You really should check out 4e. I think you would like it. Or at the very least you would like the at will abilities that all characters get. No one ever just attacks in that game. I’m going to say that because of the “meta” of DND the additional damage of the d8s matter. No matter how many options you have on your turn if you don’t do enough damage you will eventually feel ineffective. What you are asking for will probably be addressed by the new weapon properties. I think they will be doing something similar to BG3 if you have played the early access.
4e is the only version I never played. Mostly life just got in the way at the time. I'm honestly not sure I would enjoy it based on what I do know about it. But I think there are probably some good parts to it that are worth revisiting. I'll see if I can find a copy to scour for ideas. Thanks for the tip. :)
Mostly I'm just trying to find solutions to the problems people have with martials. I don't find Fighters boring at all myself haha. But I've always felt maneuvers were a mixed bag. Some are just bad. Most of them should have been options for far more characters. And I think the whole mechanic is clunky. So if people wanted the versatility of choices to make in combat, I think we should just open them all up to everyone that has been trained in martial weapons (or other similar criteria). The ones I listed in the other post are the fundamentals of training in those weapons. Why not let people use them every turn? If there are some limitations, but not too much, then there is a choice to actually make. If Warriors get an extra advantage on them, they will feel stronger.
The damage dice aren't a big deal. Only because there are so many other ways to increase damage, if martials are getting updated. Their weapons could have higher dice. They could add their proficiency bonus to damage. Any number of options. If people really like a dice pool they can choose to add on certain attacks, that can be done too like bardic inspiration. Without the need to tie them to maneuvers, which limit the options of everyone that doesn't get them, and even the ones that do.
I hope the new weapon properties do cover most of those. And then warriors just get a damage increase across the board. Then maybe they can come up with some better utility and features for them that don't depend on maneuver mechanics and stripping common moves from everyone else.
What kept martials and casters even in 4E was that they had a similar level of options and versatility. That is what we should take away from 4E. If we give martials a similar level of meaningful options and versatilities, targeting the same power level as casters, you can buff martials to be on par with casters.
Sure, but it's hard to do that while keeping casters as versatile as they are, because casters are crazy versatile.
I think that just means we have to make martials versatile as well. A huge part of the fun of casters is how versatile they are.
To help illustrate what I'm saying, here is a list of the battle master maneuvers and where I think they belong:
Things that do make sense as an actual special feature of a class (like all Fighters) or a subclass (like Battle Master):
Ambush
Bait and Switch
Commander's Strike - could work better like Voice of Authority
Commanding Presence
Distracting Strike - could have just been the Help Action as a Bonus Action
Evasive Footwork - could have just been Disengage as a Bonus Action
Maneuvering Attack
Rally
Riposte - fine for a feature, but it would certainly speed up combat if everyone could do it XD
Quick Toss - sure?
Tactical Assessment
Things that anyone trained in martial weapons should know how to do (with some reworks needed for some):
Brace - Makes sense for any martial weapon user, but it would very much change how all combats play out, maybe in a good way
Disarming Attack
Grappling Strike - we basically have it now
Lunging Attack - as a bonus action?
Parry - should use your reaction
Precision Attack - maybe a bonus action, or an alternate use for damage dice pool if you want to go that way
Pushing Attack - similar to the Unarmed Strike version, but for weapons and shields
Sweeping Attack - could be a nice Two-Handed Weapon property
Trip Attack - similar to the Unarmed Strike version, but for weapons and shields
Things that anyone should be able to do with a charisma roll in some way:
Feinting Attack - Deception
Goading Attack - Deception/Persuasion
Menacing Attack - Intimidation
All of these would obviously take some careful rewrites to various degrees to balance out as either features or always on options. Many would work just fine with some basic rules in place. I just hope this helps show the general concept.
Yes, this is essentially what I was driving at, enumerated far more precisely. Just having abilities like this connected with martial attacks will give warriors far more of the versatility that Mana is also encouraging. Many of them could even be open to all classes, but could be enhanced by warrior class features, and they would only really be used by front-line combatants anyways, who are most often warriors. I would also tie most of them to making melee attacks, as performing many of them in combination with something like an arrow strike is hard for me to imagine, and ranged characters already have the advantage of not being melee targets.
What kept martials and casters even in 4E was that they had a similar level of options and versatility. That is what we should take away from 4E. If we give martials a similar level of meaningful options and versatilities, targeting the same power level as casters, you can buff martials to be on par with casters.
Sure, but it's hard to do that while keeping casters as versatile as they are, because casters are crazy versatile.
I think that just means we have to make martials versatile as well. A huge part of the fun of casters is how versatile they are.
But where do you stop? When do you give everyone enough of the same powers that it feels balanced? What percentage of difference do martials need to make up? If they could do everything a Wizard can do with 1st level spells, would a Fighter feel balanced at that point? Or would that eventually not feel like enough? When a Barbarian can do a Raging Fireball, it's that good enough? If a Monk gets to add a bonus to all Wisdom skills, when do they step on Expert toes?
I'm genuinely asking. Because the idea of giving everyone everything doesn't sound like the same game anymore. I can't understand where you could draw a line that would feel right for every table and wouldn't just leave everyone playing the same character with different flavor.
Is a Fighter about 90% equal to a Wizard in raw damage? 75%?
Are they about 30% equal in utility?
5% of the number of choices to make in a turn?
What would it really take to buff them up to caster levels in everything while not nerfing anything on a Wizard?
Giving everyone the same powers isn't the same as making them balanced and versatilie. Like, my solution to bringing the Rogue up to Ranger and Bard levels involves just feats every other level. Along with more feats that grow with tiers. Oh, and fixing things like alchemist fire and caltrops and poison, such that they're useful past tier 1.
One thing I always felt that held the game back was the insistance of tying Martial growth to feats, but not giving enough feats, and capping feat power in tier 2. Like, at it's most basic.... where are the feats for a dagger thrower? If you want the dagger rogue to be a thing, why do you never support it? What about flexible weapons, like flail or whip? No support. Where are the tier 3 abilities for martials? What's the Martial equivalent to Mass Suggestion or True Sight?
I think that just means we have to make martials versatile as well. A huge part of the fun of casters is how versatile they are.
For some people, a huge part of the fun of simpler martial classes is they require less work to play and use. There are some people who like complexity, and those people deserve options too. I personally think that we should add a new class for people who like complexity, while keeping the Fighter class similar to how it is, so that the people who enjoy simple options and made it the most played class in the game have something they can enjoy as well.
With more versatility, there is often going to be more complexity; If your character has more options, then you the player with have to deal with more complexity when building and playing your character, as well as whenever you decide what mechanical actions they are going to do. In other words, more versatility should be added to Warriors and martials in general for sure, but there should still be classes that are simple that can be easily enjoyed by players who like less complexity.
Every type of player should have options set out for them, and I think we need to remember that when we discuss the Warriors for 1DD. The best possible solution would be to design lots of optional complexity or simplicity into several of the classes, so you can play the same Warrior in a simple way or a very complex one. That being said, the chief problem with this proposal is that it is incredibly hard to actually implement this, and trying to design classes like that can easily lead to an ultacomplicated or ultrasimple mess.
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 I agree that tier 3&4 are mostly an afterthought, its indicative of a general trend amongst martial vs casters. It also doesn't help that high level casters get some rather nice, world building spells that help flesh out the world, and high level martials.... don't.
Like... Arcane Gates is a way to create linked portals, which creates an interesting dynamic between cities (if you so choose to use it). There's the spells for creating temples, groves and towers from Xanathar's. There's Forbiddence, Guards and Wards, any form of planar travel, etc.
These spells, or similar, generally need to have a presence in game for a lot of places to function. The game isn't really set up to function without certain magics either. So, unless you rejigger how high level spells work, you kind of need high level casters to exist as NPCs at least to have access to said magics. It... can be frustrating to know there's these high level beings are hanging around and won't do anything while you go on adventures. And, occ, it can be frustrating to know you'll never be on the level of a kingdom's court archmage, and that kind of play is forbidden to you.
And, even if we say we're capping the game at 10, there ARE people who run high level games, just starting out at level 20 and going having fun. You need some sort of effort put in for those people and their games.
There is essentially one fundamental problem to my eyes:
Casters have tons of versatility but that is supposed to come at the opportunity cost of using up spellslots. Martials have less versatility but the things they can do, they can keep doing all day. The imbalance arises because in many games after a certain level spellslots are no longer a rare resource so casters can essentially do the things they can do all day. But this isn't the case in all games.
If we give martials the same versatility as casters but with no opportunity costs in keeping with their current design then they will be OP and casters will have nothing to do. If we give martials the same versatility as casters with the same limited use then they are just casters that have a wand shaped like a sword. TBH if equality is what is wanted across classes then we should just get rid of martials all together and simply add more gish subclasses to the casters.
Many parties already play this way anyway the last one-shot I ran had a party of : Hexblade warlock, Fathomless warlock, Twilight Cleric, Assassin Rogue. My current long running campaign is: Peace Cleric, Eloquence Bard, Paladin, Rogue-Warlock. If you look at parties of streaming games most are at least 50% full casters.
Honestly, the only / main reason to play a pure martial character is because you don't want to have to make choices either in combat or out of it. There are players who want to run forwards and smack the bad guy with their sword without having to use any strategy at all. I mean tons of players who choose casters rely almost exclusively on the same 5-6 spells for their entire campaign for the same reason. In some other threads here when I started discussing basic positioning tactics for a monk loads of people were complaining that this isn't a chess game where you plan out moves, and just watching my players I see tons of them go for these "power builds" and then make tons of strategic errors that effectively waste that build's abilities.
So honestly.... I kind of this this whole discussion is wrong headed... most players IME don't want more options because they already don't use 80% of the options that they do have. I mean just reading through this thread, there is a discussion about Grappling & Shoving that is just wrong -> already in 5e anyone can replace 1 attack they make with the attack action with an attempt to grapple or shove, One D&D is NOT changing that at all (One D&D is just changing it from Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics to Attack roll vs AC). There are already optional rules that allow anyone to disarm an enemy, or climb onto the back of a giant monster, or cleave through multiple enemies. People just choose not to use them because they are too complicated, because players and DMs don't want more complexity in general. Pathfinder 1 was a success b/c it was simpler than 3e. D&D 5e was a success b/c it is simpler than Pathfinder. The market has spoken....
IMO you could easily remove 75% of spells from the game, and not change how the game is actually played at a majority of game tables. So adding martial spells to mimic them is a terrible idea. If the goal is giving martials more versatility, then IMO the easiest way to do that is give every martial class 2 skill Expertises, and give each subclass a further 2 skill Expertises, while half-casters get 1 set of 2 skill Expertises, and full casters get 0 Expertise
So honestly.... I kind of this this whole discussion is wrong headed... most players IME don't want more options because they already don't use 80% of the options that they do have. I mean just reading through this thread, there is a discussion about Grappling & Shoving that is just wrong -> already in 5e anyone can replace 1 attack they make with the attack action with an attempt to grapple or shove, One D&D is NOT changing that at all (One D&D is just changing it from Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics to Attack roll vs AC). There are already optional rules that allow anyone to disarm an enemy, or climb onto the back of a giant monster, or cleave through multiple enemies. People just choose not to use them because they are too complicated, because players and DMs don't want more complexity in general. Pathfinder 1 was a success b/c it was simpler than 3e. D&D 5e was a success b/c it is simpler than Pathfinder. The market has spoken....
You seem to have misunderstood what Steg and I have suggested. I was suggesting employing a system where some of these actions like Grapple, Shove, Disarm, etc. as an option to perform as part of a regular attack once per round, not instead of the regular damaging attack. However, you are right that some people that want a simpler game play experience of just running up and hitting something might not be interested in pushing or knocking down their enemy at the same time. They can feel free to ignore these abilities and just simply hit for damage, but the option could still be there, if they choose to utilize it. To a certain extent, at will abilities are intrinsically also simpler, because a less experienced or less engaged player does not feel like they might be using a limited resource they should save for later.
I agree with a lot of the sentiments, Agilemind. I don't have time to go much deeper into it at the moment. But I did want to point out that there is one small change concerning the new Unarmed Strike rules that does make it different. It's the fact that anyone can take the Tavern Brawler feat at level 1. That let's you deal 1d4+Str damage (reroll 1s) when you use the attack, and still push the enemy. The Grappler feat later lets you do the same but for grapples.
The fact that you are only losing an average of about 3 damage compared to making a normal attack, turns these into viable options in the action economy. It's a choice to make that gives a martial more options. They take a feat to work, but the first one is free.
That's the model I think they could pattern a replacement for maneuvers on. Things that anyone with the right training could do. A trade off of just part of the damage would make these actions more usable, and give an edge to martials.
The trade-off always was and always should be... Casters are weak at low level. They are gods at high level. Fighters are strong at low level. They tapper off later and gain more versatility and survivability, but not necessarily power.
The complexity situation Agilemind is referring to is yet another reason why I wonder if we should cut off play at Tier 2. Because as you go into Tier 3 and above, no matter what you're playing, your character will be saddled with loads of abilities and features, and they will inevitably forget to use some of them. Also for full casters in particular, this can lead to decision paralysis.
What about for the people that enjoy T3 and T4 play though? Sure they are more of a minority, but they still exist.
So honestly.... I kind of this this whole discussion is wrong headed... most players IME don't want more options because they already don't use 80% of the options that they do have. I mean just reading through this thread, there is a discussion about Grappling & Shoving that is just wrong -> already in 5e anyone can replace 1 attack they make with the attack action with an attempt to grapple or shove, One D&D is NOT changing that at all (One D&D is just changing it from Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics to Attack roll vs AC). There are already optional rules that allow anyone to disarm an enemy, or climb onto the back of a giant monster, or cleave through multiple enemies. People just choose not to use them because they are too complicated, because players and DMs don't want more complexity in general. Pathfinder 1 was a success b/c it was simpler than 3e. D&D 5e was a success b/c it is simpler than Pathfinder. The market has spoken....
Pathfinder 1 was successful because 4E had some huge design flaws, like the amount of effects you had to keep track of. D&D 4E Essentials simplified a lot of the 4E design but were some of the worst releases in 4E. 5E streamlined nature is part of its success, but I see more battlemasters than champion; I believe the only reason why champion fighters were so common in the polls was because champion is in the SRD, which is supported by other SRD subclasses having the majority as well.
If we go way far back, at 9th level a Fighter built a castle and amassed an army. That pretty much made up for not getting to teleport. But not many people want to play that style of game anymore. I imagine the new Stronghold rules are going to be more like a home base for the whole party, not a small kingdom the Fighter gets to draw taxes and soldiers from.
Just a small personal anecdote about maneuvers that I think is useful for this topic. Please assume that I am well versed in the rules for multiclassing and communicated all of that to my player. I did many times and she understood. These were just her character choices and opinions.
She made a Fighter Battle Master/Sorcerer. I know it's not a combination that synergizes very well, and she did too. But it fit her character concept well. And more important to this story, it was a good illustration of one person seeing the martial/caster divide in action in one place.
By level 8, she regretted taking any levels in Fighter. She felt the maneuvers were too weak compared to her spells, even with a much lower spellcasting level than a full caster would have had. She said they were never worth using when a spell could do more, better. Even with Action Surge and all of the other benefits of the Fighter levels. She said the only maneuvers she ever used were Rally and sometimes Commander's Strike for the rogue in the party. And she was annoyed that she could have got those with just a Feat. She was right.
So I let her respend the Fighter levels into a Battlesmith Artificer. She got almost all of the Fighter benefits, and better spell progression. And she still kept Rally with a Feat. She was much happier, and her character's versatility and power jumped way up. The character was all kinds of MAD and it was still a big improvement.
This is just one story, but I think it illustrates how big the gap is, and how little maneuvers actually help bridge it.
Pathfinder 1 was successful because 4E had some huge design flaws, like the amount of effects you had to keep track of. D&D 4E Essentials simplified a lot of the 4E design but were some of the worst releases in 4E. 5E streamlined nature is part of its success, but I see more battlemasters than champion; I believe the only reason why champion fighters were so common in the polls was because champion is in the SRD, which is supported by other SRD subclasses having the majority as well.
I see way more Rogues and Barbarians than Battlemasters though. And Like Segodorkus the Battlemasters I have seen were extremely disappointed in the maneuvers and after a few levels swapped their Battlemaster levels to something else or completely rebuilt their characters. The only maneuver I've seen players enjoy using is Precise Attack to get off SS/GWM attacks, and Riposte for that extra Reaction attack. All of the others have ended up mostly being "feel bad" moments.
If you want to build out more limited use abilities for martials, it is the Rune Knight you want to be looking at. Everyone I've seen play a Rune Knight has enjoyed it, although it has a similar problem to Battlemaster in that certain runes are just way better than others. Cloud Rune is by far the most popular and has the best "feel" in combat, so TBH those wanting more "options" for fighters should really look at that as the model to go on : extremely limited use, but highly impactful. It "feels" way better to 1/combat make one decision that radically changes the course of that combat than it does making a 1/turn decision that has only minor repercussions.
E.g. Haste "feels" more powerful than Bless despite mathematically it being the opposite way round, or why a Vicious Weapon can "feel" more powerful than a +1 weapon, despite the math being the opposite way round, b/c of the massive critical hits.
I think that just means we have to make martials versatile as well. A huge part of the fun of casters is how versatile they are.
Frankly, the flexibility of high level spellcasters is a big part of why high level D&D has been quite rarely played in every edition of D&D -- high level spellcasters are hard to run and really really hard to DM for. 4th edition went too far in terms of removing disruptive spells, but there's a reason the vast majority of play (including published adventures) has been mid-level (level 4-9 or so, depending on your edition).
I wouldn't call the HP difference to be paltry. 3 HP per level is 15 HP after 5 levels, 30 after 10. Ignoring any HP bonuses from Con, at Fighter at 10th level has 64 HP from their class while a wizard has 42, I would say that is a sizable difference. And honestly, whether or not martials end up taking more damage is more dependent on the DM tactics. I've seen plenty of DM's take advantage of the lower HP amounts that casters have by having enemies hit the backrow with ranged attacks or spells.
I feel like the spell slot issue is dependent on the DM as well. In the games my group does, I find myself having to budget my spell slots, even at high levels because my DMs find ways to make me use my slots throughout the day. However, it seems that other DMs fall into a couple large encounters a day that ends up with casters being able to go all out in those couple of encounters. Plus, if we are adding additional options and resources to martials, this resource issue may resolve itself with this addition depending on the potency of the options. Though combat wise, I always felt like martials were not too far from casters; it was more in the out of combat part of the game that casters had an immense edge in.
I am going to answer these two points because it is true that the magical objects depend entirely on the game.
42 HP (plus cons) for a level 10 Wizard is a lot. And you have your magic to defend yourself, avoid getting hit, have more life, etc... That doesn't mean that eventually you can't go to the ground. But if it happens often, you are doing something wrong. Obviously if the DM wants to kill you, he will. He has many ways of doing it. But in a fair fight, you can usually avoid taking too much damage. Generally, as is normal, the frontliners will bear the brunt. That's why it seems to me that the HP difference between martial classes, and casters, should be much higher. In my opinion the D4 they had in previous editions was a better design. But it is a matter of opinions.
Regarding spell slots, a level 10 full caster can cast 15 spells per day. And that's not counting Flexible Casting, Arcane Recovery, Harness Divine Power, or racial spells/feats. Generally, if you use them wisely, you're going to spend 2 or 3 on a fight. Some more if the DM forces your reactions (especially to Sorcerers and Wizards). In my experience most game groups have 3-4 matches between long rests. So it's hard to run out of spell slots. At lower levels it does happen, and very often. But as you progress, it gets more and more complicated. Of course, each full caster is different, and some can spend more or less outside of combat. And it also depends on your build. But in general you will have plenty of spell slots for the whole day. That's hard to balance with a martial class, since magic is so powerful. And it must be. That's why my opinion is, to balance it, the only option is to reduce the spell slots of the full casters. And the skills that allow them to have more.
But to finish I want to say that all this is not a big problem for me either. But if you want to balance casters and martial classes, the only option is to nerf casters IMO. As much as you give more power to the martial classes, they are hardly going to be able to compete with the casters as they are right now.
Plus even if martial were made so that they can compete with casters that would mean doubling the number of non-combat encounters to have the game be the same difficulty.
I noticed btw that my comment about steel wind strike earlier was basically overlooked, but I do think it says something that a Wizard brandishing a weapon and a 5th level spell slot can do more "weapon damage" to multiple targets than an actual fighter in a single turn.
I'm sorry, I wanted to address this in a longer post later. But I'll try to summarize some of my thoughts on it.
Steel Wind Strike is a pretty neat spell. It definitely has that feeling of a Final Fantasy character doing a crazy ultimate attack. If that's the theme someone wants in the game for their Fighter, then it would certainly fit the bill.
But I agree, it's wild that a Wizard could do this, even if only a few times a day, and a martial can't (except for the Ranger once starting at level 17.)
There are some other issues too with basing martial abilities on this style of spell. The new Ranger tried to do something similar with Conjure Barrage in the Hunter ability Multiattack. But most people found it to be too weak for something you get at level 10.
Level 10 is a pretty high level. Conjure Barrage is only a level 3 spell. And Rangers are half martials/half casters. They already have the benefit of spellcasting. They already have their martial abilities reduced to balance for it. When would a full Fighter be able to get a feature like Conjure Barrage? If they are balanced like they are now, an Eldritch Knight gets level 3 spells at Fighter level 13. So the game feels like level 13 is the right place for a third level spell effect for a full martial. And if level 10 feels weak for a Ranger to get it, would level 13 feel even worse?
When would a 5th level spell effect be justified? Maybe level 20? Would anyone want Steel Wind Strike at that level? And it's only 1 spell. When a Wizard has two uses and a ton of other spell options at just class level 9. I'm only asking to talk my way through the issue.
And then the thing is, an Eldritch Knight could already do something like it. Maybe even better. At level 13. Twice a day. And without changing any rules at all. They could just reflavor Fireball.
You could say that your sword bursts into bright flames. You teleport 150' in a direction you can see. You strike at every enemy in a 20' radius, dealing 8d6 fire damage if they fail a Dex save. But you are so fast and the blade is so hot, they still take half the damage even if they succeed. Then after the damage is done, you teleport safely back to your starting point.
That's a perfectly legit way to flavor Fireball. And a Fighter can do it right now. I know not everyone is comfortable going that far with reflavoring, or they don't know it's possible. But the rules could just make that clear.
So the DnD rules believe a Fighter could conceivably do a crazy AoE fire attack at level 13 with the current balance. If we think Fighters are too weak, then maybe they could rebalance the class so this comes into play at level 10 or so. But the Wizard still has this spell and dozens more that they can cast at level 5. This is one of the reasons I feel like you can't really buff a Fighter up to the level of a Wizard without just remaking spells all over again. And that doesn't feel very good to me. But I don't know, that's why we're here I guess, haha.
If you want to build out more limited use abilities for martials, it is the Rune Knight you want to be looking at. Everyone I've seen play a Rune Knight has enjoyed it, although it has a similar problem to Battlemaster in that certain runes are just way better than others. Cloud Rune is by far the most popular and has the best "feel" in combat, so TBH those wanting more "options" for fighters should really look at that as the model to go on : extremely limited use, but highly impactful. It "feels" way better to 1/combat make one decision that radically changes the course of that combat than it does making a 1/turn decision that has only minor repercussions.
The Rune Knight really is a fun subclass. It just feels good to play and to DM for. I haven't seen it in really high levels yet, but Tier 1 and 2 are really nice. You writing this made me try to think about what made it work where others didn't for me.
The Runes - you don't get many (I would start them with 3 or progress faster myself), but they help on multiple levels. They give thematic bonuses to useful skills that last all day long. They get a handy feature to use in combat once per rest. And you can share the love with a friend!
Giant Might - an ability to become Large that actually feels strong!
Runic Shield - a nice way to protect your allies by basically forcing enemies to have disadvantage on an attack after they already rolled!
4e is the only version I never played. Mostly life just got in the way at the time. I'm honestly not sure I would enjoy it based on what I do know about it. But I think there are probably some good parts to it that are worth revisiting. I'll see if I can find a copy to scour for ideas. Thanks for the tip. :)
Mostly I'm just trying to find solutions to the problems people have with martials. I don't find Fighters boring at all myself haha. But I've always felt maneuvers were a mixed bag. Some are just bad. Most of them should have been options for far more characters. And I think the whole mechanic is clunky. So if people wanted the versatility of choices to make in combat, I think we should just open them all up to everyone that has been trained in martial weapons (or other similar criteria). The ones I listed in the other post are the fundamentals of training in those weapons. Why not let people use them every turn? If there are some limitations, but not too much, then there is a choice to actually make. If Warriors get an extra advantage on them, they will feel stronger.
The damage dice aren't a big deal. Only because there are so many other ways to increase damage, if martials are getting updated. Their weapons could have higher dice. They could add their proficiency bonus to damage. Any number of options. If people really like a dice pool they can choose to add on certain attacks, that can be done too like bardic inspiration. Without the need to tie them to maneuvers, which limit the options of everyone that doesn't get them, and even the ones that do.
I hope the new weapon properties do cover most of those. And then warriors just get a damage increase across the board. Then maybe they can come up with some better utility and features for them that don't depend on maneuver mechanics and stripping common moves from everyone else.
I think that just means we have to make martials versatile as well. A huge part of the fun of casters is how versatile they are.
Yes, this is essentially what I was driving at, enumerated far more precisely. Just having abilities like this connected with martial attacks will give warriors far more of the versatility that Mana is also encouraging. Many of them could even be open to all classes, but could be enhanced by warrior class features, and they would only really be used by front-line combatants anyways, who are most often warriors. I would also tie most of them to making melee attacks, as performing many of them in combination with something like an arrow strike is hard for me to imagine, and ranged characters already have the advantage of not being melee targets.
But where do you stop? When do you give everyone enough of the same powers that it feels balanced? What percentage of difference do martials need to make up? If they could do everything a Wizard can do with 1st level spells, would a Fighter feel balanced at that point? Or would that eventually not feel like enough? When a Barbarian can do a Raging Fireball, it's that good enough? If a Monk gets to add a bonus to all Wisdom skills, when do they step on Expert toes?
I'm genuinely asking. Because the idea of giving everyone everything doesn't sound like the same game anymore. I can't understand where you could draw a line that would feel right for every table and wouldn't just leave everyone playing the same character with different flavor.
Is a Fighter about 90% equal to a Wizard in raw damage? 75%?
Are they about 30% equal in utility?
5% of the number of choices to make in a turn?
What would it really take to buff them up to caster levels in everything while not nerfing anything on a Wizard?
Giving everyone the same powers isn't the same as making them balanced and versatilie. Like, my solution to bringing the Rogue up to Ranger and Bard levels involves just feats every other level. Along with more feats that grow with tiers. Oh, and fixing things like alchemist fire and caltrops and poison, such that they're useful past tier 1.
One thing I always felt that held the game back was the insistance of tying Martial growth to feats, but not giving enough feats, and capping feat power in tier 2. Like, at it's most basic.... where are the feats for a dagger thrower? If you want the dagger rogue to be a thing, why do you never support it? What about flexible weapons, like flail or whip? No support. Where are the tier 3 abilities for martials? What's the Martial equivalent to Mass Suggestion or True Sight?
For some people, a huge part of the fun of simpler martial classes is they require less work to play and use. There are some people who like complexity, and those people deserve options too. I personally think that we should add a new class for people who like complexity, while keeping the Fighter class similar to how it is, so that the people who enjoy simple options and made it the most played class in the game have something they can enjoy as well.
With more versatility, there is often going to be more complexity; If your character has more options, then you the player with have to deal with more complexity when building and playing your character, as well as whenever you decide what mechanical actions they are going to do. In other words, more versatility should be added to Warriors and martials in general for sure, but there should still be classes that are simple that can be easily enjoyed by players who like less complexity.
Every type of player should have options set out for them, and I think we need to remember that when we discuss the Warriors for 1DD. The best possible solution would be to design lots of optional complexity or simplicity into several of the classes, so you can play the same Warrior in a simple way or a very complex one. That being said, the chief problem with this proposal is that it is incredibly hard to actually implement this, and trying to design classes like that can easily lead to an ultacomplicated or ultrasimple mess.
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 I agree that tier 3&4 are mostly an afterthought, its indicative of a general trend amongst martial vs casters. It also doesn't help that high level casters get some rather nice, world building spells that help flesh out the world, and high level martials.... don't.
Like... Arcane Gates is a way to create linked portals, which creates an interesting dynamic between cities (if you so choose to use it). There's the spells for creating temples, groves and towers from Xanathar's. There's Forbiddence, Guards and Wards, any form of planar travel, etc.
These spells, or similar, generally need to have a presence in game for a lot of places to function. The game isn't really set up to function without certain magics either. So, unless you rejigger how high level spells work, you kind of need high level casters to exist as NPCs at least to have access to said magics. It... can be frustrating to know there's these high level beings are hanging around and won't do anything while you go on adventures. And, occ, it can be frustrating to know you'll never be on the level of a kingdom's court archmage, and that kind of play is forbidden to you.
And, even if we say we're capping the game at 10, there ARE people who run high level games, just starting out at level 20 and going having fun. You need some sort of effort put in for those people and their games.
There is essentially one fundamental problem to my eyes:
Casters have tons of versatility but that is supposed to come at the opportunity cost of using up spellslots. Martials have less versatility but the things they can do, they can keep doing all day. The imbalance arises because in many games after a certain level spellslots are no longer a rare resource so casters can essentially do the things they can do all day. But this isn't the case in all games.
If we give martials the same versatility as casters but with no opportunity costs in keeping with their current design then they will be OP and casters will have nothing to do. If we give martials the same versatility as casters with the same limited use then they are just casters that have a wand shaped like a sword. TBH if equality is what is wanted across classes then we should just get rid of martials all together and simply add more gish subclasses to the casters.
Many parties already play this way anyway the last one-shot I ran had a party of : Hexblade warlock, Fathomless warlock, Twilight Cleric, Assassin Rogue.
My current long running campaign is: Peace Cleric, Eloquence Bard, Paladin, Rogue-Warlock.
If you look at parties of streaming games most are at least 50% full casters.
Honestly, the only / main reason to play a pure martial character is because you don't want to have to make choices either in combat or out of it. There are players who want to run forwards and smack the bad guy with their sword without having to use any strategy at all. I mean tons of players who choose casters rely almost exclusively on the same 5-6 spells for their entire campaign for the same reason. In some other threads here when I started discussing basic positioning tactics for a monk loads of people were complaining that this isn't a chess game where you plan out moves, and just watching my players I see tons of them go for these "power builds" and then make tons of strategic errors that effectively waste that build's abilities.
So honestly.... I kind of this this whole discussion is wrong headed... most players IME don't want more options because they already don't use 80% of the options that they do have. I mean just reading through this thread, there is a discussion about Grappling & Shoving that is just wrong -> already in 5e anyone can replace 1 attack they make with the attack action with an attempt to grapple or shove, One D&D is NOT changing that at all (One D&D is just changing it from Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics to Attack roll vs AC). There are already optional rules that allow anyone to disarm an enemy, or climb onto the back of a giant monster, or cleave through multiple enemies. People just choose not to use them because they are too complicated, because players and DMs don't want more complexity in general. Pathfinder 1 was a success b/c it was simpler than 3e. D&D 5e was a success b/c it is simpler than Pathfinder. The market has spoken....
IMO you could easily remove 75% of spells from the game, and not change how the game is actually played at a majority of game tables. So adding martial spells to mimic them is a terrible idea. If the goal is giving martials more versatility, then IMO the easiest way to do that is give every martial class 2 skill Expertises, and give each subclass a further 2 skill Expertises, while half-casters get 1 set of 2 skill Expertises, and full casters get 0 Expertise
You seem to have misunderstood what Steg and I have suggested. I was suggesting employing a system where some of these actions like Grapple, Shove, Disarm, etc. as an option to perform as part of a regular attack once per round, not instead of the regular damaging attack. However, you are right that some people that want a simpler game play experience of just running up and hitting something might not be interested in pushing or knocking down their enemy at the same time. They can feel free to ignore these abilities and just simply hit for damage, but the option could still be there, if they choose to utilize it. To a certain extent, at will abilities are intrinsically also simpler, because a less experienced or less engaged player does not feel like they might be using a limited resource they should save for later.
I agree with a lot of the sentiments, Agilemind. I don't have time to go much deeper into it at the moment. But I did want to point out that there is one small change concerning the new Unarmed Strike rules that does make it different. It's the fact that anyone can take the Tavern Brawler feat at level 1. That let's you deal 1d4+Str damage (reroll 1s) when you use the attack, and still push the enemy. The Grappler feat later lets you do the same but for grapples.
The fact that you are only losing an average of about 3 damage compared to making a normal attack, turns these into viable options in the action economy. It's a choice to make that gives a martial more options. They take a feat to work, but the first one is free.
That's the model I think they could pattern a replacement for maneuvers on. Things that anyone with the right training could do. A trade off of just part of the damage would make these actions more usable, and give an edge to martials.
The trade-off always was and always should be... Casters are weak at low level. They are gods at high level. Fighters are strong at low level. They tapper off later and gain more versatility and survivability, but not necessarily power.
What about for the people that enjoy T3 and T4 play though? Sure they are more of a minority, but they still exist.
Pathfinder 1 was successful because 4E had some huge design flaws, like the amount of effects you had to keep track of. D&D 4E Essentials simplified a lot of the 4E design but were some of the worst releases in 4E. 5E streamlined nature is part of its success, but I see more battlemasters than champion; I believe the only reason why champion fighters were so common in the polls was because champion is in the SRD, which is supported by other SRD subclasses having the majority as well.
If we go way far back, at 9th level a Fighter built a castle and amassed an army. That pretty much made up for not getting to teleport. But not many people want to play that style of game anymore. I imagine the new Stronghold rules are going to be more like a home base for the whole party, not a small kingdom the Fighter gets to draw taxes and soldiers from.
Just a small personal anecdote about maneuvers that I think is useful for this topic. Please assume that I am well versed in the rules for multiclassing and communicated all of that to my player. I did many times and she understood. These were just her character choices and opinions.
She made a Fighter Battle Master/Sorcerer. I know it's not a combination that synergizes very well, and she did too. But it fit her character concept well. And more important to this story, it was a good illustration of one person seeing the martial/caster divide in action in one place.
By level 8, she regretted taking any levels in Fighter. She felt the maneuvers were too weak compared to her spells, even with a much lower spellcasting level than a full caster would have had. She said they were never worth using when a spell could do more, better. Even with Action Surge and all of the other benefits of the Fighter levels. She said the only maneuvers she ever used were Rally and sometimes Commander's Strike for the rogue in the party. And she was annoyed that she could have got those with just a Feat. She was right.
So I let her respend the Fighter levels into a Battlesmith Artificer. She got almost all of the Fighter benefits, and better spell progression. And she still kept Rally with a Feat. She was much happier, and her character's versatility and power jumped way up. The character was all kinds of MAD and it was still a big improvement.
This is just one story, but I think it illustrates how big the gap is, and how little maneuvers actually help bridge it.
I see way more Rogues and Barbarians than Battlemasters though. And Like Segodorkus the Battlemasters I have seen were extremely disappointed in the maneuvers and after a few levels swapped their Battlemaster levels to something else or completely rebuilt their characters. The only maneuver I've seen players enjoy using is Precise Attack to get off SS/GWM attacks, and Riposte for that extra Reaction attack. All of the others have ended up mostly being "feel bad" moments.
If you want to build out more limited use abilities for martials, it is the Rune Knight you want to be looking at. Everyone I've seen play a Rune Knight has enjoyed it, although it has a similar problem to Battlemaster in that certain runes are just way better than others. Cloud Rune is by far the most popular and has the best "feel" in combat, so TBH those wanting more "options" for fighters should really look at that as the model to go on : extremely limited use, but highly impactful. It "feels" way better to 1/combat make one decision that radically changes the course of that combat than it does making a 1/turn decision that has only minor repercussions.
E.g. Haste "feels" more powerful than Bless despite mathematically it being the opposite way round, or why a Vicious Weapon can "feel" more powerful than a +1 weapon, despite the math being the opposite way round, b/c of the massive critical hits.
Frankly, the flexibility of high level spellcasters is a big part of why high level D&D has been quite rarely played in every edition of D&D -- high level spellcasters are hard to run and really really hard to DM for. 4th edition went too far in terms of removing disruptive spells, but there's a reason the vast majority of play (including published adventures) has been mid-level (level 4-9 or so, depending on your edition).
I am going to answer these two points because it is true that the magical objects depend entirely on the game.
42 HP (plus cons) for a level 10 Wizard is a lot. And you have your magic to defend yourself, avoid getting hit, have more life, etc... That doesn't mean that eventually you can't go to the ground. But if it happens often, you are doing something wrong. Obviously if the DM wants to kill you, he will. He has many ways of doing it. But in a fair fight, you can usually avoid taking too much damage. Generally, as is normal, the frontliners will bear the brunt. That's why it seems to me that the HP difference between martial classes, and casters, should be much higher. In my opinion the D4 they had in previous editions was a better design. But it is a matter of opinions.
Regarding spell slots, a level 10 full caster can cast 15 spells per day. And that's not counting Flexible Casting, Arcane Recovery, Harness Divine Power, or racial spells/feats. Generally, if you use them wisely, you're going to spend 2 or 3 on a fight. Some more if the DM forces your reactions (especially to Sorcerers and Wizards). In my experience most game groups have 3-4 matches between long rests. So it's hard to run out of spell slots. At lower levels it does happen, and very often. But as you progress, it gets more and more complicated. Of course, each full caster is different, and some can spend more or less outside of combat. And it also depends on your build. But in general you will have plenty of spell slots for the whole day. That's hard to balance with a martial class, since magic is so powerful. And it must be. That's why my opinion is, to balance it, the only option is to reduce the spell slots of the full casters. And the skills that allow them to have more.
But to finish I want to say that all this is not a big problem for me either. But if you want to balance casters and martial classes, the only option is to nerf casters IMO. As much as you give more power to the martial classes, they are hardly going to be able to compete with the casters as they are right now.
Plus even if martial were made so that they can compete with casters that would mean doubling the number of non-combat encounters to have the game be the same difficulty.
I'm sorry, I wanted to address this in a longer post later. But I'll try to summarize some of my thoughts on it.
Steel Wind Strike is a pretty neat spell. It definitely has that feeling of a Final Fantasy character doing a crazy ultimate attack. If that's the theme someone wants in the game for their Fighter, then it would certainly fit the bill.
But I agree, it's wild that a Wizard could do this, even if only a few times a day, and a martial can't (except for the Ranger once starting at level 17.)
There are some other issues too with basing martial abilities on this style of spell. The new Ranger tried to do something similar with Conjure Barrage in the Hunter ability Multiattack. But most people found it to be too weak for something you get at level 10.
Level 10 is a pretty high level. Conjure Barrage is only a level 3 spell. And Rangers are half martials/half casters. They already have the benefit of spellcasting. They already have their martial abilities reduced to balance for it. When would a full Fighter be able to get a feature like Conjure Barrage? If they are balanced like they are now, an Eldritch Knight gets level 3 spells at Fighter level 13. So the game feels like level 13 is the right place for a third level spell effect for a full martial. And if level 10 feels weak for a Ranger to get it, would level 13 feel even worse?
When would a 5th level spell effect be justified? Maybe level 20? Would anyone want Steel Wind Strike at that level? And it's only 1 spell. When a Wizard has two uses and a ton of other spell options at just class level 9. I'm only asking to talk my way through the issue.
And then the thing is, an Eldritch Knight could already do something like it. Maybe even better. At level 13. Twice a day. And without changing any rules at all. They could just reflavor Fireball.
You could say that your sword bursts into bright flames. You teleport 150' in a direction you can see. You strike at every enemy in a 20' radius, dealing 8d6 fire damage if they fail a Dex save. But you are so fast and the blade is so hot, they still take half the damage even if they succeed. Then after the damage is done, you teleport safely back to your starting point.
That's a perfectly legit way to flavor Fireball. And a Fighter can do it right now. I know not everyone is comfortable going that far with reflavoring, or they don't know it's possible. But the rules could just make that clear.
So the DnD rules believe a Fighter could conceivably do a crazy AoE fire attack at level 13 with the current balance. If we think Fighters are too weak, then maybe they could rebalance the class so this comes into play at level 10 or so. But the Wizard still has this spell and dozens more that they can cast at level 5. This is one of the reasons I feel like you can't really buff a Fighter up to the level of a Wizard without just remaking spells all over again. And that doesn't feel very good to me. But I don't know, that's why we're here I guess, haha.
The Rune Knight really is a fun subclass. It just feels good to play and to DM for. I haven't seen it in really high levels yet, but Tier 1 and 2 are really nice. You writing this made me try to think about what made it work where others didn't for me.
The Runes - you don't get many (I would start them with 3 or progress faster myself), but they help on multiple levels. They give thematic bonuses to useful skills that last all day long. They get a handy feature to use in combat once per rest. And you can share the love with a friend!
Giant Might - an ability to become Large that actually feels strong!
Runic Shield - a nice way to protect your allies by basically forcing enemies to have disadvantage on an attack after they already rolled!
I think you're onto something with this idea.