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

[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.

Spoiler: Sidenote, tactical depth

Show

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/showthre...r-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.