I can't speak for Barbarian, never played one. Though they do have some choices to make. When to use their limited number of rages, unless you have so few encounters in a day they can just always use it. And when to reckless attack for advantage and when not to.
Battlemaster also isn't the only fighter subclass with options. Arcane Archer has less uses but bigger impact on its arcane shots. Rune knight has its runes. Monks have ki related abilities to think about. Paladins have smites and spells, including smite spells that do less damage than divine smite but can have interesing effects if an enemy fails a DC. Both guaranteed damage for a smite and on a failed saving throw, a spell effect. Rangers have some similar 'strike' spells like zephyr strike and ensnaring strike, though this also competes with wanting concentration on hunter's mark.
I wouldn't say martials are perfect and that no improvements could be made. But there's more going on there than 'hit things with stick' for more than just the battlemaster.
Again, turn what you say there around. You are unsatisfied with some piece of D&D. So then it should be changed, to the detriment of those who are satisfied with those parts?
How does the existence of non-spellcasters with significant choices change the game to the detriment of others? There's no reason you can't still have 'I hit it' classes.
Again, turn what you say there around. You are unsatisfied with some piece of D&D. So then it should be changed, to the detriment of those who are satisfied with those parts?
How does the existence of non-spellcasters with significant choices change the game to the detriment of others? There's no reason you can't still have 'I hit it' classes.
Based on what has been said so far it seems that some people would like something added to the game. Other people don't want them to have the thing they want and fill up page after page with responses that boils down to "You can't have it because I don't want it too". They forget that no one has to justify anything to them about what they may want to see added 5e, just WotC.
My own concern is that eventually, Wizards is going to find out that 5e cannot retain players. The game needs - and I heavily emphasize that word. Here, let me emphasize it more: needs needs needs needs needs needs NEEDS - a greater degree of depth for those players who're slowly starving to death on the core 5e rules.
I can say that the only reason I'm still running 5e instead of switching to a system that does not assume everyone using it is as dumb as a sack of sand and cannot handle ANY cognitive load whatsoever is because of the DDB tool. I would've jumped ship and taken my money with me long since if not for what the DDB team built here. Even then, my playgroup is constantly looking for ways to introduce choice, depth, and diversity back into the 5e ruleset somehow, and unfortunately we're butting up against the strict limitations of the DDB tool doing it.
The rest of the 5e fanbase (or at least the DDB forum userbase here) would have me believe that me and mine are the only people in existence who're starving to death on this system's lack of depth. I'm mostly pointing to this ENWorld initiative as an argument against that mindset, and a sign that maybe - just MAYBE - Wizards should get off its f#$%ing space ass and GIVE US AN OFFICIAL 5.5E SUPPLEMENT ALREADY!!!!!! They don't need to replace the core rulebooks, which everybody knows they'll never do because it'll upset their precious money cart and piss off the newbies who only just barely got conned into spending a hundred and fifty dollars on the three big books in the first place. Nobody's asking them to do that. We know better. But they do need to give the more experienced gamers, the people absolutely desperate for something to bite into when they play the game and design characters for it, a freaking bone.
Or we. Will. Leave.
I detest Pathfinder's approach to actually running games. Numbers so high you need a telescope to see them, an extremely narrow band of content the players can do effectively due to absurd scaling of the numbers, and a set of floating static modifiers long enough to make every fight a nightmare. Not required. But man - the new PF2e character creation system has been universally and effusively lauded, from what I've seen. The three-action system is ever so much cleaner and better than 5e's kludgy mess. I could see where people might want to apply some of that to 5e's leaner battle engine and the idea of bounded accuracy. If that's what ENWorld does? Maybe there'll be something to it, if they do it well.
And yeah. Additional character creation options would be excellent. Virtually all of my table's rules homebrew is groping for ways to make character creation more fun and meaningful at all levels of play. The whole "pick your species, pick your class, pick your background, wait until level 3 and pick your subclass, and now voila - you're done making significant decisions for your character for the rest of that character's life" thing can suck every last duck in existence. Including Quackthulhu.
As someone who has been roleplaying for 20+ years has run systems as diverse as Whitewolf's Apocalypse series (for me the absolute definition of a system that got far to bloated and confused and so literally needed the apocalypse to happen so it could be burnt to the ground), to Legend of the 5 rings (one of the most brutal systems in terms of combat for players, and do not get me started on a shadowlands campaign for shortening characters lives). Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a system that forced "class" decisions based on the starts you rolled, and while being quite crunchy managed to get all the rules into just a single rulebook, to Cyberpunk, Gurps, Paranoia and I could go on and on I think you really do not understand the appeal of DnD 5e.
I dabbled in earlier DnD editions, I played a bit with pathfinder and it has it's benefits, but the joy of 5E as a system is that as a story teller it allows me so so much scope to tell mutual stories with my table knowing that I don't have to worry about a character decision leading to them having to commit Sepukku (happens a lot in L5R if you are roleplaying properly), I don't have to worry about a rules argument at the table as 4 different players pull out 4 different sourcebooks and point legitimatley to 4 rules conflicts across those books (a problem with Apocalypse)
If you want a different system than honestly go and play a different game, there are so many options out there. The things you dislike myself and millions of players and DM's love because I have the scope to define the rules as I go, players tell me what they want to do and I can make the call as to what they need to roll, how the world reacts, what happens when they try it. I don;t need to refer to hundreds of tables, I don't need to refer to lots of different rules, my players don't need to spend an hour on a combat because they are figuring out what of the many options that will take. The describe what they want to do and the game gives me the absolute freedom to let them try. I have my issues with the D20 system, it is far to binary pass fail for me, so I tweak things and I have a DC range from heavy failure to strong success and everything in between, but if I wanted to change the system to how I want it then I would play 7th Sea or a similar roll and keep game.
So no WOTC do NOT need to make DnD more complicated or rules heavy, maybe you need to find a different system or reconsider how you challenge your players and make them think through problems. I am playing with equally experienced players who have played many many systems and they love the fact they can focus on story telling and actually roleplaying while having a system that has just enough in combat it is not one dimensional.
There are some minor tweaks they can make to the base subclasses, there are some minor balance issues that I can see some have (I have not suffered those issues but that is probably the kind of game we play), but feel free to leave. I am a great great believer in the idea that people should play as many systems as they possibly can over a lifetime, different is good.
As for inputting choice depth and diversity, I am a little confused exactly what you are struggling with, as a DM my party have no issues with choice, or depth and diversity in what regard are you talking?
Again, turn what you say there around. You are unsatisfied with some piece of D&D. So then it should be changed, to the detriment of those who are satisfied with those parts?
How does the existence of non-spellcasters with significant choices change the game to the detriment of others? There's no reason you can't still have 'I hit it' classes.
Based on what has been said so far it seems that some people would like something added to the game. Other people don't want them to have the thing they want and fill up page after page with responses that boils down to "You can't have it because I don't want it too". They forget that no one has to justify anything to them about what they may want to see added 5e, just WotC.
Well it felt more like people wanted every option to be in the 'significant choices' category (and specifically significant choices in combat, since non-combat capabilities apparently do not count for anything at all).
Furthermore, they seemed to want those 'significant choices' to be power boosts, so that the classes they deem boring would be even less competitive and these hypothetical new 'significant choice' characters would be effectively straight power boosts. And when challenged on that, a couple of the proponents of this replied with (paraphrased) 'balance does not matter.'
But why do they need to justify their desires to you at all?
Well it felt more like people wanted every option to be in the 'significant choices' category (and specifically significant choices in combat, since non-combat capabilities apparently do not count for anything at all).
I totally want better non-combat capabilities for non-spellcasters, but that's a separate ball of wax.
Furthermore, they seemed to want those 'significant choices' to be power boosts, so that the classes they deem boring would be even less competitive and these hypothetical new 'significant choice' characters would be effectively straight power boosts. And when challenged on that, a couple of the proponents of this replied with (paraphrased) 'balance does not matter.'
There should be a general power boost for martial classes in tier 3-4, whether or not they are made more complex (power boosts should probably not be in single target dpr, where they're already plenty awesome, but in areas such as mobility, dealing with environmental issues, and dealing with multiple foes).
Well it felt more like people wanted every option to be in the 'significant choices' category (and specifically significant choices in combat, since non-combat capabilities apparently do not count for anything at all).
I totally want better non-combat capabilities for non-spellcasters, but that's a separate ball of wax.
Furthermore, they seemed to want those 'significant choices' to be power boosts, so that the classes they deem boring would be even less competitive and these hypothetical new 'significant choice' characters would be effectively straight power boosts. And when challenged on that, a couple of the proponents of this replied with (paraphrased) 'balance does not matter.'
There should be a general power boost for martial classes in tier 3-4, whether or not they are made more complex (power boosts should probably not be in single target dpr, where they're already plenty awesome, but in areas such as mobility, dealing with environmental issues, and dealing with multiple foes).
Exactly....
I'm looking for options in T3 and T4 for martial classes.
My own concern is that eventually, Wizards is going to find out that 5e cannot retain players. The game needs - and I heavily emphasize that word. Here, let me emphasize it more: needs needs needs needs needs needs NEEDS - a greater degree of depth for those players who're slowly starving to death on the core 5e rules.
I can say that the only reason I'm still running 5e instead of switching to a system that does not assume everyone using it is as dumb as a sack of sand and cannot handle ANY cognitive load whatsoever is because of the DDB tool. I would've jumped ship and taken my money with me long since if not for what the DDB team built here. Even then, my playgroup is constantly looking for ways to introduce choice, depth, and diversity back into the 5e ruleset somehow, and unfortunately we're butting up against the strict limitations of the DDB tool doing it.
The rest of the 5e fanbase (or at least the DDB forum userbase here) would have me believe that me and mine are the only people in existence who're starving to death on this system's lack of depth. I'm mostly pointing to this ENWorld initiative as an argument against that mindset, and a sign that maybe - just MAYBE - Wizards should get off its f#$%ing space ass and GIVE US AN OFFICIAL 5.5E SUPPLEMENT ALREADY!!!!!! They don't need to replace the core rulebooks, which everybody knows they'll never do because it'll upset their precious money cart and piss off the newbies who only just barely got conned into spending a hundred and fifty dollars on the three big books in the first place. Nobody's asking them to do that. We know better. But they do need to give the more experienced gamers, the people absolutely desperate for something to bite into when they play the game and design characters for it, a freaking bone.
Or we. Will. Leave.
I detest Pathfinder's approach to actually running games. Numbers so high you need a telescope to see them, an extremely narrow band of content the players can do effectively due to absurd scaling of the numbers, and a set of floating static modifiers long enough to make every fight a nightmare. Not required. But man - the new PF2e character creation system has been universally and effusively lauded, from what I've seen. The three-action system is ever so much cleaner and better than 5e's kludgy mess. I could see where people might want to apply some of that to 5e's leaner battle engine and the idea of bounded accuracy. If that's what ENWorld does? Maybe there'll be something to it, if they do it well.
And yeah. Additional character creation options would be excellent. Virtually all of my table's rules homebrew is groping for ways to make character creation more fun and meaningful at all levels of play. The whole "pick your species, pick your class, pick your background, wait until level 3 and pick your subclass, and now voila - you're done making significant decisions for your character for the rest of that character's life" thing can suck every last duck in existence. Including Quackthulhu.
As someone who has been roleplaying for 20+ years has run systems as diverse as Whitewolf's Apocalypse series (for me the absolute definition of a system that got far to bloated and confused and so literally needed the apocalypse to happen so it could be burnt to the ground), to Legend of the 5 rings (one of the most brutal systems in terms of combat for players, and do not get me started on a shadowlands campaign for shortening characters lives). Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a system that forced "class" decisions based on the starts you rolled, and while being quite crunchy managed to get all the rules into just a single rulebook, to Cyberpunk, Gurps, Paranoia and I could go on and on I think you really do not understand the appeal of DnD 5e.
I dabbled in earlier DnD editions, I played a bit with pathfinder and it has it's benefits, but the joy of 5E as a system is that as a story teller it allows me so so much scope to tell mutual stories with my table knowing that I don't have to worry about a character decision leading to them having to commit Sepukku (happens a lot in L5R if you are roleplaying properly), I don't have to worry about a rules argument at the table as 4 different players pull out 4 different sourcebooks and point legitimatley to 4 rules conflicts across those books (a problem with Apocalypse)
If you want a different system than honestly go and play a different game, there are so many options out there. The things you dislike myself and millions of players and DM's love because I have the scope to define the rules as I go, players tell me what they want to do and I can make the call as to what they need to roll, how the world reacts, what happens when they try it. I don;t need to refer to hundreds of tables, I don't need to refer to lots of different rules, my players don't need to spend an hour on a combat because they are figuring out what of the many options that will take. The describe what they want to do and the game gives me the absolute freedom to let them try. I have my issues with the D20 system, it is far to binary pass fail for me, so I tweak things and I have a DC range from heavy failure to strong success and everything in between, but if I wanted to change the system to how I want it then I would play 7th Sea or a similar roll and keep game.
So no WOTC do NOT need to make DnD more complicated or rules heavy, maybe you need to find a different system or reconsider how you challenge your players and make them think through problems. I am playing with equally experienced players who have played many many systems and they love the fact they can focus on story telling and actually roleplaying while having a system that has just enough in combat it is not one dimensional.
There are some minor tweaks they can make to the base subclasses, there are some minor balance issues that I can see some have (I have not suffered those issues but that is probably the kind of game we play), but feel free to leave. I am a great great believer in the idea that people should play as many systems as they possibly can over a lifetime, different is good.
As for inputting choice depth and diversity, I am a little confused exactly what you are struggling with, as a DM my party have no issues with choice, or depth and diversity in what regard are you talking?
Quoting in full because I feel these posts both raise valid concerns. I'm not sure they're getting at a useful solution though. I don't think 5E needs more rules or more complex rules to satisfy groups who experience a lack of options. I think 5E needs better rules in some cases, and certainly better rules-adjacent advice and suggestions on how to make games interesting or how to reward creativity without just giving everything and anything a free pass. There is some (very sparse) advice in the rulebooks, but by and large suggestions and options to tailor a campaign to a group's preferences are next to non-existent. I find myself lamenting about the sorry state of the DMG rather often, but, well, that's because the DMG is such a poor guide. In a purely mechanical sense 5E creates the inverse of the problem 3E had: 3E had tons of different things characters could do, but nine times out of ten they were locked behind - if you didn't need a (potentially prestige) class ability - a feat requirement or a skill rank requirement; 5E has in comparison very few things characters can do in combat that are mentioned in the rules, but as a result players and DMs don't know how to (or even want to) allow anything not in one of the books. At the same time half the interesting combats described in an official D&D novel seem to be won by some crafty move, quick thinking or special tactic the rules are entirely silent about.
I've so far held off on backing this KS because annoyingly I live in Europe, where apparently the books are being printed, but not in the UK, where the books are going to be shipped from, so VAT is going to be painful. If it in any way turns out to be some kind of smörgåsbord of options rather than just upgrading the existing crunch it'll get my wholehearted endorsement though, just because hopefully that'll lead to opening up mindsets about how to deal with combat scenes in 5E.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well it felt more like people wanted every option to be in the 'significant choices' category (and specifically significant choices in combat, since non-combat capabilities apparently do not count for anything at all).
I totally want better non-combat capabilities for non-spellcasters, but that's a separate ball of wax.
Furthermore, they seemed to want those 'significant choices' to be power boosts, so that the classes they deem boring would be even less competitive and these hypothetical new 'significant choice' characters would be effectively straight power boosts. And when challenged on that, a couple of the proponents of this replied with (paraphrased) 'balance does not matter.'
There should be a general power boost for martial classes in tier 3-4, whether or not they are made more complex (power boosts should probably not be in single target dpr, where they're already plenty awesome, but in areas such as mobility, dealing with environmental issues, and dealing with multiple foes).
Fighters could certainly use a boost in non-combat abilities. Out side of skills, the base Fighter class has zero non-combat abilities. Boosting the Exploration pillar of the game would help Ranger immensely, but they at least have spells like Pass without Trace to play with. Rogues, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Warlocks and Wizards are great in and out of combat but I would want them to get a little something just to off set any significant power gain for Martial Classes. Basically a cross the board revision so that what minimal balance we have is maintained while giving martial a more varied tool kit.
Coming late to this thread, and here's my 2c. I played a Grave Domain Cleric from level 8 to level 20 over the course of almost 2 years. Lately I've been playing a Rune Knight fighter.
The Cleric, with their spells, can match the Wizard in their versatility, IMO. There were many encounters (not just combat) where my Cleric 'saved the day' by using the right spell at the right time, and some of that involves anticipating what will be needed, so the right spell is prepared when it's needed. I had a great run with my cleric, and I'll surely remember his story for years to come. I should also point out that I feel like every time I cast a spell that saved the day, there was another time when a clutch spell had no effect (missed the AC or a successful save was made). When the casters were not able to control the situations, it's the martial classes that allowed us to survive.
When I started a new campaign, I was tired of the Cleric. As 'complex' as they were, I don't want to play one again for the time being. I want to approach problems from a different perspective. I chose to make a Fighter for one particular reason: Most classes get 5 ASI's or Feats (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th levels). The fighter gets 7 (4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 19th) and the extra ones are all in the range of 'most played levels', ie: levels 1 to 15. I don't plan to focus on feats and gimmicks that will make my fighter a DPS or NOVA monster, and I will instead use those extra feats to improve the other two pillars: exploration and social encounters. The fighter can do what the fighter needs to do in combat without having to invest heavily in ASI or Feats, leaving it to be super versatile in all 3 pillars.
I think this whole thread lately has been focusing too much on COMBAT, and I can't sit back and jump on the 'martial classes are boring' bandwagon if the conversation is going to be limited to 1/3rd of the potential content in D&D.
Even then, my personal experience doesn't line up with what some people are saying. I have one friend that plays a Champion fighter and all he does is swing a sword, remaining quiet the rest of the sessions. But in my experience, that character is an outlier. The martial classes (rogue, paladin, monk, fighter) that I played along with my Cleric were not 1 dimensional characters and the players behind them didn't limit themselves to swinging a sword. If they could think of 'cool' things to do, they proposed it and the GM bought into it or did not. And when the GM said yes, some of the things they did were hilarious and/or cool and/or clutch to winning.
Should martial classes get more 'defined options via game mechanics'? I mean, they could but I don't think it will solve the problem. Good players already do well with martial classes without being constrained by them. And 'non-imaginative' players will just look at their new list of things to do and pick one instead of trying to think outside the box. I think people that are unsatisfied with martial classes now would still be unsatisfied with martial classes even if a PHB says, "you can do all these new things now".
I've so far held off on backing this KS because annoyingly I live in Europe, where apparently the books are being printed, but not in the UK, where the books are going to be shipped from, so VAT is going to be painful. If it in any way turns out to be some kind of smörgåsbord of options rather than just upgrading the existing crunch it'll get my wholehearted endorsement though, just because hopefully that'll lead to opening up mindsets about how to deal with combat scenes in 5E.
Have you considered just getting the PDFs?
Also, I think the thing I am most interested in when it comes to this kickstarter project is seeing how well it does and how WotC reacts to it, if at all. I would much prefer "official" content of this type and wonder if I will get it in 2024.
I don't consider myself old school in terms of rules and rulings, but I'm definitely old fashioned in how I consume media. Reading a book on the screen of my laptop annoys me - I would certainly not be on this site if not for covid. Moreover in this case, the decision to print in Europe but not ship from (mainland) Europe annoys me. I'm fine with the price of the books and the Kickstarter seems to have the shipping costs sorted out properly, no complaints at all on that front, but the VAT thing - which should be known, but isn't mentioned despite pointing out the EU-friendly nature of shipping - rubs me the wrong way. I'll get a reminder 48 hrs before the KS ends, I'll see how I feel then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't consider myself old school in terms of rules and rulings, but I'm definitely old fashioned in how I consume media. Reading a book on the screen of my laptop annoys me - I would certainly not be on this site if not for covid. Moreover in this case, the decision to print in Europe but not ship from (mainland) Europe annoys me. I'm fine with the price of the books and the Kickstarter seems to have the shipping costs sorted out properly, no complaints at all on that front, but the VAT thing - which should be known, but isn't mentioned despite pointing out the EU-friendly nature of shipping - rubs me the wrong way. I'll get a reminder 48 hrs before the KS ends, I'll see how I feel then.
That makes sense. I am the same way, I much prefer physical books and in person games.
There are a ton of truly great RPG systems out there. Go play one.
I don't understand why groups feel the need to redesign the rulesets of pre-existing TTRPG systems with their own conditions. Homebrewing things or making small alterations is one thing, but what we're talking about here is comprehensive additions of systems. There are TTRPG systems out there that provide a better fit. If the goal is to make the game more like Pathfinder, then just go play Pathfinder, or retune Pathfinder to be more like you're looking for, since it seems it would take less work.
How good out of combat options are is completely DM dependent.
Can a fighter Fly? Can a rogue turn Invisible? Spellcaster 'I have a spell to solve every situation' is a lot reduced compared to 3.5e, what with fewer spell slots and concentration options, but that doesn't mean spellcasters don't have a huge array of choices that simply aren't present for martials. Sure, martial characters have skills, but so do spellcasters.
If the goal is to make the game more like Pathfinder, then just go play Pathfinder, or retune Pathfinder to be more like you're looking for, since it seems it would take less work.
Having played a lot of Pathfinder and 3rd edition I'd say the goal is much more a Pathfinder-ish 5E than a 5E-ish Pathfinder, so it likely would take a lot more work to start from anything other than 5E.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are a ton of truly great RPG systems out there. Go play one.
I don't understand why groups feel the need to redesign the rulesets of pre-existing TTRPG systems with their own conditions. Homebrewing things or making small alterations is one thing, but what we're talking about here is comprehensive additions of systems. There are TTRPG systems out there that provide a better fit. If the goal is to make the game more like Pathfinder, then just go play Pathfinder, or retune Pathfinder to be more like you're looking for, since it seems it would take less work.
5e is not the same game it was when it was first released. It has and continues to evolve to meet the desires of the player base. In just this past year alone the way monsters and playable races have been presented has changed and their mechanics are following right along behind. In just over 2 years, a new version of 5e will be released and though we don't know the exact amount of change there will be, it will still be change. The choices that WotC will make will be greatly influenced by the player base through surveys and playtest material. All of us are working to influence the direction of those changes toward where we want it to go. None of us will get exactly what we want, but one thing is very certain, there will be changes to the game. Lucky for you, you have the game you want right now and as long as you own the physical books, you will continue to have it long into the future. So when you go on the to forums to lament the changes to the game, I am sure there will be someone to tell you that you can go play something else.
At top tiers, traditionally martials get their boosts from gear. This is one place where 5e does fail somewhat in that magic items in 5e seem extremely conservative. Even so, legendary swords can be whatever a DM wants them to be.
At top tiers everybody gets boosts from gear. It's an easy and straightforward option to tune that gear more towards the martials though, that's for sure. Of course, LMoP (admittely anything but top tier) prefers handing out a Staff of Defense...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At top tiers, traditionally martials get their boosts from gear. This is one place where 5e does fail somewhat in that magic items in 5e seem extremely conservative. Even so, legendary swords can be whatever a DM wants them to be.
At top tiers everybody gets boosts from gear. It's an easy and straightforward option to tune that gear more towards the martials though, that's for sure. Of course, LMoP (admittely anything but top tier) prefers handing out a Staff of Defense...
Gear is one of the easiest things in the game to homebrew, right behind monsters of the week.
It is, but by default I don't think 5E's published adventures favour martial classes in terms of magical loot. Just wanted to point that out. It's easy to fix, but it does require fixing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How good out of combat options are is completely DM dependent.
Can a fighter Fly? Can a rogue turn Invisible? Spellcaster 'I have a spell to solve every situation' is a lot reduced compared to 3.5e, what with fewer spell slots and concentration options, but that doesn't mean spellcasters don't have a huge array of choices that simply aren't present for martials. Sure, martial characters have skills, but so do spellcasters.
Again, 10 minute duration does not fly you far. And there are potions. And at higher level, boots.
Rogue does not need to turn invisible when they can hide well enough and can move quieter. If the caster is heard their area can still be targeted. And invis in 5 e needs concentration. Plus there are invis potions too. And at higher level, rings.
A spell to solve every situation, Gracie? All prepared at once? Even a wizard can not necessarily manage that. Try claiming that as a sorc or 'lock. And most of those 'solutions' are relatively flashy and not necessarily the best options for stealth situations.
And note that any fool with herbalism kit experience and survival skill can make potions. Rogues have a ton more skills than any of the caster classes. You are seriously playing down the options available to non-casters here.
Edit: Don't get me wrong. Casters do have utility. But that does not mean that non-casters have nothing to bring to the table.
I think we are all hung up on different things here.
A wizard has Cantrips that they can use over and over that are stand ins for a Fighter's weapon attacks. The Wizard also has HUGE selection of spells that do a very wide range of things both in and out of combat. Yes those spells are limited by things such as Concentration and Spell Durations, but they are still useful in a myriad of situations. And that is without applying anything from Subclasses.
The base Fighter has nothing like that at all. They only have basic Weapon Attacks. I want (I won't speak for others) a few limited use abilities for my Fighters as well. Battle Master is great. I love it, but it would be better if the base Fighter class had the Battle Master's abilities to show that they are truly masters of the battle field and can influence the flow of combat. Then add in the subclasses to expand on the archetype the player is looking for.
I can't speak for Barbarian, never played one. Though they do have some choices to make. When to use their limited number of rages, unless you have so few encounters in a day they can just always use it. And when to reckless attack for advantage and when not to.
Battlemaster also isn't the only fighter subclass with options. Arcane Archer has less uses but bigger impact on its arcane shots. Rune knight has its runes. Monks have ki related abilities to think about. Paladins have smites and spells, including smite spells that do less damage than divine smite but can have interesing effects if an enemy fails a DC. Both guaranteed damage for a smite and on a failed saving throw, a spell effect. Rangers have some similar 'strike' spells like zephyr strike and ensnaring strike, though this also competes with wanting concentration on hunter's mark.
I wouldn't say martials are perfect and that no improvements could be made. But there's more going on there than 'hit things with stick' for more than just the battlemaster.
How does the existence of non-spellcasters with significant choices change the game to the detriment of others? There's no reason you can't still have 'I hit it' classes.
Based on what has been said so far it seems that some people would like something added to the game. Other people don't want them to have the thing they want and fill up page after page with responses that boils down to "You can't have it because I don't want it too". They forget that no one has to justify anything to them about what they may want to see added 5e, just WotC.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As someone who has been roleplaying for 20+ years has run systems as diverse as Whitewolf's Apocalypse series (for me the absolute definition of a system that got far to bloated and confused and so literally needed the apocalypse to happen so it could be burnt to the ground), to Legend of the 5 rings (one of the most brutal systems in terms of combat for players, and do not get me started on a shadowlands campaign for shortening characters lives). Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a system that forced "class" decisions based on the starts you rolled, and while being quite crunchy managed to get all the rules into just a single rulebook, to Cyberpunk, Gurps, Paranoia and I could go on and on I think you really do not understand the appeal of DnD 5e.
I dabbled in earlier DnD editions, I played a bit with pathfinder and it has it's benefits, but the joy of 5E as a system is that as a story teller it allows me so so much scope to tell mutual stories with my table knowing that I don't have to worry about a character decision leading to them having to commit Sepukku (happens a lot in L5R if you are roleplaying properly), I don't have to worry about a rules argument at the table as 4 different players pull out 4 different sourcebooks and point legitimatley to 4 rules conflicts across those books (a problem with Apocalypse)
If you want a different system than honestly go and play a different game, there are so many options out there. The things you dislike myself and millions of players and DM's love because I have the scope to define the rules as I go, players tell me what they want to do and I can make the call as to what they need to roll, how the world reacts, what happens when they try it. I don;t need to refer to hundreds of tables, I don't need to refer to lots of different rules, my players don't need to spend an hour on a combat because they are figuring out what of the many options that will take. The describe what they want to do and the game gives me the absolute freedom to let them try. I have my issues with the D20 system, it is far to binary pass fail for me, so I tweak things and I have a DC range from heavy failure to strong success and everything in between, but if I wanted to change the system to how I want it then I would play 7th Sea or a similar roll and keep game.
So no WOTC do NOT need to make DnD more complicated or rules heavy, maybe you need to find a different system or reconsider how you challenge your players and make them think through problems. I am playing with equally experienced players who have played many many systems and they love the fact they can focus on story telling and actually roleplaying while having a system that has just enough in combat it is not one dimensional.
There are some minor tweaks they can make to the base subclasses, there are some minor balance issues that I can see some have (I have not suffered those issues but that is probably the kind of game we play), but feel free to leave. I am a great great believer in the idea that people should play as many systems as they possibly can over a lifetime, different is good.
As for inputting choice depth and diversity, I am a little confused exactly what you are struggling with, as a DM my party have no issues with choice, or depth and diversity in what regard are you talking?
But why do they need to justify their desires to you at all?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I totally want better non-combat capabilities for non-spellcasters, but that's a separate ball of wax.
There should be a general power boost for martial classes in tier 3-4, whether or not they are made more complex (power boosts should probably not be in single target dpr, where they're already plenty awesome, but in areas such as mobility, dealing with environmental issues, and dealing with multiple foes).
Exactly....
I'm looking for options in T3 and T4 for martial classes.
The game runs fine IMO at T1 and T2
Quoting in full because I feel these posts both raise valid concerns. I'm not sure they're getting at a useful solution though. I don't think 5E needs more rules or more complex rules to satisfy groups who experience a lack of options. I think 5E needs better rules in some cases, and certainly better rules-adjacent advice and suggestions on how to make games interesting or how to reward creativity without just giving everything and anything a free pass. There is some (very sparse) advice in the rulebooks, but by and large suggestions and options to tailor a campaign to a group's preferences are next to non-existent. I find myself lamenting about the sorry state of the DMG rather often, but, well, that's because the DMG is such a poor guide. In a purely mechanical sense 5E creates the inverse of the problem 3E had: 3E had tons of different things characters could do, but nine times out of ten they were locked behind - if you didn't need a (potentially prestige) class ability - a feat requirement or a skill rank requirement; 5E has in comparison very few things characters can do in combat that are mentioned in the rules, but as a result players and DMs don't know how to (or even want to) allow anything not in one of the books. At the same time half the interesting combats described in an official D&D novel seem to be won by some crafty move, quick thinking or special tactic the rules are entirely silent about.
I've so far held off on backing this KS because annoyingly I live in Europe, where apparently the books are being printed, but not in the UK, where the books are going to be shipped from, so VAT is going to be painful. If it in any way turns out to be some kind of smörgåsbord of options rather than just upgrading the existing crunch it'll get my wholehearted endorsement though, just because hopefully that'll lead to opening up mindsets about how to deal with combat scenes in 5E.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fighters could certainly use a boost in non-combat abilities. Out side of skills, the base Fighter class has zero non-combat abilities. Boosting the Exploration pillar of the game would help Ranger immensely, but they at least have spells like Pass without Trace to play with. Rogues, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Warlocks and Wizards are great in and out of combat but I would want them to get a little something just to off set any significant power gain for Martial Classes. Basically a cross the board revision so that what minimal balance we have is maintained while giving martial a more varied tool kit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Coming late to this thread, and here's my 2c. I played a Grave Domain Cleric from level 8 to level 20 over the course of almost 2 years. Lately I've been playing a Rune Knight fighter.
The Cleric, with their spells, can match the Wizard in their versatility, IMO. There were many encounters (not just combat) where my Cleric 'saved the day' by using the right spell at the right time, and some of that involves anticipating what will be needed, so the right spell is prepared when it's needed. I had a great run with my cleric, and I'll surely remember his story for years to come. I should also point out that I feel like every time I cast a spell that saved the day, there was another time when a clutch spell had no effect (missed the AC or a successful save was made). When the casters were not able to control the situations, it's the martial classes that allowed us to survive.
When I started a new campaign, I was tired of the Cleric. As 'complex' as they were, I don't want to play one again for the time being. I want to approach problems from a different perspective. I chose to make a Fighter for one particular reason: Most classes get 5 ASI's or Feats (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th levels). The fighter gets 7 (4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 19th) and the extra ones are all in the range of 'most played levels', ie: levels 1 to 15. I don't plan to focus on feats and gimmicks that will make my fighter a DPS or NOVA monster, and I will instead use those extra feats to improve the other two pillars: exploration and social encounters. The fighter can do what the fighter needs to do in combat without having to invest heavily in ASI or Feats, leaving it to be super versatile in all 3 pillars.
I think this whole thread lately has been focusing too much on COMBAT, and I can't sit back and jump on the 'martial classes are boring' bandwagon if the conversation is going to be limited to 1/3rd of the potential content in D&D.
Even then, my personal experience doesn't line up with what some people are saying. I have one friend that plays a Champion fighter and all he does is swing a sword, remaining quiet the rest of the sessions. But in my experience, that character is an outlier. The martial classes (rogue, paladin, monk, fighter) that I played along with my Cleric were not 1 dimensional characters and the players behind them didn't limit themselves to swinging a sword. If they could think of 'cool' things to do, they proposed it and the GM bought into it or did not. And when the GM said yes, some of the things they did were hilarious and/or cool and/or clutch to winning.
Should martial classes get more 'defined options via game mechanics'? I mean, they could but I don't think it will solve the problem. Good players already do well with martial classes without being constrained by them. And 'non-imaginative' players will just look at their new list of things to do and pick one instead of trying to think outside the box. I think people that are unsatisfied with martial classes now would still be unsatisfied with martial classes even if a PHB says, "you can do all these new things now".
Have you considered just getting the PDFs?
Also, I think the thing I am most interested in when it comes to this kickstarter project is seeing how well it does and how WotC reacts to it, if at all. I would much prefer "official" content of this type and wonder if I will get it in 2024.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't consider myself old school in terms of rules and rulings, but I'm definitely old fashioned in how I consume media. Reading a book on the screen of my laptop annoys me - I would certainly not be on this site if not for covid. Moreover in this case, the decision to print in Europe but not ship from (mainland) Europe annoys me. I'm fine with the price of the books and the Kickstarter seems to have the shipping costs sorted out properly, no complaints at all on that front, but the VAT thing - which should be known, but isn't mentioned despite pointing out the EU-friendly nature of shipping - rubs me the wrong way. I'll get a reminder 48 hrs before the KS ends, I'll see how I feel then.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That makes sense. I am the same way, I much prefer physical books and in person games.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There are a ton of truly great RPG systems out there. Go play one.
I don't understand why groups feel the need to redesign the rulesets of pre-existing TTRPG systems with their own conditions. Homebrewing things or making small alterations is one thing, but what we're talking about here is comprehensive additions of systems. There are TTRPG systems out there that provide a better fit. If the goal is to make the game more like Pathfinder, then just go play Pathfinder, or retune Pathfinder to be more like you're looking for, since it seems it would take less work.
Can a fighter Fly? Can a rogue turn Invisible? Spellcaster 'I have a spell to solve every situation' is a lot reduced compared to 3.5e, what with fewer spell slots and concentration options, but that doesn't mean spellcasters don't have a huge array of choices that simply aren't present for martials. Sure, martial characters have skills, but so do spellcasters.
Having played a lot of Pathfinder and 3rd edition I'd say the goal is much more a Pathfinder-ish 5E than a 5E-ish Pathfinder, so it likely would take a lot more work to start from anything other than 5E.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
5e is not the same game it was when it was first released. It has and continues to evolve to meet the desires of the player base. In just this past year alone the way monsters and playable races have been presented has changed and their mechanics are following right along behind. In just over 2 years, a new version of 5e will be released and though we don't know the exact amount of change there will be, it will still be change. The choices that WotC will make will be greatly influenced by the player base through surveys and playtest material. All of us are working to influence the direction of those changes toward where we want it to go. None of us will get exactly what we want, but one thing is very certain, there will be changes to the game. Lucky for you, you have the game you want right now and as long as you own the physical books, you will continue to have it long into the future. So when you go on the to forums to lament the changes to the game, I am sure there will be someone to tell you that you can go play something else.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
At top tiers everybody gets boosts from gear. It's an easy and straightforward option to tune that gear more towards the martials though, that's for sure. Of course, LMoP (admittely anything but top tier) prefers handing out a Staff of Defense...
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It is, but by default I don't think 5E's published adventures favour martial classes in terms of magical loot. Just wanted to point that out. It's easy to fix, but it does require fixing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think we are all hung up on different things here.
A wizard has Cantrips that they can use over and over that are stand ins for a Fighter's weapon attacks. The Wizard also has HUGE selection of spells that do a very wide range of things both in and out of combat. Yes those spells are limited by things such as Concentration and Spell Durations, but they are still useful in a myriad of situations. And that is without applying anything from Subclasses.
The base Fighter has nothing like that at all. They only have basic Weapon Attacks. I want (I won't speak for others) a few limited use abilities for my Fighters as well. Battle Master is great. I love it, but it would be better if the base Fighter class had the Battle Master's abilities to show that they are truly masters of the battle field and can influence the flow of combat. Then add in the subclasses to expand on the archetype the player is looking for.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master