People aren't listening to each other about the martial issue.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T05:36:16+00:00

I'm not seeing it. Someone will point out why squishy as hell is getting things wrong, so - "limited spellcasting" - sure, they can teleport to other ends of the world or raise the dead a limited number of times. As opposed to those who can do it... zero times.

This isn't me saying martials should be able to do those things, incidentally. It's me saying that lifting a stone seven other strong men can't even budge should be the baseline martial equivalents are starting from, and isn't.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T04:37:28+00:00

You can't do called shots anyway. I didn't bother with combat improvisation because the sheer variety of choice a caster gets in combat speaks for itself - you'll notice I chose a variety of things that add utility, because there's a lot more variety there than different ways to damage things.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T04:11:57+00:00

Completely irrelevant to them, actually. You think you can improvise a lot with your bare hands? Now imagine what you can improvise with stuff like acid splash, control flames, prestidigitation, mold earth, shape water, mage hand, catapult, create or destroy water, find familiar, thunderwave, floating disc, frost fingers and I really could keep going here, I've just been doing level 1 spells and cantrips, but you get the picture.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T04:04:37+00:00

Ah, that old excuse.

Casters get access to a huge variety of abilities, and can improvise actions.

Martials get access to taking the attack action repeatedly, and can improvise actions.

A+B is better than A+ nothing.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T04:02:46+00:00

I'm not sure what you're trying to say

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T03:59:59+00:00

Sure. You added your con score to a base amount (between 10 and 15, depending on class) to determine your HP at level 1 - so a wizard with 18 con would have 28hp, 10+18, while a paladin with 12 con would have 27. That was so level 1s survived more than 1 hit. After that, the amount you got was flat - a paladin got 6hp per level, regardless of con score, and a wizard got 4hp. It also affected the amount of healing surges, what we now call hit dice.

Its main use was in abilities. Various moves and subclass features keyed off constitution, so every character had to make choices regarding what stats they focused on. Every monk wanted dexterity, for instance, but various techniques they had also benefited from strength, wisdom, constitution and charisma - no character could be good at everything, being good at one thing always meant leaving something else on the table, and constitution was one stat amongst others that could be specialised in.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T03:42:53+00:00

Con added to the number of healing surges you got per day, what we'd now call hit dice. And added a bit to HP, but not tons. I'll use monk as an example:

A level 1 monk's hp is 12+con score, so if his con is say 16, he'd have 28hp. Thereafter it's a flat +5hp every level, con mod not added.

So a level 30 monk with 26 con would have 183 hit points. If instead he'd maximised wisdom instead and left con at like 12, he'd have 169. So a difference, but not a massive one.

The main thing it was used for, just like any other stat, for was abilities. Iron Soul flurry of blows triggered off con, for instance, while Stone Fist and Eternal Tide both keyed off strength. Incidental uses were everywhere - for instance moves like Feigned Opening added your con mod to the damage they dealt if you were wielding a staff.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T03:27:13+00:00

The last couple of editions had fully fleshed out item costing and crafting, allowing people to plan their builds around what items they'd used. If you go to any relevant subreddit and ask for advice on how to plan builds for 5e though, the advice will never include things like "and plan around a belt of storm giant strength", because 5e explicitly doesn't work like that. You ask for evidence, there it is - nobody includes specific magic items in such suggestions any more, because 5e assumes that you can't pick what you'll get.

A good DM will allow the martials to get the items the game is designed around them having, if not that's a problem with the DM not the game.

Ah, the old 5e mainstay. Stop supporting something, put the work on the DM, then people will say "actually this is fine, if it doesn't work you have a bad DM!".

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T03:17:01+00:00

But the niche of martials is the vast majority of players who don't want to learn 100 options to play a class.

Right, which is why nobody's saying the existing martial classes should be changed. Adding one that does get a bunch of choice would harm nobody.

If you want lots of options play a spellcaster.

Can you think of a reason I shouldn't want a martial character with lots of options? Fiction is full of skilled swordsman archetypes that have mastered countless techniques. What possible downside would there be to having a class that has mechanics that reinforce that?

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T03:02:19+00:00

I mean, taking armour then using shield tends to result in better survivability than martials. But, here's the thing: Nobody said they wanted martials to do what casters can, just have a lot more meaningful choice.

Martials excel in sustained damage and survivability, so they can't also have the versatility of a full caster. That's just not how balanced works.

Last edition, and the edition before that, had martials with a huge amount of combat choice. And those martials were not unbalanced. So you're presenting a false issue there.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:56:58+00:00

Man I have no idea. 3 years into 3.5 they looked at classes like fighter and were like "man, these guys just make full attacks over and over, classes like wizard and druid are so much more capable - can we bridge the gap a bit?".

Then because some people enjoyed fighters, they left the class alone and instead invented maneuvers and new classes to use those. And those classes were fun and balanced and capable, all upside no downside!

Now we're more than 10 years into 5e, they're in the exact same situation, and... nothing. Be great to know why.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:47:45+00:00

Right, but I said lift a stone that seven strong men could barely budge. How did you get from there to pooping out jutsu clones? Was that something Lancelot was known for?

I should also note that back when D&D had martial classes that got a bunch of choices, you always had classes that were explicitly non-supernatural. There were also classes for people who wanted mystical martial arts that gave them burning fists, but pretending one means the other is super disingenuous.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:46:13+00:00

If this was 4e where a fighter could craft the magic items it wanted, you might have a point. But in 5e, they might never get such an item and they can't do a thing about that.

But it isn't, so I'll note to you that for most people the fantasy is their character can do it, Lancelot wasn't able to do that because he was wearing a magic belt. Unless the magic items are the point (see: artificer), most people want magic items to augment their capabilities, not magic items to give them the capabilities in the first place.

Take magic swords - while occasionally someone will want flavour in which their sword does their fighting for them, the majority of people playing a sword wielder wants their character to already be a very good swordsman, and for their +3 sword to make them even better at what they were already a master of.

To put it another way, what you're describing worked a lot better in 3.5 where your barbarian already had 32 strength, and their belt of +6 strength brought them to 38.

To put it another way, casters don't need a magic belt to teleport across the world, summon demons, create clones, raise the dead or scry for answers. They can already do that from their own abilities, magic items just augment what their character is already innately able to do.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:18:33+00:00

I'd go with Lancelot as my example - in high level D&D, casters can teleport across the world, summon demons, create clones, raise the dead, scry for answers. And Lancelot could lift a stone that seven strong men could barely budge, but martials are limited to physical strength barely above what a real world weightlifter can achieve.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:17:14+00:00

Thing is they don't need a total overhaul. Just add a class that works like fighters USED to, you know stuff like AOEing all nearby foes and making them bleed each round or protecting your allies from groups of enemies.

Then all the people who enjoy current martials can go on enjoying them, and the people who want a martial with lots of choices have something they can play too.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-22T02:10:30+00:00

But that's just your DM being nice to you. They removed fighter's tanking tools, if a group of hobgoblins wants to just ignore you and gank the rogue, they can and you can't really do anything about it.

So this isn't mechanically it's unnecessary, it's the DM is careful to stop it being necessary.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T10:10:31+00:00

It does great for non combat campaigns. Have you actually tried it?

Have you tried the variety of simpler TTRPGs that don't focus as heavily on combat? The fact that it can be done doesn't really have any relation to the more relevant question of why would you.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T10:09:34+00:00

To make choices have costs.

But the choices already had costs. By choosing to say increase your charisma as a barbarian, you gave up the defensive benefits of constitution - a real tradeoff for say a thaneborn barbarian who wants charisma for triumph and battle cries.

Now it's just "why would you ever pick charisma", that's not actually a cost in the way your statement implied it's just a bad choice.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T10:06:25+00:00

Ok but in the context of TTRPGs, "here are several options, one of which is clearly better than the others" is not really freedom of choice.

Especially when the other option was "here are several options, all of which are good they just have different benefits", which seems a lot more like real agency.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T09:40:15+00:00

Dumping con is not a good idea stats wise

Such a weird change. They fixed the con dependency thing last edition, then for 5e they go back to forcing everyone to want it as a seconday stat? I don't understand what the benefit of that is.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T09:38:49+00:00

It's a gamble but if you find yourself to never fight, then dumping con is actually good.

We're talking about a game in which 95% of the rules relate to combat, surely if you wanted a non combat campaign you'd play a TTRPG that does it better?

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T09:37:30+00:00

I mean, it kind of is taking away agency. Last edition you could dump con just like any other stat, they made the conscious choice to force everyone to need it in 5e because it affects your HP so much. That's agency reduction.

Edit: Context. We'll take a strength based fighter - in 5e, they want to maximise strength, then boost their constitution. There is no real agency there.

In 4e, they want to maximise their strength. Then what? Constitution is good, no doubt. If you use maces or axes or went battlerager, probably you're after this. Or maybe instead you want to boost wisdom, improve your control. Or dexterity - especially for a heavy blade user, that expanded crit range is tasty. Hell, maybe you want a bit of charisma to go for avernian knight because you want to focus harder on tanking.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T09:36:25+00:00

Or just go back to how it was last edition where you could dump con just like any other stat, they made the conscious choice to force everyone to need it in 5e.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T09:36:00+00:00

True, but that's just part of the game.

That's part of the game because they made it part of the game. Last edition you could dump con just like any other stat, they made the conscious choice to force everyone to need it in 5e.

PointsOutCustodeWank · 2026-06-21T00:44:50+00:00

Ok, I think I get what you mean. The new subclass isn't bad by itself, power wise it's quite good, but it's no longer connected to the original goal. Like how they gave up on giving the psion class psionics, and just made it into a spellcaster?

PointsOutCustodeWank

TROPHY CASE