I agree that Battle Master doesn't scale well at the higher levels. That is just one reason why I think that baking battle master maneuvers into all the fighter archetypes (sub-classes) would not unbalance anything. Battle Master maneuvers would be great for ALL fighters. I don't think anybody is going to stop playing their wizard because fighters got a little stronger in melee. The opposite is true. Most parties that I see today have few or no martials. The spell casters can beef up their armor class and perform well enough in melee; there is no need for them to give up their magic. So the only thing a fighter can do to keep up with the casters is to multi-class and become a spell caster. Which is exactly what I see happening. That or melee characters who can also cast, like paladins and clerics.
1: The Fighter starts off comparatively strong, then gets comparatively weaker. Sounds like Battle Manoeuvres scales the wrong way. You want something that starts off pretty weak but then ramps up to help keep the Fighter in the game.
2. As overall context, it really should be noted that, according to the best data we have, the Fighter is the most popular class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Fighters the most popular class? Not in any games that I play or view. I would like to see that data because it just doesn't match with my experience. Also, most "fighter" archetypes have magical abilities...what we would have called "Magical Fighter" back in the day. Look at the current fighter archetypes. Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Purple Dragon Knight, and Rune Knight all check this box. That leaves Champion and Cavalier (both weak, need a hug), Samurai (interesting, but still under-powered), Gunslinger (okay, if we can’t have magic, we can use modern technology). So at the end of the day, who is playing a plain non-magical fighter? Very few, I think. How many Champions and Cavaliers have you seen?
Hey, I admit I'm part of the problem. I love the Echo Knight. But the most common character I see today is a caster who has beefed up his armor class to over 20 by various magical means. Who needs plate armor? Why stand in melee range anyway if you can blast your enemies from a safe distance and then teleport away if anyone gets close to you? A 5th level Warlock with 18 charisma can put out 2d10 + 8 with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. That's without using his bonus action. That's every turn with no limit, all from a safe distance. Hard for a 18 strength 5th level fighter to top that, even from melee. I don't think it is possible for a 5th level fighter to match that with a ranged attack.
Fighters the most popular class? Not in any games that I play or view. I would like to see that data because it just doesn't match with my experience.
Google it. Fighters are the most popular class, and generally speaking martials are more popular than casters. Your individual experience means nothing. I don't mean to be rude, but that's something you honestly have to get into your head. You have your group with various biases (especially small sample biaas). I've never seen anyone play a Sorcerer. Ever. Doesn't mean jack though, because that's just an anecdote. At my table that I'm running at the moment, I had 2 Rangers, a Pally, a Barb and a Rogue. We just had someone new and was very grateful that they chose Wizard. My last game I played as a player, there were two Fighters, two Barbs and I was the only Wizard player. Doesn't matter though, it's what everyone is doing that matters not my personal experience.
Also, most "fighter" archetypes have magical abilities...what we would have called "Magical Fighter" back in the day. Look at the current fighter archetypes. Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Purple Dragon Knight, and Rune Knight all check this box. That leaves Champion and Cavalier (both weak, need a hug), Samurai (interesting, but still under-powered), Gunslinger (okay, if we can’t have magic, we can use modern technology). So at the end of the day, who is playing a plain non-magical fighter? Very few, I think. How many Champions and Cavaliers have you seen?
You're casting the net for "magical" quite wide. There's only do many ways you can make hitting people with a sword interesting without resorting to a magic-like effect. It's also worth noting that Champion is also the most popular subclass. Cavaliers are naturally going to be infrequent - they're themed to be mounted in a game where mounted rules are awkward and you're often inside. Of course, they're mostly tooled for combat regardless of being mounted or not - but that it's ostensibly for mounted combat works against it. Plus, being in XGtE doesn't help either.
Hey, I admit I'm part of the problem. I love the Echo Knight. But the most common character I see today is a caster who has beefed up his armor class to over 20 by various magical means. Who needs plate armor? Why stand in melee range anyway if you can blast your enemies from a safe distance and then teleport away if anyone gets close to you? A 5th level Warlock with 18 charisma can put out 2d10 + 8 with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. That's without using his bonus action. That's every turn with no limit, all from a safe distance. Hard for a 18 strength 5th level fighter to top that, even from melee. I don't think it is possible for a 5th level fighter to match that with a ranged attack.
A Fighter can do 2d12+26 with a Str score of 16, without using his Bonus Action, and can do that all day long. Greatsword with GWM. Those extra ASIs come in handy for getting feats ;)
My point is that you're theory crafting. The problem is that when you do that, you're idealising the situation to prove your point. For example, you've not mentioned that a Warlock has disadvantage if someone gets within 5'...which is a major problem because...you often spend much of the battle within 5' of someone.
Anyways, we can argue all day on these details. It's kinda pointless. The problem with martials isn't with L1-5. They rule the roost at that point because casters aren't so much glass cannons so much as wet paper bags. It's later on they start ramping up in power. Even in combat though...the gap between casters and martials isn't all that (assuming we're not stacking the deck). They each have roles and do them well. The problem is outside of combat. Martials don't really evolve. Casters expand and become masters of everything and can bend the universe to their will. Martials just hit you with their sharp stick a few more times.
Martials need to have cool abilities in the late game. Assuming you think they need fixing - that they're more popular does have a tone of them being fine as they are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Martials need to have cool abilities in the late game. Assuming you think they need fixing - that they're more popular does have a tone of them being fine as they are.
It's worth noting that the same dataset that has martials the most popular also shows that most campaigns don't get to higher levels. If your campaign stops at level 4 martials will feel super strong. If you campaign stops at level 8 martials will be fine. If your campaign stops at level 12, the DM better start being pretty generous about magic items. If it's gonna hit level 20, it's time to be giving the martial characters sentient artifact weapons and so on (which can in fact be a solution, though you may need to play fast and loose with the attunement rules).
The only reason fighters might be played more, is because all groups make the new player just learning the game, play a fighter as it is easier to learn. Once that first character dies, no one ever plays a straight fighter (they use fighter for a 2-3 level dip or they multi-class it with rogue, etc.). Fighters are absolutely NOT the most commonly chosen class by anyone who has played more than a minute.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The only reason fighters might be played more, is because all groups make the new player just learning the game, play a fighter as it is easier to learn. Once that first character dies, no one ever plays a straight fighter (they use fighter for a 2-3 level dip or they multi-class it with rogue, etc.). Fighters are absolutely NOT the most commonly chosen class by anyone who has played more than a minute.
Citation needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The only reason fighters might be played more, is because all groups make the new player just learning the game, play a fighter as it is easier to learn. Once that first character dies, no one ever plays a straight fighter (they use fighter for a 2-3 level dip or they multi-class it with rogue, etc.). Fighters are absolutely NOT the most commonly chosen class by anyone who has played more than a minute.
I have been playing D&D since the original edition. So those who think that fighter is the most common class travel in circles other than HarmAssassin and myself. YMMV, but in my experience, new players don't take long to figure out that fighters are not the most fun class to play. That's a shame, but it is the truth.
Iv'e also been playing for exactly 40 yrs. Fighters are the least played class outside of new players. (That comes across harsher than I intended it)
Me too. Exactly 40! Twinning!
I don’t know what to tell you. Except that I have enough complications in my life that when I’m blowing off steam, I like to solve all of my problems by hitting them over the head with a broadsword.
People have, however, been complaining about linear fighters/quadratic wizards since... I think AD&D (I cannot off hand find when the term entered popular usage).
Only one edition of D&D fixed it -- and the fix was widely hated (that would be 4th edition).
If you look at other game systems... most of them haven't fixed it either. Every game system I've seen fix the problem did it by either nerfing magic into the ground (more or less what 4e did), or by just giving everyone superpowers, whether they're magical or not (for example, it's a non-problem in most overtly superpowered games, as well as games heavily influenced by anime/manga/manhwa or where everyone is playing demigods anyway like Exalted). There might be a solution that isn't one of those two... but forty years of trying hasn't found it.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If fighters are truly the most popular class (sorry, still don't buy it) why are Wizards universally recognized to be the most powerful class?
If you are not willing look at the data...then whether you buy it or not is irrelevant for reasons already explained. To answer your question though, because people often don't choose their class based on how powerful they are. Even if they did, arguendo, Pantagruel's post #68 points out why they might still pick a Fighter. We used to to do L3 one-shots at my FLGS...I learned that casters really do suck at low level compared to martials. For most players, you live in the low levels. Most games will go through them, but most won't ever leave. If I have a DM I suspect will flake out...I'll roll a martial. The reasoning is simple - if the campaign collapses early (and it most likely will), then casters never got their potential at all and the whole experience is a downer. Martials still provide a good time because they're actually good in the early levels.
The big point, lest you miss it, is that players don't powergame. They're not choosing classes based on which one is the most powerful. Wizards are very powerful...but also a very niche archetype and playstyle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If fighters are truly the most popular class (sorry, still don't buy it) why are Wizards universally recognized to be the most powerful class?
If you are not willing look at the data...then whether you buy it or not is irrelevant for reasons already explained. To answer your question though, because people often don't choose their class based on how powerful they are. Even if they did, arguendo, Pantagruel's post #68 points out why they might still pick a Fighter. We used to to do L3 one-shots at my FLGS...I learned that casters really do suck at low level compared to martials. For most players, you live in the low levels. Most games will go through them, but most won't ever leave. If I have a DM I suspect will flake out...I'll roll a martial. The reasoning is simple - if the campaign collapses early (and it most likely will), then casters never got their potential at all and the whole experience is a downer. Martials still provide a good time because they're actually good in the early levels.
The big point, lest you miss it, is that players don't powergame. They're not choosing classes based on which one is the most powerful. Wizards are very powerful...but also a very niche archetype and playstyle.
It seems to me that the big point is: In the real world, where we actually play and experience the game - for most players, martials are actually stronger. The strength casters have on paper rarely materialises in actual games.
And then we can all nod at the fact that at a high enough level, wizards/full casters become more or less immune to martials. Myself, I've played for 35+ years, and I can't remember the last time I played a high level character (I can though, a 2e paladin that reached level 16, which would have been in the mid 90's).
Not posting this to disagree with you. Just to point out that ... that's the conclusion I reach from the data you mention =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that Battle Master doesn't scale well at the higher levels. That is just one reason why I think that baking battle master maneuvers into all the fighter archetypes (sub-classes) would not unbalance anything. Battle Master maneuvers would be great for ALL fighters. I don't think anybody is going to stop playing their wizard because fighters got a little stronger in melee. The opposite is true. Most parties that I see today have few or no martials. The spell casters can beef up their armor class and perform well enough in melee; there is no need for them to give up their magic. So the only thing a fighter can do to keep up with the casters is to multi-class and become a spell caster. Which is exactly what I see happening. That or melee characters who can also cast, like paladins and clerics.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Two things.
1: The Fighter starts off comparatively strong, then gets comparatively weaker. Sounds like Battle Manoeuvres scales the wrong way. You want something that starts off pretty weak but then ramps up to help keep the Fighter in the game.
2. As overall context, it really should be noted that, according to the best data we have, the Fighter is the most popular class.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Fighters the most popular class? Not in any games that I play or view. I would like to see that data because it just doesn't match with my experience. Also, most "fighter" archetypes have magical abilities...what we would have called "Magical Fighter" back in the day. Look at the current fighter archetypes. Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Purple Dragon Knight, and Rune Knight all check this box. That leaves Champion and Cavalier (both weak, need a hug), Samurai (interesting, but still under-powered), Gunslinger (okay, if we can’t have magic, we can use modern technology). So at the end of the day, who is playing a plain non-magical fighter? Very few, I think. How many Champions and Cavaliers have you seen?
Hey, I admit I'm part of the problem. I love the Echo Knight. But the most common character I see today is a caster who has beefed up his armor class to over 20 by various magical means. Who needs plate armor? Why stand in melee range anyway if you can blast your enemies from a safe distance and then teleport away if anyone gets close to you? A 5th level Warlock with 18 charisma can put out 2d10 + 8 with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. That's without using his bonus action. That's every turn with no limit, all from a safe distance. Hard for a 18 strength 5th level fighter to top that, even from melee. I don't think it is possible for a 5th level fighter to match that with a ranged attack.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Google it. Fighters are the most popular class, and generally speaking martials are more popular than casters. Your individual experience means nothing. I don't mean to be rude, but that's something you honestly have to get into your head. You have your group with various biases (especially small sample biaas). I've never seen anyone play a Sorcerer. Ever. Doesn't mean jack though, because that's just an anecdote. At my table that I'm running at the moment, I had 2 Rangers, a Pally, a Barb and a Rogue. We just had someone new and was very grateful that they chose Wizard. My last game I played as a player, there were two Fighters, two Barbs and I was the only Wizard player. Doesn't matter though, it's what everyone is doing that matters not my personal experience.
You're casting the net for "magical" quite wide. There's only do many ways you can make hitting people with a sword interesting without resorting to a magic-like effect. It's also worth noting that Champion is also the most popular subclass. Cavaliers are naturally going to be infrequent - they're themed to be mounted in a game where mounted rules are awkward and you're often inside. Of course, they're mostly tooled for combat regardless of being mounted or not - but that it's ostensibly for mounted combat works against it. Plus, being in XGtE doesn't help either.
A Fighter can do 2d12+26 with a Str score of 16, without using his Bonus Action, and can do that all day long. Greatsword with GWM. Those extra ASIs come in handy for getting feats ;)
My point is that you're theory crafting. The problem is that when you do that, you're idealising the situation to prove your point. For example, you've not mentioned that a Warlock has disadvantage if someone gets within 5'...which is a major problem because...you often spend much of the battle within 5' of someone.
Anyways, we can argue all day on these details. It's kinda pointless. The problem with martials isn't with L1-5. They rule the roost at that point because casters aren't so much glass cannons so much as wet paper bags. It's later on they start ramping up in power. Even in combat though...the gap between casters and martials isn't all that (assuming we're not stacking the deck). They each have roles and do them well. The problem is outside of combat. Martials don't really evolve. Casters expand and become masters of everything and can bend the universe to their will. Martials just hit you with their sharp stick a few more times.
Martials need to have cool abilities in the late game. Assuming you think they need fixing - that they're more popular does have a tone of them being fine as they are.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's worth noting that the same dataset that has martials the most popular also shows that most campaigns don't get to higher levels. If your campaign stops at level 4 martials will feel super strong. If you campaign stops at level 8 martials will be fine. If your campaign stops at level 12, the DM better start being pretty generous about magic items. If it's gonna hit level 20, it's time to be giving the martial characters sentient artifact weapons and so on (which can in fact be a solution, though you may need to play fast and loose with the attunement rules).
If fighters are truly the most popular class (sorry, still don't buy it) why are Wizards universally recognized to be the most powerful class?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Because quadratic wizard/linear fighter. Wizards are kinda crappy in tier 1.
The only reason fighters might be played more, is because all groups make the new player just learning the game, play a fighter as it is easier to learn. Once that first character dies, no one ever plays a straight fighter (they use fighter for a 2-3 level dip or they multi-class it with rogue, etc.). Fighters are absolutely NOT the most commonly chosen class by anyone who has played more than a minute.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Citation needed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Been playing 40 years and fighter is my go to.
Those who think that martials are the equal of casters should watch this...skip the annoying introduction if you like.
https://youtu.be/u1rb9kFFbkA
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Iv'e also been playing for exactly 40 yrs. Fighters are the least played class outside of new players. (That comes across harsher than I intended it)
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
A personal anecdote isn't evidence of anything outside of personal experience.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
+1
I have been playing D&D since the original edition. So those who think that fighter is the most common class travel in circles other than HarmAssassin and myself. YMMV, but in my experience, new players don't take long to figure out that fighters are not the most fun class to play. That's a shame, but it is the truth.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Me too. Exactly 40! Twinning!
I don’t know what to tell you. Except that I have enough complications in my life that when I’m blowing off steam, I like to solve all of my problems by hitting them over the head with a broadsword.
People have, however, been complaining about linear fighters/quadratic wizards since... I think AD&D (I cannot off hand find when the term entered popular usage).
Only one edition of D&D fixed it -- and the fix was widely hated (that would be 4th edition).
If you look at other game systems... most of them haven't fixed it either. Every game system I've seen fix the problem did it by either nerfing magic into the ground (more or less what 4e did), or by just giving everyone superpowers, whether they're magical or not (for example, it's a non-problem in most overtly superpowered games, as well as games heavily influenced by anime/manga/manhwa or where everyone is playing demigods anyway like Exalted). There might be a solution that isn't one of those two... but forty years of trying hasn't found it.
Do you mean linear martials?
Cause that makes much better sense to me =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Fixed. I meant fighters, since that's how it was phrased back in AD&D.
If you are not willing look at the data...then whether you buy it or not is irrelevant for reasons already explained. To answer your question though, because people often don't choose their class based on how powerful they are. Even if they did, arguendo, Pantagruel's post #68 points out why they might still pick a Fighter. We used to to do L3 one-shots at my FLGS...I learned that casters really do suck at low level compared to martials. For most players, you live in the low levels. Most games will go through them, but most won't ever leave. If I have a DM I suspect will flake out...I'll roll a martial. The reasoning is simple - if the campaign collapses early (and it most likely will), then casters never got their potential at all and the whole experience is a downer. Martials still provide a good time because they're actually good in the early levels.
The big point, lest you miss it, is that players don't powergame. They're not choosing classes based on which one is the most powerful. Wizards are very powerful...but also a very niche archetype and playstyle.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It seems to me that the big point is: In the real world, where we actually play and experience the game - for most players, martials are actually stronger. The strength casters have on paper rarely materialises in actual games.
And then we can all nod at the fact that at a high enough level, wizards/full casters become more or less immune to martials. Myself, I've played for 35+ years, and I can't remember the last time I played a high level character (I can though, a 2e paladin that reached level 16, which would have been in the mid 90's).
Not posting this to disagree with you. Just to point out that ... that's the conclusion I reach from the data you mention =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.