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

[Oofta]

I appreciate when people operationalize what they are talking about!

That said at a certain point more choices increases complexity. That some people still play becmi or no longer play 3e suggests that increased complexity is not always desirable. 5e does offer options on that continuum.

Choosing a class is a meta choice and getting rid of more straightforward play is in its own way limiting.

That aside, since it’s not a competitive game and not everyone wants more to consider in addition to their roleplaying, why must all themes have the same number of choices if their theme and flavor are represented?

my most recent character was a barbarian and blade pact warlock. Do I melee? Probably but there are things nvocations do, spells, smites, and skills. Raging or not, sneaking casting…feats, etc

Forward to gen con and I played a half orc champion and had a blast. I was pretending something different and approached the game differently. Simpler in. Buttons to push but lots of roleplay and fun scoring hits.

I don’t feel it’s bad that I got to have different sorts of experiences in the same game. I could have chosen battlemaster I realize but wanted to play a champion.

Not seeing how that is a bad thing. Actually for a guy (me) that has played miniature and wargames it does not offend.

I am not putting down anyone’s preferences but fail to see how choices of complexity are necessarily a bad thing if the class or archetype is sufficiently represented.

This is even more the case when we talk about a single subclass!

Our favored champion of the gods (oath of glory, etc) warrior mage (blade boon warlock, eldritch knight) with feats are only a few page turns away.

Sometimes I enjoy just playing the BDF (big dumb fighter). Having a character that runs around saying "Brok smash!" can be fun. Meanwhile it means that instead of thinking about what option I should use I can think up stupid quips or things to say during combat. For me, that's just as much fun as having to constantly think about strategy and planning out optimal tactics.

 

[Pedantic]

That's not homogenizing classes, tho, its simplifying/consolidating mechanics. It's what 5e did when it made all full casters use the same 9 level progression with a new spell level at each odd numbered level 1-17, cast spells spontaneously using slots, and have at-will cantrips. Then, did some more, by making psionics use spell formats and mechanics.
It's not innately a bad thing by any measure, really, not balance (my preferred definition or yours), not agency, certainly not playability since it reduces complexity...
Now, homogenizing classes could be done by re-cycling abilities, the way 5e gives Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger Combat Styles rather than just fighter getting them, or the way most spellcasting classes have only a minority of their spell lists unique to themselves (in the PH at launch, the Wizard was the champ with 33 - about 10% of all spells presented - uniquely Wizard-only spells, and Sorcerers were the whipping boy, with exactly 0)

This back and forth has started to bother me more as time has gone on, because it's fundamentally about competing aesthetics, not the balance discussion it gets tangled in. That's the ground on which one side or the other will push the superiority of their position, but I don't think it's what the argument is about. Instead, I think it's mostly about choosing which one of two design goals is held to be more important, even if everyone involve probably holds both goals.

You've got a position that hold's the game's primary design goal (at the level of class design) should be to validate the player's expressed aesthetic choices, that players should make aesthetic decisions separately from the effectiveness of those choices, and rely on the game to then offer them commensurate impact. It's a team game of fighters and wizards going into holes and fighting monsters together.

The other side tends to hold the game's ultimate goal is to mechanically express their aesthetic choices, and that the game achieves this with the diversity of expression in how different aesthetics are reified in the gameplay and fictional world. Magic works like this, fighting works like this, and you can see how they are different.

I don't know that anyone has gone out of their way to hold both of those things in parity.

 

[Bluenose]

To give my perspective on why earlier editions were better balanced than 3e and 5e.

A 1st level Magic User has one spell at 1st level (two for a specialist). The saving throw of a HD creature against that spell is 17+. It'll probably land on most of a group (it's 19 for sub-1 HD creatures like kobolds). Throw your spell and you'll have an impact from it.

At 5th level that M-U has five spells, and some of them are more powerful (you have two 2nd level and one 3rd level spell slot). And if you're going at 5HD enemies they save on a 14+. About 1/3 of your targets will save. You've more spells, but the chance that they won't work is starting to be significant.

And at 18th level when you get your first 9th level spell, saving throws for most monsters of the level your character is are 6+. Anyone expecting to cast Dominate Monster and have a creature that can replace a front-line warrio, well you've got about one chance in four of it working. Not a great gamble.

And that's a primary balancing factor. By the time you're got enough spells to be using them regularly, a lot of targets have got a 50% chance or better to save against them. And that's what 3e did away with, and the 5e design deliberately chose to imitate 3e. And that they're certainly going to do again. Ensuring that Wizards not only get more power as they level up in their own right, but everyone becomes less able to resist them.

 

[ECMO3]

What word would you accept for the idea of presenting the player with as many choices as possible that are both meaningful and viable?

To steal from someone else, I think Broad is the right word for me.

I think 5E does this pretty effectively through feats (and to a lessor extent races and subclasses).

In this respect would like to see more feats, becasue that is something everyone has access to, but I would like more feats with no prerequisites or level requirements (and eliminate the few prerequisites that already exist). This would really allow for broader character development that is meaningful.

I also think the changes with ability scores in Tasha's and the newer spell abilities and feats and racial abilities that let you select the casting stat helps a lot in terms of broad. I don't have to figure out how to make my Half-Orc Wizard or Warlock work, I can just put the bonuses where I want them.

I don't really think the game needs more depth, although if that is desired by others I think more subclasses that could drive towards deeper character development would be the way to do this.

 

[Oofta]

To steal from someone else, I think Broad is the right word for me.

I think 5E does this pretty effectively through feats (and to a lessor extent races and subclasses).

In this respect would like to see more feats, becasue that is something everyone has access to, but I would like more feats with no prerequisites or level requirements (and eliminate the few prerequisites that already exist). This would really allow for broader character development that is meaningful.

I also think the changes with ability scores in Tasha's and the newer spell abilities and feats and racial abilities that let you select the casting stat helps a lot in terms of broad. I don't have to figure out how to make my Half-Orc Wizard or Warlock work, I can just put the bonuses where I want them.

I don't really think the game needs more depth, although if that is desired by others I think more subclasses that could drive towards deeper character development would be the way to do this.

The playtests floated the "Level 1 feat" that everyone gets, which I think is a good idea. Gives you a bit more customization. I thought there were some new feats as well? Funny thing is how few people actually use feats, it always seems to be a race to 20 for at least your primary ability score.

 

[ECMO3]

The playtests floated the "Level 1 feat" that everyone gets, which I think is a good idea. Gives you a bit more customization. I thought there were some new feats as well? Funny thing is how few people actually use feats, it always seems to be a race to 20 for at least your primary ability score.

I agree a lot of players don't seem to want to take feats. A lot also don't multiclass. I do both of those just about all the time.

I can't remember the last time I played a character that did not have a feat by 7th level, and I think the game works fine right to level 20 with a 16 in your main ability, so unless you rolled really bad at 1st level there is no real gameplay barrier to taking feats IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The playtests floated the "Level 1 feat" that everyone gets, which I think is a good idea. Gives you a bit more customization. I thought there were some new feats as well? Funny thing is how few people actually use feats, it always seems to be a race to 20 for at least your primary ability score.

Having feats compete with ASIs is not something I like. In my game I give the characters both.

 

[ECMO3]

Having feats compete with ASIs is not something I like. In my game I give the characters both.

I think we could just do away with ASIs and I would be ok.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To steal from someone else, I think Broad is the right word for me.

It's easy to see how that implies maximizing the number and variety of choices....

....but choices that are both meaningful and viable?

I think 5E does this pretty effectively through feats (and to a lessor extent races and subclasses).

5e presents a lot of choices in spells, a fair number in feats, and significantly fewer in race/class and sub-class. They're not exactly equally viable choices, tho.

In this respect would like to see more feats, becasue that is something everyone has access to, but I would like more feats with no prerequisites or level requirements (and eliminate the few prerequisites that already exist). This would really allow for broader character development that is meaningful.

Moar feats earlier does let every character be a little more customized. It also reduces the relative value of the Fighter's two bonus feats at 6th and whatever that higher level is that people don't generally play to....

 

[FrogReaver]

It's easy to see how that implies maximizing the number and variety of choices....

....but choices that are both meaningful and viable?

5e presents a lot of choices in spells, a fair number in feats, and significantly fewer in race/class and sub-class. They're not exactly equally viable choices, tho.

Moar feats earlier does let every character be a little more customized. It also reduces the relative value of the Fighter's two bonus feats at 6th and whatever that higher level is that people don't generally play to....

It’s also worth noting that most spells are pretty bad or nothing special. At least most of the time. It’s really a handful of spells that really push things over the top.