I hope martials will get more options in DND One

[PhoenixPhyre]

Though I would say I’m in favor of keeping most of the more mythic reality altering spells in the game - at high levels. They’re part of what makes that tier of D&D fun and feel like D&D.

I still have not had anyone answer me what exactly mythic reality altering spells there are. Because all I can come up with is wish and that only if you take the extreme "can do anything, no risk of monkey-paw" reading.

Everything else? Either pedestrian (meteor swarm isn't even as good as a single unit of mobile artillery and anyway it's just more of the same "do damage to an area" stuff they've been doing forever), taxi-driving (teleport, planeshift, both of which are trivially replaceable by low-rarity magic items and really don't change the world), or have been baked into the world since very low levels. There really aren't any super-high-power reality altering spells out there. Everything's at the personal, tactical scale not the strategic one unless you get really loose with your readings and let them do lots of things well beyond their bounds.

[Twelvetrees]

I still have not had anyone answer me what exactly mythic reality altering spells there are.

*Snip*

There really aren't any super-high-power reality altering spells out there. Everything's at the personal, tactical scale not the strategic one unless you get really loose with your readings and let them do lots of things well beyond their bounds.

I looked into this thinking I'd disagree with you, PhoenixPhyre, but I find that I mostly end up agreeing.

Examples that I think meet your criteria for spells beyond the personal, tactical scale:

• Control Weather. This is the best example I could find. Deciding the weather conditions in a circle with a 10 mile diameter seems like it fits the definition of changing reality on a strategic scale.
• True Polymorph, Object into Creature version. Specifically, if a player is willing to sink time into this strategy. I've had a player decide they were going to cast it every single day during downtime to start repopulating a fire giant community.
• Awaken. Similarly to True Polymorph, this has reality-altering power over long spans of time, although it's limited by the component cost.
• Maybe Mirage Arcane. Changing the terrain in one mile square is a large area, but I could see that still being considered a change on a personal, tactical scale.

That's a really short list, and half of it depends on having a lot of time to spare.

[Pex]

I think the base Fighter class should be kept dirt simple, for players who like such things. But they can also get 3-4 more abilities at high level features like Action Surge.

For example, if the Devs leave spells like Foresight in the game (they shouldn’t) there’s no reason Fighters shouldn’t get a 17th level ability like “You gain Advantage on all attack and ability rolls.” Short, simple, potent, and actually less powerful than Foresight (which in theory can be Dispelled). If the do remove the more broken spells, they can tone down other stuff proportionately.

Though I would say I’m in favor of keeping most of the more mythic reality altering spells in the game - at high levels. They’re part of what makes that tier of D&D fun and feel like D&D.

Barbarians already have this, mostly, and they don't even need to be raging to do it. The precedent is there to improve this for barbarians, such as Reckless Attack only gives Advantage to the creature you attack at a higher level to eventually no Advantage at all. As a class feature Totem Barbarians don't need to be raging to have Advantage on ST rolls that matter at 6th level if chosen. To give it to Fighters at higher levels is not wrong, but the concept already exists. It's good to give Nice Things to warriors, but that doesn't mean all warriors should get the same Nice Things.

People talk of wanting Fighter and Barbarian being the same base class with different subclasses. That's okish (in my opinion), but given they remain separate classes there's nothing wrong for each to be given Nice Things the other doesn't have.

[Selion]

I looked into this thinking I'd disagree with you, PhoenixPhyre, but I find that I mostly end up agreeing.

Examples that I think meet your criteria for spells beyond the personal, tactical scale:

• Control Weather. This is the best example I could find. Deciding the weather conditions in a circle with a 10 mile diameter seems like it fits the definition of changing reality on a strategic scale.
• True Polymorph, Object into Creature version. Specifically, if a player is willing to sink time into this strategy. I've had a player decide they were going to cast it every single day during downtime to start repopulating a fire giant community.
• Awaken. Similarly to True Polymorph, this has reality-altering power over long spans of time, although it's limited by the component cost.
• Maybe Mirage Arcane. Changing the terrain in one mile square is a large area, but I could see that still being considered a change on a personal, tactical scale.

That's a really short list, and half of it depends on having a lot of time to spare.

Dream
Mass suggestion
Dominate
Magic jar
Force cage
Antimagic field
Resurrection

Just to name a few. If we want these effects to happen in a high fantasy setting they should be eventually achievable by characters.

The problem is that the opportunity cost is equal for all the spells of the same level, because d&d puts availability and cost in the same slot (spell level), while they should be two different variables.
I mean, I'm OK that I unlock force wall and cone of cold at the same level, I'm not OK they cost the same slot which recharges once per day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dream
Mass suggestion
Dominate
Magic jar
Force cage
Antimagic field
Resurrection

Just to name a few. If we want these effects to happen in a high fantasy setting they should be eventually achievable by characters.

The problem is that the opportunity cost is equal for all the spells of the same level, because d&d puts availability and cost in the same slot (spell level), while they should be two different variables.
I mean, I'm OK that I unlock force wall and cone of cold at the same level, I'm not OK they cost the same slot which recharges once per day.

All of those other than magic jar (which is just horribly broken in the "this doesn't even work as written" sense) aren't actually all that world-changing.

Mass suggestion? A regular demogogue can do the same, except it doesn't fade. And still tactical, personal.
Dominate? You get one person, maybe, for a short duration.
Force cage? Purely tactical. Sure, it's really great...but not changing the world in any measurable way that killing things doesn't already do.
Antimagic field? a 10' radius is nothing
Resurrection? Already baked into the cake from low levels.

Basically, a high level wizard can't do anything outside of a small area or with anything but low-duration (and yes, a 10 mile diameter is a tiny area, especially since it's right around them, and 8 hours is nothing).

High level wizards aren't (as people suggest for martials) throwing mountains or planets or even really able to destroy a city all on their own. They can't reshape rivers, change the course of the planes (or even permanently connect two points), nor can they do most of the other "mythic" feats people claim for them. Effectively, a high-level wizard is like a superhero--still punching things the same way he's been doing it for the last 20 levels, just with more property damage and flashy effects.

I looked into this thinking I'd disagree with you, PhoenixPhyre, but I find that I mostly end up agreeing.

Examples that I think meet your criteria for spells beyond the personal, tactical scale:

• Control Weather. This is the best example I could find. Deciding the weather conditions in a circle with a 10 mile diameter seems like it fits the definition of changing reality on a strategic scale.
• True Polymorph, Object into Creature version. Specifically, if a player is willing to sink time into this strategy. I've had a player decide they were going to cast it every single day during downtime to start repopulating a fire giant community.
• Awaken. Similarly to True Polymorph, this has reality-altering power over long spans of time, although it's limited by the component cost.
• Maybe Mirage Arcane. Changing the terrain in one mile square is a large area, but I could see that still being considered a change on a personal, tactical scale.

That's a really short list, and half of it depends on having a lot of time to spare.

TP -- first, that's a horribly written spell. Second, you have to read a whole lot more into it to get there. But yes, it's on my short list of "this one is special." But mostly in the other meaning of that word. And there's no indication that they breed true (or can even really reproduce).
Awaken -- You can make a lot of intelligent trees/animals. But again, population dynamics are a problem. Minimum viable population to have a self-sustaining thing is huge--you're talking about doing nothing else for decades. And there's no indication that the intelligence breeds true.
Mirage arcane is purely tactical scale.

Yes, there are some powerful spells. But they're not world altering. maybe you might stretch to "able to change the dynamics of a small area, as long as the caster spends a crap-ton of time and effort on it." But you know who can also change the dynamics of a small area if they spend lots of time and effort on it? Someone who can give good speeches. And they're all "can only affect things in their local proximity". They don't scale in any measurable way other than "bigger damage". A caster can't take on even a regiment, much less an army.

Another consideration is that they're only world-altering if the PC in question is the very first one who ever cast that spell. Because otherwise the world would have adapted to such things and reached something like an equilibrium. That's what I mean about "baked into the cake". Sure, you end up with a steady-state very different than Earth, which is fine. But adding another person capable of casting that doesn't change the facts on the ground--the world has already priced that in.

[Pex]

I still have not had anyone answer me what exactly mythic reality altering spells there are. Because all I can come up with is wish and that only if you take the extreme "can do anything, no risk of monkey-paw" reading.

Everything else? Either pedestrian (meteor swarm isn't even as good as a single unit of mobile artillery and anyway it's just more of the same "do damage to an area" stuff they've been doing forever), taxi-driving (teleport, planeshift, both of which are trivially replaceable by low-rarity magic items and really don't change the world), or have been baked into the world since very low levels. There really aren't any super-high-power reality altering spells out there. Everything's at the personal, tactical scale not the strategic one unless you get really loose with your readings and let them do lots of things well beyond their bounds.

I find people don't mean it so literally. They mean spells that makes certain obstacles that were obstacles at low level to no longer be obstacles. Fly is hated because it means ravines are obsolete and melee monsters can't attack the flyer. Teleport is hated because it means no more random encounters having to account for each day of travel having nothing to do with the main adventure. Goodberry and Create Food & Water are hated because it means no more dealing with the exciting world of marking off rations risking starving to death.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find people don't mean it so literally. They mean spells that makes certain obstacles that were obstacles at low level to no longer be obstacles. Fly is hated because it means ravines are obsolete and melee monsters can't attack the flyer. Teleport is hated because it means no more random encounters having to account for each day of travel having nothing to do with the main adventure. Goodberry and Create Food & Water are hated because it means no more dealing with the exciting world of marking off rations risking starving to death.

And none of those are high level except teleport. And frankly, "mundane travel" hasn't been a dangerous thing for like 8-9 levels at that point (not that it ever was). And fly only affects one person, not the whole party (and doesn't help in those rare cases when you're, you know, indoors or want to concentrate on something else). Again, tactical uses. None of these are things that make me think of mythic heroes or anything like that.

From what I can tell, the game expects
* Mundane survival not to matter except in really hostile environments
* Power growth to mostly be quantity, not quality (ie you do more of what you do at low levels, just BIGGER).
* Characters including casters to be still very mortal, very human-scale even to level 20. Their only direct, ability-based influence is limited to exactly where they are, with most power to either be personal-scale or via non-ability means (such as "the friends we made along the way").
* Melee to still matter at all points
* Combat to still matter at all points
* "Legendary" monsters such as archdevils, ancient dragons, etc to still be real threats in their individual capacities even at high levels. Not "eh, we can chew through 6 of these in a day without serious risk" but "we have to prepare and it's still a risk".

And you know what? Martials keep up with that fairly well. There are a couple edge cases and poorly written abilities (on both sides of the power spectrum), but in general, the game holds together well under those expectations.

People can pretend to play it at higher power levels, but in doing so they're having to rewrite the entire game, throwing away all the content and rewriting it, as well as overhauling the basic resolution mechanisms. Just like you can rebuild a Lada as a sports car, but the effort is disproportionate to the result.

[Schwann145]

In my opinion, the best and easiest thing you can do for martials, as they exist currently, in 5e, is to take away the "X/rest" part of many of their core abilities.
There is no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to Rage all day. Maybe they shouldn't be able to stay enraged all day, but that could easily be considered in the ability. Something like, "may Rage for Con-mod rounds and afterwards gains one temp level of exhaustion, preventing Rage, that lasts for Con-mod rounds. Higher levels increase the Rage but the exhaustion stays the same (2x Con, 3x Con, etc).
Instead of giving Battle Master Fighters a limited number of Superiority dice, just give them a Superiority dice value and let them do their Maneuvers as many times as they want. The idea that I can't try to disarm, or trip, many many times over a skirmish is utterly silly.
Abilities like these never keep up with Spells as-is, so why should they be as limited? Frankly, they shouldn't. And removing those arbitrary limits gives those classes more to do from turn to turn, which keeps them feeling engaged and relevant.

I still have not had anyone answer me what exactly mythic reality altering spells there are. Because all I can come up with is wish and that only if you take the extreme "can do anything, no risk of monkey-paw" reading.

Everything else? Either pedestrian (meteor swarm isn't even as good as a single unit of mobile artillery and anyway it's just more of the same "do damage to an area" stuff they've been doing forever), taxi-driving (teleport, planeshift, both of which are trivially replaceable by low-rarity magic items and really don't change the world), or have been baked into the world since very low levels. There really aren't any super-high-power reality altering spells out there. Everything's at the personal, tactical scale not the strategic one unless you get really loose with your readings and let them do lots of things well beyond their bounds.

I think people like to (subconsciously?) bring their 2e and 3.Xe baggage into discussions around magical superiority. Spells in 5e are so heavily nerfed compared to prior editions but, because magic is still the king of the game, older players maintain a grudge around how powerful and influential spells can (could) be and newer players see the current power disparity and knee-jerk agree with the older players' conclusions on the matter.

[rel]

DND 6e probably won't have much for martials, and there definitely won't be any kind of parity between martials and spellcasters at high levels.

Sadly, if you want your character to be someone who can change the world in a way that isn't 'deal X HP damage to thing Y' using mechanical options actually listed on your character sheet, WotC will always tell you to play a spellcaster.

BUT. There's no reason to switch to 6E when it comes out, and there's always homebrew.

Figure out what you want out of the game, ruthlessly delete anything that doesn't fit and use houserules and custom content to fill the gaps.
5e has the advantage of being extremely modable.
As long as you and the other players know what you want out of the game and are willing to commit to it, you can quite rapidly create a set of rules that matches your table and get things to a playable state.

[Kane0]

Me too. Hopefully not all complex options though

[Sjappo]

I find people don't mean it so literally. They mean spells that makes certain obstacles that were obstacles at low level to no longer be obstacles. Fly is hated because it means ravines are obsolete and melee monsters can't attack the flyer. Teleport is hated because it means no more random encounters having to account for each day of travel having nothing to do with the main adventure. Goodberry and Create Food & Water are hated because it means no more dealing with the exciting world of marking off rations risking starving to death.

While I detect a good measure of snark here, you make good points.

Most mundanes never develop a way to survive falling of a cliff. Feather Fall solves this at lvl 1.
Most melee PCs never develop a way to fight flying creatures. Fly solves this at lvl 5.
Hold person/monster takes a monster out of the fight completely. Not available for mundanes.
Fog Cloud, Force Cage, Entangle, Grease, the various Wall spells, Spike Growth all do comparable things. Mundanes have nets.
Teleport and Plane Shift invalidate entire portions of the game. Not available for mundanes.

Reality changing is not the same as influencing the world on a strategic cq. global scale. It starts at lvl 1 and the disconnect only grows larger. It is quite often not really a problem in play because the caster will cast his spell and the problem goes away, not taking much table time. But the unbalance has existed for decades. It would be nice if it could be solved.

[Selion]

DND 6e probably won't have much for martials, and there definitely won't be any kind of parity between martials and spellcasters at high levels.

Sadly, if you want your character to be someone who can change the world in a way that isn't 'deal X HP damage to thing Y' using mechanical options actually listed on your character sheet, WotC will always tell you to play a spellcaster.

BUT. There's no reason to switch to 6E when it comes out, and there's always homebrew.

Figure out what you want out of the game, ruthlessly delete anything that doesn't fit and use houserules and custom content to fill the gaps.
5e has the advantage of being extremely modable.
As long as you and the other players know what you want out of the game and are willing to commit to it, you can quite rapidly create a set of rules that matches your table and get things to a playable state.

Nah, it isn't true in my experience, as party role spellcasters tend to be supporting actors. Rules even encourage this, the most effective way to play a spellcaster is shaping the battlefield (both literally and figuratively) and leaving other people doing the main job. They are there to assure that everyone can do their job without restriction.

Gish characters unfortunately (or not, as I actually like them) are very popular and are often affected by the main character syndrome, but it's not a issue of them being too powerful, a support and utility focused spellcaster is usually stronger than a gish.

EDIT: main problem, as the OP suggests, is that martials don't need more power, they need more options!

EDIT2:

While I detect a good measure of snark here, you make good points.

Most mundanes never develop a way to survive falling of a cliff. Feather Fall solves this at lvl 1.
Most melee PCs never develop a way to fight flying creatures. Fly solves this at lvl 5.
Hold person/monster takes a monster out of the fight completely. Not available for mundanes.
Fog Cloud, Force Cage, Entangle, Grease, the various Wall spells, Spike Growth all do comparable things. Mundanes have nets.
Teleport and Plane Shift invalidate entire portions of the game. Not available for mundanes.

Reality changing is not the same as influencing the world on a strategic cq. global scale. It starts at lvl 1 and the disconnect only grows larger. It is quite often not really a problem in play because the caster will cast his spell and the problem goes away, not taking much table time. But the unbalance has existed for decades. It would be nice if it could be solved.

Valid points, as i said, these are things that we want to exist at some point in a high fantasy setting, and if they exist there should be a wizard able to cast them. Stopping at level 10 won't solve the issue, because these capabilities exist in the game world, and someone would want to play with them, exactly the same way after level 20 people want to play with epic/mythic levels and demigods, and if rules don't support them players create rules to fill the gap.

The problem IMHO is that a teleport costs a daily slot just as a finger of death.
If wizard could cast a teleport per week, or if they could not cast teleport and scrying and whatever the same day using just spell slots (namely, because world changing spells would need other resources), i think the gap would be much smaller.

[Composer99]

In my opinion, the best and easiest thing you can do for martials, as they exist currently, in 5e, is to take away the "X/rest" part of many of their core abilities.
There is no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to Rage all day. Maybe they shouldn't be able to stay enraged all day, but that could easily be considered in the ability. Something like, "may Rage for Con-mod rounds and afterwards gains one temp level of exhaustion, preventing Rage, that lasts for Con-mod rounds. Higher levels increase the Rage but the exhaustion stays the same (2x Con, 3x Con, etc).
Instead of giving Battle Master Fighters a limited number of Superiority dice, just give them a Superiority dice value and let them do their Maneuvers as many times as they want. The idea that I can't try to disarm, or trip, many many times over a skirmish is utterly silly.
Abilities like these never keep up with Spells as-is, so why should they be as limited? Frankly, they shouldn't. And removing those arbitrary limits gives those classes more to do from turn to turn, which keeps them feeling engaged and relevant.

This is all simply mistaken, for two reasons.

(1) Game Design Perspective
If a combat option is at-will, it has to be balanced against either making a single weapon attack - if you can forgo making a single attack to undertake that option - or against taking the Attack action. This is a fiddly and annoying process, and to date I don't think either the core 5e options in the PHB (grappling or shoving) or the optional ones in the DMG (disarming in particular) have succeeded, since the opportunity cost of losing out on damage is usually too great. A too-powerful option, however, would end up being used too often.

In short, at-will combat options are a dominated strategy, in the game-theory sense, with rare exceptions (such as a character who has made build choices that boost their grapple or shove performance). If they were strictly better than weapon attacks, they'd become a dominating strategy.

A limited-use option, by contrast, has no such restriction. What's more, there's plenty of design space between "is better than an unmodified weapon attack" and "casting a spell". In addition, by adding things like grappling or shoving as a rider effect on a successful attack on a limited-use basis, you can keep at-will combat options as slightly worse than attacks, but now martials have a way of using them while bypassing their limitations.

The battlemaster manoeuvres are a good example. Most of these aren't dominating over each other (though some are). Some are situational based on immediate circumstance - you don't always use Precision Attack because you only need to use it when your attack roll falls short by some amount. Others are situational based on party composition - Commander's Strike is worthwhile if you have someone in the party who does more damage on average than you with a weapon attack - a rogue when Sneak Attacking or paladin when smiting, for instance, but not otherwise.

(2) Verisimilitude Perspective
It's simply a fact that just because you know how to do some kind of special combat technique, such as a judo throw, doesn't mean you're able to do it all the time. In the first place, combat is tiring. (Ever heard veterans tell stories about the uncomfortable settings in which they would fall fast asleep, or seen pictures of soldiers asleep in clearly uncomfortable settings? I have.) In the second place, there's often a particular set of circumstances that will have to apply to make the technique usable. Throwing a monster means catching them off-balance and being able to grab them such that they can't shank you with a dagger, rake you with nasty claws, or get in a bite while you're trying to execute the throw.

The easiest, simplest way of representing both of these factors in the abstracted structure of D&D combat is simply to make techniques that are affected by them usable a limited number of times, either through the action economy (the way a rogue's Sneak Attack is limited) or through some kind of expendable resource.

[paladinn]

Yeah, that’s be a big “Nope” from me, as “Battle Master” and all caster classes are way too complex for me to play, I like the Champion Fighter, and when I feel like some added complexity some levels of Rogue satiate that.

I’ve nothing against others having such sun-classes to play, but I fear a 6e with no subclass as wonderfully simple to play as the “Champion”.

On that note, I think an improvement that I’d like is an official magic-user class that’s as simple as the Champion

That seems a good plan!

I agree that there needs to be a fighter (at least a subclass) that is simple; but I also agree that the Champion is pretty weak sauce. I did a combo of the champion and the UA "Brute" subclass that is pretty cool. More ummph and still very simple.

Unlike many here, I don't think that the "solution" to the martial/caster "problem" is "Warblade!!" I'm not a huge fan of the 3.5 Tome of Battle, and definitely don't want D&D to become a wuxia game. Maybe a warblade subclass might be cool, but not as a/the base class.

It sounds like the "simple magic-user" concept would have been filled by the 3.5 Warlock class. It was mainly eldritch blast with some invocations. But the 5e version got convoluted with short-rest abilities, arcanum and yes, actual spells. I wouldn't mind seeing a port of the original warlock. But that's just me.

[Ignimortis]

I agree that there needs to be a fighter (at least a subclass) that is simple; but I also agree that the Champion is pretty weak sauce. I did a combo of the champion and the UA "Brute" subclass that is pretty cool. More ummph and still very simple.

Unlike many here, I don't think that the "solution" to the martial/caster "problem" is "Warblade!!" I'm not a huge fan of the 3.5 Tome of Battle, and definitely don't want D&D to become a wuxia game. Maybe a warblade subclass might be cool, but not as a/the base class.

Why not have a base complex martial class? There are four purely martial classes (no spellcasting, unless opted in) in the game, and all of them are about as simple as a plank of wood, with Monk maybe having a couple of nails on one side. There are no martial classes in 5e even remotely as complex as, say, Wizard or even Sorcerer — even the spellcaster Paladin/Ranger are rather straightforward and heavily encouraged to use their magic in the simplest way possible - Smite or Hunter's Mark.

You don't even need to lose a martial class to make space for Warblade or something.

As for Wuxia, Monk has been here since the 80s. Or even the 70s. Certainly before I was born.

[Sparky McDibben]

What is it you don't like about WW resolutions? Too many dice to roll and count which makes things slow or something else?

Well, there's that. There's the fact that there's d@mn near no guidance to the DM on how to adjudicate what a roll means in the world aside from "LOL, just make it up, nerd." Combat takes forever (because even one roll is slow), and the fact that WW wants to produce storytelling games, but actually made a roleplaying game.

Don't get me wrong, I love their ideas and worlds. But White Wolf (and now Onyx Path, too) have absolute garbage for mechanics.

[Tanarii]

Most mundanes never develop a way to survive falling of a cliff. Feather Fall solves this at lvl 1.

Hit points.
Also, when's the last time you actually saw someone prepare Feather Fall. Like Knock, it is a schrodinger's spell, always assumed to be available but rarely even in a spellbook, let alone prepared/known.

Most melee PCs never develop a way to fight flying creatures. Fly solves this at lvl 5.

Ranged weapons.
Also, Fly is a very dangerous and often stupid thing to use to against flying enemies, unless you like falling when concentration inevitably breaks. And then having to use the Feather Fall you didn't actual prepare/know.

Hold person/monster takes a monster out of the fight completely. Not available for mundanes.

Agreed. Martials mostly just get to inflict status Dead faster, which ends the fight.

Fog Cloud, Force Cage, Entangle, Grease, the various Wall spells, Spike Growth all do comparable things. Mundanes have nets.

Martial combat and tactical manipulation of the field is very limited, even for Battlemasters. It's definitely a failing of 5e after having enjoyed how awesome they were in 4e. Otoh the trade off was at least combat is fast now.

Teleport and Plane Shift invalidate entire portions of the game. Not available for mundanes.

Teleport is very dangerous to use unless your DM gives you some nice house ruling like being able to scry and see at the same time. Plane shift is a good one tho.

Reality changing is not the same as influencing the world on a strategic cq. global scale. It starts at lvl 1 and the disconnect only grows larger. It is quite often not really a problem in play because the caster will cast his spell and the problem goes away, not taking much table time. But the unbalance has existed for decades. It would be nice if it could be solved.

But in terms of impact on actual game play at the table, Martial dominance of the tactical scene means they hold the lead until at least mid to late Tier 2, when arcane full spellcasting casters finally start to catch up. But never seriously dominating even in low Tier 3. (I don't have enough extensive table experience after that.)

------------

Regardless, if they could find a way to give Martials 4e-style toys, while still retaining 5e-style fast combat, the game would be much improved.

-------

Worth noting: Martials get magic items. As long as you don't make the mistake of assuming schrodinger's magic items, or a magic item mart, it's an important factor to keep in mind.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, there's that. There's the fact that there's d@mn near no guidance to the DM on how to adjudicate what a roll means in the world aside from "LOL, just make it up, nerd."

I don't know if I understand this point, "I try to break down the door with a kick", 0 successes you fail at it, 1 success you break it down somewhat, 5 successes you break it down entirely almost as if it wasn't there in the first place, between 1 and 5 there won't be much difference.

Combat takes forever (because even one roll is slow),

Yeah, at "high levels" its almost unbearably slow.

and the fact that WW wants to produce storytelling games, but actually made a roleplaying game.

Waht would be the difference? Storytelling games don't involve dice randomness or something like that?

Don't get me wrong, I love their ideas and worlds. But White Wolf (and now Onyx Path, too) have absolute garbage for mechanics.

I wouldn't say absolute garbage but yeah, there's a lot of mechanics I don't like about them.

[Brookshw]

As for Wuxia, Monk has been here since the 80s. Or even the 70s. Certainly before I was born.

Apples and oranges, the old monk options were nowhere close to the wuxia people talk about now.

[Kurt Kurageous]

One of the serious problems with fighter/battlemaster is the negative progression. You start by choosing from a list. You take the ones you want the most. Then, when you get more choices, it's from...the same list with the same choices you didn't choose before. I know this happens with cantrips as well, but they usually scale. Maneuvers don't.

A fix would be different maneuvers at each tier and perhaps scaling as well. But nobody cares to fix it in the three (SCAG, XGtE, TCoE) books of player options and it shall remain broken badly.

[Ignimortis]

Apples and oranges, the old monk options were nowhere close to the wuxia people talk about now.

I'm looking at the 1985 monk and seeing, basically:
1) Good at unarmed combat, though better with a specific monk weapon, and very good at dodging (better than basic plate at higher levels, IIRC).
2) Has Evasion level/day
3) Can talk to animals (and plants later on)
4) Can heal damage to themselves
5) Can use special martial art moves that improve their combat capability
6) Can almost automatically climb walls
7) Gets pretty much everything that a 3e Monk got 15 years later aside from Abundant Step, and pretty much everything an Open Hand Monk gets in 5e, too.

So I'm not seeing your point.

[Brookshw]

I'm looking at the 1985 monk and seeing, basically:
1) Good at unarmed combat, though better with a specific monk weapon, and very good at dodging (better than basic plate at higher levels, IIRC).
2) Has Evasion level/day
3) Can talk to animals (and plants later on)
4) Can heal damage to themselves
5) Can use special martial art moves that improve their combat capability
6) Can almost automatically climb walls
7) Gets pretty much everything that a 3e Monk got 15 years later aside from Abundant Step, and pretty much everything an Open Hand Monk gets in 5e, too.

So I'm not seeing your point.

Roughly equivalent to the 3e monk, sure (discounting when it was a cleric kit), a far cry from the ToB wuxia stuff people usually use for comparison. Unless you have some other meaning for wuxia (if so, sorry, I'm construing it broadly and in the context usually raised).

[paladinn]

I'm looking at the 1985 monk and seeing, basically:
1) Good at unarmed combat, though better with a specific monk weapon, and very good at dodging (better than basic plate at higher levels, IIRC).
2) Has Evasion level/day
3) Can talk to animals (and plants later on)
4) Can heal damage to themselves
5) Can use special martial art moves that improve their combat capability
6) Can almost automatically climb walls
7) Gets pretty much everything that a 3e Monk got 15 years later aside from Abundant Step, and pretty much everything an Open Hand Monk gets in 5e, too.

So I'm not seeing your point.

A monk isn't a fighter. Even in OD&D, a monk was viewed as a cleric subclass. All the mystical abilities don't scream fighter.

If someone just wants an unarmed fighter with special martial abilities without all the mysticism, I recommend the pugilist class from Amazing Adventures.

Regardless, I think a warblade-like subclass would be good for the fighter. But then, I'm in favor of a ranger fighter subclass too.

[Ignimortis]

Roughly equivalent to the 3e monk, sure (discounting when it was a cleric kit), a far cry from the ToB wuxia stuff people usually use for comparison. Unless you have some other meaning for wuxia (if so, sorry, I'm construing it broadly and in the context usually raised).

Frankly, Warblade is about as Wuxia as Monk if not less so. It doesn't even get teleportation like a 3e Monk, can't talk to animals or plants, can't heal itself or become immune to disease, or run on walls - the only things it does get is an extreme focus kind of ability (Moment of Perfect Mind/Action before Thought, Iron Heart Surge) and slightly exaggerated jumping (Jump as a swift action and +10 feet to any Jump as a stance). Oh, and parrying spells that have an attack roll, but deflecting spell rays with shiny swords or shields has been a staple of fantasy art since the 70s.

Everything else is mostly just "very good at weapons" with being able to cut through stone, cripple enemies temporarily, and cause ability score damage by hitting people real hard. Nothing "unfighterly".

A monk isn't a fighter. Even in OD&D, a monk was viewed as a cleric subclass. All the mystical abilities don't scream fighter.

If someone just wants an unarmed fighter with special martial abilities without all the mysticism, I recommend the pugilist class from Amazing Adventures.

Regardless, I think a warblade-like subclass would be good for the fighter. But then, I'm in favor of a ranger fighter subclass too.

Monk is a martial. Monk was not a Cleric subclass for most of its' existence at this point, and has a distinct identity as a martial artist with somewhat mystical powers as it transcends mundanity.

A warblade-like subclass for the Fighter is Battle Master. However, due to the fact that Fighter's chassis is somehow an extreme drain on the subclass design (presumably, Extra Attack (2) and (3) are too good or something), it is severely less good than a Warblade in execution.

Anyway, I see no reason for all martial classes to be as simple as they are. I also see no reason why you couldn't add another martial class without replacing Fighter. Sure, if I went for a radical system redesign, I'd keep Barbarian as the "simple brute martial" and make Fighter into Warblade+, but at lower scale of changes, you could just add a properly complex martial class. If you think that it steps on Fighter's toes, look at Sorcerer and Wizard and Warlock co-existing somehow, despite all three being arcane casters of differing complexity.

[Sneak Dog]

Martial combat and tactical manipulation of the field is very limited, even for Battlemasters. It's definitely a failing of 5e after having enjoyed how awesome they were in 4e. Otoh the trade off was at least combat is fast now.

Is it fast? Whenever a spellcaster succeeds at a spell and sometimes when they fail, the entirety of the spell description has to be mentioned because they're all inconsistent. They add insane amounts of complexity, as plenty of spells are just their own mechanic that the GM now has to parse and apply.

I've taken the alphabetically first spell I saw in a nice overview of spells:
Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting:
30 ft. cube. Not radius. Non-standard.
150 ft. range, constitution saving throw. 12d8 necrotic damage, save half. I'd say these are standard. Good.
Constructs/undead are immune. Plants and water elementals have disadvantage. Water elementals, of all exceptions? Aren't constructs/undead immune to necrotic damage anyway?
Nonmagical noncreature plants wither and die immediately. Couldn't have targeted all living things, this needs its own line?

Maybe clean up casting, make it more consistent and readable. While they're at it, give it some actual limitations and bounds and carve some niches where a martial is superior? Not just in combat, though I frequently doubt there's much of a niche there (with druids and summons being what they are not to even get started on eldritch blast and fireball), but also for the exploration and social pillars.

[Dr.Samurai]

Down with ANY martial having to be simple! Screw that. Make combat complex and engaging and as varied as the spellcasting system. Let martials inflict any of the status effects with their attacks and let improvised actions have greater impact on the combat so it's worth using your action for...

Keep casters simple. Maybe for beginners the wizard should be simple and just shoot a little cantrip for 1d6 damage. Without ability score mod so that new players don't get confused. Maybe we get rid of any spellcasting components as well so as not to distract new players. Also, let's remove targets/range/durations from spells to keep them manageable, and the DM can adjudicate these things as makes sense for that specific scene. Let's trim down all the damage types to just "MAGIC" damage so we don't overwhelm new players, and instead of attack rolls or saving throws, the wizard player just has to say "pew pew" and the spell auto-hits for 1d6 magic damage. Actually, let's just get rid of rolling altogether because it can be a little much for new players and let's just call it 3 magic damage... Oh this is so great and so wonderful, we really care about new players so much, look at this beautiful new system we've created!

[paladinn]

Monk is a martial. Monk was not a Cleric subclass for most of its' existence at this point, and has a distinct identity as a martial artist with somewhat mystical powers as it transcends mundanity.

From the OD&D Blackmoor supplement:
"Monks (Order of Monastic Martial Arts), a sub-class of Clerics which also combines the general attributes of Thief and Fighting Man."

Monks have Never had the HD of fighters; at most they have had the HD of clerics. In 1e, they only had d4! In 2e, the monk "kit" is included in the Priests splatbook. Sorry, your disagreement doesn't make it so.

I don't have a problem with a warblade-like fighter subclass; and I agree that the battlemaster is not it. But I don't see why the insistence on completely tossing the fighter class in favor of warblade. Some people, especially beginners, like having a simpler option that just hits hard, well and often.

[Amnestic]

Down with ANY martial having to be simple! Screw that. Make combat complex and engaging and as varied as the spellcasting system.

Unironically agree honestly.

It's not like full casters are in the Advanced Class section of the PHB, they've got Barbarian printed right next to Bard. If the archetypal party (Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric) is meant to be appropriate for new players - and it is - it is a bit silly that only two of them come with extra homework.

[Psyren]

For those curious about Monk History in D&D, one of my favorite channels DM It All did a deep dive. The title is hyperbolic (well, a little) but it covers the class's origins all the way from Blackmoor in the 70s and its likely roots in Remo Williams/David Carradine, through AD&D, 3e, 4e, 5e and even PF.

[Ignimortis]

From the OD&D Blackmoor supplement:
"Monks (Order of Monastic Martial Arts), a sub-class of Clerics which also combines the general attributes of Thief and Fighting Man."

Monks have Never had the HD of fighters; at most they have had the HD of clerics. In 1e, they only had d4! In 2e, the monk "kit" is included in the Priests splatbook. Sorry, your disagreement doesn't make it so.

As far as AD&D 1e (the 1978 PHB had Monks) and it's supplements (1985 Oriental Adventures, to be exact, which introduced a new version of Monk), Monks have been their own thing. Them being a Cleric kit is an oD&D and AD&D 2e thing only. And since 3e, they've always been their own thing. So a total of at least 33 years (1978 to 1989 plus 2000 onwards) of Monks being themselves, not a version of Cleric (which has lasted, thus far, for 14 years - 1974 to 1978 and 1990 to 2000).

Not having a Fighter HD does not disqualify you from being a martial, or then Rogue would never count as one.

I don't have a problem with a warblade-like fighter subclass; and I agree that the battlemaster is not it. But I don't see why the insistence on completely tossing the fighter class in favor of warblade. Some people, especially beginners, like having a simpler option that just hits hard, well and often.

1) I have repeatedly stated that you can have Warblade and Fighter side by side if you want to.
2) Even if you toss the Fighter to replace it with Warblade, there's still a class that just hits hard, well, and often. It's called Barbarian. There's also Ranger, which is, I assure you, not that different from Fighter whether you pursue archery or dual-wielding. Especially if it's the spell-less Ranger that also exists in several iterations of D&D.