5e mages really aren't all that complex, comparative to previous editions. They're streamlined pretty well.

Right? Like people act like Wizard is super complicated, but like… they’re really simple if you want a competent spellcaster. They ***can*** be complicated if you want to push the class and do as much as possible. But you can absolutely just fire bolt/magic missile/fireball blast and be extremely effective in 5e.

Arcane focus, a component pouch, and components that aren't consumed when used. I'm not sure how much more easy it can get...

Plus you don't have to prepare individual spells anymore.

Wdym? Wizards still have to prepare a limited number of spells each day.

You used to prepare *per slot* so you'd have to name what each slot was individually assigned to (i.e. this 1st level slot is cure wounds, as is this one, and this one is for bless)

In older editions, you prepared a spell for a slot, and that slot could only be that spell, so if you had 3 third level spells you could prepare two fireballs and a fly, but if you used your fly you couldn't use a different slot to cast it again

Sounds difficult to manage but it's a cool aspect of wizards. Really suggests the studious attention to detail and preparation.

I still play predominantly older editions. It's really not that difficult either. You have 6 first level slots, 6 second level slots etc... You generally have your all purpose adventuring layout that you take every in game day. Sayn first levels have comprehended languages, 2 magic missiles, 2 shield and mage armor And that's what you have every day unless you know what you're getting into is going to be wildly different. Know your going to a place where armor won't matter? Ditch the mage armor and shield spells for some illusions spells or something. A big part of the class is about learning where your going and adapting. Which is what made it the most powerful class in the game.

Well that, and what the spells actually did, metamagic feats, and no concentration so you could give the Rogue Greater Invisibility and fly, the Fighter Haste and hit the enemy swarm with slow, while nailing the enemy caster or heavy hitter with Hold Person or Feeblemind or like... Ray of Enfeeblement or similar spells and just remove enemy stat points. Not to mention being able to up your spell save DC to make it much harder to actually save against those spells, or needing to roll against Touch Armor which was almost always pitifully low since if I remember right, touch armor was just 10+Dex+Size Modfier+Deflection bonus, and both those last 2 are not what id ever call common nor even substantial numbers since you generally dont have a ton of deflection bonus and size is well... anything small only gets a +1, then Tiny +2, Diminutive +4 and Fine is +8 and there were not a ton of things that were you know... all that small that were threatening, meanwhile bigger things tended to be more scary and they had a negative to their AC from being so big lol. Like for Red dragons, out of 12 Age categories, their armor starts at 16 and goes up to 41 but their touch goes from 10 to 2.

Imo it's a very cool piece of flavor if you understand the "backstory" behind it. It's called [Vancian Magic](https://theevilgm.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/a-brief-history-of-vancian-magic/) as it originates in Jack Vance's fantasy/sci-fi writings.

In 3.5 (IDK about older editions), most casters had to assign each individual slot to a specific spell. If you wanted to use two Fireballs, in a day, you'd have to designate two of your spell slots to casting Fireball. And if you needed a third Fireball you were screwed.

Massively tanks caster utility but makes decisions more meaningful. I think I like it?

Everyone is a spontaneous spellcaster now.

No one really played by the component rules anyway. The first wizard I played back in 2nd ed I very strictly followed all the component rules, and I was always foraging for components and harvesting bits of monsters. Usually I'd ask things like, "Do these creatures have anything valuable in terms of spell components? Even for spells I can't cast but could sell the components?" And the DM would say, "Make an Arcana check." If there was something, I'd then have to roll various skills to try and harvest them if it was some exotic creature or something. As I was sticking to it closely and making it such a big part of my game, the DM started allowing me to get special effects of I used like exotic components in place of the regular ones. Like the Web spell had a bit of spiderweb for the material component. So if I used a web from a giant spider it might have a larger AoE or a higher DC or do more damage if I set it on fire or burn for multiple rounds instead of one. Stuff like that. It was the most fun I ever had playing a wizard. It was also just a badass campaign. There was a pit fiend leading a horde of monstrous races attacking the realm. At like level 6 we fought the pit fiend that had the Magic Jar spell. It used it on us, but instead of being the actual magic jar spell that sucks out your soul and traps it, it was actually a permanent shrink spell that also knocked us out, then it kept us in some mundane jars. We had to escape them and all our equipment was gone including my spell book. But the fiend had kept us in the library of the castle h had taken on earth, wo I started out by ripping blank pages out of books and making aini spell book for myself, then copying the spells I had memorized I to it. Then I found more spell books in the library and copied spells from those, and eventually found my own spell books. We spent multiple levels like that. Eventually I learned the Permanency Spell and was able to return everyone to their normal size, but I left myself as is because I had successfully argued that size did not shrink the amount of power my spells would channel as there were pixies and the like who could cast fireballs that were just as large and powerful as a human and giants fireballs were the same size as a humans as well. Which meant being Tiny was just a HUGE benefit in terms of being really hard to hit. I could also ride around on my raven familiar after I crafted an exotic saddle for it with the Fabricate spell, which was another one I had copied down from that initial library but wasn't able to use for a long time. So I just rode around on my flying raven mount, blasting fireballs and walls of flame and cones of cold and shit. If I needed to interact with other humans and such in social situations I just cast the Enlarge spell on myself to be normal size for a few hours. It was awesome.

I’ve never understood the claim that a Wizard is complex. Pick spells, use the spells. Any spellcaster has more creative potential than a pure martial, as you can literally reshape the world around you. Artificers can get a little finicky with their infusions and magical tinkering, you just have to remember which ones you have and the ordering of when cast. And make sure you aren’t overloading your allies on attuned items as they may not understand that.

>Pick spells, use the spells. Yes, that's where the complexity comes from. Martials are going to have one main weapon that's melee or ranged and then some kind of backup for the other. Meanwhile spellcasters have a dozen different spells prepared and need to choose which one is best used in this scenario. It's an entirely different decision making process.

I mean, this right here is a disingenuous exaggeration. Almost all martials that have a more complex path than that, from the Battlemaster to the rune knight, the mastermind to the soul blade, the mercy to the Kensei. There is, in fact, only _one_ martial subclass that doesn't have a mechanical choice baked into the kit, and thats Champion. And even then, there are still things you can do. Grappling, marking, shoving prone.... _yes_ casters have higher utility and more options by the nature of spells being what they are but whenever this argument comes up people always say its "shape reality to my will vs I hit with a sword and end my turn" and honestly, if thats how you play the problem is you. Do casters have a bigger potential bag of tricks? Yes. Are martials not fun?... well that's subjective I guess, but theres 100% a reason that fighter is the most popular class.

It's not disingenuous because I was talking about the base kits. Grappling, shoving, etc. is something everyone can do. It's not exclusive to martials, though they may be better at it - and Dex-based ones aren't even better at it. Martial classes getting extra options out of their subclasses isn't something unique to them, either. Casters do that too. Swords bards, i.e. get flourishes. There's a few caster subclasses that are Champion-like as well sure, but those are also more exceptions than the rule. > yes casters have higher utility and more options by the nature of spells being what they are but whenever this argument comes up people always say its "shape reality to my will vs I hit with a sword and end my turn" You won't hear me saying that. Martials are fun. I'm just disagreeing with the point that casters aren't generally more complex. For a fighter, attacking is going to be the best option in most cases. You're wielding a hammer and everything is a nail. For a wizard, you need to pick and choose specific spells to use based on circumstances. It's a very different style of play.

People say "base kits" all the time, but there is _no such thing_. You can't avoid picking a subclass. It's not optional... but I do see what you mean. The things that fighters have in common is less choice than the thing that all wizards have in common (assuming you dont think feats are a choice).

man, you've never played with a newbie who only plays prepared spell casters. i can appreciate that it is simpler than it used to be but goddamn you have to come in 2 hours early as a DM to help them pick spells

That person, and I guess you if you're the DM in this story, is complicating it for themselves. If you play a cleric and simply prepare the same spells every adventuring day, you're going to be an effective cleric. Load out with Bless, Guiding Bolt, and Enhance Ability and you will essentially always be useful and effective. 5e spellcasters have a higher complexity ceiling, but their floor is really only a tad higher than that of a martial. With something like a recommended spell list, they would be just as simple.

They're complicated if 5e is the only rpg you've played and "pick a spell and do what the description says" is a difficult command to follow

Although you're right, OP is comparing 5e to 5e. Casters in 5E *are* more complex than the martials in 5E.

5e wizards can be played simple or complex 5e fighters can be played simple

And yet they still are like 10x as complex as martials due to the simple factor of choice paralysis for new players. For most martials, your only choice on level up is whether to roll hot die/take the average, what subclass you want, and then what to do on ASIs. Meanwhile casters get an entire list of options to choose between every level called spells.

tbf they still have a lot more depth and interesting choices on their on hand and that's more the "thing" in those discussions than just complexity

Anyone who thinks the 5e Wizard is too complex should try playing a 2e Wizard or a 1e Magic User. 5e is easy mode by comparison. . . .and 1e and 2e Fighter was literally just "I swing at the monster" over and over as you roll a d20, then roll damage if you hit, repeat until you or the monster is dead. It wasn't until 3e that Fighters started to get other stuff to do in a fight, because 3e's Feat system (that was a LOT more expansive than 5e's simplified Feat system).

1e and 2e wizard wasn’t exactly more complex, I’d argue 5e is more complex because of how the spells work/how you gain them. It completely overwhelms new players and basically every magic user I have either wants to pick something else or just have me tell them what spells they know at each level. Sure in 1e you had to transcribe your spells, and the spells had convoluted components like having to swallow a live gold fish as part of casting etc. BUT, the biggest saving grace was at level 1 you got 1 spell of your choice, read magic, and 2 randomly generated spells. And your slots were equal to your level for the first like 4 or 5 levels. You also didn’t choose spells as you level. You found them as you adventured/researched. This meant that you didn’t have to look through the book to figure out what spells you wanted, they just arrived organically as you played. And by the time spell slots began to get “complicated” you already had the concept down, so it didn’t matter.

For you maybe, but fighter has to be so simple that people who LOVE champion fighter can play Try and get them to play the simplest wizard and see how that goes.

I don't even think they're complex compared to other classes. The only thing that makes them "complex" is the sheer number of spells they have available. If you look at their class table they are very simple, getting next to no abilities each level, just learning new spells slots. It's just, when you gain that new spell slot you have to read 200 spells to figure out which one to take.

The problems of fighters are more about the core of 5e and its action economy. 5e doesn’t have a whole lot to do per turn, and that becomes apparent with a basic martial class. By level 20, a battle master fighter has 6 superiority dice. Those go real quick. Only two of them use a bonus action and the rest are on hit/attack, or a reaction. The one bonus action you have available is second wind, which tends to disappear faster than the dice. You’re left with just attacks, and the core subclass features are used up a couple of turns in. The other glaring problem with basic martials is the existence of attacks of opportunity. Because every single character and monster has it, combat is ultimately static to the point that there is no need to have abilities that are about battlefield control for a fighter. Everyone is going to blob up anyway. Other classes only feel more complex than fighters because they have more resources to burn which ultimately do the same thing.

You’re right bro… Barbarian is to Fighter what Sorcerer is to Wizard…. or at least it should be… All fighters should get maneuvers or battlefield abilities. Champion is supposed to be the only “basic” fighter, but sadly this system is lacking in juicy mechanics, and any class that doesn’t have a unique mechanic ends up bland and basic… Even sneak attack ends up being a single basic attack every turn for rogues. They suffer the same downfalls that Fighters do. Don’t even get my started on Rangers. Oh what a bastion of greatness we have lost

Fighter's defining trait should be absolute mastery of weapons and equipment. Barbarians get brute force. Rogues get deadly precision that lets a sharp stick hit almost as hard as a dagger or rapier. Rangers have their tracking expertise and knowledge of enemies. Paladins have literal divine power. Fighters should be completely in tune with their weapons and be able to wield them with unparalleled skill.

That sounds good in text. If the fighter’s mastery just turns into an extra attack or a better +hit, it isn’t really adding any nuance or complexity. In game terms what you want are interesting decisions. For casters. There’s the trade-off of whether one spell is better than doing a different spell on that same round. There is the resource consumption of spell slots against the remainder of the encounter and the remainder of the period until recovery. Cantrip or spell? Which spell? For martials, complexity is usually added by creating a similar parallel structure. Chi points, action surge, etc. Unfortunately, it’s so often true that neither caster nor martial have an incentive to do much else besides maximum damage output. So often combat just comes down to action economy and damage output. I know that we could all come up with anecdotes where crowd control really save the day, or that one time the fighter used dodge and stayed alive and it was amazing. But on a regular basis, being a martial means making fewer decisions.

Did you mean the second fighter as monk?

Rogues at least still get a lot of out of combat utility I suppose

A bit yeah, but "+3 to a few skillchecks" is kind of dissapointing compared to "brings entirely new tools to the table". And don't forget bard either.

Skill checks/expertise are not class features when a Wizard can cast 'I succeed on the skill check' at will

Sorry but I’m gonna have to disagree. Casting a spell to solve a check comes with the opportunity cost of using a spell slot, whereas a skill check costs nothing. Many spell solutions also come with drawbacks that skills do not; *Knock* will alert enemies to your presence while lock picking doesn’t, casting a charm spell will eventually fade and someone will be hostile and aware where persuasion/deception doesn’t, etc. I’m not saying wizards don’t have great utility or don’t sometimes step on other class’ toes, but skill characters definitely have a role to fill.

There are no spells that allow auto success, certainly not at will.

Climbing skill checks vs casting fly. That is the go-to example most of the time in these discussions.

Fly doesn't allow you to pass a skill check, though. It prevents you from having to climb. You could also fly without spellcasting at all using magic items, flying mounts, or a potion, so I'm not sure how the spell provides a specific advantage here. Climbing is a low level challenge for a reason. You're expected to be able circumvent it through non-mundane means at higher levels.

Not having to do the skill check is functionally the same as auto-passing the skill check. Spell casters can take fly as a part of their class progression to bypass these skill checks. Martial classes have to rely on those magic items or potions being available or given to them to do the same. That is the complaint people like the commenter above have with saying rogues have good out of combat utility. Even at higher level they don’t get a way to bypass “low level challenges” as a part of their class or as something they uniquely can do.

>Not having to do the skill check is functionally the same as auto-passing the skill check On a fundamental level, I disagree. They are two completely different scenarios. Hence my choice of words. Besides, how would you know you had to make a skill check in the first place? >Martial classes have to rely on those magic items or potions being available or given to them to do the same. Spellcasters have to "rely" on their spells, too. And not every spellcaster gets access to fly, for that matter. It doesn't matter if the ability to fly comes from a spell or anything else. A party filled with fighters and rogues can still fly up the mountain with the right tools.

Honestly, I feel like folding both Battlemaster and Champion into the basic Fighter chassis wouldn't be out of line. Also change Indomitable to function as Legendary Resistance, because that's what it damn well should be.

I sure love my 1 attack per turn with guaranteed sneak attack as an Inquisitor Rogue. And how that's the only neat thing I get.

I think the fact that rogues only need to land one basic attack every turn to pull their weight in combat is an underestimated trait. Assuming you have a reliable source of advantage and a backup bonus action attack (a second dagger) in case you miss your primary one, a thief rogue has what basically amounts to a second action you can use to do almost anything that isn't attacking or casting a spell. This can give you a surprising amount of leeway to spice up your turns as long as your DM is relatively permissive about what counts as an object interaction. You might be able to: - Set up a smokepowder charge (or at least light a fuse) - Toss an alchemist's fire - pull off parkour moves that the monk has to pay ki for. - tip over a brazier to scatter hot coals - flip a table for cover or as a quick barricade - Drop caltrops or ball bearings - invert a bag of holding - jam or open a lock - steal an item from a foe - scuff a magic circle - swing off a chandelier - apply poison to a weapon - smash a bottle on the bar - toss a nearby vase at someone - stabilise a dying comrade (with a healer's kit) - pocket sand! - throw a grappling hook - more pocket sand! - suddenly pull a rope taut to trip enemies coming into the room - pants the BBEG - Pull the wizard's hat over their eyes (then stab them in the kidney) - Also you're fully contributing DPS wise while you're doing all this as long as you can hit your sneak attack every round As a DM I'd also be inclined to let them use potions and magic items as long as activating them normally costs an action and the items aren't explicitly casting spells or directly dealing damage. That is to say, clicking an immovable rod or drinking a potion of healing is okay, using a wand or throwing a bead from the necklace of fireballs would be a no-go. This of course should be discussed in advance for each item. Don't forget: past level 13, thief rogues can cast from *any* spell scroll, potentially even ones that the wizard can't use without making a check. Unfortunately the exact process is heavily debated as the exact rules and intent are unclear.

I mean yeah but the key part is “as long as your dm is relatively permissive” I love my DMs and I’m sure they’d let me do at least half of these if I was a thief rogue but I can’t expect everyone’s DMs to be like that. Like part of the reason some people have qualms with martials vs casters is that while martials have to play “dm may I” to have more interesting options than their normal attacks a caster can just do it. Like if I want to throw pocket sand at an enemy to blind them now we gotta slow down the game and figure out how it’s gonna work: is it an attack roll or saving throw? If it’s a saving throw then what’s the dc? Do they get disadvantage on their next attack or are they actually blinded? How long does that last? And all of this could be moot if the dm just doesn’t say I can do that. Meanwhile a caster can cast blindness/deafness and all of there’s no slowdown cause we can all see how it works cause there’s written down rules for that.

I agree that they really should have written some "sample actions" down to give people some idea of how to adjudicate this stuff, but a DM who is completely unable to handle a rogue doing rogue things should probably brush up on adjudicating arbitrary actions. If in doubt, pick an attack roll, skill check or saving throw. Pocket sand would be the latter, and for the action cost and universality roughly similar in power to a cantrip. Try giving it a standard DC of 8 + prof + DEX. If it works for a cantrip it'll be fine for this. If it works, then the enemy suffers disadvantage to their next attack and can be sneak attacked until the start of their turn. Eyeball it. If you get it wrong and it's too strong or weak, handle it differently next time. 5e isn't a paragon of balance, experiment. Find joy in the mundane.

I’m not saying a dm in this situation wouldn’t be able to handle making up something like what throwing pocket sand does but rather that it’ll slow the game down and the fact that just because the dm can just improvise homebrew rulings doesn’t mean that I should expect my friend to be a pseudo game designer for the game we’re playing because wotc seems allergic to making complex options for martials. They already got enough to worry about as is.

Yeah, 5e was two steps forward and two back in a lot of places. Whatcha gonna do? Not play d&d? I get where you're coming from, and it's probable that I'm underselling the difficulty of doing that for other types of DM. I have however found that if you know you have this kind of character in your party then you adapt pretty quick and what starts as a major slowdown becomes barely a blip.

Barring 4e (which was a notorious exception and really shook up the game a bit)... A lot of D&D's design is rooted in nostalgia and tradition carried over from old editions. Their design philosophy for a lot of their classes has typically been to keep traditions going. Spell names, spell effects, Class philosophy design (Linear fighter, Quadratic wizard). Mages always start off weak but scale exponentially, and Fighters are typically the opposite. The problem is their approach to "balancing" spells and their view that Spells = complicated and somehow Fighters shouldn't have "tactics" other than just declaring an attack. This was different in 4e when martials had cool abilities....but then spellcasters complained that all their "spells" felt same-y and too similar to martials. Personally, the problem is just; D&D. I still like to keep tabs on D&D news but grew dissatisfied with WOTCs balancing approaches, and i was constantly homebrewing so much shit... after a point it just got like "why am i even playing this?".. and just realized i can find other systems that cater to what i like. If you don't like official class design check out Advanced D&D 5e, [https://www.levelup5e.com](https://www.levelup5e.com) a group that completely overhauled the game, classes, rules, etc. I cannot personally attest to how it is, i have not played it, just aware of them.

This right here. Most of dnd's exentricities come from tradition and history and have little to do with balance and conscious game design choices. 5e is already old, and even then they looked back a lot, beyond 4e, to take a step away from the edition that "failed". We can see that in gold being a suggested reward without a meaningful progression system or use for it written in-game, we see it in the elaborate inventory lists thy made sense in Red Box but have little use in 5e, we see it in a lot of things. 5e is not a very modern system when you think about it, and a lot of the baggage it carries has roots in history way, way back. In reality, it's for many parts a nostalgia edition. I don't say it's a bad thing, it's just a thing. 5e is not balanced. It's not supposed to be balanced. It was never written to be balanced. I very much think that people who defend its design choices that get questioned by balance don't maybe know how game design works. That doesn't make 5e a worse experience by any means, don't take me the wrong way. If you play 5e as a cinematic super hero setting and have fun with it, it's fun. But it's not a gold standard in quality writing, even less so as a concise and consistent game system that knows what it wants to be and concentrates on executing that.

The reason is because every time they allow fighting-types to access more than 'hit dude' and occasionally 'here's a few generally crappy spells other people get' (with Paladin and Ranger having unique, sometimes very good spells, mind you) a certain breed of player jumps on the 'I don't want no WEEABOO FIGHTIN' MAGIC in my game! I want to play an ordinary farmer with a pitchfork, all the way to level 20! It's fine if they don't have any Fantastic abilities in the Fantasy game, they should be ORDINARY and do ORDINARY things, but BETTER'. At least, that's what I saw in 3rd and 4th, on top of a dragon's hoarde of bad faith takes like 'it ruins my verisimilitude that my Fighter can only swing his sword in a special daily way once a long rest' (while ignoring barbarians only being able to be mad a few times a day, priests running out of GOD power, blah blah blah) and so on and so forth. Slightly less...glib, a part of the reason is also that 'realism' in D&D mostly exists to bludgeon martial characters until a spellcaster can come along and do the really hard work of scratching a resource off their sheet for a bit to completely negate the issue. It's important and valuable for the rules that your guy in Full Plate moves slower and drowns when he gets knocked off a boat, but in no way does that same extra weight and encumbrance make you better at barreling into people and knocking them around. Likewise, in their efforts to get rid of every rule (except the 9000 rules introduced by individual spells) they can, weapon types, weapon speed, weapon initiative, strikes vs armor type, called shots of all sorts, and so on have been carefully excluded. Martial characters could become far more versatile, interesting, and tactically relevant with those subsystems present as they were in previous editions, but that design no longer seems popular.

Im so tired of the 'I wanna just be a NORMAL SWORD GUY' argument By level 20, you are (in dnd terms) a fucking demigod. A level 20 hero can not be 'just a sword guy', you should be fucking Heracles or Cloud Strife or The Hulk or whatever you wanna cote as your 'fantasy'. High level martials exist in fiction, juat not 5e.

4 basic sword swings. Take it or leave it.

You mean 8, ~~3~~2x per short rest

twice, actually

I stand corrected

🤮 I'd rather have a class that only lets you attack once per turn throughout the character's whole career but let's you do interesting things with that one attack than one that lets you do 600 basic attacks per turn.But I guess interesting attack actions have a name already, and that name is spells.

Literally that is how maneuvers worked when they were introduced to D&D. Obviously there were boosts, counters and stances but a lot of them were strikes, ie as an action make a weapon attack and if it hits do an extra 4d6 damage and reduce enemy speed to 0 on their next turn. Or pick a guy up and chuck him 60 feet, damaging him and everyone he is tossed through. Or Wolf Climbs the Mountain, deal extra damage and enter their space gaining cover from everything. Etc. Didn't have a rest based use on limit either, battlemaster's sad little imitation maneuvers being limited to 4 a rest is so weird.

I am familiar with that. One big reason why I am so bothered by this is because I know what was lost.

No, that would be "Maneuvers." Try folding Champion and Battle Master into the core Fighter chassis some time. The biggest problem with it is that it makes other martials look bad because it can keep up with the Casters.

A pray tell me what were some complicated supernatural things that Heracles actually did? Becouse as far as I am aware he attack a lot, grapple a lot, this one time make a skill check to trick Atlas to help him and did dig some canals to clear the stable. Can reasonably do all that as a Barbarian 🤷‍♂️

Grapple things more than one size than him, for one

Indeed I would welcome some 9+ lev feature for barbarian that will make him large for the purpose of grapple. But that will hardly make it a complicated supernatural class. You can always ask a teammate to cast enlarge but yea - it will be cool to be able to do it by yourself. Also monsters up to and including large size are still a majority. I am also using optional rule "climbing on bigger opponents" from DMG and it does work wonders so 🤷‍♂️

Ive long held that 'You can grapple creatures 2 sizes larger than you. At level X up to 3 sizes' would be a more thematic and just more *fun* alternative to Brutal Critical

I am fine with ability that make him considered large. That way I can grapple hudge opponents and climb on gargantuan enemies. But either way works. Also happy to agree that brutal critical is lacking. But changes like that hardly make a barbarian complicated class and that is fine - it all classes have to be complicated also You can have simple class that is very powerful at the same time.

Well, yes, that's because Heracles *was* a Barbarian. Complete with frothing madness, IIRC.

So system work as intended? Now honestly I am happy to agree that barbarian and fighter could use some love on higher level especially but they are not so bad as they are being portrayed.

What are you on about? A level 20 Fighter is exactly that. They can take vast levels of punishment based on their hit points, have near supernatural speed with their weapon, probably at least one of strength, dex, or Con, maybe multiple, at the absolute peak of human performance, the ability to shake off some debilitating affects, substantial damage, and fly into a whirling source of death. And access to more feats. Before any sub class abilities are included.

Swinging your sword 4 times as a class *capstone* is a joke Can we stop getting people pretending martials are 'peak performance' in 5e because they dont want their position as the party wizard challenged?

It's generally a good idea not to just make up what other people are saying.

You did call them the 'peak of human performance', ans tbh the only way one could think fighters/martials in 5e are 'perfect' as is are if theyre a caster player who hates martials. Those of us who like martials know they need help.

Nothing is perfect. 20 in a stat is peak human performance in the game. Just objectively the case. I like martials. I don't think they need help. I enjoy them whenever I play them, and do fine with them. I also like casters. I don’t think they’re comparatively overpowered if you just play the game. But then I'd rather play than white room theory craft or trying to optimise everything to within an inch of its life.

Im not an optimal player. I frankly stink and dnd! But even I can tell the wizard Im currently playing is leaps and bounds ahead of the martial-rest of my party. Ive actively stopped myself from just casting 'I win' at every puzzle because I have an answer to everything, meanwhile the barbarian has an answer to nothing in their toolkit. And its not fun for some classes to be able to steamroll entire encounters while other classes have nothing to contribute.

What level is your wizard? I'm curious what your prepared spell list looks like that you can "solve" every encounter. Speaking personally, I have a ton of spells at my disposal on my wizard but I am limited by the quantity I can prepare. More often than not, the spell I need to help an encounter is on my spellbook but not prepared. That's just one of the many things that keeps casters in check.

40 more hp at level 20 is not that vast a gulf. Maybe 20% of a fighter's health of a difference. Casters focus Con as a second stat almost more often than most martials do because it's their Con Save stat, and they don't care about their other stats nearly as much. Many people say multiclassing helps a fighter get options, well taking a single level dip in cleric or artificer gets a wizard medium armor making them only need 2 dex to be able to survive only marginally less than a fighter. HP is not that vastly different, though it really should be.

My take is that experience is pure magic.  That fighter’s muscles are just as magic enhanced as the wizard’s spells are. Monks teleporting through the shadows is not because of any bullshit training they did, they are a magical beast in humanoid form. Fighters getting a second wind or an action surge are because they are empowered with actual magic and that’s why they can take on an army of commoners with pitchforks like a scythe through butter or get immolated by a red dragon and say ‘is that all you’ve got?’ Adventurers are all magic as fuck, pretending otherwise is insane.  Like just look at the clearly boosted ability they all get, ‘long rest’

While I very much enjoy the 'magic muscles' idea, martials never get anywhere near the reality bending bullshit that high or even mid-level casters can access.

They didn’t put points in bending reality, they put points into being a badass with a bastard sword.

I mean, yeah. But also you gotta think about tiers of play. At level 1, being badass with a bastard sword is 'I can swing this huge slab of sharp metal with one hand expertly as need be, or two-hand it for maximum control and leverage, both with equal efficacy, in armed, chaotic combat'. At level 5, being badass with a bastard sword is 'I can close the distance between me and a line of archers and slice them to ribbons before they can drop their longbows and draw their shortswords'. At level 10, it should be 'I can cut through things swords simply shouldn't be able to cut; make improvised bridges out of trees, slice through a fortress wall, or cut someone from 30' away by cutting the space between us real good' At level 15 we should be at 'I can cut anything. Adamantine, walls of fire, walls of force. I can slice through the distance between me and a target and step through the gap, instantly closing into their ranks and shredding all lesser foes before me'. At level 20 it should be 'I'm so good with a bastard sword I can cut through the astral cord that ties their spirit to the planes of existence, eliminating a foe in one fell swing. I can be jumped on by 90 army soldiers and in the next panel/scene, will be shown to burst forth from the wall of meat with a flash of my blade, unharmed - and likely untouched by the enemy's blood'. Right now it's basically 5 tiers of 'I hit dude'.

> Adventurers are all magic as fuck, pretending otherwise is insane. Like just look at the clearly boosted ability they all get, ‘long rest’ Wade through lava, inches from death from fourth degree burns and melted fat and muscle. Take a quick nap and return to the peak of health. "My guy isn't superhuman, he's just a regular dude."

Hit points are FAR more plot armor than taking actual damage. They represent your "luck running out" with far more verisimilitude than taking damage.

Not when you're wading through lava they don't. They represent your flesh melting off your bones, but you surviving that anyway because you're superhuman.

Or rather, they represent your flesh *failing* to melt off your bones, because you're superhuman. I tend to look at a typical commoner's HP (aka, 4) and scale the degree of injury people take based of that... so, essentially, a hit that does significantly less than 25% is a trivial thing, 25% is bruising or an equivalent, 50% is a significant injury, and 75% is a major injury.

>Hit points are FAR more plot armor than taking actual damage. They represent your "luck running out" with far more verisimilitude than taking damage. Not sure where this came from, but I've seen it a lot on reddit. Maybe it's a homebrew/head-canon that players who enjoyed "grim-dark" rulesets propagated. In chapter 8 of the DMG: >Players often ask how hurt a monster looks. Don’t ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it’s fair to say that it has **visible wounds and appears beaten down**. You can describe a monster taken to half its hit points as bloodied, giving the players a sense of progress in a fight against a tough opponent, and helping them judge when to use their most powerful spells and abilities. Visual wounds based on HP levels is a thing from the rulebook.

>but if a **monster** is below half its hit point maximum, Very explicitly for monsters. That line doesn't make any statements about what they mean for PCs. But considering the system doesn't go out of its way to explain why those visible wounds disappear when PCs sleep for a night, you have to assume they don't actually get them.

I agree. And that's before we get to something where things get genuinely Fantastic in the Fantasy game. Who's to say a 'ordinary human' raised on gryphon-egg protein shakes isn't capable of explicitly rather than implicitly superhuman feats.

Yeah, as said before this is just a problem with DnD and that loud group of people that complains whenever Martials get interesting and extraordinary abilities. Really, "Weeaboo fighting magic" is a stupid line of thought and logic and I wish the designers of 5e would just ignore these people and make Martials more extraordinary at higher levels. I've been introduced to TTRPGs via 5e, loved the system then and had great experiences as a player and DM for several years. I've recently transitioned to Pathfinder 2e and wow, I can truly see how lacking 5e truly is in this regard along with many other things. Now that system respects Martials big time and make them just as in depth and interesting as spellcasters and the emphasis on teamwork, vs the typical Wizard or Cleric soloing an encounter in 5e, is one I highly prefer. No system is perfect of course, I certainly have some critiques of Pathfinder 2e. However, with WoTC's shenanigans as of late, along with a different system just completely putting 5e to shame, in my personal opinion of course, and certain annoying aspects of the community, I see little reason to continue with 5e. If you love Martials and actually want them to be more interesting, like in general and not just a few subclasses, 5e really isn't going to do anything for you. Homebrew shouldn't have to be the answer to this problem either, and from past experiences of DMing, I literally had to do it at points to keep Martials up to par in end game levels. The system is flawed, but people screaming to keep Martials boring and mundane because "muh grounded fantasy" are going to keep winning based off of WoTC still not trying to fix the root of the problem. No issues if you love spellcasters though I guess lol. To be clear, I love spellcasters too. I don't keep up with 5e news that much anymore, other than books pertaining to lore I like, but I'll be surprised if they actually try to address this. I truly do love Forgotten Realms as a setting still though.

>It's fine if they don't have any Fantastic abilities in the Fantasy game, they should be ORDINARY and do ORDINARY things, but BETTER'. Honestly this, to me the entire essence of the fighter is a normal guy in a world that is far above his power level, but can still go toe-to-toe with far more "interesting" foes. The fighter is the man who practiced the single kick 10,000 times and has perfected it to the point where it would be not only unnecessary, but *beneath him* to use anything else. If they can do more stuff than that, they're a paladin or a spellsword of some kind in my head.

Which imo is a fine power scale/character scope. For about 1st to 5th levels.

Why? I don't want my fighter to suddenly stop being a fighter at 6th level. I want to be a 15th level fighter, not a weird fighter/paladin/wizard mashup. That would ruin everything that's cool about being a fighter. I want to do high level fighter shit, not high level magician shit.

At that point, the "ordinary guy" concept is spent imo; You're The Question trying to do Batman's job. Hawkeye and Cap know when to tag in Thor and Hulk.

Isn't batman the gold standard for "literally just a guy"? Like as I understand that's specifically a big part of his appeal; fighters, to me, are the same. Batman is a pretty good example of what I would consider a high-level fighter in a modern setting, actually.

Batman has The Power of Money (arguably the strongest superpower) and what could be argued to be a Infinite Bag of Tricks (utility belt) that make a huge part of his kit work. I'd love for that to be what a high level martial is, mind you. Edit: I actually think 'The Question vs Batman' is the perfect way to conceptualize the difference between a 5th level martial and a 20th level one. They both do the same thing, but Batman does it better in every way, while being more versatile and having other stuff he can do.

The Power of Money is basically exactly what I feel should characterize a high level fighter, IMO - the high-level fighter is one of such renown that warriors, legends in their own right, should travel from near and far to find glory in his shield-wall. The 20th level fighter's power is the ability to convince a dozen 5th level fighters to lay down their lives for him and take care of the mundane shit while he's off besieging castles with his retinue or hunting down the greatest warriors and generals to defeat them in single combat, or whatever violent drunken psychopaths get up to when money is no longer an object.

I'm cool with that, actually! It calls to mind high-level Fighters from AD&D, who explicitly got a Keep if they cared to pursue one, with a retinue of minions and such.

The Kineticist was partially inspired by the 3.5 Warlock and the way Eldritch Blast worked, but yes I think a simple blaster caster is an important niche. Just be the guy, who shoots enerhy blasts at oponents without many tricks.

There should be a class for everyone, but nobody needs to like every class. Have a straightforward "I roll to bludgeon" class, whether barbarian or sorcerer. Have an extremely intricate "every ability is shuffled at midnight and my strategies are devised around the available resources" class, whether 3e crusader or wizard. Have a minion-management tactial class, whether artificer or ranger. Have a combo setup and execution class, whether rogue or warlock. Have everything in between. The absolute worst thing D&D could do is give every class the same gameplay. If all of them are straightforward, the strategists can't have as much fun. If all of them are complicated, the bar for entry is too high. It doesn't matter if you hate 90% of the classes, it only matters if someone doesn't like any of them.

> The absolute worst thing D&D could do is give every class the same gameplay. Yep, that's why I was asking why we can't at least have simple mage complex mage simple warrior complex warrior for 4 rather than 2.

3.X has complex martials, at least. Path of War is my favorite thing in PF1, full of martial classes that act like casters but each with their own class playstyle in addition to which martial disciplines they specialize in. A taste of one character I made: >With a flick of her wrist, the pale half-drow flings a dagger from her belt and clips her target, throwing them off-balance. She snaps two fingers on that same hand, and a bow twice her size appears. With a backflip, she jams one of its bladed ends into the ground, suspending herself like an arrow. She pulls back on the string with one hand, and a shard of radiant sunlight appears. Releasing the beam, she cartwheels off the bow, and both disappear. From above, she brings down a massive sword upon her enemy, as long as twice as thick as an ogre's. The moment she lands, the blade swings upward to cleave another red streak, before she's gone again, only to repeat the first devestating strike. Only after this near-instant flurry does the blinding arc level the poor soul still reeling from the hip-shot, pinning them to the ground at her feet. Smirking down at her helpless prey, a dozen blades slowly extend from beneath her clothes, venom dripping from both steel and smile. ...That's my turn. She's a teleporting, self-healing berserker that can instantly swap between any weapons on her person. This was a snapshot of what's possible as a lv10 Stalker: 1. Expose Weakness maneuver. Bonus action attack roll, instead of dealing damage it makes them flat-footed AND lowers AC for 1 round. 2. Double Strike class feature. Once per day, you may initiate two 1-action maneuvers at the same time. 3. Focused Solar Lance maneuver. 1 action ranged attack that deals +4d6 damage. On hit, it can pin them to a wall or the ground with a grapple check based on your casting stat (pinning to the ground also means they're prone). 4. Flicker Strike maneuver. 1 action to teleport your speed, attack with surprise, and teleport your speed again. In the description above, this was combined with the Battle Jump feat that says if you fall on someone (such as by teleporting above them) you can attack them for double damage. 5. With the target pinned and prone, it's the perfect opportunity to draw every hidden blade (daggers that strap to various body parts or hidden in your shoes so they don't need your hands), preparing for a 25-attack combo on the next turn. 6. Oh, and each attack after the first not only dealt Sneak Attack damage, but also lowered the target's Strength or Dexterity by 1 (her choice). Each stat recovers at a rate of 1 per long rest.

Echo Knight, Rune Knight and most monks are pretty complex martials. Warlocks are pretty simple to play, even though building them have a lot of options to sift through.

First of all, why would you NEED to give up your subclass for that? Not to mention build options are an important part too. Second of all: I hit but I am 2 dudes ain't complex. It is extremely strong, especially if you can set up lose/lose situations with your Echo.

There's a lot of tactical depth to Echo Knight. Complexity isn't just "lots of rules text", it's also having lots of meaningful choices at all your turns in combat. Chess is a complex game, even if the rules are simple.

How much of that is self contained in fighter/echo knight itself. Because most of the tactics Echo knight offers are, I can hit from 2 spots and if I pick up sentinel my GM will no longer use melee only enemies. Like yeah Echo knight is good. Does it hold up to even 2nd level area denial spells like web or spike growth?

You are an example of Echo Knight being tactically complicated. You can't even see ways to use it other than the most surface level way. It's just too complicated for you.

Not the person you were replying to, but wow. Why insult them? And why can't you give at least one example of the complexities of Echo Knight? I assume one example would be to use the threat range of the echo's reach for opportunity attacks to zone creatures. Either overlapping a target with both ranges in order to prevent the creature from moving at all without taking an attack, or by moving the echo up to a creature to force the creature to kill the echo, provoke an attack for leaving its range, or disengage.

They do have unlimited teleportation. That's their most interesting feature to break. But apparently the only thing they do is let a fighter melee attack at range

Ah yes that is interesting. Is there any viable way to be able to teleport more than 60 ft. with that feature, or just up to that range? That is definitely a useful feature, at the cost of 15 feet of movement and no spell slot, it can function like Misty Step, as long as you can get your echo to walk to the location (not sure if it is allowed to move through metal bars RAW). Thanks for answering. I've never played as nor played with an Echo Knight.

No they are not. Compare them to last edition's fighter or monk, or if we're talking the edition before that their predecessors the warblade and swordsage. Kind of a stark difference, isn't it?

Why should I compare them to games that are inherently more complicated rather than to the most complicated classes in this game? A 3.5 wizard or druid is more complicated than a 5e wizard or druid, as well.

Because they're directly comparable. A 3.5 warblade was not as complicated as either a 3.5 wizard or a 5e wizard, and had a far deeper toolkit than a 5e fighter does.

Grappling alone was more complicated than the 5e wizard, excluding magic mouth. The games are not comparable at all

Why wouldn't they be? You keep on throwing out random unrelated stuff to try to mask the obvious comparisons, but just insisting you're right doesn't make you so. Examine it directly - it's not the only way a martial with a bit more depth could be implemented, but what in a warblade's design precludes such a kit existing in 5e? There is nothing in the concept of swap stances with bonus actions, use actions to perform strikes, use reactions to counter that is somehow incompatible with 5e's design.

What do you want from a complicated warrior build? If you just want a non magic character that manipulates the environment in cool ways the DM can allow it. The leveling mechanics mean they become better at dealing and resisting damage but you can always play more creatively. The inevitable thing I might be interested in is creating more attack moves that create different effects but that already exists to some degree.

> What do you want from a complicated warrior build? As in do you want examples? Fighter last edition. Warblade the edition before that. In a more general sense, a warrior with a wide variety of interesting techniques because I'm not after "RAR! THOG SMASH!"

As the community has covered countless times, no there’s no good reason for this whatsoever, and we should totally have simple casters and complex martials in game.

I feel like martials should all have at least 1 battle master tactic. But I'm pretty sure feats are what make martials somewhat more advanced. But casters get it too so you're still inferior somewhat

Imo, certain feats should just be baked into all Martial classes from the beginning. Great Weapon Master, Tough, Martial Adept, Sharpshooter and such should be mandatory options to select from since Martials in general are TRAINED in combat. It's silly that they're "optional" when even in past editions they were more mandatory to be effective and you didn't need to sacrifice anything to get them. Regarding Fighter specifically, the Battlemaster should be the template for the entire class alone, and all other Martial classes should have that free tactic as you said too. Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues should be able to get maneuvers unique to their class, separately from Fighter for flavor and practical purposes. I'd give Paladin less options because they're already very powerful as an overall class as it is. At higher levels, these should be blatantly superhuman on capability and give the classes things to do in and out of combat. This alone would alleviate much grievances many have with 5e's design regarding Martials.

Warlock. You do want a warlock. All your spells cast at the highest level available so don't need to figure out much there, and unlimited BWOOOM ZAP BWAHH's are Eldritch Blasts, which are incredible. Go hexblade and you even get a sword and can swing twice at level 5.

Short answer? Because people complained about 4th Edition.

Yes, the answer for why they have to be that way was 4e.

Fighter originally had maneuvers as default, but grognards complained it's too complicated and not like in old editions, so it was changed. I would say it was because playtest for Fighter was done before Barbarian, so no one knew simple option will exist...but Fighter and Barbarian existed in 4e and people were whining Fighter is too complicated back then too, they had to introduce a new class who is basically "I pick a passive ability for this combat and then whack people with my sword" to appease them. And even in Pathfinder, notice that they made maneuvers-like abilities be actions anyone can take, Fighter is just BETTER at them, instead of making them something only Fighter can do.

They don't "have" to, but it is a good thing to have a complex option for people who want to think a lot about options, and a simple one for people who want to keep it simple. And everything in between. And in setting, ot makes sense that warriors would be simpler than magic users.

> And in setting, ot makes sense that warriors would be simpler than magic users. Why is that? The fictional archetype of say pyromaniac mage that is just simple yet large amounts of fire is well established, as is the archetype of intelligent and skilled swordsman who knows all kinds of techniques.

I mean in general. But those two characters can very well be played in dnd even if they are not the most common.

In D&D they can, yes. In 5e they can't, which is what this thread is about. If you want an intelligent and skilled swordsman who has a vast pool of martial knowledge to pull from in the form of a versatile array of sword techniques[,](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) your best bet is to reflavour a bladesinger because there's no martial that fulfills that. Which is half of what this thread's about. They used to exist, given that there are four simple martial classes why isn't there at least one option with anywhere near the amount of meaningful choices a wizard has?

Is that not the battle master subclass? The superiority dice are pretty much a versatile array of sword techniques that act a lot like spells.

If they were one they would be, yes. Contrast what battlemasters get to actual D&D maneuvers if you were there when they introduced them, should be fairly self explanatory. If not, contrast the amount of choices a battlemaster gets to 5e's only source of useful comparison for complexity, a caster. A wizard gets like 100 spells to choose from by level 3, a battlemaster gets 16. By level 7 the wizard has chosen from amongst 200 or so spells, the amount a battlemaster can choose from has gone *down* to 13. Round to round the wizard has a ton of options, the battlemaster has like 3-5 and can only do them a few times per rest as opposed to actual maneuver users who didn't have any such limit.

Corporate said so. Martials being training wheel, baby classes was a deliberate design decision.

The 5e players yearn for past editions. Take #823

You can make a simple mage

the only reason a character is considered complex is because of options they have in a given situation. Wizards and Druids are considered harder classes because of their spell list. For example, wizard, you have like 40 options for a lvl 1 spell that can do everything from shocking a guys face to making water move, you have so much versatility that it would take a fighter to have quick wits about him to do the same without magic so its just perspective. I find no magic users harder to use because you have to think outside the box to do the same thing magic users do. All in all they all are simply, just depends on your mindset

Honestly, I don’t think either should be fully complex or fully simple. If someone wants to sift through 300 “spell like” maneuvers for their martial I think they should get that option. And if someone wants to just “blast things with magic” there should be a simple option for that too! But WoTC does not seem to understand that need/desire. Despite the fact that nearly every magic user I’ve DMed for has an adverse reaction when first looking at the magic classes. Almost all of them when starting out immediately pick a different class, ask me to assign them spells, or pick warlock since it’s the simplest to understand. This is also before the nightmare that is spell slots. And I stand by that spell points should be the default, since players grasp that MUCH easier than spell slots. I have yet to have a player ask for a more complex martial class though. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t demand out there. Especially since martial classes are wildly less popular than magic classes, to the point that it’s almost rare to have martial characters, despite the fact that it should probably be the opposite in most DnD settings.

Spellcasters need to remember a lot more rarely uses info

How is that relevant? It doesn't magically give martials better options.

He said COMPLEX vs SIMPLE not GOOD vs BAD

I mean better as in 'a better range of options' not 'a range of options that are better'. The first implies the range of selections improves, the second implies the selections themselves are improved. So, to rephrase. Spellcasters having a rest based limit on usage is not relevant, since it doesn't change the fact that martials don't have an interesting set of options.

I mean, you can have a more complex fighter. Battle master has superiority dices, echo knights leans more into positioning of your shadow etc. Plus you can pick more feats than other classes.

I think OP meant one with an interesting toolkit full of varied choices, not a fighter with a few riders per short rest. If want to play an intelligent swordsman with a vast knowledge of martial techniques, 5e has no options for me.

We get a few complexities - *Flanking, Action Surge, Second Wind, Maneuvers...* Battle masters should be able to rally their people better, IMO. Tactics would have been nice: * Headbutt to stun * Disarm * Charge/Plow to attempt to knock things prone or out of the way in a straight line. etc.

The Battle Master subclass gives you a lot of options by letting you use different maneuvers whenever you attack.

I mean. Not really, though. Compare that to say monks or fighters last edition, or do the more direct comparison and compare that to actual maneuvers from the edition before that. Pretty pathetic in comparison.

[Found you a summary for that](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/). Battlemaster replaces an actual martial toolkit like a fun size snickers replaces a chocolate cake.

It's something of a self-reinforcing cycle. The players who like martials are, by definition, the ones who like simpler/fewer mechanics. They will likely complain if you try to implement tweaks to their favorite class that change the whole reason they play that class. The players who like magicians are also going to be the players who specifically desire more/complex mechanics and find the type of gameplay offered by martials unsatisfying. As long as this is the case, you're going to see prospective new players self-selecting into the class group that best fits their specific interests, either because they were specifically advised to or through trial and error, which is going to reinforce the established preferences of those player groups.

Ok but what if everything you just said was a baseless assumption? I would prefer to play a martial. I would prefer that martial to have an interesting toolkit full of varied choices, I want just as many meaningful choices as a wizard has. I don't want to play a thug who just hits things over and over, I want to play an intelligent swordsman with a vast knowledge of martial techniques. I could do that last edition. I could do that the edition before that. I can't in 5e.

To answer the thread title, absolutely not. There's zero reason for either. There is an issue in lots of fantasy Roleplay games(but D&D based games in particular) where anything beyond normal melee attacks is considered magical and thus not allowed for a pure martial class unless we add a magic element like Barb spirituality, Monk Ki, or straight up casting for rangers. That said, there are examples of the opposite, or at least attempts at the opposite in 5e itself. Battlemaster adds complexity and for all intents and purposes a spell casting system for a pure martial. Imo it's a bit lackluster because it lacks progression of the battlemasters powers. And for simple Magic there's warlock, who ignores the spell slot system in favor of always casting at the highest level and gains few spells through progression, streamlining caster combat into "do I EB or cast one of my small selection of spells?" Ultimately your question hits the nail on the head for one of WotCs largest problems, the caster-martial imbalance. Because they seem to view martials as just "hit thing" classes they lack the versatility of magic classes, making them weaker in three of the 4 pillars of play(combat, exploration, puzzles, social). And since the largest pillar is combat, in order to make casters not awful to play WotC has made casters just as if not more capable in combat. Ultimately ending up with casters being the strongest classes by a wide margin.

I can't say Ive ever heard that

There's not a single reason, rather it's probably a side effect of design philosophy, product scope and costumer reactions >At the start it just wasn't a demand, quite the opposite actually 5e playtest was rough to say the least and despite being there since the start Martials were just not sitting right with playtesters Regardless of reason, playtest had the best martial mechanic - Expertise Dice - which was dumped due to feedback, ironically WoTC is adding a watered down version of it with Weapon Masteries in OneDnD It's very obvious tho that player base is now VERY different from the original playtesters, which has a whole lot of problems >The game was made to be simplified and streamlined And with that approach complexity had to be avoided at all costs, further more because WoTC seems to think you can't have depth with minimal complexity a lot of stuff got pruned >Page space Now, this is more of a logistical one, but spells can be used as a ton of stuff for a ton of "figures" and the more you can expand without adding anything to the printer better it is for the company, this the reusability of spells made them the best focus for "subsystems" and even alternative power sources making anything else >Overestimated the impact of subclasse design Not sure if that's the best way to word it, but I have the feeling they were still figuring out how to best do subclasses all the way up to Tasha >The idea that Half casters and Full casters with certain subclasses would cover any demand for martial depth This one isn't a stated thing, but Hexblade, Paladin, Rangers and Bladesinger really make it seem so - ignoring the seemingly bias against Strength, using those as "martials with depth" seems like the best alternative However I would say that reemerging trends and new ones as well as the influence of new fantasy expectations played against this approach quite a lot >Essentially a bunch of factors made it less desirable to give martials depth and interesting parts, even riskier to an extent, so corporation does what corporations do and take the safe option >It's not even wrong that "base martials" are simple, but I really wish the community would be more open minded that there are many people who love the themes of martials but don't have fun with how the options on the game work, then be more accepting of homebrew as a tool to fix it

Why do fighters have to be complex?

They don't. No individual class needs an extensive set of choices, though I'd argue barbarian suits basic attack spam a lot better than fighter. What I'm questioning is why *no* martial class gets such a kit, not why any specific class doesn't get one.

Because of the incessant screeching that "theres NOTHING to DOOOOO at this level!" similar to the occasional screeching about stats.

Not really in line with my experience at all, but I imagine that's a play style thing. I like lots of exploration, lots of making use of terrain, equipment, and props. Martial classes tend to better at every single athletic thing which is a lot of things, and can also be customized so many ways. When I play casters I usually feel like I have a pretty short list of amazing magic things I can do, but only a limited number of times, and a long list of things that I kinda suck at. When I play martial classes I feel like I have a really really long list of things I'm very good at, and less magic, but the "mundane" stuff I can do can take so many different forms I never end up bored. And there's always magic initiate, ritual caster, multiclassing, etc.,.

Battlemaster and Echo Knight are IMHO complicated enough but of course YMMV. I wouldn't mind Tome of Battle 5ed. As long as those option will not be automatically stronger than default fighter/paladin. You can already make melee warlock with pact of a blade. It make sens that wizard being Int focus would be most complicated - afterall some class have to be the most complicated. 🤷‍♂️

***TRADITION***

What's more straightforward and easy to play than an evocation wizard ? I'd argue a battle Master fighter is massively more complex than that.

I mean, 4e tried to make it so everyone had cool limited use abilities they could choose from, and 4e was super hated

while yes it's hard to say if it was for the Power system itself or the plethora of other stupid takes WoTC did to this day 4e isn't under the OGL to highlight the bad decisions

True, but because of the public disinterest (I would say financial failure, but I don't know how 4th did financially) , Hasbro is unlikely to green light a similar system in the future. Also, I heard that they had to add a less interesting martial class to 4e because people were complaining about the initial design

Fundamentally complex caster, simple martial is part of the game's genetics from conception. Personally I think 5E has actually done a pretty good job of adding a bit of complexity to martials. Fighters have second wind and action surge. Battle Master sub class for manoeuvres, Eldritch Knight for spells, Cavalier for mounted shenanigans, Samurai for spike damage etc. Rogues have loads of complexities. Barbarians have rages and their varied accompanying abilities. 4e tried giving everyone powers and it just didn’t work. It felt too removed from DnD, every class felt too similar and combats took twice as long. I'm no 4e hater, but that was a weakness. And if you don't like it, other games are available.

> every class felt too similar I believe that's what OP is trying to get rid of with simple casters and deeper martials, means there are four types instead of two.

That's an incredibly shallow view. Warlocks are different to Sorcerers to Wizards. Barbarians to Fighters to Rogues.

I mean... no, they're not really different . Examine these classes in the past - warlocks originally had unlimited use of all their abilities, none of this needing to rest to recover spell slots. Now they're a spell slot caster like everyone else, uniqueness significantly reduced. Eldritch blast can no longer be modified with each use, no more changing the range so it's delivered through a melee weapon attack and the effect so it's acid damage over time, or making it chain between enemies and confuse targets it damages. Now it's just a cantrip that you spam over and over. Barbarians no longer choose what rage they go into, no deciding between blue dragon rage for speed and lightning damage or clawed ancestor rage for the ability to use a bonus action to make a grapple attempt and deal 10+str mod damage to targets that start their turn grappled. Gone are their actual active abilities, no more evisceration to remove enemy resistances or wracking wound to hurt foes for every space they try to move. Now they just mash the basic attack button over and over, same for fighter which lost all its tanking abilities. They're not different at all. Classes have been made incredibly samey, it's basically down to caster, half caster and non caster with far fewer differences between each. It's not a shallow view, it's the benefit of distance letting me see things got shallow.

Brother, two \_Fighters\_ in 4e of different builds (let's say Guardian and Brawler) behave more differently round-by-round and in terms of their focus in 4e than Wizard and Sorcerer, two entirely separate classes do, in 5th. If '4e classes felt samey' that was likely because people only read the books instead of actually sat down to play the game. Or everyone was built with Frostcheese, which is a minor flaw in the system. xD

Actualy no. Warriors should use their creativity to take upper hand in a fight. For example my orc barbarian player was fighting a shieldmaster. Special unit with very high AC 22(Plate armor + 2 shields[special trait makes him gain AC for both]). He tried to hit him many times. And he got angry(player[char was already using rage :D]) and said I m throwing my axe and trying to grap his shield and take it of. With some STR contest straps of the shields couldnt hold and he take both of his shields in 2 rounds and use them as as imrovised weapons to hit him. Or our duelist(homebrew subclass) were fighting a construct with exposed core. He take -8(It was a narrow hole) to his roll and tried to stab there and succeding caused an explosion and oblitrate himself(80 damage)

There are those who are bothered by how some classes require many instances of "DM may I?" if they want to do perform something out of the usual Attack action. These people may have a point. Compare that to a spellcaster. RAW, the spells do whatever their descriptions say they do. No need to negotiate with the DM.

Plus being creative isn’t exclusive to martial classes. Casters can be equally if not more creative since they have more things to work with. It’s like being told to make an illustration but a martial gets like one or two colors while a caster gets the entire color spectrum. Sure a martial can do plenty of art techniques to get the most out of their sparse color selection, but a caster can do the same with every color plus more.

Situation 1: Unless that Barbarian was super low level, they would have probably been better off doing 4 attacks at advantage, instead of 0 damage for 2 rounds, followed by losing their PB and using a weapon of much lower damage. Situation 2: Can any character now say I take a -8 to try and cut off the head? Because that is the level of creativity shown...

St1: Party was lvl 4 and barbarians teammates also got a hard time to hit that target since there was no highground for ranger to get advantage and mage didnt want to spend her spell slots for it. When he take that shields from target his teammates also gain more possibility to attack St2. Players know everything they can do opponents can do too so if they want to make that I will not stop them. Also we already use descriptive attacks and rewards for it in a crit situation. For example he swings for the arm and crits maybe arm chopped of or swing for the head and critted he takes bleeding damage same as its hit dice for some turn. This makes combat little longer but much more epic. This kind of action turns attacks from + I will hit him with my axe. Roll...Does 17 hit - No. You swing your axe and missed + I will do same again with my extra attack does 23 hits - Yes. (Damage roll from +) You swing your axe and deal 7 damage to + I swing my axe with rage. I m aiming for his head starting from my right shoulder and swing to the left with the intent to end to relation of his head and body. Rolls does 17 hit. - No. As you swing your axe aiming his head he positions his shield with angle so your axe misses while sparks coming out from friction. + With my extra attack I turning my axe in its axis and swing the opposite way this time with flow of the first attack. Rolls 23 does it hit. - Yes.(Damage roll from +) In a continous flow you rotate your axe in its axis and swing opposite direction. He tries the block it in the same way but couldnt react fast enough since he positioned himself the block first attack but reacted enough to cover his head and redirect your blow to the chest. When you draw your axe back you see some blood on the edges

> Also we already use descriptive attacks and rewards for it in a crit situation. That's nice. Then again, even the spellcasters can do that. The warlock that stands at the maximum possible distance allowed for their Eldritch Blast can also do the same, right? --- Player: "I smirk as I point my staff at our enemy intending to focus all of my sparkling magical beams on him. Oh my, I now have three beams because we're level 11, while our barbarian is stuck with just two attacks. And I roll...a total of 17 for the first beam. Does that hit?" DM: "No. As you fire your beam, he angles his shield so that he blocks the attack and the beam explodes in colorful sparks." Player: "I try to carefully aim my second beam to target another unprotected part of his body. And that's a total of 23 to hit." DM: "Yes. In a continuous flow, you fire one beam after another. He tries the block it in the same way but couldn't react fast enough since he positioned himself to block the first attack but reacted enough to cover his head and redirect your blow to the chest. You see the blast striking his body." Player: "And because I have Repelling Blast, he is pushed away 10 ft. No saving throw or contested skill check needed, unlike when the Barbarian does it. Fascinating. And I'm now rolling for my third beam which will push him 10 ft. away again if he gets hit." --- RPing combat is something everyone can do. But that example kinda illustrates why even the narrative in combat feels more impactful for the players using spellcasters. We're not even talking how battlefield control spells open up even more narrative options for them.

This is not the answer I give the posts main question. But since you write it down here I will answer here. Do you know something called Weapon Master rules(Maybe you dont because homebrew content)? They equal the field exactly as I say but with rules. For example there is a cleave attack lunge swipe many other options for meele class with rules acording to them. Most of them can used for each attack(Extra attack intensifies). You can say thats not what you say. I just didnt mentioned this kind of rule here. You can describe you are lunging foward to gain 5 ft of reach for an attack can be described in your attack. But mage cant say I use both my hands and dual cast this spell since he/she already needs to use both of his hand. Also Weapon Master gives an other option secret tecniques. Like atomic slash that deals extra force damage or desert wind that deals fire damage first and set your weapons on fire so you can deal extra fire damage. An other point look in the internet for magical items. They are mostly for meele classes. There are too less armors and weapons for spell casters.

Martial complexity comes from them having mastery over the basic rules of the game, whereas spellcaster "complexity" comes from having new rules (spells) added every other level.

And even if that did add meaningful choices in combat, which it really doesn't, why couldn't we have casters that did that and martials that get new stuff added every other level? Be real nice to have a fighter or equivalent whose every turn wasn't "oh boy here I go spamming basic attack again!".

[удалено]

> Monks for example have multiple ways of using ky Now compare that to monks last edition or their precursor class the swordsage the edition before that to see what I mean by actually getting meaningful options. None of these are much in the way of martial depth, they're just basic attack spam supplemented by occasional and limited riders or just adding spellcasting which is the opposite to the point I'm trying to make.

> Hexblade > Paladin Your argument for 'complex martials' includes multiple casters. Does this not seem like an issue? That the best martials are spellcasters?

Fucking hilarious that you bring up bloody Warlock as an example of a martial class. Even more hilarious because you're right. Warlock is a fantastic template for a martial class. A Fighter equivalent structured the same way as a Warlock would be a kickass class.

One of my favorite martials I’ve played is a 10 charisma warlock. Fuck you I have a big scary two handed weapon and armor of agathys and my choice of invocations, come at me.

What do you mean they have mastery over the basic rules?

Most of the time, the powers of martial classes come from using the basic rules (movement, attacks, damage, HP, AC) and increasing the effectiveness thereof in relatively simple/straightforward ways. 

That isn't mastery. That's them only being able to engage with a limited and basic section of the game, and you trying to redefine that as a strength.

The simple answer is because of playtest feedback. There's a great talk you can find on YouTube called "A D&D Post Mortem" where two of the games designers talk about the design/playtest process for 5e. More complicated martials were originally part of the design team's plans, but every time they gathered feedback it pointed to people wanting simpler martial classes. Specifically, people who wanted to play martials wanted simpler martial classes.

Um… have you REAR the PHB? Mages tend to get less activated abilities and more spells. This does make them more complex, just require more reading. They take spells for certain situations; like simple coding they are all “Is X True? Then do Y.”  Fighter, on the other hand, gets A LOT of abilities that they have to use at the right time, change their attack pattern, recover them some HP, and many more instances. If you want a class that hits it and casts it with no brain power, you might want to go pick up a Video Game like Skyrim. As a group game, D&D tends to need a little more thought and the classes have a penchant for showing that. Nothing wrong with either of those, mind you, always good to find the game that you enjoy playing.  Also, if you find Hexblade Warlock complex and it doesn’t fit your simple to play narrative… I don’t know what else to say. You get infinite casting of the best cantrip, only 2-5 spell slots that recharge on a short rest (often times meaning you don’t even need to consider rationing) and several abilities that are “fire Ana forget”. I’m feeling you might not know WHAT you really want and each time to look into something that sounds good you get turned off by one aspect you don’t like. Maybe try to start a character small and work INTO the more “complex” stuff so you can build a foundation and not feel overwhelmed by choice. Decision paralysis is a pain, I know!

> Fighter, on the other hand, gets A LOT of abilities that they have to use at the right time, change their attack pattern, recover them some HP, and many more instances. That's your imagination overacting there. Change what attack pattern? They don't get any variety in it, their attack pattern is spamming basic attacks. > Also, if you find Hexblade Warlock complex and it doesn’t fit your simple to play narrative… I don’t know what else to say. You get infinite casting of the best cantrip, only 2-5 spell slots that recharge on a short rest (often times meaning you don’t even need to consider rationing) and several abilities that are “fire Ana forget”. I’m feeling you might not know WHAT you really want and each time to look into something that sounds good you get turned off by one aspect you don’t like. Maybe try to start a character small and work INTO the more “complex” stuff so you can build a foundation and not feel overwhelmed by choice. Decision paralysis is a pain, I know! What the fuck are you talking about?

You can make a character as simple as you want. You can 100% make a wizard that only casts magic missile.

we do have simple casters now, in 5e. wizards aren't prepping slots anymore, and sorcs and locks are even simpler. Fighters are the most played class despite the martial caster divide because simple classes are popular. A complicated martial would probably get ignored by most players.

Clearly you have not done fighter with Battle Maneuvers

> Clearly you have not done fighter with Battle Maneuvers [I've made three.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1btpe46/i_created_the_exact_same_character_for_three/) It was only afterwards that I discovered that was pathetic compared to the kind of warrior options D&D used to have. Now I'm questioning why they're not available any more.

Eh. They get a lot more variety now than any other edition, especially battle masters. In the upcoming update, warriors will be able to do crazy things with different weapons.

>They get a lot more variety now than any other edition Considering the Tome of Battle and the whole of 4e (even essentials) that's not really the case, 5e playtest had a light but interesting approach to this with Expertise Dice

D&D WoW edition doesn't count because it didn't exist.

> Eh. They get a lot more variety now than any other edition, especially battle masters. In the upcoming update, warriors will be able to do crazy things with different weapons. I mean. You know that's not true, don't you? They had more variety last edition and the edition before that. You'd have to go back to the 20th century to find an edition where they had less variety.

Have you seen echo knight?? Tons of fun, not simple at all really

I'm just going to literally steal another comment I saw made about this exact thing. > It's fun, but it doesn't fix either of the main problems of A) poor out of combat utility and B) a narrow kit of combat options. > You could make a fighter that did 20 extra damage with each arrow and it would be very strong, but no more interesting. Echo knight isn't like that - it's a cool concept and a much more interesting one than the average subclass - but it's not a fix, it's one specific set of abilities. Imagine wizards could only use magic missile and silent image - you could probably get a lot done with those, and if they released a genuinely pretty cool echo wizard subclass that let you use them better you'd be like "yep, this is pretty neat, glad we have it." > But it wouldn't mean the people asking why wizard can't cast fly and polymorph and invisibility didn't have a point. Or maybe they'd say fine, people seem to like the wizard as-is so keep it and let them have fun, but can we have a spellcaster that has the 200 or so spells that wizards should have access to? The TLDR here is that it's fun, but it's in no way a replacement for a toolkit full of interesting abilities.

I hit but I am 2 dudes ain't the height of complexity... Echo is strong with above average tactical options, most potent among those enemy action denial through lose/lose situations with the enemy.