I hope martials will get more options in DND One

[paladinn]

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.


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.

Just the name "Monk" implies cleric, whether Eastern mystic or Western friar.

I'm not a big Barbarian fan. IMO "barbarian" is a background, not a class. There could/should be barbarian warriors, clerics, shamans, rogues, etc. I've repackaged the barbarian class as a berserker and used as a fighter subclass. Same with the ranger; there just isn't enough rationale to keep as a main/core class. The hunter subclass especially works Really well on a fighter chassis!

[Brookshw]

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

Huh?

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.

Barbarians could probably be slotted back under fighters, I'm not really sure they need to be their own class (but no strong feelings on it).

[Selion]

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!

I understand this being sarcastic, but i want to give an answer the same, just to point out some misconceptions.

Why should we fight on that when the very scope of the game rules is giving the wider set of options?
Some martials should be simple, some should be complex, some spellcasters should be simple, some should be complex. There's no need for the two designs to meet somewhere in between.
Right now we lack (mostly) complex martial subclasses, and we lack (mostly) simple spellcaster subclasses, they should consider this in developing the new edition.

Why would you place a wall to players who want things simple? They could be wonderful players and bring memorable characters, but if everything requires hard resources tracking you are restraining your player base in favor of the worst kind of elitism.

[Dr.Samurai]

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.

Agreed.

@Psyren - Thanks for providing that, will take a look when I can.

@Selion - If the idea is to provide simple/complex version of both types of classes, I am okay with this. If the idea is "casters get the lion's share of complexity and martials have to be kept simple for new players" then I don't like that and I'll keep posting sarcastic comments

[paladinn]

Agreed.

@Psyren - Thanks for providing that, will take a look when I can.

@Selion - If the idea is to provide simple/complex version of both types of classes, I am okay with this. If the idea is "casters get the lion's share of complexity and martials have to be kept simple for new players" then I don't like that and I'll keep posting sarcastic comments

All martials don't need to be simple; but there should be at least one simple option.

And re-converting the 3.5 Warlock would provide a simple caster option, IMO

[Ignimortis]

Just the name "Monk" implies cleric, whether Eastern mystic or Western friar.

I'm not a big Barbarian fan. IMO "barbarian" is a background, not a class. There could/should be barbarian warriors, clerics, shamans, rogues, etc. I've repackaged the barbarian class as a berserker and used as a fighter subclass. Same with the ranger; there just isn't enough rationale to keep as a main/core class. The hunter subclass especially works Really well on a fighter chassis!

Barbarians could probably be slotted back under fighters, I'm not really sure they need to be their own class (but no strong feelings on it).

Both of these imply a far greater scope rebalance/redesign than whatever is likely to happen. And if such a rebalance happens, the base "Fighter" class should be nothing more than a hitdie and a set of proficiencies, with most if not all class features being reliant on their subclass. In which case, a "Warblade" as a subclass instead of a base class, could work. As long as you can make a complex Fighter through subclasses, it can work. If Fighter is meant to be simple by default, you need another base martial class that is as broad as Fighter in fluff, but has complexity. Otherwise we're back to square one.

Huh?

Rogues have a d4, d6 or d8 hit die depending on the edition. Never a d10 like the Fighter.

[Psyren]

All martials don't need to be simple; but there should be at least one simple option.

And re-converting the 3.5 Warlock would provide a simple caster option, IMO

Eh, it didn't have spells but still needed you to dive through a list of invocations and magic items for things you could Imbue. I actually think the Cleric is a simpler caster, especially Life and Light, it's very hard to mess up.

[Kane0]

Simple martials:
Barbarian
Rogue
Paladin

Complex martials:
Monk
Warlord
Ranger

Simple Casters:
Bard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Complex Casters:
Cleric
Druid
Mage

Or something like that.

[Dr.Samurai]

All martials don't need to be simple; but there should be at least one simple option.

And re-converting the 3.5 Warlock would provide a simple caster option, IMO

Unfortunately, if "simple casters" were treated as "simple martials" it would require an entire revamp of the spellcasting system. Mostly gutting it completely. With a few variant options in the DMG for spice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unfortunately, if "simple casters" were treated as "simple martials" it would require an entire revamp of the spellcasting system. Mostly gutting it completely. With a few variant options in the DMG for spice.

And that (the total revamp of the spellcasting system) is long overdue but is the sacredest of sacred cows so it will never happen.

[Rukelnikov]

And that (the total revamp of the spellcasting system) is long overdue but is the sacredest of sacred cows so it will never happen.

Is it? There were like 5 or more different ways of "casting" back in 3e ("old school vancian", "sorcerer vancian", warlock invocations, psionics, binding vestiges, truenaming, shadowcasting, probably others I don't remember right now), and 5e not only ditched "old school vancian" in favor of 3e's "sorcerer vancian" as the main PHB way of casting, but also gave a new spin on it (like the sorcerer did in 3e) of casting spells via pact magic.

EDIT: Also rituals as they are in 5e did not exist in 2e or 3e.

[Ignimortis]

Is it? There were like 5 or more different ways of "casting" back in 3e ("old school vancian", "sorcerer vancian", warlock invocations, psionics, binding vestiges, truenaming, shadowcasting, probably others I don't remember right now), and 5e not only ditched "old school vancian" in favor of 3e's "sorcerer vancian" as the main PHB way of casting, but also gave a new spin on it (like the sorcerer did in 3e) of casting spells via pact magic.

EDIT: Also rituals as they are in 5e did not exist in 2e or 3e.

3e was an outlier in many ways. 5e only has what is basically vancian-lite and vancian-super-lite, the former being everyone but Warlock, and the latter being Warlock. Oh, and rituals, but it's not really a different way of casting, more like a modifier to the general system.

Preparing spells in 5e is mostly a joke, because prepared casters cast like Sorcerers who change their spell list daily, and get more spells "prepared" than spontaneous casters get spells known. 4e had everyone on the AEDU plus rituals, and 2e-and-before had strict vancian for everyone, IIRC, with differences being mostly how easily you got your spells.

[Rukelnikov]

3e was an outlier in many ways. 5e only has what is basically vancian-lite and vancian-super-lite, the former being everyone but Warlock, and the latter being Warlock. Oh, and rituals, but it's not really a different way of casting, more like a modifier to the general system.

Preparing spells in 5e is mostly a joke, because prepared casters cast like Sorcerers who change their spell list daily, and get more spells "prepared" than spontaneous casters get spells known. 4e had everyone on the AEDU plus rituals, and 2e-and-before had strict vancian for everyone, IIRC, with differences being mostly how easily you got your spells.

Yeah, but it disproves the spellcasting system being the "sacredest of cows"* since it has been spun multiple times, and even base 5e spellcasting doesn't work in what would be considered the traditional dnd spellcasting.

* Which is a term I don't care for much personally, since it assumes something is bad only cause it existed for a long time (is democracy a sacred cow too?), and is mostly used by people who do not like how something works.

[Brookshw]

Both of these imply a far greater scope rebalance/redesign than whatever is likely to happen. And if such a rebalance happens, the base "Fighter" class should be nothing more than a hitdie and a set of proficiencies, with most if not all class features being reliant on their subclass. In which case, a "Warblade" as a subclass instead of a base class, could work. As long as you can make a complex Fighter through subclasses, it can work. If Fighter is meant to be simple by default, you need another base martial class that is as broad as Fighter in fluff, but has complexity. Otherwise we're back to square one.

Agreed it's extremely unlikely, especially since they have backwards compatibility as a design goal. Frankly I doubt we'll see any substantial changes to any classes, kinda like 3e to 3.5e nudged a few things here and there, but no big changes occurred.

Rogues have a d4, d6 or d8 hit die depending on the edition. Never a d10 like the Fighter.

Right, I got that. Sounded like you were slotting them into the fighting man category which rogues weren't. Looking back I see what you're getting at.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, but it disproves the spellcasting system being the "sacredest of cows"* since it has been spun multiple times, and even base 5e spellcasting doesn't work in what would be considered the traditional dnd spellcasting.

* Which is a term I don't care for much personally, since it assumes something is bad only cause it existed for a long time (is democracy a sacred cow too?), and is mostly used by people who do not like how something works.

I figure it is somewhat of a sacred cow, at least in the general idea of "prepare spells and use them with distinct units of power instead of drawing from a total MP pool or cooldown-based abilities or w/e". AEDU got rid of it, but 4e will forever be regarded by WotC as that one time when D&D lost its' leading place in the industry and they won't soon attempt anything similar, including generally radical changes of the same scale.

Sacred cows do not have to be completely inflexible and sacrosanct. As long as the general concept endures in a recognizable way, you could say that the cow also endures. And in that regard, 5e Vancian casters are still recognizably D&D casters and not any other game's casters, despite the far more lenient rules than standard Vancian casting would have.

Whether D&D spellcasting being that way is a major bad thing, I can't say. I think that it is a bit harmful to the game, but mostly due to how it encourages spellbuilding to go - i.e. having 9 levels of spells with increasing power but even level 1 spells often producing effects you can't replicate without magic, with all spells having a distinct effect that obeys its' text and rather broad basic rules instead of being subject to more general limitations, etc, etc.

In short, I figure spells themselves are more to blame than Vancian spellcasting - though I also think that Vancian spellcasting is bad as soon as your game does not revolve around deep dungeon diving and resource management on a scale of days (which does not lend itself to exciting combats, despite D&D having gravitated to setpiece combats since early 3e at the very least).

As for other magic systems existing, sure, they do. And they are always somewhat worse than the edition's take on Vancian casting. Sorcerers were specifically gimped in 3e because the designers felt like they were not meant to compete with Wizards. Warlocks and Binders can't hold a candle to a 2/3 caster most of the time, much less a member of the GOD trio. Truenamers, well, they're a meme by now. And, here's the important part - pretty much none of them actually survived the edition shifts. 5e Warlocks are not even 3.5 Warlocks, they're 4e Warlocks with a coat of 3.5 paint.

[paladinn]

Preparing spells in 5e is mostly a joke, because prepared casters cast like Sorcerers who change their spell list daily, and get more spells "prepared" than spontaneous casters get spells known. 4e had everyone on the AEDU plus rituals, and 2e-and-before had strict vancian for everyone, IIRC, with differences being mostly how easily you got your spells.

Spellcasting in 4e sucked. You basically didn't have spellcasting; you had the AEDU powers like all other classes. It may have been great for promoting "class balance" and buffing martials, but it really hosed casters. IMO.

I think 5e casting is a Huge improvement over anything that went before. My # 1 pet peeve has always been "fire and forget." Granted, there is little reason to play a sorcerer now, outside of metamagic. The next 5e game I run, I'm using the spell point variant for sorcerers, with one pool to fuel both spells and metamagic.

[Ignimortis]

Spellcasting in 4e sucked. You basically didn't have spellcasting; you had the AEDU powers like all other classes. It may have been great for promoting "class balance" and buffing martials, but it really hosed casters. IMO.

I think 5e casting is a Huge improvement over anything that went before. My # 1 pet peeve has always been "fire and forget." Granted, there is little reason to play a sorcerer now, outside of metamagic. The next 5e game I run, I'm using the spell point variant for sorcerers, with one pool to fuel both spells and metamagic.

Fire and forget was the last real limitation to Vancian casters in the field. There's no longer any reason to prepare more than one copy of each spell, which means that you are, in fact, a Sorcerer with more spells known and you can shift them every day. The only niche pure Sorcerer even has these days is the "twin buff" spellcaster, because a Wizard does everything else better and doesn't have any less longevity. 5e's Vancian system is, currently, rather useless and functionally identical to having an MP pool where spells have fixed minumum prices based on level. The only difference is presentation, but 5e thrives on presenting a nostalgic image for people who used to play pre-4e editions, so it will never die as long as WotC is not in the mood for major experiments.

[Amechra]

Maybe they shouldn't be able to stay enraged all day, but that could easily be considered in the ability.

I used to joke with one of my coworkers that the Barbarian is exactly backwards — you should be Raging by default, with your "rages per day" actually being moments when you aren't furiously angry at the fact that the world exists.

...

I honestly hope that D&D One will remove options.

Like, currently, spellcasters basically involve a ton of homework in order to be... slightly more complicated than the Barbarian in actual play (barring minionmancy). Oh, sure, you've got a big shiny list of spells on your sheet... but usually your actual decision is going to be some flavor of "how many spell slots should I burn here?", because you already know which spells you're going to be casting in any given situation (that's what the homework was for).

The only real difference between a description of the Wizard that goes "at 1st level, you start with a spell book with six 1st level spells in it" and one that goes "at 1st level, you start with a spell book with Shield and five other 1st level spells in it" is that the first one gives new players the chance to screw themselves over for no good reason.

...

Seriously, I'm pretty sure that the combat experience of playing a spellcaster would be really similar if you scrapped most combat spells and just gave them an ability they could use a few times per long rest that just made the encounter easier. Like, the DM just prepared two versions of each encounter, and then the spellcaster could burn a resource so that the party would face the easier version instead. I guess you'd get to feel a little less smug about doing your homework properly?

[animorte]

I think the point is not that the spell casting system won’t be modified in some way, but they won’t be able to do very much to power it back. Nobody wants to weaken the casters. I don’t mean minor nerfs to the spells such that only people who have played across multiple editions in depth enough to notice the difference and care.

That’s why the discussion is about giving more to martials and powering them up to scale better as opposed to scaling down the casters (which honestly would be much easier). This is what power creep is all about.

[Ignimortis]

I used to joke with one of my coworkers that the Barbarian is exactly backwards — you should be Raging by default, with your "rages per day" actually being moments when you aren't furiously angry at the fact that the world exists.

Personally, I feel like the Barbarian being able to Rage at any point is kind of missing the point anyway. It'd be a perfect ability to turn on automatically if you hit 50% HP or below - encouraging outright reckless play and goading opponents to hit you.

Like, currently, spellcasters basically involve a ton of homework in order to be... slightly more complicated than the Barbarian in actual play (barring minionmancy). Oh, sure, you've got a big shiny list of spells on your sheet... but usually your actual decision is going to be some flavor of "how many spell slots should I burn here?", because you already know which spells you're going to be casting in any given situation (that's what the homework was for).

This is part of why "fire and forget" was actually incredibly important in earlier editions. If you know that you only have 2 Shields instead of "however many slots I care to burn on it, and I don't have to decide that in advance", you will be far more strategic in using them. Same with Fireballs or Hold Monsters or anything at all. Running out of 1 copy of Spell X is far easier than running out of 8 slots, any of which can be made into Spell X if you want.

I would agree that 5e Wizard is actually not very complex to play, but it's still on the top rung of its' edition complexity-wise.

[Rukelnikov]

I figure it is somewhat of a sacred cow, at least in the general idea of "prepare spells and use them with distinct units of power instead of drawing from a total MP pool or cooldown-based abilities or w/e". AEDU got rid of it, but 4e will forever be regarded by WotC as that one time when D&D lost its' leading place in the industry and they won't soon attempt anything similar, including generally radical changes of the same scale.

But there have been mp systems, 3e psionics was basically mana, 5e UA psionics was mana, 5e spell point variant is mana, 3e had many spellcasting variants, including mana based and cooldown based (which was very interesting to me, but required much more thought put into it to be in a working condition)

Sacred cows do not have to be completely inflexible and sacrosanct. As long as the general concept endures in a recognizable way, you could say that the cow also endures. And in that regard, 5e Vancian casters are still recognizably D&D casters and not any other game's casters, despite the far more lenient rules than standard Vancian casting would have.

Whether D&D spellcasting being that way is a major bad thing, I can't say. I think that it is a bit harmful to the game, but mostly due to how it encourages spellbuilding to go - i.e. having 9 levels of spells with increasing power but even level 1 spells often producing effects you can't replicate without magic, with all spells having a distinct effect that obeys its' text and rather broad basic rules instead of being subject to more general limitations, etc, etc.

In short, I figure spells themselves are more to blame than Vancian spellcasting - though I also think that Vancian spellcasting is bad as soon as your game does not revolve around deep dungeon diving and resource management on a scale of days (which does not lend itself to exciting combats, despite D&D having gravitated to setpiece combats since early 3e at the very least).

This makes more sense, the effects of magic rather than the means to access them is what is being called out then.

But then I'd ask, what's the difference between how spells work and how Channel Dinivinities work? Or Battlemaster's maneuvers? Or Rune Knights runes? Or Monk's powers? They all work the same, a discrete ability fueled by a power source. Having played a couple WoD Mages, I'm well aware of how different magic can be done in a system, but DnD works in discrete packages outside of spells too, so changing spellcasting to be more open ended (like the extremely more versatile WoD Mages), would require changing features in general to be less discrete.

As for other magic systems existing, sure, they do. And they are always somewhat worse than the edition's take on Vancian casting.

I'm not completely sure this much is true, I always thought 3.5 Psionic system was terrific, the only thing I preffered from the 3.0 version was having disciplines key off of different stats.

But in general, yeah, the "basic system" is usually better, and the playerbase at large agrees. Feats are optional, multiclassing is optional, yet those rules are almost universal, if the variant casting systems were perceived as better, they would be much more popular, yet outside of some people here and there allowing sorcerers to use the spell point variant, you almost never hear anyone saying they use it as default.

Support has a lot to do with that I'm sure, but if a variant rule gets traction, support for it keeps popping up, like feats, which are "variant" yet every players options book comes with them. Or going back to 3e, Warlock was not core, yet it was so well received it kept getting support in following books in the form of Epic level progression, ACFs, PrCs and feats directly cattered to them.

Sorcerers were specifically gimped in 3e because the designers felt like they were not meant to compete with Wizards.

I think they are somewhat balanced before Quicken Spell enters play, the flexibility granted by not having to know beforehand what spells you are gonna need coupled with the extra slots allowed for very reckless usage of slots compared to a wizard, which despite having fewer spells (except for specialists, but those had their own limitations) also would regularly end up with more unused spells.

At high levels once Quicken Spell becomes something used every round, then yeah they are severely gimped. This limitation though, was lessened as the edition evolved since more and more swift spells made their appeareance, PF also corrected this by allowing Sorcerers to make use of Quicken Spell (which was the right move IMO)

Warlocks and Binders can't hold a candle to a 2/3 caster most of the time, much less a member of the GOD trio. Truenamers, well, they're a meme by now. And, here's the important part - pretty much none of them actually survived the edition shifts. 5e Warlocks are not even 3.5 Warlocks, they're 4e Warlocks with a coat of 3.5 paint.

I pretty much haven't played 4e, but I can kinda still see the 3.5 warlock in the 5e incarnation. Eldritch Blast and at will casting were the cornerstones of 3e locks, Invocations were use to change shape and effect of eldritch blast, the effects have been toned down, as with everything if you compare 5e to 3e, but you still can get Eldritch Lance for extra range, or Repelling Blast, Lance of Lethargy for different effect. You cannot really customize your eldritch blast as you could in 3e (which was awesome), but its still your bread and butter. At will casting is gonne though, and it sucks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the point is not that the spell casting system won’t be modified in some way, but they won’t be able to do very much to power it back. Nobody wants to weaken the casters. I don’t mean minor nerfs to the spells such that only people who have played across multiple editions in depth enough to notice the difference and care.

That’s why the discussion is about giving more to martials and powering them up to scale better as opposed to scaling down the casters (which honestly would be much easier). This is what power creep is all about.

Right.

But I wasn't so much talking about how spells are prepared (because that's fundamentally a trivial thing), but the whole meta-system of D&D spellcasting. That is
1. Spells as discrete, quantized objects that are "push button, get effect"
2. Spells are disconnected from each other without interdependency
3. Specialization only matters at the broadest of levels (ie at most "give up a school of spells")
4. Spells have levels of increasing power
5. You get both more powerful spells in addition to the ones you already have and more uses of lower power spells
6. Spells are the default access to magic. Enough so that "Dispel Magic" and "Antimagic field" have the names they do. Neither of which really do what their name suggest because they're mostly effective against other spells, not against magic writ more broadly.
7. Spells have no conceptual/thematic limits. The only thing limiting a caster from doing X via a spell is that there hasn't been a spell written to do X yet. For any X. There's no "spells will never be able to do X" concept.
8. Spells have no grounding in the fiction. They're just simply black boxes, penny-packet effects.
9. The only/best counter to spells is...other spells
10. Spells are things that from the earliest levels do things nothing else can do...as well as outright replacing things that others have to try for.
11. Limits on use are mostly "can use X per day" and/or "may cost money".

All editions of D&D have suffered from this, even 4e. Why 4e? Because, fundamentally, all of their abilities were spells. I'd say point #7 is the absolute worst, because it means that nothing can ever compete with spells, because asymptotically unbounded (and monotonically increasing) functions beat asymptotically bounded functions by construction. But the rest are also problematic if you want to have a coherent game system.

Effectively, spell-casters have an entirely separate deck they can play with. Above and beyond what everyone else can do, while still having features of their own.

Consider a PHB dragon-origin sorcerer and a PHB battlemaster fighter.

The sorcerer, over the course of 20 levels, gets (counting each spell known as a feature as well as adding one for "trade out one spell per level") 57 features. Of which the vast majority (40+) are picked by the character from a much broader list, with some do-overs every level (trading out one spell per level).

The fighter gets, counting each maneuver pick separately as well as (just to be extremely generous) each extra use of indomitable and Action Surge and each instance of Extra Attack as well as each extra time you get maneuver dice, 41, of which 12 are "select from list", and the lists are way shorter. And only gets 3 do-overs, instead of 19. If you don't count the extra uses of indomitable and action surge or the maneuver dice, you're down to 36 total features.

And the sorcerer is the worst of the casters in that regard. Wizards, even if they don't get any extra spells at all from scrolls/books, outstrip them by about 50%.

Edit: And battlemasters the absolute best non-caster in that regard. By a lot.

[Tanarii]

Spellcasting in 4e sucked. You basically didn't have spellcasting; you had the AEDU powers like all other classes. It may have been great for promoting "class balance" and buffing martials, but it really hosed casters. IMO

All editions of D&D have suffered from this, even 4e. Why 4e? Because, fundamentally, all of their abilities were spells.

This contrast in diametrically opposite views made me laugh.

[Lucas Yew]

On topic, I'd like all "martials" to have loads more skill proficiencies by default, the skill monkey role not limited to the Rogue anymore.

Of course, then some really frequent situations which would be solved by skill rolls must have example DCs in (both) the PHB (and the SRD) to let martial players plan their skill investment accordingly.

----

Preparing spells in 5e is mostly a joke, because prepared casters cast like Sorcerers who change their spell list daily, and get more spells "prepared" than spontaneous casters get spells known.

Just how did this monstrosity happen to be? Did Skip Williams' apparent hate of Sorcerers linger long after his leave?

[Psyren]

On topic, I'd like all "martials" to have loads more skill proficiencies by default, the skill monkey role not limited to the Rogue anymore.

Of course, then some really frequent situations which would be solved by skill rolls must have example DCs in (both) the PHB (and the SRD) to let martial players plan their skill investment accordingly.

If the Tasha's stuff is any indication we're getting that, e.g. Barbarians getting Primal Knowledge, Rangers getting Canny, Fighters getting Superior Technique etc and all that is before feats.

Monk still needs work, but the new unarmed strike rule gives me hope.

Just how did this monstrosity happen to be? Did Skip Williams' apparent hate of Sorcerers linger long after his leave?

They are redressing the balance now, Clockwork + Aberrant + Lunar are where 5e sorcerer should be. Sorc's biggest problem in 5e was spells known and they are getting a lot more of them lately. Plus everything and their mother that adds spells known now lets you use your own slots to cast them, e.g. spells from racials and feats, so I'm willing to bet a 1DD Sorcerer can end up with a great deal more spells than a 5e one, even double or more in the lower tiers.

[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.

Nah, it isn't true in my experience.

Okay, well can I get some examples of non spellcaster class abilities that solve challenges that aren't of the form 'deal X HP damage to thing Y'?
Sure there are ability checks and non-mechanical roleplay actions, but any class can make those.

Are there actually any unique class specific powers to interact with the 2/3 of the game that isn't combat other than spells?

[Witty Username]

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

So, maybe something like the 3.5 warlock? Where you have something like 5 spells but could cast them at will?

--
ToB is a solution to martial problems that I am fond of, I don't think it is "The" solution.

I like the idea of martials doing things in addition to damage, ooh, monk and Rogue have a bonus action for non-attack actions. Maybe give fighter a "Martial" action, for a shove or grapple as a bonus action.

I don't think improving balance of martials needs to complexity. Expertise on attack rolls and proficiency to damage would both increase power but they wouldn't be any harder to play. And a few high grade abilities past level 11 would probably be easy enough. Would 1-2 1/long rest abilities on par with 6th-9th level spells really increase the complexity that much.

[Amechra]

This contrast in diametrically opposite views made me laugh.

itt: People complaining about someone else's fighting game.

In all seriousness, I kinda love how 4e's legacy is that everyone agrees that it was bad but no-one remembers exactly why it was bad... especially since it is arguably the pinnacle of Combat-As-Sport (just... skip the first few monster manuals. WotC always screw up the first couple of monster manuals in pretty much exactly the same ways).

[Witty Username]

In all seriousness, I kinda love how 4e's legacy is that everyone agrees that it was bad but no-one remembers exactly why it was bad... especially since it is arguably the pinnacle of Combat-As-Sport (just... skip the first few monster manuals. WotC always screw up the first couple of monster manuals in pretty much exactly the same ways).

It makes me glad my primary complaint is that I couldn't read the dang thing. 4e sucked, hm, Idk I'll take your word for it. 4e was great, hm, glad you had fun, I'll try to read the book again.
I've heard that 5e kept alot from 4e, something like short rest recovery is like healing surges or something. And warlock feels 4e emotionally from what I could understand.
I will try to read 4e again sometime. As of now though, I am still left feeling awkward whenever it gets brought up.

[JackPhoenix]

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.

That assumes you WANT the plain, boring, no-bells-and-whistles weapon attack to be the something martials should be doing as anything other than absolutely last resort. Let rogues have their sneak attack, and hey, perhaps allow them to sacrifice few dices of damage to cause some other effects. Let fighters use maneuvers every turn. Have barbarians rage all day, maybe give different benefits you can switch for kind of a stance system. Let monks... you know what? Screw monks, they have to suck.

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.

Problem is... even ignoring that everyone gets magic items, and that if casters can't pick items they want, neither can martials... look how many magic items are there exclusively for martials, and how many only casters can use. Sure, there are weapons and armor, but casters can wear armor too (and getting proficiency is pretty easy if they don't already have it... IMO one of the biggest mistakes of 5e was to remove the cost of wearing armor for arcane casters) and while magic weapons can be cool, they are also often *necessary* to even contribute at expected capacity, while casters rarely have the same issue.

Let martials use scrolls and wands. Print more interesting magic weapons (seriously, see how many magic weapons were in the post-DMG books compared to how many caster items there were). Hell, have casters use their own spell slots to cast spells from staves, so staves give them more options, but not more spellcasting.

In all seriousness, I kinda love how 4e's legacy is that everyone agrees that it was bad but no-one remembers exactly why it was bad... especially since it is arguably the pinnacle of Combat-As-Sport (just... skip the first few monster manuals. WotC always screw up the first couple of monster manuals in pretty much exactly the same ways).

Different people have different reasons why it was bad for them. The views also aren't actualy opposed: paladinn complains that casters used AEDU like everyone else, and PhoenixPyre complains that everyone's abilities had the same AEDU format, spells or not.