D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[FrogReaver]

if a PC specialized in a specific weapon, I'd say it borders on passive aggressive behavior to not give them loot that let's them use thier abilities effectlvely.

All any martial PC needs to effectively use their abilities is a non-magical weapon of the type they specialized into. If they encounter an enemy that requires a magical weapon to bypass then they need a magical weapon for that as well (at least at some point), but It doesn't even have to be the one they specialized into. It can be a measly +1 dagger. Your specialized weapon doesn't have to apply to every round of every combat ever.

What you are looking for isn't simply for them to use their abilities effectively - it's quite a bit more than that.

Or as Captain Hook would say "Bad form" not feeling the need to cater is far different that actively ignoring and failing to plan for your players enjoyment.

IMO. Catering = feeling the need to place specific types of stronger magical weapons for a particular player because they won't enjoy the game if you don't.

I mean what's the difference in kind between someone telling the DM i won't enjoy the game if I don't get a flametongue shortsword @ level 1 and someone saying they won't enjoy the game if their Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter Fighter doesn't find a strong magical hand crossbow. I think it's a difference of degree - but not kind.

 

[FrogReaver]

This isn't just a flaw with characters "overspecialising" though. You could have a campaign where you never get a magic 2Her for your barbarian. Never get a magic bow or arrows for your ranger. Never get a magic finesse weapon for your rogue.

I mean, on a completely theoretical level, using only random loot tables, sure - it could happen. I don't know of anyone that has ever once seen that happen in any kind of extended campaign though. So not really a problem.

Prior to Tasha's this also applied to fighting styles. In PHB it's a choice you make at lv1 and you have to live with it forever, regardless of if your DM is raining 2Hers down on your Duellist. In Tashas it's slightly improved so you can change it every ASI level, and in OneDnD it's every fighter level.
This can of course all be solved by DM fiat - give players items appropriate for their characters - but an even better idea would be to get rid of DM fiat and have the core rules allow players to respec feats.

The only time a fighting style wasn't really useful was when you picked one and found a magical weapon so good it was better to use it and no fighting style than to use whatever best weapon you had that matched up with your fighting style. Even then you had the option to pick defensive style which was generally always useful. In any event - this is a rare occurrence already - and if a player does find a magical weapon that good, it's probably best that it usually won't align perfectly with their character build choices.

That said, despite One D&D's direction - IMO the solution shouldn't be more specialization and respeccing - it should have just been to give martials a more generous number of fighting styles. Probably as they level.

 

[ECMO3]

Kind of a bizarre take that I've never seen anywhere else.
And it has the same alternative explanation: people are discouraged from playing fighters because the rules are lacking and they need to dip magical feats/races/subclasses to enable mechanically engaging gameplay.

I am talking about people who are playing fighters, and there are plenty of powerful non-magic races that they are not taking with those fighters. Mechanically there are pretty darn good non-magic races - Mountain Dwarves, Aaracokra, Half Elves, Goblins and Bugbears. These are some of the most powerful races in the game (along with others like Damphir, Shaddar Kai, Eladrin etc), but fighters still don't play them often and take no other magic. If they are playing them they are still getting magic through feats or a multiclass.

Moreover, I do see non-magic Monks and Barbarians and in tier 2 where most of the game is played those classes are mechanically inferior to fighters.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, on a completely theoretical level, using only random loot tables, sure - it could happen. I don't know of anyone that has ever once seen that happen in any kind of extended campaign though. So not really a problem.

Most of the extended campaigns I've played are WOTC published adventures and in most of those the DM (including myself when I DM) played the adventure as published, meaning you got the loot that was there. While this is technically perhaps not random, it issentially the same thing as far as this is concerned.

I think I have only played two extended campaigns where the DM tailored items for the characters, including one I am currently playing in.

The only time a fighting style wasn't really useful was when you picked one and found a magical weapon so good it was better to use it and no fighting style than to use whatever best weapon you had that matched up with your fighting style. Even then you had the option to pick defensive style which was generally always useful. In any event - this is a rare occurrence already - and if a player does find a magical weapon that good, it's probably best that it usually won't align perfectly with their character build choices.

It is a very common, almost universal occurance in most of the campaigns I played. Using the WOTC examples - Sunblade, the Mace that does extra necrotic and if I remember correctly the dragontooth dagger are all available before level 4 in WOTC campaigns and they add a lot of damage.

I agree about defense fighting style though, that is my typical go-to if I am not getting Superior Technique. Archery is third.

 

[ECMO3]

TBH I count this as a failing with 5e. Martials are encouraged to specialise in to particular weapons with Feat fighting styles and even basic ability scores, but 5e provides no RAW way to spec out of Feats, and changing fighting style is only available at ASI levels as an optional rule.

This puts you in a situation where either:

• your DM customises loot to fit the players and you get a magic polearm and have a blast
• your DM just rolls random loot and you never get your magic weapon and your build feature is useless.

Thankfully all my DMs have chosen the first option.

I get what your saying, but experienced players should know better and experienced DMs should help newbie players.

PAM is one of the few "trap" options in the game IMO, and GWF style is mediocre. But other options and alternatives to both of these are available and effective.

The other thing about PAM and GWM is that these can be taken at any ASI. So instead of taking one at 4th and the other at 6th, maybe wait until you have a magic polearm (or at least a magic spear) and then take PAM or wait until you have a magic heavy weapon and then take GWM.

 

[Minigiant]

All we know is champion isn't that popular.
Doesn't mean people are clamoring for more complex fighter vs better champion

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do both.

I mean I still have not seen anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't split the fighter into its 3 parts

1. A Simple Warrior Class with Simple Mechanics
2. A Complex Warrior Class with Maneuvers
3. A full 1/2 caster Arcane Warrior

other than "Bwah! Too many classes! Bloat BLOAT!"

I KNOW people have been clamoring for number 3 for3 decades now.

 

[ECMO3]

Why was the experience you referenced so much worse? And why would someone capable of using any weapon in the game select a mace?

Unlike your DM the DM did not give him a magic polearm and very few DMs I have played with would do that sort of thing.

The mace was the best magic weapon available that someone else was not using better. I think there was a magic finesse weapon that was better .... but that weapon was better in the hands of the Rogue.

At 10th level and above we were regularly fighting enemies resistant or immune to non-magic damage and few enemies took full damage from non-magic weapons.

I don't think it is just that though, I think the play style "beat someone with my stick" is generally boring too. But if you invest the feat (or in this case 2 feats) that only make you better at beating someone with a stick, you are kind of inclined and incentivized to beat him with a stick. Doing cool things in combat, through improvise an action, or grappling or shoving, using caltrops or oil or holy water or a net ..... All that stuff is far more viable and has less opportunity cost if you don't lose 30 damage and waste two feats by trying it.

If you think about in terms of "doing something cool" - if you take both Superior Technique and Martial Adept instead of GWF and PAM, then pretty much you can use a battlemaster maneuver and "do something cool" once a battle.

 

[FrogReaver]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do both.

I mean I still have not seen anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't split the fighter into its 3 parts

1. A Simple Warrior Class with Simple Mechanics
2. A Complex Warrior Class with Maneuvers
3. A full 1/2 caster Arcane Warrior

other than "Bwah! Too many classes! Bloat BLOAT!"

I KNOW people have been clamoring for number 3 for3 decades now.

Subclasses for (1) would prove problematic.

Only issue i foresee with (2) or (3) would be that doing so might invalidate currently existing options like battlemaster or eldritch knight. People will complain about that.

 

[ECMO3]

They said that its a magic mace. That is probably why. My Paladin played almost all the way until level 12 wielding a mace, because it was the only magic weapon she had. At 1d6+1, a mace does as good damage as any other one-handed option, and we were fighting a lot of creatures that required magic to hurt.
She commonly prepared Magic Weapon for the Ranger's bow as well.

I had a similar experience. My Kender Paladin had a sword of dancing and a non-magic Lance.

She never did actually find another magic weapon until relatively late in the campaign. I too kept Magic Weapon, but I usually cast it on the Rogue's Rapier and then I typically stayed out of melee to keep up concentration when I did that. I could toss my sword into the air and still attack as a bonus action and do other things with my action.

 

[ECMO3]

You phrase it like that, I phrase it as "DM should work with players to honour their character concepts and ensure everyone has fun."

I think the PC story is mostly on the players, not the DM.