If you don't believe the fundamental design of the system is biased against martial variety and power, then look no further than basic class features. For this example I'll only use the base classes in the PHB and not even talk about subclasses.
For casters, they start out with fewer armor/weapon proficiencies but if they find some way to pick up heavy armor proficiency (and there are many ways to do it), then they can still access all their class features. There are no class features (or spells I think) worded as "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon".
Meanwhile in the land of martials...
* Barbarians can only rage "when not wearing heavy armor", and only get their movement bonus in the same circumstance. Even unarmored defense is carefully worded such that it only works if you don't wear armor (would it be so bad if a barbarian wanted to wear armor for flavor but use their unarmored defense AC? It surely would not break anything). * Monks can only do martial arts with shortswords or with simple melee weapons that lack the heavy/two-handed property, and also cannot do so if wearing any armor or using a shield. * Rogues can only sneak attack with special finesse weapons (or ranged).
The martials above all don't start with these proficiencies, but they could acquire them just like casters. But the features themselves prevent the martials from accessing their class features even if they were proficient.
Now I can hear some of the comments about realism (side note - why are martials always held to the strictest realism and casters are not) but here are some examples to consider: - A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury.. - A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee. - A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive.
Would it be so terrible if martials could play around with flavor like this and have more fun in the process? Would it really break anything? It surely won't make any of these martials better than their caster counterparts, perhaps it leaves fighter out in the cold a bit (but that's probably because fighter features need love).
Spellcasters and their main Class Feature, Spellcasting, are hampered by the fact that they can't wear any armor they aren't proficient with, or else they essentially can't cast. They also have to track spell components (V, S, M), but very few DMs in my experience stick hard to those rules.
There IS a big disparity between martials and casters, but personally I don't think this is the area it exists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Spellcasters and their main Class Feature, Spellcasting, are hampered by the fact that they can't wear any armor they aren't proficient with, or else they essentially can't cast. They also have to track spell components (V, S, M), but very few DMs in my experience stick hard to those rules.
There IS a big disparity between martials and casters, but personally I don't think this is the area it exists.
Well I guess what I'm saying is that the designers go out of their way to make any spellcasting fantasy you can imagine (in armor or not, using any weapons you want) because the only limitation is "do I have proficiency" (which is very easy to get). Meanwhile they've made it really hard to fulfill any martial fantasy you want, because "realism" (I guess).
My argument on this one is even less about power/ability and like just flavor and letting things be interesting. Like my favorite fantasy of rogue-type is a brutish enforcer and he'd look like a dweeb with that stupid rapier they want me to use!
I also agree partly with you - this isn't the biggest gap and is relatively small, BUT it does show the mindset of the designers is clearly centered on casters.
if they find some way to pick up heavy armor proficiency (and there are many ways to do it), then they can still access all their class features. There are no class features (or spells I think) worded as "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon".
So, Wizards have No proficiency in Armor of any sort to start.
Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
Stuck only in the PHB, with no subclasses, there is no way to gain armor training (Armor Proficiency, since we re using PHB) *except* by multiclassing. So not a lot of ways. ANd once they multiclass, they are no longer "just a caster".
"A one level dip into Fighter before they become a Wizard" so they can wear armor without disadvantage and cast spells. Make them role play it. That is, make them start as a fighter. I mean, technically, that's how it is supposed to work.
And if they do so, then they are a 2nd level character, assuming 1 in fighter, 1 in Wizard. Which knocks them out if the game is to be played by 1st level characters.
3rd Level characters? Well, now you have a 1 in FIghter, 2 in Wizard.
5th Level? 3/2 in some combination, maybe 4/1, but they still only get the special features of one, not both, because they haven't touched the 3rd level entry point most have -- need to be at least 6th for that and that means they are still three levels in abilities behind everyone else.
Again, not using subclasses, using just the PHB. There are not a lot of ways they can get it.
Oh, a Feat? Six feats. Total. Only one of which they can take to start, when they get their first ASI, which Wizards get at 4th level, so they cannot take a feat until 4th level. Ignoring that Feats are optional.
Again, only way for a wizard to start out with armor proficiency is to multiclass (or start the game at much higher level). As for Heavy, well, there is only one way to do that, which is to multi-class. Again, within the PHB, no sub classes.
Now, your table may have some house rules, and it is vaguely possible I could be wrong here after just looking all that up, but if you are going just by the PHB, without subclasses, the absolute best they could do would be to give up their ASI for Lightly Armored Feat at 4th level. Otherwise, if they wear armor (any armor) they cannot cast spells, and anything else they do is at disadvantage.
If you have a group and one of the characters is multiclass, remember that their total class level in 5e is the total of all their class levels, but they can only access the stuff from those classes at the levels they have in those classes. This makes them much more powerful -- a 4/4 Fighter Wizard is an 8th level character. Should not be in a 4th level adventure.
Clerics get light and medium -- they can take heavy at 4th level as a feat in place of their ASI, too -- but cannot get to it otherwise. Given the prior post, this is likely the issue, but that's the literal design of clerics -- they also have to choose between a much smaller assortment of weapons. They don't get heavy without a Feat, the have fewer and less damaging weapons, and they have magic that can make those weapons more powerful.
They are the original mixed caster/fighter. They are supposed to be decent at both. Plus healing. The Four Core: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. Wizards are all magic, Fighters are all fight, Clerics are fight plus magic, and rogues are sneak up and slit yer throat and do more damage than the others that way. Originally, Clerics only had spells up to 7th level (and their higher level spells were equal to 9th level ones). They could only use blunt weapons. They could wear heavy armor. And that was in the original D&D game, the first basic, AD&D, 2nd E. That's how they are set up.
The same problem you are talking about here applied to Clerics back then -- but they weren't ever seen as better than fighters. Most of them had to use their magic for healing. And they were hell on Skeletons (which could only be hurt by blunt items plus were undead, lol).
I dislike minmaxing, but I am willing to bet that a minmaxed Cleric in 5e is at least somewhat equal to a minmaxed Fighter -- perhaps a little behind in HP and survival, but easily stand along in DPR. Because they are supposed to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
if they find some way to pick up heavy armor proficiency (and there are many ways to do it), then they can still access all their class features. There are no class features (or spells I think) worded as "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon".
So, Wizards have No proficiency in Armor of any sort to start.
Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
Stuck only in the PHB, with no subclasses, there is no way to gain armor training (Armor Proficiency, since we re using PHB) *except* by multiclassing. So not a lot of ways. ANd once they multiclass, they are no longer "just a caster".
"A one level dip into Fighter before they become a Wizard" so they can wear armor without disadvantage and cast spells. Make them role play it. That is, make them start as a fighter. I mean, technically, that's how it is supposed to work.
And if they do so, then they are a 2nd level character, assuming 1 in fighter, 1 in Wizard. Which knocks them out if the game is to be played by 1st level characters.
3rd Level characters? Well, now you have a 1 in FIghter, 2 in Wizard.
5th Level? 3/2 in some combination, maybe 4/1, but they still only get the special features of one, not both, because they haven't touched the 3rd level entry point most have -- need to be at least 6th for that and that means they are still three levels in abilities behind everyone else.
Again, not using subclasses, using just the PHB. There are not a lot of ways they can get it.
Oh, a Feat? Six feats. Total. Only one of which they can take to start, when they get their first ASI, which Wizards get at 4th level, so they cannot take a feat until 4th level. Ignoring that Feats are optional.
Again, only way for a wizard to start out with armor proficiency is to multiclass (or start the game at much higher level). As for Heavy, well, there is only one way to do that, which is to multi-class. Again, within the PHB, no sub classes.
Now, your table may have some house rules, and it is vaguely possible I could be wrong here after just looking all that up, but if you are going just by the PHB, without subclasses, the absolute best they could do would be to give up their ASI for Lightly Armored Feat at 4th level. Otherwise, if they wear armor (any armor) they cannot cast spells, and anything else they do is at disadvantage.
If you have a group and one of the characters is multiclass, remember that their total class level in 5e is the total of all their class levels, but they can only access the stuff from those classes at the levels they have in those classes. This makes them much more powerful -- a 4/4 Fighter Wizard is an 8th level character. Should not be in a 4th level adventure.
Clerics get light and medium -- they can take heavy at 4th level as a feat in place of their ASI, too -- but cannot get to it otherwise. Given the prior post, this is likely the issue, but that's the literal design of clerics -- they also have to choose between a much smaller assortment of weapons. They don't get heavy without a Feat, the have fewer and less damaging weapons, and they have magic that can make those weapons more powerful.
They are the original mixed caster/fighter. They are supposed to be decent at both. Plus healing. The Four Core: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. Wizards are all magic, Fighters are all fight, Clerics are fight plus magic, and rogues are sneak up and slit yer throat and do more damage than the others that way. Originally, Clerics only had spells up to 7th level (and their higher level spells were equal to 9th level ones). They could only use blunt weapons. They could wear heavy armor. And that was in the original D&D game, the first basic, AD&D, 2nd E. That's how they are set up.
The same problem you are talking about here applied to Clerics back then -- but they weren't ever seen as better than fighters. Most of them had to use their magic for healing. And they were hell on Skeletons (which could only be hurt by blunt items plus were undead, lol).
I dislike minmaxing, but I am willing to bet that a minmaxed Cleric in 5e is at least somewhat equal to a minmaxed Fighter -- perhaps a little behind in HP and survival, but easily stand along in DPR. Because they are supposed to be.
A Mountain Dwarf Wizard gets proficiency in light and medium armor. So at 4th they could get heavy armor proficiency.
Like my favorite fantasy of rogue-type is a brutish enforcer and he'd look like a dweeb with that stupid rapier they want me to use!
Sounds like what you want is a barbarian (with Skilled and/or Skill Expert, even), flavored to be a brutish enforcer and with a weapon that fits your character concept better
A couple of barb subclasses even offer substitutes for classic 5e rogue features -- Totem Warrior/Eagle gives you a lesser version of Cunning Action at 3rd level, for instance, or Zealot's Divine Fury can sub in for Sneak Attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sorry I may not have been clear - I was only limiting myself to looking at base classes in the PHB to save time and not crawl thru all the other classes and subclasses out there.
Here are two ways within that bounds that keep you "only a caster": (if you expand beyond the PHB there are only more ways to do it)
- Be a Mountain Dwarf - you get medium armor as part of your race. - Start your career as a War Domain Cleric and then switch to Wizard. Gets you that heavy armor proficiency and while your spell level progression will suffer by 1 level, your number of spell slots will be just as good plus some pretty nice cleric spells in that L1 list.
I agree with you that clerics should have armor proficiency. Heck I don't even disagree with the idea that a wizard can acquire it - I'm cool with an armored wizard slinging spells around - it sounds fun.
What I'm not cool with is that the kind of cool martial combinations I listed are not possible/feasible at all. While it isn't "free" for a wizard to get armor proficiency, they can get it and have it work for them while casting spells. It is not even possible for a monk to wear armor and use most of their class features (even if they go to the cost of multiclassing fighter or something), and a rogue is practically limited to either using short swords or rapiers, and a barbarian that wants to wear armor is out of luck, etc.
I'm definitely not arguing to take the armor choices away from casters, I am arguing to give the martials the same amount of choice in their builds with respect to armor and weapons. if they can acquire the needed proficiency then they should be able to use the armor/weapon.
Like my favorite fantasy of rogue-type is a brutish enforcer and he'd look like a dweeb with that stupid rapier they want me to use!
Sounds like what you want is a barbarian (with Skilled and/or Skill Expert, even), flavored to be a brutish enforcer and with a weapon that fits your character concept better
A couple of barb subclasses even offer substitutes for classic 5e rogue features -- Totem Warrior/Eagle gives you a lesser version of Cunning Action at 3rd level, for instance, or Zealot's Divine Fury can sub in for Sneak Attack
That could be a cool way to build it. I guess reflavoring the "barbarian" is the biggest bit which seems doable, and raging as some kind of more focused determination. Definitely gives me some ideas.
I may be missing the point: Why whould the wizard want armor again?
I feel like what you're getting at is that if wizards want, they can get armor and still use spells, while if a barbarian wants, he can get the armor, but then he can't rage. And while that's certainly true, I just don't see why that makes a difference to you?
I can explain why, though. It's because fighters get all the armor, and barbarians get all the rage, and we need to get them neatly sorted in their respective roles, because otherwise there's no need for those two to be separate classes, they could just be different versions of fighter. Whereas the wizard, armor or no armor, isn't really in any risk of being 'just another fighter'. Or barbarian.
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.
I may be missing the point: Why whould the wizard want armor again?
I feel like what you're getting at is that if wizards want, they can get armor and still use spells, while if a barbarian wants, he can get the armor, but then he can't rage. And while that's certainly true, I just don't see why that makes a difference to you?
I can explain why, though. It's because fighters get all the armor, and barbarians get all the rage, and we need to get them neatly sorted in their respective roles, because otherwise there's no need for those two to be separate classes, they could just be different versions of fighter. Whereas the wizard, armor or no armor, isn't really in any risk of being 'just another fighter'. Or barbarian.
I like that my friend who wants to play a wizard that has armor and a sword can do so (he was Gith and dipped 1 level of fighter and went to L13 in wizard). He ran around in plate with a sword had a good AC which he would boost with shield and was slinging spells all over. I am glad that anyone that has that fantasy can fulfill it in the game. You might argue it wasn't an optimal build but what mattered is that it was fun for him. He was so committed to his vision of this character that when we found a Staff of Power he wasn't initially inclined to take it in favor of his +1 sword, lol.
I'm bummed that some of my favorite martial ideas/fantasies can't be fulfilled in the game without contortion (I listed some examples in the initial post) because there are artificial boundaries on martials. And my bigger point is that this exists because the design team has a particular bias about "martials have to fit in these tropes" and are not open to alternate ways of playing those classes while simultaneously being more than happy to provide nearly infinite variety in other classes.
If you're right and the line between barbarian and fighter is so fragile that it is broken when a barbarian has some armor, then to me that's just shit class design.
I am breaking the original post in way to directly address the several points, bullet statements, and questions. I want to make sure my comments directed at the specific text. My apologies for the length and I am only highlighting the points to aid in my responses clarity:
For casters, they start out with fewer armor/weapon proficiencies but if they find some way to pick up heavy armor proficiency (and there are many ways to do it), then they can still access all their class features. There are no class features (or spells I think) worded as "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon".
Going off the criteria set in the original post regarding "not even talk about subclasses", I am going to apply this to some of the spellcasting classes when examining their ability to access their class features.
Wizard class features: Spellcasting and Arcane Recovery (Level 1); Spell Mastery (Level 18); Signature Spells (Level 20)
Sorcerer class features: Spellcasting (Level 1); Font of Magic (Level 2): Metamatic (Level 3); Metamatic (Level 10); Metamagic (Level 17); Sorcerous Restoration(Level 20)
Now these classes all also gain more spells and spell slots as they grow in level, and that aligns with the fact that all their class features are related to what they can do with their spellcasting abilities. What they do not get, however, are features that allow for improvements in movement, defenses, or attacking damage. And for the most part the quantity of unique features or additional AIS is fewer for the casters when compared to most of the martial classes. So while a caster may not have any restrictions to access the class options they have; they also are not getting class options at the same frequency or a feature that is not associated with their spellcasting. (The Bard does get more features with Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, Counter Charm, and Fount of Inspiration; but at higher levels these class options are increases of the die value for their features or options to learn spells from a different class). In the end, the argument can be made, that the martial class features are an improvement when compared to the general rules of the game but the trade off is they give up some general/basic resources that the game offers. Spellcasters are not offered such benefits as part of their class options; their features are primarily aligned with how they use magic based on their class.
Now 5e does allow spellcasting in armor provided the character gains a proficiency, so there is no limit there. However there are instance where "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon" is true from a weapon standpoint as some spellcasters have to make sure the "V, S, M" components of the spell are being honored at the time of casting.
* Barbarians can only rage "when not wearing heavy armor", and only get their movement bonus in the same circumstance.
They also get the benefit of being able to half damage for bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. It plays into the fantasy that their raging state strengthens their physical being and pain contributes to inspiring its power (taking damage keeps raging intact). As far as the movement, the game has place restrictions related to armors in the past. Examples: DEX can't be applied to AC when in heavy armor; some armors set disadvantage to Stealth checks. And based on how the feature is meant to benefit the character this restriction of armor makes logical sense.
Even unarmored defense is carefully worded such that it only works if you don't wear armor (would it be so bad if a barbarian wanted to wear armor for flavor but use their unarmored defense AC? It surely would not break anything).
Unarmored defense is carefully worded by using the term Unarmored in the title of the feature. I mean, it is absurd we have to go beyond the title Unarmored Defense to see that this feature will require the character to be unarmored.
The statement in parenthesis is baffling. The benefit from the armor comes form wearing it. By making it possible to waive the benefit could absolutely cause a break in the game. How is it ruled that a player wearing armor is or isn't benefiting from it? Can a DM make a ruling on the fly? Can the player?
Here is an example where it could cause an issue in the flow of the game. Ioun Stone of Agility. If a Barbarian is attuned and using the stone, wearing plate armor, and benefiting from unarmored defense; and a Monster successfully removes the stone and the character's DEX drops by 1 and now the unarmored defense AC is less than the plate armor. Can the Barbarian announce their AC is now being calculated by the plate armor?
* Monks can only do martial arts with shortswords or with simple melee weapons that lack the heavy/two-handed property, and also cannot do so if wearing any armor or using a shield.
The Monk's Martial Arts feature is based on fighting with an open or unarmed hand. That is the build of this class. The rules were set to allow a character of this class to be a combatant with their body being their weapon of choice. I do admit the game developers should have used a different title for the feature. Martial arts come in wide variety. But the intent of this was to make a powerful class that doesn't relay on weapons for their strength. Using two handed weapons would negate an open hand. Using martial weapons would require them to fight with techniques of the weapon and not techniques that allows their body to become a weapon. And the class is very powerful in combat even with the limitations that it has.
* Rogues can only sneak attack with special finesse weapons (or ranged).
Rogues can sneak attack with regular finesse weapons, there doesn't have to be anything special about them. Range weapons count as well. This is because the Rouge is built to be DEX based character and the Sneak Attack feature rewards the character for building up their DEX score. Being DEX based combatant, the character is limited to the number of weapons that can benefit form its primary modifier. This feature boosts the Rouge and makes them very powerful in encounters.
The martials above all don't start with these proficiencies, but they could acquire them just like casters. But the features themselves prevent the martials from accessing their class features even if they were proficient.
And the spellcasters cannot gain any of the features listed in the class' examples unless if they multiclass into the class that offers the feature and gain a level in the class where the feature is made available. And if they did so, then the spellcaster couldn't benefit form the proficiencies, just like the martial class, if they want to use these features. Many Wizards who happily trade in a Feat to get the unarmored defense feature; another benefit for investing in their CON score would be happily accepted over being proficient in an armor type.
Why do you feel that these restrictions are examples decreasing the ability of the class, and not see it as a trade off with a benefit? The class must abide to a set of requirements but gain something other classes do no have access to. This is what makes them unique and impactful in the game. They are gaining abilities along with accepting these restrictions; and for the most part the restrictions are to keep a balance between the martial classes in the hope that another one doesn't get obsoleted.
Now I can hear some of the comments about realism (side note - why are martials always held to the strictest realism and casters are not) but here are some examples to consider:
There is nothing real about Dungeons and Dragons. The game is filled with supernatural occurrences influencing beings drawn out of fantasy literature and myths, and monsters that defy the theories of biology, chemistry, physics, and evolution. The rules allow players to have their fictional character achieve things that are limited only by combination of their own imagination and the DM's rulings based on series of guidelines and rulesets developed by individuals who are inspired by sword & sorcery novels, mythology, comic books, Saturday morning cartoons, B-movies, weekday after school cartoons, pulp magazines, folklore, history, and their favorite action figures they played with a children. This is game. Everything about it is fake. From the way characters survive bone crushing injuries from Giants to flying lizards that spew cones of flames that can incinerate living things. There is no realism in this game or how any character is structured. The lineage of the World Wrestling Entertainment, former World Wrestling Federation, World Championship consists of far more realism than any number of Dungeon and Dragons ever played. With the only exception being that the most dice roles are random and not predetermined.
The classes are designed in an attempt to prevent one or a subset from becoming move powerful over others. The game designs are not always successful and there is room for improvement. But the motivation of the game design is not "realism".
- A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury..
There is nothing in the game that prevents this.
- A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee.
There is nothing in the game that prevents this.
- A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive.
There is nothing in the game that prevents this. Though this is one of the biggest misconceptions about the game. You know what classes can do this: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. They all have proficiency in martial weapons. The game literally defines them as martial artists, the are proficient in fighting with martial weapons and thus know martial fighting tactics.
The problem that needs to be discussed is that we, the community of players in this game, can come in with preconceived notions of what the class is supposed to be based on influences and experiences in our lives not related to the game. The expectation then becomes that it is the game's responsibility to ensure the class' definition meet our expectations. This is a fallacy. The game defines a class that a player can play and in that definition there are features, benefits, bonuses, and restrictions that create a balanced and playable character class. The class definitions are in place to alleviate the situations where a single player or small subset of players at table can vastly out perform the other players. If we look at it from a game ruleset and see that the objective is to create a foundation for character builds then we can allow our imagination to create characters that meets the desire for our playing experience and we do this not by the class' name but by class(es) features that will help us achieve our desired goals.
Lets go back to your examples:
- A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury..Uttering words in an ancient tongue, the sky rapidly turns gray and dark clouds swirl; the gods of storm and the sea radiate their champion's sword with their divine favor that will be released when the first opponent is struck. - The convoy moves carefully through a path that upon further review appears to be too obscured from the main roads. Suddenly loud screeches and battle cries can be heard, as beings spring forth form camouflage hiding places and drop from the tree tops. A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee.The convoy flee and take cover, as the group of enraged bandits plunder their stock; and the convey hopes they leave with their spoils and spare the lives of the travelers. - A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive. Following into the fray, a silver wolf who attacks one creature out the reach of the glaive. The pair proceeds to coordinate tactics and easily chase of the opposition. As they celebrates their victory, it is easy to see the two have a bond that is deeper than the average adventuring party composition.
All of the examples can be fit into narrative scenario that works in the game and can be done by adjusting the character's class so that the features align with how the character is played. The game establishes the class ruleset so players can build the character. How a player opts to portray the character in the theatre of the mind is not limited by the class they take. The class' definition is to define limits, restrictions, and exceptions to the general rules that are the baseline for playing the game.
Would it be so terrible if martials could play around with flavor like this and have more fun in the process? Would it really break anything?
it would break the class structure and result in just a single definition for a Martial Class. That is where these suggestions are leading.
It surely won't make any of these martials better than their caster counterparts, perhaps it leaves fighter out in the cold a bit (but that's probably because fighter features need love).
Agreed. It won't break anything with the spellcaster.
The rules discussed in this thread are to develop the class features, including their restrictions, that establish a separation with other martial classes. This provides a unique flair to each class and attempts to prevent one from overpowering others. Again, there is room for improvement, the system is not perfect. But the motivation is not one of a bias but one of working for a balance. Without the plotting of the features to generate unique characteristic then game would trend to discontinue multiple martial classes and leave itself with potentially a single martial class option.
The statement about the Fighter is baffling. The class was not referenced throughout the post but it is final line in the concluding statement. What does this statement mean?
I may be missing the point: Why whould the wizard want armor again?
I feel like what you're getting at is that if wizards want, they can get armor and still use spells, while if a barbarian wants, he can get the armor, but then he can't rage. And while that's certainly true, I just don't see why that makes a difference to you?
I can explain why, though. It's because fighters get all the armor, and barbarians get all the rage, and we need to get them neatly sorted in their respective roles, because otherwise there's no need for those two to be separate classes, they could just be different versions of fighter. Whereas the wizard, armor or no armor, isn't really in any risk of being 'just another fighter'. Or barbarian.
I like that my friend who wants to play a wizard that has armor and a sword can do so (he was Gith and dipped 1 level of fighter and went to L13 in wizard). He ran around in plate with a sword had a good AC which he would boost with shield and was slinging spells all over. I am glad that anyone that has that fantasy can fulfill it in the game. You might argue it wasn't an optimal build but what mattered is that it was fun for him. He was so committed to his vision of this character that when we found a Staff of Power he wasn't initially inclined to take it in favor of his +1 sword, lol.
I'm bummed that some of my favorite martial ideas/fantasies can't be fulfilled in the game without contortion (I listed some examples in the initial post) because there are artificial boundaries on martials. And my bigger point is that this exists because the design team has a particular bias about "martials have to fit in these tropes" and are not open to alternate ways of playing those classes while simultaneously being more than happy to provide nearly infinite variety in other classes.
If you're right and the line between barbarian and fighter is so fragile that it is broken when a barbarian has some armor, then to me that's just shit class design.
Ok. Alright. I think I have a picture now of what you mean.
I think there's a basic structure, foundation, call it what you will, to D&D. Built of classes, subclasses, proficiencies, feats and so on. That's why we have builds: Someone wants to make a gish, what do they do? Do they take a fighter and stick on some magic, or do they take a wizard and stick on some swords? Do they build a paladin, or warlock, or some unholy bard shenanigans?
All that results from this being D&D.
I've played in classless systems where everything was controlled by ... say, skills. You could build the same things, but essentially, it was easier. The result was that you got fewer builds. Because in such systems, the constraint is usually points. And they only go so far. So you can be a gish, but propably you only have points for a few things - let's say they are: Sword skill, Parry skill, a defensive spell (Shield), a couple of offensive spells (Booming Blade, Haste), and the rest will fall into utility, you also want a social skill or two, bla bla.
From personal experience, this is not an improvement. Quite, quite the opposite.
So out of a number of imperfect options, what we have is this fractal weave of options that can be combined in various ways - and it certainly isn't perfect, but all in all, it's the best solution I've seen. Or rather, no one wants to play the horrid chimera of Shadowrun and Dark Heresy I really want to play, so ... 5e it is, then.
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.
I am breaking the original post in way to directly address the several points, bullet statements, and questions. I want to make sure my comments directed at the specific text. My apologies for the length and I am only highlighting the points to aid in my responses clarity:
I apologize that my responses will be piecemeal, I simply haven't figured out how to chop up quotes the way you were able to!
Barbarian
RAGE: Does allowing a barbarian to get rage benefits while wearing heavy armor break down class boundaries? I'd argue no or at least not very much. The barbarian spotlight feature I'd argue is rage and its not the same as action surge or martial arts or sneak attack - they are all different cool flavors. I think you're arguing that letting weapons/armor come into play then it diminishes these features or blurs them somehow, but I don't see it.
UNARMORED DEFENSE: I do agree if this was opened up that the name would have to change to something like "Savage Toughness" or whatever, but I'll say that the idea of "your AC can't be worse than X" is how I would word it instead. Something like "Your toughness is legend. Your AC can never be worse than 10+CON+DEX plus the benefit of a shield if you are using one". This would work exactly the same as an existing spell (Barkskin - your AC cannot be worse than 16 regardless of armor worn).
Monk There are ways to think about how someone wielding a two-handed weapon can use their body in combat. Is it hard to imagine someone with a polearm weaving in kicks to an opponent behind them? How about releasing one hand from the weapon and making a quick strike?
Rogue Yeah sorry that "special" was just me being sarcastic about the finesse weapons, not an actual reference to the special property in the game. I agree that most Rogue features are DEX-y and that is part of the flavor. I'd also argue this just gets at the core problem of the weapon design in 5e - in reality almost all weapons require Strength and Dexterity to wield so sorting them into "brute strength" and "nimble attacks" is kind of silly. It wouldn't be hard for me to get behind Rogues being unable to use heavy/two-handed weapons but the restriction on "finesse only" is too arbitrarily restrictive for my taste.
Core Argument
I get that your core argument is that these restrictions are what make the classes unique and different from one another. While I don't totally disagree that changing this would slightly weaken the distinction I personally think the tradeoff in a little bit of extra build flexibility would be good for the game. A barbarian in heavy armor still is primarily a rage machine combined with reckless attacks. A rogue using a mace doesn't change their core identity of quick precision strikes, evasion, movement and stealth. A monk with a glaive doesn't change the flavor of martial arts, KI, quick striking movement, and other monk abilities.
So while I agree that this impact is there, I think the game would be better for embracing a little more flexibility. Much the same way the designers have been loosening the restrictions and score bonuses around race (which I do understand some players feel makes the selection of race less meaningful).
I also feel like the designers tend to be looser with spellcasting classing stepping on class boundaries than with martials doing the same. For example: - It is darn easy to build a cleric that looks a lot like a wizard for example. - If you multiclass cleric/wizard you don't have to navigate traps around "will I get all my class features" the way you do if you multiclass "fighter/monk".
Comment about Fighter
My parenthetical comment at the end about Fighter was clumsy and meant to acknowledge if you loosen these restrictions on the barb/monk/rogue then fighter might feel a little bit weaker in power and uniqueness, and that one might have to think about whether there are other things that could help fighter. I personally think this would be a good thing because fighter could use a little more distinction anyway (the UA Playtest 7 second wind stuff sure is a step in the right direction).
In the end there is a ton of subjective preference here, I get that. I'd like a game that is a little bit more open than DnD 5e is currently without having to go to the extremes of entirely classless design like @Acromos is mentioning (classless can have its appeal in some games but I get the appeal of classes too).
My parenthetical comment at the end about Fighter was clumsy and meant to acknowledge if you loosen these restrictions on the barb/monk/rogue then fighter might feel a little bit weaker in power and uniqueness, and that one might have to think about whether there are other things that could help fighter. I personally think this would be a good thing because fighter could use a little more distinction anyway (the UA Playtest 7 second wind stuff sure is a step in the right direction).
Fighter already does and always has felt weaker than those other options in tiers of play that most players play DnD 5e. The Fighter does not get its 3rd attack until 11th level. And being able to have more attacks than other Martials is in theory one of the Fighters sole defining qualities. Since the vast majority of DnD 5e play occurs under 11th level, you end up in a situation where the Fighter often feels inferior in power to the other Martials. Action Surge is really strong, but it's a one time use until 17th Level . The Fighter performs very well in high tier play because of its additional attacks, but in the tiers that most DnD play occurs it is very underwhelming. The Fighter is dependent on its Subclass to do much of the heavy lifting in making it feel "viable" or "useful" because of this, and to be honest, many of the Fighter Subclasses are underwhelming. There is good reason that one of the most popular Fighter subclasses is Battlemaster, because it at least offers you an additional resource to manage for your manuevers.
Barbarians are designed to tank with their hit points. Hence half damage while raging and a d12 hit die. Of course one might consider the wizard's mage armor & shield, lack of rage mechanic and d6 hit die to be much superior, it is a matter of opinion after all.
Monks were limited during the D&D Next playtest because Fighter players thought it was unfair that the monk could do what the fighter can do and so much more. Casters had nothing to do with it.
Would you prefer it if the rogues had to go back to the days where they could only get "sneak attack" damage while backstabbing?
There are many ways for a wizard or sorcerer to pick up heavy armor in 5e. They can burn three of their five ASIs on feats to gain proficiency with Light, then Medium then Heavy armor. Or they can be a Mountain Dwarf and start with Medium armor proficiency and then use one of their ASIs for a feat. Then there's taking one level in Fighter, a martial class, of course.
And let's not forget that a barbarian or fighter never needs to put an ASI in their main stats and fighters get the most ASIs, followed by rogues. There are strength boosting items that will give them up to a 29 strength. And a magic item (for anyone, really) that takes your Constitution to 19. So maybe Martial Bias is real... just not in the way you thought it was.
- A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury.. - A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee. - A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive.
hi again. It me.
Presumption: A savage barbarian from the northern climes wears chainmail and rages across a battlefield.
Presumption: A Swashbuckler Rogue or Scout Rogue uses a mace to battle an enemy. Since you call out "wily" and "mace" I am going to presume you reference Swashbuckler.
Presumption: A Monk whirls about the battlefield with a polearm.
Those are Presumptions -- I am pre-assuming that you mean this particular set up in each case. If so, then it appears you are seeking:
Heavy Armor Proficiency for Barbarians.
To be able to exchange Mace for Sword for the swashbuckler features.
To be able to use heavy weapons as a Monk.
And to be able to do these things without taking a penalty --that is, not give up something on a Barbarian in order to wear heavy armor, or to use a Mace as if it has finesse properties, or a glaive as if it was a simple weapon.
The immediate solutions to all of those things that come to my mind as a DM is 1) shift chainmail to medium armor, and deal with the hit to AC; 2) create a special mace that has finesse,; 3) create a special kind of glaive.
That would all work fine within 5e RAW.
Since I don't give a rodent's patootie about that, and I make the rules fit my setting instead of making my setting fit the rules, I wouldn't do any of that myself.
I took finesse as a property away from weapons entirely. Anyone can have finesse in any weapon if they want -- they just have to train in it. That might be harder for some than it is for others. The only properties I still have on weapons are two handed, heavy, and similar stuff that is not based in the skill of the person using it. The rest I dumped into a category of proficiencies, basically.
There is a glaive that does not have the heavy property on my world -- it is even a cultural weapon, prefered by and developed by people of one of the realms. It has reach, but isn't heavy. Train in it, and you can get finesse.
Catch: I rewrote all the classes. I have no subclasses, just 18 regular classes and a bunch of special abilities that folks can pick and choose from as they grow. My doing that, to some, would make them think I am not playing D&D anymore -- although what I have done is a tiny bit closer to 1e/2e, where those were already the case, and the fact none of the classes currently in the game as written fits the world. Change the game to fit the world, not change the world to fit the game.
So, what you are saying is entirely possible. It would still be D&D. It wouldn't be RAW D&D. It wouldn't be precise to the book, and odds are pretty good you wouldn't be able to be a player in it, because that is all stuff the DM has to do.
This overweening slavish devotion to the rules as they are has increased over the years -- and is a natural consequence. There are a lot more folks who are playing and most of them haven't played any older editions or maybe have played some OSR or other "modern version" of the older editions (such as Pathfinder) and haven't been playing for fifteen or more years. They aren't someone like me who was basically told over and over again to create your own world, lol.
And it was doing so that drew me to the game in the first place. For a lot of years, I would come up with a world that I bent to fit the game rules. Instead of having giants live in clouds and stomp around, I had regular D&D giants. Instead of dragons that would make Smaug look like a newborn, I used D&D dragons. I stopped that in 2010. And doing so made me fall in love with D&D all over again -- especially 5th edition.
But that is what DMs do -- everything you have raised, here and in other places, falls tot he DMs. There are people who think fighters are just fine as they are right now -- *most* people feel that way. They are the way they are because it pleases the most people. The same with all the other classes -- if nothing else, that is what the WotC team is putting a lot of effort into -- making sure that everything they put out as the update to 5e (because it is not 6e) is liked by the vast majority of people.
That's what all the playtesting and Unearthed Arcana stuff the last year has been about.
After that, it is up to the individual DMs.
Who can either take a world already built by the company -- a world that all the classes and subclasses are written to work in because that is also the most popular thing right now -- or who can create their own world and decide what goes into it and what doesn't.
And who can decide that a glaive is light or that barbarians can wear armor.
But...
You won't change the basic setups for everyone, because you are in the minority right now. Just like me and my private little world. Even when I pu tit all up for free, it won't be the popular option, it won't be picked up by a lot of folks, it will still just be how I and my group like to play, and that has meant rewriting a lot of stuff to strip it of connections to FR or adding a bunch of stuff because we have different styles of play from the newer players. And to us, everyone who started playing 3e or later is a newer player, lol.
A less polite way to say that is that we've already done all the stuff these folks have been doing and still enjoy, We no longer find it as fun as they do -- so we need more, we need different, we need to not know all the weaknesses of the next monster we come across, or what attacks it will have. We don't want a new subclass of the existing ones -- like you, we have a need for greater flexibility in how we create characters, but we still want classes, and we still want to play D&D 5e -- just in a way that we think of as better; because it is better, if only for us.
TL;DR: all of that is doable by your DM. And only by your DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Agreed @aedorsay - these are things I can do as a DM and things I can convince my DM to allow when I am a player. I'm glad to have flexible DMs in my games too where this is more likely to be possible than not.
And you are 100% right that this is the way the game is meant to be played.
That said I also think it is good to try and influence the core game we all share in directions that we think are positive, so I will continue to advocate for thinking about some things differently.
This whole argument is way off base IMO. The limitations on martial classes exist to help give those classes an identity.
Barbarians are supposed to be strength-focused characters who don't necessarily need armor. Rogues are supposed to be sneaky, quick, and precise. Monks are supposed to be deadly with or without weapons. Fighters are supposed to be masters of weapons and armor.
A Barbarian in heavy armor starts to heavily overlap with the concept of a Fighter. A rogue wielding heavy weapons does too. If all martials get all the same options, you're going to see less creativity, not more.
This stuff has nothing to do with the martial/caster divide. Giving a rogue a halberd isn't going to give it the massive out-of-combat utility that comes with a spell list. That's where martials fall behind. Spellcasters have an extensive toolkit for solving problems that has no equivalent in martial classes.
And on top of that, all of the concepts OP listed are buildable, they just aren't the class you think they are. You can build a viking as a Fighter. You can build a back-alley thug as a Barbarian. You can build a martial artist with a glaive as a Fighter OR Barbarian.
When you have a clear idea for a build, start with the mechanics. Find the mechanics that fit your idea best and then reflavor it how you want. This goes for both martials and spellcasters. You don't have to be Paladin if you want to be a virtuous knight. You don't have to be a Warlock if you want to be a shady character who is granted occult magic by a powerful entity. That stuff is flavor and it can be laid over multiple classes. The only limitations you're hitting are ones you have made up yourself.
If you don't believe the fundamental design of the system is biased against martial variety and power, then look no further than basic class features. For this example I'll only use the base classes in the PHB and not even talk about subclasses.
For casters, they start out with fewer armor/weapon proficiencies but if they find some way to pick up heavy armor proficiency (and there are many ways to do it), then they can still access all their class features. There are no class features (or spells I think) worded as "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon".
Meanwhile in the land of martials...
* Barbarians can only rage "when not wearing heavy armor", and only get their movement bonus in the same circumstance. Even unarmored defense is carefully worded such that it only works if you don't wear armor (would it be so bad if a barbarian wanted to wear armor for flavor but use their unarmored defense AC? It surely would not break anything).
* Monks can only do martial arts with shortswords or with simple melee weapons that lack the heavy/two-handed property, and also cannot do so if wearing any armor or using a shield.
* Rogues can only sneak attack with special finesse weapons (or ranged).
The martials above all don't start with these proficiencies, but they could acquire them just like casters. But the features themselves prevent the martials from accessing their class features even if they were proficient.
Now I can hear some of the comments about realism (side note - why are martials always held to the strictest realism and casters are not) but here are some examples to consider:
- A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury..
- A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee.
- A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive.
Would it be so terrible if martials could play around with flavor like this and have more fun in the process? Would it really break anything? It surely won't make any of these martials better than their caster counterparts, perhaps it leaves fighter out in the cold a bit (but that's probably because fighter features need love).
Still fighting the fight.
Spellcasters and their main Class Feature, Spellcasting, are hampered by the fact that they can't wear any armor they aren't proficient with, or else they essentially can't cast. They also have to track spell components (V, S, M), but very few DMs in my experience stick hard to those rules.
There IS a big disparity between martials and casters, but personally I don't think this is the area it exists.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Well I guess what I'm saying is that the designers go out of their way to make any spellcasting fantasy you can imagine (in armor or not, using any weapons you want) because the only limitation is "do I have proficiency" (which is very easy to get). Meanwhile they've made it really hard to fulfill any martial fantasy you want, because "realism" (I guess).
My argument on this one is even less about power/ability and like just flavor and letting things be interesting. Like my favorite fantasy of rogue-type is a brutish enforcer and he'd look like a dweeb with that stupid rapier they want me to use!
I also agree partly with you - this isn't the biggest gap and is relatively small, BUT it does show the mindset of the designers is clearly centered on casters.
Martials gotta martial, lol
So, Wizards have No proficiency in Armor of any sort to start.
Stuck only in the PHB, with no subclasses, there is no way to gain armor training (Armor Proficiency, since we re using PHB) *except* by multiclassing. So not a lot of ways. ANd once they multiclass, they are no longer "just a caster".
"A one level dip into Fighter before they become a Wizard" so they can wear armor without disadvantage and cast spells. Make them role play it. That is, make them start as a fighter. I mean, technically, that's how it is supposed to work.
And if they do so, then they are a 2nd level character, assuming 1 in fighter, 1 in Wizard. Which knocks them out if the game is to be played by 1st level characters.
3rd Level characters? Well, now you have a 1 in FIghter, 2 in Wizard.
5th Level? 3/2 in some combination, maybe 4/1, but they still only get the special features of one, not both, because they haven't touched the 3rd level entry point most have -- need to be at least 6th for that and that means they are still three levels in abilities behind everyone else.
Again, not using subclasses, using just the PHB. There are not a lot of ways they can get it.
Oh, a Feat? Six feats. Total. Only one of which they can take to start, when they get their first ASI, which Wizards get at 4th level, so they cannot take a feat until 4th level. Ignoring that Feats are optional.
Again, only way for a wizard to start out with armor proficiency is to multiclass (or start the game at much higher level). As for Heavy, well, there is only one way to do that, which is to multi-class. Again, within the PHB, no sub classes.
Now, your table may have some house rules, and it is vaguely possible I could be wrong here after just looking all that up, but if you are going just by the PHB, without subclasses, the absolute best they could do would be to give up their ASI for Lightly Armored Feat at 4th level. Otherwise, if they wear armor (any armor) they cannot cast spells, and anything else they do is at disadvantage.
If you have a group and one of the characters is multiclass, remember that their total class level in 5e is the total of all their class levels, but they can only access the stuff from those classes at the levels they have in those classes. This makes them much more powerful -- a 4/4 Fighter Wizard is an 8th level character. Should not be in a 4th level adventure.
Clerics get light and medium -- they can take heavy at 4th level as a feat in place of their ASI, too -- but cannot get to it otherwise. Given the prior post, this is likely the issue, but that's the literal design of clerics -- they also have to choose between a much smaller assortment of weapons. They don't get heavy without a Feat, the have fewer and less damaging weapons, and they have magic that can make those weapons more powerful.
They are the original mixed caster/fighter. They are supposed to be decent at both. Plus healing. The Four Core: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. Wizards are all magic, Fighters are all fight, Clerics are fight plus magic, and rogues are sneak up and slit yer throat and do more damage than the others that way. Originally, Clerics only had spells up to 7th level (and their higher level spells were equal to 9th level ones). They could only use blunt weapons. They could wear heavy armor. And that was in the original D&D game, the first basic, AD&D, 2nd E. That's how they are set up.
The same problem you are talking about here applied to Clerics back then -- but they weren't ever seen as better than fighters. Most of them had to use their magic for healing. And they were hell on Skeletons (which could only be hurt by blunt items plus were undead, lol).
I dislike minmaxing, but I am willing to bet that a minmaxed Cleric in 5e is at least somewhat equal to a minmaxed Fighter -- perhaps a little behind in HP and survival, but easily stand along in DPR. Because they are supposed to be.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A Mountain Dwarf Wizard gets proficiency in light and medium armor. So at 4th they could get heavy armor proficiency.
Sounds like what you want is a barbarian (with Skilled and/or Skill Expert, even), flavored to be a brutish enforcer and with a weapon that fits your character concept better
A couple of barb subclasses even offer substitutes for classic 5e rogue features -- Totem Warrior/Eagle gives you a lesser version of Cunning Action at 3rd level, for instance, or Zealot's Divine Fury can sub in for Sneak Attack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sorry I may not have been clear - I was only limiting myself to looking at base classes in the PHB to save time and not crawl thru all the other classes and subclasses out there.
Here are two ways within that bounds that keep you "only a caster": (if you expand beyond the PHB there are only more ways to do it)
- Be a Mountain Dwarf - you get medium armor as part of your race.
- Start your career as a War Domain Cleric and then switch to Wizard. Gets you that heavy armor proficiency and while your spell level progression will suffer by 1 level, your number of spell slots will be just as good plus some pretty nice cleric spells in that L1 list.
I agree with you that clerics should have armor proficiency. Heck I don't even disagree with the idea that a wizard can acquire it - I'm cool with an armored wizard slinging spells around - it sounds fun.
What I'm not cool with is that the kind of cool martial combinations I listed are not possible/feasible at all. While it isn't "free" for a wizard to get armor proficiency, they can get it and have it work for them while casting spells. It is not even possible for a monk to wear armor and use most of their class features (even if they go to the cost of multiclassing fighter or something), and a rogue is practically limited to either using short swords or rapiers, and a barbarian that wants to wear armor is out of luck, etc.
I'm definitely not arguing to take the armor choices away from casters, I am arguing to give the martials the same amount of choice in their builds with respect to armor and weapons. if they can acquire the needed proficiency then they should be able to use the armor/weapon.
That could be a cool way to build it. I guess reflavoring the "barbarian" is the biggest bit which seems doable, and raging as some kind of more focused determination. Definitely gives me some ideas.
I may be missing the point: Why whould the wizard want armor again?
I feel like what you're getting at is that if wizards want, they can get armor and still use spells, while if a barbarian wants, he can get the armor, but then he can't rage. And while that's certainly true, I just don't see why that makes a difference to you?
I can explain why, though. It's because fighters get all the armor, and barbarians get all the rage, and we need to get them neatly sorted in their respective roles, because otherwise there's no need for those two to be separate classes, they could just be different versions of fighter. Whereas the wizard, armor or no armor, isn't really in any risk of being 'just another fighter'. Or barbarian.
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.
I like that my friend who wants to play a wizard that has armor and a sword can do so (he was Gith and dipped 1 level of fighter and went to L13 in wizard). He ran around in plate with a sword had a good AC which he would boost with shield and was slinging spells all over. I am glad that anyone that has that fantasy can fulfill it in the game. You might argue it wasn't an optimal build but what mattered is that it was fun for him. He was so committed to his vision of this character that when we found a Staff of Power he wasn't initially inclined to take it in favor of his +1 sword, lol.
I'm bummed that some of my favorite martial ideas/fantasies can't be fulfilled in the game without contortion (I listed some examples in the initial post) because there are artificial boundaries on martials. And my bigger point is that this exists because the design team has a particular bias about "martials have to fit in these tropes" and are not open to alternate ways of playing those classes while simultaneously being more than happy to provide nearly infinite variety in other classes.
If you're right and the line between barbarian and fighter is so fragile that it is broken when a barbarian has some armor, then to me that's just shit class design.
I am breaking the original post in way to directly address the several points, bullet statements, and questions. I want to make sure my comments directed at the specific text. My apologies for the length and I am only highlighting the points to aid in my responses clarity:
Going off the criteria set in the original post regarding "not even talk about subclasses", I am going to apply this to some of the spellcasting classes when examining their ability to access their class features.
Wizard class features:
Spellcasting and Arcane Recovery (Level 1); Spell Mastery (Level 18); Signature Spells (Level 20)
Sorcerer class features:
Spellcasting (Level 1); Font of Magic (Level 2): Metamatic (Level 3); Metamatic (Level 10); Metamagic (Level 17); Sorcerous Restoration(Level 20)
Warlock class features:
Pact Magic (Level 1); Eldritch Invocations (Level 2); Pact Boon (Level 3); Mystic Arcanum (Level 11); Mystic Arcanum (Level 13); Mystic Arcanum (Level 15): Mystic Arcanum (Level 17); Eldritch Master (Level 20)
Now these classes all also gain more spells and spell slots as they grow in level, and that aligns with the fact that all their class features are related to what they can do with their spellcasting abilities. What they do not get, however, are features that allow for improvements in movement, defenses, or attacking damage. And for the most part the quantity of unique features or additional AIS is fewer for the casters when compared to most of the martial classes. So while a caster may not have any restrictions to access the class options they have; they also are not getting class options at the same frequency or a feature that is not associated with their spellcasting. (The Bard does get more features with Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, Counter Charm, and Fount of Inspiration; but at higher levels these class options are increases of the die value for their features or options to learn spells from a different class). In the end, the argument can be made, that the martial class features are an improvement when compared to the general rules of the game but the trade off is they give up some general/basic resources that the game offers. Spellcasters are not offered such benefits as part of their class options; their features are primarily aligned with how they use magic based on their class.
Now 5e does allow spellcasting in armor provided the character gains a proficiency, so there is no limit there. However there are instance where "you can't do this while using XYZ type of armor/weapon" is true from a weapon standpoint as some spellcasters have to make sure the "V, S, M" components of the spell are being honored at the time of casting.
They also get the benefit of being able to half damage for bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. It plays into the fantasy that their raging state strengthens their physical being and pain contributes to inspiring its power (taking damage keeps raging intact). As far as the movement, the game has place restrictions related to armors in the past. Examples: DEX can't be applied to AC when in heavy armor; some armors set disadvantage to Stealth checks. And based on how the feature is meant to benefit the character this restriction of armor makes logical sense.
Unarmored defense is carefully worded by using the term Unarmored in the title of the feature. I mean, it is absurd we have to go beyond the title Unarmored Defense to see that this feature will require the character to be unarmored.
The statement in parenthesis is baffling. The benefit from the armor comes form wearing it. By making it possible to waive the benefit could absolutely cause a break in the game. How is it ruled that a player wearing armor is or isn't benefiting from it? Can a DM make a ruling on the fly? Can the player?
Here is an example where it could cause an issue in the flow of the game. Ioun Stone of Agility. If a Barbarian is attuned and using the stone, wearing plate armor, and benefiting from unarmored defense; and a Monster successfully removes the stone and the character's DEX drops by 1 and now the unarmored defense AC is less than the plate armor. Can the Barbarian announce their AC is now being calculated by the plate armor?
The Monk's Martial Arts feature is based on fighting with an open or unarmed hand. That is the build of this class. The rules were set to allow a character of this class to be a combatant with their body being their weapon of choice. I do admit the game developers should have used a different title for the feature. Martial arts come in wide variety. But the intent of this was to make a powerful class that doesn't relay on weapons for their strength. Using two handed weapons would negate an open hand. Using martial weapons would require them to fight with techniques of the weapon and not techniques that allows their body to become a weapon. And the class is very powerful in combat even with the limitations that it has.
Rogues can sneak attack with regular finesse weapons, there doesn't have to be anything special about them. Range weapons count as well. This is because the Rouge is built to be DEX based character and the Sneak Attack feature rewards the character for building up their DEX score. Being DEX based combatant, the character is limited to the number of weapons that can benefit form its primary modifier. This feature boosts the Rouge and makes them very powerful in encounters.
And the spellcasters cannot gain any of the features listed in the class' examples unless if they multiclass into the class that offers the feature and gain a level in the class where the feature is made available. And if they did so, then the spellcaster couldn't benefit form the proficiencies, just like the martial class, if they want to use these features. Many Wizards who happily trade in a Feat to get the unarmored defense feature; another benefit for investing in their CON score would be happily accepted over being proficient in an armor type.
Why do you feel that these restrictions are examples decreasing the ability of the class, and not see it as a trade off with a benefit? The class must abide to a set of requirements but gain something other classes do no have access to. This is what makes them unique and impactful in the game. They are gaining abilities along with accepting these restrictions; and for the most part the restrictions are to keep a balance between the martial classes in the hope that another one doesn't get obsoleted.
There is nothing real about Dungeons and Dragons. The game is filled with supernatural occurrences influencing beings drawn out of fantasy literature and myths, and monsters that defy the theories of biology, chemistry, physics, and evolution. The rules allow players to have their fictional character achieve things that are limited only by combination of their own imagination and the DM's rulings based on series of guidelines and rulesets developed by individuals who are inspired by sword & sorcery novels, mythology, comic books, Saturday morning cartoons, B-movies, weekday after school cartoons, pulp magazines, folklore, history, and their favorite action figures they played with a children. This is game. Everything about it is fake. From the way characters survive bone crushing injuries from Giants to flying lizards that spew cones of flames that can incinerate living things. There is no realism in this game or how any character is structured. The lineage of the World Wrestling Entertainment, former World Wrestling Federation, World Championship consists of far more realism than any number of Dungeon and Dragons ever played. With the only exception being that the most dice roles are random and not predetermined.
The classes are designed in an attempt to prevent one or a subset from becoming move powerful over others. The game designs are not always successful and there is room for improvement. But the motivation of the game design is not "realism".
There is nothing in the game that prevents this.
There is nothing in the game that prevents this.
There is nothing in the game that prevents this. Though this is one of the biggest misconceptions about the game. You know what classes can do this: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. They all have proficiency in martial weapons. The game literally defines them as martial artists, the are proficient in fighting with martial weapons and thus know martial fighting tactics.
The problem that needs to be discussed is that we, the community of players in this game, can come in with preconceived notions of what the class is supposed to be based on influences and experiences in our lives not related to the game. The expectation then becomes that it is the game's responsibility to ensure the class' definition meet our expectations. This is a fallacy. The game defines a class that a player can play and in that definition there are features, benefits, bonuses, and restrictions that create a balanced and playable character class. The class definitions are in place to alleviate the situations where a single player or small subset of players at table can vastly out perform the other players. If we look at it from a game ruleset and see that the objective is to create a foundation for character builds then we can allow our imagination to create characters that meets the desire for our playing experience and we do this not by the class' name but by class(es) features that will help us achieve our desired goals.
Lets go back to your examples:
- A tough viking warrior in chain mail moves swiftly across the battlefield and attacks with fury.. Uttering words in an ancient tongue, the sky rapidly turns gray and dark clouds swirl; the gods of storm and the sea radiate their champion's sword with their divine favor that will be released when the first opponent is struck.
- The convoy moves carefully through a path that upon further review appears to be too obscured from the main roads. Suddenly loud screeches and battle cries can be heard, as beings spring forth form camouflage hiding places and drop from the tree tops. A wiley brigand swings her mighty mace and carefully lands a damaging blow to her opponent's knee. The convoy flee and take cover, as the group of enraged bandits plunder their stock; and the convey hopes they leave with their spoils and spare the lives of the travelers.
- A trained martial artist whirling around the battlefield with their glaive. Following into the fray, a silver wolf who attacks one creature out the reach of the glaive. The pair proceeds to coordinate tactics and easily chase of the opposition. As they celebrates their victory, it is easy to see the two have a bond that is deeper than the average adventuring party composition.
All of the examples can be fit into narrative scenario that works in the game and can be done by adjusting the character's class so that the features align with how the character is played. The game establishes the class ruleset so players can build the character. How a player opts to portray the character in the theatre of the mind is not limited by the class they take. The class' definition is to define limits, restrictions, and exceptions to the general rules that are the baseline for playing the game.
it would break the class structure and result in just a single definition for a Martial Class. That is where these suggestions are leading.
Agreed. It won't break anything with the spellcaster.
The rules discussed in this thread are to develop the class features, including their restrictions, that establish a separation with other martial classes. This provides a unique flair to each class and attempts to prevent one from overpowering others. Again, there is room for improvement, the system is not perfect. But the motivation is not one of a bias but one of working for a balance. Without the plotting of the features to generate unique characteristic then game would trend to discontinue multiple martial classes and leave itself with potentially a single martial class option.
The statement about the Fighter is baffling. The class was not referenced throughout the post but it is final line in the concluding statement. What does this statement mean?
Ok. Alright. I think I have a picture now of what you mean.
I think there's a basic structure, foundation, call it what you will, to D&D. Built of classes, subclasses, proficiencies, feats and so on. That's why we have builds: Someone wants to make a gish, what do they do? Do they take a fighter and stick on some magic, or do they take a wizard and stick on some swords? Do they build a paladin, or warlock, or some unholy bard shenanigans?
All that results from this being D&D.
I've played in classless systems where everything was controlled by ... say, skills. You could build the same things, but essentially, it was easier. The result was that you got fewer builds. Because in such systems, the constraint is usually points. And they only go so far. So you can be a gish, but propably you only have points for a few things - let's say they are: Sword skill, Parry skill, a defensive spell (Shield), a couple of offensive spells (Booming Blade, Haste), and the rest will fall into utility, you also want a social skill or two, bla bla.
From personal experience, this is not an improvement. Quite, quite the opposite.
So out of a number of imperfect options, what we have is this fractal weave of options that can be combined in various ways - and it certainly isn't perfect, but all in all, it's the best solution I've seen. Or rather, no one wants to play the horrid chimera of Shadowrun and Dark Heresy I really want to play, so ... 5e it is, then.
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.
I apologize that my responses will be piecemeal, I simply haven't figured out how to chop up quotes the way you were able to!
Barbarian
RAGE: Does allowing a barbarian to get rage benefits while wearing heavy armor break down class boundaries? I'd argue no or at least not very much. The barbarian spotlight feature I'd argue is rage and its not the same as action surge or martial arts or sneak attack - they are all different cool flavors. I think you're arguing that letting weapons/armor come into play then it diminishes these features or blurs them somehow, but I don't see it.
UNARMORED DEFENSE: I do agree if this was opened up that the name would have to change to something like "Savage Toughness" or whatever, but I'll say that the idea of "your AC can't be worse than X" is how I would word it instead. Something like "Your toughness is legend. Your AC can never be worse than 10+CON+DEX plus the benefit of a shield if you are using one". This would work exactly the same as an existing spell (Barkskin - your AC cannot be worse than 16 regardless of armor worn).
Monk
There are ways to think about how someone wielding a two-handed weapon can use their body in combat. Is it hard to imagine someone with a polearm weaving in kicks to an opponent behind them? How about releasing one hand from the weapon and making a quick strike?
Rogue
Yeah sorry that "special" was just me being sarcastic about the finesse weapons, not an actual reference to the special property in the game. I agree that most Rogue features are DEX-y and that is part of the flavor. I'd also argue this just gets at the core problem of the weapon design in 5e - in reality almost all weapons require Strength and Dexterity to wield so sorting them into "brute strength" and "nimble attacks" is kind of silly. It wouldn't be hard for me to get behind Rogues being unable to use heavy/two-handed weapons but the restriction on "finesse only" is too arbitrarily restrictive for my taste.
Core Argument
I get that your core argument is that these restrictions are what make the classes unique and different from one another. While I don't totally disagree that changing this would slightly weaken the distinction I personally think the tradeoff in a little bit of extra build flexibility would be good for the game. A barbarian in heavy armor still is primarily a rage machine combined with reckless attacks. A rogue using a mace doesn't change their core identity of quick precision strikes, evasion, movement and stealth. A monk with a glaive doesn't change the flavor of martial arts, KI, quick striking movement, and other monk abilities.
So while I agree that this impact is there, I think the game would be better for embracing a little more flexibility. Much the same way the designers have been loosening the restrictions and score bonuses around race (which I do understand some players feel makes the selection of race less meaningful).
I also feel like the designers tend to be looser with spellcasting classing stepping on class boundaries than with martials doing the same. For example:
- It is darn easy to build a cleric that looks a lot like a wizard for example.
- If you multiclass cleric/wizard you don't have to navigate traps around "will I get all my class features" the way you do if you multiclass "fighter/monk".
Comment about Fighter
My parenthetical comment at the end about Fighter was clumsy and meant to acknowledge if you loosen these restrictions on the barb/monk/rogue then fighter might feel a little bit weaker in power and uniqueness, and that one might have to think about whether there are other things that could help fighter. I personally think this would be a good thing because fighter could use a little more distinction anyway (the UA Playtest 7 second wind stuff sure is a step in the right direction).
In the end there is a ton of subjective preference here, I get that. I'd like a game that is a little bit more open than DnD 5e is currently without having to go to the extremes of entirely classless design like @Acromos is mentioning (classless can have its appeal in some games but I get the appeal of classes too).
Fighter already does and always has felt weaker than those other options in tiers of play that most players play DnD 5e. The Fighter does not get its 3rd attack until 11th level. And being able to have more attacks than other Martials is in theory one of the Fighters sole defining qualities. Since the vast majority of DnD 5e play occurs under 11th level, you end up in a situation where the Fighter often feels inferior in power to the other Martials. Action Surge is really strong, but it's a one time use until 17th Level . The Fighter performs very well in high tier play because of its additional attacks, but in the tiers that most DnD play occurs it is very underwhelming. The Fighter is dependent on its Subclass to do much of the heavy lifting in making it feel "viable" or "useful" because of this, and to be honest, many of the Fighter Subclasses are underwhelming. There is good reason that one of the most popular Fighter subclasses is Battlemaster, because it at least offers you an additional resource to manage for your manuevers.
And let's not forget that a barbarian or fighter never needs to put an ASI in their main stats and fighters get the most ASIs, followed by rogues. There are strength boosting items that will give them up to a 29 strength. And a magic item (for anyone, really) that takes your Constitution to 19. So maybe Martial Bias is real... just not in the way you thought it was.
hi again. It me.
Presumption: A savage barbarian from the northern climes wears chainmail and rages across a battlefield.
Presumption: A Swashbuckler Rogue or Scout Rogue uses a mace to battle an enemy. Since you call out "wily" and "mace" I am going to presume you reference Swashbuckler.
Presumption: A Monk whirls about the battlefield with a polearm.
Those are Presumptions -- I am pre-assuming that you mean this particular set up in each case. If so, then it appears you are seeking:
Heavy Armor Proficiency for Barbarians.
To be able to exchange Mace for Sword for the swashbuckler features.
To be able to use heavy weapons as a Monk.
And to be able to do these things without taking a penalty --that is, not give up something on a Barbarian in order to wear heavy armor, or to use a Mace as if it has finesse properties, or a glaive as if it was a simple weapon.
The immediate solutions to all of those things that come to my mind as a DM is 1) shift chainmail to medium armor, and deal with the hit to AC; 2) create a special mace that has finesse,; 3) create a special kind of glaive.
That would all work fine within 5e RAW.
Since I don't give a rodent's patootie about that, and I make the rules fit my setting instead of making my setting fit the rules, I wouldn't do any of that myself.
I took finesse as a property away from weapons entirely. Anyone can have finesse in any weapon if they want -- they just have to train in it. That might be harder for some than it is for others. The only properties I still have on weapons are two handed, heavy, and similar stuff that is not based in the skill of the person using it. The rest I dumped into a category of proficiencies, basically.
There is a glaive that does not have the heavy property on my world -- it is even a cultural weapon, prefered by and developed by people of one of the realms. It has reach, but isn't heavy. Train in it, and you can get finesse.
Catch: I rewrote all the classes. I have no subclasses, just 18 regular classes and a bunch of special abilities that folks can pick and choose from as they grow. My doing that, to some, would make them think I am not playing D&D anymore -- although what I have done is a tiny bit closer to 1e/2e, where those were already the case, and the fact none of the classes currently in the game as written fits the world. Change the game to fit the world, not change the world to fit the game.
So, what you are saying is entirely possible. It would still be D&D. It wouldn't be RAW D&D. It wouldn't be precise to the book, and odds are pretty good you wouldn't be able to be a player in it, because that is all stuff the DM has to do.
This overweening slavish devotion to the rules as they are has increased over the years -- and is a natural consequence. There are a lot more folks who are playing and most of them haven't played any older editions or maybe have played some OSR or other "modern version" of the older editions (such as Pathfinder) and haven't been playing for fifteen or more years. They aren't someone like me who was basically told over and over again to create your own world, lol.
And it was doing so that drew me to the game in the first place. For a lot of years, I would come up with a world that I bent to fit the game rules. Instead of having giants live in clouds and stomp around, I had regular D&D giants. Instead of dragons that would make Smaug look like a newborn, I used D&D dragons. I stopped that in 2010. And doing so made me fall in love with D&D all over again -- especially 5th edition.
But that is what DMs do -- everything you have raised, here and in other places, falls tot he DMs. There are people who think fighters are just fine as they are right now -- *most* people feel that way. They are the way they are because it pleases the most people. The same with all the other classes -- if nothing else, that is what the WotC team is putting a lot of effort into -- making sure that everything they put out as the update to 5e (because it is not 6e) is liked by the vast majority of people.
That's what all the playtesting and Unearthed Arcana stuff the last year has been about.
After that, it is up to the individual DMs.
Who can either take a world already built by the company -- a world that all the classes and subclasses are written to work in because that is also the most popular thing right now -- or who can create their own world and decide what goes into it and what doesn't.
And who can decide that a glaive is light or that barbarians can wear armor.
But...
You won't change the basic setups for everyone, because you are in the minority right now. Just like me and my private little world. Even when I pu tit all up for free, it won't be the popular option, it won't be picked up by a lot of folks, it will still just be how I and my group like to play, and that has meant rewriting a lot of stuff to strip it of connections to FR or adding a bunch of stuff because we have different styles of play from the newer players. And to us, everyone who started playing 3e or later is a newer player, lol.
A less polite way to say that is that we've already done all the stuff these folks have been doing and still enjoy, We no longer find it as fun as they do -- so we need more, we need different, we need to not know all the weaknesses of the next monster we come across, or what attacks it will have. We don't want a new subclass of the existing ones -- like you, we have a need for greater flexibility in how we create characters, but we still want classes, and we still want to play D&D 5e -- just in a way that we think of as better; because it is better, if only for us.
TL;DR: all of that is doable by your DM. And only by your DM.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Agreed @aedorsay - these are things I can do as a DM and things I can convince my DM to allow when I am a player. I'm glad to have flexible DMs in my games too where this is more likely to be possible than not.
And you are 100% right that this is the way the game is meant to be played.
That said I also think it is good to try and influence the core game we all share in directions that we think are positive, so I will continue to advocate for thinking about some things differently.
This whole argument is way off base IMO. The limitations on martial classes exist to help give those classes an identity.
Barbarians are supposed to be strength-focused characters who don't necessarily need armor. Rogues are supposed to be sneaky, quick, and precise. Monks are supposed to be deadly with or without weapons. Fighters are supposed to be masters of weapons and armor.
A Barbarian in heavy armor starts to heavily overlap with the concept of a Fighter. A rogue wielding heavy weapons does too. If all martials get all the same options, you're going to see less creativity, not more.
This stuff has nothing to do with the martial/caster divide. Giving a rogue a halberd isn't going to give it the massive out-of-combat utility that comes with a spell list. That's where martials fall behind. Spellcasters have an extensive toolkit for solving problems that has no equivalent in martial classes.
And on top of that, all of the concepts OP listed are buildable, they just aren't the class you think they are. You can build a viking as a Fighter. You can build a back-alley thug as a Barbarian. You can build a martial artist with a glaive as a Fighter OR Barbarian.
When you have a clear idea for a build, start with the mechanics. Find the mechanics that fit your idea best and then reflavor it how you want. This goes for both martials and spellcasters. You don't have to be Paladin if you want to be a virtuous knight. You don't have to be a Warlock if you want to be a shady character who is granted occult magic by a powerful entity. That stuff is flavor and it can be laid over multiple classes. The only limitations you're hitting are ones you have made up yourself.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm