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

[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.