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

[Dr.Samurai]

No game requires a caster for need of travel or anything else. Any DM can provide whatever resource is necessary to facilitate the adventure.

This fact does not require removing certain spells from casters, but it does mean that arguments based around "how do you do X as a martial class?" are not necessarily relevant or indicative of a problem with martial classes.

[Composer99]

Ultimately then you want a classless system. Those have existed since the very dawn of RPGs and you can still play them.

(1) That really comes across as (a) putting words in someone else's mouth and (b) imputing motives to someone else. Not really the polite thing to do.

(2) Apropos of this and your second paragraph, D&D 5e already does a lot to create a class-agnostic vibe while still having classes that have distinct identities. For instance, many classes can be 'the healer', and indeed with Inspiring Leader and Hit Dice, some games could maybe go without a spellcasting healer at all. Also for instance, many character concepts can be realized by more than one class. Therefore, it's well within the realm of possibility for there to be class-agnostic ways for a party of any given composition to solve high-level problems, or for high-level characters to have specific abilities allowing them to solve such problems in a manner that is thematic to their class.

(3) Apropos of both (2) and the original topic, this could include giving martials more ways to interact with saving throws and/or imposing conditions on monsters more often if they so wish, so they have something to do other than 'attack again'.

[Morty]

Honestly, responding to a criticism of D&D classes as they are with "well, you just want a classless system" is a very weak argument. Especially when it's followed up by another escape hatch, that is "well, D&D is popular".

[OldTrees1]

You lost the thread too?

Honestly I think everyone lost the subthread. The posters "replying" to me are not replying to my position. Some have even inverted my position.

So let's step back:
Let martials have nice things and let parties have nice adventures.

[Xervous]

No game requires a caster for need of travel or anything else. Any DM can provide whatever resource is necessary to facilitate the adventure.

This fact does not require removing certain spells from casters, but it does mean that arguments based around "how do you do X as a martial class?" are not necessarily relevant or indicative of a problem with martial classes.

Given that the game does little to inform GMs of such ‘good practices’ the starting point is not one where the GM consciously accommodates martials, or is even aware of the fact that such a thing can be necessary. The game should commit to acknowledging that different classes need to be handled very differently if it doesn’t want to change what those classes can do.

[strangebloke]

Honestly I think everyone lost the subthread. The posters "replying" to me are not replying to my position. Some have even inverted my position.

So let's step back:
Let martials have nice things and let parties have nice adventures.

I think we can at a minimum establish that there should be several basic archetypes supported.

• complex casters for the nerds who love digging through splats and want to be a magic man. (druids and wizards)
• simple-to-play casters for newbs who still want to be a magic man (arguably warlocks and clerics, depending on how you play them)
• Conceptually and mechanically simple fighters for newbs who want to be a fighting man. (most fighters, most rogues, most barbarians)
• conceptually simple martials with lots of mechanically powerful and interesting abilities for nerds who love digging through splats and want to play a fighting man. (doesn't exist)
• High power "non magical" wuxia/anime type characters with lots of pseudo-magic powers. (monks?)

[GreyBlack]

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."

Martials can already do stuff besides "just attack." Just depends on if you want to be creative with it.

As a martial, you can:
- Knock an enemy prone to give everyone advantage on your attacks.
- Disarm an opponent.
- Reduce an opponent's speed to 0 by grappling them.
- Force an opponent to move.
- Stand in front of the enemies, yell something about their mothers, and then make it harder to hit you.

And that's all just by basic rules as worded! Then you have things like the Battlemaster, who has maneuvers, the Paladin and Ranger, who can cast spells, and the Rogue, who can basically dart around the battlefield to deal ungodly amounts of damage to whoever deserves it, and you really don't need anything other than "just the attack action." All you need is some creativity.

[Ralanr]

Martials can already do stuff besides "just attack." Just depends on if you want to be creative with it.

As a martial, you can:
- Knock an enemy prone to give everyone advantage on your attacks.
- Disarm an opponent.
- Reduce an opponent's speed to 0 by grappling them.
- Force an opponent to move.
- Stand in front of the enemies, yell something about their mothers, and then make it harder to hit you.

And that's all just by basic rules as worded! Then you have things like the Battlemaster, who has maneuvers, the Paladin and Ranger, who can cast spells, and the Rogue, who can basically dart around the battlefield to deal ungodly amounts of damage to whoever deserves it, and you really don't need anything other than "just the attack action." All you need is some creativity.

At the cost of one of your attacks, and not every enemy can be disarmed or knocked prone (I think size categories have this issue).

Though I would like a RAW ruling on how grappling with a two handed weapon would work, and if you can even hit them when doing so.

[Dr.Samurai]

Disarm is also optional and my DM, as an example, does not allow it.

[Ralanr]

Disarm is also optional and my DM, as an example, does not allow it.

The curse of optional rules.

[strangebloke]

Martials can already do stuff besides "just attack." Just depends on if you want to be creative with it.

As a martial, you can:
- Knock an enemy prone to give everyone advantage on your attacks.
- Disarm an opponent.
- Reduce an opponent's speed to 0 by grappling them.
- Force an opponent to move.
- Stand in front of the enemies, yell something about their mothers, and then make it harder to hit you.

And that's all just by basic rules as worded! Then you have things like the Battlemaster, who has maneuvers, the Paladin and Ranger, who can cast spells, and the Rogue, who can basically dart around the battlefield to deal ungodly amounts of damage to whoever deserves it, and you really don't need anything other than "just the attack action." All you need is some creativity.

Addressed up thread. All of the above are generic options that martials sometimes have bigger numbers for. There are very few unique abilities that martials actually have, and they're generally limited pretty painfully. The monk's stunning strike and the fighter's action surge are two of the few.

[Man_Over_Game]

The monk's stunning strike and the fighter's action surge are two of the few.

Which essentially fill the design space of "make more attacks" and "make attack better". I'm really glad we have those, we might not have had enough.

[GreyBlack]

Addressed up thread. All of the above are generic options that martials sometimes have bigger numbers for. There are very few unique abilities that martials actually have, and they're generally limited pretty painfully. The monk's stunning strike and the fighter's action surge are two of the few.

The Paladin's Smite, the Rogue's Sneak Attack/Cunning Action, and the Barbarian's Rage don't count as "unique abilities that martials actually have"? If not, how are those any different from the Monk's Stunning Strike or the Fighter's Action Surge?

Personally, I genuinely do not see the difference; the Monk's stunning strike has the same trigger as the paladin's smite and the rogue's sneak attack, the barbarian's rage takes a bonus action same as the rogue's Cunning Action... or is there something I'm not seeing?

ETA: Better question, I guess: What do you mean when you say "Martial"?

[tokek]

(1) That really comes across as (a) putting words in someone else's mouth and (b) imputing motives to someone else. Not really the polite thing to do.

(2) Apropos of this and your second paragraph, D&D 5e already does a lot to create a class-agnostic vibe while still having classes that have distinct identities. For instance, many classes can be 'the healer', and indeed with Inspiring Leader and Hit Dice, some games could maybe go without a spellcasting healer at all. Also for instance, many character concepts can be realized by more than one class. Therefore, it's well within the realm of possibility for there to be class-agnostic ways for a party of any given composition to solve high-level problems, or for high-level characters to have specific abilities allowing them to solve such problems in a manner that is thematic to their class.

(3) Apropos of both (2) and the original topic, this could include giving martials more ways to interact with saving throws and/or imposing conditions on monsters more often if they so wish, so they have something to do other than 'attack again'.

Fair point.

I apologise for the tone of my response.

I am struggling with the concept that you can add these very strong abilities to do things like deal with rives of lava or impose conditions with a saving throw - across multiple martial classes - and not have those as powerful general abilities that are more impactful than typical class or subclass features. These would be such immensely strong abilities I question the class identity that you still have.

We could do this with external blessings and magic items but those are in the remit of the DM and there seems to be a real issue with not wanting the DM to have any control over granting these abilities.

[tokek]

I think we can at a minimum establish that there should be several basic archetypes supported.

[[*]conceptually simple martials with lots of mechanically powerful and interesting abilities for nerds who love digging through splats and want to play a fighting man. (doesn't exist)

Honestly I think Rune Knight is a good template for this. Looks like just another Fighter but has the ability to mess with combat resolution like few other classes. It takes skill to know just when to make best use of their abilities but they are game-changing when you get them right so they do reward system mastery. Just not in the same way as learning loads of spells and their exact application. Its not raw DPR, but it can be flat-out amazing when used right.

I've had people tell me that Echo Knights are similarly powerful if you know how to use them. I've not played one myself so I can't comment.

[GreyBlack]

Honestly I think Rune Knight is a good template for this. Looks like just another Fighter but has the ability to mess with combat resolution like few other classes. It takes skill to know just when to make best use of their abilities but they are game-changing when you get them right so they do reward system mastery. Just not in the same way as learning loads of spells and their exact application. Its not raw DPR, but it can be flat-out amazing when used right.

I've had people tell me that Echo Knights are similarly powerful if you know how to use them. I've not played one myself so I can't comment.

Can confirm: Rune Knight is excellent at this sort of thing.

[strangebloke]

The Paladin's Smite, the Rogue's Sneak Attack/Cunning Action, and the Barbarian's Rage don't count as "unique abilities that martials actually have"? If not, how are those any different from the Monk's Stunning Strike or the Fighter's Action Surge?

Personally, I genuinely do not see the difference; the Monk's stunning strike has the same trigger as the paladin's smite and the rogue's sneak attack, the barbarian's rage takes a bonus action same as the rogue's Cunning Action... or is there something I'm not seeing?

ETA: Better question, I guess: What do you mean when you say "Martial"?

I filed that under "have bigger numbers for generic options." You deal more damage but its still just a weapon attack. The better example would be something like paladin aura, but then paladins are also casters.

Some subclasses have abilities that aren't "make number bigger" but even then they're in the minority.

Honestly I think Rune Knight is a good template for this. Looks like just another Fighter but has the ability to mess with combat resolution like few other classes. It takes skill to know just when to make best use of their abilities but they are game-changing when you get them right so they do reward system mastery. Just not in the same way as learning loads of spells and their exact application. Its not raw DPR, but it can be flat-out amazing when used right.

I've had people tell me that Echo Knights are similarly powerful if you know how to use them. I've not played one myself so I can't comment.

Rune knight is good yes, but I shouldn't have to play a rune knight or battlemaster to do stuff other than attack.

In case its unclear, my thesis is something like "there should be more options for fighters/rogues/barbarians/monks that should allow for more variance to their style of play."

[OldTrees1]

I think we can at a minimum establish that there should be several basic archetypes supported.

Yes, this can be established. I also think your minimum list is a very reasonable next step. I might want to see a complex non caster mage archetype, but it would not make sense to require in the minimum next step. Your list is a reasonable next step.

[tokek]

Rune knight is good yes, but I shouldn't have to play a rune knight or battlemaster to do stuff other than attack.

In case its unclear, my thesis is something like "there should be more options for fighters/rogues/barbarians/monks that should allow for more variance to their style of play."

So relative to Rune Knight, Psi Warrior or Echo Knight what do you think a full martial should do that they don't do?

For the full flexibility of magic there are magical subclasses of both Fighter and Rogue but the above are full martial and each one has good tricks other than just attack. I'm curious what you have in mind other than poitional/movement or dice-manipulation tricks and save effects you want?

[GreyBlack]

I filed that under "have bigger numbers for generic options." You deal more damage but its still just a weapon attack. The better example would be something like paladin aura, but then paladins are also casters.

Some subclasses have abilities that aren't "make number bigger" but even then they're in the minority.



Rune knight is good yes, but I shouldn't have to play a rune knight or battlemaster to do stuff other than attack.

In case its unclear, my thesis is something like "there should be more options for fighters/rogues/barbarians/monks that should allow for more variance to their style of play."

Which, then, leads back into my question: What is a "martial?"

Rogue Masterminds can take a bonus action to grant advantage to an ally, monks again have bonkers abilities to vary up their game play (e.g. Shadow , Sun Soul, etc.), fighters have _plenty_ of non-Battlemaster subclasses that vary the play outside of just "Take an attack action"...

Would you like a full breakdown of the fighters as an example? I think Barbarians are the ones closest to the "Have nothing to do other than attack" example you're thinking of.

[Psyren]

Rune knight is good yes, but I shouldn't have to play a rune knight or battlemaster to do stuff other than attack.

In case its unclear, my thesis is something like "there should be more options for fighters/rogues/barbarians/monks that should allow for more variance to their style of play."

I agree with your thesis, but it feels at odds with the first sentence. Yes, there should be options for {martials} that allow for more variance to their style of play - and apparently the designers agreed, because they created more complex (and in most cases, magic-themed) subclasses as a means of introducing that variance. Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue etc meanwhile still exist for the people who want greater simplicity at the cost of a lower ceiling.

Would the game as a whole probably be more balanced if those subclasses were axed - probably, but I question whether that would make it a better or more accessible game. As it stands, a brand new player can pick up a Thief or Champion and run with it, then graduate to something with more exciting round-by-round gameplay decisions once they've grasped the ropes.

[Pex]

By level 20 the mage guild/court wizard/etc should owe them a favor or two, or they should just be able to hire a teleporter. Why does their class have to be the only solution to that problem?

I'd rather have classes that feel mechanically distinct than for every class to play the same but with different coats of paint, even if that means you run the risk of a party that can't solve every problem internally.

That's fine for you, sincerely, but some people resent a party of four level 20 fighters have to do that (Not me.). That's why they yell about D&D magic.

[Ralanr]

I agree with your thesis, but it feels at odds with the first sentence. Yes, there should be options for {martials} that allow for more variance to their style of play - and apparently the designers agreed, because they created more complex (and in most cases, magic-themed) subclasses as a means of introducing that variance. Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue etc meanwhile still exist for the people who want greater simplicity at the cost of a lower ceiling.

Would the game as a whole probably be more balanced if those subclasses were axed - probably, but I question whether that would make it a better or more accessible game. As it stands, a brand new player can pick up a Thief or Champion and run with it, then graduate to something with more exciting round-by-round gameplay decisions once they've grasped the ropes.

And what of the barbarian? Beast?

[Pex]

I think we can at a minimum establish that there should be several basic archetypes supported.

[*]conceptually simple martials with lots of mechanically powerful and interesting abilities for nerds who love digging through splats and want to play a fighting man. (doesn't exist)

Paladin and Blade Pact Warlock

[Psyren]

That's fine for you, sincerely, but some people resent a party of four level 20 fighters have to do that (Not me.). That's why they yell about D&D magic.

I know but they definitely can't please everyone and it would be foolish to try. I think Ritual Casting is as close as they're going to get (and should get) to making some abilities class-agnostic.

And what of the barbarian? Beast?

Frenzy Barb (Berserker) is the simple variant of that one, they just forgot that their exhaustion rules hose it too far out of simplicity range. Tweak that and it's golden. (Dropping an exhaustion level on a short rest is the easiest way, and they've already proven that's not broken with Tasha Ranger's Deft Explorer.)

[Ralanr]

Frenzy Barb (Berserker) is the simple variant of that one, they just forgot that their exhaustion rules hose it too far out of simplicity range. Tweak that and it's golden. (Dropping an exhaustion level on a short rest is the easiest way, and they've already proven that's not broken with Tasha Ranger's Deft Explorer.)

I meant the complex version of barbarian subclasses. Everyone seems to want to keep barbarians simple, but there are people who play barbarians that want some complexity.

Like me.

[Dr.Samurai]

Which, then, leads back into my question: What is a "martial?"

Rogue Masterminds can take a bonus action to grant advantage to an ally, monks again have bonkers abilities to vary up their game play (e.g. Shadow , Sun Soul, etc.), fighters have _plenty_ of non-Battlemaster subclasses that vary the play outside of just "Take an attack action"...

Would you like a full breakdown of the fighters as an example? I think Barbarians are the ones closest to the "Have nothing to do other than attack" example you're thinking of.

I can't speak for Strangebloke, but a martial to me is someone that is relying on their own physical skill without overt supernatural powers. By virtue of the game having rules and mechanics, yes, high level fighters and rogues will have "superhuman" or "peak human" abilities. That's fine. The point is that they are still relying on skills and weapons to generally get by.

The Companions of Mithral Hall are all, IIRC, martials. They do have magic items, but they are all martials; Breunor is a dwarf that's really good at fighting, Drizz't is a drow that's really good at fighting, Wulfgar is a human that's really good at fighting, Cattie-brie is a human that is really good at fighting, Regis is a halfling that is really good at... woodcutting. They're not using Ki, spell slots, power points, or other magical sources of power. It's just their own innate will and acquired skill/prowess. (Note, "skill" does not mean "class feature that is clearly supernatural" like a Rune Knight's abilities.)

[RandomPeasant]

By level 20 the mage guild/court wizard/etc should owe them a favor or two, or they should just be able to hire a teleporter. Why does their class have to be the only solution to that problem?

Because "someone owes you a favor" and "you could just pay for it" are exactly "low level adventure with bigger numbers". "Pay someone to do it" is a a solution that is available to any character of any level of any class. If that is your solution to a high-level problem, then the problem wasn't high level.

I'd rather have classes that feel mechanically distinct than for every class to play the same but with different coats of paint, even if that means you run the risk of a party that can't solve every problem internally.

Those things don't really trade off at all. Consider, again, four classes from 3e that were pretty wildly mechanically different: a Crusader, a Warlock, a Binder, and a Totemist. Each of those classes works in a way that is completely mechanically distinct from all the others. Yet that party is fully capable of beating any combat encounter you care to throw at them. It's not at all clear to me why it would be the case that extending the dynamic that has existed in combat for decades at this point to the rest of the game would necessarily cause it to collapse, and I've never seen anyone present a particularly compelling argument to that effect.

That is why I value when characters, regardless of class, through class or other player controlled means

That's the key. What is high-level about plane shift is not that it takes you to a place where the sky is green rather than blue. It's that it lets you choose what adventures you go on, rather than being stuck with "the DM put us in the fire swamp, so we explore the fire swamp".

And, of course, travel powers are only one part of what makes high-level play interesting. You are also supposed to do things like gaining political influence, or engaging with political or mass-battle minigames. D&D has kind of punted on that historically, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting or valuable or desired, just that it's been done poorly. People try to do mass combat all the time, it just collapses because the rules for it are usually awful. Again, negative space.

You could get anywhere at level 1. Portals, Gates, and rifts exist.

But that's not the same as personally having teleport and plane shift. Planar portals are like plane shift in the same way that a bus route is like a personal car, or scheduled flights are like private jets. That is to say: not at all. "You get to decide where you go and what adventures you have" is a core part of the D&D progression, and it is not something that you can obviate by providing increasing numbers of ways for DMs to let people go where they want the plot to be.

There's nothing high level or game-changing about exotic environments.

Sure there is. There's not a person in the world who will tell you that the climax of Words of Radiance (which takes place inside a giant hurricane) doesn't seem any higher level than the climax of The Hobbit (where people stab small numbers of goblins in a land battle). Exotic environments aren't the only difference between high and low level, but they absolutely are a difference.

As I said, my parties have access to a continent-spanning fast travel network from level 3. And this particular party's had flying mounts and a helm of teleportation since about level 6-7. And a freaking Cubic Gate and planeshift since level 7[2]. It's made lots of things easier by compressing the time scale, but hasn't fundamentally changed anything.

"I gave people a bunch of high level abilities at low level and that made low level adventures like high level ones" is not the compelling argument you seem to think it is.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'source material' here; I wouldn't implement this in 5e, as previously mentioned - it is simply too complex for 5e.

Epic fantasy. That's what D&D is trying to emulate, and it's not really a genre with a lot of people swapping weapons based on their opponents. In the MCU, Thor wields Mjolnir because it is awesome, not because the things he fights are particularly vulnerable to hammers. In Malazan, Anomander Rake wields Dragnipur because it is awesome, not because the things he fights are particularly vulnerable to really big swords. In The Hobbit, Bilbo wields Sting because it is awesome, not because the things he fights are particularly vulnerable to daggers (though in his case, it is a dagger that is Bane against a common class of foes for him). Weapon swapping is generally more common in urban fantasy stories, which tend to have a lot of variations on "you need a wooden stake to kill vampires".

Because I prefer to cut away fake complexity and the pagecount can be spent on something at least moderately useful. Most of mundane gear in any given edition of D&D is a waste of space, not just weapons or armor.

It's a waste of space, but it's not a waste of all that much space. In the 5e PHB, "Equipment" gets 20 pages, with "Weapons" being 2 pages of that. "Spellcasting" and "Spells" together clock in at 91 pages. That means it is literally impossible to save as many pages by trimming the weapon descriptions as you get for being just 5% more economical with spell descriptions. Is there some amount of fat to be trimmed in equipment listings? Yeah, probably. But weapons seem to really obviously not be the thing to focus on.

No game requires a caster for need of travel or anything else. Any DM can provide whatever resource is necessary to facilitate the adventure.

No game requires any character to be capable of anything. You could have a "slay the dragon" adventure where the challenges the players overcome are about getting to the place where a guy who can slay the dragon is living and the dragon-slaying happens in a cutscene. That doesn't make those characters the equal of people who can kill the dragon their own damn selves, nor does it invalidate people who might want to have the power to personally slay dragons.

It all comes down to the negative space. You can "solve" the problem of Fighters not being able to engage with high level adventures by abolishing the idea of high level adventures and declaring that every problem must have a solution that is accessible to a "regular dude" who is "very good at swording". But that doesn't solve the problem, it just defines all adventures as being low-level. WotC tried that in 4e, and it was the worst-received version of the game ever. What people want is for high level adventures to be different from low-level ones, because that is the point of being high level. I fundamentally don't understand the desire to write "20" on your character sheet, but have the same adventures you had when you wrote "1" on your character sheet. That just means you spend a long time not having the abilities you want your character to have, and that sounds terrible.

[Morty]

That's fine for you, sincerely, but some people resent a party of four level 20 fighters have to do that (Not me.). That's why they yell about D&D magic.

Would you be able to point to literally anyone in this thread who is yelling about anything? All I'm seeing is civil discussion.

It's a waste of space, but it's not a waste of all that much space. In the 5e PHB, "Equipment" gets 20 pages, with "Weapons" being 2 pages of that. "Spellcasting" and "Spells" together clock in at 91 pages. That means it is literally impossible to save as many pages by trimming the weapon descriptions as you get for being just 5% more economical with spell descriptions. Is there some amount of fat to be trimmed in equipment listings? Yeah, probably. But weapons seem to really obviously not be the thing to focus on.

It is possible to consider two separate things a problem, you know.

[GreyBlack]

I can't speak for Strangebloke, but a martial to me is someone that is relying on their own physical skill without overt supernatural powers. By virtue of the game having rules and mechanics, yes, high level fighters and rogues will have "superhuman" or "peak human" abilities. That's fine. The point is that they are still relying on skills and weapons to generally get by.

The Companions of Mithral Hall are all, IIRC, martials. They do have magic items, but they are all martials; Breunor is a dwarf that's really good at fighting, Drizz't is a drow that's really good at fighting, Wulfgar is a human that's really good at fighting, Cattie-brie is a human that is really good at fighting, Regis is a halfling that is really good at... woodcutting. They're not using Ki, spell slots, power points, or other magical sources of power. It's just their own innate will and acquired skill/prowess. (Note, "skill" does not mean "class feature that is clearly supernatural" like a Rune Knight's abilities.)

Then, in a weird way, does that mean that the Monk, Barbarian, and Rune Knight are not "Martial" characters? They're all using class features that are clearly supernatural.