This really isn't true. There are plenty of other ways to help fix the disparity without making all the Warriors crazy reality breakers.
Sure. You can make spellcasters not be crazy reality breakers. The point is, you have to give warriors things that are as dramatic and disruptive as spells.
The way this normally works in literature is that the mundane characters are made relevant by plot contrivance -- they're in the right place at the right time, or have the right skill at the right time, or some such. There's ways to do that kind of thing in RPGs (DMs can just do it with their inherent powers, or you can try to bake it into the system), but they're tricky to make work well.
I'm not going to say that the Martial-Caster divide isn't real, it very much is, but I also find that it's not as big a deal at my table when I run games vs. how big a deal it was when I was a player at someone else's table.
And that's because I allow my Martial players a good deal of freedom in what they want to do. Casters have a description of what their spell does and if the spell doesn't say it can do something, then it can't (Unless it's because of an omitted mention that makes no sense. Gust of Wind, for instance, only makes mention of moving creatures, not loose objects, but it would make no sense for it not to be able to move those).
So, for instance, if there's a statue in the middle of the battle map and the barbarian decides they want to topple it over onto a group of zombies, they get an Athletics(Str) check (with advantage if they're raging) to try to do so and if they succeed, it's potentially going to do more damage to the zombies than a round of attacks (or even a spell from the Casters) would have done. If a Caster wants to do the same, but with a spell, they'd better show me where in the spell description it says the spell can do that. (Stone Shape, for instance, wouldn't do it, at least not in one turn. Because while that lets you shape stone, it doesn't give you magical control over what is attached to that stone. So at my table, a character who wants to use Stone Shape to topple said statue first needs to spend an action on an intelligence check to figure out how to shape the stone so that the statue will topple in the right direction instead of just coming down on their hands and then falling in a random direction.)
Martials are, with few exceptions, more physically capable than the average Caster and I offer them opportunities to make use of that at my table. As a result, the Casters and Martials both tend to have their moments to shine and frequently have to rely on each other.
Unfortunately a lot of what makes Martials powerful even in the later levels is dependent on the DM and how they approach letting Martials do things in their campaign/encounters, rather than in pure RAW.
I think the "grounded by reality" should be in the base class only. Let them have all the damage needed to be on the same level as casters (caster damage might have to be brought down a bit). Give them some utility that doesn't require "it's magic" to explain it. The Crusher, Piercer, Slasher feats have some utility built in that don't require magic. Personally, I think it might be interesting if those feats were removed and became base warrior abilities. Then give the subclasses free range on any concept you want. Psi Knight, Rune Knight, Echo Knight all have magic-like abilities and that's great. They should be expanded upon. The base class warrior, hopefully, will have options depending on the weapons they use. Or something along those lines that JC mentions in the videos. I could see a base feature of the warrior group, or at least the fighter, a "power attack" like 5E GWM with the -5 +10 option or some other mechanic to boost warriors damage.
Utility can be added to martials, but I don't think they need to be "everything you can do, I can do better" in the face of the casters. And I think casters need to be reigned back, as far as utility goes, so they don't just have a spell for everything. But unless you take a sledgehammer to casters and their spells, they will always have more utility than a martial, and I'm fine with that.
But you have to pick a subclass. If only base class is grounded, but all subclasses are magical, then all fighters will be magical. Not a good plan.
Like I said, there's a whole field of psychological warfare with acts of will, intimidation, and inspiration to work with without breaking verisimilitude. There's things like Action Surge that let you make eight attacks in 6 seconds, which is still realistic. Combine it with samurai's Fighting Spirit and Strength Before Death features and you'll see how much a martial can do in terms of combat that is absolutely devastating without being magical. Regarding utility, the only way to tip the scales is designing side effects to spells that would make spellcasters pay the price of twisting reality (such as target of charm person spell realizing it's been charmed), while martials will get to do things naturally with no repercussions.
I don’t think I said ALL subclasses should be magical. Sorry if that was how it was taken. Just that if you want a magical fighter you can have subclasses like Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Psi Warrior. Let the magic portion be in a subclass. Champion, Samurai, Battlemaster are all subclasses that can expand on the “grounded” theme.
Im not sure if the “only way to tip the scales” has to be side effects, but that is an option. Another option is to put most of the utility at low level and With prepared spells limited by spell slots you have to choose wisely. Or put the big utility spells at higher levels so the even more limited slots/preparations require the choice damage vs utility. Remove ritual casting or remove the ritual tag from some utility spells so they require spell slots. Or just pair down the number of utility spells in the game. Change how those spells work or change their casting times.
I guess it depends on what are the “offending” utility spells are when determining what to do with them
I’m sure there are other ways to try to even the playing field. But I would still be fine with casters having the edge in utility and martials have the edge in damage. Even split on buff/debuff/CC options.
Sure. You can make spellcasters not be crazy reality breakers. The point is, you have to give warriors things that are as dramatic and disruptive as spells.
The way this normally works in literature is that the mundane characters are made relevant by plot contrivance -- they're in the right place at the right time, or have the right skill at the right time, or some such. There's ways to do that kind of thing in RPGs (DMs can just do it with their inherent powers, or you can try to bake it into the system), but they're tricky to make work well.
I think you are confusing my point. I do agree that Warriors should have powerful abilities that them do more things in terms of utility. That being said, I think those mechanics shouldn't be too unrealistic, because many styles of play can't afford for them to be.
I do agree with you that the "Right place, right time" thing is hard to emulate, though you could add in some fate mechanics or whatever. But again, there are other ways too balance casters and martials, I listed several of them earlier.
A character can only be grounded by the reality they exist in. If you live in world were a guy is throwing fireballs and another is turning into animals I would argue it’s pretty grounded that martials could do more than the rule set currently allows them to do.
1. Not all worlds have tons and tons of spellcasters, and groups that want all realism should have that option too.
2. Playing with brave knights and Warriors in a world where there are powerful Wizards is a common trope, and people should be able to replicate it in D&D if they want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Well it'd suck to be them then, because a powerful Wizard played optimally is basically unbeatable by any brave knight or warrior without copious amounts of external help, such as a powerful magic item or another spellcaster assisting them.
Currently, that is all too true. When 1DD comes out though, hopefully the new weapon system and other improvements that the Warriors are getting will change that though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
While it may be a small consideration and dependent on the availability of magical potions in the campaign, I have found that the simple, common homebrew rule of drinking a potion for a bonus action tends to help martials more than spellcasters. I might even consider providing this as a martial-exclusive ability. Whether it is the ability to quaff a healing potion or a potion that provides some kind of buff in the midst of battle for only a small detriment to action economy, this tends to be most useful for front-line combatants. With the popularity of the Witcher, it seems like a strategy that should be popular and does not really make the fighter-type seem inherently magical, just someone that utilizes the magical items available in the world, helping them seem a bit more grounded. While DM dependent, combined with greater availability of a broad range of potions or potion-like consumables, I think this can help give martials a bit more utility and flexibility.
Well it'd suck to be them then, because a powerful Wizard played optimally is basically unbeatable by any brave knight or warrior without copious amounts of external help, such as a powerful magic item or another spellcaster assisting them.
Ok, two things:
1. Unlike some other TTRPGs like V:tM and Paranoia, D&D is designed as a cooperative game. If the powerful wizard and the brave knight are fighting each other, rather than fighting the BBEG together, something went wrong.
2. This is only true if the wizard has perfect knowledge and preparation time, while the martial does not.
Nah. A powerful (which I'm reading as "high level") wizard that's played by someone with more than one functional neuron can chump any nonmagical martial character for free. No, the wizard won't always have the perfect spell for the job, but any baseline-competent wizard will have a set of go-to spells nailed to their prep bar, and at least one of those spells is going to be a disable. My own wizard never leaves the inn without Telekinesis and Polymorph both, either of which is a hard stop to martials if they land. Hell, I rarely leave my bed without Levitate, which is also a hard stop to any melee-oriented martial for the cost of a second level spell. Swordswinger can't do snot if he's dangling helplessly twenty feet in the air while I line up a Disintegrate. And I'm not even an "optimal" wizard.
Yes, a bow user can deal with the "you're suspended somewhere unhelpful" disables, but nobody's talking about bow users when they talk about the Martial/Caster Disparity. And as a high-level spellcaster I can definitively say that one angry yaybo with a sword is about as threatening to me as a pissy housecat. Even if they win Initiative and start right next to be, unloading a full round of Action Surge'd attacks? They're not eating through 155HP in one round, I've got defensive spells, and one Dimension Door on my turn and I'm right back to being in uncontestable control of the encounter.
There's a reason I'm the tactical backbone of the team in Mira's campaign.
Because for a DM, playing optimally involves creating an enjoyable experience for your players, which roflstomping them into the ground with spells they can't respond to doesn't do.
Could you build a lvl 20 NPC Caster who can faceroll a whole party of level 20 Martials if you play them 'optimally'? Sure.
Could you build an lvl 20 NPC Martial who can faceroll a whole party of level 20 Casters if you play them 'optimally'? Yes, actually, just as easily.
I know, because I have done that once, just because my players at the time said it was impossible.
The Martial NPC, roughly based on if Batman was willing to kill, didn't need to be able to survive multiple encounter deaths, because she didn't die.
Unlike the four PCs (all level 18), who all died over the course of a series of three encounters.
All by the same method too: putting a bag over their head and choking them after sneaking up on them when they were out of sight from the others. You'd be surprised at how many massively powerful high level spells you can't cast when you're unable to see and breathe. They certainly were.
Also, slight tangent, but which spell are you going to use to escape an encounter with contingency? You can't use teleport, that's level 7, and even if it wasn't, it targets an area, not a creature (and therefore you can't target yourself). You can't use dimension door, because the target for that is the location you want to move to and contingency only works for spells that (can) target yourself. You can't use misty step because contingency only works for spells that have casting time of 1 action. All other spells that allow for an easy instant escape have one of those three issues. (Well, except Tree Stride. That has several other issues instead.) So the way I see it, the closest you'd come to an easy escape is something like gaseous form. But if that triggers when you get below a certain amount of hitpoints and it's not your turn, you're not any better off (since at the point where an NPC wizard could prepare that, the Martials will have magic weapons, so the ostensible immediate benefit of resistance against non-magical damage isn't relevant).
Also, you keep talking about clone like it's a super easy spell to abuse. It costs 3000 gold and you have to cut a not insignificant piece out of yourself for each casting. Do you have any idea how hard it is (or at least should be) to keep your frequent purchases (or thefts) of intact 1000gp diamonds and 2000 gp containers with a sealable lid hidden from nosy adventurers? Unless the party and every last one of their allies are all a bunch of drooling morons, they should reasonably speaking find out that the Wizard has a bunch of clones hidden somewhere well before the final encounter and searching out and destroying those clones before the final fight (possibly after one successful escape using a clone reveals their existence) would be an integral part of the adventure.
All that's required for an equally prepared Martial BBEG to escape a losing fight against the party without having to literally die and respawn is for them to spend a fraction of the gold the Wizard BBEG spent on their clone on a hidden trapdoor in their base of operations that covers an escape tunnel with a lever that collapses the tunnel behind them. They can then spend all the gold they saved relative to the Wizard on more traps, goons and magic items to give them an edge against the party (and the party some extra bonus loot when they finally do defeat him).
If it is, then the people 'citing' that are incorrect. You cannot use dimension door with contingency, because if you'll mouse over it, you can clearly see it says 'and that can target you' in the very first sentence. Dimension door targets a location within 500ft. It affects you, but it doesn't target you.
My point is that when a Wizard NPC inevitably does get boxed into a corner by the PCs and slain, even that isn't necessarily the end for them, because there are already tools provided by the game itself to bail them out.
A Martial NPC can also pay a Caster to cast Clone on them.
Because, and this is important, yes there is a divide in capability between Martials and Casters, there's no denying that, but when the Martials at a table feel like they're useless, that's not because there's a power divide between Martials and Casters, it's because they're at a sh!tty table. When you have good players who care about each other's fun as much as about their own, that Caster power is tapped partially to make the Martials perform better too.
A Wizard can cast Greater Invisibility on themselves and throw spells without being seen and leave the Rogue feeling useless... Or they can cast it on the Rogue, who can combine it with Sneak Attack and Cunning Action: Hide to be an undetectable menace to whatever the group is fighting while the wizard throws spells from the back line, like they would if they'd cast it on themselves and were invisible.
A Wizard can cast Fly on themselves and zip out of range of groundbound melee enemies so that they could essentially solo all those enemies (assuming the DM is dumb and lets that kind of situation happen),... Or they can cast it on the Martials when flying enemies show up so that the close range Martials can take to the skies to fight them while the Casters (and any Martials that focus on ranged weapons) stay safely on the ground, attacking at range.
At a good table, the Casters use the versatility and power of their magic to help the party, not to hog the glory. (This is, honestly, why I often dislike the mindset of min-maxing munchkins self-described 'optimisers'. Most of them care only about 'optimising' their own character, not about legitimately optimising the power of the party as a whole. Regardless of whether they're Casters trying to leverage the full utility and power of high level casters for their own character alone or whether they're Martials trying to find the one true build(tm) that can match the power of high level casters without help from those casters, they don't treat the game as a collaboration.)
I don’t think I said ALL subclasses should be magical. Sorry if that was how it was taken. Just that if you want a magical fighter you can have subclasses like Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Psi Warrior. Let the magic portion be in a subclass. Champion, Samurai, Battlemaster are all subclasses that can expand on the “grounded” theme.
Im not sure if the “only way to tip the scales” has to be side effects, but that is an option. Another option is to put most of the utility at low level and With prepared spells limited by spell slots you have to choose wisely. Or put the big utility spells at higher levels so the even more limited slots/preparations require the choice damage vs utility. Remove ritual casting or remove the ritual tag from some utility spells so they require spell slots. Or just pair down the number of utility spells in the game. Change how those spells work or change their casting times.
I guess it depends on what are the “offending” utility spells are when determining what to do with them
I’m sure there are other ways to try to even the playing field. But I would still be fine with casters having the edge in utility and martials have the edge in damage. Even split on buff/debuff/CC options.
Frankly, I never liked magical subclasses for fighter. Kind of watered down the main theme, as if designers couldn't come up with physical ways the class could operate or specialize in. This game could definitely use an arcane gish as a place for all the magic fighter ideas... But that's just my taste.
I'm saying that side effcts are only way because any other way of bringing casters closer to martials includes direct nerfs - either taking power away or imposing limitations, and neither of those will be welcome (though might be necessary in the end). Side effects is a way to let casters keep their power, while introducing stuff to be mindful of so that they'd have to think before casting "solve problem" spell.
A relatively simple way of giving martial characters a limited number of over the top but still realistic-seeming effects would be giving them a "replace a d20 roll with a 20" mechanic with limited uses per day (something like level/5 or /6). Then make sure there's actual over the top things you can do by rolling a 25 or 30.
A fundamental rule of 5e is that you must sacrifice damage to apply conditions to an enemy. Simply look at cantrips to see this in action: Firebolt only deals damage and does 1d10 dmg, Frostbite slightly slows the enemy so does 1d8 dmg, Vicious Mockery imposes DA on an attack and does 1d4 dmg. The same can be seen at any spell level: Fireball and Lightning Bolt only deal damage and do 8d6 dmg, Tidal Wave knocks prone and does 4d8 dmg, Hypnotic Pattern incapacitates and does 0 dmg.
Martials can right now in 5e: disarm, knock prone, shove or grapple at the cost of one of their attacks (not their whole action), or for the battlemaster or an open hand monk for free. However, they don't do it because the reason people choose to play a martial is to deal big damage to the enemy, NOT to impose conditions on the enemy. If someone wants to play as a character that has tons of options to impose conditions on the enemy they play as a spellcaster, because that is what spellcasters are good at. Because of the party system, 5e rewards specialization. It's why monks are considered trash - they don't do as much damage as martials and they aren't as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster.
Making martials simultaneously as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster while also dealing maximum damage invalidates the spellcasters. Making them less good at imposing conditions than a spellcaster means those options will be rarely used. I just look at the battlemasters I've DMed or played with... those that enjoyed the maneuvers exclusively used them to deal more damage using SS/GWM. Battlemasters that used their maneuvers for other things generally were disappointed with the results - e.g. I had a dual warhammer wielding battlemaster with the Goading maneuver and 80% of the time the Goading maneuver made 0 difference because he was the only character in melee with the enemy so the enemy was going to attack him anyway, I had a bugbear battlemaster and with lunging attack and 80% of the time the lunge made no difference and they used the maneuver just to add the d8 to their damage, but then I had a SS longbow-using battlemaster with Precise attack and they used it to Nova down an enemy in the first round of 50% of combats.
By far the most effective condition that all martials can impose on the enemy is death - it is permanent, irrevocable, and eliminates all threat from the creature - and it is the one that all martials are the best at causing because they are designed for high, single-target damage. To frame this another way, it is already true that even with just a couple of build choices any STR-base martial can be built to be an awesome grappler that will have much higher rates of success on grappling/shoving than any spell cast by a spellcaster (enemies generally have ~50% chance of making a saving throw, but the only enemies with proficiency in athletics/acrobatics are giants & humanoids making grapple checks for a character with high STR and proficiency in athletics ~70% successful), there are even some optimizer channels that have covered these builds. But players choose not to use them because players who choose to play martials want to kill enemies.
To 'solve' the martial-caster divide, give martials more ways to kill enemies better. Don't give martials extra options that are 'like' spellcasters only weaker, because that will just further highlight how the martial is weaker than the spellcaster. The problem to the martial-caster divide is that with the lack of spell scarcity casters deal similar amounts of damage as martials, while also having everything else good about being a spellcaster. So the solution is to boost martial damage so that casters even with full spell slots can't match them.
For simplicity let's consider level 11-12 and assume the spellcaster using fireball or lightning bolt routinely as a damage spell, and hits 2 enemies with it each turn. That works out to ~12d6 dpr = 42. Now for martials to shine we want even the most basic one to be dealing equal or more damage than that to a single enemy... the most basic martial in sword & board fighter base dpr = 3 * (1d8 + 5) * 0.65 = 18 dpr to raise this up to 38 dpr we need to add an extra 10 damage to each attack. Giving them simply a +2 weapon gets them up to 26 dpr which if this was a medium length adventuring day and the caster could only use that fireball every other round would be competitive. But we're not playing in a game like that we're in a game with 1 combat per day, so the caster can fireball every round without risking running out of spell slots.
So let's double our modifier damage to all attacks, and get a +2 weapon : that brings us up to 37 dpr as a sword & board fighter but that's relying on a magic item which we don't want to do b/c not every table uses it. So how about: martials get to add double their modifier to damage rolls and as a baseline all weapons use twice as many dice as they do now: 3 * (2d8 + 10) * 0.65 = 37 dpr. Which gives our unoptimized martial with no magic item sustained damage similar to that of a fireball, but against a single target and with 0 risk of collateral damage. If we instead consider the same fighter using a +2 greatsword instead: they are at 58 dpr - significantly more than the caster.
Thus, I will suggest that simply allowing martials to add double their modifier to damage and having weapon damage scale similarly to cantrips would solve the martial-caster divide with ease.
A fundamental rule of 5e is that you must sacrifice damage to apply conditions to an enemy. Simply look at cantrips to see this in action: Firebolt only deals damage and does 1d10 dmg, Frostbite slightly slows the enemy so does 1d8 dmg, Vicious Mockery imposes DA on an attack and does 1d4 dmg. The same can be seen at any spell level: Fireball and Lightning Bolt only deal damage and do 8d6 dmg, Tidal Wave knocks prone and does 4d8 dmg, Hypnotic Pattern incapacitates and does 0 dmg.
Martials can right now in 5e: disarm, knock prone, shove or grapple at the cost of one of their attacks (not their whole action), or for the battlemaster or an open hand monk for free. However, they don't do it because the reason people choose to play a martial is to deal big damage to the enemy, NOT to impose conditions on the enemy. If someone wants to play as a character that has tons of options to impose conditions on the enemy they play as a spellcaster, because that is what spellcasters are good at. Because of the party system, 5e rewards specialization. It's why monks are considered trash - they don't do as much damage as martials and they aren't as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster.
Making martials simultaneously as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster while also dealing maximum damage invalidates the spellcasters. Making them less good at imposing conditions than a spellcaster means those options will be rarely used. I just look at the battlemasters I've DMed or played with... those that enjoyed the maneuvers exclusively used them to deal more damage using SS/GWM. Battlemasters that used their maneuvers for other things generally were disappointed with the results - e.g. I had a dual warhammer wielding battlemaster with the Goading maneuver and 80% of the time the Goading maneuver made 0 difference because he was the only character in melee with the enemy so the enemy was going to attack him anyway, I had a bugbear battlemaster and with lunging attack and 80% of the time the lunge made no difference and they used the maneuver just to add the d8 to their damage, but then I had a SS longbow-using battlemaster with Precise attack and they used it to Nova down an enemy in the first round of 50% of combats.
By far the most effective condition that all martials can impose on the enemy is death - it is permanent, irrevocable, and eliminates all threat from the creature - and it is the one that all martials are the best at causing because they are designed for high, single-target damage. To frame this another way, it is already true that even with just a couple of build choices any STR-base martial can be built to be an awesome grappler that will have much higher rates of success on grappling/shoving than any spell cast by a spellcaster (enemies generally have ~50% chance of making a saving throw, but the only enemies with proficiency in athletics/acrobatics are giants & humanoids making grapple checks for a character with high STR and proficiency in athletics ~70% successful), there are even some optimizer channels that have covered these builds. But players choose not to use them because players who choose to play martials want to kill enemies.
To 'solve' the martial-caster divide, give martials more ways to kill enemies better. Don't give martials extra options that are 'like' spellcasters only weaker, because that will just further highlight how the martial is weaker than the spellcaster. The problem to the martial-caster divide is that with the lack of spell scarcity casters deal similar amounts of damage as martials, while also having everything else good about being a spellcaster. So the solution is to boost martial damage so that casters even with full spell slots can't match them.
For simplicity let's consider level 11-12 and assume the spellcaster using fireball or lightning bolt routinely as a damage spell, and hits 2 enemies with it each turn. That works out to ~12d6 dpr = 42. Now for martials to shine we want even the most basic one to be dealing equal or more damage than that to a single enemy... the most basic martial in sword & board fighter base dpr = 3 * (1d8 + 5) * 0.65 = 18 dpr to raise this up to 38 dpr we need to add an extra 10 damage to each attack. Giving them simply a +2 weapon gets them up to 26 dpr which if this was a medium length adventuring day and the caster could only use that fireball every other round would be competitive. But we're not playing in a game like that we're in a game with 1 combat per day, so the caster can fireball every round without risking running out of spell slots.
So let's double our modifier damage to all attacks, and get a +2 weapon : that brings us up to 37 dpr as a sword & board fighter but that's relying on a magic item which we don't want to do b/c not every table uses it. So how about: martials get to add double their modifier to damage rolls and as a baseline all weapons use twice as many dice as they do now: 3 * (2d8 + 10) * 0.65 = 37 dpr. Which gives our unoptimized martial with no magic item sustained damage similar to that of a fireball, but against a single target and with 0 risk of collateral damage. If we instead consider the same fighter using a +2 greatsword instead: they are at 58 dpr - significantly more than the caster.
Thus, I will suggest that simply allowing martials to add double their modifier to damage and having weapon damage scale similarly to cantrips would solve the martial-caster divide with ease.
I understand and for the most part agree with your statement. However, martials that I have played with have been able to do quite a bit of single-target damage, which in general better than AoE damage (i.e. it is generally better to do 40 damage to one opponent than 20 damage to two different opponents).
What I suggested was for some simple at-will manoeuvers was to take away the opportunity cost of a lost action and lost damage potential. Fighters could be able on perhaps one of their attacks per round, do whatever regular damage they might cause AND do something in addition (disarm, grapple, trip, forced movement, reduce speed, or other similar effects). The character might have to decide what they specialize in, similar to the Battlemaster now and the effects would be relatively minor at low levels but could possibly scale up at higher levels. The battlefield control that these manoeuvers would provide probably still would not approach what spellcasters can do with their theoretically limited resources, but at least would provide the martials with something interesting to consider along with merely dealing out damage.
At higher levels, sure the spellcasters can have backup plans (clone, contingency, etc.) that makes them extraordinarily hard to kill, but in combat (especially considering legendary resistances) it usually still comes down to martials having to deal out the damage to kill the BBEG. Sure, maybe they need the spellcasters to buff them and control the enemy in such a way that they have the best chance to do this, but it still often comes down to the big, brawny guy or gal getting the satisfaction of knocking something's head in.
do whatever regular damage they might cause AND do something in addition (disarm, grapple, trip, forced movement, reduce speed, or other similar effects).
I understand that, but those mechanics are already available - as Battlemaster Maneuvers, and in the TCE feats. The only one anyone gives a second thought to is Crusher and that is for caster-builds not martials because it is mainly useful for pushing/pulling into AoE for more damage. Slasher gives free reduction of movement speed 1/turn and nobody cares! Because 90% of the time it doesn't matter! - the enemy was going to attack you anyways or it can still get to the creature it wants to attack.
Knocking a creature prone helps your melee allies but hurts your ranged allies so can often end up a net negative to the party performance, and the enemy can easily just stand up again on their turn.
Disarm is useless nearly all the time b/c many enemies aren't holding weapons, those that are holding weapons generally have more than one weapon on them, and enemies can pick up a weapon you knock out of their hands as a free action.
One of the strengths of 5e was eliminating lots of low-impact effects, because there is a cost in terms of DM stress / effort and combat flow to every condition imposed on enemies -> i.e. a fighter reducing an enemy's speed by 10ft means the DM has to remember which enemy has been effected (or has to place a marker to mark it) and if it gets forgotten and then remembered later leads to "But, actually.." interruptions. It also has a cost for players in terms of : "Hang on let me check how many times I can do this.." slow down of combat. Thus the effect needs to be consequential enough that it is worth the cognitive and time investment to deal with it. Otherwise you'll end up like 4e where loads of effects are just bushed over or ignored because they aren't worth the effort to keep track of.
A 1/combat ability that turns the tide of battle is far more memorable, and far less work thus makes a more enjoyable than a 1/turn ability that 90% of the time makes no difference.
I agree that the best thing to prevent this imbalance from causing issues at a table is for spellcasters to support martials rather than trying to hog the spotlight.
That's a non-solution. Any balance problem can be handled by the the players or DM making it not an issue, and to some degree things have to be done that way, but you want to structure the game system so if possible it arises naturally, rather than by accepting artificial limitations.
Is there another mechanic that might offer martials a way to make decisions and influence the outcome in combat?
Using Sharpshooter, a player can deliver more damage by reducing the chance of hitting their opponent. Would one strength of a martial be that they do not need this feat but can make similar decisions for any type of attack as part of their class? Could they sacrifice some of their bonus to hit to increase damage or increase their AC? Instead of defining a critical as a single value on the initial d20 attack role, if a player rolls more than the AC/DC, could they do more damage? For example, any d20 attack more than +5 above an AC is a critical for a martial. I like the mechanics of Inspiration, Superiority, and spells like Bless, etc., but they should amplify the ability of the martial rather than be the source of the ability.
An old school AD&D 1e homebrew idea from the 1980s: the d20 roll in combat meant more than a yes or no answer to the question of did you hit the monster.
In terms of choices in combat, there are three major choices for martials: (1) Where do I stand? (2) Which enemy do I try to kill? (3) Can I kill the enemy more effectively with my weapon or by shoving them into a spell or off of a cliff?
(1) determines whether you are tanking or avoiding getting hit. (2) determines how much you can swing the action economy into the party's favour. (3) determines what type of attack you make on them.
Bonus damage or effects on a critical hit are not a choice, they are just extra power.
SS & GWM are choices rather than just extra power but aren't treated as such by the community because optimization channels don't understand strategy.
The ability to apply 1 of 3 minor conditions for free once per turn as part of your attack only is a choice if you can hit multiple enemies in one turn, or if those conditions use different saving throws -> I spend a year playing as an Open Hand monk which gets Shove & Prone for free with their Flurry of Blows, half the time I just picked on at random b/c it didn't actually matter but I "might as well" since I could.
Here are some special maneuvers you can give your martials that are actually choices and will have an impact on the flow of combat:
Stunts
You learn a number of stunts equal to your proficiency bonus. You can use each you stunts once and regain the ability to use it when you finish a short or long rest.
Parry - When an enemy makes a melee weapon attack that targets you, you can use your reaction to parry that attack and drive their weapon into the ground. The attack automatically misses and the creature must end their turn immediately.
Armour Breaker - You use an attack to target the enemy's armour rather than their vitality. Make a weapon attack, on a hit you reduce the target's AC by an amount equal to the damage dealt rather than reducing their hit points. This cannot reduce an enemy's AC below 10+their Dexterity modifier. This effect lasts until the creature finishes a short or long rest.
Killing Blow - When you make an attack on an enemy creature on your turn, you can choose to make that attack a Killing Blow. Your attack automatically hits and you add 5x your proficiency bonus to the damage roll, immediately upon using this ability you gain 1 point of exhaustion and your turn ends.
Crippling Strike - When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you reduce one movement speed that creature has to 5 ft. This effect lasts for 1 hour or until the creature receives magical healing of any kind.
Whirlwind Strike - When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can make a number of attacks equal to your proficiency bonus. Each attack must target a different creature, and each attack does additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus on a hit.
Arcane Deflection - When you are targeted by a spell of a level less than or equal to your proficiency bonus, you can use your reaction to deflect the all of the spell's effects thus no longer being a target of that spell. If there is another creature within 10 ft of you, you may deflect the spell onto them causing them to become a target of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure. You can make spellcasters not be crazy reality breakers. The point is, you have to give warriors things that are as dramatic and disruptive as spells.
The way this normally works in literature is that the mundane characters are made relevant by plot contrivance -- they're in the right place at the right time, or have the right skill at the right time, or some such. There's ways to do that kind of thing in RPGs (DMs can just do it with their inherent powers, or you can try to bake it into the system), but they're tricky to make work well.
I'm not going to say that the Martial-Caster divide isn't real, it very much is, but I also find that it's not as big a deal at my table when I run games vs. how big a deal it was when I was a player at someone else's table.
And that's because I allow my Martial players a good deal of freedom in what they want to do. Casters have a description of what their spell does and if the spell doesn't say it can do something, then it can't (Unless it's because of an omitted mention that makes no sense. Gust of Wind, for instance, only makes mention of moving creatures, not loose objects, but it would make no sense for it not to be able to move those).
So, for instance, if there's a statue in the middle of the battle map and the barbarian decides they want to topple it over onto a group of zombies, they get an Athletics(Str) check (with advantage if they're raging) to try to do so and if they succeed, it's potentially going to do more damage to the zombies than a round of attacks (or even a spell from the Casters) would have done. If a Caster wants to do the same, but with a spell, they'd better show me where in the spell description it says the spell can do that. (Stone Shape, for instance, wouldn't do it, at least not in one turn. Because while that lets you shape stone, it doesn't give you magical control over what is attached to that stone. So at my table, a character who wants to use Stone Shape to topple said statue first needs to spend an action on an intelligence check to figure out how to shape the stone so that the statue will topple in the right direction instead of just coming down on their hands and then falling in a random direction.)
Martials are, with few exceptions, more physically capable than the average Caster and I offer them opportunities to make use of that at my table. As a result, the Casters and Martials both tend to have their moments to shine and frequently have to rely on each other.
Unfortunately a lot of what makes Martials powerful even in the later levels is dependent on the DM and how they approach letting Martials do things in their campaign/encounters, rather than in pure RAW.
I don’t think I said ALL subclasses should be magical. Sorry if that was how it was taken. Just that if you want a magical fighter you can have subclasses like Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Psi Warrior. Let the magic portion be in a subclass. Champion, Samurai, Battlemaster are all subclasses that can expand on the “grounded” theme.
Im not sure if the “only way to tip the scales” has to be side effects, but that is an option. Another option is to put most of the utility at low level and With prepared spells limited by spell slots you have to choose wisely. Or put the big utility spells at higher levels so the even more limited slots/preparations require the choice damage vs utility. Remove ritual casting or remove the ritual tag from some utility spells so they require spell slots. Or just pair down the number of utility spells in the game. Change how those spells work or change their casting times.
I guess it depends on what are the “offending” utility spells are when determining what to do with them
I’m sure there are other ways to try to even the playing field. But I would still be fine with casters having the edge in utility and martials have the edge in damage. Even split on buff/debuff/CC options.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think you are confusing my point. I do agree that Warriors should have powerful abilities that them do more things in terms of utility. That being said, I think those mechanics shouldn't be too unrealistic, because many styles of play can't afford for them to be.
I do agree with you that the "Right place, right time" thing is hard to emulate, though you could add in some fate mechanics or whatever. But again, there are other ways too balance casters and martials, I listed several of them earlier.
1. Not all worlds have tons and tons of spellcasters, and groups that want all realism should have that option too.
2. Playing with brave knights and Warriors in a world where there are powerful Wizards is a common trope, and people should be able to replicate it in D&D if they want to.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Currently, that is all too true. When 1DD comes out though, hopefully the new weapon system and other improvements that the Warriors are getting will change that though.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.While it may be a small consideration and dependent on the availability of magical potions in the campaign, I have found that the simple, common homebrew rule of drinking a potion for a bonus action tends to help martials more than spellcasters. I might even consider providing this as a martial-exclusive ability. Whether it is the ability to quaff a healing potion or a potion that provides some kind of buff in the midst of battle for only a small detriment to action economy, this tends to be most useful for front-line combatants. With the popularity of the Witcher, it seems like a strategy that should be popular and does not really make the fighter-type seem inherently magical, just someone that utilizes the magical items available in the world, helping them seem a bit more grounded. While DM dependent, combined with greater availability of a broad range of potions or potion-like consumables, I think this can help give martials a bit more utility and flexibility.
Ok, two things:
1. Unlike some other TTRPGs like V:tM and Paranoia, D&D is designed as a cooperative game. If the powerful wizard and the brave knight are fighting each other, rather than fighting the BBEG together, something went wrong.
2. This is only true if the wizard has perfect knowledge and preparation time, while the martial does not.
Nah. A powerful (which I'm reading as "high level") wizard that's played by someone with more than one functional neuron can chump any nonmagical martial character for free. No, the wizard won't always have the perfect spell for the job, but any baseline-competent wizard will have a set of go-to spells nailed to their prep bar, and at least one of those spells is going to be a disable. My own wizard never leaves the inn without Telekinesis and Polymorph both, either of which is a hard stop to martials if they land. Hell, I rarely leave my bed without Levitate, which is also a hard stop to any melee-oriented martial for the cost of a second level spell. Swordswinger can't do snot if he's dangling helplessly twenty feet in the air while I line up a Disintegrate. And I'm not even an "optimal" wizard.
Yes, a bow user can deal with the "you're suspended somewhere unhelpful" disables, but nobody's talking about bow users when they talk about the Martial/Caster Disparity. And as a high-level spellcaster I can definitively say that one angry yaybo with a sword is about as threatening to me as a pissy housecat. Even if they win Initiative and start right next to be, unloading a full round of Action Surge'd attacks? They're not eating through 155HP in one round, I've got defensive spells, and one Dimension Door on my turn and I'm right back to being in uncontestable control of the encounter.
There's a reason I'm the tactical backbone of the team in Mira's campaign.
Please do not contact or message me.
That just makes it more untrue.
Because for a DM, playing optimally involves creating an enjoyable experience for your players, which roflstomping them into the ground with spells they can't respond to doesn't do.
Could you build a lvl 20 NPC Caster who can faceroll a whole party of level 20 Martials if you play them 'optimally'? Sure.
Could you build an lvl 20 NPC Martial who can faceroll a whole party of level 20 Casters if you play them 'optimally'? Yes, actually, just as easily.
I know, because I have done that once, just because my players at the time said it was impossible.
The Martial NPC, roughly based on if Batman was willing to kill, didn't need to be able to survive multiple encounter deaths, because she didn't die.
Unlike the four PCs (all level 18), who all died over the course of a series of three encounters.
All by the same method too: putting a bag over their head and choking them after sneaking up on them when they were out of sight from the others. You'd be surprised at how many massively powerful high level spells you can't cast when you're unable to see and breathe. They certainly were.
Also, slight tangent, but which spell are you going to use to escape an encounter with contingency? You can't use teleport, that's level 7, and even if it wasn't, it targets an area, not a creature (and therefore you can't target yourself). You can't use dimension door, because the target for that is the location you want to move to and contingency only works for spells that (can) target yourself. You can't use misty step because contingency only works for spells that have casting time of 1 action. All other spells that allow for an easy instant escape have one of those three issues. (Well, except Tree Stride. That has several other issues instead.) So the way I see it, the closest you'd come to an easy escape is something like gaseous form. But if that triggers when you get below a certain amount of hitpoints and it's not your turn, you're not any better off (since at the point where an NPC wizard could prepare that, the Martials will have magic weapons, so the ostensible immediate benefit of resistance against non-magical damage isn't relevant).
Also, you keep talking about clone like it's a super easy spell to abuse. It costs 3000 gold and you have to cut a not insignificant piece out of yourself for each casting. Do you have any idea how hard it is (or at least should be) to keep your frequent purchases (or thefts) of intact 1000gp diamonds and 2000 gp containers with a sealable lid hidden from nosy adventurers? Unless the party and every last one of their allies are all a bunch of drooling morons, they should reasonably speaking find out that the Wizard has a bunch of clones hidden somewhere well before the final encounter and searching out and destroying those clones before the final fight (possibly after one successful escape using a clone reveals their existence) would be an integral part of the adventure.
All that's required for an equally prepared Martial BBEG to escape a losing fight against the party without having to literally die and respawn is for them to spend a fraction of the gold the Wizard BBEG spent on their clone on a hidden trapdoor in their base of operations that covers an escape tunnel with a lever that collapses the tunnel behind them. They can then spend all the gold they saved relative to the Wizard on more traps, goons and magic items to give them an edge against the party (and the party some extra bonus loot when they finally do defeat him).
Yes.
If it is, then the people 'citing' that are incorrect. You cannot use dimension door with contingency, because if you'll mouse over it, you can clearly see it says 'and that can target you' in the very first sentence. Dimension door targets a location within 500ft. It affects you, but it doesn't target you.
A Martial NPC can also pay a Caster to cast Clone on them.
Because, and this is important, yes there is a divide in capability between Martials and Casters, there's no denying that, but when the Martials at a table feel like they're useless, that's not because there's a power divide between Martials and Casters, it's because they're at a sh!tty table. When you have good players who care about each other's fun as much as about their own, that Caster power is tapped partially to make the Martials perform better too.
A Wizard can cast Greater Invisibility on themselves and throw spells without being seen and leave the Rogue feeling useless... Or they can cast it on the Rogue, who can combine it with Sneak Attack and Cunning Action: Hide to be an undetectable menace to whatever the group is fighting while the wizard throws spells from the back line, like they would if they'd cast it on themselves and were invisible.
A Wizard can cast Fly on themselves and zip out of range of groundbound melee enemies so that they could essentially solo all those enemies (assuming the DM is dumb and lets that kind of situation happen),... Or they can cast it on the Martials when flying enemies show up so that the close range Martials can take to the skies to fight them while the Casters (and any Martials that focus on ranged weapons) stay safely on the ground, attacking at range.
At a good table, the Casters use the versatility and power of their magic to help the party, not to hog the glory. (This is, honestly, why I often dislike the mindset of
min-maxing munchkinsself-described 'optimisers'. Most of them care only about 'optimising' their own character, not about legitimately optimising the power of the party as a whole. Regardless of whether they're Casters trying to leverage the full utility and power of high level casters for their own character alone or whether they're Martials trying to find the one true build(tm) that can match the power of high level casters without help from those casters, they don't treat the game as a collaboration.)Frankly, I never liked magical subclasses for fighter. Kind of watered down the main theme, as if designers couldn't come up with physical ways the class could operate or specialize in. This game could definitely use an arcane gish as a place for all the magic fighter ideas... But that's just my taste.
I'm saying that side effcts are only way because any other way of bringing casters closer to martials includes direct nerfs - either taking power away or imposing limitations, and neither of those will be welcome (though might be necessary in the end). Side effects is a way to let casters keep their power, while introducing stuff to be mindful of so that they'd have to think before casting "solve problem" spell.
A relatively simple way of giving martial characters a limited number of over the top but still realistic-seeming effects would be giving them a "replace a d20 roll with a 20" mechanic with limited uses per day (something like level/5 or /6). Then make sure there's actual over the top things you can do by rolling a 25 or 30.
A fundamental rule of 5e is that you must sacrifice damage to apply conditions to an enemy. Simply look at cantrips to see this in action: Firebolt only deals damage and does 1d10 dmg, Frostbite slightly slows the enemy so does 1d8 dmg, Vicious Mockery imposes DA on an attack and does 1d4 dmg. The same can be seen at any spell level: Fireball and Lightning Bolt only deal damage and do 8d6 dmg, Tidal Wave knocks prone and does 4d8 dmg, Hypnotic Pattern incapacitates and does 0 dmg.
Martials can right now in 5e: disarm, knock prone, shove or grapple at the cost of one of their attacks (not their whole action), or for the battlemaster or an open hand monk for free. However, they don't do it because the reason people choose to play a martial is to deal big damage to the enemy, NOT to impose conditions on the enemy. If someone wants to play as a character that has tons of options to impose conditions on the enemy they play as a spellcaster, because that is what spellcasters are good at. Because of the party system, 5e rewards specialization. It's why monks are considered trash - they don't do as much damage as martials and they aren't as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster.
Making martials simultaneously as good at imposing conditions as a spellcaster while also dealing maximum damage invalidates the spellcasters. Making them less good at imposing conditions than a spellcaster means those options will be rarely used. I just look at the battlemasters I've DMed or played with... those that enjoyed the maneuvers exclusively used them to deal more damage using SS/GWM. Battlemasters that used their maneuvers for other things generally were disappointed with the results - e.g. I had a dual warhammer wielding battlemaster with the Goading maneuver and 80% of the time the Goading maneuver made 0 difference because he was the only character in melee with the enemy so the enemy was going to attack him anyway, I had a bugbear battlemaster and with lunging attack and 80% of the time the lunge made no difference and they used the maneuver just to add the d8 to their damage, but then I had a SS longbow-using battlemaster with Precise attack and they used it to Nova down an enemy in the first round of 50% of combats.
By far the most effective condition that all martials can impose on the enemy is death - it is permanent, irrevocable, and eliminates all threat from the creature - and it is the one that all martials are the best at causing because they are designed for high, single-target damage. To frame this another way, it is already true that even with just a couple of build choices any STR-base martial can be built to be an awesome grappler that will have much higher rates of success on grappling/shoving than any spell cast by a spellcaster (enemies generally have ~50% chance of making a saving throw, but the only enemies with proficiency in athletics/acrobatics are giants & humanoids making grapple checks for a character with high STR and proficiency in athletics ~70% successful), there are even some optimizer channels that have covered these builds. But players choose not to use them because players who choose to play martials want to kill enemies.
To 'solve' the martial-caster divide, give martials more ways to kill enemies better. Don't give martials extra options that are 'like' spellcasters only weaker, because that will just further highlight how the martial is weaker than the spellcaster. The problem to the martial-caster divide is that with the lack of spell scarcity casters deal similar amounts of damage as martials, while also having everything else good about being a spellcaster. So the solution is to boost martial damage so that casters even with full spell slots can't match them.
For simplicity let's consider level 11-12 and assume the spellcaster using fireball or lightning bolt routinely as a damage spell, and hits 2 enemies with it each turn. That works out to ~12d6 dpr = 42. Now for martials to shine we want even the most basic one to be dealing equal or more damage than that to a single enemy... the most basic martial in sword & board fighter base dpr = 3 * (1d8 + 5) * 0.65 = 18 dpr to raise this up to 38 dpr we need to add an extra 10 damage to each attack. Giving them simply a +2 weapon gets them up to 26 dpr which if this was a medium length adventuring day and the caster could only use that fireball every other round would be competitive. But we're not playing in a game like that we're in a game with 1 combat per day, so the caster can fireball every round without risking running out of spell slots.
So let's double our modifier damage to all attacks, and get a +2 weapon : that brings us up to 37 dpr as a sword & board fighter but that's relying on a magic item which we don't want to do b/c not every table uses it. So how about: martials get to add double their modifier to damage rolls and as a baseline all weapons use twice as many dice as they do now: 3 * (2d8 + 10) * 0.65 = 37 dpr. Which gives our unoptimized martial with no magic item sustained damage similar to that of a fireball, but against a single target and with 0 risk of collateral damage. If we instead consider the same fighter using a +2 greatsword instead: they are at 58 dpr - significantly more than the caster.
Thus, I will suggest that simply allowing martials to add double their modifier to damage and having weapon damage scale similarly to cantrips would solve the martial-caster divide with ease.
I understand and for the most part agree with your statement. However, martials that I have played with have been able to do quite a bit of single-target damage, which in general better than AoE damage (i.e. it is generally better to do 40 damage to one opponent than 20 damage to two different opponents).
What I suggested was for some simple at-will manoeuvers was to take away the opportunity cost of a lost action and lost damage potential. Fighters could be able on perhaps one of their attacks per round, do whatever regular damage they might cause AND do something in addition (disarm, grapple, trip, forced movement, reduce speed, or other similar effects). The character might have to decide what they specialize in, similar to the Battlemaster now and the effects would be relatively minor at low levels but could possibly scale up at higher levels. The battlefield control that these manoeuvers would provide probably still would not approach what spellcasters can do with their theoretically limited resources, but at least would provide the martials with something interesting to consider along with merely dealing out damage.
At higher levels, sure the spellcasters can have backup plans (clone, contingency, etc.) that makes them extraordinarily hard to kill, but in combat (especially considering legendary resistances) it usually still comes down to martials having to deal out the damage to kill the BBEG. Sure, maybe they need the spellcasters to buff them and control the enemy in such a way that they have the best chance to do this, but it still often comes down to the big, brawny guy or gal getting the satisfaction of knocking something's head in.
I understand that, but those mechanics are already available - as Battlemaster Maneuvers, and in the TCE feats. The only one anyone gives a second thought to is Crusher and that is for caster-builds not martials because it is mainly useful for pushing/pulling into AoE for more damage. Slasher gives free reduction of movement speed 1/turn and nobody cares! Because 90% of the time it doesn't matter! - the enemy was going to attack you anyways or it can still get to the creature it wants to attack.
Knocking a creature prone helps your melee allies but hurts your ranged allies so can often end up a net negative to the party performance, and the enemy can easily just stand up again on their turn.
Disarm is useless nearly all the time b/c many enemies aren't holding weapons, those that are holding weapons generally have more than one weapon on them, and enemies can pick up a weapon you knock out of their hands as a free action.
One of the strengths of 5e was eliminating lots of low-impact effects, because there is a cost in terms of DM stress / effort and combat flow to every condition imposed on enemies -> i.e. a fighter reducing an enemy's speed by 10ft means the DM has to remember which enemy has been effected (or has to place a marker to mark it) and if it gets forgotten and then remembered later leads to "But, actually.." interruptions. It also has a cost for players in terms of : "Hang on let me check how many times I can do this.." slow down of combat. Thus the effect needs to be consequential enough that it is worth the cognitive and time investment to deal with it. Otherwise you'll end up like 4e where loads of effects are just bushed over or ignored because they aren't worth the effort to keep track of.
A 1/combat ability that turns the tide of battle is far more memorable, and far less work thus makes a more enjoyable than a 1/turn ability that 90% of the time makes no difference.
That's a non-solution. Any balance problem can be handled by the the players or DM making it not an issue, and to some degree things have to be done that way, but you want to structure the game system so if possible it arises naturally, rather than by accepting artificial limitations.
Is there another mechanic that might offer martials a way to make decisions and influence the outcome in combat?
Using Sharpshooter, a player can deliver more damage by reducing the chance of hitting their opponent. Would one strength of a martial be that they do not need this feat but can make similar decisions for any type of attack as part of their class? Could they sacrifice some of their bonus to hit to increase damage or increase their AC? Instead of defining a critical as a single value on the initial d20 attack role, if a player rolls more than the AC/DC, could they do more damage? For example, any d20 attack more than +5 above an AC is a critical for a martial. I like the mechanics of Inspiration, Superiority, and spells like Bless, etc., but they should amplify the ability of the martial rather than be the source of the ability.
An old school AD&D 1e homebrew idea from the 1980s: the d20 roll in combat meant more than a yes or no answer to the question of did you hit the monster.
In terms of choices in combat, there are three major choices for martials: (1) Where do I stand? (2) Which enemy do I try to kill? (3) Can I kill the enemy more effectively with my weapon or by shoving them into a spell or off of a cliff?
(1) determines whether you are tanking or avoiding getting hit.
(2) determines how much you can swing the action economy into the party's favour.
(3) determines what type of attack you make on them.
Bonus damage or effects on a critical hit are not a choice, they are just extra power.
SS & GWM are choices rather than just extra power but aren't treated as such by the community because optimization channels don't understand strategy.
The ability to apply 1 of 3 minor conditions for free once per turn as part of your attack only is a choice if you can hit multiple enemies in one turn, or if those conditions use different saving throws -> I spend a year playing as an Open Hand monk which gets Shove & Prone for free with their Flurry of Blows, half the time I just picked on at random b/c it didn't actually matter but I "might as well" since I could.
Here are some special maneuvers you can give your martials that are actually choices and will have an impact on the flow of combat:
Stunts
You learn a number of stunts equal to your proficiency bonus. You can use each you stunts once and regain the ability to use it when you finish a short or long rest.
Parry - When an enemy makes a melee weapon attack that targets you, you can use your reaction to parry that attack and drive their weapon into the ground. The attack automatically misses and the creature must end their turn immediately.
Armour Breaker - You use an attack to target the enemy's armour rather than their vitality. Make a weapon attack, on a hit you reduce the target's AC by an amount equal to the damage dealt rather than reducing their hit points. This cannot reduce an enemy's AC below 10+their Dexterity modifier. This effect lasts until the creature finishes a short or long rest.
Killing Blow - When you make an attack on an enemy creature on your turn, you can choose to make that attack a Killing Blow. Your attack automatically hits and you add 5x your proficiency bonus to the damage roll, immediately upon using this ability you gain 1 point of exhaustion and your turn ends.
Crippling Strike - When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you reduce one movement speed that creature has to 5 ft. This effect lasts for 1 hour or until the creature receives magical healing of any kind.
Whirlwind Strike - When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can make a number of attacks equal to your proficiency bonus. Each attack must target a different creature, and each attack does additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus on a hit.
Arcane Deflection - When you are targeted by a spell of a level less than or equal to your proficiency bonus, you can use your reaction to deflect the all of the spell's effects thus no longer being a target of that spell. If there is another creature within 10 ft of you, you may deflect the spell onto them causing them to become a target of the spell.