Martial Power!!! (Give the martials something to do other than "attack again")

[strangebloke]

So, one of the common complaints about martials is that they're too homogenous, too lacking in options (both in terms of build options and in terms of combat options). It's also been pointed out that as releases continue, the spellcasters tend to do better because of how many classes will get a buff just because a new good spell got added to their certain spell list. Rangers became top-notch healers overnight when healing spirit was initially released, for example.

The solution proposed is pretty frequently "ToB/4e style maneuvers! Yeah!" To which the usual rejoinder is "...didn't 4e kinda not do so well??" or alternately "yes I agree every class should have BM-style maneuvers."

Personally I'm torn. I think BM maneuvers work well for the fighter. But I also think giving every class access to the same list is going to lead to a high degree of homogenity as some options are clearly and obviously overpowered for certain classes. Something like brace for a melee rogue, for example. I'd also be opposed to giving rogues access to something like ambush when they're already so good at getting great stealth scores, whereas I'd really like for barbarians to have something like that.

It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

It's further been pointed out that the BM maneuvers are somewhat lacking in that all options are accessible from level 3 and every level thereafter is just "picking the ones that were bad last level."

[Hael]

I think at one point you have to simply accept the fact that martials evolve to something more than human in tier 3-4. Whether thats through magic items, superpowers, mutations or boons/curses etc. So far DnD has been reticent of that leap, even though it has no problem with eg Raistlin Majere challenging for godhood as a wizard.

But ultimately they do need some ability to do things that are only available to casters. In anime, ninja jump between trees and spawn mirror images. In comic bulks the hulk smashes the road and uses it for a shield.

You can mechanically do those things as casters, but you can't as a martial. Hence the disconnect.

[RandomPeasant]

I think at one point you have to simply accept the fact that martials evolve to something more than human in tier 3-4. Whether thats through magic items, superpowers, mutations or boons/curses etc. So far DnD has been reticent of that leap, even though it has no problem with eg Raistlin Majere challenging for godhood as a wizard.

Got it in one. If the Wizard is going to become Doctor Strange, the Barbarian needs to become Thor. Or whatever your choice of benchmarks for "powerful mage" and "comparably powerful non-mage" are. This, incidentally, is exactly what 4e did with Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, which means that no one will ever support it as a plan for D&D going forward, because the lesson people have learned from 4e is universally "4e failed because it did things I do not like" rather than "4e failed because it was poorly tested and marketed with outright insults to the existing playerbase".

Of course, that's only really tangentially related to the issue in the thread, which is more about how classes get abilities than how class power scales. "I hit it with my sword again" is boring even at levels where it represents an appropriate contribution to the success of the party in overcoming encounters they are presented with.

The answer to that question is to give classes powers that work in a way that are appropriate to their idiom, both at the level of the individual power ("you get really angry and turn into a bear" is an appropriate Barbarian power, but out of place for a Monk) and at the level of the ways those powers work ("your abilities power up as you deal and take damage" is a reasonable way for a Barbarian's abilities to work, but not flavorful for a Monk).

[Dr.Samurai]

Totally disagree with the previous posters.

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). Instead, we get a fighting style class feature that is a always-on minor passive feature, and maybe a feat if feats are allowed. And some stuff that is optional in the DMG.

Meanwhile, casters have 50 million options every encounter, and when they level up.

[quindraco]

So, one of the common complaints about martials is that they're too homogenous, too lacking in options (both in terms of build options and in terms of combat options). It's also been pointed out that as releases continue, the spellcasters tend to do better because of how many classes will get a buff just because a new good spell got added to their certain spell list. Rangers became top-notch healers overnight when healing spirit was initially released, for example.

Yes, this is accurate.


The solution proposed is pretty frequently "ToB/4e style maneuvers! Yeah!" To which the usual rejoinder is "...didn't 4e kinda not do so well??" or alternately "yes I agree every class should have BM-style maneuvers."

4E was garbage because it was an mmorpg simulator in ttrpg form, not because martial complexity is intrinsically bad. On the other hand, BM maneuvers aren't necessarily the most well-designed mechanic in the world, either.


Personally I'm torn. I think BM maneuvers work well for the fighter.[...] It's further been pointed out that the BM maneuvers are somewhat lacking in that all options are accessible from level 3 and every level thereafter is just "picking the ones that were bad last level."

The latter is correct - BM maneuvers have terrible internal balance. Some are bad enough to be traps - Goading Attack is Menacing Attack but worse.


But I also think giving every class access to the same list is going to lead to a high degree of homogenity as some options are clearly and obviously overpowered for certain classes. Something like brace for a melee rogue, for example. I'd also be opposed to giving rogues access to something like ambush when they're already so good at getting great stealth scores, whereas I'd really like for barbarians to have something like that.

Class spell lists exist. You could have class maneuver lists.

[quote]It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

You could choose to view all non-magical abilities in the game as maneuvers if you wanted to. Go far enough down this path and you end up dropping classes as an idea entirely and just letting players make the character they want to play.

[RandomPeasant]

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

And that is a reasonable thing to want. But it is not a reasonable thing to want when the rest of the party is comprised of anime characters and comic book superheroes. There needs to be some answer for what the Fighter does when the Wizard is calling down meteors, and it can't simply be "hit it with my sword, but, like, really good, way better than I did at 1st level".

[Dr.Samurai]

And that is a reasonable thing to want. But it is not a reasonable thing to want when the rest of the party is comprised of anime characters and comic book superheroes. There needs to be some answer for what the Fighter does when the Wizard is calling down meteors, and it can't simply be "hit it with my sword, but, like, really good, way better than I did at 1st level".
Right, "the rest of the party" lol.

As I said, the melee and ranged combat system in D&D is bare minimum. They can easily make it more complex and interesting without transforming non-casters into casters-by-another-name.

And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

[LudicSavant]

A character doesn't have to be the Hulk or Goku to scale up to very high power levels; you can also do it with characters along the lines of Link or Batman or Hawkeye (in their most capable incarnations).

And yet characters like Link or even Hawkeye are often beyond the reach of D&D martials. These characters are masters of entire arsenals, sometimes with more tricks in a single tool than a D&D martial has in their one, overspecialized tool choice.

[OldTrees1]

Totally disagree with the previous posters.

I love playing fighters and barbarians and I certainly don't play D&D to be the Hulk or to shapeshift into animals. Some people want to play as a knight or warrior and fight dragons as a knight or warrior, without transforming into an anime character or comic book superhero.

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). Instead, we get a fighting style class feature that is a always-on minor passive feature, and maybe a feat if feats are allowed. And some stuff that is optional in the DMG.

Meanwhile, casters have 50 million options every encounter, and when they level up.

A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

My expectation of a T4 character is one that can get to the Great Red Wyrm and fight it. I like it if the T4 character has the exploration capabilities to make it there themselves. I like it if the T4 character can engage the dragon without additional assistance but is expected to have a party if they expect to win the engagement.

Does your imagined T4 knight have the ability to reach this threshold?

If yes, could you elaborate a tiny bit on how?

If no, is reaching this threshold a failure state in your eyes?

I think this might help to calibrate expectations.

[Dienekes]

I have actually done a homebrewed game where all martials had some form of the Battlemaster maneuvers. Went from levels 1-12. Here's what I learned:

-Players enjoyed using them. That was the big one for me. When asked, all of them said they preferred having the maneuvers to not having the maneuvers. Admittedly, this was 4 people, so not the biggest sample size.

-What I did was divide up the Battlemaster maneuvers so each class could only have a portion of them. While the Fighter got access to all of them. Especially for those who had less than the full range of maneuvers it became painfully obvious which ones were the most useful and those got spammed. Battlemaster maneuvers are not particularly well balanced, and the lack of scaling is definitely a problem.

-While by definition there was more diversity in play with the maneuvers than without, fights using them still generally fell into a predictable pattern of when they were used, and which maneuver would see play. Definitely by the level 12 mark, this made them a bit stale from where we were at with the earlier levels.

-Having the Fighter just be the best at maneuvers wasn't really enough. I had them as the only class with the full list, and their Superiority Die was always at least a step higher than everyone else. It didn't really come across as a mechanical identity for the class.

My ending thoughts about all this was, I do think the martial classes need something. I am less convinced if just granting everyone maneuvers is the right path. It's probably the most efficient one though. As strangebloke pointed out, if maneuvers were for everyone then adding new maneuvers becomes the tide that rises all martial classes together much like spells and mage classes.

In my perfect world, each class would get something special to make their play on a round by round basis unique to them. Some kind of maneuver system would work well for Fighters, but say, for Barbarians I'd probably look for a bunch of passive boosts that keep them feeling simple to play for those who just want to walk up and hit things. Which, isn't my style of play but there are some who value it. Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Monks they'd all get something else that would enforce the fantasy that each class is trying to go for. These options would preferably be leveled and to avoid the spam issue, have some sort of limitation on doing the same thing every round.

But this is a lot more work. And would require discipline from WotC to keep them all growing in power consistently through future publications. Which, I doubt would every happen.

So, some other method to make each class play differently then. Of this I think Tome of Battle actually did it the best. Certainly, every class used Maneuvers and Stances. Often having a lot of overlap between what maneuvers each class could take. But their refresh system made each feel unique. Crusader had to depend on luck/what their gods saw fit to grant them. Warblades had to take a moment of normal fighting to reorient themselves for another burst of maneuvers. And Swordsage essentially turned theirs into a bunch of single use encounter powers unless they meditate to get them back. All fairly flavorful and gave each a distinct playstyle.

But that depends on removing them from the 5e framework of At-Will, Short Rest, Long Rest dependency. Which for the most part I don't see WotC doing either.

[LudicSavant]

This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:


Concept: So, there's often a big divide between what we're told Fighters and Fighter-types can do and what they actually do. Here's an example:
http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75436.jpg

Awesome, right? But... that picture is from Complete Warrior, and it's supposed to be a picture of what the "Divine Resistance" feat does. And that's totally not what it does.

In fact, we get an awful lot of pictures of things like warriors using shields to block dragon breath (and shielding people behind them from the cone!) but the mechanics don't let us do that! Why?

Fighters can't even block lasers with shields unless they take a special feat. Why? Heck, why can't they straight up deflect and redirect a ray with a shield like we see a lot of fantasy fighters in media do?

I see occasional arguments on fighter threads about how Fighters will never catch up to mages unless they throw Kamehameha waves or something, followed by people arguing about whether that would still even be a Fighter, but... no, that's not even it. There's tons of design space to explore that fits the idea we're presented with already of what Fighters should be that simply isn't tapped.

Heck, a Kamehameha wave wouldn't even add much to the fighter's conceptual space to explore. What is that? It's just a ranged attack! Fighters already have ranged attacks, we can just make them better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc).
There's a big difference between this sort of depth and spells-and-maneuvers depth-- in fact, you could say they're polar opposites.

Think of an action as an equation--you do this, and something happens. The steps you the player go through are the input, and the effects on the world are the output.

Martial combat is a very simple function. Your input is "roll to hit," and your output is "roll hp damage.". There are abilities that tinker with both sides, but they're simple--one conditional clause, one extra output, that sort of thing. For good or for ill, you're putting in pretty much the same input and getting pretty much the same output.

Spells are much more complex, but the complexity is all on the output side. Casting a spell, the part where you the player interact with the mechanics, is easy--take an action, mark off a spell slot, boom. You're still doing the same sort of thing every turn, but you get wildly different output.

A system like you're proposing is adding complexity to the input side of the equation. Weapon speed charts, fighting styles, armor types... You can get the input almost arbitrarily complicated, but the output is still the same "the target is hurt." You get tactical depth, but it's all in weighting the numbers ahead of time.

Put it like this: if a melee attack is "x+y=z," and a spell is "m=n, p, q, or r," then your system would be "3x3/6a+b(a+(c/3))= y+z." A lot more work goes into calculating what, exactly, the end result is... but the end result is still the same.

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.

[Ralanr]

This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:

Man, shield master can't even block line attacks for people behind you, and I have yet to meet a DM let it.

[Dr.Samurai]

A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

My expectation of a T4 character is one that can get to the Great Red Wyrm and fight it. I like it if the T4 character has the exploration capabilities to make it there themselves. I like it if the T4 character can engage the dragon without additional assistance but is expected to have a party if they expect to win the engagement.

Does your imagined T4 knight have the ability to reach this threshold?

If yes, could you elaborate a tiny bit on how?

If no, is reaching this threshold a failure state in your eyes?

I think this might help to calibrate expectations.
I don't think this is a failure if a PC can't reach the dragon. I mean just imagine, you can construct any number of scenarios that bar someone from being able to engage a monster.

If the story is constructed as such that the dragon never leaves the lair, but must also be defeated there, then I expect the party to prepare for the encounter, which would include a method to infiltrate its lair.

But no, I don't expect any single PC to be able to overcome whatever obstacles are in the way, and gauge it as failure if they can't.

And I totally agree with LudicSavant's example of a shield. Let's make our way around the entire wheel of melee/ranged combat before we try to reinvent it.

[OldTrees1]

It's also been pointed out that many of the monk's ki uses are effectively maneuvers, as are (arguably) the rogue's cunning actions. The primary difference here being that they both have access to all their "maneuvers" no matter the build.

Cunning Action is one of my favorite 5E abilities because it is an At Will ability the Rogue can use in or out of combat and it provides a qualitative benefit.

Having different classes treat "gain level appropriate martial abilities" in different ways is ideal. Some might have different manuevers they use and deal with some kind of endurance recharge mechanic. Others might have several passive, triggered, or at will modifications that they can do to existing actions. Maybe with a complexity limit that scales rather than having separate abilities.*


*I really like the idea of a warrior that knows plenty of ways to modify attacks / actions / movement. They would know more modifications than they could handle combining at the same time (some complexity limit to limit power and allow level appropriate scaling). As they get to higher level they learn more modifications and can use more complex combinations.


I don't think this is a failure if a PC can't reach the dragon. I mean just imagine, you can construct any number of scenarios that bar someone from being able to engage a monster.

If the story is constructed as such that the dragon never leaves the lair, but must also be defeated there, then I expect the party to prepare for the encounter, which would include a method to infiltrate its lair.

But no, I don't expect any single PC to be able to overcome whatever obstacles are in the way, and gauge it as failure if they can't.

It sounds like you do not expect the character to improve on this axis. However you did not answer if it would be a failure state if they did improve on this axis. Are you objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles in their path to engage enemies? Do you want enabling that engagement to be relegated to mcguffins? Should mages lose those abilities too? If you are not objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles, then what CR should this obstacle (mountain lair with some rooms only having lava filled tunnel exits) be moved to if you feel T4 is too low?


And I totally agree with LudicSavant's example of a shield. Let's make our way around the entire wheel of melee/ranged combat before we try to reinvent it.

Yup. That is one reason my 5E Fighter is a Paladin of Ancients instead of a Fighter. I get a limited number of Shield abilities. I wish I had more, even if I had to sacrifice my other abilities.

[Carlobrand]

...I think if D&D spent as much resource expenditure in fleshing out martial and ranged combat as it does on hundreds of spells, it could fix some of this. You can create in depth weapon techniques, fighting styles, critical hit charts, monster interactions (tentacles chops, decapitation, bone crushing, etc). ...

D&D did this ... and then they started a new edition. And then they did it again for the new edition ... and then they started another new edition. And then they did it again for that edition ... and then they started ... you get the point.

Really, if I want something like that, I just go mining the old editions. There's some really great stuff back there. I half expected them to go mining those sources themselves and publish a new book for this edition, but now I understand ...

... wait for it ...

... that they plan to start another new edition.

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.
No disagreement here. But the OP is asking what can we give the martials to do other than "attack again", so changing the input makes sense. Obviously changing the output is desirable as well. And fleshing out the combat system should change the output.

But as I have mentioned in other threads, the game grinds to a halt when the wizard in my party takes his turn, because he has so many choices and considerations to make. This just simply isn't the case when I take my turn or even the ranger really. And his outputs are varied, as you point out, whereas ours aren't.

It sounds like you do not expect the character to improve on this axis.
Why would I expect all T4 fighters to be immune to lava, or be able to teleport past it or ignore it or something?

However you did not answer if it would be a failure state if they did improve on this axis.
I missed that part of the quote. But... why would I consider it a failure state? I'm not even sure what you're proposing. Are you suggesting that all knights become immune to fire damage at a certain level? Why would they? If yes, then I wouldn't agree with that.

Are you objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles in their path to engage enemies?
I think I was clear on what I'm objecting to; the idea that mundane warriors need to become anime gods or superheroes to remain playable at high levels.

The knight is no different than a sorcerer or warlock or bard that doesn't have a spell to make the party immune to fire or teleport them multiple times through the entire lair. If you assume the wizard will have the right spell prepared for every scenario, then I can see where this seems like a failure to you.

Do you want enabling that engagement to be relegated to mcguffins?
Do you think the game is designed to be solo'ed by a fighter?

Should mages lose those abilities too?
The more questions you ask the less confident I am that I understand the point you're making.

If you are not objecting to higher level martial characters being able to get past more severe obstacles, then what CR should this obstacle (mountain lair with some rooms only having lava filled tunnel exits) be moved to?
I'm not concerned about this particular encounter. If the party needs to get into this lair, the DM will provide a way in game to do it. If the party has no way to bypass these tunnels, why create the encounter in the first place?

[strangebloke]

I feel like there are separate discussions going on here.

One is the old, well-trodden "high level martials can't be good for thematic reasons" debate which is eye-rolling at this point. It's pretty obvious to me that arguing that to be high level effective and have big powers a barbarian needs to be the hulk or goku seems deeply lacking in imagination... and also a knowledge of mythology. People are aware of the abilities of mythical characters like Samson or Cu Chulainn, right? A lot of times these characters will have magic weapons, sure, but most of what they're doing is not directly resulting from that.

The other more important discussion is "how should a maneuver system feel? Should it be different for different classes? That's more what I want to focus on.


This is (part of) something I posted way back in the 3.5e days, but the principle is still relevant today:

Exactly correct. And I think the thing to point out here is that in the shift from 3.5 to 5e, all that really changed is that martials were made able to perform in the niche of direct single target damage AND that direct single target damage was made relevant again. All this was done by just literally giving them bigger numbers and giving the casters smaller ones. (and giving monsters a few good anti-caster defenses.)

[OldTrees1]

Why would I expect all T4 fighters to be immune to lava, or be able to teleport past it or ignore it or something?
Or be able to mine a new tunnel or some other thematically appropriate alternative I did not think of yet.


I missed that part of the quote. But... why would I consider it a failure state? I'm not even sure what you're proposing. Are you suggesting that all knights become immune to fire damage at a certain level? Why would they? If yes, then I wouldn't agree with that.

I am suggesting all knights gain the ability to overcome greater and greater engagement obstacles as they get to higher and higher tiers and thus face greater and greater engagement obstacles.

I wanted to know if this is included in what you are objecting to. Do you want progression on overcoming engagement obstacles to be flat?* Or is your objection about the means?

* I am presuming you don't want dramatically asymmetric growth so I am assuming if you have an objection and want knights to have flat growth, then you want mages to also be flat here too.


I think I was clear on what I'm objecting to; the idea that mundane warriors need to become anime gods or superheroes to remain playable at high levels.

The knight is no different than a sorcerer or warlock or bard that doesn't have a spell to make the party immune to fire or teleport them multiple times through the entire lair. If you assume the wizard will have the right spell prepared for every scenario, then I can see where this seems like a failure to you.

Do you think the game is designed to be solo'ed by a fighter?

The more questions you ask the less confident I am that I understand the point you're making.

I'm not concerned about this particular encounter. If the party needs to get into this lair, the DM will provide a way in game to do it. If the party has no way to bypass these tunnels, why create the encounter in the first place?

I don't want the game to have some character types (mages) greatly improve in their ability to overcome engagement obstacles but other character types (knights) have no improvement in that area. Personally I would prefer if both had thematically appropriate level appropriate growth in those areas. Yes this does mean I expect a party of Fighters to be able to play the game from 1-20 against the same level of challenges that a mixed party or an all mages party can.

I don't want some classes to come with a GM postscript that reads "Hey GM, you need to add McGuffins for this class if you want to have high level campaigns. This class does not work for some areas of high level play."

[Pex]

. . .

And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

But D&D is not that type of game of normal medieval heroes, not completely. It is (can be) at low level. At high level the design intent is to be fantastical. If you don't want that end the campaign before reaching that level or play another game system. There are fantastical warrior ideas. The issue is getting D&D to embrace them. A warrior can block and take no damage from a dragon's breath, if he takes Shield Master feat. Make that a class feature and let the shield bonus add to all his DX saves for damage, not just single target. Let the warrior purposely jump down into a 30 ft pit and take no damage. Let the warrior do a called shot, represented by sneak attack renamed. Rogue could be subsumed into the warrior chassis. Then you can add rider effects like blindness or impaired vision for attacking the eye, reduce movement for attacking the leg, etc. The warrior can't swim in heavy armor, but he sure can hold his breath for a long time to walk along the river bottom that's 60 ft across to get to the other side.

[RandomPeasant]

As I said, the melee and ranged combat system in D&D is bare minimum. They can easily make it more complex and interesting without transforming non-casters into casters-by-another-name.

Define "casters-by-another-name". I've seen this argument made countless times. I've never seen that defined in a way that did what the person making the argument wanted it to.


And your comment is easily reversible. It is unreasonable to want to play an anime character when the rest of the party is comprised of normal medieval heroes. Like, the wizard needs something to do when the fighter is swinging his sword that simply can't be "I pwn everything with a single spell slot".

I agree. That thing is called "be low level". There are plenty of levels where you can play a character who his not an anime protagonist or a superhero. But there are also levels where you can cast spells with names like storm of vengeance and meteor swarm.


A Red Wyrm has built its den in an active volcano with some rooms connected by lava tunnels. Some rooms have no non lava exit. This lair has multiple exits.

I think this is generally the wrong tack to take. It's true that a martial can't solo a 20th level adventure, but it's also true that they shouldn't be able to. You may eventually be able to reach a point where you demonstrate the EV of the Fighter is lower than that of the Wizard, but it's better to come at it from a different angle. Specifically: consider an adventure you could have at 1st level that it would take the whole party to beat. Pretty much any 10th level character could beat that adventure. Now consider a 10th level adventure and a 20th level character. The Wizard can probably beat the adventure, but the Fighter is going to have trouble measuring up to the utility a Wizard half his level provided. That's the issue.


It's pretty obvious to me that arguing that to be high level effective and have big powers a barbarian needs to be the hulk or goku seems deeply lacking in imagination... and also a knowledge of mythology. People are aware of the abilities of mythical characters like Samson or Cu Chulainn, right?

Yes, I am aware that there are examples from mythology I could use, but using them on this forum would get me banned. So I use the examples I am actually allowed to talk about, which are generally not substantively different than the ones I am not. If someone objects to the Barbarian leveling up into Thor, I'm rather skeptical they would not also object to him leveling up into a fully realized Cu Chulainn.

[Ralanr]

But D&D is not that type of game of normal medieval heroes, not completely. It is (can be) at low level. At high level the design intent is to be fantastical. If you don't want that end the campaign before reaching that level or play another game system. There are fantastical warrior ideas. The issue is getting D&D to embrace them. A warrior can block and take no damage from a dragon's breath, if he takes Shield Master feat. Make that a class feature and let the shield bonus add to all his DX saves for damage, not just single target. Let the warrior purposely jump down into a 30 ft pit and take no damage. Let the warrior do a called shot, represented by sneak attack renamed. Rogue could be subsumed into the warrior chassis. Then you can add rider effects like blindness or impaired vision for attacking the eye, reduce movement for attacking the leg, etc. The warrior can't swim in heavy armor, but he sure can hold his breath for a long time to walk along the river bottom that's 60 ft across to get to the other side.

Hell, even Pathfinder is getting better at this by letting max level barbarians basically use the earthquake spell through sheer strength.

At tier 1 you're starting out, by tier 2-3 you're more likely a knight. Tier 4? Well martial character's don't seem to really compare at tier 4.

[OldTrees1]

I think this is generally the wrong tack to take. It's true that a martial can't solo a 20th level adventure, but it's also true that they shouldn't be able to. You may eventually be able to reach a point where you demonstrate the EV of the Fighter is lower than that of the Wizard, but it's better to come at it from a different angle. Specifically: consider an adventure you could have at 1st level that it would take the whole party to beat. Pretty much any 10th level character could beat that adventure. Now consider a 10th level adventure and a 20th level character. The Wizard can probably beat the adventure, but the Fighter is going to have trouble measuring up to the utility a Wizard half his level provided. That's the issue.

I did not expect them to solo the 20th level adventure. Just that they could engage with the obstacles and eventually engage with the dragon (and then lose). I expect a party to beat the adventure. However I don't expect the adventure to have a class quota requirement. That is why I picked Great Red Wyrm rather than Young Red Dragon. The same adventure scaled down to a younger dragon might have a class quota requirement or the engagement obstacles might set the adventure level higher than the Dragon's CR would.

[Hael]

A character doesn't have to be the Hulk or Goku to scale up to very high power levels; you can also do it with characters along the lines of Link or Batman or Hawkeye (in their most capable incarnations).

And yet characters like Link or even Hawkeye are often beyond the reach of D&D martials. These characters are masters of entire arsenals, sometimes with more tricks in a single tool than a D&D martial has in their one, overspecialized tool choice.

I agree, but on that subject I played a couple superhero TTRPGS back in the day, like the Marvel and DC games from the 90s. And in all of them, there is always a separation of scales for different adventure types. Like you had the new mutants at one lvl, followed by the Captain America/Batman/Hawkeye types (who are usually given a lot of skill proficiency like abilities not unlike a 5e rogue), followed by the Avengers (well beyond mortal ken), and then you got into the truly extra planetary godlike powers (Silver Surfer, Superman, Thanos etc).. Even in that setting the way the game design treated those characters was very different and for the most part you didn't want them interacting too much, b/c its no fun for people to have Thanos snap his finger and have your entire new mutant party come to an end..

Its why Batman vs Superman is always a bit of a ridiculous comic book, and why it never quite felt authentic, b/c Batman basically has to be 'given' superhuman items.

In DnD, the part that feels good to most people is that end of tier2 stage where mages are super powerful, but still vulnerable to crafty martials who are able to block the dragon breath with their shield (like in your picture). Where it starts getting stupid is when the martials are not fighting wizards anymore, but rather their summoned army, while the real mage watches on from a different plane through their crystal ball.

So yes at one point there is a disconnect of expectations.. If you want the godlike tier4 wizard, Batman starts needing to be scaled up (and martials in 5e aren't anywhere close to Batman).

[Slider Eclipse]

When I think of Maneuvers and how a Martial class SHOULD function. I personally tend to think along the lines of Tome of Battle or more specifically the Path of War series in Pathfinder 1e that was a recreation of that book's systems. Those systems weren't Hulk or Superman or Goku or anything of that nature (unless you used some of the more Gish themed Disciplines of course) but instead were taking the concept of a Fighting Style and actually having you do the thing's you'd expect from a master of that particular art.

The idea of a Barbarian fully enveloped in his sheer rage as he Brutally charges head first into combat, shrugging off all attempts to stop him as he throws his full weight behind his axe with no regard for anything but tearing his foe limb from limb.

Or what about a Swordsman who casually keeps his blade sheaved at his side, waiting for the perfect moment to swiftly and elegantly make a quick, precise slash that cleaves the very air into a blade of razor winds that shred the unfortunate person in front of him.

Perhaps a Bard or Paladin who's talents depend not on how mightily he swings his blade, but on his ability to effortlessly boost his allies moral and guide them tactically into battle, exposing weaknesses in his opponents that one may not catch while in the heat of battle.

a Graceful Duelist who's stance leaves few openings and exposes even less of his body to harm as he weaves his rapier precisely where he needs it for both offense and defense.

A Marksman who can calculate trajectories, bouncing his arrows off of walls to strike foes from unexpected angles or accurately shoot as he moves across a room.

A Spellsword who fights not by singing fireballs but by weaving his blade in the raw elements as he strikes, truly blending the arcane and the martial instead of merely being trained in both.

and that's just the stuff that Path of War has as examples, I can see plenty of other styles out there such as a Rogue who sneaks around and specializes in hit and run tactics from the shadows or a Ranger who prefers to train his pet wolf and provide back up for them. There's plenty of ways to implement a Maneuver system into D&D without going into Comic Book or Dragonball tiers of madness. After all even in real life there's a lot of difference between fighting styles, each having there own pros and cons. an overhead slash with a Longsword isn't the same thing as a Low Sweep with a Polearm after all.

[SharkForce]

[snip]

Its why Batman vs Superman is always a bit of a ridiculous comic book, and why it never quite felt authentic, b/c Batman basically has to be 'given' superhuman items.

[snip]

So yes at one point there is a disconnect of expectations.. If you want the godlike tier4 wizard, Batman starts needing to be scaled up (and martials in 5e aren't anywhere close to Batman).

Batman vs. Superman is basically Lex Luthor vs Superman, which is practically a staple of Superman's story.

the only question is whether it is done well, or poorly.

[Composer99]

Some thoughts responding somewhat abstractly to some earlier posts, more concretely to others:

(1) In 5e, the design aesthetic strongly discourages too much fiddliness. Some combination of abilities resembling warlock invocations (mechanically at least), fighting styles (perhaps revised to take some of the tactical abilities from current feats instead of just boosting numbers), and battlemaster manoeuvres, would probably be as fiddly as you want to get.

(2) IMO it would be for the best if characters have comparable degrees of capability at the same tier. The time for barely-better-than-ordinary folk who would be medieval-style heroes is tier 1 and 2. In tiers 3 and 4, martials ought to be obviously fantastical, in the way that many mythical and genre fiction martials are (much less characters from fiction outside the genre, video games, and even other RPGs). That doesn't mean they have to be slinging spells, but getting up to stuff such as some of the epic skill uses from the old 3.X Epic Level Handbook - balancing on a cloud, squeezing through a wall of force or forecage, that sort of thing - would be a good start.

(3) If you absolutely must play a barely-better-than-ordinary-folk kind of character across levels 1 through 20, and won't countenance playing someone who is capable of being epically fantastic, then there should be an optional class (or even set of 3 or 4 classes covering the martial-guile-mage (+ healer?) group) for that. But it should be made explicitly clear that you are not keeping up with the game's standard classes in terms of the kinds of challenges that can be set for you if you're not playing in a party with members of those classes.

(4) Suffice to say I am unmoved by the argument that giving martials fantastic capabilities makes them "casters-by-another-name". What matters is not the mechanics of the abilities they possess (especially in a game such as 5e, which will surely eschew too much mechanical complexity), but how the abilities function in the fiction. A druid creates an earthquake by casting a spell. An epic barbarian creates one (perhaps at a smaller scale than is possible with the spell) by smashing into the ground. A sorcerer flies by casting a spell. An epic monk doesn't fly, but steps lightly across tree branches and even the clouds. But each of these pairings would be represented in the game mechanics in very similar (perhaps identical) ways - for instance, both the sorcerer and monk would have a flying speed.

[Kane0]

This can't really be a 'just give them maneuvers' solution, entire classes are going to have to be rewritten if you're committing to this.

- Barbarians and Rogues don't get a martial power progression, keep them as 'simple' classes (if people don't want to engage with the system that's fine! Champion fighter exists for a reason, we want to keep that sort of option available)
- Monks and Fighters get 'half' progression, retooling the former's current resource pool into the Martial Power system. Personally I'd rework Fighters to be more focused around a sticky, armored knight class but thats another discussion.
- Make a new class for 'full' progression, Warlord seems a good fit so they aren't a one-note class.
- Rangers, Paladins and other gishy casters (Bladelock, War Cleric, Valor Bard, etc) get none or at best 1/3 progression mimicking EK/AT spellcasting

So we have a tanky and mobile class for each progression category, except for Warlord which can be one or the other, neither or a bit of both depending on their 'Martial Power' (or whatever you're going to call it) selection.

- Fighting Styles, Maneuvers/Superiority dice, some feats and so on are stolen and incorporated into 'Martial Power'.

Martial Power breaks down into three primary parts:
- Styles/Stances are the at-wills, primarily passive benefits or lesser maneuvers that don't use up resources (like Fighting Styles and Cantrips now) but they will scale with level (5, 11 and 17 matches cantrips and is convenient in terms of tracking by Tier as well)
- Maneuvers, which make up the bulk of the system. By expending your resources you can add riders to your attacks or perform various amazing feats (which is where the best bits of all this will be, otherwise this is all for naught)
- Counters, which are reaction abilities that also expend your resources and largely follow the same pattern as Maneuvers.

- There will be some level-gating of 'Martial Powers' corresponding to tiers of play so you can't just dip for the best cherrypicks and there is reason to want higher level stances/maneuvers/counters
- Most classes will have a way to get back at least some of these resources during a combat (such as by spending their bonus action, felling a creature, succeeding on a saving throw, etc), otherwise the majority of 'Martial Power' resources will replenish on a short rest with some exceptions. Styles/stances generally won't use concentration but you will only be able to benefit from one at a time, again with some exceptions (makes for a solid high level class feature)
- The bulk of 'Martial Powers' to choose from will be universal, but each class/subclass will get a handful of their own unique ones as well. Say for example everyone could get the 'attack + shove attempt' maneuver but Monks couldn't choose any maneuvers that rely on using a shield.

There are plenty of great features already present that can be assimilated: Most of the Battlemaster's maneuvers, Monk's Ki abilities, plenty of subclass stuff, a good handful of feats, even some martially minded spells like Zephyr Strike and Steel Wind Strike. Recycling what we already have could cut our work in half, then for the other half we just go gravedigging from previous editions.

Just don't call them Initiators or Martial Adepts.

[Waazraath]

...then for the other half we just go gravedigging from previous editions

Bloody necromancers...

[Ignimortis]

This can't really be a 'just give them maneuvers' solution, entire classes are going to have to be rewritten if you're committing to this.

*snip*

I agree with most of this, although I feel like Warlord should have something to complement it as the "mobile" maneuver class, maybe call it Stalker or Slayer?

I am also not sure about "universal" powersets. I very much like what ToB/PoW Disciplines do, and by restricting certain classes access to certain Disciplines (as well as giving them a chance to pick up new ones with subclasses) we can both provide a bit of flavour and preserve class diversity. Stuff that BM Fighter does can be easily split into two Disciplines at best — support/tactical maneuvers like Menacing Attack, Rally and Commanding strike can go to the "White Raven" analogue, while basic "attack+rider" and Parry/Lunge/Riposte are clearly something simple, like "Iron Heart", and that might be available to everyone.

[Unoriginal]

IMO, there should just be more "useful options everyone can do in combat, but martials are better at those" options, like Grapple, Disarm or the like.

I know that technically that kind of things is already in the game under the "improvise an action" umbrella, but a lot of people (especially on RPG forums) only acknowledge the stuff that is explicitly stated (and even then, only in some interpretation of it).

For example, adding a rule that if you Grapple an enemy with an Attack action and you have the Extra Attack feature, you can use the grappled creature to hit another creature or an inanimate object within reach, dealing damage to both.


Also, the books should just be more explicit about how someone with 20 STR can break steel bare-handed and the like.

[sayaijin]

I don't want to completely derail the thread, so I can make a new one if need be, but what if martials got "martial-themed spells" at the same pace as casters? They don't have to be called spells, but classes get them at the same rate.

It's a lot of work to consider what a 1st (or 2nd, etc) level fighter spell should be, but this way there's more parity.

What if incredible feats of skill and strength were spells available to martials? All classes get full (or half, idk) caster slots, but the barbarian spell list is similar to, be slightly different from the fighter spell list, and different from the rogue spell list.

The ranger spells already do this to some extent. Pass without trace, cordon of arrows, conjure barrage, swift quiver - these aren't that magical, and are thematic for a ranger.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I don't like the idea of attaching martial abilities to the exact same mechanic as spells. Commonly cited strength of a martial is being able to use their abilities indefinitely, unlike spellcasters, so it would be nice to keep it.

Then there's the idea of "running out of sword" which can be immersion breaking to some. I would like to see some sort of stance or maybe combo mechanic if you want to limit the use of certain abilities - for example certain stances enable the use of certain abilities, and using abilities may switch your stance, for example.

[Ralanr]

I don't like the idea of attaching martial abilities to the exact same mechanic as spells. Commonly cited strength of a martial is being able to use their abilities indefinitely, unlike spellcasters, so it would be nice to keep it.

Then there's the idea of "running out of sword" which can be immersion breaking to some. I would like to see some sort of stance or maybe combo mechanic if you want to limit the use of certain abilities - for example certain stances enable the use of certain abilities, and using abilities may switch your stance, for example.

I like the idea of returning to the stance system the mystic had based on that. Since martial maneuvers are resources and the game is built around managing your resources. Giving fighters or any martial an unlimited resource to make them more useful in higher tiers would just be game breaking.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I like the idea of returning to the stance system the mystic had based on that. Since martial maneuvers are resources and the game is built around managing your resources. Giving fighters or any martial an unlimited resource to make them more useful in higher tiers would just be game breaking.

It depends on how it's balanced. I'm not convinced that the only way to balance special/unique abilities in 5e is to put them into nine tiers with same number of abilities available of each tier as there's spell slots of that level on a caster.

[Dienekes]

I like the idea of returning to the stance system the mystic had based on that. Since martial maneuvers are resources and the game is built around managing your resources. Giving fighters or any martial an unlimited resource to make them more useful in higher tiers would just be game breaking.

I’m uncertain if that’s true. Look at 3.5 and the ToB classes, they had essentially unlimited use of maneuvers and they balanced out rather well, when compared to casters and were quite a good deal weaker than some of them.

What matters is if the characters have some resource that drains along the adventure day that means they end their day roughly when the casters end theirs. And well, they already have that under the flag of hit points.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Read the spoiler section like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. In a sad defeated voice to convey the self depreciating humor of this post. The other stuff is normal.

"Page 195 of the PHB, contests in combat. Top right corner. Use the grapple and shove rules to model attacks and behaviors taken in combat that aren't explicitly described in the book.

These could potentially be cool things like

Pocket sand
eye gouges
leg attacks for movement slowing
kidney punch for poisoned condition
disrupting material, verbal, or somatic components
Throat slams


The ability to do cool fighter things would only be bound by the limitations your specific table sets, your DM's ability to adjudicate rulings, and your imagination. I know it's not ideal. But the precedent is there by looking at both grapple/shove and the battle master subclass.

Anyway, martial characters need one of the following three things.

An expansion on what is allowed through opposed ability checks with examples to set a baseline. This could potentially give a lot more flexibility to the characters by allowing them to attack monsters in ways other classes couldn't.

or

The PHB/DMG needs a better guide for helping dungeon masters design "Adventuring Days" so that the resource expenditure conundrum that faces the party becomes an explicit part of the game design. Where the strategy becomes how best to leverage your renewable and finite resources effectively.

or

Reworking the magic item system to benefit the martial classes because it's part of their "Classical" identity. Most of this stuff would be more in Tier 3 or Tier 4 which would reward not multi-classing for some of these effects. They could be pretty powerful, but restricted by investing the class itself. Lastly, good game design would have an entire paragraph talking about "homebrewing" your own items and to be careful when handing out some special effects to magic users. Or something like that.


Martial Characters can attune to more magic items
Items have different effects if wielded by specific classes
Class restricted items
Feature specific items, action surge, rage, cunning action etc...

[Ralanr]

Martial Characters can attune to more magic items
Items have different effects if wielded by specific classes
Class restricted items
Feature specific items, action surge, rage, cunning action etc...


Emphasis mine. Would love to see something like this. Or at least more martial specific magic items (paladins and rangers I think are the only martial characters that get these).

Currently only the artificer can attune to more items though, so it's less likely we'd see this happen without rebuilding from the ground up. And that's unlikely to happen in 2024.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't want the game to have some character types (mages) greatly improve in their ability to overcome engagement obstacles but other character types (knights) have no improvement in that area. Personally I would prefer if both had thematically appropriate level appropriate growth in those areas. Yes this does mean I expect a party of Fighters to be able to play the game from 1-20 against the same level of challenges that a mixed party or an all mages party can.

I like this idea, I just don't know if we're capable of delivering a thematic system that scales effectively in every area for each class.

For instance, Barbarians.

Rage is incredibly simple, the benefits of it are straightforward and only really relevant for combat, and there isn't really much else to play with besides Strength, Rage, and occasionally increased defenses or mobility. We could make Rage a lot cooler, but then you're still trying to build on a foundation that supports a player only getting to use his features and have fun while he has the Rage capacity to do so.

Barbarians don't really have any kind of theme beholden to them, like psionics or something, so how do we build on such a grey chassis in a way that feels like we're making the game more fun? There are only so many ideas we could make around a class identity of "Strong and Angry".

Sure, we could change Rage to be more interactive, but that seems like a lot of work for something that is supposed to be compatible with the core rules and existing subclasses. You're not just talking about an expansion, but a revision, as we won't be adding more content if we're too busy losing a bunch.

Not trying to be a debby-downer, but I think it'd be best to prioritize the hardest class or situation to work on. Once we can figure out how to make that playstyle more interactive, consistent and fun, I think it'll be easier to make the others follow suit.

[Unoriginal]

I don't want to completely derail the thread, so I can make a new one if need be, but what if martials got "martial-themed spells" at the same pace as casters?

Then they'd be indistinguishable from casters. I for one has no interest in going back to that.


We can have interesting mechanics without making all classes the same.

[LibraryOfAlex]

Rage is incredibly simple, the benefits of it are straightforward and only really relevant for combat, and there isn't really much else to play with besides Strength, Rage, and occasionally increased defenses or mobility. We could make Rage a lot cooler, but then you're still trying to build on a foundation that supports a player only getting to use his features and have fun while he has the Rage capacity to do so.


Honestly, lower levels for me would be absolutely perfect if Fighter and Barb got to use some abilities in non-combat scenarios. Let Barbarians rage for a minute out of combat (and maybe give more uses). If I have big strong-man, I want him to be able to rage and shove a boulder off the path. Let him rage and Climb up a tree to look out from the top.

Spellcasters can use their resources for combat, exploration, or social interaction. Let my barbarian rage and hold back a door from an angry young dragon trying to get in. Let him rage and flex his muscles to intimidate people, or use his rage to push through a crowd and grab a thief.

And I can do all of this - but, because rage requires you to hit things or take damage, only for 6 seconds. And I only have 2-3 rages, so if I do this stuff, I could just turn into 'worse fighter' in the next fight.

When I first saw how rage ends on no damage or attacks, I thought it was cool. But, in every 5e game i've played, the default option is 'attack again'. So a feature like this just disincentivizes being creative.

Up to high levels? Well, I don't really know. Let Barbarians shove over a bunch of small mobs at once? Let them grapple with a dragon, forcing the claw back? Let him put a lich into a submission hold so his allies can grab the phylactery? That stuff sounds really cool, but: shoving one person takes an attack, dragons are 2 size categories larger, and...well, you actually can put a lich in a submission hold, I think. I'm gonna do that.

Fighters are even harder cause they don't really have any non-combat features.

At least for other classes they have things. Rogues get expertise, reliable talent, blindsense, stroke of luck. Monks get slow fall, purity of body, tongue of sun and moon. Every other class has spellcasting.

Personally, I'm a fan of the 'martials become peak-human and even super-human' idea. Rogues can be so fast that its supremely difficult to track them in combat. Monks dodge almost everything thrown at them. Barbarians just walk through everything and lift hills. Rangers can make improbable shots. Fighters can cut arrows in half mid-flight. All of this is 'physically possible', just highly improbable.

Mechanically, though, I'm not sure how to make any 'probable' martial measure up to a spellcaster at high levels. Best I've managed in my games so far is magic items with really thematic powers that basically just cast certain spells or use certain maneuvers.

[t209]

Maybe I got it from battle brothers, but I do wish weapons should have properties other than simple ones.
3E had spear with charge defense and polearms have grapple function.

[Dr.Samurai]

But D&D is not that type of game of normal medieval heroes, not completely. It is (can be) at low level. At high level the design intent is to be fantastical.
This is a distinction that does not exist. Low levels are fantastical as well. And D&D is absolutely this kind of game. Case in point... fighters and barbarians don't suddenly gain the ability to fly or kill armies with a single swing of their sword or chop mountains in half. We know what D&D's roots are, and it isn't anime or comic books.

If you don't want that end the campaign before reaching that level or play another game system.
No, I'm good playing the game thanks. Perhaps others should search elsewhere for what they want instead? (See, not helpful.)

There are fantastical warrior ideas. The issue is getting D&D to embrace them. A warrior can block and take no damage from a dragon's breath, if he takes Shield Master feat. Make that a class feature and let the shield bonus add to all his DX saves for damage, not just single target. Let the warrior purposely jump down into a 30 ft pit and take no damage. Let the warrior do a called shot, represented by sneak attack renamed. Rogue could be subsumed into the warrior chassis. Then you can add rider effects like blindness or impaired vision for attacking the eye, reduce movement for attacking the leg, etc. The warrior can't swim in heavy armor, but he sure can hold his breath for a long time to walk along the river bottom that's 60 ft across to get to the other side.
I agree with all of this. We were in a hell wasp hive and I asked the DM if I could roll an Athletics check to drop down one of the 20ft tunnels without falling prone. He said I'd be giving myself the Slow Fall feature. I said well, I'm asking to roll, so I have a chance to fail. He said no. I thought to myself... my 20 strength barbarian, with proficiency in Athletics and advantage on the roll due to Rage, can't choose to drop down 20ft and land on his feet? This is beyond the pale for a heroic warrior?

I just don't agree that combat at higher levels of D&D becomes some sort of crazy battlefield where everyone has to be a character out of Bleach or Fate Stay Night to be relevant. Like, at all. We're in Descent into Avernus and I'm not worried that the inevitable showdown with a certain archduke is going to sideline my barbarian because everything is going to be moving too fast or 1000ft in the air or underwater or in the vacuum of space or the enemies are colossi from Shadow of the Colossus etc.

But it would be cool to be able to do more heroic things in combat.

[Ralanr]

This is a distinction that does not exist. Low levels are fantastical as well. And D&D is absolutely this kind of game. Case in point... fighters and barbarians don't suddenly gain the ability to fly or kill armies with a single swing of their sword or chop mountains in half. We know what D&D's roots are, and it isn't anime or comic books.

No, I'm good playing the game thanks. Perhaps others should search elsewhere for what they want instead? (See, not helpful.)

I agree with all of this. We were in a hell wasp hive and I asked the DM if I could roll an Athletics check to drop down one of the 20ft tunnels without falling prone. He said I'd be giving myself the Slow Fall feature. I said well, I'm asking to roll, so I have a chance to fail. He said no. I thought to myself... my 20 strength barbarian, with proficiency in Athletics and advantage on the roll due to Rage, can't choose to drop down 20ft and land on his feet? This is beyond the pale for a heroic warrior?

I just don't agree that combat at higher levels of D&D becomes some sort of crazy battlefield where everyone has to be a character out of Bleach or Fate Stay Night to be relevant. Like, at all. We're in Descent into Avernus and I'm not worried that the inevitable showdown with a certain archduke is going to sideline my barbarian because everything is going to be moving too fast or 1000ft in the air or underwater or in the vacuum of space or the enemies are colossi from Shadow of the Colossus etc.

But it would be cool to be able to do more heroic things in combat.


Agree with the heroic things in combat (or even out of combat) but Descent into Avernus goes up to levels 1-13. So while it is midway through tier 3, I'm not sure it's the best area to worry about when martial characters will get overshadowed.

Though I could be wrong. I've seen level 20 one shots where max level fighters did lots and lots of damage. I've never felt dealing damage was the problem for many martial classes. Rather, just things outside of that that make it the issue. Lack of utility, lack of abilities that can better alter the battlefield (some AoE would be nice), etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, lower levels for me would be absolutely perfect if Fighter and Barb got to use some abilities in non-combat scenarios. Let Barbarians rage for a minute out of combat (and maybe give more uses). If I have big strong-man, I want him to be able to rage and shove a boulder off the path. Let him rage and Climb up a tree to look out from the top.

Spellcasters can use their resources for combat, exploration, or social interaction. Let my barbarian rage and hold back a door from an angry young dragon trying to get in. Let him rage and flex his muscles to intimidate people, or use his rage to push through a crowd and grab a thief.

And I can do all of this - but, because rage requires you to hit things or take damage, only for 6 seconds. And I only have 2-3 rages, so if I do this stuff, I could just turn into 'worse fighter' in the next fight.

When I first saw how rage ends on no damage or attacks, I thought it was cool. But, in every 5e game i've played, the default option is 'attack again'. So a feature like this just disincentivizes being creative.

Ooh, got an idea. A special "Wrath" Action that gives you all of the benefits of Rage until the end of your next turn. It takes your Action and you can follow it up with a Bonus Action that can be used to make an attack or an ability check.

From there, we can expand on combat options folks could use with Ability Checks, like throwing grappled enemies or boulders.

This would create an interesting combo system where you bounce between Rage and Out-of-Rage, managing your defenses while beating up your enemies in between Wrath turns, and then use Rage when you feel like you need the extra Action economy.

For Fighters, I've always liked the idea of allowing them to take both the Ready and Dodge Action with the same Action. It overall lowers their DPR and stickiness for defense and versatility, and helps mix up their options with Action Surge. Added uses for Ability Checks would help with this, too. It'd also help if Action Surge could assist with noncombat stuff, and personally I could see them getting something like that being added.

The trick isn't to make their offense stronger, but give them better subpar options. Martials don't need to be stronger, they just need options, and that's solved simply by buffing everything they aren't already doing. If players don't do the new stuff...well, that's why it's all backwards compatible, yah?

[paladinn]

This thread can make one wonder how on earth fighters survived back in the 0e days. No maneuvers, one attack. And yet fighters were arguably the foundation of everything, especially coming from Chainmail.

Honestly I can't look back at 4e with the kind of thrill that some do. Making martial characters (let's just say fighters) play like casters is not a solution. Fighters fight. They pick up a weapon and hit (or stab, or slice) something with it. We can dress it up all we want, add special effects, bolt-on different mechanics; but ultimately the fighter's purpose is just that. Yes it's simple compared to other classes, but it's supposed to be. The trick is always avoiding needless complexity while adding/allowing flexibility. So many of the proposed "solutions" crank up the complexity as well.

I haven't been a big fan of the battlemaster because I haven't cared for the bolt-on superiority dice mechanic. And while it does allow more flexibility, it also can tend to slow down combat. I have the same issue with the BECMI weapon mastery system. It has the potential to add a lot of variation; but all the various weapon "special effects" can seriously bog things down. I won't even go into the ToB or 4e fighter "powers."

As much as 5e has been good for its rendition of feats, I think incorporating some of the more combat-centered "micro" feats ala 3e could add a lot of variety with comparatively-little complexity. No one wants to go back to feat-trees and feat-taxes; but stand-alone feats/"tactics" could improve things for martials and help with the power gap with casters (which the spell/slot system already did, IMO).

Just thinking "out loud".. all classes get 4 ASI's, which they can swap for uber-feats. Fighters get 2 more of these. Maybe instead of one uber-feat, a player could pick 2-3 "tactics", things like cleave or power attack or such.

The problem with bringing this up is that Anything that gives a bonus to hit is automatically seen as "violating bounded accuracy!"; but I don't think it has to be. We don't need to overly-complicate things, or turn D&D into a wuxia game, to give some variety. Just my $.02.

[OldTrees1]

I like this idea, I just don't know if we're capable of delivering a thematic system that scales effectively in every area for each class.

For instance, Barbarians.

Rage is incredibly simple, the benefits of it are straightforward and only really relevant for combat, and there isn't really much else to play with besides Strength, Rage, and occasionally increased defenses or mobility. We could make Rage a lot cooler, but then you're still trying to build on a foundation that supports a player only getting to use his features and have fun while he has the Rage capacity to do so.

Barbarians don't really have any kind of theme beholden to them, like psionics or something, so how do we build on such a grey chassis in a way that feels like we're making the game more fun? There are only so many ideas we could make around a class identity of "Strong and Angry".

Totem Barbarian gets to see distant locations at 10th level (Commune with Nature).
Totem Barbarian gets flight at 14th level.
It sounds like the Nature theme from Barbarian might be more useful to our ends than the "Grr Angry" theme and Barbarian gets both.

Barbarian also gets the "Strength and Endurance" theme. If provided enough mechanical advantage they can achieve a lot. Could they smash handholds into walls? Could they dig a tunnel? Could they power a medieval aircraft? Could they swim underwater long enough with enough bags of air?

My ranking of easiest thematically to hardest:
Artificer (wow, easy mode thematically)
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Barbarian
Monk (plenty of thematic potential)
Fighter (Fighter is a bit generic, but any less generic version like Knight has increased thematic potential)

[Ralanr]

This thread can make one wonder how on earth fighters survived back in the 0e days. No maneuvers, one attack. And yet fighters were arguably the foundation of everything, especially coming from Chainmail.



Not to derail, but I think they sort of didn't? My knowledge of 0, first, and second edition are very limited mind you, but I kind of figured that the fighting man class didn't really do much but got followers as they leveled to keep up.

Though I think it says a lot that many of the big name NPCs that were created by Gary and his family/friends are all magic casters of some variety.

[Man_Over_Game]

The problem with bringing this up is that Anything that gives a bonus to hit is automatically seen as "violating bounded accuracy!"; but I don't think it has to be. We don't need to overly-complicate things, or turn D&D into a wuxia game, to give some variety. Just my $.02.

I really don't care about bounded accuracy - AC and ToHit scaling becomes less relevant as you level - my problem is that we can already do that. If I wanted to improve my accuracy, I can use a feat to pick up a fighting style, and I can sell my accuracy for damage by picking up a weapon feat.

My problem is that, between increasing or decreasing my accuracy, or adding more weapon attacks, there isn't really much else to do.


If the best we can come up with is something that's already been done, or could have been done, we aren't really adding any more game to the game. If those gameplay options were already enough, we wouldn't be looking for more.

It'd be "These features are weak", not "We need more features".

[Kuu Lightwing]

The problem with bringing this up is that Anything that gives a bonus to hit is automatically seen as "violating bounded accuracy!"; but I don't think it has to be. We don't need to overly-complicate things, or turn D&D into a wuxia game, to give some variety. Just my $.02.

Reminder that this game has a fighting style that gives flat +2 to all attacks with a ranged weapon. Surely if that's alright, then bounded accuracy isn't that fragile?

[Kuu Lightwing]

This thread can make one wonder how on earth fighters survived back in the 0e days. No maneuvers, one attack. And yet fighters were arguably the foundation of everything, especially coming from Chainmail.

Honestly I can't look back at 4e with the kind of thrill that some do. Making martial characters (let's just say fighters) play like casters is not a solution. Fighters fight. They pick up a weapon and hit (or stab, or slice) something with it. We can dress it up all we want, add special effects, bolt-on different mechanics; but ultimately the fighter's purpose is just that. Yes it's simple compared to other classes, but it's supposed to be. The trick is always avoiding needless complexity while adding/allowing flexibility. So many of the proposed "solutions" crank up the complexity as well.

I haven't been a big fan of the battlemaster because I haven't cared for the bolt-on superiority dice mechanic. And while it does allow more flexibility, it also can tend to slow down combat. I have the same issue with the BECMI weapon mastery system. It has the potential to add a lot of variation; but all the various weapon "special effects" can seriously bog things down. I won't even go into the ToB or 4e fighter "powers."

As much as 5e has been good for its rendition of feats, I think incorporating some of the more combat-centered "micro" feats ala 3e could add a lot of variety with comparatively-little complexity. No one wants to go back to feat-trees and feat-taxes; but stand-alone feats/"tactics" could improve things for martials and help with the power gap with casters (which the spell/slot system already did, IMO).

Just thinking "out loud".. all classes get 4 ASI's, which they can swap for uber-feats. Fighters get 2 more of these. Maybe instead of one uber-feat, a player could pick 2-3 "tactics", things like cleave or power attack or such.

The problem with bringing this up is that Anything that gives a bonus to hit is automatically seen as "violating bounded accuracy!"; but I don't think it has to be. We don't need to overly-complicate things, or turn D&D into a wuxia game, to give some variety. Just my $.02.

Also, "Fighters fight" is I guess a fair statement, but why should "Fighting" mean just "I attack this person with my sword..." and "I attack this person with a sword two more times"? Surely there may be more to fighting than "make attack roll" and "make damage roll".

Argument about maneuvers and such slowing down combat is incomplete. Yes, they do that, because they introduce more decisions to make, but when the discussion is about wanting more meaningful decisions/options, then you'd have to accept that it may slow combat down a bit. However all the same argument can be used against spellcasters, so we'll need arguments why it is acceptable for spellcasters to slow down combat, but not for martials.

Also what complexity is "needless" is very poorly defined and usually is entirely up to individual preferences.

[Man_Over_Game]

Also, "Fighters fight" is I guess a fair statement, but why should "Fighting" mean just "I attack this person with my sword..." and "I attack this person with a sword two more times"? Surely there may be more to fighting than "make attack roll" and "make damage roll".

Argument about maneuvers and such slowing down combat is incomplete. Yes, they do that, because they introduce more decisions to make, but when the discussion is about wanting more meaningful decisions/options, then you'd have to accept that it may slow combat down a bit. However all the same argument can be used against spellcasters, so we'll need arguments why it is acceptable for spellcasters to slow down combat, but not for martials.

Also what complexity is "needless" is very poorly defined and usually is entirely up to individual preferences.

I personally like the idea of simple Setup mechanics. You choose to do something in Turn 1 that sets you up to do something in Turn 2.

It comes with risk (you may take a subpar action on Turn 1 to chance a good outcome on Turn 2), it encourages teamwork (he's going for XYZ move next turn, so I'll prepare the stage for that), and both steps can be incredibly simple.

DnD has always had a habit of resolving effects too quickly, but the game becomes more interesting when you stagger out resolutions to effects a little bit. If an enemy or a player can react a bit more to what other players are doing, that's already adding a lot of strategy that we don't always have.

It could be as simple as "When you take the Dodge Action, enemies make contested ability checks against you with Disadvantage until the end of your next turn", perfect to set up a target to be Prone or Grappled next round.

[Psyren]

I like one of the unique benefits for Fighters that PF came up with - Combat Stamina (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/stamina-and-combat-tricks-optional-rules/), which in 5e could be a per-rest resource they can spend that lets them get more mileage out of feats than other classes can. If Fighter is intended to be the master of feats, i.e. more ASIs than anyone else, that could be one way for them to stand out that won't rely on every Fighter being a Battlemaster. You could even open the system up to other martial classes, but just give Fighters the most points or flexibility.

One way this could work would be to add a series of "if you spend X stamina when using this feat, it also does Y" and/or "so long as you have at least XX points of stamina remaining, this feat also does YY" to the existing ones. These could be used for increased damage, defense, mobility and utility. Some examples:

Charger could let you spend some stamina to use your Extra Attack feature along with the bonus action attack you get after Dashing, giving you considerably more battlefield mobility in a spread encounter without sacrificing damage.
Mage Slayer could have "For every point of stamina remaining in your pool, the range at which you get advantage on saving throws vs. all spells increases by 5ft, to a maximum of 30" making the fighter much more of a tank when up against casters.
Shield Master could gain "if any adjacent allies also have to roll a dexterity saving throw for half damage, you can spend 1 stamina per ally to let them add your shield's AC bonus to their save. Each character you spend stamina for in this way will also take no damage on a successful save."

The issue in 5e of course is that feats are optional in this system, but I think most games that encourage Fighters allow them anyway.

[qube]

hmmm ... top of my head:

the Pendragon knight
(basically, a quick glance at the hexblade, un-magicing it)

1. Defensive warrior
2. Offensive warrior
3. Student of the art of war
4. ASI
5. extra attack
6. Student of the art of war
7. Master of war
8. ASI
9. Student of the art of war
10. Defensive master
11. Offensive master
12. ASI, Student of the art of war
13. Vortex of danger
14. warriors soul
15. warriors mind, Student of the art of war
16. ASI
17. warriors body,
18. ASI, Student of the art of war
19.
20. Action surge

1. Defensive warrior: just like defensive dualist for all weapons and such (a.k.a.: reaction: get prof. to AC), either for you or an adjacent target.

2. Offensive warrior: you're apt at attacking the weak spots of targets. You ignore resistance & immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, and you crit at 19-20

3/6/9/... Student of the art of war you get to know 2 art forms; every 3 levels you get to know another art

Educated: Pick 2 knowledge skills. you're proficient in them
Aware: gain profciency in perception & investigation; or insight & handle animal.
Defensive guard: bonus action (concentration): +1 AC
Guard expertise: advantage in perception during nightly guard, require half as much sleep.
sentinal feat
mage slayer feat
Agjile warrior: you get proficiency to dex saves
Defending shield: you grant a alies adjacent to you a bonus equal to your prof-mod to dex & str saves
[lvl 6+] blade dance: bonus action (concentration): enemies that start adjacent get STR-mod damage
[lvl9+] Mobile stance: bonus action (concentration): speed +10 ft and expertise in athletics (climb & jump)
[lvl 12+] personal guard. bonus action (concentration): pick 1 target. that person gets +1 AC, +1 AC if you're adjacent, and you can use a bonus action to dash toward that person
[lvl 15+]exploit weakness, pick 1 creature type. as an action you can attempt a special melee attack ( Str vs Con save) to such creature. it deals your STR mod as damage (no resistance or immunty) and stuns the target for 1 round


7. Master of war: when you kill an enemy, gain temp hp equal to your proficiency bonus

10. Deffensive master: 1/short rest pick an enemy and an ally. As long as the ally or that enemy is adjacent, That enemy has an additional 50% miss chance on attacks against that ally, and that ally has adv. on save vs attacks from that enemy.

11. Offensive master: add your proficiency bonus to damage

13. Vortex of danger: you're able to reach at a moments notice, lunging unexpectably, and jumping to place where your enemy didn't expect you. Adjacent now is 'in 10ft' instead of 5ft. This increases your range, and improves abilities such as the personal guard study or the mage slayer feat. If an enemy moves, you can use your reaction to teleport 5 ft in it's path

14. warriors soul: 1 hour to mentally prepare. This creates a trigger (like contingiency), for a single attack. This attack can even trigger if you're sleeping or stunned.

15. warriors mind: as mind blank

17. warriors body: as forsight

20. Action surge: as action surge

[strangebloke]

Okay, what does everyone think of the following?

Dirty Tricks(3rd level Rogue)
You learn three maneuvers of your choice from the rogue's list. You can use only one maneuver per attack. Once you use a maneuver, you can't use it again until you use a different maneuver. You learn an additional maneuver of your choice at 7th, 11th, and 15th level. Each time you learn new maneuvers, you can also replace one maneuver you know with a different one.

You have one superiority die, which is a d8. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You can regain your superiority die as a bonus action. You gain an additional superiority dice at 7th, 11th, and 15th level.


Bait and Switch
Brace
Disarming Attack
Distracting Strike
Evasive Footwork
Feinting Attack
Goading Attack
Grappling Strike
Lunging Attack
Maneuvering Attack
Menacing Attack
Parry
Precision Attack
Pushing Attack
Quick Toss
Riposte
Sweeping Attack
Trip Attack



The basic idea here is to play into how simple the rogue generally is with its resource economy. Because they effectively have infinite maneuvers they also don't have maneuvers that can be used on skill checks. I also removed a few options that didn't seem like "dirty tricks" to me, like rally and commander's strike. They also are required to switch up their maneuvers and use different ones occasionally, which creates a little combat minigame if you're trying to use riposte and brace to maximum efficiency.

Instinctive Fighting(3rd level Barbarian)

You learn four maneuvers of your choice from the barbarian's list. You can use only one maneuver per attack and you cannot use maneuvers while raging. You learn an additional maneuver of your choice at 9th, 13th, and 17th level. Each time you learn new maneuvers, you can also replace one maneuver you know with a different one.

You have a number of superiority die equal to your proficiency, which are d12s. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain one superiority die when you rage, or all of them when you complete a long rest. Starting at 9thlevel you regain all superiority dice after raging.


Ambush
Bait and Switch
Commander's Strike
Commanding Presence
Distracting Strike
Evasive Footwork
Feinting Attack
Goading Attack
Grappling Strike
Lunging Attack
Maneuvering Attack
Menacing Attack
Parry
Precision Attack
Pushing Attack
Quick Toss
Rally
Riposte
Sweeping Attack
Tactical Assessment
Trip Attack



The barbarian has a mostly-full list, although IMO stuff like ambush and commanding presence are clearly the best options. The Barbarian doesn't get many dice, but their dice are very powerful. Removed "brace" because it didn't feel on-brand to me. I expect most barbarians will grab OOC utility maneuvers here.


Further Development

Unique manuevers for rogues and barbarians to represent "fighting dirty." (Blinding strike? Maybe convert smite/strike spells to maneuvers?)
Higher level general maneuvers (steal from ToB here)
a method for fighters and monks to use maneuvers. Currently I'm leaning toward them getting loads of maneuvers but having to pay ki to use them.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, what does everyone think of the following?

Dirty Tricks(3rd level Rogue)
[...]
You have one superiority die, which is a d8.

Instinctive Fighting(3rd level Barbarian)
[...]
You have a number of superiority die equal to your proficiency, which are d12s.

Personally I think that if you give more options, tying said options to a limited-ressource-dice thing is not the way to go.

Not all martials should be Battle Master-light. In fact, nearly all of them shouldn't be.

[Ralanr]

Interesting that you made it so barbarians can't use maneuvers when raging. Seems like they'd only use them when they ran out of rages.

[strangebloke]

Personally I think that if you give more options, tying said options to a limited-ressource-dice thing is not the way to go.

Not all martials should be Battle Master-light. In fact, nearly all of them shouldn't be.
Sure! Rogues are definitely the ones that I feel fit the least well with this sort of system. I could see a paradigm for rogues for example where they're just given loads of options to select from for cunning action including better options at higher level.

Overall they're simplistic in combat and good elsewhere, which makes them IMO one of the least 'problematic' martial classes, since the simplicity in combat can be a feature rather than a bug and the out-of-combat utility is where other martials (particularly barbarians) fall short.


Interesting that you made it so barbarians can't use maneuvers when raging. Seems like they'd only use them when they ran out of rages.

Well, they get access to the three Maneuvers that work out of combat, so they'll certainly be using ambush and commanding presence at least for some much-needed out of combat utility. And yeah, the idea is to give them something to do instead of raging, maybe even delay raging a turn so that they have something to refresh.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe class features that recharges when you spend a rage?

That way you're incentivized to use them before your rage too.

[paladinn]

Personally I think that if you give more options, tying said options to a limited-ressource-dice thing is not the way to go.

Not all martials should be Battle Master-light. In fact, nearly all of them shouldn't be.

This.

Also, barbarians getting maneuvers doesn't work in my mind. Maneuvers are things you do that require active thought. Rage is.. well.. not thinking.

[strangebloke]

Maybe class features that recharges when you spend a rage?

That way you're incentivized to use them before your rage too.
That's what I did though.

This.

Also, barbarians getting maneuvers doesn't work in my mind. Maneuvers are things you do that require active thought. Rage is.. well.. not thinking.
Barbarians need to have something other than just being a button labeled "rage." Currently they have very little in the way of features that matter when they're not raging and it feels really bad when you're in the position of not raging.

[Psyren]

This.

Also, barbarians getting maneuvers doesn't work in my mind. Maneuvers are things you do that require active thought. Rage is.. well.. not thinking.


That's what I did though.

Barbarians need to have something other than just being a button labeled "rage." Currently they have very little in the way of features that matter when they're not raging and it feels really bad when you're in the position of not raging.

*gestures once more towards stamina/feats*

[Morty]

This thread can make one wonder how on earth fighters survived back in the 0e days. No maneuvers, one attack. And yet fighters were arguably the foundation of everything, especially coming from Chainmail.

I do wonder the same thing, only entirely honestly and not sarcastically - I haven't the faintest clue what people see in fighters from old editions.

Anyhow, as I see it, there are two broad directions for making warrior-types exciting. One is to give them special abilities, the other is to make their basic tools more varied and impressive. Whenever D&D bothered to try making martial classes real characters and not the casters' sidekicks, it went with the former - ToB, PoW, 4E. Of course, in the former two cases it was because the whole thing was bolted onto the existing game. But the second direction shouldn't be discounted. Special abilities are all well and good, but a lot could be improved if mundane skills, combat or otherwise, had more breadth of what they can accomplish. Instead of either "hit things some more" and "roll something and figure it out". These directions are not, of course, mutually exclusive.

Also, I'm generally sceptical about giving every martial class its own kind of abilities. Some class-unique abilities are obviously necessary, but a shared pool is also necessary for the result to have any kind of depth. As I've said in another thread, there's a reason why Fireball isn't printed separately for every class and subclass that can use it. Likewise, if we devise a martial maneuver to, say, hit an enemy so hard they're sent flying and knock over other enemies in their path, there's no reason why fighters, barbarians, monks and maybe paladins can't all use it. Though it does lead us to having to strike a balance between what is and what isn't worth making class-specific. Would be nice if there was any kind of consistent idea about it in the system as it is, but there really is not.

[Pex]

Also, "Fighters fight" is I guess a fair statement, but why should "Fighting" mean just "I attack this person with my sword..." and "I attack this person with a sword two more times"? Surely there may be more to fighting than "make attack roll" and "make damage roll".

Argument about maneuvers and such slowing down combat is incomplete. Yes, they do that, because they introduce more decisions to make, but when the discussion is about wanting more meaningful decisions/options, then you'd have to accept that it may slow combat down a bit. However all the same argument can be used against spellcasters, so we'll need arguments why it is acceptable for spellcasters to slow down combat, but not for martials.

Also what complexity is "needless" is very poorly defined and usually is entirely up to individual preferences.

Why does combat have to be fast? I made a comment for an unrelated matter in another thread about a combat taking a real world hour to play and people got on the case as if that was such a horrible thing the game was being played wrong. I won't say how long a combat takes to play is irrelevant, but how long it takes is a lower priority than it being fun to play. Doing cool things and having interesting decisions to make is what makes a combat fun. Players should be excited about another player's turn as their own. Have your own cool things to do while enjoying their cool things in action. Having fun who cares about the clock? The clock only matters if and when the game session has to end at a particular time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why does combat have to be fast? I made a comment for an unrelated matter in another thread about a combat taking a real world hour to play and people got on the case as if that was such a horrible thing the game was being played wrong. I won't say how long a combat takes to play is irrelevant, but how long it takes is a lower priority than it being fun to play. Doing cool things and having interesting decisions to make is what makes a combat fun. Players should be excited about another player's turn as their own. Have your own cool things to do while enjoying their cool things in action. Having fun who cares about the clock? The clock only matters if and when the game session has to end at a particular time.

Which it almost always does.

For me, the big thing is that individual turns have to be fast. Because you're only playing (as a player) 1/N turns, so if each turn takes 10 minutes and there are 4 players, you're playing 1/5 of the time (at best), basically for 10 minutes out of 50. And that's at best--if one person's turn takes 10 minutes and yours takes 2, then you're playing for 2 minutes and sitting on your butt for 38. That's a recipe for disengagement.
--------
On topic, I decided to proof-of-concept an idea for fighters (at the base class level, starting from level 2): Stances. Basically, you'd have a list of stances which you could enter, each with passive benefits and an active ability. Using the active ability shuts off the stance, and each stance is once per combat (technically, they require 1 minute of meditation/re-centering to recharge). https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637262-Stances-A-new-quot-maneuver-quot-mechanism-for-all-Fighters.

I'll probably adjust the mechanics to "you know all of them, but each LR you choose <N> (half of proficiency bonus?) to ready for the day. That gives you N big things per combat, plus passive bonuses the rest of the time. And there will be stances for non-combat as well, doing things like (passive: proficiency in Charisma (Persuasion)/active: when you make a check, treat that not-friendly person as friendly for that check; stance ends after the check) or (something about faster movement or breaking things better or ...).

Still in proof of concept form, but the idea, I thought, was interesting.

[Unoriginal]

That's what I did though.

Oops, my bad.

[RandomPeasant]

Also, I'm generally sceptical about giving every martial class its own kind of abilities. Some class-unique abilities are obviously necessary, but a shared pool is also necessary for the result to have any kind of depth. As I've said in another thread, there's a reason why Fireball isn't printed separately for every class and subclass that can use it.

I think that's a very narrow approach to the issue. It's true that you don't need to write fireball separately for each class that can use it. But that's because the classes that can use fireball are not very different from each-other, and fireball itself is not an ability that interacts in a particularly dramatic way with any resource management system. But it's quite obvious to me that if you want to have classes that feel really, meaningfully different, you can't give them the same pool of abilities because A) then they will feel the same because they are doing the same thing B) certain ways for classes to work will be over- or under-powered because how and how often you use an ability influences how powerful that ability is. If the Barbarian has rage powers they build up to over a fight, they need to be more powerful than the abilities of a Fighter who can use his maneuvers as often as he wants. Maybe you could tune that by modifiers on basic abilities, but I'm extremely skeptical you're going to make that work.

[SharkForce]

This thread can make one wonder how on earth fighters survived back in the 0e days. No maneuvers, one attack. And yet fighters were arguably the foundation of everything, especially coming from Chainmail.


Not to derail, but I think they sort of didn't? My knowledge of 0, first, and second edition are very limited mind you, but I kind of figured that the fighting man class didn't really do much but got followers as they leveled to keep up.

Though I think it says a lot that many of the big name NPCs that were created by Gary and his family/friends are all magic casters of some variety.

well, this has to do with a lot of the changes that have happened over the various editions.

first of all, spellcasters have consistently had their weaknesses reduced or removed entirely over the past 3 editions of D&D. I can't speak to before that time, but in 2nd AD&D when I started, wizards couldn't wear armour and cast spells (with the exception of elven fighter/mages who got their hands on a rare and expensive piece of equipment). not "can't wear armour without a feat", not "can't wear armour without multiclassing", not "might fail to cast a spell while wearing armour", just straight up "can't wear armour and cast spells", and it was a big deal because armour was by far the best way to improve your armour class. as I recall, they also lost their dexterity bonus to armour class while casting spells, and on top of that if you got hit before your spell went off in the initiative order your spell was gone. not *maybe* gone. gone. you lost it. period.

furthermore, vancian casting was a pretty significant limit. you might get about as many spell slots in 5th edition, but when I started playing you had to figure out what you wanted each spell slot to be at the start of the day, not at the start of your turn.

furthermore, they had d4 as their hit die instead of their current d6, and also of note hit dice stopped at 9th or 10th level, depending on class, and from then on you got a set number of hit points per level based on class. for wizards, that number was 1. and no constitution bonus at that point, since you were no longer gaining hit dice. also, warriors had a higher maximum bonus to hit points from constitution than everyone else, although that didn't come up as often since you needed a 17+ for it to matter.

specialization had a real cost to it as well, since you were losing 2-3 schools of magic, and just about every school had some really good stuff you would be losing.

finally, enemy saving throws improved with hit dice, and reached a point where if you were using a spell that didn't inflict a fairly large penalty the enemies were very likely to make their save. more particularly, enemy saving throws improved generally at the same rate as a fighter's saving throws... which also means that in addition to being a lot tougher relatively speaking than wizards in terms of hit points and armour class, fighters were generally quite likely to resist effects at high levels, especially if they had stuff like rings of protection to improve their saving throws.

I would also add that spells to buff your warrior allies could be far more powerful. people talk about haste in 5th edition and say it's good... well in my day it doubled attack rates and movement on one target per level. strength lasted one hour per level and actually improved the strength attribute. these were powerful options available to 2nd edition wizards that worked mainly because there were warriors to use them on.

of course, that's only part of the equation. fighters have gotten gradually weaker in relative terms. a 5th edition fighter does more total damage than a 2nd edition fighter (unless that second edition fighter is getting some powerful buff spells, generally speaking), but enemies in 2nd edition had a lot fewer hit points. a 14 hit die beholder would average around 60 hit points, for example, and when your main thing is "do hit point damage" that's a big deal. it was also incredibly consistent; I've had fighters who could hit typical enemies on a 2 or higher as early as level 6 or 7 (with a buff or two) on rare occasions. the 2nd edition fighter was simply far more effective against a 2nd edition monster than a 5th edition fighter is against a 5th edition monster. as a point of contrast, for a 2nd edition wizard if an enemy had magic resistance you had a flat chance of failing to effect them, period. no matter what the spell was. an enemy with 40% magic resistance had a 40% chance to ignore your fireball, and also a 40% chance to be able to walk through a wall of force after you cast it. some monsters were just outright immune to almost all magic (golems, for example).

so, how did the early edition fighter contribute? they were far better at fighting than the 2nd edition wizard. if you were going to get into fights (and you probably were), you were glad to have as many fighters as you could get your hands on, and high level fighters were extremely effective in their role, far more so than the modern D&D fighter.

as far as why we know the names of a bunch of wizard PCs and that's it... that's because they made new spells. some of the spells weren't even very good, and got left behind. but consider, those friends must have also played druids and clerics, which are also spellcasters... why don't we know those names? because they didn't create melf's magic missile or mordenkainen's faithful watchdog, all of their spells would have been their deities, not their own.

I mean, to put it another way... you know melf's name. what mighty deeds did melf accomplish? apart from acid arrow, and minute meteors, what was melf known for? what level did melf achieve? I would guess that you ultimately know next to nothing about melf other than a couple of spells he created. you don't know about melf because he was amazing and his fighter buddies sucked. you know about melf because he named a spell after himself, and that spell got added into the rulebooks.

[strangebloke]

*gestures once more towards stamina/feats*
It seems like a fine idea, but as you've presented it there's not much to discuss. Personally I like special abilities on the barbarian.

I do wonder the same thing, only entirely honestly and not sarcastically - I haven't the faintest clue what people see in fighters from old editions.
I think the 'badass normal' is an appealing enough archetype for some people. That and the (supposed) simplicity get people playing even when the mechanical implementation is hilariously weak.

Same reason people play the champion, basically.

Anyhow, as I see it, there are two broad directions for making warrior-types exciting. One is to give them special abilities, the other is to make their basic tools more varied and impressive. Whenever D&D bothered to try making martial classes real characters and not the casters' sidekicks, it went with the former - ToB, PoW, 4E. Of course, in the former two cases it was because the whole thing was bolted onto the existing game. But the second direction shouldn't be discounted. Special abilities are all well and good, but a lot could be improved if mundane skills, combat or otherwise, had more breadth of what they can accomplish. Instead of either "hit things some more" and "roll something and figure it out". These directions are not, of course, mutually exclusive.
Personally I'm in favor of both, and presenting them as being in opposition is a mistake. Although I've made something that fixates purely on maneuvers, i do think that something non-maneuver based may make more sense for the rogue or barbarian specifically. Simplicity is its own virtue and I can see the argument that at least one base class needs to be simple

Also, I'm generally sceptical about giving every martial class its own kind of abilities. Some class-unique abilities are obviously necessary, but a shared pool is also necessary for the result to have any kind of depth. As I've said in another thread, there's a reason why Fireball isn't printed separately for every class and subclass that can use it. Likewise, if we devise a martial maneuver to, say, hit an enemy so hard they're sent flying and knock over other enemies in their path, there's no reason why fighters, barbarians, monks and maybe paladins can't all use it. Though it does lead us to having to strike a balance between what is and what isn't worth making class-specific. Would be nice if there was any kind of consistent idea about it in the system as it is, but there really is not.
yes I agree.

Oops, my bad.
NBD.

I think that's a very narrow approach to the issue. It's true that you don't need to write fireball separately for each class that can use it. But that's because the classes that can use fireball are not very different from each-other, and fireball itself is not an ability that interacts in a particularly dramatic way with any resource management system. But it's quite obvious to me that if you want to have classes that feel really, meaningfully different, you can't give them the same pool of abilities because A) then they will feel the same because they are doing the same thing B) certain ways for classes to work will be over- or under-powered because how and how often you use an ability influences how powerful that ability is. If the Barbarian has rage powers they build up to over a fight, they need to be more powerful than the abilities of a Fighter who can use his maneuvers as often as he wants. Maybe you could tune that by modifiers on basic abilities, but I'm extremely skeptical you're going to make that work.

Its funny because in the previous discussion when I referenced "loads of terrible splats" it was pretty clear we had opposite splats in mind. I think things like the beguiler were well-designed in that they were limited spellcasters who had a specific archetype they were trying to fill rather than "Just another super wizard with even more incomprehensible rules."

Having everything be separate makes for a ton of work both for developer and player and overall I'd want to avoid it

[Ralanr]

SNIP


Well this was an informative look into the history. Thanks!

[Man_Over_Game]

Personally I think that if you give more options, tying said options to a limited-ressource-dice thing is not the way to go.

Not all martials should be Battle Master-light. In fact, nearly all of them shouldn't be.

I agree. More resources = More bookkeeping, which adds to the ongoing weight of playing. "Weight" is what stresses new players out and slows veterans down, and a good design goal should be to work around that.


Battlemaster maneuvers add weight. Not only do you have to track the number of uses, but each maneuver has different benefits and saves. It's not like you can memorize one maneuver and know the rest, you should be memorizing any that are relevant, and expanding that kind of system for almost every attack with every Martial is going to add a lot of Weight to the game. Double or Triple that if each character has their own maneuvers that they'll pulling from, since the DM will probably need to memorize it too (for when your players just don't know better).

But I think Action-based stances are a great way to work around this. I don't mean like superpower stances, more like taking one kind of action sets up something you'll want to be doing next turn. Grappled into Prone is a good example of this, but we can make more.

For instance, you could have something that says "When you use your Action to Dodge, your next attack before the end of your next turn is made with Advantage, and is considered a critical if both rolls would hit". Combine that with something like a list of conditions you can inflict on a Critical, and now you've create a simple solution that:

Only has a single, temporary, and easy-to-remember resource ("The next time I attack")
Uses mechanics that everyone is familiar with (Attack, Advantage, Dodge, Critical, Conditions)
Adds an effect that doesn't require any more lookups into the book (Just conditions, no need to check extra effects or save stats)

Tack that onto a Monk, and now they have some really interesting mixup tools that don't really make them any stronger. They just get rewarded for being defensive and patient, as the alternative is the exact situation we already have with Attack-Spam.

A good rule of thumb is, if you're going to add bookkeeping, do it once. Ancestral Guardian, for instance, adds a lot of weird mechanics that you need to be familiar with, BUT it never changes. Something like Battlemaster, on the other hand, has you learn 8 unique moves that might all be some variation of "6 Damage + Condition", and that can easily be trimmed with some better design.

I think it's the arbitrary bookkeeping (and perhaps the lack of consistency) is why folks instinctively like the Arcane Archer less than the Battlemaster, when the AA outputs similar damage (more in favorable AoE situations) and plays exactly​ like the Battlemaster.



As for Action-based Stances, it's important to have them bounce between goals. When they're implemented correctly, they are optimized for one problem and usually chain into several different kinds of solutions. For instance, after making a defensive stance effect (like the Dodge Action), you want to get a buff that encourages the opposite (a buff on your next attack). You are not rewarded for constantly attacking or constantly being defensive, but utilizing a blend of both as-needed. By making none of the "Extremes" optimal, you create a game where every micro decision matters. But they generally aren't all that interesting without adding more bookkeeping (but they can be static and easy to memorize).



I'm not trying to say what is or isn't a good solution, I just mean that there are some things we can watch out for so we're don't repeat the same mistakes with a patch job that someone will eventually complain about just like this.

[RandomPeasant]

Its funny because in the previous discussion when I referenced "loads of terrible splats" it was pretty clear we had opposite splats in mind. I think things like the beguiler were well-designed in that they were limited spellcasters who had a specific archetype they were trying to fill rather than "Just another super wizard with even more incomprehensible rules."

It's funny, because your assessment of how 3e works seems to be totally disconnected from the mechanics of 3e as they actually exist. The Beguiler is much closer to "just another super-wizard" than any of the classes that have their own unique thing. Because it is using the same mechanics as the super-wizards (read: Wizards) of the system, and things that are like each-other are similar.

[strangebloke]

I agree. More resources = More bookkeeping, which adds to the ongoing weight of playing. "Weight" is what stresses new players out and slows veterans down, and a good design goal should be to work around that.


Battlemaster maneuvers add weight. Not only do you have to track the number of uses, but each maneuver has different benefits and saves. It's not like you can memorize one maneuver and know the rest, you should be memorizing any that are relevant, and expanding that kind of system for almost every attack with every Martial is going to add a lot of Weight to the game. Double or Triple that if each character has their own maneuvers that they'll pulling from, since the DM will probably need to memorize it too (for when your players just don't know better).

But I think Action-based stances are a great way to work around this. I don't mean like superpower stances, more like taking one kind of action sets up something you'll want to be doing next turn. Grappled into Prone is a good example of this, but we can make more.

I don't exactly agree with all of this. I don't particularly think, for example that adding loads of "stances" is particularly less intensive on the book keeping front. I fundamentally feel as though trying to make something that's tactically interesting and lacking in complexity is fundamentally impossible in a pen-and-paper game like DND. Either there are rules or there aren't. If a rogue has only one die to spend and its always refreshed at the start of every combat and they only know two maneuvers, isn't that simpler than six different stances?

With all that said, I think stances could make sense for a class like a monk?

(Also FWIW I don't have the intent of keeping balance intact.)

It's funny, because your assessment of how 3e works seems to be totally disconnected from the mechanics of 3e as they actually exist. The Beguiler is much closer to "just another super-wizard" than any of the classes that have their own unique thing. Because it is using the same mechanics as the super-wizards (read: Wizards) of the system, and things that are like each-other are similar.

In underlying mechanics? Sure. But not in terms of how they play or what they can do. In that respect, something like a psion is far closer to a wizard than say a war mage.

[Psyren]

Personally I think Beguiler should have been a 6th-level caster with some discounted spells on its list so that it's still getting stuff like Major Image when a normal illusionist would. Keep the "I know everything spontaneously" part though.


It seems like a fine idea, but as you've presented it there's not much to discuss.

I wasn't saying to discuss my idea specifically, but stopping at "Barbarians shouldn't have maneuvers!" "I agree!" felt a bit incomplete.


Personally I like special abilities on the barbarian.

As do I. The idea behind a stamina system is that ALL martials can access it, but Fighters get the most bang out of it as they are (in theory anyway) the chief martial class. One easy way to do that is to tie it to feats, which since 3e they've been king of.



Having everything be separate makes for a ton of work both for developer and player and overall I'd want to avoid it

Agreed. And I think it's pretty spurious to say that just because a bunch of classes get fireball means they play similarly.

[RandomPeasant]

In underlying mechanics? Sure. But not in terms of how they play or what they can do. In that respect, something like a psion is far closer to a wizard than say a war mage.

And the Archivist is even more like a Wizard. As is the Sorcerer. If the best example you can give of your point is "the class that is explicitly designed as a mirror to the Wizard is a lot like a Wizard", your point probably isn't very good. The Warmage is a lot more like the Wizard than either is like the Crusader, or the Binder, or the Incarnate, or even the Rogue. And, frankly, you can make reasonable arguments that even the original comparison is flawed. Psions are famously good blasters, making them more like the Warmage than the Wizard. Pulling from the same pool of arcane spellcaster options (rather than psionic options) makes the Wizard a good deal more like the Warmage than the Psion. The Warmage plays differently from the Wizard because the Wizard has better things to do than be a Warmage, not because there is some dramatic gap between what you can do with a Warmage and what you can do with a Wizard.


Personally I think Beguiler should have been a 6th-level caster with some discounted spells on its list so that it's still getting stuff like Major Image when a normal illusionist would. Keep the "I know everything spontaneously" part though.

There should not be 6-casters at all. If you want someone to be a specialized spellcaster, just give them a specialized spell list. If you want someone to be a partial caster, give them a more limited number of spell slots. But having multiple casting progressions makes the game more confusing, and turns "learn a spell from another list" from a relatively minor ability into something you have to carefully lock down to avoid 3e Artificer-style shenanigans.


Agreed. And I think it's pretty spurious to say that just because a bunch of classes get fireball means they play similarly.

Of course it is. Because that's describing the causality backwards. All those classes can get the same fireball because they play similarly. Consider a different ability: teleport. Does that do the same thing on a class that gets it at-will as a class that gets it a limited number of times per day? Of course not. You certainly can have classes all pull from a shared list. But that limits the number of ways you can have abilities work, because the way an ability works influences its power in dramatic and obvious ways. Which is why the example being used is fireball, rather than something that is meaningfully influenced by how the class using it works.

[strangebloke]

Peasant, I don't even know what your point is or what you're trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is that reprinting similar abilities with different names is a waste of everyone's time, and that invariably this is what you end up doing if you're committed to each class having a completely unique feature list. Most martial character concepts will want to be able to do things like "attack"


I wasn't saying to discuss my idea specifically, but stopping at "Barbarians shouldn't have maneuvers!" "I agree!" felt a bit incomplete.
Fair enough.

And yeah functionally I think the problem we're having here is that everyone agrees there should be a dead-simple class but we all disagree on which class that should be.

Because conventionally this is the fighter, but arguably in this edition at least the rogue is more noob friendly, and the barbarian is thematically the one that should be the most simple. (whether its a good thing that the barbarian is so thematically simple is another discussion) In this edition all three are pretty simple as long as you're not playing certain subclasses (eldritch knight, rune knight, arcane trickster, arguably battlemaster) and that's the operative problem. Its arguable that this glut of extremely simple classes has been good for the game's health but many of us feel such classes are less interesting to play particularly at high level.

Maneuvers are a solution but they're very fightery, which is where something like "stances" (still pretty fightery I think) or "stamina" comes in.


As do I. The idea behind a stamina system is that ALL martials can access it, but Fighters get the most bang out of it as they are (in theory anyway) the chief martial class. One easy way to do that is to tie it to feats, which since 3e they've been king of.
You could probably also get a fair amount of mileage of having some kind of universal resource called "stamina" that's equal to your character's hp and can be spent on various class features. A few default ones with martial classes getting better/more efficient options. It'd be fiddly because you'd be tracking a second triple digit resource thats not hp but it would meet most of the design criteria

[Saelethil]

I actually really like the idea of fighters being the complex martial. The "Wizard" of martials if you will (I know people don't like the caster comparison but I'm not advocating for martial spells, it's just a metaphor...). Give them something like stances in place of fighting styles to more actively reflect the style of combat they are trained in and give all the subclasses superiority dice and maneuvers. It's ok if their turns takes an extra minute if they're having fun, the casters are all taking 5.

I could see giving monks something like what the fighter gets. Let them be the "Sorcerer" to the Fighter's "Wizard." They can be as complex as the fighter and they can both get a fair bit more complicated with some similar features while still feeling distinct and without getting to be the slog that is spell management.

Where I start to disagree with is when people suggest that all martials should get a bunch of new buttons.

Rogues require some degree of tactical play to get their SA but that's pretty simple and doesn't change much. I think they need something but I don't think its complexity. If you give a new player a Rogue they should have it pretty much figured out by the end of the first session and I think that's good.

Likewise, Barbarians are incredibly boring and could use some sort of out of combat boost as well as some help at higher levels but they should be simple. If someone wants a complex brute, send them to the fighter (or have them multi-class). I don't remember who suggested it but I like the idea of some kind of resource that recharges when they rage, let's call them "Rage Points" for now. Lets say that they get the same number of Rage Points as their rage damage bonus (keep it simple, Barbarians should be simple and and their abilities should be easy to remember) which can be used for things like, improving intimidation, strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom checks, increasing(doubling?) base jump distance. A small pool that refreshes when they get angry and helps them do things that Barbarians should be good at. A lot more options but only a tiny bit more complexity. Break through this portcullis, Terrify a hostage just by snarling at them, leap across a moat while throwing the halfling rogue up onto the wall (ok, this one might cost 2, 1 for the jump, 1 for the yeet). All things that the archetype suggests they would excel at but don't unless they waste the only feature they get that differentiates them from a bad fighter in combat.

If people want more complicated Rogues and Barbarians it would be easy from this point to make subclasses for the martial counterpart to the AT and EK.

Paladins and Rangers are another can of worms but I've gone on long enough.

[Pex]

Which it almost always does.

For me, the big thing is that individual turns have to be fast. Because you're only playing (as a player) 1/N turns, so if each turn takes 10 minutes and there are 4 players, you're playing 1/5 of the time (at best), basically for 10 minutes out of 50. And that's at best--if one person's turn takes 10 minutes and yours takes 2, then you're playing for 2 minutes and sitting on your butt for 38. That's a recipe for disengagement.




No one wants to sit around doing nothing, but that's not necessarily what is happening in an hour-long combat. Yes, your turn is not the hour, but when everyone gets to do cool things you get enjoyment when it is another player's turn doing their cool thing.

However, just the other day a player in a new group I'm in told me a reason he doesn't care for warrior classes is because it takes two minutes to do his turn while the spellcasters take eight. His complaint wasn't how long spellcasters took but that warriors were less. If by giving warriors cool things makes them more complex making combat last longer, combat lasting longer isn't necessarily a negative. Let the warrior player be active for 10 minutes too.

Nothing wrong with across the board efficiency. If a spellcaster's turn could be shortened to 5 minutes and everyone takes 5 minutes to do their turn that's fine, but my point is it's not a bad thing for combat to take longer because a warrior's turn is longer because it becomes complex to play by the process of giving the warrior cool things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No one wants to sit around doing nothing, but that's not necessarily what is happening in an hour-long combat. Yes, your turn is not the hour, but when everyone gets to do cool things you get enjoyment when it is another player's turn doing their cool thing.

However, just the other day a player in a new group I'm in told me a reason he doesn't care for warrior classes is because it takes two minutes to do his turn while the spellcasters take eight. His complaint wasn't how long spellcasters took but that warriors were less. If by giving warriors cool things makes them more complex making combat last longer, combat lasting longer isn't necessarily a negative. Let the warrior player be active for 10 minutes too.

Nothing wrong with across the board efficiency. If a spellcaster's turn could be shortened to 5 minutes and everyone takes 5 minutes to do their turn that's fine, but my point is it's not a bad thing for combat to take longer because a warrior's turn is longer because it becomes complex to play by the process of giving the warrior cool things.

Not everyone feels the same. I'd prefer that everyone's turn took ~30 seconds. Take an action, possibly move, done. Do something, don't worry about doing the perfect thing. Because more playing means more decisions and more chances for interesting things to happen. Sitting there watching someone figure out exactly what to do is hellaciously boring. Sure, it's fine...when they do something. But when most of that is them flipping through books or thinking out loud and "optimizing" their turn, that's not cool.

[qube]

I don't exactly agree with all of this. I don't particularly think, for example that adding loads of "stances" is particularly less intensive on the book keeping front.Meanwhile I got a player at my table for who forgets he has a rage button half the time. Even as champion he frequently forgets 19 also crits. So, I feel there's a fault in your logic.


You don't like a type of build --> all builds should be different.

I've got no problem with subclassing, or even creating new martial classes that are, choice-intensive. But please don't assume everyone needs, wants, or even, can handle, that.


And yeah functionally I think the problem we're having here is that everyone agrees there should be a dead-simple class but we all disagree on which class that should be.This perhaps might come as a super weird idea ... but what about we let players who want to play dead-simple characters ... still have some choice?

Among the hundreds(?) of class/subclasses - why should there be only 1?

Idealy I would argue, every class has a dead-simple subclass. (even a wizard could be simplified a build that focusess on 1 pr 2 spell. Example a force wizard only having magic missle, and a telekinesis power)


I actually really like the idea of fighters being the complex martial. The "Wizard" of martials if you will (I know people don't like the caster comparison but I'm not advocating for martial spells, it's just a metaphor...)as someone who pratices HEMA (european longsword fighting) - I quite obviously second that notion.

On the other hand, if I recall correctly (I might be dead wrong), in historical rapier fighting (something you'd assume to be fancy & complex), there was a fighting style that just was 'take a high guard, and hit the opponent with a strong strike' (it didn't focus on technique at all - just 100% timing)

[Dienekes]

Meanwhile I got a player at my table for who forgets he has a rage button half the time. Even as champion he frequently forgets 19 also crits. So, I feel there's a fault in your logic.


You don't like a type of build --> all builds should be different.

I've got no problem with subclassing, or even creating new martial classes that are, choice-intensive. But please don't assume everyone needs, wants, or even, can handle, that.

This perhaps might come as a super weird idea ... but what about we let players who want to play dead-simple characters ... still have some choice?

Among the hundreds(?) of class/subclasses - why should there be only 1?

Idealy I would argue, every class has a dead-simple subclass. (even a wizard could be simplified a build that focusess on 1 pr 2 spell. Example a force wizard only having magic missle, and a telekinesis power)

See, I agree that there should be the option to play the simplified classes, but I don't think it should be an option available for all classes. That is what led us to the Champion/Battlemaster divide. Because the Champion needed to be simple, that meant the Fighter class needed to be simple. Which meant all of the complexity of a Battlemaster needed to be squashed into 5 levels. And let's be honest here, the Battlemaster is not a complex Fighter, there wasn't enough room to make it a complex Fighter. It just required slightly more forethought than the Champion. And that left us with two subclasses that have absolutely no fluff, trying to recreate essentially every martial archetype in existence to try and cater to the two desired playstyles.

Personally, I'd prefer specific classes get designated as either the simple or the complex. Preferably these classes get spread out over the different roles. There already are classes that essentially share the same party roles: Wizard and Sorcerer, Barbarian and Fighter being the most obvious ones. Pick one to be simple, one to be complex and you're done. Now among the subclasses there can be a range of additional complexity, but subclasses work best as a tool to nudge toward certain playstyles.



Now, all that said, WotC isn't gonna listen to our comments anyway. And this thread is mostly about the concept of how to grant martials powers. And that includes the class I think should remain simple: the Barbarian. So, I kind of feel arguing whether the class should have such powers is kind of beyond the purpose of this specific thread. This one is about giving everyone powers and that's fine. Again, it's not going to do anything but maybe inspire some homebrew.

[Kuu Lightwing]

See, I agree that there should be the option to play the simplified classes, but I don't think it should be an option available for all classes. That is what led us to the Champion/Battlemaster divide. Because the Champion needed to be simple, that meant the Fighter class needed to be simple. Which meant all of the complexity of a Battlemaster needed to be squashed into 5 levels. And let's be honest here, the Battlemaster is not a complex Fighter, there wasn't enough room to make it a complex Fighter. It just required slightly more forethought than the Champion. And that left us with two subclasses that have absolutely no fluff, trying to recreate essentially every martial archetype in existence to try and cater to the two desired playstyles.

To be honest I think this better demonstrates how limited the subclasses are rather than the issues with having simple and complex classes. And this actually is what I was saying over and over again - with subclasses as limited as they are, releasing so few classes is a mistake, and hurts a lot of concepts they try to squeeze into the chassis of other classes with only 4-5 abilities half of which are not available until Tiers 3 and 4, which are by admission of the designers are not played much.

[Wildstag]

you know about melf because he named a spell after himself, and that spell got added into the rulebooks.

No, we know about Melf because he was one of Gygax's players and he shoved them into as many things as he could. Later writers felt that to make a threat relevant they needed to be involved (as the primary example, see the Vecna AP).

Fwiw, by your logic, we do know a martial, or at least the 3.5e players do. We know Robilar because of his Gambit.

And really, if you look at the people that actually played at Gygax's table, Robilar is one of less than a handful of martials that actually got high-level. The players were casters because they could hire tens of hirelings to just die on the frontlines while they got off their spells unhindered.

Some of those spells weren't even made by the players of those characters, they just had their names tacked on to the spell in the TSR days to make it look like there were "new" spells.

[Ralanr]

To be honest I think this better demonstrates how limited the subclasses are rather than the issues with having simple and complex classes. And this actually is what I was saying over and over again - with subclasses as limited as they are, releasing so few classes is a mistake, and hurts a lot of concepts they try to squeeze into the chassis of other classes with only 4-5 abilities half of which are not available until Tiers 3 and 4, which are by admission of the designers are not played much.

I can't imagine the power creep of more classes would be much better. Yes the core problem of "Well X sucked, so we'll release X.2 to be better" still exists in subclasses, but at least that doesn't completely invalidate the class like it would releasing a new class to 'fix' the old class.

If there is one thing I wish paper RPGs could fix (but they can't because then there's a bunch of bookkeeping) is how they could use errata for patch notes. But that's free content, and companies like WOTC need to sell products to make money.

[strangebloke]

If people want more complicated Rogues and Barbarians it would be easy from this point to make subclasses for the martial counterpart to the AT and EK.
The problem here is that rogues and barbarians have pretty weak subclasses generally. The rogue for example doesn't get a second subclass feature until level 9, and most of the level 9 rogue subclass features are.... not that good. So implementing something like rune knight would be very hard.

Ultimately this comes down to taste, but IMO its unreasonable to have rogues AND fighters AND barbarians require simple implementations. Indeed, I'd say that 'barbarian' as an archetype being limited to 'charging argly bargly rage man' is a serious limitation to the archetype as a whole.

As I said earlier though, I'm just speaking for what I think would fly at my tables, its entirely possible that martials being relatively simple is a good thing and something that shouldn't be changed at all.

Not everyone feels the same. I'd prefer that everyone's turn took ~30 seconds. Take an action, possibly move, done. Do something, don't worry about doing the perfect thing. Because more playing means more decisions and more chances for interesting things to happen. Sitting there watching someone figure out exactly what to do is hellaciously boring. Sure, it's fine...when they do something. But when most of that is them flipping through books or thinking out loud and "optimizing" their turn, that's not cool.
IMO, barring extreme examples like conjurers and necromancers, the IRL time a combat turn takes is mostly informed by how engaged the player is. In my recent campaigns for example, the longest turn-takers were a warlock, a fighter, a paladin, a monk, and a bard.... all played by the same person! That particular player is a good friend and I enjoy playing with her, but the slow turns aren't a result of her class, I think.

Meanwhile I got a player at my table for who forgets he has a rage button half the time. Even as champion he frequently forgets 19 also crits. So, I feel there's a fault in your logic.


You don't like a type of build --> all builds should be different.

I've got no problem with subclassing, or even creating new martial classes that are, choice-intensive. But please don't assume everyone needs, wants, or even, can handle, that.

This perhaps might come as a super weird idea ... but what about we let players who want to play dead-simple characters ... still have some choice?

Among the hundreds(?) of class/subclasses - why should there be only 1?

Idealy I would argue, every class has a dead-simple subclass. (even a wizard could be simplified a build that focusess on 1 pr 2 spell. Example a force wizard only having magic missle, and a telekinesis power)
I've acknowledged that some people might want to play incredibly simple characters, and that it might be an asset to DND as a system that there are so many simple options. But I'm not reworking the system on a base level, I don't have that power even if I wanted. I'm just making homebrew for my table and for tables that have similar interests. This effort is overall guided by my preferences and the preferences of people I play with. Within that domain, picking and using two maneuvers isn't going to be too burdensome.

[Dienekes]

To be honest I think this better demonstrates how limited the subclasses are rather than the issues with having simple and complex classes. And this actually is what I was saying over and over again - with subclasses as limited as they are, releasing so few classes is a mistake, and hurts a lot of concepts they try to squeeze into the chassis of other classes with only 4-5 abilities half of which are not available until Tiers 3 and 4, which are by admission of the designers are not played much.

Well yeah, subclasses are incredibly limited, I more or less took that as a given.

Though I do question which concepts you think are missing. Personally, I have Warlord, which really can't be made into a Fighter subclass because the whole point of the Warlord is to be a support, grant actions, and boost others, while the Fighter chassis is really all about none of that.

A dedicated Pet class, because that has proved to be far too difficult to create balanced and satisfying mechanics while also being tacked on to a different source of power.

That's really it.

You could add Psionics. But, honestly, Psions only real claim to fame as far as I can tell is that it's just another casting system. The fluff is not some well known fantasy archetype that is desperately missing from the game. In theory you could get all the magical effects that would indicate a Psion from the Wizard's spell list. And there really hasn't been a consistency in the mechanical implementation. So, it's not something I personally feel is missing, other than just the desire for different subsystems to play around with. And... fair enough.

[paladinn]

Now, all that said, WotC isn't gonna listen to our comments anyway. And this thread is mostly about the concept of how to grant martials powers. And that includes the class I think should remain simple: the Barbarian. So, I kind of feel arguing whether the class should have such powers is kind of beyond the purpose of this specific thread. This one is about giving everyone powers and that's fine. Again, it's not going to do anything but maybe inspire some homebrew.

WotC tried "giving everyone powers." That was 4e, and it sucked. The goal then was "absolute game balance"; and at a given level all characters were indeed equal, only the "special effects" were different. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that. That's why Pathfinder was such a hit; it was more D&D than D&D!

"Plain" fighters are simple, and they are supposed to be. Ditto with "plain" rogues/thieves. There need to be ways to increase a character's utility and uniqueness without adding complexity. Otherwise, make the battlemaster the equivalent of the 4e fighter and call it a day.

And FWIW, I actually like the Warrior "sidekick" class better than the Champion, at least the UA version.

[LibraryOfAlex]

On topic, I decided to proof-of-concept an idea for fighters (at the base class level, starting from level 2): Stances. Basically, you'd have a list of stances which you could enter, each with passive benefits and an active ability. Using the active ability shuts off the stance, and each stance is once per combat (technically, they require 1 minute of meditation/re-centering to recharge).

I'll probably adjust the mechanics to "you know all of them, but each LR you choose <N> (half of proficiency bonus?) to ready for the day. That gives you N big things per combat, plus passive bonuses the rest of the time. And there will be stances for non-combat as well, doing things like (passive: proficiency in Charisma (Persuasion)/active: when you make a check, treat that not-friendly person as friendly for that check; stance ends after the check) or (something about faster movement or breaking things better or ...).

Still in proof of concept form, but the idea, I thought, was interesting.

This is a pretty cool idea for fighter specific stances. An improving bonus with an actuve effect to end it.


I also really like the idea of stances and came up with an idea, but its much more simple. Basically, you take an aggressive, defensive, or controlling action, and you get a bonus for the next non-same action you make. I.e. you attack, then dash. When you dash, you get an extra bonus for doing so after an attack. Attacking twice in a row is still better dps than attack -> defensive. Basically, stances as a state machine.


aggressive: make attacks, deal damage.
When you hit an enemy, gain this bonus:
- For Next defensive action: -1d4 to hit for any enemies you hit
- For Next controlling action: -1d4 bonus to this enemy's contest roll

defensive: dodge, disengage, dash, etc.
An enemy is 'dodged' when you disengage from them, they make an attack at disadvantage from your dodge action, or you dash past them.
- For Next aggr: +1d4 to hit enemies you dodged
- For next Ctrl: +1d4 to player contest against a dodged enemy

controlling: grapple, shove, disarm
An enemy is 'controlled' when you succeed the contested check against them for one of the above actions.
For next aggr: +1d4 damage against controlled targets
For next def: +1d4 AC against controlled targets

The stance die could scale with martial levels (i.e. 1d6 at 5 levels, 1d8 at 9 levels). Additionally, other classes could get extra effects, like +movement speed or something.

Might be fun to play a monk and bounce through the different actions and get an increasing bonus or get consistently good bonuses at higher levels for martials. But that's all extra to the base system.

[Ralanr]

You could add Psionics. But, honestly, Psions only real claim to fame as far as I can tell is that it's just another casting system. The fluff is not some well known fantasy archetype that is desperately missing from the game. In theory you could get all the magical effects that would indicate a Psion from the Wizard's spell list. And there really hasn't been a consistency in the mechanical implementation. So, it's not something I personally feel is missing, other than just the desire for different subsystems to play around with. And... fair enough.

Is it even a separate casting system? Every version of Psion I've seen (beyond the stance system with early mystic) just looked like spellcasting but better because it revolved around psi points manipulation instead of spell slots to get the same effects as a wizard casting a spell.

Except it could apparently work in anti-magic zones?

[Dienekes]

WotC tried "giving everyone powers." That was 4e, and it sucked. The goal then was "absolute game balance"; and at a given level all characters were indeed equal, only the "special effects" were different. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that. That's why Pathfinder was such a hit; it was more D&D than D&D!

"Plain" fighters are simple, and they are supposed to be. Ditto with "plain" rogues/thieves. There need to be ways to increase a character's utility and uniqueness without adding complexity. Otherwise, make the battlemaster the equivalent of the 4e fighter and call it a day.

And FWIW, I actually like the Warrior "sidekick" class better than the Champion, at least the UA version.

And they also released Tome of Battle and the Warblade which was designed around giving the "Fighter" abilities. And it is the most fun martial class I have ever played by a wide margin, in D&D or Pathfinder.

I reject the notion that Fighters are "supposed" to be anything.

So, right now we have two dirt simple martial classes, one is called Fighter, one is called Barbarian. They both fill the same role, have roughly even level of non-complexity, and the attempt to cater to the Tome of Battle loving fans was still the best Fighter subclass but frankly pales in comparison.

So, if WotC listens to me (and they won't). Pick one. Barb or Fighter, I don't care which. Make that one the Tome of Battle class. They'd have my undying gratitude.


Is it even a separate casting system? Every version of Psion I've seen (beyond the stance system with early mystic) just looked like spellcasting but better because it revolved around psi points manipulation instead of spell slots to get the same effects as a wizard casting a spell.

Except it could apparently work in anti-magic zones?

Spell points is a different system spell slots. Then in 4e Psions got a different take on the At-Will, Encounter, Daily system by being able to cast upgraded versions of their abilities which was actually kind of interesting.

But yeah, that's really it. It's a different system, not the most different system ever made most certainly. But it is different.

[paladinn]

And they also released Tome of Battle and the Warblade which was designed around giving the "Fighter" abilities. And it is the most fun martial class I have ever played by a wide margin, in D&D or Pathfinder.

I reject the notion that Fighters are "supposed" to be anything.



Spell points is a different system spell slots. Then in 4e Psions got a different take on the At-Will, Encounter, Daily system by being able to cast upgraded versions of their abilities which was actually kind of interesting.

But yeah, that's really it. It's a different system, not the most different system ever made most certainly. But it is different.

Sounds like you really love 4e. Why move to 5e?

Has anyone actually ported the 3.5 Warblade to 5e?

[Dienekes]

Sounds like you really love 4e. Why move to 5e?

Has anyone actually ported the 3.5 Warblade to 5e?

4e had quite a few other problems. On the whole, I think 5e is a better system. That doesn't mean I think every decision made in it is the right one. And the lack of mechanical diversity among classes that fill the same role is one of them.

[Ralanr]

Spell points is a different system spell slots. Then in 4e Psions got a different take on the At-Will, Encounter, Daily system by being able to cast upgraded versions of their abilities which was actually kind of interesting.

But yeah, that's really it. It's a different system, not the most different system ever made most certainly. But it is different.


I don't disagree but it really just doesn't feel different to me. Again, I liked the mystic's stance system because it actually made psionics stand out from how magic worked. Sadly, it never got off the ground (and likely for good reasons, but I liked them regardless).

[Suichimo]

Put me in the category of ToB/PoW all the way.


To be honest I think this better demonstrates how limited the subclasses are rather than the issues with having simple and complex classes. And this actually is what I was saying over and over again - with subclasses as limited as they are, releasing so few classes is a mistake, and hurts a lot of concepts they try to squeeze into the chassis of other classes with only 4-5 abilities half of which are not available until Tiers 3 and 4, which are by admission of the designers are not played much.

I absolutely agree. Wizards has added a grand total of 1 class to the game in the entirety of 5e. There is a ton of unadapted material in D&D's history which simply doesn't fit into the chassis of the existing 13 official classes. Obviously Psionics is one of those that they're working on, but you still have stuff like the Tome of Battle material, Incarnum, True Naming, hybrid classes, Warlord, Swordmage, Warden, stronger racial templates(i.e. vampire etc) as classes. Not to mention, I'm personally of the opinion that we should do away with Sorceror and Wizard. Break the Wizard down into the more specialized casters of 3.5, at least. Maybe the Sorceror could then fit into the generalist position and not be made obsolete by a similar class.


As to the bold, a self-defeating prophecy if there ever was one.


WotC tried "giving everyone powers." That was 4e, and it sucked. The goal then was "absolute game balance"; and at a given level all characters were indeed equal, only the "special effects" were different. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that. That's why Pathfinder was such a hit; it was more D&D than D&D!

"Plain" fighters are simple, and they are supposed to be. Ditto with "plain" rogues/thieves. There need to be ways to increase a character's utility and uniqueness without adding complexity. Otherwise, make the battlemaster the equivalent of the 4e fighter and call it a day.

And FWIW, I actually like the Warrior "sidekick" class better than the Champion, at least the UA version.

As Dienekes mentions later, ToB also did it and it was amazingly fun. The "powers" don't even have to be on the same level. The Wizard has a limited amount of slots to cast Fire Ball hitting a 40x40 area? The martial has a limited number of maneuvers they can have at any one time but can use them as many times as needed, even if a short recharge may be required. This would let the martial, let's call it a Warblade, use an attack called Mithril Tornado that attacks every creature around them. Similar to a Fire Ball but smaller in scope and can be used more often. Instead of Shield, the Warblade could use Wall of Blades, one of my favorite maneuvers in ToB btw, to defend against an attack with an opposed attack roll. Stuff like that.


Sounds like you really love 4e. Why move to 5e?

Has anyone actually ported the 3.5 Warblade to 5e?

I'd love to play 4e but I'm in the minority in my group. Part of that though is some of them haven't played 4e.

[Saelethil]

The problem here is that rogues and barbarians have pretty weak subclasses generally. The rogue for example doesn't get a second subclass feature until level 9, and most of the level 9 rogue subclass features are.... not that good. So implementing something like rune knight would be very hard.

Ultimately this comes down to taste, but IMO its unreasonable to have rogues AND fighters AND barbarians require simple implementations. Indeed, I'd say that 'barbarian' as an archetype being limited to 'charging argly bargly rage man' is a serious limitation to the archetype as a whole.

As I said earlier though, I'm just speaking for what I think would fly at my tables, its entirely possible that martials being relatively simple is a good thing and something that shouldn't be changed at all.

I was thinking something more akin to Battle Master which could in theory improve between sub class features (increasing maneuver die size) in a similar way to how ATs and EKs get to play with some magic in a limited capacity. They could get a little bit more fightery, a little more tactical and complex, without the base class needing to get more complicated.

I think fighters and monks have a lot of thematic reason to be more complex while the base archetypes of barbarian and rogue can be relatively simple while leaving room for more complex subclasses (my favorite barbarian is Ancestral Guardian).

I’m not 100% sold on barbarian resources recharging when they rage I just thought that it was an interesting mechanic. It would be just as easy to give them a short rest refresh. You could probably even make Rage a short rest resource without impacting too much.

[strangebloke]

I was thinking something more akin to Battle Master which could in theory improve between sub class features (increasing maneuver die size) in a similar way to how ATs and EKs get to play with some magic in a limited capacity. They could get a little bit more fightery, a little more tactical and complex, without the base class needing to get more complicated.

I think fighters and monks have a lot of thematic reason to be more complex while the base archetypes of barbarian and rogue can be relatively simple while leaving room for more complex subclasses (my favorite barbarian is Ancestral Guardian).

I’m not 100% sold on barbarian resources recharging when they rage I just thought that it was an interesting mechanic. It would be just as easy to give them a short rest refresh. You could probably even make Rage a short rest resource without impacting too much.

And as I was saying, the rogue and barbarian subclasses don't really have room to fully support the kinds of subclasses a fighter gets.

[Saelethil]

And as I was saying, the rogue and barbarian subclasses don't really have room to fully support the kinds of subclasses a fighter gets.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that all fighter sub classes should be portable to Rogue or Barbarian. But, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster both have the same spell progression. To me that would indicate that both are capable of a similar level of resource progression which also suggests to me that there’s a little bit more wiggle room than you seem to indicate. Again, I don’t think fighter sub classes should be applicable to Rogue and barbarian but if battle master maneuvers are shifted to be a base fighter feature then rogue or barbarian sub classes that grant a limited access to those abilities should be entirely feasible.

[Man_Over_Game]

WotC tried "giving everyone powers." That was 4e, and it sucked. The goal then was "absolute game balance"; and at a given level all characters were indeed equal, only the "special effects" were different. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that. That's why Pathfinder was such a hit; it was more D&D than D&D!

"Plain" fighters are simple, and they are supposed to be. Ditto with "plain" rogues/thieves. There need to be ways to increase a character's utility and uniqueness without adding complexity. Otherwise, make the battlemaster the equivalent of the 4e fighter and call it a day.

And FWIW, I actually like the Warrior "sidekick" class better than the Champion, at least the UA version.

Like I said a week before 5e was released, if it was so perfect then why are we talking about 5.5e?

Because you can always improve on perfection.


Plain Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues are perfect for one type of player, same for casters and their kind. You can make it even more perfect by catering those options to players that aren't satisfied with them. In other words, I'm glad you're happy, now it's my turn.

I want an overly complex melee character, and I don't want my options to be locked into using excessive mobility; I want a tank that stands still and is still interesting to play. Someone else might want a simple caster that isn't limited to just Eldritch Blast Spam.

At least, that's my theory about what to expect. Making folks who aren't already happy happier is a pretty solid design goal, and it'd be pretty darn easy to do when you consider how stable and simple the foundation for 5e is.

So...optional features that make Barbarians that feel as complex as a Wizard, and Wizards that feel as complex as a Barbarian. That's an abstract - they might add new classes or optional mechanics - but you get the drift. That way, everyone gets everything they want and nobody loses anything.

[KillingTime]

I've skipped a few posts, so if this has already been said you'll have to sue me.

I think the lowest hanging fruit here is to make a genuine distinction between bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage, and then to hard bake combat manoeuvres into the attack action that will differentiate between the various weapons, and give real choices between making opponents easier to hit, doing more damage and having various rider effects.
Basically some mashup of GWM/SS, crusher, piercer and slasher and the various fighting styles (but toned down).
Even if these were toned down far enough to be at will abilities it would still give the martials some genuine options instead of I Hit Again.

[Wildstag]

but you still have stuff like... Incarnum... Warden

I still carry a torch for 4e's Warden, but Incarnum is never going to get an update. I don't think it was even popular back in the 3.5 days, most people I know of that even looked through it used it only for a dip into the "Shape Soulmeld" and "Open X Chakra" feats (Impulse Boots ALL THE WAY!). I've never met anyone that actually wanted to play one of those classes or interact with the system in a meaningful sense.

[strangebloke]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that all fighter sub classes should be portable to Rogue or Barbarian. But, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster both have the same spell progression. To me that would indicate that both are capable of a similar level of resource progression which also suggests to me that there’s a little bit more wiggle room than you seem to indicate. Again, I don’t think fighter sub classes should be applicable to Rogue and barbarian but if battle master maneuvers are shifted to be a base fighter feature then rogue or barbarian sub classes that grant a limited access to those abilities should be entirely feasible.
You can do the thing that ATs and some other classes (like the shadow sorcerer) do and have a feature at 3rd level that gives you features at 6th level or whatever.

But that's wholly unnecessary because this is a homebrew effort and my desire to make complicated rogues in no wise impacts your table and the rules I'm presenting would only be ACFs anyway.

Like I said a week before 5e was released, if it was so perfect then why are we talking about 5.5e?

Because you can always improve on perfection.


Plain Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues are perfect for one type of player, same for casters and their kind. You can make it even more perfect by catering those options to players that aren't satisfied with them. In other words, I'm glad you're happy, now it's my turn.

I want an overly complex melee character, and I don't want my options to be locked into using excessive mobility; I want a tank that stands still and is still interesting to play. Someone else might want a simple caster that isn't limited to just Eldritch Blast Spam.

At least, that's my theory about what to expect. Making folks who aren't already happy happier is a pretty solid design goal, and it'd be pretty darn easy to do when you consider how stable and simple the foundation for 5e is.

So...optional features that make Barbarians that feel as complex as a Wizard, and Wizards that feel as complex as a Barbarian. That's an abstract - they might add new classes or optional mechanics - but you get the drift. That way, everyone gets everything they want and nobody loses anything.
Or to put it another way, if you don't like this homebrew that's fine as it is homebrew and we're trying to do our own thing here. Nobody is forcing anyone to implement this.

I've skipped a few posts, so if this has already been said you'll have to sue me.

I think the lowest hanging fruit here is to make a genuine distinction between bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage, and then to hard bake combat manoeuvres into the attack action that will differentiate between the various weapons, and give real choices between making opponents easier to hit, doing more damage and having various rider effects.
Basically some mashup of GWM/SS, crusher, piercer and slasher and the various fighting styles (but toned down).
Even if these were toned down far enough to be at will abilities it would still give the martials some genuine options instead of I Hit Again.
Hmmm I don't really care for this. It feels like this just pigeonholes people into a weapon selection they might not otherwise want to use. Alternately it leads to martials carrying both a maul and a greatsword.

I still carry a torch for 4e's Warden, but Incarnum is never going to get an update. I don't think it was even popular back in the 3.5 days, most people I know of that even looked through it used it only for a dip into the "Shape Soulmeld" and "Open X Chakra" feats (Impulse Boots ALL THE WAY!). I've never met anyone that actually wanted to play one of those classes or interact with the system in a meaningful sense.

Indeed. The problem with these island-like subsystems is that they don't really interact with the primary systems of the game in a very fun way. Hence why I view them as a waste of everyone's time. In 3.5 most DMs I ran into were skeptical of maneuvers, outright hostile to psionics, and didn't even know what incarnum was.

[OldTrees1]

I still carry a torch for 4e's Warden, but Incarnum is never going to get an update. I don't think it was even popular back in the 3.5 days, most people I know of that even looked through it used it only for a dip into the "Shape Soulmeld" and "Open X Chakra" feats (Impulse Boots ALL THE WAY!). I've never met anyone that actually wanted to play one of those classes or interact with the system in a meaningful sense.

Incarnum is a rather versatile subsystem that had less than ideal classes. Imagine if the 5E Artificer could maintain X magic items from a list of Y magic items (not too hard to imagine). Incarnum was an early version, that went deeper (limited binds and finite essentia to allow customization) and was a bit more flavorful.

Incarnum might or might not get an update, but even if it does not, it is an innovation that can be learned from for future designs of gear based classes.

[Saelethil]

You can do the thing that ATs and some other classes (like the shadow sorcerer) do and have a feature at 3rd level that gives you features at 6th level or whatever.

But that's wholly unnecessary because this is a homebrew effort and my desire to make complicated rogues in no wise impacts your table and the rules I'm presenting would only be ACFs anyway.

Or to put it another way, if you don't like this homebrew that's fine as it is homebrew and we're trying to do our own thing here. Nobody is forcing anyone to implement this.

Absolutely, I just wasn’t sure if you were misunderstanding me or disagreeing with me so I was trying to clarify my idea in case of the former. Now that it’s clear that you understand but disagree I’ll leave it at that. The only reason people should ever have to agree on homebrew is when they’re playing at the same table.

[Spiritchaser]

Everyone needs to stop arguing and just play an echo knight.

Kidding aside, with some imagination it’s clearly possible to design a fighter with tactically dense gameplay, mechanical advantages in non combat situations, and a power cap which is, while not quite up there with the best casters, certainly as strong as you would ever need.

[HunterOfJello]

At what point does it stop mattering if a fighter gains more levels?


If there are tiers of play, then that's when a fighter should have switched to become something more than just a guy with a stick.

[Abracadangit]

I, for one, applaud this effort. But you knew that already -- we were talking about this in the other thread.

While I was sort of indiscriminately flailing ideas around in the other thread, I do think there are ways you can give other martial classes maneuver-like things that aren't so complex that people feel bogged down, which seems to be one of the big counter-arguments here.

Maybe Rogues, upon successfully landing a sneak attack, could convert some of those d6s into certain debuffs or status effects? If you elect to burn 2d6 worth of sneak attack damage, you instead blind the enemy for 1 round (which they can use an action to remedy), or something. And if you want, you could elect to burn 2d6 worth of sneak attack damage, but instead of applying an on-hit effect, you keep them until the beginning of your next turn to spend on special defensive rogue maneuvers like sliding under a charging enemy as they approach, or similarly slick moves like that.

Maybe Barbarians get Rage Dice each time they used Reckless Attack, or grappled/shoved or some such, and then they could spend them on Rage Moves like picking up an enemy and hurling them into someone else, or grappling someone as a reaction in response to them missing an attack (i.e. you catch them by the arm and lift them up). Maybe traditional "Rage" is activated by some amount of Rage Dice, or maybe it's a mode that constantly generates Rage Dice by itself. Totally up to you.

Fighters get a Maneuver Die for free every turn -- their whole schtick is looking around the battlefield and coming up with ingenious/resourceful ways to use enemies' weapons/terrain/weaknesses against them, right. And then it feels good in contrast to the other martials, who have to work for it instead.

Monks should have ki points for their more fanciful, quasi-magical effects and attacks, but for pure martial arts stuff, feels like they should have their own thing going, right. Maybe they have a Technique Die that allows Flurry, Patient Defense, or mobility tricks, but it costs some movement to use it...? Actually letting them use some of their bonus movement in a constructive way, that thematically makes sense? Or something? Eh, we'll workshop it.

Not all of these are practical, and some of these are silly and unworkable, but my point isn't to present a lightning-quick barrage of Amazing Ideas, my point is that you can have maneuvers that feel organic to the class without calling everything a BM maneuver or making them pseudo-spells, which it seems like a lot of people are afraid it would become. And there's fun design levers already in play, to work with! We just have to throw some of them.

Agree, agree with what LudicSavant said near the beginning. We don't need martials to feel like anime characters - heck, they don't even need to feel like gods. Just make them feel like the rulebook art. Why can't Barbarians pick someone up and smash them through a table in a way that's rules-kosher AND rules-assisted, so the DM doesn't have to hem and haw over the plinky damage of an improvised action.

[Suichimo]

I still carry a torch for 4e's Warden, but Incarnum is never going to get an update. I don't think it was even popular back in the 3.5 days, most people I know of that even looked through it used it only for a dip into the "Shape Soulmeld" and "Open X Chakra" feats (Impulse Boots ALL THE WAY!). I've never met anyone that actually wanted to play one of those classes or interact with the system in a meaningful sense.


Indeed. The problem with these island-like subsystems is that they don't really interact with the primary systems of the game in a very fun way. Hence why I view them as a waste of everyone's time. In 3.5 most DMs I ran into were skeptical of maneuvers, outright hostile to psionics, and didn't even know what incarnum was.


Incarnum is a rather versatile subsystem that had less than ideal classes. Imagine if the 5E Artificer could maintain X magic items from a list of Y magic items (not too hard to imagine). Incarnum was an early version, that went deeper (limited binds and finite essentia to allow customization) and was a bit more flavorful.

Incarnum might or might not get an update, but even if it does not, it is an innovation that can be learned from for future designs of gear based classes.

It really didn't help that Incarnum was in a rather lack luster and obscure book that didn't get much attention because it was sandwiched between two other classes that were either redundant(Shadowcaster) or just brokenly bad(True Namers). Incarnum is really the only thing that saved that book. On top of that, Incarnum was super clunky. There is a ton of room to trim it down and offer it up as a kind of alternate take on the Warlock, I can easily see vestiges working in the Warlock's Invocation set up, just one that doesn't fit within the normal Warlock frame. Say, a melee class structure but with "Vestiges/Soul Binds" instead of Invocations and no pact magic/spellcasting feature, maybe Essentia equal to some number that could then be allocated to improve existing sould binds.

As to the bolded, I don't know if it was just Grognards pushing back or what, but enough naysayers definitely got stuff like "Book of weeaboo fightan magic" going around which definitely hurt the reputation. Everyone that I've met that has actually played with the Tome of Battle has loved it.

I'll never understand the backlash against Psionics, at least the version of Psionics that is simply Mind Wizard.

[Aimeryan]

There's a big difference between this sort of depth and spells-and-maneuvers depth-- in fact, you could say they're polar opposites.

Think of an action as an equation--you do this, and something happens. The steps you the player go through are the input, and the effects on the world are the output.

Martial combat is a very simple function. Your input is "roll to hit," and your output is "roll hp damage.". There are abilities that tinker with both sides, but they're simple--one conditional clause, one extra output, that sort of thing. For good or for ill, you're putting in pretty much the same input and getting pretty much the same output.

Spells are much more complex, but the complexity is all on the output side. Casting a spell, the part where you the player interact with the mechanics, is easy--take an action, mark off a spell slot, boom. You're still doing the same sort of thing every turn, but you get wildly different output.

A system like you're proposing is adding complexity to the input side of the equation. Weapon speed charts, fighting styles, armor types... You can get the input almost arbitrarily complicated, but the output is still the same "the target is hurt." You get tactical depth, but it's all in weighting the numbers ahead of time.

Put it like this: if a melee attack is "x+y=z," and a spell is "m=n, p, q, or r," then your system would be "3x3/6a+b(a+(c/3))= y+z." A lot more work goes into calculating what, exactly, the end result is... but the end result is still the same.

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.

I partially agree, partially disagree; while spells do have simple calculations, they have many more inputs than the martial attack:

Spell inputs are typically: action, range, spell slot, area, concentration, duration, component cost, saving throw type, stat modifier, proficiency modifier, damage type, damage roll, damage modifier, condition. I'll leave out school type as it rarely matter in 5e (unfortunately). Other spells will have unique inputs, like the magical darkness in the Darkness spell.

Martial attack inputs for melee are: action, weapon damage, stat modifier, proficiency modifier, number of attacks. If ranged, then range is also an input, although it tends to matter a lot less than spell's range. Damage type is also technically an input, but can largely be ignored.



The calculations for spells and martial attacks are very similar, being an attack roll/saving throw, followed by damage (if applicable). The outputs for martial attacks are just damage, unless a magical weapon is in play. The outputs for many spells are damage and/or conditions. Other spells have unique outputs as a result of their unique inputs, however, it should be noted that this does not involve a change/addition to the calculations - they are either tacked on to the stuff already going through the calculations or they just occur without even touching a calculation (like the darkness input in the Darkness spell).

Could different output functions be implemented for martials, with just the same input functions and not changing the calculations? No, I don't think so; just like spells need additional/different inputs to gain additional/different outputs, the same would be true of martial abilities. This is because the calculations would need to remain untouched, just like they do for spells.

Edit: Actually, you could have outputs that were not part of the inputs if they are derived from other outputs. Consider that technically all martial attacks and spells can potentially inflict the dead condition as long as they deal damage - this is derived from damage making the creature 'dead' if the creature's HP hits 0. We could have martial attacks inflict conditions based on HP thresholds. This would be more interesting than not having this, but I still feel the player agency is a bit lackluster in derived outputs. In the particular of HP thresholds for conditions, this would punish the melee martials more than anyone else, even if it made things more interesting.


My desire for tactical depth by player choice of non-unique inputs resulting in different calculations, I do not see as something compatible with 5e. Personally, I am hoping for a 6e using an app to handle complex calculations arising from many different inputs combinations, like the ones mentioned in your post. Sometimes the calculations wont even be that complex, just something like ax + by = z, but if the value of the variables change freqently based on the situation (2H Slow Hammer vs Skeleton, instead of 1H Fast Sword vs Skeleton, instead of 1H Slow Sword vs Ooze, etc.) then the fatique and time of having to fetch these different values and then do the calculation can still be helped by using an app - almost eradicated, in fact, with a good UI.

[OldTrees1]

It really didn't help that Incarnum was in a rather lack luster and obscure book that didn't get much attention because it was sandwiched between two other classes that were either redundant(Shadowcaster) or just brokenly bad(True Namers). Incarnum is really the only thing that saved that book. On top of that, Incarnum was super clunky. There is a ton of room to trim it down and offer it up as a kind of alternate take on the Warlock, I can easily see vestiges working in the Warlock's Invocation set up, just one that doesn't fit within the normal Warlock frame. Say, a melee class structure but with "Vestiges/Soul Binds" instead of Invocations and no pact magic/spellcasting feature, maybe Essentia equal to some number that could then be allocated to improve existing sould binds.

Um. Incarnum was in its own book (Magic of Incarnum). It was creating personal magic items out of souls rather than Binder (First of the 3 in the Tome of Magic).

Going off your 5E Incarnum idea:
Warlock Invocations for Soulmelds with a focus on passive abilities (Invocations tend to be activated abilities)

Monk KI for Essentia where an Essentia point is locked in place instead of spent. Essentia power up passive abilities and become unlocked for redistribution on a short rest.

Probably gets Extra Attack.

At certain levels they get chakra binds. They have a limit of N binds from a list of M chakras mastered (where N < M). These binds unlock on a long rest. The effect of a chakra bind it to unlock an extra level of one of their Soulmeld invocations.

The character would start the day with some minimum configuration and play like a warrior with some passive buffs. As the day/encounters goes on the character will commit more and more of their incarnum into locked configurations. As the day progresses their versatility decreases but their baseline power increases.

If someone wanted to play it as a simple class, they would have a default configuration and start the day fully equipped.

If someone wanted to play it as a complicated class, they would start the day with very little configured and make configuration choices based on the encounters faced.

[strangebloke]

At what point does it stop mattering if a fighter gains more levels?


If there are tiers of play, then that's when a fighter should have switched to become something more than just a guy with a stick.
It never stops mattering, at least, it never stops mattering for fighters and rogues. Their core scaling is rock solid.

The problem they face to some degree and the barbarian and monk face to a larger degree, is that they're functionally doing the same things at level 20 that they were at level 5 or so. The strongest features they get at this point are generally defensive, whether we're talking about something like diamond soul or the various ASIs that fighters can't help but spend on defensive features (because they've already gotten all the offensive feats) Their damage remains fine because the core damage scaling is fine but its subjectively something I personally find boring and I've seen a lot of players lose interest in their characters as t3 looms.

I'd say this happens somewhere in t2, usually between levels 7 and 9. I have one player who generally is happy playing a dumb rogue into the late game but he's the exception. Of the nine or ten fighter/rogue/barbarians who began as martials at level 1 and made it to t3, only four stayed martials, with that one player representing three of those. That's five out six.

Curiously, monks seem to be immune to this effect. Both the monks I've see taken to t3 stayed as such.

As to the bolded, I don't know if it was just Grognards pushing back or what, but enough naysayers definitely got stuff like "Book of weeaboo fightan magic" going around which definitely hurt the reputation. Everyone that I've met that has actually played with the Tome of Battle has loved it.

I'll never understand the backlash against Psionics, at least the version of Psionics that is simply Mind Wizard.
It's a result of combative DM/Player relations where the DMs felt they had to fully understand the system that people were using or else the player would try to slip stuff past them. The assumption was that if you were trying to play something the DM wasn't personally familiar with, you were trying to pull a fast one. Obviously some DMs took this farther than others, (some were more ignorant than others) and most everyone I know came around on ToB eventually, but the only DM I knew who allowed psionics also allowed someone to play a race with an LA of "-" as though it actually said "0" and you can imagine how well that went.

[tKUUNK]

Put it like this: if a melee attack is "x+y=z," and a spell is "m=n, p, q, or r," then your system would be "3x3/6a+b(a+(c/3))= y+z." A lot more work goes into calculating what, exactly, the end result is... but the end result is still the same.

The problem with martial combat isn't the input--it's the output.

That was hilariously accurate. I almost didn't understand where you were going, then you threw out these equations. nice.

[SharkForce]

At what point does it stop mattering if a fighter gains more levels?


If there are tiers of play, then that's when a fighter should have switched to become something more than just a guy with a stick.

I have to disagree with strangebloke on this one.

fighter progression basically falls off a cliff once you've gained level 11 (if you don't need the ASI at 12) or 12 (if you do need the ASI).

it eventually gets back on track to some extent... level 17 gives a second use of action surge, which is of course a big deal, and level 20 gives you your fourth attack.

it is also possible that your martial archetype adds something of great significance at level 15 or 17, although many do not.

more likely you're looking at an additional use of indomitable, which is frankly a lousy ability, a few ASIs (now that you've probably already got the ASIs you really needed in addition to the feats you wanted most), and some extra healing from second wind (which is not nothing, but also is not much), in levels 12-16. that's an uncomfortably long stretch where you don't get much, and while levels 17 and 20 are most definitely individually worth the cost of that specific level, I'm really not sure they make up for how little you're getting with the other levels.

In point of fact, it is such a bad set of levels that I personally believe that you could make a fighter 11/ <any other class> 9 and gain more than a level 20 single-classed fighter. and I really mean that. toss 9 levels of monk into the mix, and I really do think you're better for it than staying single-classed fighter, even if your build makes use of armour and a heavy weapon (to be clear, I absolutely would not recommend mixing levels *until* you got everything you wanted out of fighter in this case though).

obviously it's better if you make an effort to synergize (dex-based fighter 11/rogue 9 is great, for example), or to add resources that help contribute in other areas (such as fighter 11/cleric 9 for out-of-combat support and healing), but even options that you wouldn't expect to add much synergy can add more in my opinion (consider, for example, that fighter 11/wizard 9 gives the fighter access to spells like fly, haste, polymorph, improved invisibility, enlarge, jump, longstrider, misty step, shield, counterspell, expeditious retreat, and so on, even if their int is not very high; these spells are not necessarily always going to be worth the action in high level combat, but when they are worth it they can be *really* worth it.

rogue is a little bit better off, in the sense that there is at least some damage progression over their later levels instead of adding almost all of it at the final level, but their high level progression has some awkward gaps in it as well.

[strangebloke]

I have to disagree with strangebloke on this one.

fighter progression basically falls off a cliff once you've gained level 11 (if you don't need the ASI at 12) or 12 (if you do need the ASI).

it eventually gets back on track to some extent... level 17 gives a second use of action surge, which is of course a big deal, and level 20 gives you your fourth attack.

it is also possible that your martial archetype adds something of great significance at level 15 or 17, although many do not.

more likely you're looking at an additional use of indomitable, which is frankly a lousy ability, a few ASIs (now that you've probably already got the ASIs you really needed in addition to the feats you wanted most), and some extra healing from second wind (which is not nothing, but also is not much), in levels 12-16. that's an uncomfortably long stretch where you don't get much, and while levels 17 and 20 are most definitely individually worth the cost of that specific level, I'm really not sure they make up for how little you're getting with the other levels.

In point of fact, it is such a bad set of levels that I personally believe that you could make a fighter 11/ <any other class> 9 and gain more than a level 20 single-classed fighter. and I really mean that. toss 9 levels of monk into the mix, and I really do think you're better for it than staying single-classed fighter, even if your build makes use of armour and a heavy weapon (to be clear, I absolutely would not recommend mixing levels *until* you got everything you wanted out of fighter in this case though).

obviously it's better if you make an effort to synergize (dex-based fighter 11/rogue 9 is great, for example), or to add resources that help contribute in other areas (such as fighter 11/cleric 9 for out-of-combat support and healing), but even options that you wouldn't expect to add much synergy can add more in my opinion (consider, for example, that fighter 11/wizard 9 gives the fighter access to spells like fly, haste, polymorph, improved invisibility, enlarge, jump, longstrider, misty step, shield, counterspell, expeditious retreat, and so on, even if their int is not very high; these spells are not necessarily always going to be worth the action in high level combat, but when they are worth it they can be *really* worth it.

rogue is a little bit better off, in the sense that there is at least some damage progression over their later levels instead of adding almost all of it at the final level, but their high level progression has some awkward gaps in it as well.

The issue with the bolded bit is that this is sort of generally true for a lot of classes. T3 is kind of a wasteland of design space. Even though casters are strongly encouraged to stay in their lane to eventually get 8th and 9th level spells, their other class features really start to lag at this point.

Basically t3 is like when you're singing a song, then you start humming a bit at the end because you don't know the words, and then you get back into the swing of things around the chorus.

[Suichimo]

Um. Incarnum was in its own book (Magic of Incarnum). It was creating personal magic items out of souls rather than Binder (First of the 3 in the Tome of Magic).

Going off your 5E Incarnum idea:
Warlock Invocations for Soulmelds with a focus on passive abilities (Invocations tend to be activated abilities)

Monk KI for Essentia where an Essentia point is locked in place instead of spent. Essentia power up passive abilities and become unlocked for redistribution on a short rest.

Probably gets Extra Attack.

At certain levels they get chakra binds. They have a limit of N binds from a list of M chakras mastered (where N < M). These binds unlock on a long rest. The effect of a chakra bind it to unlock an extra level of one of their Soulmeld invocations.

The character would start the day with some minimum configuration and play like a warrior with some passive buffs. As the day/encounters goes on the character will commit more and more of their incarnum into locked configurations. As the day progresses their versatility decreases but their baseline power increases.

If someone wanted to play it as a simple class, they would have a default configuration and start the day fully equipped.

If someone wanted to play it as a complicated class, they would start the day with very little configured and make configuration choices based on the encounters faced.

Oof, yeah. Even I forgot that, it's been several years since my group has touched 3.x to be fair. Everything I said still holds true, both for 3.5 Incarnum being a fairly clunky system from an obscure book and 3.5 Tome of Magic being an obscure book w/ not much going for it, though.

I love your expansion on 5E incarnum. This is what I mean when I say that there is so much design space left unused because WotC refuses to add new base classes in. It's all fine and dandy to have 100+ sub classes but at the end of the day you just have slightly different flavors of the same base ideas.


It's a result of combative DM/Player relations where the DMs felt they had to fully understand the system that people were using or else the player would try to slip stuff past them. The assumption was that if you were trying to play something the DM wasn't personally familiar with, you were trying to pull a fast one. Obviously some DMs took this farther than others, (some were more ignorant than others) and most everyone I know came around on ToB eventually, but the only DM I knew who allowed psionics also allowed someone to play a race with an LA of "-" as though it actually said "0" and you can imagine how well that went.

ToB is my current gold standard for martial characters. There are definitely some things that could be fixed about it such as clearer language and allowing characters to use ranged weapons rather than forcing melee only. Also, please don't repeat the refresh method of the Crusader...

But imagine a Warblade, or hell just a Martial Adept, base class in 5e. A front line melee fighter(I wonder if it would keep it's d12 hit die or if we let Barbs keep their special die) that has strong abilities fueled by Intelligence(a 2nd Intelligence based class!). While we're at it, let's fold in the idea of the Knowledge Devotion(Complete Champion) feat into the class and not only do you have an Intelligence based melee class, you also have one that actually cares about the knowledge skills. There is nothing like that that I can think of in 5e.

Yeah, LA - is N/A, not 0. That isn't mean for PCs.

[SharkForce]

The issue with the bolded bit is that this is sort of generally true for a lot of classes. T3 is kind of a wasteland of design space. Even though casters are strongly encouraged to stay in their lane to eventually get 8th and 9th level spells, their other class features really start to lag at this point.

Basically t3 is like when you're singing a song, then you start humming a bit at the end because you don't know the words, and then you get back into the swing of things around the chorus.

is it equally true, though?

rogue gets at least sneak attack every other level. not a huge increase, but at least their damage is scaling. that alone means that the longest stretch between getting *something* you genuinely care about is every other level, and some of the stuff they get is pretty decent apart from that.

monk, while I am not generally a fan of the class, desperately needs the extra ki points that come from staying monk, and while I don't love lackluster offense paired with exceptional defence, there is something to be said for gaining exceptional defence in this level range (and also, ASIs remain quite valuable to monks compared to fighters).

paladin and ranger have at least spell progression to look forward to, and frankly paladin ASIs are far more valuable (in spite of being more rare) than fighter ASIs. some of them may have good subclass abilities to look forward to, as well.

barbarian... well, it started falling off early, so it doesn't even really reach the 11/9 point, you probably want to abandon it earlier.

spellcaster non-spell abilities tend to lag off because their spells tend to really pick up at level 11+. not in every case (I would argue that clerics, for example, have far less to gain in general from staying single-classed than wizards), but as a general rule that holds. frankly, spells *are* a class feature.

so while t3 may not see the most incredibly amazing jumps after level 11 for some classes, I would argue that fighter has a much worse time of it than most. certainly your 7th sneak attack die is less exciting than your first or second, but compared to getting a second use of indomitable it looks pretty good.

[Pex]

I love your expansion on 5E incarnum. This is what I mean when I say that there is so much design space left unused because WotC refuses to add new base classes in. It's all fine and dandy to have 100+ sub classes but at the end of the day you just have slightly different flavors of the same base ideas.



I think it's a combination of things. They legitimately think 12 classes is enough. Artificer exists only because they needed to bring Eberron into 5E. They don't want the class bloat 3E had. There's also player outrage. They tried many ways to bring psions into the game, but anything they tried the players complained. They tried to bring in a new game mechanic - the psionic die which I happened to like, but the majority of the player base hated it, not merely only disliking the implementation to improve it. There will also always be the players who hate any kind of power creep. I don't think it's a question of timidity but rather their customers are telling them don't do it, way more than players who want them to.

[Kane0]

Has PhoenixPhyre linked their homebrew thread yet?

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637262-Stances-A-new-quot-maneuver-quot-mechanism-for-all-Fighters

[Sindeloke]

In line with the discussion about stances and alternating benefits, you know what I really liked about 3.5 psionics, was the "psionic focus" concept.

It started out as a pretty basic way to limit psionic casting; gaining psionic focus took an action, and then you had to expend it to make a spell stronger, so you could, at max, buff your spell that way every other turn, and did so at the cost of only 50% of your rounds being productive, so all in all not a particularly useful concept as implemented.

But then as psionics expanded, they started to use it for a lot more interesting things. There started to be passive benefits that you got from class levels or feats that applied as long as you had focus, and other benefits beyond spellcasting that you could get by expending it. So you ended up with this system that was both incredibly simple and intuitive to use - you either have focus or you don't, you're either spending it to pay for something or spending an action to get it back - but also allowed for incredible complexity of decision points. On a play level, how many benefits is my focus giving me right now? Which different things can I spend it on? Which of those things are worth the benefits I'll lose if I spend it, plus the round I'll lose getting it back? On a build level, should I lean into feats and features that rely on keeping my focus and try to hold it at all times, or look for ways to optimize spending it?

Turn it into "combat focus" and give it to martials, maybe even add some benefits that apply only when you don't have focus, and there you go. It's nothing like spellcasting, you never "run out of sword," and you can personalize the benefits to the different classes to be more thematic (maybe monks hold focus for defense and spend it for speed, while fighters hold focus for accuracy and spend it for damage), or even the recovery methods (fighters get it back by fighting defensively, monks get it back by going a round without spending ki?).

[Morty]

The issue with the bolded bit is that this is sort of generally true for a lot of classes. T3 is kind of a wasteland of design space. Even though casters are strongly encouraged to stay in their lane to eventually get 8th and 9th level spells, their other class features really start to lag at this point.

Basically t3 is like when you're singing a song, then you start humming a bit at the end because you don't know the words, and then you get back into the swing of things around the chorus.

3E introduced the idea that D&D lasts for 20+ levels (I think levels above 10 were mostly theoretical in older editions), but the game has never had much of an idea that to do with them. And design has pretty blatantly focused on the first 10 levels, which leads to a feedback loop - high-level content isn't popular, so the designers don't bother doing much with it, so it's not interesting... and so on.

[Kane0]

Yep in the totally overhauled version of 5e that only exists in my head because game design is hard there are only 12 levels.

[Ralanr]

I think it's a combination of things. They legitimately think 12 classes is enough. Artificer exists only because they needed to bring Eberron into 5E. They don't want the class bloat 3E had. There's also player outrage. They tried many ways to bring psions into the game, but anything they tried the players complained. They tried to bring in a new game mechanic - the psionic die which I happened to like, but the majority of the player base hated it, not merely only disliking the implementation to improve it. There will also always be the players who hate any kind of power creep. I don't think it's a question of timidity but rather their customers are telling them don't do it, way more than players who want them to.

With how subclasses worked out, I can't really fault them for thinking that. You can express a lot of concepts by making them a subclass of an existing one. Some don't work well with the mechanics provided (purple dragon knight is not a good warlord substitute and I'd argue a 14th class just to give us that is worthwhile), but it does prevent class bloat. And class bloat is obnoxious as heck.



Yep in the totally overhauled version of 5e that only exists in my head because game design is hard there are only 12 levels.

Oh I didn't even mark down the weeks.

[Kuu Lightwing]

With how subclasses worked out, I can't really fault them for thinking that. You can express a lot of concepts by making them a subclass of an existing one. Some don't work well with the mechanics provided (purple dragon knight is not a good warlord substitute and I'd argue a 14th class just to give us that is worthwhile), but it does prevent class bloat. And class bloat is obnoxious as heck.

I would argue that subclasses fail at this task, because of how incredibly limited they are. I'd take class bloat over subclass bloat, because trying to cram all those concept into existing chassis often results in butchering the concept itself and making the result either very underwhelming, or just not being able to express said concept.

Think of it this way - most subclasses are 4 levels of features, half of which belong to tiers 3 and 4 - the tiers that are by the admission of game designers are not played much. So it basically limits it to two levels to meaningfully express the idea, and in some cases the power budget of the base class is pretty big.

Obviously it's possible to make too many classes, but 5e approach took it too far in the other direction.

[qube]

With how subclasses worked out, I can't really fault them for thinking that. You can express a lot of concepts by making them a subclass of an existing one. Some don't work well with the mechanics provided (purple dragon knight is not a good warlord substitute and I'd argue a 14th class just to give us that is worthwhile), but it does prevent class bloat. And class bloat is obnoxious as heck.It also prevents some char-opping with multiclassing. consider 5 classes basically equal to fighter. A fighter 2/warrior 2/soldier 2/conbatant 2/trooper 2 is a character with 5 action surges (and 5 fighting styles)

(while more difficult, a simelar thing would be done in 3.5 - taking a few levels of many different classes and prestige classes)

[Kuu Lightwing]

It also prevents some char-opping with multiclassing. consider 5 classes basically equal to fighter. A fighter 2/warrior 2/soldier 2/conbatant 2/trooper 2 is a character with 5 action surges (and 5 fighting styles)

(while more difficult, a simelar thing would be done in 3.5 - taking a few levels of many different classes and prestige classes)

And zero extra attacks...

And besides, I would think that new classes wouldn't have Action Surge to begin with, because what's the point of making a new martial job and giving it the same abilities as Fighters.

[qube]

Think of it this way - most subclasses are 4 levels of features, half of which belong to tiers 3 and 4 - the tiers that are by the admission of game designers are not played much. So it basically limits it to two levels to meaningfully express the idea, and in some cases the power budget of the base class is pretty big. but the alternative - a full class, also suffers from the fact 50% of the class is in tier 3 and 4.

(and don't forget that designing 20 levels is much harder then designing 4 abilities)

I don't see that as much as an argument against subclassing, but an argument to have more abilities of the subclass affect the lower tiers. (ex. lvl 3, 6 and 9, and 15)

[Kuu Lightwing]

but the alternative - a full class, also suffers from the fact 50% of the class is in tier 3 and 4.

(and don't forget that designing 20 levels is much harder then designing 4 abilities)

I don't see that as much as an argument against subclassing, but an argument to have more abilities of the subclass affect the lower tiers. (ex. lvl 3, 6 and 9, and 15)

Oh it's definitely easier, and as time goes by I can see that 5e designers always take the easiest option, and opt to offload more and more design job onto DM.

And while yes, a full class does suffer from 50% of it being in tier 3 and tier 4, there's much more design space to express the desired concept in 10 levels of abilities compared to two levels of abilities, and it is also free from the baggage of the base class that may or may not fit the concept to begin with. I would rather have an Arcane Archer to be a class designed around shooting magic arrows most of the time, than it being a Fighter that can shoot two magic arrows per short rest and then just shoot normal arrows the rest of the combat.

[qube]

And zero extra attacks...considering 1/5th of a fighting style is worth more then an extra attack, that's not the strongest argument then you think. But if you like extra attack that much, you can make a lvl 11 build with extra attack and 4 action surges


And besides, I would think that new classes wouldn't have Action Surge to begin with, because what's the point of making a new martial job and giving it the same abilities as Fighters.it's a simplified example for a class that is frontloaded with general abilities, as the fighter.

[Kuu Lightwing]

considering 1/5th of a fighting style is worth more then an extra attack, that's not the strongest argument then you think. But if you like extra attack that much, you can make a lvl 11 build with extra attack and 4 action surges

it's a simplified example for a class that is frontloaded with general abilities, as the fighter.

This devolves into some white room theory crafting with theoretical jobs with theoretical abilities that may or may not cause issues. I don't see people many people playing Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Paladin 2/Barbarian 2 for four fighting styles either, so seems like a highly theoretical issue.

[qube]

This devolves into some white room theory crafting with theoretical jobs with theoretical abilities that may or may not cause issues.considering we don't have more then 12 (or 13) classes, it obvious this is theoretical.


I don't see people many people playing Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Paladin 2/Barbarian 2 for four fighting styles either, so seems like a highly theoretical issue.that's because it's not a real issue ... yet.

But more classes = more problems.
(unless you want to take the stance that the game designers are flawless beings who never make mistakes).

For example, in dnd3, I recall having made a character with 3 classes and 3 prestige classes, non of which were lvl 3. A fighter 2 monk 2 samurai 1,followed by a few levels of drunken master, ninja of the crescent moon, and a third prestige class I don't recall (but to be fair, it's been nearly 20 years).

Even now - just look how fast your argument wasn't "Fighter 5 / Fighter 2 x3" is bad - but, a hopeful wish they wouldn't bring out 4 times the same class. Despite this already having happened!
(the 3.0 Samurai (http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/oriental-adventures--96/samurai/) was litterly a 3.0 fighter (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) with it's first feat locked in, and an extra proficiency in a saving throw a slightly slower feat progression)

[Suichimo]

3E introduced the idea that D&D lasts for 20+ levels (I think levels above 10 were mostly theoretical in older editions), but the game has never had much of an idea that to do with them. And design has pretty blatantly focused on the first 10 levels, which leads to a feedback loop - high-level content isn't popular, so the designers don't bother doing much with it, so it's not interesting... and so on.

At least in 3.x they gave us the Epic Level Handbook. Even if it is something that won't see much use, they should at least give us something. As you mentioned, they've got the self-defeating prophecy of only designing ~10 levels of campaign(backed up by Adventurer League only going to level 11(?)), no one plays above that because no material is there, because no one is playing it nothing is designed for it, repeat. Even doing something like putting an ending chapter in official campaigns, if they don't want to put out an official 1-20 campaign, that just deals with continuing the story and world beyond the main story and giving advice and hooks to use up to 20 would be amazingly helpful.

One thing I'd love to see them do is salvage yet another concept from 4e, a lot of my ideas involve doing this btw, and take their class structure. So you'd have your base class and you'd still have subclasses, this in part feels like it was taken from 4e anyway. However, say at level 10 or 11 or something you then gain access to, what 4e would've called, a Paragon Path which either lets you further specialize or expand your abilities even further. So you'd have the base layer being the main class, a second layer which would be your subclass and it's ~15-17 levels of abilities, and then your Paragon Path which would be ~9-10 levels worth of abilities.

If they wanted to go whole hog, they could even bring in Epic Destinies for level 17+. These would provide a definite ending to the character, rather than just a simple capstone ability. As an example, one of the generic Epic Destinies in 4e was Demigod which literally saw your character become a Demigod, joining your god's pantheon, when they hit level 30. An epic destiny for arcane casters was becoming an Archlich. My personal favorite epic destiny, which was exclusive to Rogues and Rangers for some reason, was the Dark Wanderer. You basically became the hero that drifts and appears in times of need. One of it's abilities allowed you to just choose a location and start walking. No matter where the location was, regardless of distance, planar separation, whatever, you arrive after 24 hours.


considering we don't have more then 12 (or 13) classes, it obvious this is theoretical.

that's because it's not a real issue ... yet.

But more classes = more problems.
(unless you want to take the stance that the game designers are flawless beings who never make mistakes).

For example, in dnd3, I recall having made a character with 3 classes and 3 prestige classes, non of which were lvl 3. A fighter 2 monk 2 samurai 1,followed by a few levels of drunken master, ninja of the crescent moon, and a third prestige class I don't recall (but to be fair, it's been nearly 20 years).

Even now - just look how fast your argument wasn't "Fighter 5 / Fighter 2 x3" is bad - but, a hopeful wish they wouldn't bring out 4 times the same class. Despite this already having happened!
(the 3.0 Samurai (http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/oriental-adventures--96/samurai/) was litterly a 3.0 fighter (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) with it's first feat locked in, and an extra proficiency in a saving throw a slightly slower feat progression)

We're not arguing for that. Obviously, the Samurai completely fits inside the framework of the Fighter and is just fine as a subclass. There is stuff that doesn't fit in the current existing frameworks, or you would have to butcher to get them to fit, that is worth bringing back.

My personal favorite class, across all RPGs, is the Swordmage from 4e. I was really hoping we'd see it in some form, especially since all of the SCAG cantrips were literally the Swordmage's at will abilities. However, that is as close as it gets. Magic guy swings sword and gets one of those cantrips. Nothing allows them to replicate any of the three Aegises(Assault, Shielding, or Ensnarement) or the more magical class features. This would need an entirely new class to fit into the game.

[Kuu Lightwing]

considering we don't have more then 12 (or 13) classes, it obvious this is theoretical.

that's because it's not a real issue ... yet.
What stops people from making the multiclass I mentioned if getting additional fighting styles is as powerful as you say? And what makes you think that new classes would add a problem like that? I mean surely Barbarian actually doesn't give Fighting Style, but it gives two very strong abilities that will probably help every martial?


But more classes = more problems.
(unless you want to take the stance that the game designers are flawless beings who never make mistakes).

For example, in dnd3, I recall having made a character with 3 classes and 3 prestige classes, non of which were lvl 3. A fighter 2 monk 2 samurai 1,followed by a few levels of drunken master, ninja of the crescent moon, and a third prestige class I don't recall (but to be fair, it's been nearly 20 years).

Even now - just look how fast your argument wasn't "Fighter 5 / Fighter 2 x3" is bad - but, a hopeful wish they wouldn't bring out 4 times the same class. Despite this already having happened!
(the 3.0 Samurai (http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/oriental-adventures--96/samurai/) was litterly a 3.0 fighter (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) with it's first feat locked in, and an extra proficiency in a saving throw a slightly slower feat progression)

Then your argument should be that they shouldn't make the classes the same rather than that they shouldn't make new classes at all. That's just throwing baby out with the bathwater and insisting in cramming everything into subclasses that do not have room to support most of the concepts they try to introduce to the game. 3.5e (and especially 3.0e which you are referencing) had its flaws and yes probably too many very similar classes, but it doesn't mean that 5e should never introduce new classes at all.

[Psyren]

There should not be 6-casters at all. If you want someone to be a specialized spellcaster, just give them a specialized spell list. If you want someone to be a partial caster, give them a more limited number of spell slots. But having multiple casting progressions makes the game more confusing, and turns "learn a spell from another list" from a relatively minor ability into something you have to carefully lock down to avoid 3e Artificer-style shenanigans.

In what way is "some classes have less magic than others" confusing? 5e did that with Eldritch Knights, Paladins, and Rangers etc. and people picked up on that just fine. It's even more relevant in 5e since spells scale with slot instead of CL.



Of course it is. Because that's describing the causality backwards. All those classes can get the same fireball because they play similarly. Consider a different ability: teleport. Does that do the same thing on a class that gets it at-will as a class that gets it a limited number of times per day? Of course not. You certainly can have classes all pull from a shared list. But that limits the number of ways you can have abilities work, because the way an ability works influences its power in dramatic and obvious ways. Which is why the example being used is fireball, rather than something that is meaningfully influenced by how the class using it works.

I didn't say anything about at-will and resource-limited classes playing the same. Spells like teleport and fireball should absolutely not be at-will, and I don't think any 5e classes have that, so it's a clear strawman.



You could probably also get a fair amount of mileage of having some kind of universal resource called "stamina" that's equal to your character's hp and can be spent on various class features. A few default ones with martial classes getting better/more efficient options. It'd be fiddly because you'd be tracking a second triple digit resource thats not hp but it would meet most of the design criteria

Tying ability resources to HP is almost never a good idea imo. You'd have to future-proof every single HP buffing or restoring effect as they would also translate to ammunition and therefore power.

The one ability I've seen where "cast from hit points" could work is something like Burn from the PF Kineticist, where they include a bunch of legalese essentially saying "the only way you can ever heal this is by resting for the night, and it can't kill you." And even then they screwed up the implementation.

[Morty]

One thing I'd love to see them do is salvage yet another concept from 4e, a lot of my ideas involve doing this btw, and take their class structure. So you'd have your base class and you'd still have subclasses, this in part feels like it was taken from 4e anyway. However, say at level 10 or 11 or something you then gain access to, what 4e would've called, a Paragon Path which either lets you further specialize or expand your abilities even further. So you'd have the base layer being the main class, a second layer which would be your subclass and it's ~15-17 levels of abilities, and then your Paragon Path which would be ~9-10 levels worth of abilities.

I'm not sure if the 4E paragon paths realized their promise. But then I've never played in a game that had one. The issue of the real game happening below level 10 was in effect in 4E. The idea that as you go up in level, your character changes considerably and so does the game itself is a valid one, but I don't know if the paragon paths really do that.

[strangebloke]

Tying ability resources to HP is almost never a good idea imo. You'd have to future-proof every single HP buffing or restoring effect as they would also translate to ammunition and therefore power.

The one ability I've seen where "cast from hit points" could work is something like Burn from the PF Kineticist, where they include a bunch of legalese essentially saying "the only way you can ever heal this is by resting for the night, and it can't kill you." And even then they screwed up the implementation.
Nah I'm talking about a secondary pool that's generated in the same way as HP. So your stamina goes up when your HP does at level up but not when you have Aid cast on you or whatever. Its a completely separate pool.

Not a great idea still but I wanted to be clear.

[qube]

We're not arguing for that. Obviously, the Samurai completely fits inside the framework of the Fighter and is just fine as a subclass. There is stuff that doesn't fit in the current existing frameworks, or you would have to butcher to get them to fit, that is worth bringing back.I think you missed the point. I bring up the samurai, because it's basically the same class as the fighter. it's evidence that this


And besides, I would think that new classes wouldn't have Action Surge to begin with, because what's the point of making a new martial job and giving it the same abilities as Fighters.

happened in the past, when the idea was to have more classes.

The more classes like fighter exist (namely front heavy classes that area easily MC'ed with other builds), the bigger this issue is.
.

[Willie the Duck]

Not to derail, but I think they sort of didn't? My knowledge of 0, first, and second edition are very limited mind you, but I kind of figured that the fighting man class didn't really do much but got followers as they leveled to keep up.

well, this has to do with a lot of the changes that have happened over the various editions.
first of all, spellcasters have consistently had their weaknesses reduced or removed entirely over the past 3 editions of D&D. I can't speak to before that time, but in 2nd AD&D when I started, wizards couldn't wear armour and cast spells (with the exception of elven fighter/mages who got their hands on a rare and expensive piece of equipment). not "can't wear armour without a feat", not "can't wear armour without multiclassing", not "might fail to cast a spell while wearing armour", just straight up "can't wear armour and cast spells", and it was a big deal because armour was by far the best way to improve your armour class. as I recall, they also lost their dexterity bonus to armour class while casting spells, and on top of that if you got hit before your spell went off in the initiative order your spell was gone. not *maybe* gone. gone. you lost it. period.
furthermore, vancian casting was a pretty significant limit. you might get about as many spell slots in 5th edition, but when I started playing you had to figure out what you wanted each spell slot to be at the start of the day, not at the start of your turn.
furthermore, they had d4 as their hit die instead of their current d6, and also of note hit dice stopped at 9th or 10th level, depending on class, and from then on you got a set number of hit points per level based on class. for wizards, that number was 1. and no constitution bonus at that point, since you were no longer gaining hit dice. also, warriors had a higher maximum bonus to hit points from constitution than everyone else, although that didn't come up as often since you needed a 17+ for it to matter.
specialization had a real cost to it as well, since you were losing 2-3 schools of magic, and just about every school had some really good stuff you would be losing.
finally, enemy saving throws improved with hit dice, and reached a point where if you were using a spell that didn't inflict a fairly large penalty the enemies were very likely to make their save. more particularly, enemy saving throws improved generally at the same rate as a fighter's saving throws... which also means that in addition to being a lot tougher relatively speaking than wizards in terms of hit points and armour class, fighters were generally quite likely to resist effects at high levels, especially if they had stuff like rings of protection to improve their saving throws.
I would also add that spells to buff your warrior allies could be far more powerful. people talk about haste in 5th edition and say it's good... well in my day it doubled attack rates and movement on one target per level. strength lasted one hour per level and actually improved the strength attribute. these were powerful options available to 2nd edition wizards that worked mainly because there were warriors to use them on.
of course, that's only part of the equation. fighters have gotten gradually weaker in relative terms. a 5th edition fighter does more total damage than a 2nd edition fighter (unless that second edition fighter is getting some powerful buff spells, generally speaking), but enemies in 2nd edition had a lot fewer hit points. a 14 hit die beholder would average around 60 hit points, for example, and when your main thing is "do hit point damage" that's a big deal. it was also incredibly consistent; I've had fighters who could hit typical enemies on a 2 or higher as early as level 6 or 7 (with a buff or two) on rare occasions. the 2nd edition fighter was simply far more effective against a 2nd edition monster than a 5th edition fighter is against a 5th edition monster. as a point of contrast, for a 2nd edition wizard if an enemy had magic resistance you had a flat chance of failing to effect them, period. no matter what the spell was. an enemy with 40% magic resistance had a 40% chance to ignore your fireball, and also a 40% chance to be able to walk through a wall of force after you cast it. some monsters were just outright immune to almost all magic (golems, for example).
so, how did the early edition fighter contribute? they were far better at fighting than the 2nd edition wizard. if you were going to get into fights (and you probably were), you were glad to have as many fighters as you could get your hands on, and high level fighters were extremely effective in their role, far more so than the modern D&D fighter.
A good synopsis. Other things to mention:
Fighters in Chainmail, oD&D, and AD&D (not sure about the rest of the basic-classic line) got 1 attack per level against low-HD opponents, meaning a high level fighter could just cut a bloody swath through ranks of orcs or the like (when 3-300 low HD monsters were a semi-frequent wilderness encounter).
Fighters (and later thieves), as the only ones who could wield swords, had access to vorpals, flaming swords, and intelligent weapons which often granted X/day spellcasting. In many ways, much of TSR-era’s fighter’s advancement was hidden on the treasure charts in the DMG.
There was a time (especially oD&D and basic-classic, where there weren’t even bracers of armor) when 1d6+1 or 1d8 or 1d10 hp/level and the ability to wear plate and carry a shield was genuinely huge in and of itself. A fighter having an AC of 2 (lower is better) and avg 18 hp by level 4 is impressive when the MU had an AC of 9 (and if using the Weapon vs. Armor charts, most weapons get additional pluses against unarmored opponents) and 10 hp at the same point.
In addition to having to select your spells at the start of the day, what you did when not casting one of those precious spells was a lot less. No cantrips. No crossbows. In oD&D and basic-classic, not even staffs or slings – you had daggers, and lobbing flammable oil.
Also, since you specifically mentioned casting Haste on the fighter in 2nd edition AD&D, I have to ask: did your DM remember to have your characters survive being hasted? The spell ages you a year, and magical aging requires a System Shock check. So casting it on the party (or I suppose the opponents, if they happen to be built as PCs and thus have Con scores) can cause more of a deadly effect in the middle of battle than the average fireball. One of favorite little ‘designers didn’t think this through’ moments in that edition. :-P


I'll never understand the backlash against Psionics, at least the version of Psionics that is simply Mind Wizard.
Psionics 3.0 might have poisoned the well for some, but I think the overall issue (one that the 5e Mystic UA ran into as well) is that, even amongst D&D players who like the concept of psionics, there isn’t a lot of consensus (and often competing, mutually exclusive ideas) on what psionics ought to be or look like. If you have a room of superfans of the thing devolve into fights between they guy who want more and more crystals bickering with the one who wants more and more tattoos while the guy who wants to preserve the psionic combat matrix is coming to blows with the one who want to make sure a psionicist can still accidentally disintegrate themselves on a bad roll, there’s not much hope at coming up with a happy medium everyone can at least sorta-like (kind of a metaphor for D&D design in general, I know).

[Dr.Samurai]

well, this has to do with a lot of the changes that have happened over the various editions.

first of all, spellcasters have consistently had their weaknesses reduced or removed entirely over the past 3 editions of D&D. I can't speak to before that time, but in 2nd AD&D when I started, wizards couldn't wear armour and cast spells (with the exception of elven fighter/mages who got their hands on a rare and expensive piece of equipment). not "can't wear armour without a feat", not "can't wear armour without multiclassing", not "might fail to cast a spell while wearing armour", just straight up "can't wear armour and cast spells", and it was a big deal because armour was by far the best way to improve your armour class. as I recall, they also lost their dexterity bonus to armour class while casting spells, and on top of that if you got hit before your spell went off in the initiative order your spell was gone. not *maybe* gone. gone. you lost it. period.

furthermore, vancian casting was a pretty significant limit. you might get about as many spell slots in 5th edition, but when I started playing you had to figure out what you wanted each spell slot to be at the start of the day, not at the start of your turn.

furthermore, they had d4 as their hit die instead of their current d6, and also of note hit dice stopped at 9th or 10th level, depending on class, and from then on you got a set number of hit points per level based on class. for wizards, that number was 1. and no constitution bonus at that point, since you were no longer gaining hit dice. also, warriors had a higher maximum bonus to hit points from constitution than everyone else, although that didn't come up as often since you needed a 17+ for it to matter.

specialization had a real cost to it as well, since you were losing 2-3 schools of magic, and just about every school had some really good stuff you would be losing.

finally, enemy saving throws improved with hit dice, and reached a point where if you were using a spell that didn't inflict a fairly large penalty the enemies were very likely to make their save. more particularly, enemy saving throws improved generally at the same rate as a fighter's saving throws... which also means that in addition to being a lot tougher relatively speaking than wizards in terms of hit points and armour class, fighters were generally quite likely to resist effects at high levels, especially if they had stuff like rings of protection to improve their saving throws.

I would also add that spells to buff your warrior allies could be far more powerful. people talk about haste in 5th edition and say it's good... well in my day it doubled attack rates and movement on one target per level. strength lasted one hour per level and actually improved the strength attribute. these were powerful options available to 2nd edition wizards that worked mainly because there were warriors to use them on.

of course, that's only part of the equation. fighters have gotten gradually weaker in relative terms. a 5th edition fighter does more total damage than a 2nd edition fighter (unless that second edition fighter is getting some powerful buff spells, generally speaking), but enemies in 2nd edition had a lot fewer hit points. a 14 hit die beholder would average around 60 hit points, for example, and when your main thing is "do hit point damage" that's a big deal. it was also incredibly consistent; I've had fighters who could hit typical enemies on a 2 or higher as early as level 6 or 7 (with a buff or two) on rare occasions. the 2nd edition fighter was simply far more effective against a 2nd edition monster than a 5th edition fighter is against a 5th edition monster. as a point of contrast, for a 2nd edition wizard if an enemy had magic resistance you had a flat chance of failing to effect them, period. no matter what the spell was. an enemy with 40% magic resistance had a 40% chance to ignore your fireball, and also a 40% chance to be able to walk through a wall of force after you cast it. some monsters were just outright immune to almost all magic (golems, for example).

so, how did the early edition fighter contribute? they were far better at fighting than the 2nd edition wizard. if you were going to get into fights (and you probably were), you were glad to have as many fighters as you could get your hands on, and high level fighters were extremely effective in their role, far more so than the modern D&D fighter.

as far as why we know the names of a bunch of wizard PCs and that's it... that's because they made new spells. some of the spells weren't even very good, and got left behind. but consider, those friends must have also played druids and clerics, which are also spellcasters... why don't we know those names? because they didn't create melf's magic missile or mordenkainen's faithful watchdog, all of their spells would have been their deities, not their own.

I mean, to put it another way... you know melf's name. what mighty deeds did melf accomplish? apart from acid arrow, and minute meteors, what was melf known for? what level did melf achieve? I would guess that you ultimately know next to nothing about melf other than a couple of spells he created. you don't know about melf because he was amazing and his fighter buddies sucked. you know about melf because he named a spell after himself, and that spell got added into the rulebooks.
Wow... I started in 3rd edition. The editions before that sound like they got the balance much more correct. Fighters were more in line with our myths and stories. I had no idea previous editions were like that. Any idea what caused the change and for things to go so much in the opposite direction? Now, casters have access to literally everything else a stock warrior has: armor, weapons, extra attacks. And we remember CoDzilla from 3rd edition.

Why the shift? (assuming there is a known reason)

[paladinn]

Has PhoenixPhyre linked their homebrew thread yet?

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637262-Stances-A-new-quot-maneuver-quot-mechanism-for-all-Fighters

Wow, I don't know how I missed this. Sucks getting old, but better than the alternative.

I'm finding myself actually liking the "stance" idea as presented here. Which is weird since I don't much care for 3e ToB and despise the martial "power" concept from 4e.

A few thoughts:
1. I can see clear relationships between some of these stances and the "core" 5e fighting styles. Maybe that could be developed a bit to make one's fighting style more defining. If you choose a given style, you have access to 2-3 associated stances?

2. I would limit stances to baseline fighters/champions, not battlemasters, EK's, paladins or rangers. So a ranger could grab archery fighting style, but not have access to the stances.

I'm all for beefing up "core" fighters, as long as it doesn't become a wuxia game or start requiring mats-and-minis.

[Willie the Duck]

Wow... I started in 3rd edition. The editions before that sound like they got the balance much more correct. Fighters were more in line with our myths and stories. I had no idea previous editions were like that. Any idea what caused the change and for things to go so much in the opposite direction? Now, casters have access to literally everything else a stock warrior has: armor, weapons, extra attacks. And we remember CoDzilla from 3rd edition.

Why the shift? (assuming there is a known reason)

A big one that spring to mind is that a lot of people already house-ruled a number of constraints on casters away because they were, systematically unfun (when that happened, fighters ought to have been boosted as compensation, and why that didn't happen is more of an open question). The early editions leaned heavily into the 'balance X powerful thing by making it really annoying' mentality. That worked relatively well early on where if you had a super-fragile magic user with 1-3 spells per day it was fine because you had a bunch of hirelings and retainers protecting them that you were also likely running and it wasn't unlike the wargame you'd just been playing where you had several pike units guarding artillery units (and if you only got to shoot the cannons every so often you were still doing lots of things). However, as the game moved away from that framing and you just had your MU, it was systematically unfun for huge swaths of the game. Thus people changed it, and 2e, and then later 2e:Player Options, and then later the 3e design team all noted that trend line and adjusted to fit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A big one that spring to mind is that a lot of people already house-ruled a number of constraints on casters away because they were, systematically unfun (when that happened, fighters ought to have been boosted as compensation, and why that didn't happen is more of an open question). The early editions leaned heavily into the 'balance X powerful thing by making it really annoying' mentality. That worked relatively well early on where if you had a super-fragile magic user with 1-3 spells per day it was fine because you had a bunch of hirelings and retainers protecting them that you were also likely running and it wasn't unlike the wargame you'd just been playing where you had several pike units guarding artillery units (and if you only got to shoot the cannons every so often you were still doing lots of things). However, as the game moved away from that framing and you just had your MU, it was systematically unfun for huge swaths of the game. Thus people changed it, and 2e, and then later 2e:Player Options, and then later the 3e design team all noted that trend line and adjusted to fit.

I would say that the appropriate response to removing limits causing balance issues isn't to boost the fighters. Because that way lies power creep, as 3e discovered hard. It's to rein in the spells. If there's a balance between 'has super powerful spells' and 'has limits' and you remove the 'has limits' part, you also need to remove (or reduce) the 'has super powerful spells' part. Narrow the band between the top and the bottom at both ends, don't make the top end the new default.

Buffing everything only causes spirals. Decide what the system's supported power level is and adjust everything that doesn't fit into that band in either direction.


Wow, I don't know how I missed this. Sucks getting old, but better than the alternative.

I'm finding myself actually liking the "stance" idea as presented here. Which is weird since I don't much care for 3e ToB and despise the martial "power" concept from 4e.

A few thoughts:
1. I can see clear relationships between some of these stances and the "core" 5e fighting styles. Maybe that could be developed a bit to make one's fighting style more defining. If you choose a given style, you have access to 2-3 associated stances?

2. I would limit stances to baseline fighters/champions, not battlemasters, EK's, paladins or rangers. So a ranger could grab archery fighting style, but not have access to the stances.

I'm all for beefing up "core" fighters, as long as it doesn't become a wuxia game or start requiring mats-and-minis.

Responses

1. I think that this sort of thing could replace the fighting styles (with tweaks), basically incorporating them entirely. Leave the weaker "pure styles" (as they are) for the other martials. I do want to keep the options broadly available, because I want to promote fighters being the "switch hitter", capable of going from a pure offense GW style to a defensive SnB or going ranged without having to rebuild a character.

2. I'm fine with battlemasters and EKs having them. Champions could get features that directly interact with them, and possibly some "unique" stances. These would be fighter-only, and scale with fighter levels. My personal views are that multiclassing is a bane and should be removed (or re-worked entirely)--if I were to implement this sort of thing, I'd mark it as "you don't get this feature if you're multiclassed" (possibly with an addendum that says that if your primary class (majority of levels) are fighter, that's ok. But not available to dips.

3. I'd like to beef up the core martials, but in different ways. I also want to take an axe to the broken parts of the non-martials. Which means slaughtering whole herds of traditional and beloved bovines.

[Pex]

Wow... I started in 3rd edition. The editions before that sound like they got the balance much more correct. Fighters were more in line with our myths and stories. I had no idea previous editions were like that. Any idea what caused the change and for things to go so much in the opposite direction? Now, casters have access to literally everything else a stock warrior has: armor, weapons, extra attacks. And we remember CoDzilla from 3rd edition.

Why the shift? (assuming there is a known reason)

Pre-3E D&D is not as utopian (my word) as people make it out to be. It's primarily all about the magic. Many limitations to magic were removed by 3E, but not all those limitations that existed were nirvana and I'm personally thrilled they were removed and never want to come back. That's not the same thing as saying none of the restrictions should come back, and I'd have no issue of it if particular ones did with perhaps a better implementation of the idea.

[Ralanr]

Pre-3E D&D is not as utopian (my word) as people make it out to be. It's primarily all about the magic. Many limitations to magic were removed by 3E, but not all those limitations that existed were nirvana and I'm personally thrilled they were removed and never want to come back. That's not the same thing as saying none of the restrictions should come back, and I'd have no issue of it if particular ones did with perhaps a better implementation of the idea.

Kind of just sounds like they would need to build combat from the ground up to put it on a better stance against how magic works. But even if you built it from the ground up, that does nothing to deal with how magic scales and combat abilities generally don't.

[Dr.Samurai]

Pre-3E D&D is not as utopian (my word) as people make it out to be. It's primarily all about the magic. Many limitations to magic were removed by 3E, but not all those limitations that existed were nirvana and I'm personally thrilled they were removed and never want to come back. That's not the same thing as saying none of the restrictions should come back, and I'd have no issue of it if particular ones did with perhaps a better implementation of the idea.
I'm sure that's probably the case. I know I wouldn't want to play a class if using their abilities were too onerous.

That said though, it sounds like those editions felt the fighter should be awesome. Whereas I don't really get that in 3rd and in 5th. The sentiment now I feel is more like "yeah, of course fighters should be cool... anyways, how many more spells and spellcasting classes and subclasses can we add?".

[Suichimo]

I'm sure that's probably the case. I know I wouldn't want to play a class if using their abilities were too onerous.

That said though, it sounds like those editions felt the fighter should be awesome. Whereas I don't really get that in 3rd and in 5th. The sentiment now I feel is more like "yeah, of course fighters should be cool... anyways, how many more spells and spellcasting classes and subclasses can we add?".

One of my favorite examples of this is 3.5's Complete Warrior, a book that is ostensibly about helping out and giving new options to the martially focused characters. It brings in three classes, one of which is a magic based class with the Hexblade, and a good portion of the book is still dedicated to new spells for Wizards, Sorcerors, Clerics, and what not. Like, come on guys... The parallel book, Complete Arcane, certainly offered up FAR less to martials than Complete Warrior gave to mages.

[Xervous]

I'm sure that's probably the case. I know I wouldn't want to play a class if using their abilities were too onerous.

That said though, it sounds like those editions felt the fighter should be awesome. Whereas I don't really get that in 3rd and in 5th. The sentiment now I feel is more like "yeah, of course fighters should be cool... anyways, how many more spells and spellcasting classes and subclasses can we add?".

One of the biggest disjoints on fighters is that the concept starts with an assumption that a specific capability will always be awesome. Other classes are defined in thematic terms, patterns that can shift and grow to mesh with the changing scenery. If the game can ensure that the specific capability is always relevant then fighters have a valid purpose and place at all levels. Thing is in attempting to appeal to many potential audiences 3.5e and 5e did away with the fighter’s niche insurance. 4e had it by making everyone play the same niche. TSR editions had it in the same way shadowrun’s street samurais have combat, a tool for a specific job that steps into the spotlight when its theme song plays. 5e especially is about letting everyone participate. This has pulled the fighter down from combat monster to modest/moderate statistical combat outlier. Because 5e won’t tolerate something as niche winning as a street Sam or a decker, fighter can’t just be ‘muh combat’ if it wants to track along in scope and relevance through the levels.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of my favorite examples of this is 3.5's Complete Warrior, a book that is ostensibly about helping out and giving new options to the martially focused characters. It brings in three classes, one of which is a magic based class with the Hexblade, and a good portion of the book is still dedicated to new spells for Wizards, Sorcerors, Clerics, and what not. Like, come on guys... The parallel book, Complete Arcane, certainly offered up FAR less to martials than Complete Warrior gave to mages.

There's a fundamental problem trying to balance "pick from broad shared list and you can change your mind later or pick this up later" features (ie spells) against "learn at specific levels and only those levels" features (ie almost everything else). It's way easier to pump out spells and to include those in characters (especially for wizards and the full-list casters) than it is to pump out feats (of which you learn a lot fewer, even in 3e) or especially class features. Just look at the 5e player-side books--they always include lots of spells, while any given character may benefit from at most one or two of the feats or other options. Even worse, most of those printed options just go in the trash unless they set a new meta. Imagine if every martial character got 15[2] feats which they could change at level up.

The solution, in my mind, is to do to PC casters (in a different way) what they're doing to monsters. Move a lot of the "must pick" spells into class features and cut the spell lists down tremendously. It's the ravioli-style[1] spell-casting that causes the underlying issue, and no fix that doesn't change that will really have a significant effect.

[1] a big heap of disconnected, mushy things. In this case, there are no pre-requisites for spells other than "are right level" and "have access to list". Which means that spells can get ruthlessly optimized away--you only pick the ones that are "best" (for any given definition of "best"). And usually have significant flexibility to change those.
[2] that's as many as the known spells of the lowest spells-known caster.

[Brookshw]

Wow... I started in 3rd edition. The editions before that sound like they got the balance much more correct. Fighters were more in line with our myths and stories. I had no idea previous editions were like that. Any idea what caused the change and for things to go so much in the opposite direction? Now, casters have access to literally everything else a stock warrior has: armor, weapons, extra attacks. And we remember CoDzilla from 3rd edition.

Why the shift? (assuming there is a known reason)

There are some inaccuracies in that list I believe, for example, fighters in AD&D did not get one attack per level on low level HD enemies, best they rocked if they were specialized (not counting double wielding) was 5 attacks every 2 rounds (AD&D PHB, pg 52), I don't have any older editions or the Fighter's Handbook on hand anymore, but definitely do not recall the referenced rule. Otherwise, things were a bit better balanced in that fighters got automatic followers if they built a stronghold, and casters had to deal with the greater chance of their spells being interrupted thanks to casting time and had a much slowed down recovery of spells (1 hour per spell level to get a spell back, not, take a long rest and get everything back).

[Dr.Samurai]

I think any future edition should be balanced around martial characters, with the presumption that they should be able to mimic exploits from our stories and movies, and then we can balance casters around that system. Make sure they are awesome first, and don't assume casters should be able to do anything because they should have access to spells that can do anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think any future edition should be balanced around martial characters, with the presumption that they should be able to mimic exploits from our stories and movies, and then we can balance casters around that system. Make sure they are awesome first, and don't assume casters should be able to do anything because they should have access to spells that can do anything.

I agree except the bolded part. The set of "exploits from stories and movies" is way too broad and leads to incoherence. Instead, they should choose what the appropriate power level is and go with that.

Genre emulation is a bad thing to do on a genre as broad as "high fantasy adventures". D&D is not a generic genre emulator, nor should it attempt to be one.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree except the bolded part. The set of "exploits from stories and movies" is way too broad and leads to incoherence. Instead, they should choose what the appropriate power level is and go with that.

Genre emulation is a bad thing to do on a genre as broad as "high fantasy adventures". D&D is not a generic genre emulator, nor should it attempt to be one.
I think this is very fair enough. I agree choosing an appropriate level takes precedence, for sure.

I mean more like what LudicSavant mentioned in another thread; we often see warriors, as an example, blocking attacks with shields. But in the game, the shield gives a static bonus to AC and doesn't help against AoEs and the like.

D&D currently is very static with martials; move, attack, move, attack, move, attack. It needs more dynamism. Your weapons and armor should mean something more than damage die and AC stat. IMO.

[Pex]

I can agree that 5E warriors compared to 5E is an improvement over 3E warriors compared to 3E. 4E is its own mess. Any significant improvement to warriors in general would have to be in hypothetical 6E. It reminds me of an interesting perspective debate about 3E Tome of Battle. WOTC just made the book with no comment on how the classes compared to the PHB classes. No word given on whether they were to be played along side each other or replace the originals (fighter/barbarian, paladin, monk). The debate was while it was a given that warblade replaced the fighter, one side complained about it as a bug while others cheered it as a feature. The down votes complained of power creep and general dislike of obsoleteness. The up votes cheered the power creep as a needed upgrade and liked they could now play a warrior and not be stuck with fighter. If 5E were to create a better fighter and barbarian renamed that debate would return. It is interesting of note this time I don't think anyone would complain of a better ranger and no one thinks a better paladin is needed. Monk is a whole debate in itself.

[Willie the Duck]

There are some inaccuracies in that list I believe, for example, fighters in AD&D did not get one attack per level on low level HD enemies


"Note: This excludes melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans, i.e. a11 creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels (See COMBAT)."
Apparently a pretend quote doesn't count towards word count.

[Ignimortis]

I can agree that 5E warriors compared to 5E is an improvement over 3E warriors compared to 3E. 4E is its own mess. Any significant improvement to warriors in general would have to be in hypothetical 6E. It reminds me of an interesting perspective debate about 3E Tome of Battle. WOTC just made the book with no comment on how the classes compared to the PHB classes. No word given on whether they were to be played along side each other or replace the originals (fighter/barbarian, paladin, monk). The debate was while it was a given that warblade replaced the fighter, one side complained about it as a bug while others cheered it as a feature. The down votes complained of power creep and general dislike of obsoleteness. The up votes cheered the power creep as a needed upgrade and liked they could now play a warrior and not be stuck with fighter. If 5E were to create a better fighter and barbarian renamed that debate would return. It is interesting of note this time I don't think anyone would complain of a better ranger and no one thinks a better paladin is needed. Monk is a whole debate in itself.

That's the point. Power creep is not inherently bad if the only thing it does is bring up the features/classes/concepts that are underpowered when they shouldn't be. If increasing power makes the game better, why should it be maligned?

As to why 5e is a bit better balanced in regards to warrior types compared to 3e... It's because it's almost completely balanced against Champion Fighter. There is no monster in the MM that can engage in combat with a Champion Fighter who has a +1 greatsword and a +1 longbow and be completely invulnerable to their tactic of "I attack, and then attack again, and again, and again" while still doing damage to the party.

Of course, this does not apply to out of combat challenges, but the game ensures that a Champion Fighter played in the most dumb way possible can still contribute to combat, and since Champion Fighter cannot do anything that isn't basic rules of the game available to everyone (roll attacks, move, use skills, roll saves), the game also doesn't pose specific challenges in combat that cannot be beaten by using a magic sword/bow and getting good rolls.

As to "warriors don't need buffs, mages need nerfs" camp — I agree with the latter part of that statement, but where does the line lie? Should mages only be able to cast Haste, Fireball, Magic Weapon and other combat-focused spells that have almost no utility out of combat? Because that's how you actually get mages on the level of warriors — by doing away with the massive discrepancy between their out-of-combat options. Martials focus on single-target damage, mages provide crowd control and buffs. It's balanced, but most of you would probably also say it's boring, because the mages are now incapable of doing anything like Fly, Invisibility, Misty Step, and of course, nothing like Charm Person, Teleport, etc.

Otherwise, warriors becoming wuxia-like at higher levels is inevitable, even if you limit mages in their spell lists and specializations — if you do desire narrative balance, of course.

Any martial of tier 3 and above should be able to run on walls, if not as well as Monk — if they invested in Athletics or similar skills appropriately. Mages have been able to cast Spider Climb since level 3, by the way.
Any martial of tier 3 and above should be able to obtain special senses like Blindsight or Tremorsense, if they invested into Perception or things like that. Mages have been able to cast See Invisibility since level 3, and True Sight right at level 11, which is superior to most special senses.
Any martial should be able to vanish from sight without anything to hide against, if they're good at Stealth — at least by tier 4, and probably earlier. Mages have been able to cast Invisibility since level 3.
Any martial of tier 3 and above should be able to use Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation better than anyone IRL, with appropriate investment. Charm Person has been a thing since level 1, and Dominate Person has been a thing at level 9.
Any martial of tier 3 and above should be able to bring back the freshly dead with a good Medicine investment and some expenditure of rare herbs/oils/potions costing, shall we say, 300 GP. Revivify has been a thing since level 5, and Raise Dead is already superior to that at level 9.

I can continue this for a while, and the only counterargument that's ever been posed in previous discussions about that is "why should dirty muggles have the same capabilities that mages do, even if they get them far later and through permanent investment rather than choosing a superpower for the day?" The answer is — otherwise, warriors become increasingly obsolete after Tier 2 narratively — they have not matured since level 5 or 7 at best (and sometimes since levels 1 to 3), because they still do the same things they did back then, only with slightly bigger numbers that don't translate to quality on their own.

If you want to play classic swords and sorcery, play levels 1 to 10. The game has already been severely harmed by trying to make level 20 the same as level 8, only with bigger numbers. But even in 5e, by level 15, it's absolutely clear that Wizard and Fighter are playing different games, if they ever leave the dungeon which the Wizard politely tries to NOT bypass through Dimension Door, Blink, and other means of going somewhere walls don't want you to go.

If you still want to fight dragons in your game of sword and sorcery, homebrew a level 9-10 appropriate dragon. Just change some numbers, even ancient dragons don't get anything that requires high-level magic anymore.

[Kane0]

That's the point. Power creep is not inherently bad if the only thing it does is bring up the features/classes/concepts that are underpowered when they shouldn't be. If increasing power makes the game better, why should it be maligned?



Do note that some people using the phrase 'Power Creep' might be referring to increasing the baseline/average across the board where others might be referring to increasing the power of a specific category or subcategory.

[SharkForce]

my experience (and it has been borne out in this thread, if you read through) is that the people who play warriors are actually the ones saying that warriors shouldn't get cool stuff.

people who play wizards and druids and warlocks have no problems with the idea that everyone should get impressive powers. it's the ones who play warriors who seem to complain bitterly about warriors becoming more fantastical.

personally, I think that warriors could certainly stand to get plenty more utility, but if you're going to give it to them you're ultimately going to have to find a way to do it that makes it look like they're not magical at all, because otherwise the very people you are supposedly making these changes for will be the ones that want it the least.

as someone who is perfectly fine with the idea of fantasy warriors being fantastical, I couldn't say why that is.

on another note, I do think that not all high level warriors should be fantastical in the same way, though... like, it's perfectly fine for a powerful warrior to become able to run on walls if that's what they want, but I don't remotely think that *all* of them should be able to run on walls. maybe someone would rather be a master craftsman who can build anything at 20 times the usual speed. maybe someone would rather be a natural leader who can inspire people to perform great deeds. maybe someone would rather have pure brute strength rather than agility and mobility. I think a proper system is going to need to be able to accommodate a variety of these options.

[Saelethil]

my experience (and it has been borne out in this thread, if you read through) is that the people who play warriors are actually the ones saying that warriors shouldn't get cool stuff.

people who play wizards and druids and warlocks have no problems with the idea that everyone should get impressive powers. it's the ones who play warriors who seem to complain bitterly about warriors becoming more fantastical.

personally, I think that warriors could certainly stand to get plenty more utility, but if you're going to give it to them you're ultimately going to have to find a way to do it that makes it look like they're not magical at all, because otherwise the very people you are supposedly making these changes for will be the ones that want it the least.

as someone who is perfectly fine with the idea of fantasy warriors being fantastical, I couldn't say why that is.

on another note, I do think that not all high level warriors should be fantastical in the same way, though... like, it's perfectly fine for a powerful warrior to become able to run on walls if that's what they want, but I don't remotely think that *all* of them should be able to run on walls. maybe someone would rather be a master craftsman who can build anything at 20 times the usual speed. maybe someone would rather be a natural leader who can inspire people to perform great deeds. maybe someone would rather have pure brute strength rather than agility and mobility. I think a proper system is going to need to be able to accommodate a variety of these options.

I might be an exception to your observation. I enjoy playing martials. Of the 8 characters I’ve played so far there have been 5 martials.
I am currently part of 2 campaigns, in one I’m playing an 11/2 Bard/Warlock in a party of mostly casters and I have noticed the fighter starting to slide a bit, the Rogue is still doing alright but she’s working with some supremely OP homebrew made by her brother, the GM. In the other campaign it ended up being an “Oops, all martials” which has been very fun and requires quite a bit of creative problem solving even though 3/5 of us are playing partial casters. I enjoy being tactical with positioning and doing more than just attacking when it seems worth it but most of the time it’s “I attack that goblin, that’s a hit. He’s still up? I swing again.”
I find the archetype of a warrior very appealing and some of the mechanics work great. I just wish there was the option to play a mechanically interesting character without needing to resort to magic.

[qube]

my experience (and it has been borne out in this thread, if you read through) is that the people who play warriors are actually the ones saying that warriors shouldn't get cool stuff.
...
as someone who is perfectly fine with the idea of fantasy warriors being fantastical, I couldn't say why that is. No? It's quite simple actually: don't think of it like


Plays fighter --> doesn't want changes

but more like


Likes fighter
| |
| `--> plays fighter
|
`----> doesn't want changes


on another note, I do think that not all high level warriors should be fantastical in the same way, though...
Agreed. In essence, not everyone wants to play Captain America. Some people like to play Bron of the Blackwater.

It's perfectly fine if you want to play Captain America, but the problem becomes if you "fix" Bron of the Blackwater by making him Captain America.

That's the strength of subclasses - with relative low development cost (4 abilities for which a baseline of power already is established; instead of an entirely new 20 levels) it allows you have both Bron of the Blackwater AND Captain America.

[Ignimortis]

Agreed. In essence, not everyone wants to play Captain America. Some people like to play Bron of the Blackwater.

It's perfectly fine if you want to play Captain America, but the problem becomes if you "fix" Bron of the Blackwater by making him Captain America.

That's the strength of subclasses - with relative low development cost (4 abilities for which a baseline of power already is established; instead of an entirely new 20 levels) it allows you have both Bron of the Blackwater AND Captain America.

It doesn't. And it especially doesn't let you play anything higher than Captain America, who is still pretty low on the "powers" scale, since all he has is...somewhat super strength (so STR 20, which is also above human peak by definition), durability (any Fighter gets that by default, because HP scaling), and...undefined martial skill, which is represented by proficiency.

Frankly, Captain America is represented by a Champion Fighter just fine, except a bit higher level than Bronn (who might actually be a Battle Master, too). People who like to play Bronn already have their thing — it's called Fighter levels 3 to 7. People who like to play Captain America can do that at levels 7+, too. And we basically stop there. We never graduate from being a non-descript barely-superhuman into anything else.

The issue with Fighter is that so much of its' budget is locked into its' chassis, which eventually gets a whole four attacks per turn (which the designers consider a very strong feature, despite the fact that you almost never see it in play, like any other level 20 capstone). Like, most of Fighter's power goes into eventually getting more free attacks than anyone else, better numbers (through ASIs) and Action Surge. Everything else is an afterthought.

And all the subclasses are like this! They aren't character-defining most of the time, you're always playing a Fighter first and a subclass second. You cannot give Fighter a Warblade subclass, because to be Warblade, you need more budget than a Fighter subclass. The same extends to all the classes, generally — probably the only subclasses that try and shake up the general dynamic of the base class are caster subclasses that push them into gish territory, like Hexblade, War Cleric, Stone Sorc. And even then their spell choices generally impact things more than their subclass.

Your example upthread of a 3.5 Samurai is flawed, because that's the worst possible example. 3.5 also has the generally much better received classes: ToB classes, Binder, limited casters like Beguiler and Warmage, a lot of ACFs for classic classes that somehow manage to be more impactful than some 5e archetypes (Penetrating Strike does more for Rogue in the 3.5 paradigm than Assassin ever does in the 5e paradigm, for example), etc. PF1e managed to make archetypes that 1) can be combined 2) can turn the base class upside down, with something like Gun Tank or Vivisector. 5e doesn't do that, it goes for the safest, least exciting route of all, every time.

[Kane0]

-snip-

I think the thought was more along the lines of 'not all barbarians want to/should be the Hulk', same for artificers/iron man, wizards/dr strange and so on.

That and subclasses allow for variety on the complexity spectrum if not the power spectrum.

[SharkForce]

No? It's quite simple actually: don't think of it like


Plays fighter --> doesn't want changes

but more like


Likes fighter
| |
| `--> plays fighter
|
`----> doesn't want changes


sure, I could have phrased that better.

I did not mean that all (or most) people who play fighters don't want change.

I mean that in my experience, the people who don't want change are typically people who play fighters.

this has been my experience, that the people who hate the change are the people that I would purportedly be making any changes to benefit, and my policy has become that it doesn't make sense to try and force a change, whether I think it is beneficial or not, on people who don't want that change... at least, not for the sake of a game. if they're having fun with the current version and won't have fun with the proposed version, then the proposed version is flawed, no matter how much of an improvement *I* might think it is.

[Ignimortis]

I think the thought was more along the lines of 'not all barbarians want to/should be the Hulk', same for artificers/iron man, wizards/dr strange and so on.

That and subclasses allow for variety on the complexity spectrum if not the power spectrum.

Then the comparison is flawed. Bronn and Captain America are not two Fighters of the same level with different subclasses, they're two Fighters of rather different levels, and subclasses have nothing to do with it. Same with Barbarians not wanting to be Hulk — they just shouldn't grow to the levels where Barbarian becomes Hulk. It's not a level 1 to level 20 deal, after all.

[qube]

Then the comparison is flawed. Bronn and Captain America The analogy - not comparson - was on account of this


it's perfectly fine for a powerful warrior to become able to run on walls if that's what they want, but I don't remotely think that *all* of them should be able to run on walls

I was first going to use Li Mu Bai, but I figured more people were familiar with the Marvel cinematic universe, then 20 year old chinese cinema.


Your example upthread of a 3.5 Samurai is flawed, because that's the worst possible example.3.0, not 3.5

And, being the worst possible example of different classes being the same, makes it the best example to show how designers aren't perfect and not above reusing other material or mechanics when they don't have much inspiration.

[Kuu Lightwing]

3.0, not 3.5

And, being the worst possible example of different classes being the same, makes it the best example to show how designers aren't perfect and not above reusing other material or mechanics when they don't have much inspiration.

That's also a pretty bad example to be used in the context of the argument that subclasses are too limited to introduce some of the concepts to the game, and they should release some new classes that implement those concepts. Nobody is asking for the repeat of 3.0 Samurai to begin with. As for "designers will make mistakes" - maybe, but it's not like designers are even reading this thread, and will get on it.

And as I was saying earlier, "they made mistakes while releasing new classes before, therefore they should not release new classes" is a pretty bad take to begin with.

[Ignimortis]

The analogy - not comparson - was on account of this


it's perfectly fine for a powerful warrior to become able to run on walls if that's what they want, but I don't remotely think that *all* of them should be able to run on walls

I was first going to use Li Mu Bai, but I figured more people were familiar with the Marvel cinematic universe, then 20 year old chinese cinema.

Doesn't change the fact that Bronn is just a lower-level Fighter than someone who would be able to run on walls. So by introducing higher-level options for that, players who like Bronn aren't impacted at all - as long as they understand that Bronn isn't a character they could feasibly go dragonslaying and demonlord-busting with.



3.0, not 3.5

And, being the worst possible example of different classes being the same, makes it the best example to show how designers aren't perfect and not above reusing other material or mechanics when they don't have much inspiration.

So what you're saying is that you don't trust the designers to make new classes properly, without reusing old classes/features so much that a subclass/archetype would do the same job anyway? I can't really disagree, considering how unwilling to design new things WotC has seemingly gotten during the 5e era, I guess. Or do you mean something different?

Because I do think that WotC is very obsessed with maintaining the status quo (not with actual balance, mind you), and that they won't do anything new for a while. It took them six years to release a small set of new features (basically ACFs) for all classes that could've been written up in a month or two by a single person in 2016-2017, when the game's issues were already identified. After all, that so-hyped 5.5e (which might not even warrant the name, it might really just be a PHB with Tasha's changes and maybe some SCAG/SGE subclasses in it) is slated for 2024. Old WotC would've definitely started work on 6e.

[qube]

Nobody is asking for the repeat of 3.0 Samurai to begin with
No, we asking for classes and new class features that are both unique and perfectly balanced


And as I was saying earlier, "they made mistakes while releasing new classes before, therefore they should not release new classes" is a pretty bad take to begin with.A pretty bad take? Maybe.

I consider ignoring the fact that making a full new class is significantly more difficult (both balance wise & inspiration wise) then making a subclass - a worse take.

[Glorthindel]

sure, I could have phrased that better.

I did not mean that all (or most) people who play fighters don't want change.

I mean that in my experience, the people who don't want change are typically people who play fighters.

this has been my experience, that the people who hate the change are the people that I would purportedly be making any changes to benefit, and my policy has become that it doesn't make sense to try and force a change, whether I think it is beneficial or not, on people who don't want that change... at least, not for the sake of a game. if they're having fun with the current version and won't have fun with the proposed version, then the proposed version is flawed, no matter how much of an improvement *I* might think it is.

Thank you, it is very nice for someone on the other side of the discussion to acknowledge we exist. Its a refreshing difference from the others who tell us we are either just wrong, or should stop playing the game.

[Kuu Lightwing]

A pretty bad take? Maybe.

I consider ignoring the fact that making a full new class is significantly more difficult (both balance wise & inspiration wise) then making a subclass - a worse take.

Nobody ignores that it's harder to do. That's why I want (hopefully) professional designers to design and playtest said class, instead of having to do it myself. I would prefer to pay money for that, and not for "you know, age and height are hard, so we removed those" design school.
Surely designers are capable of designing some classes, considering we have 13 of them already. And by the way, none of them are 3.0 Samurai.
Again, a very bad take.

[qube]

So what you're saying is that you don't trust the designers to make new classes properly, without reusing old classes so much that a subclass/archetype would do the same job anyway? I can't really disagree, considering how unwilling to design new things WotC has seemingly gotten during the 5e era, I guess. Or do you mean something different?considering the frankly laisy design we've seen with the new races, I don't really trust the designers to make new classes properly, period.

Granted, I'm not saying it's easy. Bounded accuracy makes this harder, an errant bonus can quickly mess up balance (while this was a singificantly smaller problem in for example 3/3.5); But that's an explenation. Having an explenation why it's hard doesn't magically make it easy.

[Brookshw]

Apparently a pretend quote doesn't count towards word count.

I stand corrected.

[OldTrees1]

I can agree that 5E warriors compared to 5E is an improvement over 3E warriors compared to 3E. 4E is its own mess. Any significant improvement to warriors in general would have to be in hypothetical 6E. It reminds me of an interesting perspective debate about 3E Tome of Battle. WOTC just made the book with no comment on how the classes compared to the PHB classes. No word given on whether they were to be played along side each other or replace the originals (fighter/barbarian, paladin, monk). The debate was while it was a given that warblade replaced the fighter, one side complained about it as a bug while others cheered it as a feature. The down votes complained of power creep and general dislike of obsoleteness. The up votes cheered the power creep as a needed upgrade and liked they could now play a warrior and not be stuck with fighter. If 5E were to create a better fighter and barbarian renamed that debate would return. It is interesting of note this time I don't think anyone would complain of a better ranger and no one thinks a better paladin is needed. Monk is a whole debate in itself.

I don't think we can learn that lesson from ToB.


ToB Warblade is like a Waffle.
3.5 Fighter is like a bad Pancake.
Some people that like Waffles and Pancakes claimed the Waffle should be treated as a replacement for the bad Pancake. (even going so far as to encourage banning Pancakes).
Other people that like Pancakes (including some that also liked Waffles) disliked that claim because they did not see Pancakes and Waffles as replacements for each other.


The lesson I think we can learn from ToB are:

Creating a Waffle was a net positive for the community
The community will argue about whether the Waffle can or can't be a replacement for the Bad Pancake.
Most attempts to create a better Pancake end up creating something like a Pancake but is not a Pancake (a Waffle for exmaple).


We don't know what creating a better Pancake will do. Although, I suspect this thread would create a Waffle. Although maybe it will decide to create Waffles, Crepes, and <third example>?

[Ralanr]

I don't think we can learn that lesson from ToB.


ToB Warblade is like a Waffle.
3.5 Fighter is like a bad Pancake.
Some people that like Waffles and Pancakes claimed the Waffle should be treated as a replacement for the bad Pancake. (even going so far as to encourage banning Pancakes).
Other people that like Pancakes (including some that also liked Waffles) disliked that claim because they did not see Pancakes and Waffles as replacements for each other.


The lesson I think we can learn from ToB are:

Creating a Waffle was a net positive for the community
The community will argue about whether the Waffle can or can't be a replacement for the Bad Pancake.
Most attempts to create a better Pancake end up creating something like a Pancake but is not a Pancake (a Waffle for exmaple).


We don't know what creating a better Pancake will do. Although, I suspect this thread would create a Waffle. Although maybe it will decide to create Waffles, Crepes, and <third example>?


Good old food for thought.

[Asmotherion]

I believe ToB did it best. Spell versatility to martials is the way to go.

[Dr.Samurai]

my experience (and it has been borne out in this thread, if you read through) is that the people who play warriors are actually the ones saying that warriors shouldn't get cool stuff.
Define "cool stuff".

Because I do play warriors and I do want them to have "cool stuff", but I don't want to run on clouds and make earthquakes with my stomps and swim through lava.

For me, the issue is that, by virtue of having to make rules and having to balance those rules for group play, martial combat is reduced to a few simple options. To me, it goes without saying that a warrior can be cool without transforming into a demigod. Having a shield be an integral piece of equipment that transforms the encounter between a warrior and various monsters and mages because it blocks a lot of their attacks would be "cool" and more in line with fantasy warriors.

people who play wizards and druids and warlocks have no problems with the idea that everyone should get impressive powers.
And I think this makes sense when you sub in "magical" for "impressive".

it's the ones who play warriors who seem to complain bitterly about warriors becoming more fantastical.
I'm sure if the solution was to instead tone down magic, the complaints would also be "bitterly".

personally, I think that warriors could certainly stand to get plenty more utility, but if you're going to give it to them you're ultimately going to have to find a way to do it that makes it look like they're not magical at all, because otherwise the very people you are supposedly making these changes for will be the ones that want it the least.
This is correct. Though I think there is some overlap. There *are* people that think the solution is for martials to become wuxia anime comic book heroes, and that this is the natural progression and the only way D&D can be played at high levels by non-casters. There are some (like myself) that have no interest in playing these characters. I would prefer to take down a dragon the way Bard the Bowman did, or take down an evil wraith and its wyvern the way Eowyn did, or face the Chimera the way Bellerephon did.

Some people are okay with both approaches. The approach that I prefer seems practically impossible because D&D has everything steeped in magic, so it seems unreasonable to want a traditional hero of fantasy because the game appears to assume (and so do many players) that things just have to get more magical and supernatural and bizarre at higher levels. Humans in the D&D world could not realistically survive off the prowess of martials alone. They need wizards there to fend off the greater threats. This is pretty opposite to how our stories go.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm sure if the solution was to instead tone down magic, the complaints would also be "bitterly".


Personally, my preferred solution is to do both. Give martials a few more things (but not on the wuxia scale) and tone down magic tremendously. Mostly by chopping out most of the spells and making them available to anyone who wants to learn them.

As for "non-magic martials", I'm of the opinion that, in a magical fantastic world, everyone should have access to magic. But not everyone should be casting spells (or spells lightly disguised as not-spells, ie ToB) as their primary interactions. Magic =/= spells. Spells are one way to access magic. But a barbarian can be magic, without casting spells--his rage channels primal power so he literally hulks out some. His damage resistance isn't just ignoring pain, it's his skin literally hardening and he's damping blows with his muscles and aura. A fighter's action surge lets him do more than most because he's literally tapping into built-up energy to accelerate his actions. That's also why both of those are limited--that takes built-up energy that takes time and rest to recover. A rogue dodges a fireball (evasion) by literally wrapping the shadows around him, shunting the explosion into somewhere else. Etc. Playing on that, and changing most of the utility spells to things that anyone can access (ie not spells, but more classical incantations and real rituals) would do most of the work.

A video game example is FFXIV. Everyone there, martial or not, manipulates aether. That's how you do cool things in that setting. The samurai job, for instance, concentrates aether in their sheath for their big ice attack. Ninjas use mudras to do magic. Etc. And the main character, the Warrior of Light, is blessed with an overflowing abundance of aether (for spoliery reasons). Which lets him[1] fight and defeat the closest things that there are to manifested gods. Solo (canonically, although in game you have between 3 and 7 companions, a fact that is sometimes lampshaded).

[strangebloke]

No? It's quite simple actually: don't think of it like


Plays fighter --> doesn't want changes

but more like


Likes fighter
| |
| `--> plays fighter
|
`----> doesn't want changes


Agreed. In essence, not everyone wants to play Captain America. Some people like to play Bron of the Blackwater.

It's perfectly fine if you want to play Captain America, but the problem becomes if you "fix" Bron of the Blackwater by making him Captain America.

That's the strength of subclasses - with relative low development cost (4 abilities for which a baseline of power already is established; instead of an entirely new 20 levels) it allows you have both Bron of the Blackwater AND Captain America.

I don't really feel the issue is a conceptual one. Bronn being the example here, he absolutely could be represented by a very mechanically complex character. A high level battlemaster/rogue combination would really fit his genre-savvy guile and wit. Conversely, Captain America could be represented by a high level champion fighter. Sure he can do some stuff that's extraordinary, but he really does just mostly punch people. Or he could be represented by a battlemaster/rogue, or Bronn could be a champion.

People play basic champion fighters IME not because its necessary for their character concept, but because they don't want to have to keep track of daily resources and the champion is less intensive on that front. I keep referring to this one player I have. He's a Physicist with a master's degree, he just hates keeping track of resources. Really he prefers to play rogues, but if he plays a fighter he always uses Second Wind and Action Surge the first chances he gets because he doesn't want to track that stuff. He refuses to carry health potions.

IMO the goal should be to have simple basic classes that are also quite strong in their implementation (champion should be a bit stronger, thief is pretty much right there) but that there should be ACFs to accomodate everyone else because subclasses don't cover enough design space in 5e.

ALSO, mechanics that are fiddly AND weak are the worst of both worlds, and this is why I dislike indomitable so much. You get worse Lucky but spread out over three levels giving fighters a third LR resource that's a pain to keep track of.


Thank you, it is very nice for someone on the other side of the discussion to acknowledge we exist. Its a refreshing difference from the others who tell us we are either just wrong, or should stop playing the game.

I certainly would never say such a thing. I just want to create homebrew that can be an option for someone who wants a more complex martial.

[Morty]

As for "non-magic martials", I'm of the opinion that, in a magical fantastic world, everyone should have access to magic. But not everyone should be casting spells (or spells lightly disguised as not-spells, ie ToB) as their primary interactions. Magic =/= spells. Spells are one way to access magic. But a barbarian can be magic, without casting spells--his rage channels primal power so he literally hulks out some. His damage resistance isn't just ignoring pain, it's his skin literally hardening and he's damping blows with his muscles and aura. A fighter's action surge lets him do more than most because he's literally tapping into built-up energy to accelerate his actions. That's also why both of those are limited--that takes built-up energy that takes time and rest to recover. A rogue dodges a fireball (evasion) by literally wrapping the shadows around him, shunting the explosion into somewhere else. Etc. Playing on that, and changing most of the utility spells to things that anyone can access (ie not spells, but more classical incantations and real rituals) would do most of the work.

This is entirely fair reasoning, but the opinion that if you don't cast spells, you must be "normal" (whatever it even means) is very, very entrenched in the fanbase. I don't see D&D ever backing away from it.

[strangebloke]

This is entirely fair reasoning, but the opinion that if you don't cast spells, you must be "normal" (whatever it even means) is very, very entrenched in the fanbase. I don't see D&D ever backing away from it.

I don't think that's quite true. Zealot, Beast, and Storm Herald Barbarians are pretty overtly magical, as are baseline monks. Even Totem Barbarians can do things like fly. Fighters have arcane archers and rune knights (and echo knights) while rogues have the ghost subclass. Then too you have the soulknife and the psi warrior, which are sorta magical but sorta not.

Basically its not really true that you have to be a spellcaster to have "magic," its more the case that the way spell lists work with new releases means that the spellcasting options always end up being better in the long run no matter how overtuned the other options are upon release. For example the BM was considered at one point to be the gold standard for a DPR-focused fighter but that became a lot less true with EK's eventually getting BB and shadow blade.

[Ralanr]

I don't think that's quite true. Zealot, Beast, and Storm Herald Barbarians are pretty overtly magical, as are baseline monks. Even Totem Barbarians can do things like fly. Fighters have arcane archers and rune knights (and echo knights) while rogues have the ghost subclass. Then too you have the soulknife and the psi warrior, which are sorta magical but sorta not.

Basically its not really true that you have to be a spellcaster to have "magic," its more the case that the way spell lists work with new releases means that the spellcasting options always end up being better in the long run no matter how overtuned the other options are upon release. For example the BM was considered at one point to be the gold standard for a DPR-focused fighter but that became a lot less true with EK's eventually getting BB and shadow blade.

To be fair, WOTC has done a poor job in supporting non magical barbarians.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think that's quite true. Zealot, Beast, and Storm Herald Barbarians are pretty overtly magical, as are baseline monks. Even Totem Barbarians can do things like fly. Fighters have arcane archers and rune knights (and echo knights) while rogues have the ghost subclass. Then too you have the soulknife and the psi warrior, which are sorta magical but sorta not.

Basically its not really true that you have to be a spellcaster to have "magic," its more the case that the way spell lists work with new releases means that the spellcasting options always end up being better in the long run no matter how overtuned the other options are upon release. For example the BM was considered at one point to be the gold standard for a DPR-focused fighter but that became a lot less true with EK's eventually getting BB and shadow blade.

Right. The problem is spells. More specifically, the ravioli nature of D&D spellcasting, which makes it trivial to vomit forth tons of spells which get picked through and only the best get used.

And I'd say that the soulknife and psi warrior are absolutely magical. Not spell-casters, but magical (meaning they are powered by forces not possible on Earth). Or better, they're fantastic.

Honestly, I'd expect a "better" version of D&D would be to make that explicit. Make it clear, even if just in the class descriptions (ie no mechanical changes) that fighters and rogues are not just mundane earth people. That everyone with power in a fantastic world has fantastic power. No average joes allowed.

Barbarians have this note explicitly:



These barbarians, different as they might be, are defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury. More than a mere emotion, their anger is the ferocity of a cornered predator, the unrelenting assault of a storm, the churning turmoil of the sea.

For some, their rage springs from a communion with fierce animal spirits. Others draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain. For every barbarian, rage is a power that fuels not just a battle frenzy but also uncanny reflexes, resilience, and feats of strength.

...

Barbarians come alive in the chaos of combat. They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience.

They're literally marked as having superhuman, uncanny abilities. And some of them (ie many of them) get it explicitly from animal spirits (ie supernaturally). Conan was no barbarian (in the D&D sense). Barbarians (in the D&D sense) tap into a force beyond themselves that isn't just "I get mad". And explicitly so--it's "more than a mere emotion". It's a source of primal power, connected with the world itself. The heading in the snipped part is literally Primal Instinct.

And I'd say that the intent for fighters and rogues was similar, they just didn't mark it as clearly. There is no "I'm not fantastic, I'm just a regular guy" option. Or, rather, there is. Just not as a PC. PCs are all defined to be special. In this world, the Charles Atlas superpower is possible--you can get fantastic powers through intense training. That doesn't make them not fantastic.

[Psyren]

Honestly, I'd expect a "better" version of D&D would be to make that explicit. Make it clear, even if just in the class descriptions (ie no mechanical changes) that fighters and rogues are not just mundane earth people. That everyone with power in a fantastic world has fantastic power. No average joes allowed.

There were two wonderful tags in 3.P for indicating the presence of magical abilities that aren't spellcasting. They were called (Su) and (Sp).

The biggest issue with 3.5 is that it didn't use these nearly enough - the expectation was that you would PrC out of your base class, so they didn't care to ensure that the high levels of martial base classes began incorporating magic, or even be all that interesting in general. Pathfinder did a much better job of this with things like Rogue Talents and Rage Powers and archetypes tending to be more magical as you climbed, but they still didn't set that expectation as well as they could have.

Personally I would look to PrCs as examples for abilities that high-level martials should be expected to have baseline. Like a rogue gets high enough, they should be able to do things like jump from shadow to shadow, or briefly turn incorporeal like a child of night. A barbarian gets high enough and they can start tattooing certain powers onto themselves or cutting through magic, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There were two wonderful tags in 3.P for indicating the presence of magical abilities that aren't spellcasting. They were called (Su) and (Sp).

The biggest issue with 3.5 is that it didn't use these nearly enough - the expectation was that you would PrC out of your base class, so they didn't care to ensure that the high levels of martial base classes began incorporating magic, or even be all that interesting in general. Pathfinder did a much better job of this with things like Rogue Talents and Rage Powers and archetypes tending to be more magical as you climbed, but they still didn't set that expectation as well as they could have.

Personally I would look to PrCs as examples for abilities that high-level martials should be expected to have baseline. Like a rogue gets high enough, they should be able to do things like jump from shadow to shadow, or briefly turn incorporeal like a child of night. A barbarian gets high enough and they can start tattooing certain powers onto themselves or cutting through magic, etc.

I don't like those tags, because they cause air-breathing mermaid issues and reinforce the idea that "not magical" means "boring and limited".

Instead, I'd say the default is everything is fantastic (ie su at lowest). From level 1, from the get go. Your fantastic nature sets you apart from the common herd and from mundane things. Mundane is not an option. From that perspective, the whole "Guy at the Gym" goes away, because expectations are set differently. Expectations are more powerful than explicit features, because they're much less limited. Giving them su options without changing the expectation of the baseline reinforces the dichotomy, which is something I want to go away entirely.

Note that there's a bit of a lie in things like dispel magic and anti-magic field--those don't affect magic as much as spells and magic items.

Edit: And I think there's a bit of a misconception that fantastic must mean "over the top" (and thus high level). I want things to be fantastic at all levels, so the scaling isn't nearly that extreme. Instead of going from Average Joe (ie nobody) at level 1 to Demigod at level 20, I want to go from "Action Hero" (ie normal++) to "low-end superhero" for everyone, wizards included. So the whole "rewrite reality at will" trope for wizards? Doesn't belong in any form of D&D I want to play. Which means that the scope and silliness for martials is similarly limited. No need to (as a baseline) crack mountains with a blade (or any of those other mythical feats) or cut holes in reality. Yes, that means that spells need refactoring. But they've needed that for a long time, because they're inherently unbalanceable even within themselves.

[Ignimortis]

There were two wonderful tags in 3.P for indicating the presence of magical abilities that aren't spellcasting. They were called (Su) and (Sp).

The biggest issue with 3.5 is that it didn't use these nearly enough - the expectation was that you would PrC out of your base class, so they didn't care to ensure that the high levels of martial base classes began incorporating magic, or even be all that interesting in general. Pathfinder did a much better job of this with things like Rogue Talents and Rage Powers and archetypes tending to be more magical as you climbed, but they still didn't set that expectation as well as they could have.

Personally I would look to PrCs as examples for abilities that high-level martials should be expected to have baseline. Like a rogue gets high enough, they should be able to do things like jump from shadow to shadow, or briefly turn incorporeal like a child of night. A barbarian gets high enough and they can start tattooing certain powers onto themselves or cutting through magic, etc.

No, no, no. The greatest achievement of 3e was having (Ex) abilities, which were 100% non-magical and still broke the laws of physics, as the developers themselves stated when defining them.


Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

These are the real MVPs, despite getting so little attention. These deserved to be expanded upon. Sheer non-magical talent and might which still, in a fantastic fashion fit for a fantastic world, break the laws of physics as we know them. It's a shame so many borderline abilities and talents got shoehorned into (Su) or even the despicable (Sp), which was one step away from being a spell other than not being cast out of a spell slot.

[Ralanr]

Wow, right there we have a way to describe supernatural class features at higher levels. And we don't?

Why?

[Morty]

I don't think that's quite true. Zealot, Beast, and Storm Herald Barbarians are pretty overtly magical, as are baseline monks. Even Totem Barbarians can do things like fly. Fighters have arcane archers and rune knights (and echo knights) while rogues have the ghost subclass. Then too you have the soulknife and the psi warrior, which are sorta magical but sorta not.

Basically its not really true that you have to be a spellcaster to have "magic," its more the case that the way spell lists work with new releases means that the spellcasting options always end up being better in the long run no matter how overtuned the other options are upon release. For example the BM was considered at one point to be the gold standard for a DPR-focused fighter but that became a lot less true with EK's eventually getting BB and shadow blade.

True, but the baseline subclasses for fighters and rogues remain explicitly non-magical, with the attendant consequences. And yes, it does mean there's an increasing lack of coherence in just how "high magic" D&D is supposed to be. And all these abilities indeed can't quite cut it compared to spells.

Also, these subclasses generally slap outright supernatural powers on a character from the get-go. I feel like it'd be better if lower level martial classes did have the option to refrain from using "magic", with high levels introducing the "so good that it becomes supernatural" kind of abilities. Since as it is, either you're magical from the moment you pick your subclass, or stay "mundane" for good.

[strangebloke]

to take the champion as an example, one would hardly call a high level champion a 'normal' person. They can heal from any wound, they've probably acquired the blessing of a god, they're stronger than massive 10-foot tall monsters, they can hit something 9 times in six seconds, etc. etc. They're the 'average joe' of DND but nothing about them is really mundane in any sense.

And I would guess that nobody who likes playing champions would object to them getting tuned upward by a fair margin, particularly in latter tiers. Something like a tenth level ability that allows them to improve their stats to a cap of 24 for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

to take the champion as an example, one would hardly call a high level champion a 'normal' person. They can heal from any wound, they've probably acquired the blessing of a god, they're stronger than massive 10-foot tall monsters, they can hit something 9 times in six seconds, etc. etc. They're the 'average joe' of DND but nothing about them is really mundane in any sense.


Right. Heck, Action Surge allows any fighter to act more than any normal creature can. To break the rules that apply to everyone else. And that's what, level 2?

Sure, they're less flashy about their extraordinary nature, but it's there.

And a thief that can trick a Holy Avenger into letting them wield it and gain power from it? That's not extraordinary? A thief that is literally undetectable by the average person (expertise in Stealth + Reliable Talent means their minimum check is > 20, so even a nat 20 on a Wisdom (Perception) check can't find them). A thief that can dodge a point blank fireball in a bare room and come out without a singe? That's not extraordinary?

[Ralanr]

Right. Heck, Action Surge allows any fighter to act more than any normal creature can. To break the rules that apply to everyone else. And that's what, level 2?

Sure, they're less flashy about their extraordinary nature, but it's there.

And a thief that can trick a Holy Avenger into letting them wield it and gain power from it? That's not extraordinary? A thief that is literally undetectable by the average person (expertise in Stealth + Reliable Talent means their minimum check is > 20, so even a nat 20 on a Wisdom (Perception) check can't find them). A thief that can dodge a point blank fireball in a bare room and come out without a singe? That's not extraordinary?

A barbarian can literally break the limits of strength and con that only upper tier monsters can, and it's not extraordinary?

It's not impossible to give these classes extraordinary abilities. It's more a problem in how those abilities scale into the later tiers. Action surge on fighters is great, it's so great that it's given to them early (too early IMO because of how easy it makes people dip into them). And they don't get an upgrade until level 17, in which they're given kind of an empty area in tier three.

Honestly you could even make indomitable into legendary resistance and it'd still work out as an extraordinary ability.

[Psyren]

No, no, no. The greatest achievement of 3e was having (Ex) abilities, which were 100% non-magical and still broke the laws of physics, as the developers themselves stated when defining them.



These are the real MVPs, despite getting so little attention. These deserved to be expanded upon. Sheer non-magical talent and might which still, in a fantastic fashion fit for a fantastic world, break the laws of physics as we know them. It's a shame so many borderline abilities and talents got shoehorned into (Su) or even the despicable (Sp), which was one step away from being a spell other than not being cast out of a spell slot.

'm aware of and perfectly okay with the Ex designation - but I think certain abilities should still interact with magic in some way, e.g. teleporting through shadows.

Something like Action Surge would be fine as (Ex).

[Dr.Samurai]

Personally, my preferred solution is to do both. Give martials a few more things (but not on the wuxia scale) and tone down magic tremendously. Mostly by chopping out most of the spells and making them available to anyone who wants to learn them.
I am okay with this elevator pitch so far.

As for "non-magic martials", I'm of the opinion that, in a magical fantastic world, everyone should have access to magic. But not everyone should be casting spells (or spells lightly disguised as not-spells, ie ToB) as their primary interactions. Magic =/= spells. Spells are one way to access magic.
I don't mind if everyone has access to magic. It's more the assumption that "no magic" must equal "low level" or "different game", and so if I want to play a high level warrior, I must submit to having supernatural abilities. I want the option to not be magical.

Bard killed a full blown dragon with a bow and arrow (and some intel lol). But in these conversations, it's always "Well, how is a high level fighter supposed to kill a dragon that's flying 15 miles in the sky and nuking him with high level spells and terrifying him with his Frightful Presence and is lairing in an impenetrable volcano with walls of force and interdimensional pathways?"

And the answer is always "well, the fighter should be able to teleport up to the dragon and if the dragon hides in his lair the fighter should be able to spin so fast that his boots bore through the earth and he can drill his way into the tunnels below, I mean come on he is superhuman at this point".

But why can't we just let warriors be equally deadly in melee combat and in ranged combat? Why are the guys duking it out face to face with monsters more susceptible to being afraid of them than the guys in the back lobbing magic from a distance?

If LotR were D&D, Smaug would have killed everyone and it would have taken Gandalf to put him down. The Witch-King would have never set down on the Pelennor Fields because bad tactics and he would have just kept doing fly-by attacks and casting spells from the air. Eowyn would have to have tanked nazgul attacks and Witch-King magic while only getting a single readied action attack in return.

But a barbarian can be magic, without casting spells--his rage channels primal power so he literally hulks out some. His damage resistance isn't just ignoring pain, it's his skin literally hardening and he's damping blows with his muscles and aura. A fighter's action surge lets him do more than most because he's literally tapping into built-up energy to accelerate his actions. That's also why both of those are limited--that takes built-up energy that takes time and rest to recover. A rogue dodges a fireball (evasion) by literally wrapping the shadows around him, shunting the explosion into somewhere else. Etc. Playing on that, and changing most of the utility spells to things that anyone can access (ie not spells, but more classical incantations and real rituals) would do most of the work.
I think things are more abstract than that though. I don't need to explain the logic of Action Surge because I don't think the fighter is literally moving twice as fast as everyone else. When I narrate my turn, I always try to ground it in realism (as much as can be) because I like that context more than "and now I'm attacking exactly six times instead of exactly three times because I am moving like a blur..."

So I don't think we need to explain away all abilities as some sort of supernatural thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A barbarian can literally break the limits of strength and con that only upper tier monsters can, and it's not extraordinary?

It's not impossible to give these classes extraordinary abilities. It's more a problem in how those abilities scale into the later tiers. Action surge on fighters is great, it's so great that it's given to them early (too early IMO because of how easy it makes people dip into them). And they don't get an upgrade until level 17, in which they're given kind of an empty area in tier three.

Honestly you could even make indomitable into legendary resistance and it'd still work out as an extraordinary ability.

Barbarians are literally, explicitly superhuman from level 1. The class description says they are, even. So I left them out of the list.

And yeah, I can see room to give them better scaling. It was the idea that they were some how mundane because they didn't cast spells that I was opposing there.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of having a relatively grounded model for everyone. No Bleach-style (or worse) anime fighters chopping the sun in half, but also no "alter the universe at will" casters, either. Effectively raise the (effective) concept of what level 1 is to Action Hero and lower the effective concept of what level 20 is to Mid-range Super Hero (and not the golden age "throw planets around" nonsense either). If you're taking out demigods for lunch, that's too much. I'd say anything CR 20+ should be a challenge, even for level 20s with gear. Taking on a Kraken shouldn't be "one of three such fights in an average day", it should be something you build up to and have to work for.



I don't mind if everyone has access to magic. It's more the assumption that "no magic" must equal "low level" or "different game", and so if I want to play a high level warrior, I must submit to having supernatural abilities. I want the option to not be magical.

There's magic and then there's spells. In a fantastic world, everyone who matters is fantastic; not everyone who matters casts spells. However you want to describe that, they're doing things that regular people (either in setting or on Earth) cannot. And that's what I'm calling magic. Magic (or fantastic) being "the things that cannot be done on Earth but can be done in the fictional universe." Yes, that makes most of Star Wars and Star Trek fantastic. It's the things that set the fictional universe apart from Earth.

I want to remove the equation of "magic" and "spells". And I agree with you about the overly-gonzo, assumption of meta-high-op-as-norm attitudes that a lot of people have, that take the worst abuses of spells and make that the new baseline against which everything is compared.

[Ralanr]

I am okay with this elevator pitch so far.



But why can't we just let warriors be equally deadly in melee combat and in ranged combat? Why are the guys duking it out face to face with monsters more susceptible to being afraid of them than the guys in the back lobbing magic from a distance?



Because D&D limits ranged and melee combat to different stats (except when it doesn't, like finesse) and throwing weapons don't have the same distance as bows and crossbows (also you have to keep track of them, whereas DMs will be like "I won't have you track nonmagical arrow"). Granted, Javelins have good range, but I keep thinking about how odd it is to carry like, over 10 javelins in combat.

[Dienekes]

A barbarian can literally break the limits of strength and con that only upper tier monsters can, and it's not extraordinary?

It's not impossible to give these classes extraordinary abilities. It's more a problem in how those abilities scale into the later tiers. Action surge on fighters is great, it's so great that it's given to them early (too early IMO because of how easy it makes people dip into them). And they don't get an upgrade until level 17, in which they're given kind of an empty area in tier three.

Honestly you could even make indomitable into legendary resistance and it'd still work out as an extraordinary ability.

In fairness here, I'm pretty sure the feats of strength the rules outline for a character with a Strength of 24 are actually well within the limits of human capability. Like their maximum lift capacity is only 720 lbs. Though I will admit, moving about unencumbered with 360 lbs on you is quite a feat.

It's just one of those weird things with the game, like technically the rules for gorillas are hilariously weak.

[Ralanr]

In fairness here, I'm pretty sure the feats of strength the rules outline for a character with a Strength of 24 are actually well within the limits of human capability. Like their maximum lift capacity is only 720 lbs. Though I will admit, moving about unencumbered with 360 lbs on you is quite a feat.

It's just one of those weird things with the game, like technically the rules for gorillas are hilariously weak.

Yeah, and this also reminds me how Trolls in shadowrun with 14 strength (the unaugmented max in 5e) couldn't even throw cars. Or a dodge scoot.

I really think these games need to change the formula for strength scaling. Especially so higher strength monsters are as strong as we think they are.

[Willie the Duck]

In fairness here, I'm pretty sure the feats of strength the rules outline for a character with a Strength of 24 are actually well within the limits of human capability. Like their maximum lift capacity is only 720 lbs. Though I will admit, moving about unencumbered with 360 lbs on you is quite a feat.

It's just one of those weird things with the game, like technically the rules for gorillas are hilariously weak.
The maximum lift rules are borked, as usual*. Encumbrance is better in that there's some inherent vagaries in there (it not being the most you can carry, so much as the most you can keep on carrying). The instant they start using real numbers, it goes haywire. For my money, I don't think that much matters. I, as a DM, don't have it planned out realistically how heavy the statue is before I place it in front of the passage the players will want to get through, just that it is 'A Lot of Weight' (and since the party barbarian can lift 'A Whole Lot of Weight,' they should be fine). Jumping distance, IMO, is where things get dicey, as I do have an idea about how far platform 1 to platform 2 are (unless I'm specifically picturing them as too far to leap between).
*IIRC, the max press for 18/00 STR bitd was mapped to world records which were surpassed multiple times in the intervening years.


Yeah, and this also reminds me how Trolls in shadowrun with 14 strength (the unaugmented max in 5e) couldn't even throw cars. Or a dodge scoot.

I really think these games need to change the formula for strength scaling. Especially so higher strength monsters are as strong as we think they are.

I think, in the end (and pertinent to this conversation), these games need to come to a solid decision about how cinematic they think they want to be, and also how heroic character-of-power-level-X is supposed to be. Of all of them, I think only Marvel FASERIP ever set out something along the line of 'this is the maximum a regular mortal human should be able to do,' and then tune everything to that benchmark (mostly likely because they had an multiple iconic characters where 'exactly at the mortal maximum' as their whole schtick). Even systems like GURPS and Hero System (which supposedly both had everything mapped out in real world terms) had dissonance because designers kept ignoring or changing guidelines or the like.

[Ralanr]

I think, in the end (and pertinent to this conversation), these games need to come to a solid decision about how cinematic they think they want to be, and also how heroic character-of-power-level-X is supposed to be. Of all of them, I think only Marvel FASERIP ever set out something along the line of 'this is the maximum a regular mortal human should be able to do,' and then tune everything to that benchmark (mostly likely because they had an multiple iconic characters where 'exactly at the mortal maximum' as their whole schtick). Even systems like GURPS and Hero System (which supposedly both had everything mapped out in real world terms) had dissonance because designers kept ignoring or changing guidelines or the like.

Yes, but designers seem to think that they can keep magic options separate from this. Which annoys me because then magic breaks what conventions you can do, so people without it are left behind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but designers seem to think that they can keep magic options separate from this. Which annoys me because then magic breaks what conventions you can do, so people without it are left behind.

Right. The designers need to set those limits for everyone. spells represent one way of reaching those limits, not a way to break the setting limits on "what can be done by mortals".

[Wildstag]

It's just one of those weird things with the game, like technically the rules for gorillas are hilariously weak.

I don't think any game designer knows how gorillas work. Pathfinder still seems to think gorillas get to be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 pounds (large creature). And somehow only with 15 strength. Like, a riding dog is somehow tougher (higher con, same dex/str).

Their average height is only around 6' tall, even when standing upright.

[strangebloke]

I am okay with this elevator pitch so far.

I don't mind if everyone has access to magic. It's more the assumption that "no magic" must equal "low level" or "different game", and so if I want to play a high level warrior, I must submit to having supernatural abilities. I want the option to not be magical.

Bard killed a full blown dragon with a bow and arrow (and some intel lol). But in these conversations, it's always "Well, how is a high level fighter supposed to kill a dragon that's flying 15 miles in the sky and nuking him with high level spells and terrifying him with his Frightful Presence and is lairing in an impenetrable volcano with walls of force and interdimensional pathways?"

And the answer is always "well, the fighter should be able to teleport up to the dragon and if the dragon hides in his lair the fighter should be able to spin so fast that his boots bore through the earth and he can drill his way into the tunnels below, I mean come on he is superhuman at this point".

But why can't we just let warriors be equally deadly in melee combat and in ranged combat? Why are the guys duking it out face to face with monsters more susceptible to being afraid of them than the guys in the back lobbing magic from a distance?

If LotR were D&D, Smaug would have killed everyone and it would have taken Gandalf to put him down. The Witch-King would have never set down on the Pelennor Fields because bad tactics and he would have just kept doing fly-by attacks and casting spells from the air. Eowyn would have to have tanked nazgul attacks and Witch-King magic while only getting a single readied action attack in return.

I think things are more abstract than that though. I don't need to explain the logic of Action Surge because I don't think the fighter is literally moving twice as fast as everyone else. When I narrate my turn, I always try to ground it in realism (as much as can be) because I like that context more than "and now I'm attacking exactly six times instead of exactly three times because I am moving like a blur..."

So I don't think we need to explain away all abilities as some sort of supernatural thing.

I feel like there are two things going on here that you're attacking seperately.

The first is that the implementation of martials as a concept is at times weak for no particular reason. Wisdom saves are the best example. Logically you'd assume that the 'ard as nails d12+5 barbarian is more brave than the d6+1 wizard but that isn't the case mechanically. Its far and away the opposite, even while the d6+1 wizard will usually more cowardly in their tactics in a practical sense because they have to be to survive. You could probably also bring up how hard it is for a martial to be truly effective at both melee and ranged combat given the reliance on feats, magic items, and dexterity OR strength but not both.

But then your second half is basically arguing that high level DND shouldn't be high level, that the game would be improved if things were closer to LOTR. And that's where I disagree. LotR is a fantasy series I like a lot, but if you want an example of martials and casters on equal footing its a terrible place to look. Consider for a moment the balrog, which literally could only be effected by gandalf's magic, or the witch-king, who could only be hurt by eowyn because of the presence of a dagger of westernesse, or Shelob, a giant monster from primordial times whose webs could only be cut because Sting had been particularly designed for that and who was only repelled by the magic item Sam had.

Are these "good" adventures for players to engage in? Hell no. It's been pointed out that LOTR if viewed as a DND campaign is a basic railroaded plotline. That's not a criticism of it as a story, but its a worthwhile point to bring up when people are viewing it as something DND should try to emulate.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't think any game designer knows how gorillas work. Pathfinder still seems to think gorillas get to be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 pounds (large creature). And somehow only with 15 strength. Like, a riding dog is somehow tougher (higher con, same dex/str).

Their average height is only around 6' tall, even when standing upright.

I don't know. I think this is right along with the old 3e issue of dogs having a higher dex than cats (IIRC) -- it isn't that the designers don't know something, it seems more that the stats are mostly an afterthought (especially for Strength for a creature unlikely to be a steed or pack animal). They have a CR they want to put the thing at, and will give it stats to match that point. Even though the 5e designers reserved the right to disassociate melee attack and damage values from monster Str, they do it so rarely that I assume a gorilla's Str score was back-converted from where they wanted to to-hits and damage to be.

[Psyren]

Wasn't the Black Arrow Bard used magical?

In PF, Barbarians and Fighters are similarly will-impaired, but they both get boosts vs. fear (Rage and Bravery respectively) because let's be honest, the big frontliner who wades into melee with untold horrors being easier to frighten than the casters hiding in the back behind them just doesn't make sense. 5e dumped both of those and I consider it worse off for having done so.

[strangebloke]

Wasn't the Black Arrow Bard used magical?

In PF, Barbarians and Fighters are similarly will-impaired, but they both get boosts vs. fear (Rage and Bravery respectively) because let's be honest, the big frontliner who wades into melee with untold horrors being easier to frighten than the casters hiding in the back behind them just doesn't make sense. 5e dumped both of those and I consider it worse off for having done so.

tbf a lot of subclasses give some kind of bonus to those saves and most fighters will end up getting resilient and/or lucky by mid-to-high levels. Also Indomitable is a feature, if a weak one for the intended purpose. It's just weird that its an "eventual" feature rather than an early one.

EDIT: yes, the arrow was magical, and was wielded by a DMpc. Suffice to say, not something to be emulated.

[Ralanr]

I don't think any game designer knows how gorillas work. Pathfinder still seems to think gorillas get to be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 pounds (large creature). And somehow only with 15 strength. Like, a riding dog is somehow tougher (higher con, same dex/str).

Their average height is only around 6' tall, even when standing upright.

"A single gorilla can rip your arm out of your socket in a split second."

15 strength.

I know that RPGs are rarely meant to be life sims, but man do I find this hilarious. Designers really need a better math multiplier for strength, even if that does make 10 strength much stronger than it should be irl. I'd buy that a peasant in a fantasy world is stronger than me. They're up in the morning moving hay and other harsh labors. Meanwhile, I'm sitting in a chair most of the day.

[Dr.Samurai]

I feel like there are two things going on here that you're attacking seperately.

The first is that the implementation of martials as a concept is at times weak for no particular reason. Wisdom saves are the best example. Logically you'd assume that the 'ard as nails d12+5 barbarian is more brave than the d6+1 wizard but that isn't the case mechanically. Its far and away the opposite, even while the d6+1 wizard will usually more cowardly in their tactics in a practical sense because they have to be to survive. You could probably also bring up how hard it is for a martial to be truly effective at both melee and ranged combat given the reliance on feats, magic items, and dexterity OR strength but not both.
Yes, this is accurate, and I agree I am touching on two different issues as well.

But then your second half is basically arguing that high level DND shouldn't be high level
Not quite. I'm arguing that "high level" doesn't have to mean "everything leaves the Earth and all combats take place in the air and every character needs to be able to teleport and plane shift and change the landscape with a gesture to be relevant".

At least, I don't think that should be the default standard.

that the game would be improved if things were closer to LOTR. And that's where I disagree.
Well, I used LotR as an example of warriors fighting flying things and supernatural things; I don't mean to say that D&D should be like LotR. Similarly, Bellerephon is able to engage the Chimera because he captured and tamed a flying mount.

LotR is a fantasy series I like a lot, but if you want an example of martials and casters on equal footing its a terrible place to look. Consider for a moment the balrog, which literally could only be effected by gandalf's magic, or the witch-king, who could only be hurt by eowyn because of the presence of a dagger of westernesse, or Shelob, a giant monster from primordial times whose webs could only be cut because Sting had been particularly designed for that and who was only repelled by the magic item Sam had.
I think I like this because it emphasizes deeds, over raw supernatural power. Yes, Sam had a light that offended Shelob, and he had Sting. But Sam still had to have the courage to stand between Frodo and a massive spider demon queen. That's what is so compelling about warriors or "mundanes". If Sam just punched Shelob in the face and cracked her exoskeleton because "he's superhuman now", and then kicked the side of the mountain so the cave entrance caved in on her and she was crushed, it would have a completely different tone. The accomplishment would be different.

I'm not saying it has to be "exactly" like LotR. I don't like the idea that "only this thing can harm them", and that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm focusing on the idea of normals fighting supernatural monsters without having to be superheroes. I'm using the visuals as examples. Assume the witch-king could be hurt by anyone with any weapon; he is still a mage on a flying mount vs a warrior.

Compare to casters that are not slugging it out with monsters but rather throwing down battlefield control or nuking them with evocation. It's a different feel, often monsters are on the defensive against casters vs the other way around. And I think you start going more in that direction when you make mundanes supernatural. Super-Sam having the strength to cave the mountain in around Shelob is much more like a caster trapping her in a Forcecage and killing her with an AoE than it is to normal Sam fighting her armed with Sting, if that makes sense.

[Man_Over_Game]

The maximum lift rules are borked, as usual*. Encumbrance is better in that there's some inherent vagaries in there (it not being the most you can carry, so much as the most you can keep on carrying). The instant they start using real numbers, it goes haywire. For my money, I don't think that much matters. I, as a DM, don't have it planned out realistically how heavy the statue is before I place it in front of the passage the players will want to get through, just that it is 'A Lot of Weight' (and since the party barbarian can lift 'A Whole Lot of Weight,' they should be fine). Jumping distance, IMO, is where things get dicey, as I do have an idea about how far platform 1 to platform 2 are (unless I'm specifically picturing them as too far to leap between).

Would be nice if items/objects just had a single Weight number.

If you want to carry stuff unburdened, the combined Weight number of things you're carrying can't be more than your Strength attribute.
If you want to throw something with ease, it can't have more Weight than your Athletics Bonus. Maybe add rules that you can double your throwing capacity by expending movement, BA, Reaction, etc., maybe allowing it to double multiple times by spending multiple resources.
1 Weight roughly translates to about 10 lbs.

With something like that, an 18 Strength Fighter would be able to throw a badguy weighing about 200 lbs. by spending both his Reaction and all of his movement for the throw. Adding in his Bonus Action would increase his throwing capacity to 400 lbs., and maybe a Barbarian could double all of those values with Rage (with Bear Totem doubling it further).

Sounds pretty reasonable and fun. The tricky part would be whether the DM would recognize the difference between a 200 lb. object or a 400 lb. one. Weights are weird and guessing how heavy an object actually is isn't a skill most of us have experience with (which is probably why WOTC shifted most of these kinds of effects to revolve around size, thinking about it).

[Aimeryan]

It doesn't. And it especially doesn't let you play anything higher than Captain America, who is still pretty low on the "powers" scale, since all he has is...somewhat super strength (so STR 20, which is also above human peak by definition), durability (any Fighter gets that by default, because HP scaling), and...undefined martial skill, which is represented by proficiency.

Frankly, Captain America is represented by a Champion Fighter just fine, except a bit higher level than Bronn (who might actually be a Battle Master, too). People who like to play Bronn already have their thing — it's called Fighter levels 3 to 7. People who like to play Captain America can do that at levels 7+, too. And we basically stop there. We never graduate from being a non-descript barely-superhuman into anything else.

The issue with Fighter is that so much of its' budget is locked into its' chassis, which eventually gets a whole four attacks per turn (which the designers consider a very strong feature, despite the fact that you almost never see it in play, like any other level 20 capstone). Like, most of Fighter's power goes into eventually getting more free attacks than anyone else, better numbers (through ASIs) and Action Surge. Everything else is an afterthought.

And all the subclasses are like this! They aren't character-defining most of the time, you're always playing a Fighter first and a subclass second. You cannot give Fighter a Warblade subclass, because to be Warblade, you need more budget than a Fighter subclass. The same extends to all the classes, generally — probably the only subclasses that try and shake up the general dynamic of the base class are caster subclasses that push them into gish territory, like Hexblade, War Cleric, Stone Sorc. And even then their spell choices generally impact things more than their subclass.

Your example upthread of a 3.5 Samurai is flawed, because that's the worst possible example. 3.5 also has the generally much better received classes: ToB classes, Binder, limited casters like Beguiler and Warmage, a lot of ACFs for classic classes that somehow manage to be more impactful than some 5e archetypes (Penetrating Strike does more for Rogue in the 3.5 paradigm than Assassin ever does in the 5e paradigm, for example), etc. PF1e managed to make archetypes that 1) can be combined 2) can turn the base class upside down, with something like Gun Tank or Vivisector. 5e doesn't do that, it goes for the safest, least exciting route of all, every time.

Cannot express how strongly I agree with all of this post. The only thing I want to add here, and really it was already pretty much laid out, the martial classes are essentially just getting stat boosts as they level. The level 1 Barbarian is about as interesting to play as the level 20 Barbarian - except you have been doing the same thing for 20 levels at this point instead of 1 level. I like cake, but after my 4th cake in a row I want something else.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Personally, my preferred solution is to do both. Give martials a few more things (but not on the wuxia scale) and tone down magic tremendously. Mostly by chopping out most of the spells and making them available to anyone who wants to learn them.

As for "non-magic martials", I'm of the opinion that, in a magical fantastic world, everyone should have access to magic. But not everyone should be casting spells (or spells lightly disguised as not-spells, ie ToB) as their primary interactions. Magic =/= spells. Spells are one way to access magic. But a barbarian can be magic, without casting spells--his rage channels primal power so he literally hulks out some. His damage resistance isn't just ignoring pain, it's his skin literally hardening and he's damping blows with his muscles and aura. A fighter's action surge lets him do more than most because he's literally tapping into built-up energy to accelerate his actions. That's also why both of those are limited--that takes built-up energy that takes time and rest to recover. A rogue dodges a fireball (evasion) by literally wrapping the shadows around him, shunting the explosion into somewhere else. Etc. Playing on that, and changing most of the utility spells to things that anyone can access (ie not spells, but more classical incantations and real rituals) would do most of the work.

I'd say that ToB is a good example of abilities that are not spells but still Extraordinary/Supernatural. Surely they are structured in 9 levels like spells and restricted by level, but that's where similarities end - they are not tied to a resource system, they have a "refresh" mechanic instead, they are learned differently (have prerequisites), etc. If you mean "spells" just as "a selectable action with pre-determined effect" then I'd say that's a bit too broad, and would say that that's a perfectly fine way to package martial abilities, probably cause that's one of the few ways you can actually add diverse abilities that open up character options.


A video game example is FFXIV. Everyone there, martial or not, manipulates aether. That's how you do cool things in that setting. The samurai job, for instance, concentrates aether in their sheath for their big ice attack. Ninjas use mudras to do magic. Etc. And the main character, the Warrior of Light, is blessed with an overflowing abundance of aether (for spoliery reasons). Which lets him[1] fight and defeat the closest things that there are to manifested gods. Solo (canonically, although in game you have between 3 and 7 companions, a fact that is sometimes lampshaded).

FFXIV is pretty tied to its own lore though, and aether manipulation is pretty important in pretty much every aspect of the game. Plus there are Garleans that are unable to manipulate aether, so they use magitek toys instead. Also I would say that Machinist is also not about manipulating the aether, it's basically a job that uses cool gadgets. Oh, and Gunbreaker according to one spoilery character seems to rely on tools and "magic" cartridges instead.

So, you don't necessarily need everyone to have access to magic for them to use Cool Stuff, you just need to design the abilities properly, and maybe give some toys to play with.

[SharkForce]

Wasn't the Black Arrow Bard used magical?

it's a bit hard to say, as LotR doesn't quite do magic the same way... but it was certainly supernatural in some way. it was also being wielded by a local legend who was a descendant of a long line of heroic figures (who had special training from his family to use that specific arrow, as far as we can tell), who also as a bare minimum possessed a magical ability to speak with birds, which were also the subject of legend.

frankly, "magical" abilities are pretty common for stories about real life warriors too.

or perhaps you haven't heard that davy crockett could ride lightning bolts?

[Ralanr]

it's a bit hard to say, as LotR doesn't quite do magic the same way... but it was certainly supernatural in some way. it was also being wielded by a local legend who was a descendant of a long line of heroic figures (who had special training from his family to use that specific arrow, as far as we can tell), who also as a bare minimum possessed a magical ability to speak with birds, which were also the subject of legend.

frankly, "magical" abilities are pretty common for stories about real life warriors too.

or perhaps you haven't heard that davy crockett could ride lightning bolts?

John Henry, Paul Bunyan, Cuhullan. Lots of famous warriors/folk heroes with supernatural abilities.

And yet people think things need to be 'realistic' in D&D.

[Dr.Samurai]

I see my analogies are not working as intended.

Yes, a bird told Bard where to aim. No, the black arrow wasn't magical in any overt way.

The bird could easily be replaced by a wizard that divined the information, or a rogue that tricked it out of the dragon's lackey.

The (not)magic arrow could be replaced by a magic bow or just regular hits/hp damage.

The point is that bard was (mostly) a regular guy shooting arrows at a dragon. You'll note that people don't suggest "speaking with animals" as an upgrade for high level martials, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant.

[Man_Over_Game]

Personally, my preferred solution is to do both. Give martials a few more things (but not on the wuxia scale) and tone down magic tremendously. Mostly by chopping out most of the spells and making them available to anyone who wants to learn them.

As for "non-magic martials", I'm of the opinion that, in a magical fantastic world, everyone should have access to magic. But not everyone should be casting spells (or spells lightly disguised as not-spells, ie ToB) as their primary interactions. Magic =/= spells. Spells are one way to access magic. But a barbarian can be magic, without casting spells--his rage channels primal power so he literally hulks out some. His damage resistance isn't just ignoring pain, it's his skin literally hardening and he's damping blows with his muscles and aura. A fighter's action surge lets him do more than most because he's literally tapping into built-up energy to accelerate his actions. That's also why both of those are limited--that takes built-up energy that takes time and rest to recover. A rogue dodges a fireball (evasion) by literally wrapping the shadows around him, shunting the explosion into somewhere else. Etc. Playing on that, and changing most of the utility spells to things that anyone can access (ie not spells, but more classical incantations and real rituals) would do most of the work.

A video game example is FFXIV. Everyone there, martial or not, manipulates aether. That's how you do cool things in that setting. The samurai job, for instance, concentrates aether in their sheath for their big ice attack. Ninjas use mudras to do magic. Etc. And the main character, the Warrior of Light, is blessed with an overflowing abundance of aether (for spoliery reasons). Which lets him[1] fight and defeat the closest things that there are to manifested gods. Solo (canonically, although in game you have between 3 and 7 companions, a fact that is sometimes lampshaded).


If I remember correctly, WOTC was planning on having Spell Slots be a universal resource that almost anyone would use for their Long Rest features, but the players at the time hated the idea. That's essentially why Rangers use slots and Battlemasters don't, even though they play very similarly.

Personally, I love the idea of people learning to utilize magic in their natural movements. It'd be pretty cool if a high Stealth roll literally made you invisible or something. As-is, we're kinda stuck with the "Guy At the Gym" mentality for skills, which is all that some classes get.

[Bacon Elemental]

Bard's "Black Arrow" is described more in the sense of a family heirloom kept from the great forges of the dwarves, special for its (possible) history rather than being a +4 Arrow of Dragon Slaying


"Arrow!" said the bowman. "Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!"

But honestly I've always liked this scene even if Bard is an outta-nowhere

[Dr.Samurai]

John Henry, Paul Bunyan, Cuhullan.
John Henry died from hammering things to fast. Not sure this qualifies as a "supernatural warrior".

Paul Bunyan is literally a giant, so not exactly a PC fighter.

I don't know who Cuhullan is but not really relevant because there is no need to lump all warriors together and pretend that all warriors are supernatural or demigods.

Lots of famous warriors/folk heroes with supernatural abilities.

And yet people think things need to be 'realistic' in D&D.
People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

[Ralanr]

John Henry died from hammering things to fast. Not sure this qualifies as a "supernatural warrior".

Paul Bunyan is literally a giant, so not exactly a PC fighter.

I don't know who Cuhullan is but not really relevant because there is no need to lump all warriors together and pretend that all warriors are supernatural or demigods.

People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

I’d argue John Henry is probably best represented as a champion fighter.

[OldTrees1]

The point is that bard was (mostly) a regular guy shooting arrows at a dragon. You'll note that people don't suggest "speaking with animals" as an upgrade for high level martials, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant.

People don't? Sure speaking with animals is probably a Tier 2 ability, but it is an out of combat utility feature that would make sense on a Ranger or Barbarian. You could even cast it as advanced animal empathy rather than literal speech for the non magical versions.

Honestly a ranger with 1 mile blindsight due to talking with their animals would be a pretty neat ability. Of course Revised Ranger Primeval Awareness is a 3rd level variation of that ability. So, yeah it is rarely described as high level.


I’d argue John Henry is probably best represented as a champion fighter.

John Henry is a legend. They single handed beat a machine designed to do the work of X (I forget the number) men. John Henry raced that machine non stop for days (weeks?) and eventually won. That is some superhuman endurance in that very human legend.

[Dr.Samurai]

People don't. Sure speaking with animals is probably a Tier 2 ability, but it is an out of combat utility feature that would make sense on a Ranger or Barbarian. You could even cast it as advanced animal empathy rather than literal speech for the non magical versions.
That's currently how I run it with my totem warrior barbarian.

[RandomPeasant]

"Talk to animals" isn't an upgrade for high-level martials because it isn't a high level ability. No one would bat an eye if a starting character who was a "Witch" or a "Shaman" or a "Druid" could talk to animals, so the idea that it would be an "upgrade" at all for martial characters is just codifying "Casters > Martials". But at the same time, it is absolutely a supernatural ability. In the real world, thinking that you can carry on a conversation with squirrels makes you a crazy person.


People who like to play Bronn already have their thing — it's called Fighter levels 3 to 7.

This is the thing people don't seem to get. The game has levels for a reason. That reason is to allow people to play different concepts that aren't compatible in a single game. "Mundane warrior" has to be a level-limited concept, because there are all sorts of concepts that are "mundane warrior, but he got some magic". Look at someone like Kaladin. He's a spear master, and then subsequently gains super-speed, super-healing, and flight. How exactly is our mundane warrior supposed to get enough mileage out of his mastery of non-spear weapons to equal the fact that Kaladin can storming fly?


And all the subclasses are like this! They aren't character-defining most of the time, you're always playing a Fighter first and a subclass second. You cannot give Fighter a Warblade subclass, because to be Warblade, you need more budget than a Fighter subclass.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Your subclass should be less of a big deal than your class, because it is a subclass. A Fighter who is a Champion or a Battle Master or some new subclass like Warblade or Marshall should be recognizably a Fighter. It's just that Fighter needs to do enough to be interesting, or there need to be enough martial classes that some do.


It'd be pretty cool if a high Stealth roll literally made you invisible or something. As-is, we're kinda stuck with the "Guy At the Gym" mentality for skills, which is all that some classes get.

This came up in the last thread, but I've never understood the desire for supernatural stuff to pop out of skills. The game needs a system for handling human-level tasks like "read the ancient runes in the lost temple" or "chart a course using the stars" or "get the palace guard to accept a bribe". Skills do that. You can argue about how well they do that, but that's the core of what they do, and they are pretty okay at doing it. Trying to get the system that does that to also do superhuman stuff doesn't really seem roductive to me. Just let martials get their superhuman stuff from the same place casters do: their class.

It's like trying to model Hulk by writing a bunch of applications for STR checks and having Hulk get 1,000 STR (or whatever other absurd number). Don't do that. Hulk can have, like, 30 STR and abilities that let him jump more than his Athletics check would indicate, or break things more than his STR bonus would allow, or endure amounts of punishment his CON alone can't withstand. Martials should be different from spellcasters because they do different things from spellcasters, or because they do those things in different ways, not because their abilities pop out of a separate part of the system. That's the kind of thing that is complexity for complexity's sake.


I'd say that ToB is a good example of abilities that are not spells but still Extraordinary/Supernatural.

ToB is an example of no one ever defining what the hell they mean by "making martials like casters" in enough detail to properly engage with. ToB is like spellcasting in some ways. There are nine grades of ability. The abilities are divided into schools disciplines. The abilities are written up as discrete powers that are individually activated. But it is unlike spellcasting in other ways. The abilities are flavorfully martial. The abilities are designed to function without daily usage limits. The abilities include very few meaningful utility effects. Personally, while I can understand wanting martial characters who work differently from ToB martials (just as I can understand wanting magical characters who work differently from Vancian spellcasters), I don't think there's a compelling definition of "spellcaster" that includes ToB martials. But people tend not to get into enough detail to evaluate what definition they're even using, let alone how well it captures the distinction between spellcasters and non-casters.


People think D&D should be able to emulate the things it is based on.

Why does "martial characters eventually gain supernatural abilities" mean D&D can't emulate non-supernatural martials? The fact that a D&D Wizard can be an archmage on par with the various archmages of fantasy fiction doesn't mean you can't also have D&D Wizards on par with the various apprentice spellcasters of fantasy fiction. The point of having a level progression is that characters advance from less powerful to more powerful.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why does "martial characters eventually gain supernatural abilities" mean D&D can't emulate non-supernatural martials? The fact that a D&D Wizard can be an archmage on par with the various archmages of fantasy fiction doesn't mean you can't also have D&D Wizards on par with the various apprentice spellcasters of fantasy fiction. The point of having a level progression is that characters advance from less powerful to more powerful.
Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

Isn't that last bit a bit of a Strawman?

As I've said, you can have magic (ie fantastic abilities) without doing magic (ie being a spell caster). And, in context, a knightly character with nothing else is an NPC. Literally, a CR 5 one. But that doesn't mean you have to be a gish to be fantastic enough to handle a demon prince. Their fantastic-ness can be completely disconnected from casting spells.

PCs are fantastic. They go beyond what normal people (either in-universe or on Earth) can do. That's in their job description. And you can't balance "is basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" with any reasonable set of fantastic abilities, at least without constraining those fantastic abilities way more than even I, with my limited tolerance for gonzo, am comfortable with. Or without breaking the "basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" idea to little shreds so it serves as nothing more than a fig-leaf. Which is something I'm also not comfortable with.

To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept. Because to do so is to reject any idea that his universe makes any sense at all--it's a collection of improbable events (each one theoretically possible, but unlikely) whose collective probability is indistinguishable from zero.

One of my consistent points is that the 5e Champion fighter and Thief rogue are already extraordinary and fantastic. Are they fantastic enough? Not for some tastes. But they're certainly beyond what normal people in the setting (or on Earth) can do. That threshold was crossed by design a long time ago. The system does not, and is not designed to, support the idea of a totally non-fantastic adventurer PC.

[RandomPeasant]

I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn.

What exactly do you envision Aragorn doing in an adventure that's appropriate for Thor? Consider the boss monster of the last adventure Thor was on: Thanos. Thanos manhandles Spiderman, who is not exactly a low-tier superhuman. Of the characters who acquit themselves reasonably when they go mano-a-mano with Thanos (roughly Hulk, Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America with Mjolnir, Scarlet Witch, and Captain Marvel), which of them do you see as being on a power level anywhere close to Aragorn? What does Aragorn ever do in his source material that is impressive as even a mid-power superhero like Black Panther, regular Captain America, or Ant Man? When Thor has to complete a challenge like "restart a forge powered by a neutron star", how do you envision Aragorn contributing to that?

If you want to say "the game should only go as high as Aragorn can" or "imbalance where some people are space gods and other people are skilled swordsmen is okay" or "we should enforce non-overlapping magisteria between magical and non-magical characters even at the cost of verisimilitude and genre emulation so that there is a reason to bring non-magical characters on high level adventures", any of those would be plausible positions (if ones I would personally reject). But the idea that Aragorn is a character that exists on the same level as Thor and Hulk (or even more restrained martials like Kaladin or PGtE's Archer) is simply not one I can credit. There are martial characters who do the things Aragorn does and also other things. It is facially impossible for them and Aragorn to exist as co-equal protagonists of a cooperative storytelling game.


If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being?

I'm saying that an archdevil that can be defeated by a knight who is noble, pure of heart, and devoted to the principles of chivalry, but not possessed of any abilities that exceed what a mortal man might achieve by skill of arms is not an appropriate opponent for Thor. An appropriate opponent of Thor is the Goddess of Death and Infinite Knives, or The Big Purple Malthusian, or someone who's nickname is "God Butcher".

I mean, turn it around. Should we accept "MCU Thor, as he appears in Endgame" as a valid 1st level character? Is it reasonable to just tune down the numbers on his lightning blasts, and massage the nature of his dual artifact weapons, and pull back from his ability to teleport through space but present him as fundamentally the same in an adventure where the greatest threat the party faces is a single ogre? Of course not. 1st level is different from 20th level. The character concepts that are appropriate at those levels are not the same, in either direction.


To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept.

I think it's reasonable to say that Batman is not personally superhuman. But he is a high-level Artificer (with some combination of multiclassing, background, and archetype that makes him good at investigation and unarmed combat). And that's not an unreasonable character to have at high level. But I think if you showed someone a Justice League lineup and asked them which character they expected their Fighter to be most like at 20th level, a lot more of them would say "Wonder Woman" or "Superman" than "Batman".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it's reasonable to say that Batman is not personally superhuman. But he is a high-level Artificer (with some combination of multiclassing, background, and archetype that makes him good at investigation and unarmed combat). And that's not an unreasonable character to have at high level. But I think if you showed someone a Justice League lineup and asked them which character they expected their Fighter to be most like at 20th level, a lot more of them would say "Wonder Woman" or "Superman" than "Batman".

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking. Not only that, his omni-preparedness is so far on the right edge of the curve that, coupled with everything else, means that the "not personally superhuman" idea is rather threadbare. Any one of those things is a superpower; all of them is a massive collection of super-powers. By any sane standard, at least in my mind. Because otherwise, the setting he's in is incoherent to the extremes.

---off-topic about superheroes--
My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure. Plus the whole "pre-written fiction is not comparable to a TTRPG" problem. Oh, and the fact that any given superhero has dozens of incarnations all varying tremendously in power.

So, for instance, I'd say that any version of Superman is off the table in any D&D game I'd like to play. Because "has whatever powers he happens to need, plus plot armor" isn't a useful character for a team-based game. Wonder Woman I know less about, but the same basic precautions apply. Generally, superheroes are all individual protagonists--even in the combined things like Justice League or whatever, they mostly act independently, with some team-ups. But fictionally, they're all protagonists.

[Ralanr]

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking. Not only that, his omni-preparedness is so far on the right edge of the curve that, coupled with everything else, means that the "not personally superhuman" idea is rather threadbare. Any one of those things is a superpower; all of them is a massive collection of super-powers. By any sane standard, at least in my mind. Because otherwise, the setting he's in is incoherent to the extremes.

---off-topic about superheroes--
My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure. Plus the whole "pre-written fiction is not comparable to a TTRPG" problem. Oh, and the fact that any given superhero has dozens of incarnations all varying tremendously in power.

So, for instance, I'd say that any version of Superman is off the table in any D&D game I'd like to play. Because "has whatever powers he happens to need, plus plot armor" isn't a useful character for a team-based game. Wonder Woman I know less about, but the same basic precautions apply. Generally, superheroes are all individual protagonists--even in the combined things like Justice League or whatever, they mostly act independently, with some team-ups. But fictionally, they're all protagonists.

Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

Right. Which makes using them as a touchpoint for power-sets in a TTRPG, which has to be at least somewhat internally balanced, rather misleading.

Edit: I should note that I'm relatively hard-core in the "D&D isn't a fantasy (or any other genre) emulator" camp. So "I can play as <character X>" is not something I think D&D should concern itself with. If it happens? Great. But that's coincidence, not by design. Instead, D&D should decide what archetypes and aesthetics and power level it wants to enable and build around that. If that means a large swath of characters are off the table (on any axis)? That's fine. As long as it allows interesting characters that grow organically from the rules and from the settings, that's what matters to me.

[SharkForce]

another way to look at it... you *can* be aragorn.

but if you are, you're going to need to accept that when the balrog shows up, your job is to run away while the demigod/angel/whatever keeps it away, get ambushed by standard elves, have a hard time dealing with a cave troll and a few orcs even when you've got several other fighters with you, and so on.

because that's what aragorn is. you're right, he doesn't do crazy stuff. as a result, "we'll just fight our way through moria" is never even presented as an option.

[Dr.Samurai]

This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

Isn't that last bit a bit of a Strawman?

As I've said, you can have magic (ie fantastic abilities) without doing magic (ie being a spell caster). And, in context, a knightly character with nothing else is an NPC. Literally, a CR 5 one. But that doesn't mean you have to be a gish to be fantastic enough to handle a demon prince. Their fantastic-ness can be completely disconnected from casting spells.
What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

PCs are fantastic. They go beyond what normal people (either in-universe or on Earth) can do. That's in their job description. And you can't balance "is basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" with any reasonable set of fantastic abilities, at least without constraining those fantastic abilities way more than even I, with my limited tolerance for gonzo, am comfortable with. Or without breaking the "basically a regular Earth person in capabilities" idea to little shreds so it serves as nothing more than a fig-leaf. Which is something I'm also not comfortable with.

To be honest--I'm one of those people who refuses to accept the "Batman is not super-powered" concept. Because to do so is to reject any idea that his universe makes any sense at all--it's a collection of improbable events (each one theoretically possible, but unlikely) whose collective probability is indistinguishable from zero.

One of my consistent points is that the 5e Champion fighter and Thief rogue are already extraordinary and fantastic. Are they fantastic enough? Not for some tastes. But they're certainly beyond what normal people in the setting (or on Earth) can do. That threshold was crossed by design a long time ago. The system does not, and is not designed to, support the idea of a totally non-fantastic adventurer PC.
I'm referring to archetypes. I'm not asking that they don't go beyond normal earth human. Obviously D&D humans can do far more in certain respects than normal people. I'm saying two things:

1. Give martials cool stuff to do at all levels of the game; right now martials are very constrained.
2. This should not require supernatural abilities to keep up at higher levels.

That's what I'm saying. I think your point is that class features are already "supernatural" (or fantastic, as you put), but that's just more a case of how you are using the word than anything else.

What exactly do you envision Aragorn doing in an adventure that's appropriate for Thor?
I think this conversation is all over the place and the things I am saying are being taken very literally. I don't think anyone should actually be "THOR" in D&D. It's hyperbole to stand in for a high level martial character as some people think they should be (with supernatural powers).

Consider the boss monster of the last adventure Thor was on: Thanos. Thanos manhandles Spiderman, who is not exactly a low-tier superhuman. Of the characters who acquit themselves reasonably when they go mano-a-mano with Thanos (roughly Hulk, Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America with Mjolnir, Scarlet Witch, and Captain Marvel), which of them do you see as being on a power level anywhere close to Aragorn?
Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers. He represents the will and the values. He's specifically not there because he has awesome power and can flick Thanos in the face and give him a black eye. This goes back to my example of Sam and Shelob. It means something to not wield super power and still stand up to evil and fight for good. D&D, in my opinion, should absolutely keep this concept in play at all levels. But martial combat needs to be revamped.

Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

The character concepts that are appropriate at those levels are not the same, in either direction.
That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

[Dienekes]

I suppose it very much depends on what you think is superhuman. As of now, a level 20 Fighter can survive being submerged in lava for about 12 to 18 seconds. That’s not really possible.

However their “big thing” is making 8 attacks in 6 seconds which is actually very possible. Probably not while also running 30 feet though.

So if you look at that and say “well that’s impossible ergo it must be superhuman” then there you are. A level 20 Fighter is superhuman.

But if for some reason that does not register as superhuman for you, I would probably need you to explain your reasoning.

[RandomPeasant]

Artificers are superhuman by design. Not only that, his martial prowess and recovery times/stamina are flat out not possible for ordinary mortals--he takes hits that would cause massive internal damage to anyone and keeps on trucking.

That makes him "action hero tough" not "superhumanly tough". Batman (at least in the movie incarnations that are the best cultural touchstone) isn't really tougher than "generic action hero". Not even to the degree that Black Panther or Captain America are.


My big problem with comparing to individual superheroes is that their canon, settings, and tasks are completely different from a D&D adventure.

Not really. Most of the Thor movies would make totally normal D&D adventures, as would Aquaman. Shang-Chi or Doctor Strange have extensive sequences set in modern Earth that are a stretch for D&D, but the basic plot structures of "assassin cult attacks magical village" or "cultist summons eldritch god" are very much stock D&D.


Superheroes are not designed to be balanced but narratively interesting (or impactful to the narrative).

True, but it's not like "narratively interesting" isn't a desirable quality in a TTRPG. D&D doesn't have to include everything (though since you can ask "what kind of dragon" three or four times before you get to a statblock, the idea that it's supposed to be particularly narrow is a tad unreasonable), but you have to pull your archetypes from somewhere. And "fantasy media people are familiar with" is a much better starting point than "random stuff we made up".

And it's true that superheroes aren't balanced, but balance is just math. It's not that Thor and Scarlet Witch (or Wonder Woman or Harry Dresden or Ranger) can't be balanced, they simply aren't balanced, because no one has done the work of fitting them to a power curve.


What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

"Why can't this character that I've defined as being different from a high level character exclusively in ways that make him worse be the same level as another character?"


Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up.

Captain America is explicitly superhuman and at this point has multiple artifacts to his name. That is not "mundane" by any useful definition of the term.


Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

Kaladin is a "Human Warrior". Anomander Rake is an "Elf Warrior". The specific characters is how we get from the term "warrior", which encompasses everything from a town guard recruit to the demiurges from Kill Six Billion Demons, to a useful definition of when people become "supernatural" and whether the game should go there or not.


That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

So if WotC puts a 20-level Commoner class in 5.5, does that mean "potato farmer" would be an appropriate high-level concept? Why don't you answer the question I asked you first an explain what a mundane warrior is supposed to do to contribute in an environment where "supernatural warrior" is an allowable character concept? Where are the points you are squeezing out of "bow skill" or "shield skill" to equal Kaladin Stormblessed's flight and superhuman physicals?

[Jakinbandw]

However their “big thing” is making 8 attacks in 6 seconds which is actually very possible. Probably not while also running 30 feet though.

They could also make 9 attacks with a Xbow which I think is very super human.

[Ralanr]

They could also make 9 attacks with a Xbow which I think is very super human.

Or it’s a revolving crossbow.

I’d type this in blue. But I don’t see the controls on my phone.

[strangebloke]

If I remember correctly, WOTC was planning on having Spell Slots be a universal resource that almost anyone would use for their Long Rest features, but the players at the time hated the idea. That's essentially why Rangers use slots and Battlemasters don't, even though they play very similarly.

Personally, I love the idea of people learning to utilize magic in their natural movements. It'd be pretty cool if a high Stealth roll literally made you invisible or something. As-is, we're kinda stuck with the "Guy At the Gym" mentality for skills, which is all that some classes get.

IMO if maneuvers were a default option, it would make a lot of sense to reframe the "smite" and "strike" spells as such.


Bard's "Black Arrow" is described more in the sense of a family heirloom kept from the great forges of the dwarves, special for its (possible) history rather than being a +4 Arrow of Dragon Slaying

It's a special arrow with history that was forged by some of the greatest smiths alive and was notably given as a gift and also never missed and was always returned. The Dwarves wouldn't consider such a thing 'magic' but the elves wouldn't consider heathline or lembas or miruvor to be 'magic' either. Nominally there's nothing magic about frodo's mithril coat, but in 5e, that's a magic item. The general principle of a craftsman putting some of themselves into their work and achieving superhuman excellence to create something extraordinary is pretty common throughout the series, and applies both to trivial lesser 'magic' items like the lembas bread, to common-but-potent items like the elven cloaks, and to great artifacts like the rings and the silmarils.


That makes him "action hero tough" not "superhumanly tough". Batman (at least in the movie incarnations that are the best cultural touchstone) isn't really tougher than "generic action hero". Not even to the degree that Black Panther or Captain America are.
The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

Something like Beowulf is far more relevant here. Grappling with such force that shockwaves tear across the meadhall he's fighting in. Swimming on open seas and fighting sea monsters while wearing full plate mail.


This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

I'm referring to archetypes. I'm not asking that they don't go beyond normal earth human. Obviously D&D humans can do far more in certain respects than normal people. I'm saying two things:

1. Give martials cool stuff to do at all levels of the game; right now martials are very constrained.
2. This should not require supernatural abilities to keep up at higher levels.

That's what I'm saying. I think your point is that class features are already "supernatural" (or fantastic, as you put), but that's just more a case of how you are using the word than anything else.

I think this conversation is all over the place and the things I am saying are being taken very literally. I don't think anyone should actually be "THOR" in D&D. It's hyperbole to stand in for a high level martial character as some people think they should be (with supernatural powers).

Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers. He represents the will and the values. He's specifically not there because he has awesome power and can flick Thanos in the face and give him a black eye. This goes back to my example of Sam and Shelob. It means something to not wield super power and still stand up to evil and fight for good. D&D, in my opinion, should absolutely keep this concept in play at all levels. But martial combat needs to be revamped.

Forget "Aragorn" and just think "Human Warrior". Captain America is a "Human Warrior". Forget any specific characters since examples are throwing everyone off and just think "Human Warrior" vs "Powerful Supernatural Monster".

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

I think realistically what you define as a non-supernatural character and what most people define as a supernatural character aren't really that far apart. Using Cap as an example, the guy at one point wrestles a helicopter and wins. That's not something any current high level dnd character could do by RAW, their strength is hard capped to where they can't really do anything even remotely close to that. Of course, even with such blatantly superhuman abilities, Cap seems sort of like a normal guy because in relation to the rest of the avengers he is. In a more low-power cast like that of Falcon and the Winter Soldier cap would be an extraordinarily powerful figure.

But yeah. His strength such as it is isn't his primary "power." He's the team's leader and inspiration, the moral center of the party who improves their fighting through extraordinary tactical insights. He has a shield that is functionally an artifact, that can tank hits from all-powerful weapons like Thor's Hammer of Thunderbolts. Whether such a person is 'mundane' or 'supernatural' isn't really something I'm interested in considering. I think there's a definite place in the archetypes of the game for a 'badass normal' sort of figure who's less overtly supernatural than their peers, while still being able to be relevant purely on the basis of their power.

The thing is, how you model that 'badass norma'? IMO, the best way to do this is by just straight up making a martial spellcaster like a warlord or a warblade who has loads of enumerated powers that can be used both in and out of combat. Something like commander's strike, or the glamor bard's special BI usage that allows him to move the whole party at once.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, and this also reminds me how Trolls in shadowrun with 14 strength (the unaugmented max in 5e) couldn't even throw cars. Or a dodge scoot.

I really think these games need to change the formula for strength scaling. Especially so higher strength monsters are as strong as we think they are.

Just make the scaling quadratic. I did that as a houserule, and now peak human (STR 6) can lift about 200 kg with an effort, and a troll can pick up a car and throw it.



FFXIV is pretty tied to its own lore though, and aether manipulation is pretty important in pretty much every aspect of the game. Plus there are Garleans that are unable to manipulate aether, so they use magitek toys instead. Also I would say that Machinist is also not about manipulating the aether, it's basically a job that uses cool gadgets. Oh, and Gunbreaker according to one spoilery character seems to rely on tools and "magic" cartridges instead.

So, you don't necessarily need everyone to have access to magic for them to use Cool Stuff, you just need to design the abilities properly, and maybe give some toys to play with.

All classes as we get them manipulate aether simply because not doing so would be weird with how much aether we, the hero, have. Machinists use aether converters (that ugly box you get with every single gun) which use your own aether to produce what is basically infinite bullets and charges for other abilities, and Gunbreakers charge their cartridges with their own aether, too. I played a monk in 5e whose Ki points were flavoured exactly as that — bullets charged with his own energy.


I see my analogies are not working as intended.

Yes, a bird told Bard where to aim. No, the black arrow wasn't magical in any overt way.

The bird could easily be replaced by a wizard that divined the information, or a rogue that tricked it out of the dragon's lackey.

The (not)magic arrow could be replaced by a magic bow or just regular hits/hp damage.

The point is that bard was (mostly) a regular guy shooting arrows at a dragon. You'll note that people don't suggest "speaking with animals" as an upgrade for high level martials, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant.

And LotR, as a setting, can fit in the first 5 to 7 levels of D&D, even 5e, considering what the heroes are actually capable of. Bard wouldn't survive being lit on fire with dragon's breath, he never directly fights Smaug — he oneshots the dragon in a clever way, using an arrow that never misses (most things forged by dwarves or elves are actually magical, since they are magical people themselves, compared to humans), while Smaug is ignorant of his existence and is just busy torching the town. Boromir cannot fight off several dozen of CR1 orcs. Aragorn never fights a nazgul 1v1, and Eowyn killed the Witch King by capitalizing on Merry's strike with a magic blade that is anathema to servants of evil.

Simply put, LotR, the Hobbit and so on are not very good representations of what heroes in D&D can do, because they do what they do mostly through single decisive efforts rather than cleaving a slab of HP apart over a few rounds.


This has turned out to be a disappointing series of exchanges. I think I'm not explaining myself very well...

What is the difference between the knightly character I'm referring to and a high level fighter? Why can't a high level fighter simply be a knight without supernatural abilities?

*snip*

That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

Because the current situation is a result of a severe downgrade to most things that have been high-level enemies. Compare a 3.5 balor or pit fiend to their 5e counterparts. Compare a 3.5 ancient dragon to their 5e counterpart. A lot of enemies lost most of their abilities for the current Fighter to be able to fight them at all. It's scaling to the lowest common denominator, rather than preserving the sense of threat and grandeur for those monsters. A 5e dragon can be destroyed by a hundred archers outside of it's Frightful Presence range, or supported by someone who can make them immune to fear. A general of hell's armies is even easier to tear apart.

Also because a party composed entirely of knights as you describe them probably wouldn't even survive that long, and cannot handle a lot of quests without the GM's intervention handing them magical tools anyway. A party composed entirely of spellcasters, if it survives the first three levels, can do anything eventually. So your high-level knight without anything at all supernatural to them (including the health regen of a champion, by the way — your wounds close before your eyes, that's pretty mythic) is at best a sidekick who gets to do their thing in combat and sits back otherwise. At worst, they're a liability because another character would probably contribute just as much, but not require anywhere as much external maintenance and support from the spellcasters.

Basically, if you want a high-level Fighter to be "just a knight" without anything non-mundane to their name, you'll have to nerf the entire game around them. WotC already did some of that, but they didn't tune the spellcasters down enough for it to be universal.

[Suichimo]

IMO if maneuvers were a default option, it would make a lot of sense to reframe the "smite" and "strike" spells as such.


It's a special arrow with history that was forged by some of the greatest smiths alive and was notably given as a gift and also never missed and was always returned. The Dwarves wouldn't consider such a thing 'magic' but the elves wouldn't consider heathline or lembas or miruvor to be 'magic' either. Nominally there's nothing magic about frodo's mithril coat, but in 5e, that's a magic item. The general principle of a craftsman putting some of themselves into their work and achieving superhuman excellence to create something extraordinary is pretty common throughout the series, and applies both to trivial lesser 'magic' items like the lembas bread, to common-but-potent items like the elven cloaks, and to great artifacts like the rings and the silmarils.


The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

Something like Beowulf is far more relevant here. Grappling with such force that shockwaves tear across the meadhall he's fighting in. Swimming on open seas and fighting sea monsters while wearing full plate mail.



I think realistically what you define as a non-supernatural character and what most people define as a supernatural character aren't really that far apart. Using Cap as an example, the guy at one point wrestles a helicopter and wins. That's not something any current high level dnd character could do by RAW, their strength is hard capped to where they can't really do anything even remotely close to that. Of course, even with such blatantly superhuman abilities, Cap seems sort of like a normal guy because in relation to the rest of the avengers he is. In a more low-power cast like that of Falcon and the Winter Soldier cap would be an extraordinarily powerful figure.

But yeah. His strength such as it is isn't his primary "power." He's the team's leader and inspiration, the moral center of the party who improves their fighting through extraordinary tactical insights. He has a shield that is functionally an artifact, that can tank hits from all-powerful weapons like Thor's Hammer of Thunderbolts. Whether such a person is 'mundane' or 'supernatural' isn't really something I'm interested in considering. I think there's a definite place in the archetypes of the game for a 'badass normal' sort of figure who's less overtly supernatural than their peers, while still being able to be relevant purely on the basis of their power.

The thing is, how you model that 'badass norma'? IMO, the best way to do this is by just straight up making a martial spellcaster like a warlord or a warblade who has loads of enumerated powers that can be used both in and out of combat. Something like commander's strike, or the glamor bard's special BI usage that allows him to move the whole party at once.

I do just want to point something out about the example given in regards to Cap:


Captain America (the guy that's just a peak human) is literally the last man standing against Thanos and his entire army before the rest of the team show up. That's because he is the heart of the Avengers.

While Cap is still the heart of the Avengers at that time. Cap is absolutely NOT a peak human when he is facing down Thanos before back up arrives. "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Cap is harnessing the powers of a god at that point.

[Pex]

This came up in the last thread, but I've never understood the desire for supernatural stuff to pop out of skills. The game needs a system for handling human-level tasks like "read the ancient runes in the lost temple" or "chart a course using the stars" or "get the palace guard to accept a bribe". Skills do that. You can argue about how well they do that, but that's the core of what they do, and they are pretty okay at doing it. Trying to get the system that does that to also do superhuman stuff doesn't really seem roductive to me. Just let martials get their superhuman stuff from the same place casters do: their class.

It's like trying to model Hulk by writing a bunch of applications for STR checks and having Hulk get 1,000 STR (or whatever other absurd number). Don't do that. Hulk can have, like, 30 STR and abilities that let him jump more than his Athletics check would indicate, or break things more than his STR bonus would allow, or endure amounts of punishment his CON alone can't withstand. Martials should be different from spellcasters because they do different things from spellcasters, or because they do those things in different ways, not because their abilities pop out of a separate part of the system. That's the kind of thing that is complexity for complexity's sake.



The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

[Ignimortis]

The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

Basically that, yes. Except instead of shoehorning specific abilities into specific classes, you can give classes 1) class skills 2) skill unlocks that can only be used on their class skills, which "unlock" that specific function. So a character without Athletics as a class skill cannot unlock the "jump 10 times higher than expected by the base rule" feature of a skill, and has to rely on their baseline application. So one Fighter can be a jumpy dragoon-like character, but they're not all like that — a different Fighter might be a leader of men with inspiring speeches and maxed Diplomacy, and a third one might be a stealthy skirmisher very similar to a Rogue, but relying more on brawn than various tricks.

[RandomPeasant]

The performance of batman in specifically Nolan batman isn't some critical reference point for what high level play should look like. In the shows I grew up with, batman regularly got punched through concrete walls.

It's not, but it is a much better reference point for the median person's perception of Batman than the cartoons you specifically grew up with.


And LotR, as a setting, can fit in the first 5 to 7 levels of D&D, even 5e, considering what the heroes are actually capable of.

Another thing that's worth considering here is what the game is supposed to look like if we do declare that Aragorn is a 20th level character. That means there need to be twenty levels of advancement between a starting character (who is presumably at least modestly more badass than the average person) and Aragorn. Can you really slice Aragorn's capabilities into twenty chunks that are each exciting enough to be worth getting as a new level? Can you really think of twenty distinct "badass normals" to spread over the game's progression?


Because the current situation is a result of a severe downgrade to most things that have been high-level enemies.

I would say that the problem is more general than that, because you can see the same sort of dynamic even in the way other editions work. The reason the mundane Fighter is problematic at high levels is about the negative space of gameplay. It's not that there are a bunch of situations that come up that he can't handle (though of course there are some that do), it's that his existence constrains certain situations out of the game, and forces certain things not to happen. It's not that you have an extended situation where the Cleric and the Wizard use their high-level magic to solve problems and the Fighter sits in the corner. It's that you don't have that situation at all, because everyone from the designers to the DM to the players understand that it'd suck for the Fighter and doesn't do it. That's the problem.


The idea was to have two types of skill checks. The normal kind are the human-level tasks anyone can do. The so called supernatural stuff uses the skill system format the warriors use exclusively to do the Cool Things. This way you can keep the DCs within the RNG and gate the powerful supernatural abilities by class level. If the DC is 15 to climb a tree anyone can roll Athletics to climb the tree. However, to jump over a 60 ft high wall may also be Athletics DC 15 but you have to be a Level X Fighter or Barbarian before you can do that. The Wizard can never do that, so he casts Spider Climb instead. Even better the Fighter or Barbarian could carry the Wizard while jumping so that the Wizard can save his spell slot for something else. It's a class feature of the Fighter and Barbarian to do this; they're using the skill system format as the game mechanic to do it.

Sure. That is a way you could do things. But that's not really magic coming out of the skill system. It's just grafting a small failure chance onto martial abilities, or adding some pointless bookkeeping where the Fighter nominally rolls Athletics every time he uses Leap of the Heavens, but can never fail the check. I'm not necessary disputing that you could involve skill checks in high level abilities somehow, I'm asking what the point or benefit of doing that is.


Basically that, yes. Except instead of shoehorning specific abilities into specific classes, you can give classes 1) class skills 2) skill unlocks that can only be used on their class skills, which "unlock" that specific function. So a character without Athletics as a class skill cannot unlock the "jump 10 times higher than expected by the base rule" feature of a skill, and has to rely on their baseline application. So one Fighter can be a jumpy dragoon-like character, but they're not all like that — a different Fighter might be a leader of men with inspiring speeches and maxed Diplomacy, and a third one might be a stealthy skirmisher very similar to a Rogue, but relying more on brawn than various tricks.

How is that better than just letting people pick class abilities and keeping skills and class features separate? The Wizard's teleport doesn't pop out of a high Arcana check, why should the Fighter's equivalent? To give an example of some concrete problems, this seems like it would lock out character concepts like someone who is personally diplomatic but contributes to a high level adventure with travel powers, or characters that have a pile of skills but contribute at high level with magic (like the Bard or Beguiler). It's not at all clear to me that the benefits of this would outweigh those costs.

[Ignimortis]

Sure. That is a way you could do things. But that's not really magic coming out of the skill system. It's just grafting a small failure chance onto martial abilities, or adding some pointless bookkeeping where the Fighter nominally rolls Athletics every time he uses Leap of the Heavens, but can never fail the check. I'm not necessary disputing that you could involve skill checks in high level abilities somehow, I'm asking what the point or benefit of doing that is.



How is that better than just letting people pick class abilities and keeping skills and class features separate? The Wizard's teleport doesn't pop out of a high Arcana check, why should the Fighter's equivalent? To give an example of some concrete problems, this seems like it would lock out character concepts like someone who is personally diplomatic but contributes to a high level adventure with travel powers, or characters that have a pile of skills but contribute at high level with magic (like the Bard or Beguiler). It's not at all clear to me that the benefits of this would outweigh those costs.

You don't need to have a failure chance, really. Just tie the abilities to proficiency tiers, and let martials have more skill advancement. Also, making it so that martials are better at so-called mundane stuff through raw numbers would also be good.

The reason for putting it at least partially into the skills system is simple. Skills do not scale properly in 5e and didn't do that even in 3e, despite the ELH stuff. 5e made things even worse, because a non-Rogue/Bard can't get good at skills, ever. Adding special abilities to skills lets them be relevant over all levels, and once the caster rebalancing is done (I am not one to propose solutions in a vacuum of "only this gets changed"), they can also have a bit of that pie, with Arcana/Nature/Religion skill unlocks, or maybe sacrificing a bit of their magical power to actually get good at Athletics or Survival.

Also, the thing is — Wizard's Teleport is also not a class ability per se, it's a spell that they gain access to through class abilities. But other casters also get access to the same spell, so by making things work through a shared subsystem, you can make things easier for everyone and save on page space.

[Sneak Dog]

Why do martial characters *have to* gain supernatural abilities? That's not a given either. I am fine with people having their Thors and Hulks and Ichigos. But I also want my Aragorn. And I don't want my Aragorn only between levels 1 and 7. I want to fight other creatures too. I want to play through adventure paths at any level and play a relatively mundane character (in the scope of D&D).

It's difficult to have the conversation because we aren't using concrete examples. But I don't mind super skilled characters. I don't mind extraordinary abilities. Some replies to this thread think that the request is joe-schmoe who just woke up and put on his slippers and should be able to take on an ancient red dragon. That's not the case.

If I'm playing a knightly character, who is a noble with armor and shield and sword, and travels along with his companions on a quest rooting out evil cultists and vanquishing summoned fiends, you're saying that at the end of this quest my knight can't fight the archdevil behind it all unless he transforms into a supernatural being? Because the level is too high? "Sorry guy but uh... this is waaaaay beyond your ability. No room for your kind here, only sweet caster gishes, the ultimate evolution in heroic fantasy".

Thor smites demons with lightning and hits them with a smithy hammer so heavy noone can lift it. Captain Hobo kills demons with a rusty knife and tosses garbage at them.

That's where you hit an issue: the existence of Captain Hobo at level 18 makes Thor of level 18 look less cool. Captain Hobo is better off being level 1. Aragorn is a level 5ish concept, Thor a level 16ish.

Mind, D&D is also a game where you've HP, and as a weapon wielder you steadily bring it to zero to win. A level 1 and level 5 character can't feasibly bring down a CR 15 demon's HP to zero. Thor can. So when Aragorn/Captain Hobo face a demon, they can either hope for the demon to roll eighteen ones in a row or for Thor to show up.
Meanwhile, in LotR and various other fictions, a powerful being can die from being stabbed once with the right artefact, or in some settings even a literal god dies from a shovel to the back of the head. Different aesthetic, nothing wrong with it (it amuses me greatly even), but it's not D&D.


That is an assertion, sure. By all means please convince me that a warrior without supernatural powers is not an appropriate high level concept, given that literally anyone can play a human fighter right now in D&D all the way to level 20.

And I am entirely ok for a human without supernatural abilities to be level 16, but not for a human without superhuman abilities to be level 8. At level 16 you take bullet wounds which should be lethal, fall from a height which should kill you and then get smashed with a hammerhead bigger than yourself and you better be in the hole in the ground below said hammer laughing at the puniness of the attempts to get rid of you.
Then you go grab your sword, run up the giant and stab them in the unarmoured neck before leaping 40 ft. to the next giant. In full plate. After which you go fortify your position in five hours well enough with walls, corridors and traps to hold back a trained army of ten thousand for a week with three of you. Because you're supposed to be on the same level as someone throwing tsunamis and summoning castles at a whim, while being called 'fighter'.

Not really magic explicitely, but boy is it far beyond human. That's just what being above level 5ish is.

[Ignimortis]

And I am entirely ok for a human without supernatural abilities to be level 16, but not for a human without superhuman abilities to be level 8. At level 16 you take bullet wounds which should be lethal, fall from a height which should kill you and then get smashed with a hammerhead bigger than yourself and you better be in the hole in the ground below said hammer laughing at the puniness of the attempts to get rid of you.
Then you go grab your sword, run up the giant and stab them in the unarmoured neck before leaping 40 ft. to the next giant. In full plate. After which you go fortify your position in five hours well enough with walls, corridors and traps to hold back a trained army of ten thousand for a week with three of you. Because you're supposed to be on the same level as someone throwing tsunamis and summoning castles at a whim, while being called 'fighter'.

Not really magic explicitly, but boy is it far beyond human. That's just what being above level 5ish is.

A great summary of what a Fighter would have to be to keep up with a full caster above level 13 or so. Also, since you're level 16, when that week expires you could probably just burst out of your quick-castle and slaughter a few hundred people before the rest turn tail and run in fear. All the while you're shrugging off 99% of their attempts at harming you. As someone on this forum had said once, a level 20 Fighter should probably just be Horseman War.

Alternatively, you could severely nerf the casters so that they never get to summon tornadoes or meteor showers, or kill people with a single word, or do anything that is beyond level 5 (circle 5, not spellcaster level 5) spells. Then you can limit martials to some very low-wuxia feats like running on walls or throwing your sword and having it return to you like a boomerang (no magic involved). Basically, stuff that monk already does, but somehow nobody else can, despite being just as physically developed. But I feel like this would elicit even more complaints than making high-level martials mythical.

[Ralanr]

Alternatively, you could severely nerf the casters so that they never get to summon tornadoes or meteor showers, or kill people with a single word, or do anything that is beyond level 5 (circle 5, not spellcaster level 5) spells. Then you can limit martials to some very low-wuxia feats like running on walls or throwing your sword and having it return to you like a boomerang (no magic involved). Basically, stuff that monk already does, but somehow nobody else can, despite being just as physically developed. But I feel like this would elicit even more complaints than making high-level martials mythical.

Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

At some point, it seems like the only thing that would still be D&D is keeping the current status quo of "wizards rule, martials drool".

Not even sure I should highlight that one, because apparently a lot of people think that it should be like this. I've seen enough arguments that magic should be better than anything non-magic to last me a lifetime (not in this thread, and generally not on this forum).

[Ralanr]

At some point, it seems like the only thing that would still be D&D is keeping the current status quo of "wizards rule, martials drool".

Not even sure I should highlight that one, because apparently a lot of people think that it should be like this. I've seen enough arguments that magic should be better than anything non-magic to last me a lifetime (not in this thread, and generally not on this forum).

I mean...I can't disagree if I'm being honest.

[Pex]

Sure. That is a way you could do things. But that's not really magic coming out of the skill system. It's just grafting a small failure chance onto martial abilities, or adding some pointless bookkeeping where the Fighter nominally rolls Athletics every time he uses Leap of the Heavens, but can never fail the check. I'm not necessary disputing that you could involve skill checks in high level abilities somehow, I'm asking what the point or benefit of doing that is.



To demonstrate how it is possible to give warriors fantastical abilities that are not magical. It is to satisfy the need to keep warriors mundane yet go beyond Guy At The Gym to be on a more equal footing to spellcasters who can travel 100s of miles in an instant, reshape people into monstrosities, and bring the dead back to life. Rangers and Paladins might have access to their own Medicine check to do CPR.


A great summary of what a Fighter would have to be to keep up with a full caster above level 13 or so. Also, since you're level 16, when that week expires you could probably just burst out of your quick-castle and slaughter a few hundred people before the rest turn tail and run in fear. All the while you're shrugging off 99% of their attempts at harming you. As someone on this forum had said once, a level 20 Fighter should probably just be Horseman War.

Alternatively, you could severely nerf the casters so that they never get to summon tornadoes or meteor showers, or kill people with a single word, or do anything that is beyond level 5 (circle 5, not spellcaster level 5) spells. Then you can limit martials to some very low-wuxia feats like running on walls or throwing your sword and having it return to you like a boomerang (no magic involved). Basically, stuff that monk already does, but somehow nobody else can, despite being just as physically developed. But I feel like this would elicit even more complaints than making high-level martials mythical.


Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

The best of both worlds. Those who hate the high magic end their campaign at level 9 or 10. To be level 7+ is to be among the most powerful people/creatures of the world. No need to get rid of anything. Those who like the high magic can continue on with their campaigns of levels 11 to 20. Just because someone hates high magic doesn't mean everyone else must hate it as well.

[strangebloke]

It's not, but it is a much better reference point for the median person's perception of Batman than the cartoons you specifically grew up with.
More people might be aware of Nolan's batman (who can still overcome a broken spine through raw willpower) but I don't think that its some 'final word' on what the broad concept of "batman" means to people. The DCAU and The Batman series, and Snyder's batman were all incredibly influential, as are, you know, the actual comics, and overall Nolan's batman is by far the outlier in terms of what he's capable of.

All this to say that pretty much any archetypal concept you can list can be implemented at a massively wide range of power levels. Thor can just be a 5th level cleric with call lightning and booming blade. Batman can be a 20th level rogue who takes a meteor to the face but "dodges somehow." Captain America can be a battlemaster of any level, and I would even argue you could make him a lot stronger than a 20th level battlemaster without invalidating the concept.

Thor smites demons with lightning and hits them with a smithy hammer so heavy noone can lift it. Captain Hobo kills demons with a rusty knife and tosses garbage at them.

That's where you hit an issue: the existence of Captain Hobo at level 18 makes Thor of level 18 look less cool. Captain Hobo is better off being level 1. Aragorn is a level 5ish concept, Thor a level 16ish.
Aragorn is more like level 10 or more. Its funny to me that people earlier mentioned Aragorn "not being able to run through moria" when uh. He kind of did after Gandalf's fall, its mentioned that large numbers of orcs were guarding the exit to moria and "fled in terror of his wrath."

This is consistent with how he's presented in the books generally, which is a pretty big upgrade from the movies overall. He runs several hundred miles over the course of a few days with no sleep while pursuing the hobbits for example.

Just once again illustrating that these character concepts are a lot broader (in terms of level) than most people are willing to acknowledge.


Yeah, then it wouldn't be D&D.

Its humorous to me that people say high level wizards are some essential part of the dnd experience when almost nobody plays at that level because its so stinking tedious in large part because of all the tools high level wizards have.

[Ralanr]

Its humorous to me that people say high level wizards are some essential part of the dnd experience when almost nobody plays at that level because its so stinking tedious in large part because of all the tools high level wizards have.

Oh yeah, I'm pretty annoyed by that as well. But people would throw a hissy if suddenly 9th level spells stopped existing or something like that.

God rivaling wizards are D&D. And martial characters that have more options at higher levels are apparently not. Only one special toolbox for this game.

[strangebloke]

Oh yeah, I'm pretty annoyed by that as well. But people would throw a hissy if suddenly 9th level spells stopped existing or something like that.

God rivaling wizards are D&D. And martial characters that have more options at higher levels are apparently not. Only one special toolbox for this game.

My ""fav"" are the people who insist that summoning monsters as powerful as their fellow party members is an essential part of the DND experience and constantly whine that planar binding isn't in 5e in its old form.

Like, summons are already so brokenly overpowered in this edition that the only thing holding them back is the social contract at most tables and yet you'll still get people (mostly online) complaining that they can't play their (utterly gamebreaking) character concept.

[Ralanr]

My ""fav"" are the people who insist that summoning monsters as powerful as their fellow party members is an essential part of the DND experience and constantly whine that planar binding isn't in 5e in its old form.

Like, summons are already so brokenly overpowered in this edition that the only thing holding them back is the social contract at most tables and yet you'll still get people (mostly online) complaining that they can't play their (utterly gamebreaking) character concept.

I've seen summoning ruin game balance in enough games to believe that it has no place in a multiplayer team based game.

Single player game? Sure, have fun with it.

In a team game? Necromancy already stretches it based on keeping track of everything. But having demons or elementals replace your frontline players? That's a big middle finger most of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've seen summoning ruin game balance in enough games to believe that it has no place in a multiplayer team based game.

Single player game? Sure, have fun with it.

In a team game? Necromancy already stretches it based on keeping track of everything. But having demons or elementals replace your frontline players? That's a big middle finger most of the time.

I'm ok with very limited summoning. I mean...at level 7 ish, summoning 2 dire wolves isn't so bad.

That said, there's a name for the guys who summon and control hordes of disposable mooks and/or demons/devils/etc. Bad Guys.

Beyond that, summoning takes spells and raises it to another level. Consider this:

A martial character has access to features from
* Race
* Class
* Feats
* General rules

A non-summoning, non-polymorphing spell-casting character has access to
* All of the above
* Plus spells (roughly doubling the number of pages he can interact with)

A summoning and/or polymorphing spell-casting character has access to
* All of the above
* plus most of the monster manual. And any other monster books ever printed.

That's, frankly, not balanceable, even in the abstract. Throw in the distorting effects of having more actions, and you've got a mess.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I think it's possible to make a summoner balanced in DnD, however it shouldn't be a Wizard spell or a subclass, it should be a separate class, with most of its power budget tied to summoning. Not "I can summon a Fighter-Equivalent Entitiy (FEE) and also cast Fireball". Have summons be specific monsters/entities that either act on their own, or grant the Summoner some abilities as long as they are summoned. Maybe you can have a summon possess you temporarily? And of course summon list should be balanced and not left to DM with very vague wording that you can maaaybe read as if "it's actually DM who chooses the summons, we totally intended that reading"

[Ralanr]

I'm ok with very limited summoning. I mean...at level 7 ish, summoning 2 dire wolves isn't so bad.

That said, there's a name for the guys who summon and control hordes of disposable mooks and/or demons/devils/etc. Bad Guys.

Beyond that, summoning takes spells and raises it to another level. Consider this:

A martial character has access to features from
* Race
* Class
* Feats
* General rules

A non-summoning, non-polymorphing spell-casting character has access to
* All of the above
* Plus spells (roughly doubling the number of pages he can interact with)

A summoning and/or polymorphing spell-casting character has access to
* All of the above
* plus most of the monster manual. And any other monster books ever printed.

That's, frankly, not balanceable, even in the abstract. Throw in the distorting effects of having more actions, and you've got a mess.

I think a trouble with it is that D&D has it so spells are universal. Anyone can use them, and when villains summon a bunch of demons, you need to create a demon summoning spell.


I think it's possible to make a summoner balanced in DnD, however it shouldn't be a Wizard spell or a subclass, it should be a separate class, with most of its power budget tied to summoning. Not "I can summon a Fighter-Equivalent Entitiy (FEE) and also cast Fireball". Have summons be specific monsters/entities that either act on their own, or grant the Summoner some abilities as long as they are summoned. Maybe you can have a summon possess you temporarily? And of course summon list should be balanced and not left to DM with very vague wording that you can maaaybe read as if "it's actually DM who chooses the summons, we totally intended that reading"

I disagree. The summoner in pathfinder had to be nerfed in the unchained version, and even if you removed the spells of a summoner and focus it entirely on summoning, then you're just playing a separate creature. And that creature has to be strong to warrant being the only thing you can do (or the creatures).

Limited summoning can work I guess. But strong summons really do not belong in players hands imo.

[Slider Eclipse]

I disagree. The summoner in pathfinder had to be nerfed in the unchained version, and even if you removed the spells of a summoner and focus it entirely on summoning, then you're just playing a separate creature. And that creature has to be strong to warrant being the only thing you can do (or the creatures).

Limited summoning can work I guess. But strong summons really do not belong in players hands imo.

To be fair to Pathfinder's Summoner, the main reason it had to be nerfed was less because of the Eidolon being busted (though they did some adjustments that nerfed that as well, mostly due to stuff like the floating ball of tentacles people sometimes made) and more because they had the bright idea of taking major spells like HASTE and letting the Summoner take them at lower spell levels than normal. It was basically the equivalent of if 5e had a Sorcerer Subclass that let you take Fireball as a 1st level spell.

[Ralanr]

To be fair to Pathfinder's Summoner, the main reason it had to be nerfed was less because of the Eidolon being busted (though they did some adjustments that nerfed that as well, mostly due to stuff like the floating ball of tentacles people sometimes made) and more because they had the bright idea of taking major spells like HASTE and letting the Summoner take them at lower spell levels than normal. It was basically the equivalent of if 5e had a Sorcerer Subclass that let you take Fireball as a 1st level spell.

I didn't know that specifically and wow that is hilariously dumb.