they do.

Now by contrast, go make a battlemaster, the most "complex" fighter in the PHB. Everything fits in one page!
The battlemaster isn't the most complex fighter in the PHB, though. That's Eldritch Knight which everyone keeps forgetting exists.

Eldritch Knight probably takes even more time to build since each spell they take is more valuable and needs to be chosen very carefully. Plus, they need to filter through a wizard's spell list for evocation and abjuration spells.

It didn't take too much system mastery. I kinda just took everything with "fire" or "flame" in the name and used it for the spell list. Stinking Cloud is close to smoke which I think is intuitive enough for a new player to think about and its on their expanded spell list so no digging.

The invocations were fine-ish. There aren't many fire-compatible invocations at all so Minion of Chaos was the only invocation that seemed thematic. Everything else was to reinforce other stuff like the familiar or EB.

I do think a completely new player may have a bit of trouble coming up with this exact setup though a DM could easily guide them through this process.

[Pex]

The battlemaster isn't the most complex fighter in the PHB, though. That's Eldritch Knight which everyone keeps forgetting exists.

Eldritch Knight probably takes even more time to build since each spell they take is more valuable and needs to be chosen very carefully. Plus, they need to filter through a wizard's spell list for evocation and abjuration spells.

It didn't take too much system mastery. I kinda just took everything with "fire" or "flame" in the name and used it for the spell list. Stinking Cloud is close to smoke which I think is intuitive enough for a new player to think about and its on their expanded spell list so no digging.

The invocations were fine-ish. There aren't many fire-compatible invocations at all so Minion of Chaos was the only invocation that seemed thematic. Everything else was to reinforce other stuff like the familiar or EB.

I do think a completely new player may have a bit of trouble coming up with this exact setup though a DM could easily guide them through this process.

I agree Eldrtich Knight is complex, but Battle Master is brought up as the example of a complex martial who doesn't use magic at all. The Paladin is a more complex martial. It can be played simple just spamming smites, but there is more to the class than that. The complex martial does exist, but is the real complaint it requires magic to do so? Is Battle Master not complex enough of a non-magic user for some people? Is the complaint it is the only non-magic user complex class and more should exist? Is it possible to have more non-magic user complex classes, at least within the 5E framework? Iron Kingdoms of the 3E era is all about a class system of many non-magic using complex martials.

[Morty]

Eldritch Knight isn't ignored, it's simply a symptom of the problem rather than a solution. If you want options and tools beyond very basic ones, you need to gain access to spells somehow. And the game makes it easy enough that it's indeed entirely possible to wind up with a party where everyone does it. In a two-shot adventure I'm participating in, we've got a wizard (me), a paladin, a rogue/warlock and an arcane trickster rogue, so everyone casts spells. And at the risk of repeating myself, it does strike me as odd that it's not treated as "samey" or "homogenized" the way giving non-casters maneuvers (ToB) or powers (4E) was.

[Asisreo1]

Eldritch Knight isn't ignored, it's simply a symptom of the problem rather than a solution. If you want options and tools beyond very basic ones, you need to gain access to spells somehow. And the game makes it easy enough that it's indeed entirely possible to wind up with a party where everyone does it. In a two-shot adventure I'm participating in, we've got a wizard (me), a paladin, a rogue/warlock and an arcane trickster rogue, so everyone casts spells. And at the risk of repeating myself, it does strike me as odd that it's not treated as "samey" or "homogenized" the way giving non-casters maneuvers (ToB) or powers (4E) was.
Its because there isn't uniformity in how complex each character is.

Arcane Trickster only gets 2 at-will non-attack options and 2 daily resources. Warlocks get 2 encounter power resources of abilities that would have been daily powers. Paladin gets no at-will options other than attack but gets strong daily power attacks. Wizard has various amounts of at-will and daily powers.

In 4e, this variety didn't exist. Everyone had at-will, daily powers, and encounter powers so everything felt uniform in design.

Addressing magic, yeah the game absolutely doesn't hide it. "For adventurers, though, magic is key for their survival."

The DMG says to make adjustments if the party doesn't have access to certain magical abilities like healing or flight because without these abilities, an encounter could be unusually difficult.

Its really hard to stumble across a team with no spellcaster because the game was designed with the assumption that there would be one. This is 5e's attempt to put real, spell-like magic into D&D and not have it feel like its just another source for abilities.

[Tanarii]

The battlemaster isn't the most complex fighter in the PHB, though. That's Eldritch Knight which everyone keeps forgetting exists.

Eldritch Knight probably takes even more time to build since each spell they take is more valuable and needs to be chosen very carefully. Interesting. I feel the Battlemaster is more complex than the EK by a long shot, the options are smaller and the resources are used less often. But I can see why someone might feel it's the other way around.

That's not to say I like the BM more than the EK. Very much the opposite. A Heavily Armored Fighter slinging Magic attacks and AoEs is the penultimate GISH, and the EK pulls it off perfectly, shoring up a major Fighter weakness (ranged attacks and AoEs) with Magic. If the table allows Multiclassing, you can even address go into Wizard starting sometime between 8 and 13 to have more spell slinging in Tier 3 and 4.


Plus, they need to filter through a wizard's spell list for evocation and abjuration spells.Absolutely true. I'm so used to using donjon to look up EK and AT spells, but before I found that site I remember cursing the PHB writers because WHY THE FRACK ISN'T THERE A LIST OF SPELLS THEY CAN USE. :smallfurious::smallamused:

[Segev]

Eldritch Knight isn't ignored, it's simply a symptom of the problem rather than a solution. If you want options and tools beyond very basic ones, you need to gain access to spells somehow. And the game makes it easy enough that it's indeed entirely possible to wind up with a party where everyone does it. In a two-shot adventure I'm participating in, we've got a wizard (me), a paladin, a rogue/warlock and an arcane trickster rogue, so everyone casts spells. And at the risk of repeating myself, it does strike me as odd that it's not treated as "samey" or "homogenized" the way giving non-casters maneuvers (ToB) or powers (4E) was.

In 4e, everyone was a martial adept. In 5e, not everyone is a spellcaster, and even if everybody chooses to play one, they are dipping into a spellcasting subsystem while having other subsystems at their disposal. I do think 3e's multiple subsystems, especially post-ToB, was superior. I really wish the Battle Master's maneuver/superiority dice mechanic was something done across several classes in various subclasses and got expansions the way spellcasting does. TCE gives us maneuvers that are not strictly combat tools (and, in some cases, are hard to use as combat tools). Imagine if the Thief had Tricks that used Superiority Dice to enable more impressive feats. Or the Assassin had Battle Master maneuvers fluffed a bit more for sneak killing. Imagine if Hunter's Mark was a Ranger feature that used a Superiority Die rather than a spell that is used like a class feature (unless you take the TCE alt-feature that gives you the weaker variant).

[Silly Name]

In 4e, everyone was a martial adept. In 5e, not everyone is a spellcaster, and even if everybody chooses to play one, they are dipping into a spellcasting subsystem while having other subsystems at their disposal. I do think 3e's multiple subsystems, especially post-ToB, was superior. I really wish the Battle Master's maneuver/superiority dice mechanic was something done across several classes in various subclasses and got expansions the way spellcasting does. TCE gives us maneuvers that are not strictly combat tools (and, in some cases, are hard to use as combat tools). Imagine if the Thief had Tricks that used Superiority Dice to enable more impressive feats. Or the Assassin had Battle Master maneuvers fluffed a bit more for sneak killing. Imagine if Hunter's Mark was a Ranger feature that used a Superiority Die rather than a spell that is used like a class feature (unless you take the TCE alt-feature that gives you the weaker variant).

I'd honestly be content with Battlemaster being integrated in the baseline Fighter chassis (i.e., it's not a subclass, it's just something all Fighters can do), but I really like what you're suggesting here. You could have different martial classes call Superiority Dice by different names and have different sizes to further differentiate them, stuff like that.

And obviously, the option to just blow all your Superiority Dice on extra damage/to-hit bonuses/bonuses to a skill or ability check if you don't feel like engaging with the added complexity.

[Segev]

I'd honestly be content with Battlemaster being integrated in the baseline Fighter chassis (i.e., it's not a subclass, it's just something all Fighters can do), but I really like what you're suggesting here. You could have different martial classes call Superiority Dice by different names and have different sizes to further differentiate them, stuff like that.

And obviously, the option to just blow all your Superiority Dice on extra damage/to-hit bonuses/bonuses to a skill or ability check if you don't feel like engaging with the added complexity.

I'm torn on calling them different things. On the one hand, that would make the psychic dice thing something that has other examples. On the other, that divorces it from being a semi-unified subsystem.

Spellcasting is a unified subsystem because of how multiclassing works with it. I kind-of envision the superiority dice a similar way. Play several subclasses that all have superiority dice, and you run from the same pool of dice, thus letting you keep a proper level-adjusted baseline of power, just mixing up what your options are.

[Morty]

Its because there isn't uniformity in how complex each character is.

Arcane Trickster only gets 2 at-will non-attack options and 2 daily resources. Warlocks get 2 encounter power resources of abilities that would have been daily powers. Paladin gets no at-will options other than attack but gets strong daily power attacks. Wizard has various amounts of at-will and daily powers.

In 4e, this variety didn't exist. Everyone had at-will, daily powers, and encounter powers so everything felt uniform in design.

So 5E's variety comes from some characters having options to more tools and abilities than others. That's the problem. If the comparison was between classes equivalent to warlocks, paladins, bards and wizards, it might work better, but the existence of fighters, rogues and barbarians makes the contrast stark.


Addressing magic, yeah the game absolutely doesn't hide it. "For adventurers, though, magic is key for their survival."

The DMG says to make adjustments if the party doesn't have access to certain magical abilities like healing or flight because without these abilities, an encounter could be unusually difficult.

Its really hard to stumble across a team with no spellcaster because the game was designed with the assumption that there would be one. This is 5e's attempt to put real, spell-like magic into D&D and not have it feel like its just another source for abilities.

I'm not talking about someone always being a spellcaster. I'm talking about the pretty high likelihood of more than half the party, or the entire party, casting spells.


I'd honestly be content with Battlemaster being integrated in the baseline Fighter chassis (i.e., it's not a subclass, it's just something all Fighters can do), but I really like what you're suggesting here. You could have different martial classes call Superiority Dice by different names and have different sizes to further differentiate them, stuff like that.

And obviously, the option to just blow all your Superiority Dice on extra damage/to-hit bonuses/bonuses to a skill or ability check if you don't feel like engaging with the added complexity.

There was a possibility of such a system back in the playtest, but superiority dice were cut down to size pretty mercilessly until only the battlemaster remained. Spells remained as the only subsystem allowed to exist. Which led to a proliferation of spells, because if you don't cast them, you're playing half of the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ignoring spellcasting, BMs (not bowel movements), for me, are a special niche of character that adds complexity through the Attack Action, not despite it.

The EK runs into the same problems any Attack Action + Spellcasting character has, which is that they are mutually exclusive. Can't use the Attack Action and cast a spell that does something other than damage. Can't reliably buff yourself to make the Attack Action better and still leverage your Fighter tankiness. So the best you can do is find buff spells that don't take Concentration (Longstrider), or find spells that don't interfere with your Attack Action (Shield). You could also try to leverage a Concentration spell and hope for the best, but it doesn't feel as rewarding as it should be.

The BM, on the other hand, embraces the Fighter playstyle (Tanking hits, Attack Action) in its entirety and isn't limited by it. Your primary features are always relevant, and they help you use your subclass features, while still being able to adapt on the fly with more than just tanking and dealing damage. You're still fighting like any generic Fighter, but you're also more than that.

Similar examples to this are things like:


Ancestral Guardian Barbarian
Open Hand Monk


That's...about it. Pretty much everything else either adds more of what you're already doing (and so it's mostly just a subclass for better numbers, not more gameplay), or it's adding entirely new things that don't really mix well with your core gameplay (EK, Beast Master Ranger, Sun Soul Monk, etc.)

The AG Barbarian, BM Fighter, and OH Monk are how Attack Action subclasses should be made. We don't need several different flavors of "I'm a Rogue that attacks things from medium range for extra damage and I'm good with skills" (of which, we have about 6). One Champion-style subclass for every class would be enough, because that's what feats are for.

Thinking about it, 5e could have done really well with just having a subclass for each class that just got stat bonuses and extra feats. A generic subclass that can be customized towards whatever goal you have in mind, and does the one thing it's always done very well. We don't need the book to be filled with different ways of adding X DPR and a couple proficiencies (Champion, Samurai, Hexblade, Scout, Assassin, Pyromancer, etc.) just for them to be locked into a specific theme because the devs lacked foresight.

[ZRN]

Ignoring spellcasting, BMs (not bowel movements), for me, are a special niche of character that adds complexity through the Attack Action, not despite it.

...

Similar examples to this are things like:


Ancestral Guardian Barbarian
Open Hand Monk


That's...about it. Pretty much everything else either adds more of what you're already doing (and so it's mostly just a subclass for better numbers, not more gameplay), or it's adding entirely new things that don't really mix well with your core gameplay (EK, Beast Master Ranger, Sun Soul Monk, etc.)

Is that really it? Hm.

Cavalier, psi warrior, and rune knight seem to fit this criterion for sure. Probably echo knight and even the crappy arcane archer too. Honestly I'd say almost every fighter subclass EXCEPT the eldritch knight works by enhancing your attack action.

I'd say mastermind rogue adds a lot by giving you more useful tactical options for your bonus action.

Beast barbarian gives you some interesting tactical considerations in choosing your weird extra attack.

Probably a lot more I'm not considering here as well.

[Pex]

Thinking about it, 5e could have done really well with just having a subclass for each class that just got stat bonuses and extra feats. A generic subclass that can be customized towards whatever goal you have in mind, and does the one thing it's always done very well. We don't need the book to be filled with different ways of adding X DPR and a couple proficiencies (Champion, Samurai, Hexblade, Scout, Assassin, Pyromancer, etc.) just for them to be locked into a specific theme because the devs lacked foresight.

People complained about Champion for being simple. They didn't like that it had passive abilities and resented the need to take feats to do anything interesting. Having it your way would mean those people would be the ones complaining, meaning it's impossible to please everyone. :smalltongue:

Pathfinder 2E sort of did what you desire. While the classes aren't simple, they are "build your own" classes. You get slots to fill with the abilities of your choice and a list of abilities from which to choose. Proving it's impossible to please everyone, a complaint against this is people resented having to choose stuff they used to get for free just by being a member of the class. Why do the work to get what they already had? It's fine to have swapping of abilities, a la 'alternative class features' of Pathfinder 1E, but they didn't want to have to choose everything. If they wanted that they wouldn't be playing a class system. They wanted the predetermined bundle of abilities that came with a class.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is that really it? Hm.

Cavalier, psi warrior, and rune knight seem to fit this criterion for sure. Probably echo knight and even the crappy arcane archer too. Honestly I'd say almost every fighter subclass EXCEPT the eldritch knight works by enhancing your attack action.

I'd say mastermind rogue adds a lot by giving you more useful tactical options for your bonus action.

Beast barbarian gives you some interesting tactical considerations in choosing your weird extra attack.

Probably a lot more I'm not considering here as well.

Sorry, meant to include the Rune Knight.

It's not just about adding to what you're already doing, but adding more than just that. For instance, the Samurai adds tankiness and damage, and that's about it. What's the Fighter good at? Tankiness and damage!

Beast Barbarian adds....tankiness and damage, to a class that already has tankiness and damage.

Mastermind Rogue adds Advantage (essentially a stat buff) to allies, but that doesn't actually support anything the Rogue is already doing. It just adds another lever to pull without modifying the Rogue gameplay all that much (and most stuff it does add are things the Rogue already has, like proficiencies).

The Cavalier isn't bad in this regard, but it mostly just encourages enemies to hit you while you're standing next to them. Which most enemies are going to be doing anyway against any Fighter.

The Echo Knight can zone off some areas, but it's mostly adds 30 feet of range to your melee attacks and some mobility (and a Fighter's already moving a lot). Without some kind of weapon-attack utility feats (PAM, Sentinel), you're still making the same decisions you were before without as much sacrifice (now I can stand both here and here instead of just one!), and I believe that making hard decisions means your decisions matter (and so the Echo Knight means your mistakes, and consequentially your choices, matter less).

Arcane Archer's not bad, but it's just a copy of the BM that's a lot harder to memorize despite using its abilities less. It copies the worst part of the BM (bookkeeping) for similar effects and....more damage.

(I do want to note that I'm talking mostly on the level 3 stuff, because those are the mechanics that actual players are going to be using most often, not whatever weird effects you got at level 6 or 10 and saw someone use once).

What I'm talking about is still doing the same stuff the class already has you do, and then adding more decision-points on top of it. So you're thinking about how you do your Attack Action/Rage/Sneak Attack/Whatever in a different way, instead of "I do the same exact thing I did before with +X" or "I can do the same thing I did before OR be my subclass".


People complained about Champion for being simple. They didn't like that it had passive abilities and resented the need to take feats to do anything interesting. Having it your way would mean those people would be the ones complaining, meaning it's impossible to please everyone. :smalltongue:

Some people complained about the Champion. I was one of them, and then I realized I was wrong (because everyone deserves the option to not play the way I do). However, I do not need more than one option to play the way I do, and other folks don't need more than one way to play like a Champion. My complaint with the Champion in this regard is that it's still rigid (focused entirely on weapon damage) when it doesn't have to be, and that lack of versatility is causing us to have more than one Champion per class in a lot of situations (for example, the Samurai).

In other words, a Fighter Subclass should do one of two things:
Add more concepts to your Fighter specific mechanics, causing you to consider your Fighter mechanics in new ways that otherwise can't be imitated without special items or homebrew.
Be so generic and versatile that it can fit whatever kind of theme you're imagining while continuing to excel with the same Fighter stuff you did without the subclass.And then repeat that process for every class.

Examples include:
Having your Action Surge grant THP and the Dodge Action to nearby allies that is lost at the start of your next round (forcing you to choose between using it offensively now or wait to use it for maximum defensive benefit.).
Having Second Wind either heal as normal or give THP that lasts for a round while teleporting you 30 feet.
Have your attacks inflict debuffs, that don't stack, on your enemies.

So if someone still wants to spam the Action Surge for damage in the first round of every fight, cool. They now get a defensive perk when doing so, so they can think about being more aggressive than before. Otherwise, a more patient player might choose for the perfect moment to fumble an enemy's charge, and neither decision is wrong despite being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

This kind of setup offers support for the most number of playstyles as possible with the least amount of bloat content, ensuring that you don't end up with trap options or much settling from the players. Wouldn't it be nice if wizards weren't limited to being some variant of Controller or Blaster across its 12 subclasses (that are all mostly defined by the same spell list)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

People complained about Champion for being simple. They didn't like that it had passive abilities and resented the need to take feats to do anything interesting. Having it your way would mean those people would be the ones complaining, meaning it's impossible to please everyone. :smalltongue:

Pathfinder 2E sort of did what you desire. While the classes aren't simple, they are "build your own" classes. You get slots to fill with the abilities of your choice and a list of abilities from which to choose. Proving it's impossible to please everyone, a complaint against this is people resented having to choose stuff they used to get for free just by being a member of the class. Why do the work to get what they already had? It's fine to have swapping of abilities, a la 'alternative class features' of Pathfinder 1E, but they didn't want to have to choose everything. If they wanted that they wouldn't be playing a class system. They wanted the predetermined bundle of abilities that came with a class.

Exactly.

And note that PF2E also showed another issue with this kind of "modular semi-point-buy" class structure--most of the vaunted choice is actually false. Sure, you have lots of options in the abstract. But really, your choices are predetermined by your mechanical idea. Want to be a successful TWF rogue? Take XYZ, in that order, no (or few) deviations. Want to be an archer rogue? Take X', Y', and Z', in that order, no (or few) deviations. Basically, you end up with lots of chaff you have to sort through to find the few things that are mandatory for your concept to even possibly work. You can't even make more concepts, because they just don't work. There are hard classes...without the ease-of-use of just giving you a bundle of abilities up front.

5e's version would be to have both sets of things just built in, with feats and subclasses providing actual thematic differences[1]. Less apparent complexity, but similar amounts of depth. Complexity isn't an inherent good. Much of the time, it's simply noise and barrier to entry.

The Samurai and Champion are very different sub-classes, both mechanically and thematically. Sure, both of them mostly focus on attacking and don't have separate sub-systems. But that doesn't make them the same at the proper level of abstraction.

Some people want lots of explicit buttons on the character sheet to choose between based on the situation. Others want to make their choices at the character/descriptive level and have their character sheet mainly be a passive source of numbers. Both are valid. And having a spectrum of classes so that not everyone is forced into a button-heavy UI or an Apple-style "one do-everything button" UI is, IMO, a good thing.

[1] 5e's focus is (at least in principle) thematics first. It's not a generic character simulator. It's supposed to provide thematic choices that then inform/dictate the mechanics. Not the other way around. Does it succeed at this? That's a separate question.

[Morty]

PF2E isn't really a very good argument against complex non-casting classes, because its design fails for similar reasons 5E's does. It insists on delivering all non-magical abilities through feats, because anything else would be "too much like spells" or whatnot. The fact that the feats are also fiddly and uninteresting certainly doesn't help.

[Man_Over_Game]

[1] 5e's focus is (at least in principle) thematics first. It's not a generic character simulator. It's supposed to provide thematic choices that then inform/dictate the mechanics. Not the other way around. Does it succeed at this? That's a separate question.

I don't know if that's true. Quite plausibly, Clerics don't need gods, if the PHB and DMG are to be believed: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/92354/45619

And if Clerics don't need gods, I'd say that no theme in 5e is sacred.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know if that's true. Quite plausibly, Clerics don't need gods, if the PHB and DMG are to be believed: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/92354/45619

And if Clerics don't need gods, I'd say that no theme in 5e is sacred.

That's a variant that must be toggled on explicitly by the DM for a particular setting. And I'd say that if it is toggled on, then no Clerics have gods in that setting and "Cleric" means something else. Different, but coherent. But that last part is just me.

And note that I said that whether they actually achieved that intent was a separate question. I'd point out that wizards are blandy-mc-blanderson with no thematic coherence beyond "books" and "I have all the spells". Neither of which are very good themes.

[noob]

I don't know if that's true. Quite plausibly, Clerics don't need gods, if the PHB and DMG are to be believed: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/92354/45619

And if Clerics don't need gods, I'd say that no theme in 5e is sacred.

Clerics did not need gods in previous dnd editions either (some settings however punished godless clerics or made them impossible without taking a prc and some settings that lacked gods had only clerics without gods (you do not need a god to believe in a god or a concept)).
A significant portion of the justifications for the way things are done in dnd 5e is "this was done this way in a previous edition"

[Aylowan]

Examples include:
Having your Action Surge grant THP and the Dodge Action to nearby allies that is lost at the start of your next round (forcing you to choose between using it offensively now or wait to use it for maximum defensive benefit.).
Having Second Wind either heal as normal or give THP that lasts for a round while teleporting you 30 feet.
Have your attacks inflict debuffs, that don't stack, on your enemies.


Reminds me a bit of the new Druid subclasses offering new options for wildshape.



This kind of setup offers support for the most number of playstyles as possible with the least amount of bloat content, ensuring that you don't end up with trap options or much settling from the players. Wouldn't it be nice if wizards weren't limited to being some variant of Controller or Blaster across its 12 subclasses (that are all mostly defined by the same spell list)?

Totally agree. I think the wizard subclasses were a big missed opportunity.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd point out that wizards are blandy-mc-blanderson with no thematic coherence beyond "books" and "I have all the spells". Neither of which are very good themes.

Uh, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you explain for me?


Reminds me a bit of the new Druid subclasses offering new options for wildshape.

Which I think is kinda funny. Druids are not the class that needs more depth. They are probably the most exhausting class to play without even having a subclass.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Uh, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you explain for me?


The only features and thematics that the wizard class (or the vast majority of its subclasses) have is
* "I like books"
* "My spell list is my feature list"

Sure, the subclasses pretend to have thematics, but when an evoker casts polymorph just as well as a Transmuter, and when most of the subclass features are somewhere between utterly forgettable and situational, with a few absurdly-powerful (in their niche) ones, you end up with every single wizard looking basically identical. And their "theme" overlaps so heavily with most of the other classes as to overshadow them.

Beyond that (moving beyond thematics), wizards are the constant touchpoint for martial/caster debates because they're significantly overtuned when it comes to versatility and can't easily be tuned down because their only class features are their spell list.

But I have a personal vendetta against wizards, so...

[Man_Over_Game]

The only features and thematics that the wizard class (or the vast majority of its subclasses) have is
* "I like books"
* "My spell list is my feature list"

Sure, the subclasses pretend to have thematics, but when an evoker casts polymorph just as well as a Transmuter, and when most of the subclass features are somewhere between utterly forgettable and situational, with a few absurdly-powerful (in their niche) ones, you end up with every single wizard looking basically identical. And their "theme" overlaps so heavily with most of the other classes as to overshadow them.

Beyond that (moving beyond thematics), wizards are the constant touchpoint for martial/caster debates because they're significantly overtuned when it comes to versatility and can't easily be tuned down because their only class features are their spell list.

But I have a personal vendetta against wizards, so...

I absolutely agree, I just also feel the same way about Champions and Samurai (when they both get some minor proficiency bonuses, bonuses to attack/damage, and bonuses to not die).

I just believe that, because it's easier and it would probably make more people happy, we should be focusing on tuning Fighter-esc characters up instead of tuning Wizard-esc characters down. Results from online multiplayer games show that players do not respond well to nerfs, but don't care as much if other things are buffed around them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I absolutely agree, I just also feel the same way about Champions and Samurai (when they both get some minor proficiency bonuses, bonuses to attack/damage, and bonuses to not die).

I'd say that you're looking at the wrong level of abstraction for those. The Champion's thematics is pure physical prowess. They don't necessarily do anything special, but what they do, they do better than everyone else. They're also the crit-fisher.

Samurai have the (Pop-culture) fighting-spirit + elegant warrior theme. Their proficiencies are in the mental regime, not the physical one. Not only that, but Samurai do have an active ability (Fighting Spirit) and several conditional ones (Rapid Strike). And their "bonus not to die" manifests differently and encourages different behavior than the Champion's static regen.

A Champion's ability lets them take damage that doesn't kill them but reduces them below half hp more efficiently. A Samurai's ability doesn't even trigger until reduced to 0 HP (a place where the Champion's feature isn't useful at all).

I don't see those as anywhere nearly the same.

And as far as wizards, I strongly disagree. Wizards are a badly designed class that should first be brought into line with everyone else in terms of thematic design, and then balance can be adjusted globally. Buffing the weak without considering that the strong are too strong just leads to arms races and shattered settings. Or turns everyone into wizards, because the only way to match a wizard's themeless versatility is to make everyone themeless and equally bland and versatile.

Edit: With wizards, I'm much less concerned about power and much more concerned about bland. There's very little there to hang a character off of. I think there's a reason that in 14 groups, I've had 2 wizards. One was a Necromancer who never used any of her subclass features, the other was pretty low level (capped at about 5 for that campaign). I get tons of druids, sorcerers and warlocks, and fighters (oh, and barbarians. Lots of barbarians). None of us are optimizers or power-seekers, we're mainly looking for interesting characters.

[Tanarii]

They've already nerfed Wizards in 5e, after 3e buffed them into gods (same XP table as everyone else, difficult if not impossible to interrupt spell casting). Concentration, a huge drop in spells per adventuring day, and tuning down many spells, while still being somewhat squishy.

Of course, as soon as you add Multiclassing dips for armor and Resilient (Con), squishiness and concentration saves go out the window.

[Man_Over_Game]

A Champion's ability lets them take damage that doesn't kill them but reduces them below half hp more efficiently. A Samurai's ability doesn't even trigger until reduced to 0 HP (a place where the Champion's feature isn't useful at all).

I don't see those as anywhere nearly the same.

Erm...The passive ability that keeps you from dying when you're near death isn't similar to the other passive ability that keeps you from dying when you're near death?

Or even if the methods and the exact numbers they give are different for those abilities, wouldn't you agree they satisfy similar roles and require similar decision-making?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Erm...The passive ability that keeps you from dying when you're near death isn't similar to the other passive ability that keeps you from dying when you're near death?

Or even if the methods and the exact numbers they give are different, wouldn't you agree they satisfy similar roles and require similar decision-making?

No. As I said, wrong level of abstraction.

Samurai's ability wants you to hit zero. The Champion one wants you to not hit zero. Very different interactions.

One says "If you hit zero, you can keep going at a risk". That's totally thematic and on-tone for a "anime fighting-spirit" subclass. It removes some of the risk from hitting zero, so you're more willing to take risks that might put you at zero. Once you hit zero and it triggers, however, you absolutely can't afford to take more hits. Plus, it's once per day and optional, so it's not really passive at all.

The other says "If you're low but not zero, you can take more hits/need less healing to keep going." You absolutely don't want to hit zero, because then your ability stops working. But it gives you endurance. It's also totally passive.

Very different thematics, very different mechanics, very different decisions involved.

[Dienekes]

No. As I said, wrong level of abstraction.

Samurai's ability wants you to hit zero. The Champion one wants you to not hit zero. Very different interactions.

One says "If you hit zero, you can keep going at a risk". That's totally thematic and on-tone for a "anime fighting-spirit" subclass. It removes some of the risk from hitting zero, so you're more willing to take risks that might put you at zero. Once you hit zero and it triggers, however, you absolutely can't afford to take more hits. Plus, it's once per day and optional, so it's not really passive at all.

The other says "If you're low but not zero, you can take more hits/need less healing to keep going." You absolutely don't want to hit zero, because then your ability stops working. But it gives you endurance. It's also totally passive.

Very different thematics, very different mechanics, very different decisions involved.

I’m curious how much this actually effects things in practice. I’ll be honest, I haven’t really played a level 18 Samurai before. I’ve seen the Champion though. But as I see it, Strength Before Death may be thematically resonant, but it’s not really enough to make players strive to get knocked down to 0. So in practice it ends up becoming a means for the player to just choose to take a risk maybe slightly more than they would before. And you’re at level 18. Assuming you have a support, dropping to 0 isn’t all that much of a risk at this level anyway. HP being a renewable resource and resurrection being cheap and all that.

While Survivor being passive and just a stream of HP is different. The result I saw of it was... nothing. I did not see the players making decisions based upon it. They may have been up and going for an extra round. I didn’t do the math. I think the biggest benefit was actually the cleric not needing to spend spells on her anymore.

Which again. Is a legitimate difference. But it is odd when the feature of your class instead allows a different player more options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’m curious how much this actually effects things in practice. I’ll be honest, I haven’t really played a level 18 Samurai before. I’ve seen the Champion though. But as I see it, Strength Before Death may be thematically resonant, but it’s not really enough to make players strive to get knocked down to 0. So in practice it ends up becoming a means for the player to just choose to take a risk maybe slightly more than they would before. And you’re at level 18. Assuming you have a support, dropping to 0 isn’t all that much of a risk at this level anyway. HP being a renewable resource and resurrection being cheap and all that.

While Survivor being passive and just a stream of HP is different. The result I saw of it was... nothing. I did not see the players making decisions based upon it. They may have been up and going for an extra round. I didn’t do the math. I think the biggest benefit was actually the cleric not needing to spend spells on her anymore.

Which again. Is a legitimate difference. But it is odd when the feature of your class instead allows a different player more options.

Strength Before Death doesn't make you try to get knocked to 0, but it means you're not going to take quite as many avoidance strategies when you get low. At least theoretically (ie that's the clear design intent). But once you do, you're burning resources (and resurrection isn't that cheap, either in spell slots or cost. And runs significant risks of losing the character).

Survivor is exactly so that the party doesn't need to spend (as many) resources on the Champion and thus the team can continue on without rest. That is, it increases the endurance of the rest of the team, by letting the Champion say "nah, I'm good. Let's press on."

So both thematically and operationally they're different. Not entirely, so at one level of abstraction they're similar, but at (what I believe is) the proper/intended one, they're distinct. And at some level of abstraction, all abilities become very similar.

[Dienekes]

Strength Before Death doesn't make you try to get knocked to 0, but it means you're not going to take quite as many avoidance strategies when you get low. At least theoretically (ie that's the clear design intent). But once you do, you're burning resources (and resurrection isn't that cheap, either in spell slots or cost. And runs significant risks of losing the character).

Survivor is exactly so that the party doesn't need to spend (as many) resources on the Champion and thus the team can continue on without rest. That is, it increases the endurance of the rest of the team, by letting the Champion say "nah, I'm good. Let's press on."

So both thematically and operationally they're different. Not entirely, so at one level of abstraction they're similar, but at (what I believe is) the proper/intended one, they're distinct. And at some level of abstraction, all abilities become very similar.

Thematically yes. Operationally? I’m still not really convinced. Or at least, I am not convinced the distinction matters when it comes to the actions taken by the player.

Let’s say the fighter is standing in front of the enemy boss and effectively locking it down. Let’s pretend the boss doesn’t have any means of getting out of the Fighter’s lock down despite being built to face a level 18 party.

If the Champion takes a big hit to make them go low. Survivor means that they are more likely to continue standing right where they are, and keep attacking the boss with no change in strategy.

The Samurai with the Strength Beyond Death will: in the same situation also not move and keep attacking the boss.

It is hard for me to think of a scenario where the Fighters in question would behave differently based on the effect of the two abilities. Even when Strength Beyond Death triggers, the effect seems to push the player toward either nuking the boss down now, or immediately backing off to get a burst of healing. Which is the same as when the Champion’s HP finally falls to the single digits. They will need to either burst the enemies down now, or use the extra turn or two your passive healing gave you to go seek out your support for the quick heals.

Now I am not saying there are no differences. I’m certain if I really went and tried for it I could come up with a handful of situations where the gameplay results are different. But I’m playing through the scenarios I presented my high level Champion, and trying to think if she would have acted any different if she instead had SBD, and I’m mostly not thinking the abilities would make much difference.

Compare and contrast with a theoretical ability of: You gain X health for each enemy you kill in a single turn. Then suddenly when you’re going toe to toe with the boss, and your health is low you are incentivized into taking a completely different action from the other self healing abilities. Now you’ll want to break off and spend a turn butchering the boss’s minions. That seems more like how a self healing ability can be used to cause real differences in playstyle.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thematically yes. Operationally? I’m still not really convinced. Or at least, I am not convinced the distinction matters when it comes to the actions taken by the player.

Let’s say the fighter is standing in front of the enemy boss and effectively locking it down. Let’s pretend the boss doesn’t have any means of getting out of the Fighter’s lock down despite being built to face a level 18 party.

If the Champion takes a big hit to make them go low. Survivor means that they are more likely to continue standing right where they are, and keep attacking the boss with no change in strategy.

The Samurai with the Strength Beyond Death will: in the same situation also not move and keep attacking the boss.

It is hard for me to think of a scenario where the Fighters in question would behave differently based on the effect of the two abilities. Even when Strength Beyond Death triggers, the effect seems to push the player toward either nuking the boss down now, or immediately backing off to get a burst of healing. Which is the same as when the Champion’s HP finally falls to the single digits. They will need to either burst the enemies down now, or use the extra turn or two your passive healing gave you to go seek out your support for the quick heals.

Now I am not saying there are no differences. I’m certain if I really went and tried for it I could come up with a handful of situations where the gameplay results are different. But I’m playing through the scenarios I presented my high level Champion, and trying to think if she would have acted any different if she instead had SBD, and I’m mostly not thinking the abilities would make much difference.

Compare and contrast with a theoretical ability of: You gain X health for each enemy you kill in a single turn. Then suddenly when you’re going toe to toe with the boss, and your health is low you are incentivized into taking a completely different action from the other self healing abilities. Now you’ll want to break off and spend a turn butchering the boss’s minions. That seems more like how a self healing ability can be used to cause real differences in playstyle.

Don't think single-target boss fights. Think fights with minions. Because those are way more common. The "one enemy" case is, in my mind, a degenerate case where there's really no good tactical choices to be made by anyone. Because there are clear winners.

And don't think single fights--the Champion ability is less about any individual fight than about reducing the load on the entire party across an adventuring day. It portrays the "don't worry about me, I'll be fine" ethos of a Champion. He can take a beating and keep trucking. And if his AC and defenses are high enough, he can handle a swarm of little things essentially forever. The "I stand against the horde" or "Defense at the Bridge" idea.

Whereas the Samurai one is totally anime-esque "I may die, but I'm going to take you down with me." Ie boss-centric.

Note: I've never seen either one in play. And I'm judging mostly on thematics and a very narrative-driven viewpoint. Someone who mostly looks at it from a mechanical/"optimal tactical play" level might think differently. But they're different enough to me that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying they're duplicates. I probably wouldn't even see them initially as duplicates, although they do have similarities.

[Dienekes]

Don't think single-target boss fights. Think fights with minions. Because those are way more common. The "one enemy" case is, in my mind, a degenerate case where there's really no good tactical choices to be made by anyone. Because there are clear winners.

And don't think single fights--the Champion ability is less about any individual fight than about reducing the load on the entire party across an adventuring day. It portrays the "don't worry about me, I'll be fine" ethos of a Champion. He can take a beating and keep trucking. And if his AC and defenses are high enough, he can handle a swarm of little things essentially forever. The "I stand against the horde" or "Defense at the Bridge" idea.

Whereas the Samurai one is totally anime-esque "I may die, but I'm going to take you down with me." Ie boss-centric.

Note: I've never seen either one in play. And I'm judging mostly on thematics and a very narrative-driven viewpoint. Someone who mostly looks at it from a mechanical/"optimal tactical play" level might think differently. But they're different enough to me that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying they're duplicates. I probably wouldn't even see them initially as duplicates, although they do have similarities.

The one boss thing was just an example to illustrate the problem as I saw it in the easiest way. Not really meant to be an example of the most accurate gameplay.

As to abilities as thematics vs mechanical. I am actually really big on thinking the mechanics should enforce the thematics much more closely than 5e does. Which is I think part of the problem. An ability that seems thematic but the effect does not actually make the character play thematically then it's not all that great an ability.

Take Strength Beyond Death. You say it's the "I'm going to die killing you ability" and that may in fact be what the intended thematic is. But I can't help think that played optimally the proper play when given an immediate turn to potentially interrupt the enemy's attacks that are going to kill you and you will immediately fall unconscious after your turn ends is to take a Potion.

Is it useful? Yeah. Does it at all get the feeling of what the game is trying to do? Not really, no. Assuming it's supposed to be the big slaying the one that killed you moment. The best abilities should work on both levels. Where it both seems thematic and actually makes the player play in a way to match.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The one boss thing was just an example to illustrate the problem as I saw it in the easiest way. Not really meant to be an example of the most accurate gameplay.

As to abilities as thematics vs mechanical. I am actually really big on thinking the mechanics should enforce the thematics much more closely than 5e does. Which is I think part of the problem. An ability that seems thematic but the effect does not actually make the character play thematically then it's not all that great an ability.

Take Strength Beyond Death. You say it's the "I'm going to die killing you ability" and that may in fact be what the intended thematic is. But I can't help think that played optimally the proper play when given an immediate turn to potentially interrupt the enemy's attacks that are going to kill you and you will immediately fall unconscious after your turn ends is to take a Potion.

Is it useful? Yeah. Does it at all get the feeling of what the game is trying to do? Not really, no. Assuming it's supposed to be the big slaying the one that killed you moment. The best abilities should work on both levels. Where it both seems thematic and actually makes the player play in a way to match.

I think there's some onus on the player to actually lean into the thematics/class fiction, even if it's not optimal. That's one of my big takeaways generally--when players lean into the class (and sub-class) fiction, it all makes a lot more sense and the "proper" use of the mechanics is generally quite clear (with a few janky exceptions). When they come with the idea that classes are just packages of skills and features, building blocks to make some pre-determined, outside-sourced concept, it struggles. And so do they. Because it was never designed that way.

Is it a perfect match? Heck no. Is it way better than most who only look at mechanics would say? Yes. At least to me.

Focusing on "optimal play", in my experience, risks turning the game into a poor-man's board game. And there's tension there--focusing on optimal play also demands that we reduce the diversity. Because it becomes a solved game--there are always options that are better than others. And "optimal play" would wipe away or ignore all of those options, even if the overall differences are tiny. Because, like Highlander, there can only be one (optimal option).

But I'm a narrative focused person, and play with narrative focused people. The kind who are happy to do 4-hour impromptu text-based sessions between sessions with not a single dice roll to investigate someone's backstory. So my perspective may not be the same as many on this board.

[Dienekes]

I think there's some onus on the player to actually lean into the thematics/class fiction, even if it's not optimal. That's one of my big takeaways generally--when players lean into the class (and sub-class) fiction, it all makes a lot more sense and the "proper" use of the mechanics is generally quite clear (with a few janky exceptions). When they come with the idea that classes are just packages of skills and features, building blocks to make some pre-determined, outside-sourced concept, it struggles. And so do they. Because it was never designed that way.

Is it a perfect match? Heck no. Is it way better than most who only look at mechanics would say? Yes. At least to me.

Focusing on "optimal play", in my experience, risks turning the game into a poor-man's board game. And there's tension there--focusing on optimal play also demands that we reduce the diversity. Because it becomes a solved game--there are always options that are better than others. And "optimal play" would wipe away or ignore all of those options, even if the overall differences are tiny. Because, like Highlander, there can only be one (optimal option).

But I'm a narrative focused person, and play with narrative focused people. The kind who are happy to do 4-hour impromptu text-based sessions between sessions with not a single dice roll to investigate someone's backstory. So my perspective may not be the same as many on this board.

And that's a fair enough mentality, but taken too far and you end up with the actual rules not really mattering, and/or any potential deficiencies in those rules swept away even when they are causing glaring issues with a different subset of players.

To go back to SBD. The current iteration is passively functional. It can theoretically do what it's supposed to be doing. But it asks the player not take the obviously better choice to get it to function as intended. I think that's pretty bad design.

What if it was switched to something like:
When you reach 0 HP, choose one target opponent within 30 feet of you that you can see. You cannot fall unconscious as long as you either move toward that opponent or make an attack against them. In additional, all attacks you make against that opponent are made with Advantage provided your health remains at 0. You must still make Death Saving Throws at the start of each of your turns as normal and die at three failed saves. Damage dealt to you by your target opponent do not result in failed Death Saving Throws.

Is this ability thematic? Yes. Does it keep you a few more rounds in combat like Survivor does? Yes, however, it is actually designed to make the thematically appropriate option also possibly the correct one.

This I would consider a better designed ability in terms of thematics. It also allows for about as much choice as the actual SBD ability. It is not any more solved of an ability. In fact it offers more of a benefit for potentially trying to ride the edge of being on the brink of death.

I don't think with time and dedication this sort of thing is impossible to do with most abilities and classes/subclasses in the game. It just requires stopping to think what the mechanics actually point the player toward, rather than what you want it to be. You want to make the crunch actually match the fluff, as best as you can and when they don't you end up with a lot of rather bland abilities that sort of hint toward what they're supposed to be, without actually feeling like what they're trying to model.