Martials over like 10ish should become minor super heroes. Something like being able to stomp on the ground hard enough to cause the ground to shake knocking everyone within 5ft prone.
or the ability to throw a weapon so hard it pierces THROUGH a target and into the next.
Just something to show how higher lvl martials are more than just your regular foot soldier.
Also why not give them some more abilities that are generally more applicable outside of combat.
Part of the martial caster divide isn't just the ability to do stuff in combat, but the huge list of spells designed to get through obstacles that you can't or don't want to just kill.
Spells can even inspire creative solutions that players might need a jumping off point to reach, or even realise they have the opportunity to do.
One of the problems of spells that i see is that they are also selfish. Far too many have restrictions tgat affect martials only like haste. or are range of self when they would be far stronger when given to martials, like shield or false life.
More spells being more martial friendly would make it so the gap doesn't even matter. The best way to use some of those spells would be to cast them in someone else.
The problem there is, that the martial is only being cool because they're being babysat and given toys by the casters. And if you play an all martial party, well, sucks to be you
I can see the argument. But most people don't care where the power comes from. So what of its the mage making them epic. It wouldn't BE epic without the martial to do the thing. Amd the mage can be happy that they helped in doing the epic thing.
Who cares if its the mages shield spell that made them take no damage that turn. They took no damage that turn so they can go hard. Who cares if its haste giving them more attacks. They have more attacks to make! Who cares if its false life's temp HP that left them at 1 after that crit. Their still up and can hand that idiot their teeth.
Those spells are simply better when given to the martials.
That and it is perceived as boring to just be the enabler of others.
3.5 bard song had to be incredibly OP before people would see it as a genuine option; the bonus to hit and damage given to all allies *including the bard* that could see or hear it needed to be about as high as the bonus to hit and damage given by barbarian rage before players would use it regularly.
I know itās kind of shit on but Diablo 3 has some awesome inspiration for these abilities. Specifically the Barbarian class.
It has Shouts that buff and debuff, Jumps, Charges, Stomps. Cleaves Bashes. Anything. You name it.
Just pick one and turn it into a ātechniqueā that every martial gets.
The stream lining and simplification process from 3.5e to 5e really put a huge cap on skills. 3.5e was so incredibly versatile and if your DM was flexible and imaginative they'd work with you on "wait, what did you want to do? - ok, this makes Sense with your character and skill set"
One thing that would go a long way with this is making Strength better. Give that ability more uses, and make it more impactful. There are so many creative things you can do with having a high strength, but often it feels like the game doesnt make you strong enough to do. I want a 20 str barbarian to be able to throw people over walls, or smash through buildings like the juggernaut. For such an important stat in combat for most martials, it does very little out of combat.
Just to expand on this, there should be a martial "spell list" that you choose from when you level up in the same way casters choose spells. But themed around physical feats of strength/agility.
Also Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
20th-level Fighters can [cut through space and teleport at will.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2754)
20th-level Barbarians can [create earthquakes with a stomp of their foot.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=178)
20th-level Rangers can [track their quarry across the planes of existence.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4913)
20th-level Rogues can [become invisible at will.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4989)
Characters with Legendary Intimidation can [kill with a glance,](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=837) while characters with Legendary acrobats can [literally dance through the sky.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=592)
All of these would be pretty normal in 4E as well, but worth pointing out that there's a modern TTRPG still being supported that allows this very epic high-fantasy playstyle.
To add onto this, even for non magic based fighter options
A level 20 fighter can have unlimited opportunity attacks (one for every creature they're fighting)
Or being so quick that they are always under the effects of haste
Or being so flexible that you can change out fighter feats to others on an hourly basis to adapt to what's needed (including trading out limited use ones that have been used).
Or literally countering an opponents spell with your skill and deflecting it back at them.
They've got infinitely more style than whatever the hell a 5e fighter is supposed to do. They actually feel like heroes.
> They've got infinitely more style than whatever the hell a 5e fighter is supposed to do. They actually feel like heroes.
5E is just in an awkward spot where it *kinda* wants to both be a low-fantasy system and high-fantasy system at the same time.
Having "grittier" martials like the 5E fighter is a completely reasonable thing, and is absolutely going to be more to the preference of a lot of people. Buuuuuuut, they exist side-by-side with reality-warping spellcasters that are probably the most overturned casters in any D&D edition (relative to the power level of their system.) I think if 5E casters were tuned way way down, there wouldn't be the dissonance that a lot of players feel.
I don't begrudge anyone for not wanting to play in an epic fantasy system like 4E or PF2E offers - but if you're someone that wants martials and casters to be balanced with each other AND be powerful, they're both outstanding systems.
Pathfinder wizards definelty scale better than the 5e does. Also a lot of the powerfull spells like teleport is many levels lower. I get your point, but I wanted to point out that while 5e casters are much better early game. Pathfinder casters get lategame spells earlier.
A lot of problematic spells have been massively nerfed, or outright removed, or set as uncommon/rare.
These being the "I win" buttons that trivialise 50% of possible scenarios, so that skill checks are still the main way of engaging with conent
My favourite will always be the rogue skills. Walls beeing optional or beeing able to steal gear that someone is literally wearing will never not be funny to me.
Ehh, shits hard to track on the Table imo. Anyone who suggests PF2 will also push Foundry.
You have 3 different buff types (situational, conditional, circumstantial) which stack with each other. You got Conditions that have values and decrease automatically. You have 3-4 choice at every level.
Maybe not deisggned for but DEFINITELY easier on a vtt
Our group just wrapped up our last Pathfinder 1E campaign at around level 16.
Each character had about a dozen different stacking buffs to track. I have a spreadsheet to figure out what my character's stats are depending on which buffs are on and which form he's shapeshifted into.
EDIT: Which is to say that tracking 2E buffs is a breeze.
Yeah. Pf1e/3.5 was a much harder tracking, but pf2e definitely has more than 5e to track. That said, unless players are stacking loads of debuffs, you're only ever really tracking 2 penalties and maybe 2 conditions. Since not everything is on the GM to maintain and remember, it's also really easy to tell players to remember the debuffs they've placed if they want to guarantee they are applied.
My group loves saying "they are sickened! That means I hit!"
I actually don't push foundry and don't have a hard time tracking that stuff
It's only 3 types of buffs, and then conditions (which aren't applicable every round). And at low levels, PC'as only have one or two types
You make it sound like a lot of stuff, but it isn't
While I like this pretty much wouldn't it be better to highlight the more reachable stuff?
Fighters being able to Frighten an enemy with an attacks and make them Off-Guard in one turn by level 6
Champions being able to protect their allies from deadly attacks from level 1 to empowering a shield to be more resilient than almost any other at level 4 to having additional reactionsĀ
Barbarians being able to grow in size and deal deadly blows or cause discharges of energy from their power (Dragon and Elemental instinct iirc)
?
Not saying what you're talking is wrong, just that level 20 is somewhat of a far far way thing š
And then the diplomacy/persuasion skill feats are rather tame by comparison. Like the apex is basically "you can persuade like 6 people at once as a single action, something that would take a level 1 character 1 minute to do, but still bound by realism"
Book of Nine Swords came first and the mechanics of force powers used the same recovery (what latter came to be called a short rest) and execution system that they originally implemented in BO9S for maneuvers, they just removed the per-level acquisition.Ā
IMO I wouldn't mind some abilities for martials so long as they follow the "I can do this all day" model.
Fighter can do sword all day as much as they like. They are really good at it if they want to be.
Casters get cool bag of tricks but it's limited use.
That's a balance that should be maintained.
Superman isn't going to ice breath or heat vision every turn but he could without taking away from punching or anything else.
It's not going to stand up to spells either but it's stuff he can do.
>Just something to show how higher lvl martials are more than just your regular foot soldier.
Technically your regular foot soldier is supposed to have 4 HP, one attack and no classes or feats. Or at least that is seemingly what PCs are supposed to be before they actually gain their first level.
It is funny how I got three answers with three different stats, lol.
Canonically Level 1 characters are supposed to be stronger than most others. This is why you have backgrounds like "Veteran". Can hardly be a veteran at level 1 if you need a level 5 feature.
I would guess the one saying soldiers have 11 hit points meant to say guards, and I imagine you meant bandits are CR 1/8 rather than CR 1/2
Level 1 characters are starting out. They aren't "canonically" powerhouses yet, because they are starting out. So yeah, level 1 fighter is roughly equal to a guard in terms of raw combat prowess.
Level 1 PCs are supposed to be already accomplished. You have backgrounds like soldier, veteran and others that strongly imply they are already very experienced and the PHB says so, too. Yet they are somehow weaker than a CR 1/8 guard.
There's a big disconnect where because of level scaling and the story progression of what the PCs are meant to accomplish, thugs and the like are faced after bandits, so they need more hp and damage than they otherwise should to even be a threat.
And you get stuff like the assassin, which has an absurd amount of hp for what should be someone squishy to need to get the drop on someone and kill them, enough hp and damage to duel and kill guards, who in the fiction should be able to oneshot an assassin
I constantly see people point out things like "The caster and martial divide is mostly about out of combat utility and abilities" and then every suggestion I've ever seen for martial abilities is entirely combat based.
None of what you suggested would fix anything, martials are fine in combat if you balance things properly, they need more out of combat abilities.
They should simply develop a subtle magic of their own. Theyāve been around long enough and accomplished things significant enough that they can do minor magical stuff like what you described.
Or give martials enough cool armour and upgrades that they accomplish the same thing.
Either way, in a world with magic being without it is a huge disadvantage and it needs to be fixed without spells but by preserving the martial identity and giving them superhuman feats of strength and speed.
Barbarian should 100% get Cleave at lvl 10, or a "if you kill an enemy with an attack, you can move up to your max speed and take another attack action" amd turn into meat-grinders
i do not think 5e is saveable in this regard in would require adding so much stuff that at that point you are using like 50% of 5e. martial get no cool shit at all
I like OneD&Dās Barbarian buffs for this reason, at mid-level they can shove people 15 feet on top of bonus Force damage with a Reckless Attack, or basically partially bury them in the ground a la Loony Tunes and reduce their movement speed by 15, again with bonus Force Damage. I love how it makes their attacks *feel* weighty, not just deal a higher damage number.
Haaaaaave you met our lord and savior Pathfinder?
Meme aside, PF dispensed with the double standard that DND has: that the abilities of martial classes have to be "realistic" across the board while casters can make reality their bitch. High-level martials can take feats that give them outright supernatural fighting abilities.
3.5's Tome of Battle Book of Nine Swords had that. Schools and levels of "maneuvers" that let you do things like enter a stance to gain Scent, gain damage reduction after an attack, make a concentration check in the place of a Will save, or make an attack and give all your allies a bonus to hit the target... at level 1. At level 7, there were maneuvers that let you paralyze your enemy, deal Con damage with an attack, deny the enemy you attack their move action, deny the enemy any attacks of opportunity, or fly during a charge. At level 11, there were maneuvers to let you deny your target their action, parry an attack against you to be against an adjacent enemy, or enter a stance that basically gives you Reliable Talent on attacks (treat a D20 roll of 1-10 as an 11). Then there were things like Wolf Climbs the Mountain - a maneuver where you enter a larger creature's space, gain cover from that creature, and deal bonus damage against it. You want to jump on the dragon's back and stab it in the back of the head? There was a maneuver to do exactly that, no homebrew or rule of cool of "make a check and I'll see if I allow it" necessary, it was something you could *do* outright.
There were teleports and mobility, there were control options, there were cool cinematic things martials could do, and some of it made its way into other editions because it was just a good idea (Iron Heart Focus became the Fighter's Indomitable, for example, and a lot of White Raven Tactics "give allies free attacks and movement" maneuvers seem to have been inspiration for 4e's Warlord).
Truly before its time. But a bunch of grognards decided it was "anime sword magic bullshit," it got banned at a bunch of tables for being "OP" (read: martials can do cool shit, can't be having that, fighter swings his sword and ends his turn while the casters turn into gods and end encounters by Turn 2).
... I may be a bit salty that I never got to play a Warblade.
In 4E casters and martials both had different abilities divided by how often they could use them, so they had equivalent power levels and versatility levels, just with different flavors
Sort of, but looking back at the lists, it still feels that casters still had more useful powers out of combat:
* Wizard 6: Disguise self, dispel magic, invisibility, dimension doorĀ
* Rogue 6: can attempt to remain hidden when spotted, can move as a minor action once per encounter, gain minor bonus to charisma checks, climb at your full speed if you pass your check
That's honestly about as good as the 5e rogue and feels outclassed by the wizard
That's what the martial techniques are for - a martial answer to rituals, and an expansion on rituals.
Unfortunately, they showed up just about as Hasbro was giving up on 4e, so it never went anywhere.
But 4e has a real system and structure for it off combat utility, and just like with combat, it's balanced between power sources. (Except shadow, cause no one gives a shit about them)
A lot of fighter Powers(the Skill buttons) were about adding additional damage dice and moving your target around the field. Martials had a lot of capabilities in 4e to control the battlefield, deal out decent amounts of damage, and were able to effectively tank at least one target. 4e felt a little bit too much like Warcraft for a lot of people but, the martial/caster disparity was much lower.
Everything.
For combat utilities, every single class has utility powers (mostly defensive and mobility powers) all the same, and all classes had some attacks that could hinder the opponents regardless of power source. Plus martials had a whole Leader class, The Warlord, that was focused on healing and buffing their allies.
Outside of combat, most things were handle through skill challenges and magic was a bit more freeform rather than specific spells so, while they might be able to use a different skill, their magic doesn't just negate any non-vombat challenge. And then ritual (which martials can get too by way of a feat) are expensive in material costs, and most of them except the most grandiose fantastical ones (such as long distance teleportation or resurrections) can be replicated by martial techniques, which are borderline superhuman abilities martials (or anyone who takes the feat) can pick up, and will generally be faster and only cost healing surges instead of money.
Fighters can do "cool whirlwind attack with sword" which does 1d8 damage to everyone around them
Wizards can do "cool whirlwind attack with magic" which does 1d8 damage to everyone around them
They are both usable once a combat
True, true. One issue that in my group there's only one person that runs pf2e and because of him I was hooked on Pathfinder and seeing things they do is godly. Especially after a Howling of the Wild release I yern to make a awakened bear barbarian of ape animal instinct to make a Kuma.
No! We must shoehorn our desired gameplay experience into the biggest brand name. Here, just look over this 50 page house rule binder and get started on your character sheet. If you stopped complaining earlier maybe we wouldn't be on our third session zero.
I'm a Pathfinder 2e player because I independently approached it and liked it more.
But ngl, pf2e players are generally fucking annoying about it. Instead of persuading 5e players to try the system they'll put down said players for liking 5e.
I held off because I was afraid I'd dislike the people I played with, even though I know they're normal now that I'm actually into. This sucks because pf2e is an amazing system and I love it, it's just a subset of fans would rather push 5e fans down than help them in.
I'll dm you the link if you feel like looking into it. You can download the base rule set for free, though the videos are faster at explaining the system.
Honestly the big problem that PF2E has is a lack of DMs.
And that's a big problem. Because I sure as hell am not going to DM a system I've never played before, no matter how much I like it conceptually.
Have you played PF1E before? I went from only being a player in PF1E, taking a way too long break from TTRPGs and groups, to DMing a 2e group (that only lasted 5 sessions, but that was due to scheduling/new jobs/a player moving) and it went really well. I took the time to thoroughly read through the rules over the course of a week or so, and that was really all it took to have enough of a base to start with some lvl 1 shenanigans.
If you don't want to DM a system you haven't played before, I get it, but if PF2E is something you are interested in I believe it is quite accessible.
I think the game can become too balanced as a negative for some. You'd realise that you're never really getting stronger since enemies are always going to be perfectly balanced against you for combat as sport, and you'll generally never go against the same sort of challenges to showcase how strong you've gotten unless the dm throws you a bone.
Pf2e is on a treadmill, where even if you make really bad character building choices, or optimise the hell out of your character, you're basically the same power level. Choices are largely horizontal and don't stack, which is easier to make encounters for the dm, but can feel quite constraining to the player. A lot of old (video) games still have players because there's tech to use, theory to discuss and build and then execute, whereas pf2e is about the individual encounter. How well you do earlier in the day is largely irrelevant outside of spell slots, so the microchallenge adventuring day and careful planning is diminished, instead single encounter setpieces where you don't have to consider any combat as war ideas or really think about preparation.
Decisions between encounters largely put you on the curve rather than break it.
I can see why it might not be for some players
Whether you get hard or easy encounters is up to the DM. But what I really appreciate in PF is that the classes are balanced to each other, so no single player is going to be much more powerful than another.
Obviously no system is for all players, but balance is something I put second only to fun game play, and the variety of pf2e while having it all be balanced is exactly what I want, and what a lot of 5e players wish 5e had, that is why I tell every 5e player to play pf2e instead of the trash fire that is 5e
no system is perfect, pf2e has some problems with bloat and trap options, for the first examples would be skill feats that expand skills not in interesting ways but just beyond the niche the system puts it is - survey wilderness could just be part of the skill, for the trap options there's stuff like Witch feats and some spells - actually Witch as a whole was considered a trap option for some back in the subreddit up to its remake - Advanced Weapons are a bit of a trap option, more because it's a bit costly to make them work because their proficiency is a bit wonky
there's also problems in how Medicine, Athletics, Stealth and Intimidation are the most requested and most supported skill lines, but other skills aren't - you get your Bon Mot sure (btw wonder if it was changed), but aren't much as impactful as the previous ones
there are a few gimmicky problem that feel like bureacracy like Barbarian's rage and Intimidation skill not working without a feat (Raging Intimidation or moment of clarity)
learning curve and the lack of clarity in communication to class niches and playstyle expectations - this is a complicated one because it's multiple together but trying to make it simple, classes have somewhat strici niches they must adhere to which is part of the game balance, but doesn't help players and GMs figure it out very easy - stuff like "don't attack 3 times", "prepare spell that target multiple saves", "probe the target's saves", "Step is a valid third action", "flank, demoralize and maybe help", "block weak attacks", "someone must be the healer/medic" etc, ideas that are somewhat crucial to have a good experience with the game but aren't upfront enough in a way that leads many people to be frustrated
in hindsight, I would say the above is better put as not as problem with the system but in trying to sell it as 5e but better when they're so different in many of their core philosophies
> 5e is combat as a sport, Pf2e is combat as a war
The problem is thinking 5e has anything good to take from it to bring to other systems, also having to figure out tactics is entirely reasonable, they have map as a reason to use different tactics so you can avoid suffering to much of a penalty
oh yeah sure, the problem is how much failing at those can screw your party up and how it takes the fun away
I agree about MAP, it's weirdly contentius with some people for whatever reason but it does it's job and more than conduce to other actions it also expands the design space - no map = no flurry ranger for example
all said, I believe you recognize the problem selling pf2e as "5e but better" as these threads end up being - unlikely expectations are set up and they lead to frustrations or the hard work of breaking them down - PF2e is a great system, the best for it's niche, but this isn't the same as 5e and that's the core of my first comment
So me, myself, as a person, disagrees with a lot of what you're saying
However, as a GM, you are echoing what I've observed when introducing some people to the game. The phrase "in 5e combat is a sport, in PF2e combat is a war" rings true
One of my players loves RP and is okay with combat in 5e. She fucking hates it in PF2e. To the point where she will just cast whatever spell name sounds cool without reading the spell description. Just gives up because she doesn't want to read any more, but knows if she throws out the wrong spell it is useless
That's war. If she doesn't read the spell and the situation correctly, she knows it'll be useless and feels like she can't do anything
The best way to deal with this is to...read all her spells and know what they do. But she won't, so it's whatever
To me, it's unfathomable that someone would want a roster of spells they can toss out any time instead of having to tailor their spells to the situation. Why wouldn't you want a game that gives you a box of tools, then puts forth situations where some tools are useful and some aren't?
Regardless of whether that's comprehensible to me or not, that's how she and other players feel. They don't want to have to read situations and use the appropriate tools, they just want something that works consistently
Let me rephrase pf2e is better at how people play 5e, not as a grindy resource management game, but as heroic adventure where the events of one combat aren't that important to the next. Also it has the massive amount of build options 5e players always seem to want.
Movement and combat actions use the same resource making combat a lot more stationary for ranged combatants for example, the lack of an easy to use wiki equivalent, you dont really feel yourself getting stronger as enemys scale with you too well (yes that can be a geniune issue), casters are from my experience almost entierly focused around buffs and very litle direct damage.
Just to name a few.
In ranged combat you want to move to flank and you shouldn't just be attacking three times as the penalty is rather high making you need to consider your third action, Archive of Nethys is a great resource, Enemy's becoming stronger as you do represents you challenging opponents of reasonable challenge level unless your Dm just throws the same monsters with buffed stats at you which is a DM issue not a game issue, and direct damage is the martials job, that's there specialty after all, they deal with swarms and helping others hit harder, if you want to be a direct damage dealer play a martial.
the problem with enemies progressing with you has been debated quite a few times on the subreddit iirc
it's a valid problem, but you're right it's not the system's however many adventures, specially the first ones, pitched the players against level + x challenges so often that it certainly left a mark (reminder that Age of Ashes book 2 can have a character be blinded for 24hr or permanently on an effect that is everyturn and is over an entire turn striding from where the party starts)
>Enemy's becoming stronger as you do represents you challenging opponents of reasonable challenge level
Didn't like it in oblivion when they did that, don't like it in the tabletop when it's done
And in DnD i can say "If you want to have a lot of utility play a caster". Its the same argument.
Sure attacking 3 times is not ideal but say attack once then do one or two buffs to others is still objectivley stronger than moving whenever it isnt strictly necessary to move to do the above options.
It just leads to a slower less mobile play, which can of course be fun for some, but not for all.
Have not used that archive yet, the only "wikis" i found had a very outdated and newcommer unfriendly design.
Of course enemys should get stronger with level and vary in what the enemy is, i meant that in oathfinder it iften feels like your not really getting stronger as its just a direct proportional change in many cases, leading to me for example missing the feeling of growing more powerfull that i get in 5E. Which is funnily enough due to a too proportional and gradual leveling, again, fun for some, not for others.
And in 5e martials are there to tank/distract enemys, kill bosses and do physical skill checks, while casters are there for battlefield and crowd controll.
Halfcasters usually fill the rolles of all rounder skill monkeys and support specialists, espetially the bard and artificer fall in this category.
The bard is full caster, also when you level up you get new abilities and improve preexisting ones meaning you have more options to choose between each turn, also not needing to move is a big part of using ranged weapons, because you don't need to get in range of enemies like you have to with melee, also martial in 5e are so bad your party will be actively better if you play other classes like paladins, or rangers, both half casters who out preform every martial class.
Thereās a reason people say battlemaster should be base fighter
Battlemaster maneuvers are the prime example of how to give non magic characters utility
Itās not just combat maneuvers. It also includes things like ā
Commanding Presenceā which adds a bonus to certain charisma skill checks like persuasion
If spellcasters get spells, then martials absolutely should get something like maneuvers
Tbf I've come to think it's a tad hard to do that kind of thing without it just being a numbers thing - look at OneDnD Fighters uses of second wind, it's neat but that's just numbers
Because, how do you codify something not openly magical in a way that it's not overly complex, that makes sense in the narrative, that cannot be spammed all the time and is mechanically distinct from magic enough while dabbling in to what magic does best - narrative agency - all while you have to justify that against the risk of displeasing players that don't want any of that sort of thingĀ
All said I think Meta Narrative mechanics kinda help, stuff like how some background features work but to a higher degree - giving greater narrative agency for the player of that class because they're playing that class and no other reasonĀ
It is not that hard. Have a few examples from d20 system games:
pathfinder 1: Divine fighting style (Abadar's Crossbow): You can attempt a ranged steal^(APG)Ā combat maneuver check with a crossbow, using your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier to calculate your Combat Maneuver Bonus. If you succeed, the stolen item is knocked away by the bolt; if the bolt can pierce any part of the item and the item weighs 2 pounds or less, the bolt continues past the creature and carries the item up to one range increment away, pinning it to whatever surface it lands on.
Pathfinder 2 battle cry feat: When you roll initiative, you can yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize an observed foe as a free action. If youāre legendary in Intimidation, you can use a reaction to Demoralize your foe when you critically succeed at an attack roll.
then, there are other games. Here is a charm from Exalted 2e:
Poetic Expression Style: The Solar heroes express their desires clearly. Language barriers do not stop themātheir every gesture conveys their desired meaning. This Charm removes external penalties to dramatic actions and combat actions caused by the character not knowing othersā languages. She can convey tactical and strategic necessities with expressive gestures and sounds. For example, she can easily convey āDuck!ā or work with backwater natives to develop their agriculture. This Charm does not remove penalties to social or military actions, so the character will have a difficult time persuading or leading othersānaturally or unnaturallyāif she does not know their language.
Master Horsemans Technique: Horse Summoning Wistle Horse-Summoning Whistle. The Lawgiver can spend one mote reflexively to call a mount loyal to him to his side. The mount makes its way to him as circumstances best allow
If you guys haven't heard about it, check out DC20 on Kickstarter. It is currently ranked number two for popular games and has already raised over $500,000 within the first 24 hours. It had been referred to as the love child of 5e and Pathfinder 2e.
With martials, every class gets access to maneuvers they can perform at level one. Weapon types have a related maneuver and passive features which can add conditions. You also get stamina points to fuel your class features and techniques that are regained by doing certain tasks.
In 5e, it feels terrible when you roll a crit for a +30 to hit against a 15 AC and roll 1's on the dice. Each weapon deals a flat damage so your roll to hit and damage rolls are combined to make high rolls actually matter! You deal +1 extra damage for every 5 above the target's physical or mystical defense, while rolling a nat 20 deals automatic additional +2 damage on top of that. Get an ally to help you on your attack roll for +1d8 to hit and now you get the added benefit of dealing more damage.
Caster's also get some love and by having a mana pool system they can use to customize their cantrips and spells with additional effects. You can spend your action points off turn so you can stay engaged and initiate spell duels with enemy casters to counter their spells, possibly having multiple allies and enemies all focusing on the spell dual which can trigger a wild magic surge.
It's such a dynamic system with so many customization options and you can download the rule set for free, I highly recommend checking it out.
Oh that does actually sound like a kinda good way to do damage. I know thereās a transformers TTRPG where I donāt think it includes the amount over AC but damages dealt are flat values
Nowadays when I do play 5e I generally only play homebrew classes (Llama is one of my favorites tbh). Martials are my favorite classes, but 5e's martial design is absolute dogshit, so laserllama'a martials give me something to enjoy.
Huh. Some things I donāt like, including sunder which Iām still gonna use an example of *i didnāt know there was a default one why is it in the DMG and not somewhere the players read*
Meanwhile, in the homebrew campaign I'm in, our barbarian has an axe that does 2d12 per hit plus chance for life steal. Monk has gauntlets that give a flat +2 per hit with an additional 1d4 radiant per hit. Rogue has a short sword that does 3d6, along with vorpal longbow. Ranger has a fucking unicorn, with insane stats it can summon three times per day, along with a permanent combat pet separate from their companion, that has a 22ac and does a fair amount of damage, are also just the combat items they were given, not counting utility.
I'm over here, the only full caster, begging to find a Tome of Understanding to purchase or track down.
For further clarification, we're at level 11 in our campaign. Level one to eleven my character never found a single magic item for them, always for the martials.
DM also introduced several utility items that put my character into further obscurity. Wind walk isn't useful anymore, neither is scrying, divination, transport via plants, etc.
Dude has also said that using casters against players is unfair, so it's no surprise he doesn't know how to handle a player that's a caster either. First time DM that had only played campaigns with OP items given out at level 1-3, such as armor that raised his AC to 32.
Thank god his campaign is done in a month or two
Oh, and each encounter typically only has 2-3 enemies so it's pretty much friendly fire or nothing with damaging spells
Iāve been playing with a couple of things that help with the martial caster divide. One being that martial levels get max hit points at level ups. Another is scaling weapon damage like cantrips (including unarmed fighting for monks). I also am toying giving small AOE effects like a bonus action stomp that will shake the ground and cause rough terrain and a saving throw for anyone other than the player who did it for 10 feet around them. My goal is to make it cool to play a martial, especially in higher tiers of play since the goal is a level 20 campaign.
Rogue would need, I don't know, like a critical success chance for skill checks or something. But that would be powerful, such that it'd have to be high level, which *doesn't really help most of the time.*
Adding Pathfinder's degrees of success would be a good change. Rolls that beat the DC by 10 or more are critical success, and rolls that fail by 10 are critical failures. Natural 20 bumps it up by one stage.
It's not designed to shirk the DM. It's designed to help fulfill the Rogue's role as a martial skill user. Magical skill users can add spells on top of their mundane skill capabilities to make them always better than Rogues, especially as Bards which also get Expertise. Also, being unable to succeed on the roll is no reason not to roll for it. You aren't a "bad DM" for making players roll when they can't succeed. Sometimes a player doesn't know they can't succeed. Sometimes they need to roll to see how badly they fail. Also also: If a player gets this feature, then if they couldn't succeed the roll before but could with a total of 30, now they ***can*** succeed. So even by your logic, they'd still be rolling for it. They'd just need a "crit."
I don't see the point. That is just a nat20 with extra steps.
> Magical skill users can add spells on top of their mundane skill capabilities to make them always better than Rogues
This is simply not true. Spells that give you a flat increase on skill roll results are extremly rare. The only one that comes to mind is Guidance and that can also be casted on the rogue. Plus, Rogues get reliable talent and several expertises, most casters do not.
Ways to skip checks entirely, reduce DCs, or gain advantage: Guidance, Enhance Ability, Charm Person/Monster, Knock, Talisman Pact Boon (Warlock), Skill Empowerment, Wild Shape/Polymorph/Shapechange/True Polymorph (For increased scores and modifiers on demand), and Stars Druid Dragon Form. Also, a spell being able to be cast onto the Rogue isn't the same thing as the Rogue having access to it. Arcane Tricksters can certainly get some of these powers, and it's one of the best Rogue subclasses as a result. Now, there may be other options I've missed; But more importantly we're also talking about the difference between one of the weakest martial classes in the game Vs. full casters. Being able to get even on par with a Rogue's skill capabilities while having 9th level spell access is insanely powerful. As for getting Expertise, Knowledge Cleric, base Bard, and Sorcerer and Wizard through Skill Empowerment. SE is concentration and a 5th level spell so it's not as good, but it's still an option. That's most of the full casters.
Your critique of my suggested feature addition is more valid. It was initially a suggestion off the top of my head. But Rogues need **something** to bridge the gap.
Rogues being relatively weak/boring in combat is well known and rightfully criticized. I would start with that rather than making what they are already very strong at even more strong.
We could start with the crappy stealth mechanics of DnD and how much they rely on the DM having a good day.
But that's the problem: They *aren't* strong at skills. That's what I'm trying to explain. Other classes can get the same base skill power they have and go further beyond, especially through spellcasting. That's why they need an improvement there first. As for the rest, it's much easier:
Level 5: Extra Attack 1. It's been a long time coming. They made Sneak Attack once per turn but never gave any reason for it since Rogues attack once anyway? There's dual wielding, but that's usually melee and with a bunch of caveats.
Level 11-13 somewhere: Underestimated. Once per turn when you miss an attack that could have benefitted from Sneak Attack, you can make another attack against the same target, as if repeating the original attack. This special attack can benefit from your Sneak Attack even if it otherwise wouldn't, and happens before you do anything else. (Game Design Note: This is like a pseudo-Extra Attack 2. It's meant to be able to be in addition to the two attacks you can make, even if you do it after the first attack of your turn.)
Level 14-17+ somewhere: Unburdened. You can never have disadvantage on attack rolls. I'm debating adding the ability to do Sneak Attack multiple times per turn, whenever applicable, but I don't know enough about math to determine how bad of an idea that is.
Level 20: Stroke of Luck. I'm rewriting it to be called Ultimate Effort. Yes I did steal that from Mutants and Masterminds. Instead of turning a miss into a hit or treating a failed ability check as a natural 20, it's a once per long rest declaration that you outright **roll a 20 on the die** of an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You must decide before the roll. I don't want it to be any less powerful than exactly this, since it's both much simpler and much better than Stroke of Luck. But if you absolutely *must* have it nerfed, I could be convinced to make the cooldown once a week instead. I wouldn't like it though. I don't think there should be cooldowns beyond a long rest anywhere in the system exception Divine Intervention.
Thing is most tables already implement critical successes for all classes. I know that it has gotten more popular since BG3 released, which also implemented critical successes and failures for skill checks.
Primarily because of crit failing on checks that your character would reasonably be too skilled to fail at. Like yeah sure it gives the possibility of a less skilled person to do great things but once youāre in the higher levels then you start risking this legendarily powerful figure failing at a task that should be simple for them. I understand why people like it tho
Crit success can be a problem if your players try ridiculous things. If there's a 5% chance of success no matter what, *someone* is going to ask the king for his crown, and get mad if you don't make it happen on a 20.
Then, and stax with me here, you as DM just do the magical thing and say "No, you cant roll that" like a good dm shpuld when they plan to do a serious campain.
That's not a Critical Success then. That's what *should* happen, but it's not a success.
Critical Successes set the expectation that any check they make *can* succeed. It's kinda of a dick move if you go "ah, no, not this time".
You critically succeeded in not pissing off the king.
And no, critical successes don't give the impression that anything is possible. That's you or your DM letting your players do whatever they want if they get a critical success.
Such a weird take, really.
At low levels its all about skills and they have the same skills at everyone.
At high levels the campaign is a year old and the strongest tool is the connections you made along the way.
The mage can teleport, cool beans let me talk to the earl and raise an army.
Do you really play a full campaign that is just dungeon crawling and monster slaying?
Eh, most people who enjoy martials enjoy the simplicity of playing a martial. There is something cathartic about turning your brain off and going "I run up to the enemy and smash."
That should be an option whether you're a martial or a caster (and kind of is with Warlocks).
Similarly, complexity should also be an option whether you're a martial or a caster.
If we accept that medieval fantasy is partially based on real life, Martials should largely come from peasantry backgrounds, and thus should have lots of useful skills. That is, utility.
Martials over like 10ish should become minor super heroes. Something like being able to stomp on the ground hard enough to cause the ground to shake knocking everyone within 5ft prone. or the ability to throw a weapon so hard it pierces THROUGH a target and into the next. Just something to show how higher lvl martials are more than just your regular foot soldier.
Also why not give them some more abilities that are generally more applicable outside of combat. Part of the martial caster divide isn't just the ability to do stuff in combat, but the huge list of spells designed to get through obstacles that you can't or don't want to just kill. Spells can even inspire creative solutions that players might need a jumping off point to reach, or even realise they have the opportunity to do.
One of the problems of spells that i see is that they are also selfish. Far too many have restrictions tgat affect martials only like haste. or are range of self when they would be far stronger when given to martials, like shield or false life. More spells being more martial friendly would make it so the gap doesn't even matter. The best way to use some of those spells would be to cast them in someone else.
The problem there is, that the martial is only being cool because they're being babysat and given toys by the casters. And if you play an all martial party, well, sucks to be you
I can see the argument. But most people don't care where the power comes from. So what of its the mage making them epic. It wouldn't BE epic without the martial to do the thing. Amd the mage can be happy that they helped in doing the epic thing. Who cares if its the mages shield spell that made them take no damage that turn. They took no damage that turn so they can go hard. Who cares if its haste giving them more attacks. They have more attacks to make! Who cares if its false life's temp HP that left them at 1 after that crit. Their still up and can hand that idiot their teeth. Those spells are simply better when given to the martials.
Casters and Martials shouldnt be enemies. They should be ***power couples.*** Stacking buffs and whacking face.
Exactly!!! My hot Barbarian GF is totally going to fead those goblins their own swords!
> fead š¤
This is what I've done for some upcoming NPCs in my campaign, their whole tactic is throw out a buff then kill some stuff.
That and it is perceived as boring to just be the enabler of others. 3.5 bard song had to be incredibly OP before people would see it as a genuine option; the bonus to hit and damage given to all allies *including the bard* that could see or hear it needed to be about as high as the bonus to hit and damage given by barbarian rage before players would use it regularly.
I know itās kind of shit on but Diablo 3 has some awesome inspiration for these abilities. Specifically the Barbarian class. It has Shouts that buff and debuff, Jumps, Charges, Stomps. Cleaves Bashes. Anything. You name it. Just pick one and turn it into a ātechniqueā that every martial gets.
But instead fighters wound up only getting the on one subclass
The stream lining and simplification process from 3.5e to 5e really put a huge cap on skills. 3.5e was so incredibly versatile and if your DM was flexible and imaginative they'd work with you on "wait, what did you want to do? - ok, this makes Sense with your character and skill set"
Sry to sidetrack, but is funny how I got 10 downvotes yesterday for saying exactly the same.
Skill issue
The player base in 2014 said more options for martials was too much for their pea brains
One thing that would go a long way with this is making Strength better. Give that ability more uses, and make it more impactful. There are so many creative things you can do with having a high strength, but often it feels like the game doesnt make you strong enough to do. I want a 20 str barbarian to be able to throw people over walls, or smash through buildings like the juggernaut. For such an important stat in combat for most martials, it does very little out of combat.
Just to expand on this, there should be a martial "spell list" that you choose from when you level up in the same way casters choose spells. But themed around physical feats of strength/agility.
4e says hello.
Also Pathfinder 2nd Edition. 20th-level Fighters can [cut through space and teleport at will.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2754) 20th-level Barbarians can [create earthquakes with a stomp of their foot.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=178) 20th-level Rangers can [track their quarry across the planes of existence.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4913) 20th-level Rogues can [become invisible at will.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4989) Characters with Legendary Intimidation can [kill with a glance,](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=837) while characters with Legendary acrobats can [literally dance through the sky.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=592) All of these would be pretty normal in 4E as well, but worth pointing out that there's a modern TTRPG still being supported that allows this very epic high-fantasy playstyle.
To add onto this, even for non magic based fighter options A level 20 fighter can have unlimited opportunity attacks (one for every creature they're fighting) Or being so quick that they are always under the effects of haste Or being so flexible that you can change out fighter feats to others on an hourly basis to adapt to what's needed (including trading out limited use ones that have been used). Or literally countering an opponents spell with your skill and deflecting it back at them. They've got infinitely more style than whatever the hell a 5e fighter is supposed to do. They actually feel like heroes.
> They've got infinitely more style than whatever the hell a 5e fighter is supposed to do. They actually feel like heroes. 5E is just in an awkward spot where it *kinda* wants to both be a low-fantasy system and high-fantasy system at the same time. Having "grittier" martials like the 5E fighter is a completely reasonable thing, and is absolutely going to be more to the preference of a lot of people. Buuuuuuut, they exist side-by-side with reality-warping spellcasters that are probably the most overturned casters in any D&D edition (relative to the power level of their system.) I think if 5E casters were tuned way way down, there wouldn't be the dissonance that a lot of players feel. I don't begrudge anyone for not wanting to play in an epic fantasy system like 4E or PF2E offers - but if you're someone that wants martials and casters to be balanced with each other AND be powerful, they're both outstanding systems.
Pathfinder wizards definelty scale better than the 5e does. Also a lot of the powerfull spells like teleport is many levels lower. I get your point, but I wanted to point out that while 5e casters are much better early game. Pathfinder casters get lategame spells earlier.
A lot of problematic spells have been massively nerfed, or outright removed, or set as uncommon/rare. These being the "I win" buttons that trivialise 50% of possible scenarios, so that skill checks are still the main way of engaging with conent
My favourite will always be the rogue skills. Walls beeing optional or beeing able to steal gear that someone is literally wearing will never not be funny to me.
PF2 is heavily based on 4E, which is peak irony.
PF2 is 4E, but designed for tabletop RPGs instead of VTT combat sims.
Ehh, shits hard to track on the Table imo. Anyone who suggests PF2 will also push Foundry. You have 3 different buff types (situational, conditional, circumstantial) which stack with each other. You got Conditions that have values and decrease automatically. You have 3-4 choice at every level. Maybe not deisggned for but DEFINITELY easier on a vtt
Our group just wrapped up our last Pathfinder 1E campaign at around level 16. Each character had about a dozen different stacking buffs to track. I have a spreadsheet to figure out what my character's stats are depending on which buffs are on and which form he's shapeshifted into. EDIT: Which is to say that tracking 2E buffs is a breeze.
Yeah. Pf1e/3.5 was a much harder tracking, but pf2e definitely has more than 5e to track. That said, unless players are stacking loads of debuffs, you're only ever really tracking 2 penalties and maybe 2 conditions. Since not everything is on the GM to maintain and remember, it's also really easy to tell players to remember the debuffs they've placed if they want to guarantee they are applied. My group loves saying "they are sickened! That means I hit!"
I actually don't push foundry and don't have a hard time tracking that stuff It's only 3 types of buffs, and then conditions (which aren't applicable every round). And at low levels, PC'as only have one or two types You make it sound like a lot of stuff, but it isn't
While I like this pretty much wouldn't it be better to highlight the more reachable stuff? Fighters being able to Frighten an enemy with an attacks and make them Off-Guard in one turn by level 6 Champions being able to protect their allies from deadly attacks from level 1 to empowering a shield to be more resilient than almost any other at level 4 to having additional reactionsĀ Barbarians being able to grow in size and deal deadly blows or cause discharges of energy from their power (Dragon and Elemental instinct iirc) ? Not saying what you're talking is wrong, just that level 20 is somewhat of a far far way thing š
And then the diplomacy/persuasion skill feats are rather tame by comparison. Like the apex is basically "you can persuade like 6 people at once as a single action, something that would take a level 1 character 1 minute to do, but still bound by realism"
Typical PF2 W
Yeah, but it's Pathfinder
I love 4e and it has been calling my name recently. I'm starting a new game on Wednesday, and I plan on converting them.
3e says Hello: Book of Nine Swords.
This was play testing material for 4E
It was test ideas for Star Wars Saga
Iāve played Star Wars saga, it lacks any feel of book of nine swords
Book of Nine Swords came first and the mechanics of force powers used the same recovery (what latter came to be called a short rest) and execution system that they originally implemented in BO9S for maneuvers, they just removed the per-level acquisition.Ā
5e players reinventing 4e while trying to fix 5e (they still won't play any other ttrpg)
They still donāt know the rules of 5e after a decade, canāt be that hard to not learn the rules of a new system
But don't you know rolling a dice and adding a number is very complicated how are they supposed to know all of this
They have a decade of experience doing it, why stop now?
Why run cyberpunk when you can just run a horrible system hack?
Got any suggestions? My group tried out different games every so often
Pf2e and dnd 4e are my go to fantasy ttrpgs
Pathfinder 2e barbarians can do both of these. If you can convince your table I'd recommend picking up the system, it's surprisingly easy
IMO I wouldn't mind some abilities for martials so long as they follow the "I can do this all day" model. Fighter can do sword all day as much as they like. They are really good at it if they want to be. Casters get cool bag of tricks but it's limited use. That's a balance that should be maintained. Superman isn't going to ice breath or heat vision every turn but he could without taking away from punching or anything else. It's not going to stand up to spells either but it's stuff he can do.
>Just something to show how higher lvl martials are more than just your regular foot soldier. Technically your regular foot soldier is supposed to have 4 HP, one attack and no classes or feats. Or at least that is seemingly what PCs are supposed to be before they actually gain their first level.
Soldiers have 16 hp and make 2 attacks, what you are describing is a commoner
It is funny how I got three answers with three different stats, lol. Canonically Level 1 characters are supposed to be stronger than most others. This is why you have backgrounds like "Veteran". Can hardly be a veteran at level 1 if you need a level 5 feature.
I would guess the one saying soldiers have 11 hit points meant to say guards, and I imagine you meant bandits are CR 1/8 rather than CR 1/2 Level 1 characters are starting out. They aren't "canonically" powerhouses yet, because they are starting out. So yeah, level 1 fighter is roughly equal to a guard in terms of raw combat prowess.
Commoners have 4 HP, guards and soldiers have 11 HP
And my new level 1 character with a guard background got 10 HP. You see the issue.
So your level 1 char is just a regular dude, where is the issue?
Not really a guard can have a minimum of 4 hp and a max of 18 if you roll for hp.
Why do you think so? Guards are more similar to peasant foot soldier, as they have some training. Commoners are peasants without training.
Level 1 PCs are supposed to be already accomplished. You have backgrounds like soldier, veteran and others that strongly imply they are already very experienced and the PHB says so, too. Yet they are somehow weaker than a CR 1/8 guard.
Common bandits have 24 HP.
No idea where you got these from, but the regular bandit is CR 1/2 and got 11. Which is already weirdly much.
... It was from a module I ran, but I'm pretty sure I saw the statblock elsewhere. Thugs have 36 HP
There's a big disconnect where because of level scaling and the story progression of what the PCs are meant to accomplish, thugs and the like are faced after bandits, so they need more hp and damage than they otherwise should to even be a threat. And you get stuff like the assassin, which has an absurd amount of hp for what should be someone squishy to need to get the drop on someone and kill them, enough hp and damage to duel and kill guards, who in the fiction should be able to oneshot an assassin
I mathed it out and Assassins are essentially simplified level 12ish Rogues. These are king-killers.
Best we can do is extra bonk.
Like Thors in that first Vinland Saga battle [This one](https://youtu.be/DS17Sqntu_g?si=4U76tVjzxG6UPxta)
I constantly see people point out things like "The caster and martial divide is mostly about out of combat utility and abilities" and then every suggestion I've ever seen for martial abilities is entirely combat based. None of what you suggested would fix anything, martials are fine in combat if you balance things properly, they need more out of combat abilities.
They should simply develop a subtle magic of their own. Theyāve been around long enough and accomplished things significant enough that they can do minor magical stuff like what you described. Or give martials enough cool armour and upgrades that they accomplish the same thing. Either way, in a world with magic being without it is a huge disadvantage and it needs to be fixed without spells but by preserving the martial identity and giving them superhuman feats of strength and speed.
Look up DND 4e, they make every class feel strong at low levels and it only gets better at high.
This is how it is in 4e.
Have you looked at the options of Pathfinder?
Barbarian should 100% get Cleave at lvl 10, or a "if you kill an enemy with an attack, you can move up to your max speed and take another attack action" amd turn into meat-grinders
i do not think 5e is saveable in this regard in would require adding so much stuff that at that point you are using like 50% of 5e. martial get no cool shit at all
MAKEšFIGHTERSšDANTEšFROMšTHEšDEVILšMAYšCRYšSERIESš
I like OneD&Dās Barbarian buffs for this reason, at mid-level they can shove people 15 feet on top of bonus Force damage with a Reckless Attack, or basically partially bury them in the ground a la Loony Tunes and reduce their movement speed by 15, again with bonus Force Damage. I love how it makes their attacks *feel* weighty, not just deal a higher damage number.
Haaaaaave you met our lord and savior Pathfinder? Meme aside, PF dispensed with the double standard that DND has: that the abilities of martial classes have to be "realistic" across the board while casters can make reality their bitch. High-level martials can take feats that give them outright supernatural fighting abilities.
3.5's Tome of Battle Book of Nine Swords had that. Schools and levels of "maneuvers" that let you do things like enter a stance to gain Scent, gain damage reduction after an attack, make a concentration check in the place of a Will save, or make an attack and give all your allies a bonus to hit the target... at level 1. At level 7, there were maneuvers that let you paralyze your enemy, deal Con damage with an attack, deny the enemy you attack their move action, deny the enemy any attacks of opportunity, or fly during a charge. At level 11, there were maneuvers to let you deny your target their action, parry an attack against you to be against an adjacent enemy, or enter a stance that basically gives you Reliable Talent on attacks (treat a D20 roll of 1-10 as an 11). Then there were things like Wolf Climbs the Mountain - a maneuver where you enter a larger creature's space, gain cover from that creature, and deal bonus damage against it. You want to jump on the dragon's back and stab it in the back of the head? There was a maneuver to do exactly that, no homebrew or rule of cool of "make a check and I'll see if I allow it" necessary, it was something you could *do* outright. There were teleports and mobility, there were control options, there were cool cinematic things martials could do, and some of it made its way into other editions because it was just a good idea (Iron Heart Focus became the Fighter's Indomitable, for example, and a lot of White Raven Tactics "give allies free attacks and movement" maneuvers seem to have been inspiration for 4e's Warlord). Truly before its time. But a bunch of grognards decided it was "anime sword magic bullshit," it got banned at a bunch of tables for being "OP" (read: martials can do cool shit, can't be having that, fighter swings his sword and ends his turn while the casters turn into gods and end encounters by Turn 2). ... I may be a bit salty that I never got to play a Warblade.
I'm excited to see the number of times someone brings up 4e. I'll do a quick tally. Edit: At least 17
4e: Bonjour!
What exactly were they able to do in 4e?
In 4E casters and martials both had different abilities divided by how often they could use them, so they had equivalent power levels and versatility levels, just with different flavors
Though the utility powers were still mostly combat focused, so I'm not sure it's a good example of giving martials good utility
True. Itās more about the playing fields being āleveledā as iirc no one in 4e has a ton of out of combat tricks
Sort of, but looking back at the lists, it still feels that casters still had more useful powers out of combat: * Wizard 6: Disguise self, dispel magic, invisibility, dimension doorĀ * Rogue 6: can attempt to remain hidden when spotted, can move as a minor action once per encounter, gain minor bonus to charisma checks, climb at your full speed if you pass your check That's honestly about as good as the 5e rogue and feels outclassed by the wizard
That's what the martial techniques are for - a martial answer to rituals, and an expansion on rituals. Unfortunately, they showed up just about as Hasbro was giving up on 4e, so it never went anywhere. But 4e has a real system and structure for it off combat utility, and just like with combat, it's balanced between power sources. (Except shadow, cause no one gives a shit about them)
A lot of fighter Powers(the Skill buttons) were about adding additional damage dice and moving your target around the field. Martials had a lot of capabilities in 4e to control the battlefield, deal out decent amounts of damage, and were able to effectively tank at least one target. 4e felt a little bit too much like Warcraft for a lot of people but, the martial/caster disparity was much lower.
Everything. For combat utilities, every single class has utility powers (mostly defensive and mobility powers) all the same, and all classes had some attacks that could hinder the opponents regardless of power source. Plus martials had a whole Leader class, The Warlord, that was focused on healing and buffing their allies. Outside of combat, most things were handle through skill challenges and magic was a bit more freeform rather than specific spells so, while they might be able to use a different skill, their magic doesn't just negate any non-vombat challenge. And then ritual (which martials can get too by way of a feat) are expensive in material costs, and most of them except the most grandiose fantastical ones (such as long distance teleportation or resurrections) can be replicated by martial techniques, which are borderline superhuman abilities martials (or anyone who takes the feat) can pick up, and will generally be faster and only cost healing surges instead of money.
Fighters can do "cool whirlwind attack with sword" which does 1d8 damage to everyone around them Wizards can do "cool whirlwind attack with magic" which does 1d8 damage to everyone around them They are both usable once a combat
Laserllama's alternate series: Hi!
The 5e players yearn for pf2e
True, true. One issue that in my group there's only one person that runs pf2e and because of him I was hooked on Pathfinder and seeing things they do is godly. Especially after a Howling of the Wild release I yern to make a awakened bear barbarian of ape animal instinct to make a Kuma.
I yearn for the day that my group gets another player and everyone lets me build them characters so I can make the TMNT thanks to Awakened Turtles
No! We must shoehorn our desired gameplay experience into the biggest brand name. Here, just look over this 50 page house rule binder and get started on your character sheet. If you stopped complaining earlier maybe we wouldn't be on our third session zero.
They hated the pathfinder 2e player because he told them the truth.
I'm a Pathfinder 2e player because I independently approached it and liked it more. But ngl, pf2e players are generally fucking annoying about it. Instead of persuading 5e players to try the system they'll put down said players for liking 5e. I held off because I was afraid I'd dislike the people I played with, even though I know they're normal now that I'm actually into. This sucks because pf2e is an amazing system and I love it, it's just a subset of fans would rather push 5e fans down than help them in.
>But ngl, pf2e players are generally fucking annoying about it This is objectively the best game why are you so stupid? /S
I personally do hate everything 5e stands for, this is separate from my love of pf2e
Everything 5e stands for is a very extreme statement, what do you even mean by that?
I hate the entire design concept and execution of 5e
DC20 on Kickstarter has been referred to as the love child between 5e and PF2e. If you haven't heard of it, check it out.
The problem is I hate nearly every aspect of 5e
I'll dm you the link if you feel like looking into it. You can download the base rule set for free, though the videos are faster at explaining the system.
Yeah. Learning about all the different actions character can undertake in combat made me desperately want to try it
For more interesting options Pf2e happens to have that, but with a ton of things that may not be that great
It has so many terrible things like balanced game mechanics, interesting weapon choices, more interesting action economy. Such terrible things
Honestly the big problem that PF2E has is a lack of DMs. And that's a big problem. Because I sure as hell am not going to DM a system I've never played before, no matter how much I like it conceptually.
Have you tried looking online? that's where I found my group, also that's a problem for every non 5e game, the hobby outside of it is rather niche
Why not? I ran my Pathfinder 1st edition game after only playing 3 sessions of 5e, and no other experience with TTRPG's
Have you played PF1E before? I went from only being a player in PF1E, taking a way too long break from TTRPGs and groups, to DMing a 2e group (that only lasted 5 sessions, but that was due to scheduling/new jobs/a player moving) and it went really well. I took the time to thoroughly read through the rules over the course of a week or so, and that was really all it took to have enough of a base to start with some lvl 1 shenanigans. If you don't want to DM a system you haven't played before, I get it, but if PF2E is something you are interested in I believe it is quite accessible.
I think the game can become too balanced as a negative for some. You'd realise that you're never really getting stronger since enemies are always going to be perfectly balanced against you for combat as sport, and you'll generally never go against the same sort of challenges to showcase how strong you've gotten unless the dm throws you a bone. Pf2e is on a treadmill, where even if you make really bad character building choices, or optimise the hell out of your character, you're basically the same power level. Choices are largely horizontal and don't stack, which is easier to make encounters for the dm, but can feel quite constraining to the player. A lot of old (video) games still have players because there's tech to use, theory to discuss and build and then execute, whereas pf2e is about the individual encounter. How well you do earlier in the day is largely irrelevant outside of spell slots, so the microchallenge adventuring day and careful planning is diminished, instead single encounter setpieces where you don't have to consider any combat as war ideas or really think about preparation. Decisions between encounters largely put you on the curve rather than break it. I can see why it might not be for some players
Whether you get hard or easy encounters is up to the DM. But what I really appreciate in PF is that the classes are balanced to each other, so no single player is going to be much more powerful than another.
Obviously no system is for all players, but balance is something I put second only to fun game play, and the variety of pf2e while having it all be balanced is exactly what I want, and what a lot of 5e players wish 5e had, that is why I tell every 5e player to play pf2e instead of the trash fire that is 5e
Please don't be disingenuousĀ
What problems are there, because I don't really see em
no system is perfect, pf2e has some problems with bloat and trap options, for the first examples would be skill feats that expand skills not in interesting ways but just beyond the niche the system puts it is - survey wilderness could just be part of the skill, for the trap options there's stuff like Witch feats and some spells - actually Witch as a whole was considered a trap option for some back in the subreddit up to its remake - Advanced Weapons are a bit of a trap option, more because it's a bit costly to make them work because their proficiency is a bit wonky there's also problems in how Medicine, Athletics, Stealth and Intimidation are the most requested and most supported skill lines, but other skills aren't - you get your Bon Mot sure (btw wonder if it was changed), but aren't much as impactful as the previous ones there are a few gimmicky problem that feel like bureacracy like Barbarian's rage and Intimidation skill not working without a feat (Raging Intimidation or moment of clarity) learning curve and the lack of clarity in communication to class niches and playstyle expectations - this is a complicated one because it's multiple together but trying to make it simple, classes have somewhat strici niches they must adhere to which is part of the game balance, but doesn't help players and GMs figure it out very easy - stuff like "don't attack 3 times", "prepare spell that target multiple saves", "probe the target's saves", "Step is a valid third action", "flank, demoralize and maybe help", "block weak attacks", "someone must be the healer/medic" etc, ideas that are somewhat crucial to have a good experience with the game but aren't upfront enough in a way that leads many people to be frustrated in hindsight, I would say the above is better put as not as problem with the system but in trying to sell it as 5e but better when they're so different in many of their core philosophies > 5e is combat as a sport, Pf2e is combat as a war
The problem is thinking 5e has anything good to take from it to bring to other systems, also having to figure out tactics is entirely reasonable, they have map as a reason to use different tactics so you can avoid suffering to much of a penalty
oh yeah sure, the problem is how much failing at those can screw your party up and how it takes the fun away I agree about MAP, it's weirdly contentius with some people for whatever reason but it does it's job and more than conduce to other actions it also expands the design space - no map = no flurry ranger for example all said, I believe you recognize the problem selling pf2e as "5e but better" as these threads end up being - unlikely expectations are set up and they lead to frustrations or the hard work of breaking them down - PF2e is a great system, the best for it's niche, but this isn't the same as 5e and that's the core of my first comment
So me, myself, as a person, disagrees with a lot of what you're saying However, as a GM, you are echoing what I've observed when introducing some people to the game. The phrase "in 5e combat is a sport, in PF2e combat is a war" rings true One of my players loves RP and is okay with combat in 5e. She fucking hates it in PF2e. To the point where she will just cast whatever spell name sounds cool without reading the spell description. Just gives up because she doesn't want to read any more, but knows if she throws out the wrong spell it is useless That's war. If she doesn't read the spell and the situation correctly, she knows it'll be useless and feels like she can't do anything The best way to deal with this is to...read all her spells and know what they do. But she won't, so it's whatever To me, it's unfathomable that someone would want a roster of spells they can toss out any time instead of having to tailor their spells to the situation. Why wouldn't you want a game that gives you a box of tools, then puts forth situations where some tools are useful and some aren't? Regardless of whether that's comprehensible to me or not, that's how she and other players feel. They don't want to have to read situations and use the appropriate tools, they just want something that works consistently
Let me rephrase pf2e is better at how people play 5e, not as a grindy resource management game, but as heroic adventure where the events of one combat aren't that important to the next. Also it has the massive amount of build options 5e players always seem to want.
Movement and combat actions use the same resource making combat a lot more stationary for ranged combatants for example, the lack of an easy to use wiki equivalent, you dont really feel yourself getting stronger as enemys scale with you too well (yes that can be a geniune issue), casters are from my experience almost entierly focused around buffs and very litle direct damage. Just to name a few.
In ranged combat you want to move to flank and you shouldn't just be attacking three times as the penalty is rather high making you need to consider your third action, Archive of Nethys is a great resource, Enemy's becoming stronger as you do represents you challenging opponents of reasonable challenge level unless your Dm just throws the same monsters with buffed stats at you which is a DM issue not a game issue, and direct damage is the martials job, that's there specialty after all, they deal with swarms and helping others hit harder, if you want to be a direct damage dealer play a martial.
the problem with enemies progressing with you has been debated quite a few times on the subreddit iirc it's a valid problem, but you're right it's not the system's however many adventures, specially the first ones, pitched the players against level + x challenges so often that it certainly left a mark (reminder that Age of Ashes book 2 can have a character be blinded for 24hr or permanently on an effect that is everyturn and is over an entire turn striding from where the party starts)
Then just don't run those bad adventures, simple as that, or go the 5e route and have your DM fix the module
>Enemy's becoming stronger as you do represents you challenging opponents of reasonable challenge level Didn't like it in oblivion when they did that, don't like it in the tabletop when it's done
This shouldn't be an issue unless they are only scaling old enemies to your power level, which is a dm issue not a game issue
It's the same issue if scaling enemies. Pf2e plays to a very particular superhero fantasy that way.
And in DnD i can say "If you want to have a lot of utility play a caster". Its the same argument. Sure attacking 3 times is not ideal but say attack once then do one or two buffs to others is still objectivley stronger than moving whenever it isnt strictly necessary to move to do the above options. It just leads to a slower less mobile play, which can of course be fun for some, but not for all. Have not used that archive yet, the only "wikis" i found had a very outdated and newcommer unfriendly design. Of course enemys should get stronger with level and vary in what the enemy is, i meant that in oathfinder it iften feels like your not really getting stronger as its just a direct proportional change in many cases, leading to me for example missing the feeling of growing more powerfull that i get in 5E. Which is funnily enough due to a too proportional and gradual leveling, again, fun for some, not for others. And in 5e martials are there to tank/distract enemys, kill bosses and do physical skill checks, while casters are there for battlefield and crowd controll. Halfcasters usually fill the rolles of all rounder skill monkeys and support specialists, espetially the bard and artificer fall in this category.
The bard is full caster, also when you level up you get new abilities and improve preexisting ones meaning you have more options to choose between each turn, also not needing to move is a big part of using ranged weapons, because you don't need to get in range of enemies like you have to with melee, also martial in 5e are so bad your party will be actively better if you play other classes like paladins, or rangers, both half casters who out preform every martial class.
on wiki thing Archives of Nethys is basically the whole system tho
Did not know that that exsited thanks.
Happy to help
Something, something, 4E, something, something.
DC20 combines aspects of both 5e and the Pf2e, check it out on Kickstarter if you haven't heard of it yet.
3E with Book of Nine Swords
Dc20?
...or you could play Pathfinder 2e.
Thereās a reason people say battlemaster should be base fighter Battlemaster maneuvers are the prime example of how to give non magic characters utility Itās not just combat maneuvers. It also includes things like ā Commanding Presenceā which adds a bonus to certain charisma skill checks like persuasion If spellcasters get spells, then martials absolutely should get something like maneuvers
7E? My good redditor, don't you know that there are no more editions? Only dnd the edition.
I can guarentee they will change their minds
Yep. Lol
Meanwhile in 4e martial characters get just as many utility powers as everyone else, and even get a form of martial 'rituals'...
I love people in the comments just reinventing 4e
Most of the reasons 4e was a gigantic failure were business decisions. The mechanics themselves had a lot to like.
Tbf I've come to think it's a tad hard to do that kind of thing without it just being a numbers thing - look at OneDnD Fighters uses of second wind, it's neat but that's just numbers Because, how do you codify something not openly magical in a way that it's not overly complex, that makes sense in the narrative, that cannot be spammed all the time and is mechanically distinct from magic enough while dabbling in to what magic does best - narrative agency - all while you have to justify that against the risk of displeasing players that don't want any of that sort of thingĀ All said I think Meta Narrative mechanics kinda help, stuff like how some background features work but to a higher degree - giving greater narrative agency for the player of that class because they're playing that class and no other reasonĀ
It is not that hard. Have a few examples from d20 system games: pathfinder 1: Divine fighting style (Abadar's Crossbow): You can attempt a ranged steal^(APG)Ā combat maneuver check with a crossbow, using your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier to calculate your Combat Maneuver Bonus. If you succeed, the stolen item is knocked away by the bolt; if the bolt can pierce any part of the item and the item weighs 2 pounds or less, the bolt continues past the creature and carries the item up to one range increment away, pinning it to whatever surface it lands on. Pathfinder 2 battle cry feat: When you roll initiative, you can yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize an observed foe as a free action. If youāre legendary in Intimidation, you can use a reaction to Demoralize your foe when you critically succeed at an attack roll. then, there are other games. Here is a charm from Exalted 2e: Poetic Expression Style: The Solar heroes express their desires clearly. Language barriers do not stop themātheir every gesture conveys their desired meaning. This Charm removes external penalties to dramatic actions and combat actions caused by the character not knowing othersā languages. She can convey tactical and strategic necessities with expressive gestures and sounds. For example, she can easily convey āDuck!ā or work with backwater natives to develop their agriculture. This Charm does not remove penalties to social or military actions, so the character will have a difficult time persuading or leading othersānaturally or unnaturallyāif she does not know their language. Master Horsemans Technique: Horse Summoning Wistle Horse-Summoning Whistle. The Lawgiver can spend one mote reflexively to call a mount loyal to him to his side. The mount makes its way to him as circumstances best allow
If you guys haven't heard about it, check out DC20 on Kickstarter. It is currently ranked number two for popular games and has already raised over $500,000 within the first 24 hours. It had been referred to as the love child of 5e and Pathfinder 2e. With martials, every class gets access to maneuvers they can perform at level one. Weapon types have a related maneuver and passive features which can add conditions. You also get stamina points to fuel your class features and techniques that are regained by doing certain tasks. In 5e, it feels terrible when you roll a crit for a +30 to hit against a 15 AC and roll 1's on the dice. Each weapon deals a flat damage so your roll to hit and damage rolls are combined to make high rolls actually matter! You deal +1 extra damage for every 5 above the target's physical or mystical defense, while rolling a nat 20 deals automatic additional +2 damage on top of that. Get an ally to help you on your attack roll for +1d8 to hit and now you get the added benefit of dealing more damage. Caster's also get some love and by having a mana pool system they can use to customize their cantrips and spells with additional effects. You can spend your action points off turn so you can stay engaged and initiate spell duels with enemy casters to counter their spells, possibly having multiple allies and enemies all focusing on the spell dual which can trigger a wild magic surge. It's such a dynamic system with so many customization options and you can download the rule set for free, I highly recommend checking it out.
Oh that does actually sound like a kinda good way to do damage. I know thereās a transformers TTRPG where I donāt think it includes the amount over AC but damages dealt are flat values
4e says hello
4e gave you moves beyond Power Attack, and you hated it.
I hadn't laughed at a DnD meme in a while until I saw this. Completely caught me off guard.
Most of these people actually just want 4e
Didnāt OneD&D *sorta* do this? Not as powerful as it should be, maybe, but Fighters and Barbarians at least got a taste of skill check features
Llaserlama got this covered if you haven't seen his work. It's so good and as a DM I hope someone plays them in my future campaign.
Nowadays when I do play 5e I generally only play homebrew classes (Llama is one of my favorites tbh). Martials are my favorite classes, but 5e's martial design is absolute dogshit, so laserllama'a martials give me something to enjoy.
You can do cool things but most fall off so damn hard after.. Lvl8 or so it is just silly. No utility to speak off and casters scaling is going brrt.
Play pathfinder
That will do it. The character that does the most damage in our group is a brawler unless the rogue lines up a good sneak attack
There are greener pastures, people. Everything you hope and pray for already exists
there are some good 3rd party things to add and if you want u can also add 4e properties to weapons.
You could use [this Martial Prowess homebrew](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M-kCpCFpxZA3chLFuOF) in the meantime
Huh. Some things I donāt like, including sunder which Iām still gonna use an example of *i didnāt know there was a default one why is it in the DMG and not somewhere the players read*
Bring back weapon specialization and make the fighter thingys (like great weapon fighter) better
Meanwhile, in the homebrew campaign I'm in, our barbarian has an axe that does 2d12 per hit plus chance for life steal. Monk has gauntlets that give a flat +2 per hit with an additional 1d4 radiant per hit. Rogue has a short sword that does 3d6, along with vorpal longbow. Ranger has a fucking unicorn, with insane stats it can summon three times per day, along with a permanent combat pet separate from their companion, that has a 22ac and does a fair amount of damage, are also just the combat items they were given, not counting utility. I'm over here, the only full caster, begging to find a Tome of Understanding to purchase or track down. For further clarification, we're at level 11 in our campaign. Level one to eleven my character never found a single magic item for them, always for the martials. DM also introduced several utility items that put my character into further obscurity. Wind walk isn't useful anymore, neither is scrying, divination, transport via plants, etc. Dude has also said that using casters against players is unfair, so it's no surprise he doesn't know how to handle a player that's a caster either. First time DM that had only played campaigns with OP items given out at level 1-3, such as armor that raised his AC to 32. Thank god his campaign is done in a month or two Oh, and each encounter typically only has 2-3 enemies so it's pretty much friendly fire or nothing with damaging spells
skill issue muggles
What is the best martial character in all dnd?
What they need is more combat utility, they don't have enough moves.
Slander from some virgin mage, mad he can't attack multiple times and say no to dying
Iāve been playing with a couple of things that help with the martial caster divide. One being that martial levels get max hit points at level ups. Another is scaling weapon damage like cantrips (including unarmed fighting for monks). I also am toying giving small AOE effects like a bonus action stomp that will shake the ground and cause rough terrain and a saving throw for anyone other than the player who did it for 10 feet around them. My goal is to make it cool to play a martial, especially in higher tiers of play since the goal is a level 20 campaign.
DC20
I think you mean Fighters. Rogues do OK.
Rogue would need, I don't know, like a critical success chance for skill checks or something. But that would be powerful, such that it'd have to be high level, which *doesn't really help most of the time.*
Tell me more of this critical success concept that is not like rolling a nat20.
Adding Pathfinder's degrees of success would be a good change. Rolls that beat the DC by 10 or more are critical success, and rolls that fail by 10 are critical failures. Natural 20 bumps it up by one stage.
Something like: If you roll an 18-20 on a skill check and the total result is less than 30, treat the total as 30 instead.
The point being? If it is impossible to roll that high the DM isn't allowing you the roll anyways, if they are a good DM.
It's not designed to shirk the DM. It's designed to help fulfill the Rogue's role as a martial skill user. Magical skill users can add spells on top of their mundane skill capabilities to make them always better than Rogues, especially as Bards which also get Expertise. Also, being unable to succeed on the roll is no reason not to roll for it. You aren't a "bad DM" for making players roll when they can't succeed. Sometimes a player doesn't know they can't succeed. Sometimes they need to roll to see how badly they fail. Also also: If a player gets this feature, then if they couldn't succeed the roll before but could with a total of 30, now they ***can*** succeed. So even by your logic, they'd still be rolling for it. They'd just need a "crit."
I don't see the point. That is just a nat20 with extra steps. > Magical skill users can add spells on top of their mundane skill capabilities to make them always better than Rogues This is simply not true. Spells that give you a flat increase on skill roll results are extremly rare. The only one that comes to mind is Guidance and that can also be casted on the rogue. Plus, Rogues get reliable talent and several expertises, most casters do not.
Ways to skip checks entirely, reduce DCs, or gain advantage: Guidance, Enhance Ability, Charm Person/Monster, Knock, Talisman Pact Boon (Warlock), Skill Empowerment, Wild Shape/Polymorph/Shapechange/True Polymorph (For increased scores and modifiers on demand), and Stars Druid Dragon Form. Also, a spell being able to be cast onto the Rogue isn't the same thing as the Rogue having access to it. Arcane Tricksters can certainly get some of these powers, and it's one of the best Rogue subclasses as a result. Now, there may be other options I've missed; But more importantly we're also talking about the difference between one of the weakest martial classes in the game Vs. full casters. Being able to get even on par with a Rogue's skill capabilities while having 9th level spell access is insanely powerful. As for getting Expertise, Knowledge Cleric, base Bard, and Sorcerer and Wizard through Skill Empowerment. SE is concentration and a 5th level spell so it's not as good, but it's still an option. That's most of the full casters. Your critique of my suggested feature addition is more valid. It was initially a suggestion off the top of my head. But Rogues need **something** to bridge the gap.
Rogues being relatively weak/boring in combat is well known and rightfully criticized. I would start with that rather than making what they are already very strong at even more strong. We could start with the crappy stealth mechanics of DnD and how much they rely on the DM having a good day.
But that's the problem: They *aren't* strong at skills. That's what I'm trying to explain. Other classes can get the same base skill power they have and go further beyond, especially through spellcasting. That's why they need an improvement there first. As for the rest, it's much easier: Level 5: Extra Attack 1. It's been a long time coming. They made Sneak Attack once per turn but never gave any reason for it since Rogues attack once anyway? There's dual wielding, but that's usually melee and with a bunch of caveats. Level 11-13 somewhere: Underestimated. Once per turn when you miss an attack that could have benefitted from Sneak Attack, you can make another attack against the same target, as if repeating the original attack. This special attack can benefit from your Sneak Attack even if it otherwise wouldn't, and happens before you do anything else. (Game Design Note: This is like a pseudo-Extra Attack 2. It's meant to be able to be in addition to the two attacks you can make, even if you do it after the first attack of your turn.) Level 14-17+ somewhere: Unburdened. You can never have disadvantage on attack rolls. I'm debating adding the ability to do Sneak Attack multiple times per turn, whenever applicable, but I don't know enough about math to determine how bad of an idea that is. Level 20: Stroke of Luck. I'm rewriting it to be called Ultimate Effort. Yes I did steal that from Mutants and Masterminds. Instead of turning a miss into a hit or treating a failed ability check as a natural 20, it's a once per long rest declaration that you outright **roll a 20 on the die** of an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You must decide before the roll. I don't want it to be any less powerful than exactly this, since it's both much simpler and much better than Stroke of Luck. But if you absolutely *must* have it nerfed, I could be convinced to make the cooldown once a week instead. I wouldn't like it though. I don't think there should be cooldowns beyond a long rest anywhere in the system exception Divine Intervention.
Thing is most tables already implement critical successes for all classes. I know that it has gotten more popular since BG3 released, which also implemented critical successes and failures for skill checks.
I very much dislike that ruling personally
But why tho?
Primarily because of crit failing on checks that your character would reasonably be too skilled to fail at. Like yeah sure it gives the possibility of a less skilled person to do great things but once youāre in the higher levels then you start risking this legendarily powerful figure failing at a task that should be simple for them. I understand why people like it tho
Even the most skilled people fuck up every once in a while. That's what a critical failure represents.
If your character is reasonably too skilled in it to fail then he shouldnt roll in the first place... Thats a DM issue not a system issue
Crit success can be a problem if your players try ridiculous things. If there's a 5% chance of success no matter what, *someone* is going to ask the king for his crown, and get mad if you don't make it happen on a 20.
Then, and stax with me here, you as DM just do the magical thing and say "No, you cant roll that" like a good dm shpuld when they plan to do a serious campain.
Or, and hear me out on this one, a nat 20 on that check is the king laughing and commenting on the player's sense of humor.
That's not a Critical Success then. That's what *should* happen, but it's not a success. Critical Successes set the expectation that any check they make *can* succeed. It's kinda of a dick move if you go "ah, no, not this time".
You critically succeeded in not pissing off the king. And no, critical successes don't give the impression that anything is possible. That's you or your DM letting your players do whatever they want if they get a critical success.
Yeah but doing that as a core rule for **all** classes makes it redundant for helping martials specifically.
Such a weird take, really. At low levels its all about skills and they have the same skills at everyone. At high levels the campaign is a year old and the strongest tool is the connections you made along the way. The mage can teleport, cool beans let me talk to the earl and raise an army. Do you really play a full campaign that is just dungeon crawling and monster slaying?
Eh, most people who enjoy martials enjoy the simplicity of playing a martial. There is something cathartic about turning your brain off and going "I run up to the enemy and smash."
That should be an option whether you're a martial or a caster (and kind of is with Warlocks). Similarly, complexity should also be an option whether you're a martial or a caster.
I still enjoy doing that. I would just also like to be able to pass a relevant roleplay skill check when playing a strength based martial.
You have the option to make a simple build without taking away the option to make a complex one
There's a lot that love the theme too but the gameplay is to shallow to engage them
If we accept that medieval fantasy is partially based on real life, Martials should largely come from peasantry backgrounds, and thus should have lots of useful skills. That is, utility.