Stacking extra attack

[Psyren]

Ok. But it really just feels like you're putting a ceiling on barb, monk, etc. Like having a scaling melee ability that remains meaningful through 20 levels, that's a fighter's thing, so barb just gets to be irrelevant.

If you're focused on the 2014 classes that's true, but those are never going to change unless you're wanting to discuss homebrew. They're already improving the scaling on the other martials going for the 2024 versions; that's the fix.

That's partially why Fighter needs some additional abilities as well. As I mentioned a few times throughout this thread I like idea of second chance abilities on the combat front. When you miss an attack get X (a reroll, maybe a shove attempt, turn the miss into a hit, there is lots of room to play here with varying power levels). Ideally the weapon expertise would mean more as well. Of course there is a need for non-combat features. But if the Fighter is moving towards the Weapon master motif (which I think it should), it probably more than any other class makes sense to have fewer noncombat abilities.

Fighter does need more non-combat abilities - and it's getting them.
Barbarian does need better abilities in T3 / T4 - and it's getting them.

Even if I accept the premise that multiple instances of Extra Attack should do something, that something needs to be calibrated carefully to not power creep the game much further than it already is. That's why I think a full-blown ASI is a bridge too far.

[Witty Username]

Hm, the fair solution would probably be the other direction,
Make spellcasting not stack. You get the class spell list but your slots don't increase if you multiclass.
Warlock exempt due to pact magic.

[Skrum]

Why can barb and monk have things like improved divine smite instead? Or something unique entirely.

Barbarian 9th level, when you miss an enemy with an attack roll they take damage equal to your weapons damage dice.

Monk in all honesty may be systematically broken as its scaling is almost inverted. But how about reducing the ki cost of stun to 0 for flurry of blows attacks? 11th level how about.

*shrug* yeah sure, I guess.

My general sense is people aren't really interested in fundamentally changing how a class works. OneDnD, yeah, barb is getting a buff. Like, a bit of one. At the same time as wizard, cleric, and sorcerer are *also* getting buffed.

IMO, if someone plays a barb all the way to t4, they should be immune to many conditions (or like, can't be affected for more than 1 round), resistant to all damage, be cleaving through hordes of enemies, and have movement and leaping boosts such that they can almost fly. Instead they're 97% the same they were at level 8, but with more hit points. Maybe I'm just the lone voice way out in the wilderness who wants epic warriors to play epically.

[Theodoxus]

I mean, you'll get the usual suspects complaining about making the game far more complex going that route. Which is true, but is also the point... Don't want to play a complex caster? Don't multiclass.

Funnily enough, I was fully ready to run casters with distinct class based spell slots on my first DMing of 5E back in the day. It wasn't until the Sorcerer player pointed out the MC rules for slots that I sheepishly changed to match the rule book. This was WAY before I even dreamed of modding the game, so acquiesced to the rules lawyer.

Never really though about going back - the closest was offering spell points and slots for distinct classes, and not allowing them to intermix. Thinking about it now, that would also probably be a good compromise for those that don't want to track two whole different sets of spell slots... "My Paladin spells use slots, my Sorcerer spells use points, my Warlock spells use pact magic..." Still pretty complex, but using 3 different resource pools simplifies things, imo.

[Witty Username]

IMO, if someone plays a barb all the way to t4, they should be immune to many conditions (or like, can't be affected for more than 1 round), resistant to all damage, be cleaving through hordes of enemies, and have movement and leaping boosts such that they can almost fly. Instead they're 97% the same they were at level 8, but with more hit points. Maybe I'm just the lone voice way out in the wilderness who wants epic warriors to play epically.

That has little to do with extra attack though, its the boring way to increase power.

Like sure double the damage of sneak attack would make rogue stronger, but that doesn't really tackle the interest curve.

Immunity to charmed and frightened would be cool for a barbarian, since martials kinda need defensive features to do the melee. Extra attack isn't the thing that does that though.

[Psyren]

Hm, the fair solution would probably be the other direction,
Make spellcasting not stack. You get the class spell list but your slots don't increase if you multiclass.
Warlock exempt due to pact magic.

Spellcasters are already taking a major hit by losing spell ranks when they multiclass, because spell levels don't scale in power linearly. Losing spell slot progression on top of that would just be a soft ban to multiclassing itself for them.

*shrug* yeah sure, I guess.

My general sense is people aren't really interested in fundamentally changing how a class works. OneDnD, yeah, barb is getting a buff. Like, a bit of one. At the same time as wizard, cleric, and sorcerer are *also* getting buffed.

IMO, if someone plays a barb all the way to t4, they should be immune to many conditions (or like, can't be affected for more than 1 round), resistant to all damage, be cleaving through hordes of enemies, and have movement and leaping boosts such that they can almost fly. Instead they're 97% the same they were at level 8, but with more hit points. Maybe I'm just the lone voice way out in the wilderness who wants epic warriors to play epically.

I don't think you're the "lone" voice, no - but you're definitely not in the majority. If the majority of their audience wanted high levels to become wuxia they'd have done it by now. Instead, they gave you the tools to do that at your table if you wish.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think you're the "lone" voice, no - but you're definitely not in the majority. If the majority of their audience wanted high levels to become wuxia they'd have done it by now. Instead, they gave you the tools to do that at your table if you wish.

Do they? Has Wizards of the Coast actually given tools to make high-level games, especially martials, more shonen-esque or otherwise more varied in playstyle?

[Skrum]

That has little to do with extra attack though, its the boring way to increase power.

Like sure double the damage of sneak attack would make rogue stronger, but that doesn't really tackle the interest curve.

Immunity to charmed and frightened would be cool for a barbarian, since martials kinda need defensive features to do the melee. Extra attack isn't the thing that does that though.

Getting to epic warrior status involves taking everything a barb already does, making it better, and then giving them several more abilities besides. Giving a class that primarily deals damage with weapon attacks more attacks is the most obvious and easiest way to put them on a proper progression curve.

They have a magic weapon? Cool, now they can hit with it 3 or 4 times. Just by comparison, with the damage on miss ability? Their cool magic weapon means nothing. It's at total cross-purposes.

Spellcasters are already taking a major hit by losing spell ranks when they multiclass, because spell levels don't scale in power linearly. Losing spell slot progression on top of that would just be a soft ban to multiclassing itself for them.

Multiclassing out of wizard is generally a bad idea - wizards scale so smoothly with almost no dead levels, and get the best abilities in the game at higher levels. Delaying that is almost always the less optimal thing to do. And because of that, we've tricked ourselves into thinking that casters "need" slots to stack, or "no one would multiclass."

Like, yeah! You're playing the best class(es)! Taking something that isn't that is probably going to be a self-nerf!

It's not enough that anyone can dip cleric and get heavy armor prof - wizard and sorc don't even lose spell slots for it.

RE: wuxia

Nah, Beowulf isn't wuxia. Neither is Achilles, or Perseus, or Hercules, or Lancelot. These characters' Feats differ of course and we can go down a rabbit hole of parsing exactly what level they'd all be, but the thrust of what I'm saying is mages become epic mages in the scope of getting to about level 15. Warriors just don't, at any point in the leveling process.

[Witty Username]

Spellcasters are already taking a major hit by losing spell ranks when they multiclass, because spell levels don't scale in power linearly. Losing spell slot progression on top of that would just be a soft ban to multiclassing itself for them.

There are plenty of reasons to multiclass as a caster, armor proficiencies for one, expanding spell lists is another, also synergistic features.
Fighter doesn't give any spell progression but Action Surge was valuable enough for the dual casting aspect.

What it loses is these things being 'free' or percieved as such.

[Witty Username]

Do they? Has Wizards of the Coast actually given tools to make high-level games, especially martials, more shonen-esque or otherwise more varied in playstyle?

Well yes, you can multiclass into a caster. 😈

[Psyren]

Do they? Has Wizards of the Coast actually given tools to make high-level games, especially martials, more shonen-esque or otherwise more varied in playstyle?

1) Find magic items and spells that do the things you want high-level martials to do
2) Grant those features directly as Blessings, Boons, or custom bonus feats

RE: wuxia

Nah, Beowulf isn't wuxia. Neither is Achilles, or Perseus, or Hercules, or Lancelot. These characters' Feats differ of course and we can go down a rabbit hole of parsing exactly what level they'd all be, but the thrust of what I'm saying is mages become epic mages in the scope of getting to about level 15. Warriors just don't, at any point in the leveling process.

Three of those aren't human either, and the ones that are didn't do anything that impressive. Beowulf fought a troll (sort of) and then fought a dragon and died; Lancelot didn't even do that.

[Theodoxus]

I'd be ok with separate slots for separate classes, if the non-spell abilities granted by the classes were agnostic to spell class.

For instance, in the thread about a lightning blaster, a lot of talk is looking at the interaction between Tempest Cleric and Draconic Sorc or Scribes Wizard.

If one were to MC Tempest and Scribes, for instance, in a 6/14 split - yes, you're going to lose out on a lot of higher slots (though you arguably gain a lot of lower level ones). But as long as Destructive Wrath doesn't care if the spell is cast from your Cleric or Wizard slot, I'm ok with it. If I can cast 'Electric Guiding Bolt', even better (I'm pretty sure that's not allowed with Scribes, but I'd be happy to expand the ability if it mitigated the cost of losing said high slots).

Re: extra attack, especially for Barbarian, it seems like a mismatch of expectations. At least between what Barbarians get for abilities and what EA represents. I think a better idea would be to change brutal attack from a bonus on crit (which just encourages crit fishing anyway) to a bonus on weapon die - either adding more on each attack, or increasing the size, which is really more iconic; representing oversized weapons.

[GeneralVryth]

I'd be ok with separate slots for separate classes, if the non-spell abilities granted by the classes were agnostic to spell class.

For instance, in the thread about a lightning blaster, a lot of talk is looking at the interaction between Tempest Cleric and Draconic Sorc or Scribes Wizard.

If one were to MC Tempest and Scribes, for instance, in a 6/14 split - yes, you're going to lose out on a lot of higher slots (though you arguably gain a lot of lower level ones). But as long as Destructive Wrath doesn't care if the spell is cast from your Cleric or Wizard slot, I'm ok with it. If I can cast 'Electric Guiding Bolt', even better (I'm pretty sure that's not allowed with Scribes, but I'd be happy to expand the ability if it mitigated the cost of losing said high slots).

Re: extra attack, especially for Barbarian, it seems like a mismatch of expectations. At least between what Barbarians get for abilities and what EA represents. I think a better idea would be to change brutal attack from a bonus on crit (which just encourages crit fishing anyway) to a bonus on weapon die - either adding more on each attack, or increasing the size, which is really more iconic; representing oversized weapons.

I second all of this (in fact I think I said things similar to it earlier in this thread).

I think the following are all true:
1. Most people agree that the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk (and probably Ranger), could use some buffs for their 5e versions, especially at later levels.
2. 5.5e is providing buffs to all of the above.
3. Whether those buffs were enough is going to need to wait until their final versions are show. Almost certainly there will be changes people wish were made, and full casters will on average still be more powerful in a very general sense than martials.
4. The extremely balanced vision of the game that Skurm (and likely others, though perhaps not in this thread) want, is not likely to come out of WotC anytime soon because it's not widely supported by the player base. 4e got close, and drove a giant wedge in the player base (this is part of why Pathfinder became a thing). The concept is fine, it's just not something everyone wants.

So with that said there have been a lot of ideas toss around in this thread (a lot them solid or at least good enough), but now what? it seems like we are starting to go in circles, would it be worthwhile to compile a list of the ideas and maybe edit the OP with them?

[Kane0]

I think the following are all true:
1. Most people agree that the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk (and probably Ranger), could use some buffs for their 5e versions.
2. 5.5e is providing buffs to all of the above.
3. Whether those buffs were enough is going to need to wait until their final versions are shown. Almost certainly there will be changes people wish were made.
4. The extremely balanced vision of the game that Skurm (and likely others, though perhaps not in this thread) want, is not likely to come out of WotC anytime soon

Broadly speaking yes, yep, yeah and aye.

[Dr.Samurai]

*shrug* yeah sure, I guess.

My general sense is people aren't really interested in fundamentally changing how a class works. OneDnD, yeah, barb is getting a buff. Like, a bit of one. At the same time as wizard, cleric, and sorcerer are *also* getting buffed.

IMO, if someone plays a barb all the way to t4, they should be immune to many conditions (or like, can't be affected for more than 1 round), resistant to all damage, be cleaving through hordes of enemies, and have movement and leaping boosts such that they can almost fly. Instead they're 97% the same they were at level 8, but with more hit points. Maybe I'm just the lone voice way out in the wilderness who wants epic warriors to play epically.

I'm in general agreement.

I wouldn't want them to go super saiya-jin or anything but there's a lot of space to improve the warrior fantasy at higher levels in the game.

It's simply not okay that the casters are getting access to bigger and better spells that do all types of things, while the martials get... more hp and some really tame class features by comparison.

[Theodoxus]

Or, maybe have 6th+ level spells (and really all classes) have an epic tier from 13 on.

Larian chose level 12 as their capstone for a reason, and nearly every professional campaign module (RoT, OotA, etc.) ends in the same range.

It's way too late now, but I really wish the 2024 update had split the Tiers into 3. 1-5 for the Hero's Journey, 6-12 for the world spanning dangers, and then 13+ for the epic tier, where, if was separated out and made it's own thing, a lot more support could be provided. At least more than 'good luck and maybe watch some youtube videos of high level play'.

As a potential benefit, Epic could be subcategorized as well; a Wuxia style at the highest end, typical 2014 tier 3&4 power level at the mid point, and a grittier realism on the low end, complete with 3 full class expansions for each subcategory. Let's the DM/Players decide how epic they want their game to go.

I don't run the zoo, but more options can't hurt.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't have any problem with some kind of optional Wuxia-playstyle progression sourcebook. But then, that also seems like fertile ground for a talented 3PP to make a name for themselves, perhaps also by crowdsourcing input from those of you who seem to want that sort of thing.

I second all of this (in fact I think I said things similar to it earlier in this thread).

I think the following are all true:
1. Most people agree that the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk (and probably Ranger), could use some buffs for their 5e versions, especially at later levels.
2. 5.5e is providing buffs to all of the above.
3. Whether those buffs were enough is going to need to wait until their final versions are show. Almost certainly there will be changes people wish were made, and full casters will on average still be more powerful in a very general sense than martials.
4. The extremely balanced vision of the game that Skurm (and likely others, though perhaps not in this thread) want, is not likely to come out of WotC anytime soon because it's not widely supported by the player base. 4e got close, and drove a giant wedge in the player base (this is part of why Pathfinder became a thing). The concept is fine, it's just not something everyone wants.

So with that said there have been a lot of ideas toss around in this thread (a lot them solid or at least good enough), but now what? it seems like we are starting to go in circles, would it be worthwhile to compile a list of the ideas and maybe edit the OP with them?

1) Yes - and not just probably Ranger, definitely Ranger! Even Tasha's didn't go far enough, neither Favored Enemy nor Favored Foe are really all that good for instance.

2) Yes

3) I definitely still want changes made. Monk delivered 99% of what I wanted, but I'm still very iffy on Warlock and Moon Druid, and we have very little assurance on what the final versions of Bard or Ranger will look like. Sorcerer got solid buffs but it will depend on what they do with bonus spells from subclasses as well as what the final list will look like since they're doubling down on "needs to have worse spells than Wizard" for some reason.

4) The issue is that the only ways to "extremely balance" the game would be to gut the caster capabilitiess at the top end (not going to happen), or push T3/T4 martials up to their level - or a combination of both which we saw in 4e.

[GeneralVryth]

The problem with the very high level Martial versus Caster comparison (late T3 and T4), is that the conceit that Martials (and the Fighter and Rogue most specifically) are still more or less non-enhanced humans (or other D&D species of choice). Which from a Verisimilitude aspect I have always said Fighters should top out around Captain America. And Captain America usually isn't beating a level 20 Sorcerer, whether in his universe or a D&D one.

There are a few ways around this.

1. The very high level martial should be able to call in allies and favors at a greater rate. Giving them a level of soft power different from spellcaster's hard power.

2. Magic items. A martial usually gets more out of a magic item because its more likely to grant them new options rather than sustainability on existing options. Reaching back to the comic book example, how do the non-enhanced take on the enhanced? They use tech (and usually cleverness) to level the playing field, the D&D version of tech is magic items.

3. Gain or use magic on themselves. Basically, expressly give up the conceit that a character is non-magical. What this looks like is a little fuzzier for me (unless you want a standard Wuxia option), but becoming some kind of demigod, or maybe having powerful permanent magic done on them to let them get past normal mortal constraints.

Of course there is then the problem that all of the above should also be doable by a caster as well. You could probably come up with a Verisimilitude satisfying answer to 2 and 3 with something like the raw power of high level casters limit their ability to use outside magic on themselves (this provides a nice initial suggestion that martials should have high level abilities increasing their attunement limit).

For number 1 (and it bleeds in to 2 and 3), I have always thought that 5e was missing a kind of downtime power subsystem. Basically characters would use the subsystem (however it ends up being structured) for a mix of 4 possible things:
1. Collecting friends and favors.
2. Acquiring magic items.
3. Gaining magical knowledge (I envisioned this as advanced rituals, usually for things like siege magic, casting Fireball over a minute to avoid burning a slot with 5x range etc...).
4. Personal power growth (this one has always been the fussiest the most basic option is always pushing physical ability scores past there limits, but you could also put being inducted wuxia based abilities here, or maybe some self experimentation with potions like Jekyll or something)

Martials, should get a couple extra bites at this, and that combined with the fact they wouldn't be touching option 3 (they can't cast spells after all), should give them a much greater lead in 1, 2, and 4.

Of course, there is the problem that such a subsystem is limited by campaign type as these are all things characters would ostensibly do as part of a campaign, not to mention the fact that some people want to play our this kind of thing and don't want the possibility of a subsystem intruding on it. And in response to that, I have no good ideas.

[Theodoxus]

My primary issue with going that route is you're basically stating magic is king and only magic can fight magic. A guy at the gym is forever stuck at the gym until and unless some magical being grants them a boon; be it an item or a blessing.

At that point, I see two issues: 1) why would anyone not play a magic user? Especially since a dip in Tempest or War gets you 90% of what a level 1 Fighter grants, on top of Cleric spells. And 2) far more importantly, why are mere mortals capable of wielding such massively powerful abilities, if the non-magical mundane can't?

Seems to me, being able to unleash fireballs or teleport across the planet, or generate impenetrable shields should come at a cost. (And I'm not talking opportunity cost!)

To put it another way, mages are wielding the equivalent power of a proton pack; a backpack nuke. Such power should have a downside. Instability or cancer (remember the cancer mages?!?) or something. Even Palpatine wasn't immune from "UNLIMITED POWER!".

Look, I get it, the game doesn't speak one way or another about it, so of course THIS IS ALL HOMEBREW. But part of the problem is definitely the 'ease of use' aspect of D&D magic. How many DMs actually make magic use dangerous? "You killed my father with a witch bolt, prepare to die!" There should be a reason that Wizard's are driven to seek lichdom. And it's not because they're in their 90s and see death quickly approaching... maybe it's because they're in their 30s and look like they're in the 90s! Magic leaches life. Would explain why the greatest Wizards tend to be elves... [Again, Homebrew]

So let's backtrack to #1. Why be a Fighter or a Barbarian when you can be a Wizard (War Wizard or Bladesinger if you want to be more military/martial minded)? Why be a Rogue when spells can replicate most of your repertoire, and class abilities like those from Trickery and/or Illusion or Enchantment make up the rest?

[JNAProductions]

My primary issue with going that route is you're basically stating magic is king and only magic can fight magic. A guy at the gym is forever stuck at the gym until and unless some magical being grants them a boon; be it an item or a blessing.

At that point, I see two issues: 1) why would anyone not play a magic user? Especially since a dip in Tempest or War gets you 90% of what a level 1 Fighter grants, on top of Cleric spells. And 2) far more importantly, why are mere mortals capable of wielding such massively powerful abilities, if the non-magical mundane can't?

Seems to me, being able to unleash fireballs or teleport across the planet, or generate impenetrable shields should come at a cost. (And I'm not talking opportunity cost!)

To put it another way, mages are wielding the equivalent power of a proton pack; a backpack nuke. Such power should have a downside. Instability or cancer (remember the cancer mages?!?) or something. Even Palpatine wasn't immune from "UNLIMITED POWER!".

Look, I get it, the game doesn't speak one way or another about it, so of course THIS IS ALL HOMEBREW. But part of the problem is definitely the 'ease of use' aspect of D&D magic. How many DMs actually make magic use dangerous? "You killed my father with a witch bolt, prepare to die!" There should be a reason that Wizard's are driven to seek lichdom. And it's not because they're in their 90s and see death quickly approaching... maybe it's because they're in their 30s and look like they're in the 90s! Magic leaches life. Would explain why the greatest Wizards tend to be elves... [Again, Homebrew]

So let's backtrack to #1. Why be a Fighter or a Barbarian when you can be a Wizard (War Wizard or Bladesinger if you want to be more military/martial minded)? Why be a Rogue when spells can replicate most of your repertoire, and class abilities like those from Trickery and/or Illusion or Enchantment make up the rest?

To a certain extent you have a point, Theodoxus. But it's good to remember, this is a game first and foremost. Verisimilitude is important only so far as it enhances the game experience.

For some groups and tables, it's of paramount importance-there needs to be a good reason for why some people are magical and others aren't.
For other tables, it's entirely irrelevant as long as the classes play okay.

Personally, I'd like to see explanations for some o this stuff, but it's not wholly needed. Especially because "You're 30 and already look 90," doesn't really translate to anything mechanically. And if it did, such as by applying larger Constitution penalties as you gain access to more powerful magic, that'd create a pretty bad dynamic-namely, the casters are glass cannons who need to be protected by martials. That might sound appealing initially, but it really only reinforces "You need a caster," instead of lessening it, since they're the ones with the power.

[Theodoxus]

IMO, the problem with "it's a game" is that isn't not balanced like an actual game should be. Which then behooves the DM to create artificial balancing points for those with underwhelming classes.

For instance, if in Monopoly, the Shoe and the Car were granted a +/- 2 to every roll, allowing the player to essentially pick any one of 5 different locations when they rolled, who'd play anything else? And if you had 3 players, the one who ended up the Top Hat would probably quit quickly there after.

One could say "roleplaying is it's own animal, the game will of course be different". That's all fine and good, except that's never explained either. So, if DMs don't know that a particular class is a lot weaker than another, and it's not in the ruleset that those classes should either be played by people who are ok with being the underdog, or have the wherewithal to not be bothered by it. "it's a game" can only cover so many sins before players, especially those who've grown up around actually balanced (as balanced as they can be) video games; where things like Barbarians get whirlwind attack and Druids have to make decisions if they want to go full Bear mode or full Caster, just stop playing [martials].

[Psyren]

The problem with the very high level Martial versus Caster comparison (late T3 and T4), is that the conceit that Martials (and the Fighter and Rogue most specifically) are still more or less non-enhanced humans (or other D&D species of choice). Which from a Verisimilitude aspect I have always said Fighters should top out around Captain America. And Captain America usually isn't beating a level 20 Sorcerer, whether in his universe or a D&D one.

There are a few ways around this.

1. The very high level martial should be able to call in allies and favors at a greater rate. Giving them a level of soft power different from spellcaster's hard power.

2. Magic items. A martial usually gets more out of a magic item because its more likely to grant them new options rather than sustainability on existing options. Reaching back to the comic book example, how do the non-enhanced take on the enhanced? They use tech (and usually cleverness) to level the playing field, the D&D version of tech is magic items.

3. Gain or use magic on themselves. Basically, expressly give up the conceit that a character is non-magical. What this looks like is a little fuzzier for me (unless you want a standard Wuxia option), but becoming some kind of demigod, or maybe having powerful permanent magic done on them to let them get past normal mortal constraints.

Of course there is then the problem that all of the above should also be doable by a caster as well. You could probably come up with a Verisimilitude satisfying answer to 2 and 3 with something like the raw power of high level casters limit their ability to use outside magic on themselves (this provides a nice initial suggestion that martials should have high level abilities increasing their attunement limit).

For number 1 (and it bleeds in to 2 and 3), I have always thought that 5e was missing a kind of downtime power subsystem. Basically characters would use the subsystem (however it ends up being structured) for a mix of 4 possible things:
1. Collecting friends and favors.
2. Acquiring magic items.
3. Gaining magical knowledge (I envisioned this as advanced rituals, usually for things like siege magic, casting Fireball over a minute to avoid burning a slot with 5x range etc...).
4. Personal power growth (this one has always been the fussiest the most basic option is always pushing physical ability scores past there limits, but you could also put being inducted wuxia based abilities here, or maybe some self experimentation with potions like Jekyll or something)

Martials, should get a couple extra bites at this, and that combined with the fact they wouldn't be touching option 3 (they can't cast spells after all), should give them a much greater lead in 1, 2, and 4.

Of course, there is the problem that such a subsystem is limited by campaign type as these are all things characters would ostensibly do as part of a campaign, not to mention the fact that some people want to play our this kind of thing and don't want the possibility of a subsystem intruding on it. And in response to that, I have no good ideas.

I agree with #2, and in fact martials should get an edge here. After all, honing your body should mean you can bolt more magic to it or have more gadgets at a moment's notice. Batman and Green Arrow's thing isn't just that they have the most toys, they're the ones who've been constantly training with said toys over their career, and thus can pull the one(s) they need at a moment's notice even under pressure. That should be reflected in mechanics like attunement or action cost.

#1 shouldn't be tied to class at all in my view; as you mentioned, it runs headfirst into campaign type dissonance. Yes I know, older editions had "you run a kingdom/thieves' guild now!" as a class capstone but like... for the small portion of the playerbase that actually want to play Nobility Simulator as their endgame nowadays, that should be an entirely separate gametype that anyone can participate in regardless of class - After all, mage's guilds, druid circles, monasteries and churches exist too.

#3 should also be a campaign thing. Similar to not everyone wanting their fighter to be a Lord, not everyone wants their fighter to be a Demigod either. I think items and attunement (#2) is the ideal way to square the circle between those who want high-level martials to be still grounded mortals subject to heroic fantasy laws of physics who just happen to be more capable, and those who want them to have uniquely powerful capabilities.

[Witty Username]

#3 should also be a campaign thing. Similar to not everyone wanting their fighter to be a Lord, not everyone wants their fighter to be a Demigod either. I think items and attunement (#2) is the ideal way to square the circle between those who want high-level martials to be still grounded mortals subject to heroic fantasy laws of physics who just happen to be more capable, and those who want them to have uniquely powerful capabilities.

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.

That being said I wouldn't be against pulling back of casters in similar lines,
Requiring found spells to fill out the Tier 3 and 4 list as opposed to getting them for free. No one in modern D&D seems to care for that though.

[JNAProductions]

IMO, the problem with "it's a game" is that isn't not balanced like an actual game should be. Which then behooves the DM to create artificial balancing points for those with underwhelming classes.

For instance, if in Monopoly, the Shoe and the Car were granted a +/- 2 to every roll, allowing the player to essentially pick any one of 5 different locations when they rolled, who'd play anything else? And if you had 3 players, the one who ended up the Top Hat would probably quit quickly there after.

One could say "roleplaying is it's own animal, the game will of course be different". That's all fine and good, except that's never explained either. So, if DMs don't know that a particular class is a lot weaker than another, and it's not in the ruleset that those classes should either be played by people who are ok with being the underdog, or have the wherewithal to not be bothered by it. "it's a game" can only cover so many sins before players, especially those who've grown up around actually balanced (as balanced as they can be) video games; where things like Barbarians get whirlwind attack and Druids have to make decisions if they want to go full Bear mode or full Caster, just stop playing [martials].

I don't think Wizards are intentionally stronger than Rangers. The idea was that each class is balanced against each other class-execution was obviously lacking, though.

Isn't that part of the point of this thread? To discuss buffs for martials to make them more on-par with casters?

[Theodoxus]

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

There's a bit of, near disingenuousness, coming from those who think high tier martials are trash, yet can't come to terms with martials as ubermensch. "I don't like it, but I won't help anyone come up with anything better, because better requires magic, and mundanes don't get magic!"

What if... WotC had, despite the flurry of negativity around D&DNext, decided that Fighters would follow the footpath of Warblades, Paladins would be upgraded Crusaders, and Monks would be Swordsages. Rangers might have gotten a similar remake as Wardens. Would those who are against the ubermensch just not play 5th? Would you not play martials? Would you not play t3+?

I'm just trying to figure out where the goalposts live... 'Never! Thank goodness that didn't happen' or 'It's not how the rules were created, so I don't have to think about it, but I'd probably not like it', or 'Yeah, I'd kill the campaign before it got to those weird powers'.

It really shouldn't be hard to grant better abilities in tier 3 that don't replicate spells, but do push martials to better performance. But as I see it, one of two things tends to happen. Either the martials get abilities like in 4th Ed that are seen as 'too similar' to either each other, or magic, and the conversation is shut down, or the ideas start to converge onto a single class toes; like with this thread grouping EAs for each class, and thus making Fighter obsolete. Similar ideas are granting Fighters damage resistance - oh, that's stepping on Barbarians toes. or granting Barbarians extra damage on a hit - oh, that's the Paladins' schtick.

[It does seem that maybe the best idea for tier 3 martials is to start cannibalizing each other. Every class as a unique playstyle, until 13th level when they all basically start looking alike. Still have different power sources, they just grant similar abilities - would make it a lot easier to balance at that point...]

[Kane0]

Instead of giving casters spell slots of each spell level, take a page from the warlock and have a set of slots that auto-scale. Perhaps two sets, major which progress at the full rate and come back on a short rest and minor which progress at half rate and come back on a short rest. Keeps warlocks unique since their slots are the reverse (their pact slots would be at the major rate and come back on a short rest, but they dont get minor slots at all).
Keep the pool small enough and you probably wouldnt even need to reduce spells known.

Edit: which some of you may have already seen before.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657469-Houserule-test

[GeneralVryth]

I agree with #2, and in fact martials should get an edge here. After all, honing your body should mean you can bolt more magic to it or have more gadgets at a moment's notice. Batman and Green Arrow's thing isn't just that they have the most toys, they're the ones who've been constantly training with said toys over their career, and thus can pull the one(s) they need at a moment's notice even under pressure. That should be reflected in mechanics like attunement or action cost.

#1 shouldn't be tied to class at all in my view; as you mentioned, it runs headfirst into campaign type dissonance. Yes I know, older editions had "you run a kingdom/thieves' guild now!" as a class capstone but like... for the small portion of the playerbase that actually want to play Nobility Simulator as their endgame nowadays, that should be an entirely separate gametype that anyone can participate in regardless of class - After all, mage's guilds, druid circles, monasteries and churches exist too.

#3 should also be a campaign thing. Similar to not everyone wanting their fighter to be a Lord, not everyone wants their fighter to be a Demigod either. I think items and attunement (#2) is the ideal way to square the circle between those who want high-level martials to be still grounded mortals subject to heroic fantasy laws of physics who just happen to be more capable, and those who want them to have uniquely powerful capabilities.

I kind of agree with all of this actually. And I said magic items were the answer to the martial versus caster back during the 5e playtest on the WotC forums. It's the simplest solution. It just becomes a matter of making sure martials are better with magic items (high level abilities that increase attunement slots are an easy answer here), and that they have access to said magic items (which is a lot more problematic).

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

There's a bit of, near disingenuousness, coming from those who think high tier martials are trash, yet can't come to terms with martials as ubermensch. "I don't like it, but I won't help anyone come up with anything better, because better requires magic, and mundanes don't get magic!"

It really shouldn't be hard to grant better abilities in tier 3 that don't replicate spells, but do push martials to better performance. But as I see it, one of two things tends to happen. Either the martials get abilities like in 4th Ed that are seen as 'too similar' to either each other, or magic, and the conversation is shut down, or the ideas start to converge onto a single class toes; like with this thread grouping EAs for each class, and thus making Fighter obsolete. Similar ideas are granting Fighters damage resistance - oh, that's stepping on Barbarians toes. or granting Barbarians extra damage on a hit - oh, that's the Paladins' schtick.

[It does seem that maybe the best idea for tier 3 martials is to start cannibalizing each other. Every class as a unique playstyle, until 13th level when they all basically start looking alike. Still have different power sources, they just grant similar abilities - would make it a lot easier to balance at that point...]

To start with, the thing I tend to care about most is a world that is at least somewhat internally consistent and the rules supporting that.

Honestly, I haven't played a pure martial in T3/T4. The closest I have gotten is having 1 or more part of my party in level 12 to 16 range in Solasta (though, they actually kept their pace and usefulness in that game, and often were better in combat, because just like BG3 they had great magic items and their caster allies weren't selfish).

But jumping back to your question of why play a martial if casters are better? It's the same answer of why people play a Batman or Iron Man esque character in a super hero game where they have party members like the Flash or Magneto. It's just the concept of what they want to play. That really is the problem here, a character that is non magical without magical items, doesn't make sense to go toe to toe with someone loaded with magic juice. It's like saying they want to play Tony Stark without the armor and still go toe to toe with Magneto. It either doesn't work, relies on extreme circumstances, or trashes verisimilitude.

As for ability ideas to increase the strength of martials without crossing the magical threshold, I have littered this thread with them, and tried to come up with different approaches that could be used with different classes (and some shared as appropriate). It's not actually that hard to push a late game martial to be doing distinctly more damage than a caster ally and taking more as well. It's just they need magic items galore, and the caster to realize Haste makes more sense on the martial than the caster. But if you leave combat, or you are talking about the martial going toe to toe with someone with a full spell load and 9ths, they are going to have a bad day.

What if... WotC had, despite the flurry of negativity around D&DNext, decided that Fighters would follow the footpath of Warblades, Paladins would be upgraded Crusaders, and Monks would be Swordsages. Rangers might have gotten a similar remake as Wardens. Would those who are against the ubermensch just not play 5th? Would you not play martials? Would you not play t3+?

I'm just trying to figure out where the goalposts live... 'Never! Thank goodness that didn't happen' or 'It's not how the rules were created, so I don't have to think about it, but I'd probably not like it', or 'Yeah, I'd kill the campaign before it got to those weird powers'.

On this point in particular, I am not familiar with those class comparisons. But I have no issues with magically empowered martials doing magical things. My issue is something that is declared as non-magical and starts BAMF-ing around like Nightcrawler or creating a wall fire by twirling their sword really fast. If you want magic like effects you need to have something to back it up. You can't be completely non-magical and do magic.

[Darth Credence]

IMO, the problem with "it's a game" is that isn't not balanced like an actual game should be. Which then behooves the DM to create artificial balancing points for those with underwhelming classes.

For instance, if in Monopoly, the Shoe and the Car were granted a +/- 2 to every roll, allowing the player to essentially pick any one of 5 different locations when they rolled, who'd play anything else? And if you had 3 players, the one who ended up the Top Hat would probably quit quickly there after.

Fundamentally different games. One does not play Monopoly to pretend to be a top hat or shoe. One plays Monopoly to win.

One should not be playing D&D to win. It should be played to have fun. For many, this requires balance between the classes. For others, it doesn't require any balance at all.

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

I have no problems with them. I don't play martial when I play, because that's not the power fantasy I'm going for. But I've run high level fighters and barbarians against players as casters, and had a good time doing it. Two level 20 martials did just fine against 2 full and 2 half casters at level 16 (part of a test to see if they could join). And when it was a free for all of a sporting event with all abilities allowed, the martials easily performed the best (mostly as it was a day long sporting event and casters ran out of magic that could help, to be fair).

All that said, if someone said to me that I needed to deal with the problem of casters being more powerful in the later game, after they explained to me why they think it's a problem, my answer would most likely be that this was solved in the original versions of the game, and I think it is player complaints that got us here in the first place. Wizards should be the most powerful people in the world by the time they max out levels. Pure fighters should be the least powerful in the game at maximum level. Conversely, wizards should be the least likely to make it that far, while fighters should be the most likely. When wizards were fragile and basically relied on fighters to survive for a half dozen levels or so, it made sense. When the general meta of the game has people starting at level 3 (because below that is boring and dangerous, is what I've been told) and a wizard can start as a cleric and become a wizard (without ever needing to actually play as a cleric) and therefore cast in heavy armor, there just isn't any drawback to becoming a wizard. Cantrips make it so you don't even have the drawback of running out of spell slots.

Balance casters/martials by starting at the beginning, don't allow spells with somatic components to be cast in any armor other than mage armor, and change the XP tables back to having martials level up quicker. It worked then - most tables I played at were primarily fighters, and as a wizard player I knew that it would be a while before I even caught up, but when I did I'd blow past them. Didn't even mean I no longer needed them, either - climactic fights were usually against a major bad guy and a horde of minions, and fights were often about who could keep their caster up the longest. No way a wizard in those days survived even at high levels without some martials protecting them. But it seems that people didn't want that - they wanted every class to be balanced and have equal powers as other classes across all levels. That was a fool's quest, IMO. It could be done, sure, but AIUI that led to 4e and every class feeling the same (never played that version, so cannot say, just what I've heard).

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a bit of, near disingenuousness, coming from those who think high tier martials are trash, yet can't come to terms with martials as ubermensch. "I don't like it, but I won't help anyone come up with anything better, because better requires magic, and mundanes don't get magic!"

Well, I want to clarify the terms here. I haven't used the term "trash". What I think is wrong with the high level martials is that they are mostly like low level martials and the simple pared down combat system exasperates this. Martials don't get many new interesting ways to do stuff as they level up, and there's only a few interesting things to do in combat to begin with.

So you have a slim system for combat, and slim class features. And it's like... in stories martials do all types of stuff. The game sort of shunts all the interesting stuff into the "Improve an Action" rule.

I do admit to having a sort of Goldilocks view of high level martials, in that they will be obviously more powerful and capable than a normal mundane, but not to the point of casting spells and shooting lightning bolts with their eyes (though I am okay with this too as subclasses or something along those lines, as opposed to "this is the end-state of all warriors").

I think the happy medium can be found. And I don't think just tacking spells onto everything is a superior position to take.

[It does seem that maybe the best idea for tier 3 martials is to start cannibalizing each other. Every class as a unique playstyle, until 13th level when they all basically start looking alike. Still have different power sources, they just grant similar abilities - would make it a lot easier to balance at that point...]

That's the other thing... I don't think the devs chose great dividing lines between the classes, though I recognize they are trope based. But the warrior class needs to reach out and absorb all of its lost potential back from the barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, etc. Ability Scores, Armor Class dynamics, and other rules in general want to box every martial into a narrow niche. Which is the opposite of what they are in stories.



With regards to fighters as lords...

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.

And there should be the same for warriors. 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 don't agree that if warriors have this, then wizards do as well. Firstly, there are simply many more warriors than there are spellcasters. You field an army of warriors, not mages. You supplement the army with spellcasters. Being a warrior is much more relatable because of how common they are and how accessible it is. And even if you aren't a warrior you get the concept pretty easily. Whereas magic is strange and mystical and available to a much smaller pool of people. Especially the higher level stuff.

So it's not obvious to me that if warriors are natural leaders of humanity/etc and can call upon armies and allies of different stripes, that spellcasters necessarily should be able to as well. And I think this should be explored. I kind of agree that not everyone will want to play a lord, which makes sense. But I do think these sort of out of combat powers are appropriate. If not that, then there should be something else. It's weird to think that only spellcasters are doing things behind the scenes. I mean... a powerful warrior turned ruler could be the primary leader in social interactions because of the sway they have, or arranged marriages, alliances, trade routes, etc.

[Theodoxus]

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!"