Stacking extra attack

[GeneralVryth]

Would it be better if spell casters also had to rely on magic items to be good at their craft? Like, a Wizard just doesn't find and copy scrolls, but actually has to find a magical book to put them in? If a Fighter has to quest to find a magical weapon to help them out in later tiers, shouldn't a Wizard need to do the same to cast their best spells?

A Cleric might need a relic of a saint on their body to get their god's power. Elsewise they're stuck casting 1st level spells and cantrips like any neophyte. A Warlock might require the essence of their patron to boost their spell levels above 1st. And these things should either naturally run out of juice and/or be easily lost/stolen - to keep the casters going out for quests. IDK, maybe I played too much Heroquest... but if a Fighter is constantly looking for bigger and better magic items to keep up with the Jonses, to the point where they are actively tracking down quests and rumors for good loot - what's enticing the party Wizard or Cleric to go along? XP? Doesn't seem motivation enough to risk life and limb... Make the arcanist need to disenchant items to empower their slots, or need to find the Robes of Geddy Lee to be able to cast Hypnotic Pattern... something that's more than just "I woke up today and can move mountains again!"

Spellcasters already kind of do rely on magic items as well. The usual distinction I tend to make is appropriate magic items give martials options (something casters have a lot of), while magic items tend to give casters sustainability (something martials have lots of). Also, in general magic items are tools, they are means to achieve some other end, not the end itself.

That said, could you come up with some kind of system to that requires adventuring for casters to grow their spell power? Sure. But there is already one, it's called experience. If you start moving beyond that you are giving more narrative focus to spellcasters because they have an additional adventure point built in to the system. Also, you are creating a system that requires a very delicate balance (something GMs tend not to be good with). Too far on one end and casters end up being too powerful, too much the other way they are a chore to play or not playable.

One thing I do think is worthwhile (and I think someone else mentioned it in thread), we talk about casters being more powerful, but in what ways in that expressed? Are they dominating combat (I would actually be kind of surprised on this one)? Social? Exploration? Spotlight? Something else? I know what I think (it tends to be exploration, and the general ability to apply a reserve of power to a problem), but it may not be universal and understanding the expression of too powerful is important.

[LibraryOgre]

Flying Swordsmen had the right idea:

Give everyone kung-fu powers. Some kung-fu powers are less magical than others, but if high-level martials have kung-fu powers, you keep them closer to level with the full casters.

-5 to hit for +10 to damage? That should happen once you hit 10th level as a martial. You can teleport? I have a bonus to initiative that means I can throw a knife into you before you finish saying tele-.

Every time full casters get a spell, non-casters should get a combat ability that puts them above the caster. Bonus attacks are great, but initiative bonuses. Damage bonuses. Special attacks. I should be able to punch a wizard in the solar plexus and render him unable to cast for 3 rounds. I should be able to break his hand and give him spell failure chances with somatic components.

If the wizard can cast hold person on me, I should be able to cripple him in ways other than HP damage.

And the solution to that?

Kung fu powers.

[Theodoxus]

I'm with you LibraryOgre, but people scream 'Wuxia!' (a short hand for 'kung-fu powers') and things devolve...

Sword of Flying letting you leap like the Hulk? A-Ok. Leaping like the Hulk because you were born that way? Not on my turf, mister.

And apparently, making casters earn their powers through magic items is also 'NOMT,M'.

I think it'd be kind of nifty. "Where's my ring that lets me cast Magic Missile? Oh, right here next to my hat of fireballing! Hey look, there's my hat of Haste, I thought I lost that a long time ago!"

Instead of spells in spellbooks, it's spells in worn items. The larger the item, the most spells it holds... "Hmm, should I bring my cloak of Silence and Knock or my cloak of Flaming Sphere and Shatter..." "Hey, my robe of 1st level spells! That'll be handy!"

Oh well.

[JNAProductions]

Theodoxus, you know older editions still exist?
Rather than trying to get 5E to ape what earlier editions did in their entirety, why not just some TSR-era games?

[Dr.Samurai]

Would it be better if spell casters also had to rely on magic items to be good at their craft? Like, a Wizard just doesn't find and copy scrolls, but actually has to find a magical book to put them in? If a Fighter has to quest to find a magical weapon to help them out in later tiers, shouldn't a Wizard need to do the same to cast their best spells?

I think so. Mind you, there isn't a lot of "questing to find a magical weapon" for later tiers in the games I play, but I think the sentiment that things shouldn't come so easily to spell casters makes sense.

One thing I do think is worthwhile (and I think someone else mentioned it in thread), we talk about casters being more powerful, but in what ways in that expressed? Are they dominating combat (I would actually be kind of surprised on this one)? Social? Exploration? Spotlight? Something else? I know what I think (it tends to be exploration, and the general ability to apply a reserve of power to a problem), but it may not be universal and understanding the expression of too powerful is important.

I think it's the fact that they get multiple options from which to pick and choose.

As an example, calling on allies was mentioned earlier, and someone replied and said that not all fighters should have that power at higher levels, but it could be an option.

Well, currently martials don't have any options like this at all. Meanwhile, casters can summon all types of allies short term, and have the option, if they wanted, to summon and bind allies for the long term.

Every level casters get more spells. A fighter's Maneuvers Known are far more limited.

A caster can choose illusion magic, evocation, some summoning, protective, etc. on the same build. A barbarian can't gain the benefits of their Rage damage or Reckless Attack on ranged attacks.

The game goes out of its way to limit martials tremendously, with the number of options they get and what those options even are. And as casters are continuously getting spells, there is the notion that as they get higher in level they should be stronger and zanier. Martials don't really have that. There's no narrative function that says "Martials should be wading through a battalion and mowing everyone down". Instead, Bounded Accuracy says low level threats are still a problem for you (unless you have spells).

I'm with you LibraryOgre, but people scream 'Wuxia!' (a short hand for 'kung-fu powers') and things devolve...

I mean... nothing Library Ogre mentioned screams "wuxia" to me. He's talking about increased reflexes and imposing conditions, among other ways to express a faster, stronger, more capable warrior. The game doesn't offer this now because it doesn't want this type of complexity, but there are ways to make martials better than "make them like casters".

Sword of Flying letting you leap like the Hulk? A-Ok. Leaping like the Hulk because you were born that way? Not on my turf, mister.

It's thematic for some warriors, but not all. Wizards aren't forced to take certain spells right? But they can still be powerful in the ways they want to. I don't see why the same can't be true of martials.

[Skrum]

I mean... nothing Library Ogre mentioned screams "wuxia" to me. He's talking about increased reflexes and imposing conditions, among other ways to express a faster, stronger, more capable warrior. The game doesn't offer this now because it doesn't want this type of complexity, but there are ways to make martials better than "make them like casters".

As someone who started in 3e and thinks Tome of Battle is the best book WotC ever published, I thought a lot about how the ToB concept could be brought into 5e.

I think the main (well, initial) problem is the 5e turn structure. ToB filled a space that 3e martials really struggled with, which was moving and attacking. ToB gave them hard-hitting, interesting attacks that could be used after moving. Notably, if a warblade could use the full attack action, they probably wouldn't use a maneuver as full attack would do more damage.

5e doesn't have that easy slot; characters can (thankfully!!!) move and attack just fine. So where do these maneuvers fit in? Do they take an action to use, do they replace a single attack, or are they a rider effect?

Ideally, I think a robust system for martials would have a mix of all these things (along with reactions, movement modifiers, maybe even ongoing effect "stances," etc.)

I think the place to start would be to look at the basic things characters can do, and have maneuvers fill the gap compared to what characters like Captain America, Wolverine, Baki Hanma, Toma Okita, etc., can do. Like a normal person moves 30 ft. And so do fighters, most of the time. But if they want to, they can move incredibly fast in a short burst. And they can do that once per encounter, or something like that.

[Psyren]

I'd be curious to know who actually likes where martials in t3/4 are currently.

Currently, meh, I would probably need to multiclass to be interested - but I would play the heck out of the 5.5e ones even straight-classed. (Well, all but Ranger, but only because I haven't seen the final version yet.)

Eh, I feel like if one wants grounded martial play, they can stick to the tier of play that supports that (T1-T2, with early T3 as the end). Most people play that way without issue, and I suspect most people that want to play grounded martials want to be in the same party as a demigod of a caster.

Most people play T3 and T4 without issue too. There might be more martial complaints at those levels than at T1/T2, but not a critical mass.

And if I could be blunt - I find the "just stop your campaign at T2 then!" 'suggestions' to be ludicrous. Even today, a party of 4x level 20 Fighters or Barbarians or Monks can take on just about any CR 20 monster; the fact that it might be a bit harder or less varied for them than it is for a party of level 20 Wizards or Clerics isn't relevant, they can still do it. And that's going to be even more true in 5.5e where things like Indomitable and Deflect actually work. You may not like T3 and T4 martial play, but that doesn't mean that those who do aren't allowed to keep playing to those levels.

I get that not everyone would like this. But there is this assumption in the game that wizards are definitely going to be movers and shakers in the world at higher levels, with servants and hidden locales and magic item contraptions, and all the stuff that those tropes have in them. There are plenty of powerful NPC heroes and villains that are high level spellcasters. It's a default assumption of the game.

I honestly disagree with this framing; if anything, casters are the ones far more likely to withdraw from the world entirely at high levels, or sequester themselves away doing things like researching the mysteries of the multiverse or dedicating themselves to repairing dead magic zones etc, not being "movers and shakers." Look at Baldurs Gate 3 - the whole region if not the entire continent is in grave danger, and Elminster can't even be arsed to show up himself, let alone loan you a measly wand; he just sends one of his mannequins with a cryptic message or two, likely because Mystra has his real self busy off doing Ao knows what of actual importance to her out in the Far Realm or whatever. Tasha, Mordenkainen, Bigby, The Simbul, Raistlin - all of them, same thing. Even the villains like Manshoon or Szass Tam or Vol that do take despotic leadership roles are usually enacting plans that take literal centuries.

As someone who started in 3e and thinks Tome of Battle is the best book WotC ever published, I thought a lot about how the ToB concept could be brought into 5e.

I think the main (well, initial) problem is the 5e turn structure. ToB filled a space that 3e martials really struggled with, which was moving and attacking. ToB gave them hard-hitting, interesting attacks that could be used after moving. Notably, if a warblade could use the full attack action, they probably wouldn't use a maneuver as full attack would do more damage.

5e doesn't have that easy slot; characters can (thankfully!!!) move and attack just fine. So where do these maneuvers fit in? Do they take an action to use, do they replace a single attack, or are they a rider effect?

If you must bring maneuvers (Strikes/Boost/Stances and the like) back to 5e, things like the Smite line give a decent framework. A Boost could be BA or Reaction to activate {thing} which then triggers when you land your hit(s); a Stance could be an action to enable {thing} but you can do so out of combat too; and Strikes can be just about anything - some ,might take your Action and work like spells that hit once, some might replace a single attack in your Attack action, some are a Bonus Action, and some could even be a Reaction. I think there's plenty of design space there even without their prior role of making up for 3.5's godawful full-attack.

[Dr.Samurai]

I honestly disagree with this framing; if anything, casters are the ones far more likely to withdraw from the world entirely at high levels, or sequester themselves away doing things like researching the mysteries of the multiverse or dedicating themselves to repairing dead magic zones etc, not being "movers and shakers." Look at Baldurs Gate 3 - the whole region if not the entire continent is in grave danger, and Elminster can't even be arsed to show up himself, let alone loan you a measly wand; he just sends one of his mannequins with a cryptic message or two, likely because Mystra has his real self busy off doing Ao knows what of actual importance to her out in the Far Realm or whatever. Tasha, Mordenkainen, Bigby, The Simbul, Raistlin - all of them, same thing. Even the villains like Manshoon or Szass Tam or Vol that do take despotic leadership roles are usually enacting plans that take literal centuries.

Well... it's GitP. There was bound to be a contrarian response claiming that the likes of Elminster, Tasha, Mordenkainen, Bigby, The Simbul, Raistlin, Manshoon, Vol, and Szass Tam aren't actually movers and shakers in their worlds with servants, hidden locales and magic item contraptions.

[Psyren]

Well... it's GitP. There was bound to be a contrarian response claiming that the likes of Elminster, Tasha, Mordenkainen, Bigby, The Simbul, Raistlin, Manshoon, Vol, and Szass Tam aren't actually movers and shakers in their worlds with servants, hidden locales and magic item contraptions.

Because they're not. They're famous, certainly, but nothing they're off doing actually matters to the world they're supposedly part of 90% of the time. That's not "contrarian," it's just pointing out a story convention you're glossing over for some reason.

[Arkhios]

Because they're not. They're famous, certainly, but nothing they're off doing actually matters to the world they're supposedly part of 90% of the time. That's not "contrarian," it's just pointing out a story convention you're glossing over for some reason.

My apologies for asking this, given that the thread is already far into 4th page, and I haven't been following the discussion for ages, but what exactly does this discussion have anything to do with the topic?

[Kane0]

My apologies for asking this, given that the thread is already far into 4th page, and I haven't been following the discussion for ages, but what exactly does this discussion have anything to do with the topic?

Buff to martials > martial/caster divide > digression into powerful casters

[diplomancer]

I'd be curious to know who actually likes where martials in t3/4 are currently.

I played a Paladin to level 20, other PC in the campaign was a straight-classed Wizard (until around level 15, we also had a Cleric). Never felt outclassed. Out of combat, he handled most of exploration, I handled most of social interaction. In combat, he usually felt that the most powerful thing he could do was to boost me.

When he got to level 17, the first thing he wished for was a Pegasus... being jealous of the Pegasus I'd had since level 13 (who had actually been a Hipogriff at level 9; it was before Xanathar's, and I'd asked the DM to let me upcast Find Steed for appropriate beasts of CR1 with a level 3 slot, CR2 with a level 4 slot, etc).

"Yes, but Find Greater Steed is a spell". True, but it's really one of those Class Features made spells for convenience of game design.

[Skrum]

I played a Paladin to level 20, other PC in the campaign was a straight-classed Wizard. Never felt outclassed. Out of combat, he handled most of exploration, I handled most of social interaction. In combat, he usually felt that the most powerful thing he could do was to boost me.

When he got to level 17, the first thing he wished for was a Pegasus... being jealous of the Pegasus I'd had since level 13 (who had actually been a Hipogriff at level 9; it was before Xanathar's, and I'd asked the DM to let me upcast Find Steed for appropriate beasts of CR1 with a level 3 slot, CR2 with a level 4 slot, etc).

"Yes, but Find Greater Steed is a spell". True, but it's really one of those Class Features made spells for convenience of game design.

Paladins are an excellent class, a shining beacon of a martial class done right. While I would quibble with certain things, they are on balance really good. The fact that they get meaningful abilities into at least t3 (if not higher). is exactly why they are good and also much different than....basically any martial class every written by WotC in 3e and 5e.

If I were making changes, I would leave paladin mostly untouched and seek to improve fighter et al to roughly that level.

[Psyren]

My apologies for asking this, given that the thread is already far into 4th page, and I haven't been following the discussion for ages, but what exactly does this discussion have anything to do with the topic?

Generally speaking, following the discussion helps with understanding the discussion

To add to Kane0's summary, we were discussing the whole "martial endgame = become a lord" design that prior editions had and whether that's worthwhile to bring back; I was arguing against.

"Yes, but Find Greater Steed is a spell". True, but it's really one of those Class Features made spells for convenience of game design.

While I have nothing against this design, things like Magical Secrets and Limited Wish tend to cause potentially unintended or otherwise iffy results. (Sadly, they were on pace to improve this with Arcane/Divine/Primal lists separate from class-specific spell lists, allowing them to increase the design space of class-features-as-spells, but it got scrapped.)

Paladins are an excellent class, a shining beacon of a martial class done right. While I would quibble with certain things, they are on balance really good. The fact that they get meaningful abilities into at least t3 (if not higher). is exactly why they are good and also much different than....basically any martial class every written by WotC in 3e and 5e.

If I were making changes, I would leave paladin mostly untouched and seek to improve fighter et al to roughly that level.

So on the one hand, I totally agree with you on Paladins getting meaningful abilities in each tier, they absolutely do. On the other hand, 2014 Paladin does have a burst problem, which is feedback we've gotten directly from Crawford. So that part of their kit did, imo, need "touching" - which they are doing. And simply by doing that, Fighter was able to distance themselves from Paladins in at least one clear area (burst damage) while also gaining./retaining utility in the other pillars from things like Tactical Mind and their bonus ASIs.

[Theodoxus]

I don't think a party of 4x whatever is the standard problem. I don't doubt four 20th level Fighters could handle a CR20 threat. I'm less certain that a level 20 party consisting of an Evoker, a Berserker, a Beastmaster and a Trickery Cleric will see the Beastmaster and Berserker having quite as easy, read fun, time as the Cleric, much less the Wizard.

Of course, the 4 Fighter party is completely useless if they need to stop a threat coming from the Elemental Plane of Fire at its source. Sure, tailoring the campaign to the player's classes is part of it, but sometimes that's not always possible. Do you just ignore it? Go Deus ex machina and throw a ton of magic items at them, probably ones they technically couldn't use in a standard campaign? That just pushes the issue back to 'you need magic to play the game'. Which goes against the purported ethos.

As for stopping the campaign at T2, the suggestion follows the design principle of the vast majority of written modules, and video games. And again, the suggestion isn't 'just make the classes go to level 12 and call it good' (though I'd be ok with that too). It's 'if your campaign goes beyond 12, here's the Epic Level Handbook that will make it easier to run those types of campaigns that don't have modern module support. Again, not sure how more options = bad, but that appears to be your position.

[Psyren]

Of course, the 4 Fighter party is completely useless if they need to stop a threat coming from the Elemental Plane of Fire at its source.

Why? Portals are right in the DMG. Doom Slayer/Half-Life that mess.

That just pushes the issue back to 'you need magic to play the game'. Which goes against the purported ethos.

Needing magic of some kind (item, phenomenon/ritual, spell, or otherwise) to deal with an extraplanar incursion is reasonable. That's not the same as "needing magic to play the game."

As for stopping the campaign at T2, the suggestion follows the design principle of the vast majority of written modules, and video games.

The majority of printed modules ending at 12 or lower is irrelevant, there are still plenty that go all the way to 20 (in fact, we're getting another of those this very year.) I've never said that the majority should go all the way to 20, just that some should, and they should be treated as being every bit as legitimate campaigns as the ones that end lower.

[Witty Username]

My apologies for asking this, given that the thread is already far into 4th page, and I haven't been following the discussion for ages, but what exactly does this discussion have anything to do with the topic?

If I was tracking, the start was giving martials more soft power abilities like lordships and nobility, and the counter was that seems not class specific. Que ad hominem over casters being lazy.

I feel like Rastlin is a bad example, since he has spent most of his archmage career being imprisoned in hell for being too much of an issue.

[Dr.Samurai]

Because they're not. They're famous, certainly, but nothing they're off doing actually matters to the world they're supposedly part of 90% of the time. That's not "contrarian," it's just pointing out a story convention you're glossing over for some reason.

Psyren, I made the same point you did, and you quoted a different part of my post, said you disagreed, and reiterated what I said in the part you left out.

With regards to high level casters not doing things that matter... we can agree to disagree. The people on that list have founded religions, are heads of state, have killed gods, and actively monitor and intervene in world events. But, noted that you want to disagree.

I played a Paladin to level 20, other PC in the campaign was a straight-classed Wizard (until around level 15, we also had a Cleric). Never felt outclassed. Out of combat, he handled most of exploration, I handled most of social interaction. In combat, he usually felt that the most powerful thing he could do was to boost me.

When he got to level 17, the first thing he wished for was a Pegasus... being jealous of the Pegasus I'd had since level 13 (who had actually been a Hipogriff at level 9; it was before Xanathar's, and I'd asked the DM to let me upcast Find Steed for appropriate beasts of CR1 with a level 3 slot, CR2 with a level 4 slot, etc).

"Yes, but Find Greater Steed is a spell". True, but it's really one of those Class Features made spells for convenience of game design.

It's my opinion that a better mounted combat system, including resilient and versatile mounts, would go a long way for martials. Whether it's traversing harsher environments, reaching flying enemies, getting additional damage in, battlefield control with grapples/shoves, and even plane-hopping, fantasy mounts should be more a part of the martial life.

I don't think a party of 4x whatever is the standard problem. I don't doubt four 20th level Fighters could handle a CR20 threat. I'm less certain that a level 20 party consisting of an Evoker, a Berserker, a Beastmaster and a Trickery Cleric will see the Beastmaster and Berserker having quite as easy, read fun, time as the Cleric, much less the Wizard.

I have fun so far with my characters. I am playing a fighter in tier 3 and never feel over-shadowed or like I'm not contributing. Now, we only have 1 full caster in the party, a moon druid, but he's pretty strong, providing healing, battlefield control, and more tanking than I can ever dream of doing. But my fighter is probably one of my favorite characters of all time, across editions, and I have a blast playing him, and mechanically I wreck enemies so... I'm fine. Before that I played a barbarian/paladin into tier 3 and similar experience, alongside a wizard and cleric, I never felt overshadowed or like I wasn't having fun.

My issues are:

1. I feel the game has a general lack of respect for the martial tropes, and relegates the simple, dumbed down part of the game for warriors. Martial mechanics can be a lot more interesting and impactful than merely doing hp damage and pushing someone back 5ft.

2. The spellcasters are far too tough and can easily get weapon/armor proficiencies, extra attack, and ac/thp buffs for very little sacrifice.

Those are sort of my two main issues. Neither of them is that martials are weak at high level or aren't as fun as casters.

Of course, the 4 Fighter party is completely useless if they need to stop a threat coming from the Elemental Plane of Fire at its source. Sure, tailoring the campaign to the player's classes is part of it, but sometimes that's not always possible.

The reality though is that the DM is always tailoring the game to the players. If your caster doesn't have Plane Shift known, and some way to protect from fire damage, how do they stop a threat at its source in the Elemental Plane of Fire? Either the DM doesn't make that necessary, provides a way, or they're as SoL as the fighter is.

If these obstacles ONLY arise when the spellcaster has learned the necessary spells to overcome them, then the DM is tailoring the campaign to the spellcaster.

If I was tracking, the start was giving martials more soft power abilities like lordships and nobility, and the counter was that seems not class specific.

The point I was hoping to make is that it does seem class specific to me.

Spellcasters generally impact the region through their magic, unleashing wide disruptive spells, summoning creatures, enchanting people, using magical artifacts, etc.

A martial generally impacts a region with an army, and/or with agreements forged through the threat of force of... an army.

I feel like Rastlin is a bad example, since he has spent most of his archmage career being imprisoned in hell for being too much of an issue.

Lol, it may be cheating then if I count the time Raistlin wipes out all life in the universe, as seen by his brother while traveling into the future. So his brother stops him, along with Tas and... the little gully dwarf I think.

[Psyren]

Psyren, I made the same point you did, and you quoted a different part of my post, said you disagreed, and reiterated what I said in the part you left out.

Where we agree that the SimKingdom endgame isnt for everyone. But when you say things like "Someone has to lead the army, someone has to be present and ruling while the spellcaster is off studying/communing/crafting/etc. Someone has to defend on the day to day, inspire the people, etc" - I dont agree that PCs, even high-level ones, have to or even should he encouraged towards doing these things at all. But if I ever say anything other than agreeing with you wholesale I'm "contrarian"; so be it.

The reality though is that the DM is always tailoring the game to the players. If your caster doesn't have Plane Shift known, and some way to protect from fire damage, how do they stop a threat at its source in the Elemental Plane of Fire? Either the DM doesn't make that necessary, provides a way, or they're as SoL as the fighter is.

I agree with this too.

[Dr.Samurai]

Where we agree that the SimKingdom endgame isnt for everyone. But when you say things like "Someone has to lead the army, someone has to be present and ruling while the spellcaster is off studying/communing/crafting/etc. Someone has to defend on the day to day, inspire the people, etc" - I dont agree that PCs, even high-level ones, have to or even should he encouraged towards doing these things at all. But if I ever say anything other than agreeing with you wholesale I'm "contrarian"; so be it.

Ok allow me to clarify.

When I say someone has to lead/defend/inspire/etc. I do not mean it has to be PCs. I meant this is generally the role that martials play. When someone suggests that this can be an option for high level martials, I don't agree with the retort of "well then it has to be open to spellcasters as well" because generally that's not the trope for spellcasters. And we can bake that into the system by simply not letting it be an option for them.

[Theodoxus]

The reality though is that the DM is always tailoring the game to the players. If your caster doesn't have Plane Shift known, and some way to protect from fire damage, how do they stop a threat at its source in the Elemental Plane of Fire? Either the DM doesn't make that necessary, provides a way, or they're as SoL as the fighter is.

If these obstacles ONLY arise when the spellcaster has learned the necessary spells to overcome them, then the DM is tailoring the campaign to the spellcaster.

Ok, sure. I guess what I really meant was the DM has to tailor the campaign a lot more when supporting classes that don't natively have the option to Plane Shift et al or have the ability through various magical means, to deal with adverse environmental conditions like the plane of fire or various planes of hell or the abyss.

If the campaign starts at level 1, and the DM knows that eventually the group will be facing the forces of Avernus, said DM can begin tailoring the campaign if the party doesn't contain classes that will be primarily beneficial (spells, divine abilities, senses, etc.) But it's less of a headache if they don't have to.

Not that every class should provide a solution; but maybe some of the niche subclass abilities, like what the Horizon Walker brings to the Ranger, should be on the prime Ranger chassis instead, once they're into T3 and beyond. It's cool that someone wants to play a Ranger. It's less cool they need to maybe play an archetype they weren't planning on, because it'll make life easier all around.

Not all DMs are up to the task of going 'off book', much less boosting PCs via magic item procurement... heck, I've played under DMs who were adamant magic items should be rare and cherished to the point they don't even consider providing them until T2 at a minimum! Granting class abilities outside of spells that assist with the supernatural nature of the game would be a boon.

After all, we're talking about folks who routinely deal with undead, spirits, fey, etc. They probably evolved ways to deal with such things that we poor humans of Earth never would.

[Darth Credence]

If the campaign starts at level 1, and the DM knows that eventually the group will be facing the forces of Avernus, said DM can begin tailoring the campaign if the party doesn't contain classes that will be primarily beneficial (spells, divine abilities, senses, etc.) But it's less of a headache if they don't have to.

As a DM who has gone from level 1 to tier 4 in the past and has a current campaign in tier 4, I can say that there is absolutely no point in trying to start tailoring a campaign's end for the starting characters. The current campaign I am running has no players that have been there since day 1. One player joined in session 2, while the others joined over the years as others have had to leave. And the one who has been around the longest has changed characters a couple of times, just because they want to try out something else for a while.

My experience has been any tailoring for the party done more than a month or two in real-time will be a lot of wasted effort. In the case of a level 1 party of fighters in a campaign I know will end up in Avernus at level 15, when they get to the point where they have to go to Avernus, they have to start figuring out what they need to survive. At that time, I plan out magic items they can quest for to allow them to complete the task.

[Kane0]

After all, we're talking about folks who routinely deal with undead, spirits, fey, etc. They probably evolved ways to deal with such things that we poor humans of Earth never would.

Hell, we got this far just by making it up!

[Dr.Samurai]

After all, we're talking about folks who routinely deal with undead, spirits, fey, etc. They probably evolved ways to deal with such things that we poor humans of Earth never would.

It's true.

I think this is part of the issue I have with the game and it's attitude toward martials; they sort of feel tacked on.

Going back to LibraryOgre's suggestions, martials developing the instincts and reflexes to interrupt a teleport would make sense in a D&D world, to me at least. But the only one that gets something approximating this is the Monster Slayer Ranger.

And that goes back to my response to your comment about the classes cannibalizing each other; martial abilities are simply split across way too many decision points; classes, then class features, then subclasses, and feats. And that's for basic stuff like "you can protect yourself better with a shield", let alone using your shield as a weapon, deflecting magic attacks, etc. "This is the only class that gets access to a cool mount", oh okay but at least it's powerful enough to survive tough encounters right? No, not really, not if the DM is trying. But still, only one class can do it.

Depressing.

[Psyren]

Ok allow me to clarify.

When I say someone has to lead/defend/inspire/etc. I do not mean it has to be PCs. I meant this is generally the role that martials play. When someone suggests that this can be an option for high level martials, I don't agree with the retort of "well then it has to be open to spellcasters as well" because generally that's not the trope for spellcasters. And we can bake that into the system by simply not letting it be an option for them.

Thanks, that does help. If you were talking about NPCs in the world, then sure I agree, they can do anything (leading armies, founding organizations etc) regardless of class, or such activities can be as restricted to a specific class or group of classes as the DM thinks makes sense for their world. So long as those activities are not being positioned as expected PC retirement plans, the DM can go nuts with it.

But it's less of a headache if they don't have to.

I still don't see how it's any more of a "headache" to stick a portal somewhere in your campaign when that subplot pops up and point at it, than it is to write said campaign from the beginning around someone in the party needing a specific class capable of learning and casting a specific 7th-level spell at the specific moment the campaign requires it, or else the whole thing screeches to a halt. The former seems a lot easier to me.

Not all DMs are up to the task of going 'off book', much less boosting PCs via magic item procurement... heck, I've played under DMs who were adamant magic items should be rare and cherished to the point they don't even consider providing them until T2 at a minimum! Granting class abilities outside of spells that assist with the supernatural nature of the game would be a boon.

You don't need specific magic items to facilitate such a campaign either. Blessings exist in the DMG (pg 227), explicitly can mimic the properties of any wondrous item (e.g. Ring of Resistance from the very same book), and they last for as long as the bestowing deity or other entity wants them to. If, say, Silvanus or Lathander or Helm or whomever trusts the party of Fighters to go deal with this proposed Plane of Fire Invasion Thing - they can Bless them with Fire Resistance for as long as that portion of the campaign lasts, have a priest tell them how to get down there, and the rules describe how that might work. Then you can take it away from them when that plot arc is over.

[Skrum]

1. I feel the game has a general lack of respect for the martial tropes, and relegates the simple, dumbed down part of the game for warriors. Martial mechanics can be a lot more interesting and impactful than merely doing hp damage and pushing someone back 5ft

I really like this point. For all the kvetching I do about power disparity, in reality the martial classes are well within the bounds of playable. They do reliable damage, they're generally tough (a trend for 5e); they more or less do what they're supposed to and have a lane to excel at (basically, being reliable vs caster's bursty, swingy power).

But I do wish there was an "advanced" version of these fighter, barb, etc. Resources to manage, more options beyond hitting stuff, choices to make.

I would identify two points related to balance though.
1) Casters are often more impactful
While martial classes are usually competent, they are liable to fall short of feeling "needed." Like, the twilight cleric (extreme example) becomes the lynchpin of the encounter. The fighter is more at a replacement level. A good, balanced party is cleric for defense, healing, and close-range battlefield control, wizard or sorcerer for AoE, CC, and general troubleshooting, and then meatshield X2 (any variety of fighter, barb, ranger, monk, etc). Sure, the encounter can swing on the barb taking some hits from a marelith and giving the wizard the opportunity to cast synaptic static, but like... the important part was the wizard being there to cast synaptic static

2) Gish are just better
This is closer to martials being outdone at their own game. I.e., lane invasion. A paladin is a great class. A paladin/sorcerer... Well that's just better. If I was planning a t3/t4 build, I think the most martial levels I would take is fighter 11, just for three attacks. Any non-fighter class, I don't think I'd go higher than 6 levels. After that? Id multiclass full caster. The value is just so ridiculously high, and it's not like I'm giving up all that much. I've got heavy armor, I've got extra attack, let's get spells and leave simple sword swinging in the dust.

[GeneralVryth]

But I do wish there was an "advanced" version of these fighter, barb, etc. Resources to manage, more options beyond hitting stuff, choices to make.

Isn't a Paladin a martial with lots of choices and resources to manage? Rangers? I think what you are really trying to say is you want a non-magical character with lots of resources to manage/choices to make. I think there is actually design space for a non-magical "complex" class, it's just a little harder to build (you want to keep the mechanics from breaking verisimilitude). One core mistake of 5e is arguably they correctly identified there should be a variety of complexity in classes, but they chose to address that by making the non-magical classes simpler, instead of having a range of complexity for both magical and non-magical classes. If I could snap my fingers and change things I am not sure if I would re-tool the Fighter into this role as a weapon master or build an entirely new class (a tinkerer kind of class is obvious but it won't generate the proper martial feel as the Artificer shows). On the caster front the Sorcerer and Warlock are both prime picks to be made less complex. Their bloodline or patron should be critical to their flavor and should play a greater role, locking up more power there and removing choices elsewhere to balance it out.

I would identify two points related to balance though.
1) Casters are often more impactful
While martial classes are usually competent, they are liable to fall short of feeling "needed." Like, the twilight cleric (extreme example) becomes the lynchpin of the encounter. The fighter is more at a replacement level. A good, balanced party is cleric for defense, healing, and close-range battlefield control, wizard or sorcerer for AoE, CC, and general troubleshooting, and then meatshield X2 (any variety of fighter, barb, ranger, monk, etc). Sure, the encounter can swing on the barb taking some hits from a marelith and giving the wizard the opportunity to cast synaptic static, but like... the important part was the wizard being there to cast synaptic static

2) Gish are just better
This is closer to martials being outdone at their own game. I.e., lane invasion. A paladin is a great class. A paladin/sorcerer... Well that's just better. If I was planning a t3/t4 build, I think the most martial levels I would take is fighter 11, just for three attacks. Any non-fighter class, I don't think I'd go higher than 6 levels. After that? Id multiclass full caster. The value is just so ridiculously high, and it's not like I'm giving up all that much. I've got heavy armor, I've got extra attack, let's get spells and leave simple sword swinging in the dust.

On point 1, a question that does need to be asked, is if the you would have needed that extra impact in the first place had the party been more martial? One thing I enjoyed doing with Solasta (because it was a perfect playground for it) was build 2 separate parties for the same campaign, one mostly casters, one mostly martials, and see how they compared. The results were telling, often times the martial party tended to get through encounters much more reliably, and could get through challenges faster than the casters. People usually forget the encounters where the casters didn't do much and the martials handled things (enabling the casters to have that impact when needed).

On 2, yeah? Kind of. They sit in the middle. They contribute more to the average encounter than a full caster, but should have less to burn when its needed. On your multi-classing point, I think most martials (or more accurately non-magical classes) can go solidly to at least level 8. Fighters to level 12. It's what's beyond those points that things get dicier, but I am not sure that multiclassing with a full caster is always the best play. Would you rather have a Barb 8/Fighter 4, or a Barb 8/Sorc 4? As much as I love my options and spells, I am still likely tempted by the various Fighter sub-classes, Battlemaster in particular, not to mention Action Surge is always good (also, I think I remember someone talking about a once per encounter burst of speed for non-magical characters, isn't that Action Surge?)

[Skrum]

Isn't a Paladin a martial with lots of choices and resources to manage? Rangers? I think what you are really trying to say is you want a non-magical character with lots of resources to manage/choices to make.

Fair enough, those classes exist. Tis true. Paladin in particular is extremely good. But yeah, I'm more talking about a purely martial class. Monks are sorta in that space, they just take more time than they should to get all the pieces they need (and honestly never quite get all of it)

On point 1, a question that does need to be asked, is if the you would have needed that extra impact in the first place had the party been more martial? One thing I enjoyed doing with Solasta (because it was a perfect playground for it) was build 2 separate parties for the same campaign, one mostly casters, one mostly martials, and see how they compared. The results were telling, often times the martial party tended to get through encounters much more reliably, and could get through challenges faster than the casters. People usually forget the encounters where the casters didn't do much and the martials handled things (enabling the casters to have that impact when needed).

I don't disagree - I mean, I'm harping on martials only being able to do damage, but on the other hand, damage is pretty dang important! There's a reason beyond it being easily measurable that DPR gets held up as a metric for how good a build is. Dead is the best condition to inflict, and that comes from damage.

My point was more about the way the classes feel, and the apparent impact they're having. Yes a GWM barb can be very effective, especially if given spell support from the rest of the team. But after so many combats of roll to attack, roll for damage, oh they're dead, move to the next one, the contribution can be lost in the noise. DnD isn't strictly about effectiveness, it's about cool fantasy. Making the clutch move in a tight combat is a huge part of that. Big effects like spells are PRIMED to be memorable moments. Steadily doing X DPR, less so.

I am not sure that multiclassing with a full caster is always the best play. Would you rather have a Barb 8/Fighter 4, or a Barb 8/Sorc 4? As much as I love my options and spells, I am still likely tempted by the various Fighter sub-classes, Battlemaster in particular, not to mention Action Surge is always good (also, I think I remember someone talking about a once per encounter burst of speed for non-magical characters, isn't that Action Surge?)

I mean obviously barb is a uniquely terrible candidate to go caster with (frankly, this is a not-insignificant factor in barbs being arguably the worst class). Paladin isn't a bad pick for them though; smites are still usable when raging, as are all of the other paladin tools besides spells. And I would definitely be eyeing paladin if I had to start barb and knew I was going to 15 or higher.

As for martial levels in general, well a lot comes down to the particulars of the table. Are you stopping at 15, 17, or going all the way to 20? Is it going to be a high magic game with lots of magic items, or low magic with almost no items? Etc. These would all impact what I was doing. I'm simply saying, if I was going into a high-op game that was going to last into t4, it's hard to justify more than a couple of levels of a non-spellcaster. Yeah fighter 8 instead of fighter 5 feels enticing; get the 2 ASI's and a subclass feature. But if you're going to 16, that's the difference between sorcerer 8 and sorcerer 11. 5th and 6th level spells, 3 extra spell slots, 3 more metamagic points; that's a huge amount to trade away.

[Theodoxus]

Re: Solasta, I don't disagree that martials can make short work of encounters. However, the fastest play through I had was with a party of 4 Warlocks. All using Devil's Sight and Darkness with repelling blast... just chewed through the scenery with ease and the monsters typically just stood still and took it.

Interestingly, I tried the same tactic in BG3 - the AI was a little smarter and tried to work around my tactics... plus the goblin warlocks had Devil's Sight too, so they ignored the Darkness - which was cool and surprising.

All that being said, the playstyle was EXTREMELY boring. I totally grok Warlock players who don't just want to EB all day, every day and contribute nothing more tactical to combat than hiding in the dark spot and pew pewing. I did complete the campaign in Solasta that way. But BG3's respec mechanic was too tempting to not go a different route when I got too bored, and it wasn't quite as effective anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm with you LibraryOgre, but people scream 'Wuxia!' (a short hand for 'kung-fu powers') and things devolve...

It depends on what you mean by "kung-fu powers", which I chose because it sounds cool, and fits in with Flying Swordsmen and with AD&D Oriental Adventures martial arts.

Gather round, children, it's story time at the library.

A few years ago, I got into Oriental Adventure's Martial Arts system as an abstract idea... something you could bring into AD&D in any setting to give warriors (and priests and rogues, but mostly warriors) something to do with their WP slots. (The original Oriental Adventures had some great ideas, but it's tied up in a very Orientalist view of Asia, which is a problem). It's got great flexibility for creating new stuff from a pretty straightforward toolkit; that last link has a style for every standard 2e race and one for every 2e class.

The basics of the OA system are that you define your basic style... hard, soft, or hard/soft, and your favorite body part to attack with. Those choices determine what your AC is, how many attacks you have per round, and what damage you do. You also define what weapons are used by the style. Beyond that, you have Powers, which you buy with WP, and so get more as you level up, if you choose to invest in them. You can look at all of this on the blog links in the previous paragraph; I worked it up for C&C, too.

What the "kung fu powers" thing gives you is new special abilities. Some of them *are* mystical... you can learn to Levitate by focusing your chi, and you can use the Vital Strikes line to have healing touch. Some are a bit freaky... you can create a melee-only spear with a long cloth. But others? You can give a strong kick behind you. You learn the right way to fall, so you take less damage. You can train to jump, or move faster, or push yourself to haste yourself. Since your style determines what weapons you use, you can get locked into a gear set... if your style uses long swords and shields, then you're going to want a long sword and a shield... but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. "Can use any weapon with amazing facility" is an archetype in and of itself, separate from "fencer" and "viking" and "armored knight."

Now, the above system does not work that well in 5e; resource allocation is different. In AD&D, your additional WPs are a resource in and of themselves. In 5e, your ASIs are more limited, and spending them on feats means you're not spending them on ASI. Some of the AD&D martial arts manuevers are class abilities in 5e; "Ironskin", the Physical Training ability, isn't too far from the Barbarian's ability to use their Con bonus on their AC. You can somewhat mimic others if you take every ASI as some sort of weapon or combat feat, like Martial Adept giving you special maneuvers you can pull off, but that then put the martial types behind their caster counterparts in another way... the casters are all sporting 20s, while the martials capped at 17, spending their ASIs on things that don't give stat bonuses... which is rough, since they're already more MAD than casters (martials NEED constitution, since their job is to take the punches; casters LIKE constitution, because it gives more HP.)

Fighters *do* somewhat address this, by sneaking in a couple extra ASIs. But the consistent complaint that martials significantly lag in T3-T4 means, to me, that it needs to be addressed further. Thus, kung fu powers.