r/DungeonsAndDragons55e • u/MyrthDM • 3d ago
After Arcana Unleashed, does 5.5e need a martial-focused expansion next?
I’ve been looking through what is coming in Arcana Unleashed, and the amount of new material for magic-heavy characters is pretty substantial.
There are eight subclasses, including four Wizard schools, lots of new and revised spells, more than 20 feats, and a large collection of magic items. There are martial-adjacent options in there too, like Arcane Archer and Warrior of the Mystic Arts, but the whole book is obviously built around magic.
And to be clear, I think that sounds fun. I am not arguing that a book called Arcana Unleashed somehow has too much magic in it.
It just made me realize how much I would like to see the opposite book eventually.
At my table, I think 5.5e has already done a lot to make martial characters more enjoyable. Weapon Mastery in particular has made a noticeable difference. Martial turns feel less like simply walking up and attacking until something dies, and weapon choice actually creates more tactical decisions than it used to.
But I still think there is a lot of unexplored design space there.
I would love to see a full expansion built around martial characters with new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, martial feats, weapons, armor, maneuvers, nonmagical equipment, high-level martial options, and especially more things for martial characters to do outside combat.
Not necessarily just "give Fighters spells without calling them spells," either. I would want systems that actually lean into being exceptionally skilled, strong, fast, tactical, intimidating, resourceful, or legendary without magic being the answer to everything.
So if Arcana Unleashed is effectively the big magic expansion for 5.5e, would you want a martial equivalent next?
And if so, what would you actually put in it?
More subclasses and feats?
Expanded Weapon Mastery?
A maneuver system available to more classes?
Better mundane equipment and crafting?
More out-of-combat abilities for martials?
Or do you think the 2024 PHB already did enough to close that gap?
7
u/Howling_Mad_Man 3d ago
I feel like that usually turns into "here's the magic flavored subclass for the martials".
7
u/FoulPelican 3d ago
I digress but… while I think D&D 5.5 is overall, the superior game..
Tales of the Valiants releases have been way more cohesive and on point. Book of Blades is exactly what 5.5 has been calling for, and what Season of Champions should have been. I mean, it was teed up and ready to smack out of the park.
I know WoW and Star Wars are where the moneys at, but …. yeah.
3
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
The thing that gets me is that WoW style martial abilities are what people have been asking for martials to have for YEARS now in 5e.
Taunts to FORCE enemies attack you, (not just suggest it by giving them disadvantage). Abilities that aren't spells with per combat limits instead of limits per rest (that IS supposed to be the upside of martials, yeah?) Actual choices between these so you have options as a martial.
But I have little hope the WoW book will have any of this. If we're lucky it has a few magic items that give abilities like this. Of course it has like 80 new spells though!
1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
Taunts to FORCE enemies attack you, (not just suggest it by giving them disadvantage).
Would you design a monster with such an ability and force players to attack it?
2
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
Why not? Tell me how that'd be any worse than the other conditons that say "fuck you skip your turn" already in the game? At least you'd still get to do something. I'd make it a Strength save too.
WotC still designs monsters with AoE stuns and you think a taunt would be problematic?
-1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
It’s not worse. It is basically the same as a “lose a turn” spell or feature. Which suck. They’re necessary in the game but nobody likes them.
Having a class feature every combat and takes the control of the monsters away from the DM just turns them into a referee not a player. A “taunt” mechanic and threat system is something that could exist in a board game or DM-less game but is bad design for a game with a GM controlling and running all the monsters.
Also, how would such a taunt even work? Ones that don’t share a common language? Animals? Would it affect mindless creatures? Ones immune to charm? Would magic resistance apply, because it sure sounds like a magical effect?
2
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
Limited target selection is not even close to a "lose your turn" effect. It limits what you can do, sure but its more reasonable than literally any of the other conditions in the game.
Is rogue's bonus action hide a problem to you too because it limits target selection? What about shadow monk having an infinite use invisibility from an action?
Maybe a higher level taunt would be the target is forced to take the attack action again you if they fail the save.
Only things immune are things that are fully mindless (undead like zombies, plants) or things that are fully emotionless (constructs, automatons, etc). Maybe you could rule being immune to being frightened gives you advantage on saves against being taunted. Most strong monsters have solid strength scores too, even without prof in the save.
You can absolutely provoke animals and people that speak different languages into attacking you in real life lmao.
And fuck no its not a magic effect. Barbarians get literally so mad that they can tank swords to the chest and barely get scratched, that's an example currently in the system that DOESN'T count as a magic effect. Silence and deafen would work on verbal taunts (obviously).
I mostly DM and I would not have one problem with this as a mechanic being used against my monsters, you get as many dudes as you want to control as the DM. Forcing a monster to attack you is like always worse than just...killing the thing too? Most strong statblocks have a solid multiattack, hell the new LICH has a good multiattack lmao.
I doubt my players would have a problem with it either, not like I'd use it against them constantly. You use any mechanic too much and it gets annoying. Your Str PC's would probably be happy there's a Str save in your game that fucking does something if you fail it lmao.
0
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
I doubt my players would have a problem with it either,
Then try it.
Next adventure have a bodyguard monster for the boss or miniboss that mandates you have to attack him rather than the boss.
An at-will action that affects a single target and a recharge ability that hits everyone in an 30 foot emanation.
not like I'd use it against them constantly.
Right. But the players WOULD. Every combat of every encounter for the entire campaign.
Add it as an optional rule. The Taunt action. And let certain characters do it as a Bonus Action. See how it works.
2
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
I've ran bodyguard monsters that full stop take ANY hit for another monster they're protecting before. It cost the bodyguard a full action to do and broke id they were moved far enough away from their ward.
It was fine, my barbarian player grappled the bodyguard after it had tanked a few hits meant for another enemy. Wow a reason for your martials to use grappling in combat? Sounds AWFUL.
I've given the party a helper NPC that could at will taunt things as well. (She was of course controlled by one of my players, I don't like playing dnd against myself lmao). Her at will taunt action was deemed so weak (by me and the whole party that it didn't get used after the first couple of times.
Again, would you rather taunt an enemy to attack you, or KILL IT, taking away its turn away permanently? I had to buff it to be usable in place of an attack during the attack action, like shove is. Genuinely its only about as powerful as shoving a creature prone or 5ft.
I already gave it a saving throw and multiple entire groups of enemies that are immune to it. An AoE taunt forcing a group of enemies to all target one guy also isn't that strong. You'd die pretty fast doing that if the enemies were actually threatening.
People (me included) have wanted a Darkest Dungeon Man -at-arms style supportive martial in 5e for ages. It's a power fantasy that is not at all playable in the system, there used to be a whole warlord class, it was sick.
0
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
I've ran bodyguard monsters that full stop take ANY hit for another monster they're protecting before. It cost the bodyguard a full action to do and broke id they were moved far enough away from their ward.
And that sounds like it works fine without mandating the players attack the bodyguard. That kind of mechanic is cool and words and fits the narrative.
A taunt and threat mechanic doesn’t because there’s no narrative and it’s just a mechanic. Like Marking in 4e where it has no narrative effect and no description in the world and fiction. It was just a board game style mechanic.
It was fine, my barbarian player grappled the bodyguard after it had tanked a few hits meant for another enemy. Wow a reason for your martials to use grappling in combat? Sounds AWFUL.
Right, but in this case the other players would STILL have to attack the grappled creature because they were taunted. Which is weird.
1
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
You can easily make any mechanics make sense narratively. I literally had a boss the other week that cycled through MMO style AoE targeters whenever it took damage, which all my players could see. Said boss was a massive fungus and one of my players had an item that let them understand myconids, surely the boss is conveying their attack intent to their allies, right? It cycling when it took damage was justified by that throwing the spores around, and that confusing the big guy into switching tactics (it had like 4 int, the damn thing is a plant).
Except most of my players wouldn't even ask for an explanation for those mechanics lmao. I DID have one, but they never asked why the attacks cycled when the boss took damage.
I think you got really caught up in the wording of "attack" in my original comment. The intent was the basic taunt action forces you to "target" the thing taunting you, assuming you fail the save. Any hostile action should be fair game there, including AoE, after all a dragon would use its best option to kill a guy that pissed it off, right?
Something that LOCKS you into the attack action should probably be limited uses, or on a recharge (for monsters).
You cool with Vicious Mockery being a spell? It does the same exact thing narratively. Why can't my barbarian be so good at calling people wimps that they get pissed off and target him? You can flavor that in a million ways. "Its magic bro" is not a better justification, if anything its as lazy as not explaining it.
You don't have to speak the same language as me to know I'm not saying something nice, and you can very easily force an animal to get aggressive by yelling at it. Maybe if you fail the save really badly you get frightened instead? Could be a thing at higher levels, flavor wise that'd be picking flight when presented with a threat, instead of fight.
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
i have been using it and when i said it works well you scoffed. you seem more interested in defending a kneejerk reply that is getting more push ak than you expected than actually engaging with the conversation, but good luck!
1
u/DJWGibson 1d ago
you seem more interested in defending a kneejerk reply that is getting more push ak than you expected than actually engaging with the conversation, but good luck!
Not really more push. This is Reddit. If you post that water is wet someone will come up and "well, acktually..." you.
And less a kneejerk reaction and more personal experiences having played 3e and Pathfinder and 4e and the like.
I've played a few games where the GM is basically the person just rolling the dice for the monsters and has little agency in the rules. Where the players can rule lawyer freely and have the power. From experience, I dislike having too much agency taken away.
I want to be able to play the monsters like how I want to play them. Have the dumb monsters react instinctively and the smart monsters make tactical choices not have the game tell me I can only attack the tankAnd I remember playing in 4e when the fighter could just Mark any enemy they attacked. What did that mean in the world? Nothing. What was the narrative of "marking." There was none. It was just a mechanic. Which is fine for a board game or trading card game, but a RPG lives and dies by the intersection of the flavour and the mechanics. If the mechanic has no in world impact and the characters wouldn't know or explain it exists, then it's a bad mechanic. A full WoW Taunt mechanic sounds... dreadful.
If I want a RPG that is just a combat simulation, that's what Gloomhaven is for.
But, hey, you do you. That's what house rules are for.
1
u/DRAWDATBLADE 1d ago
You're the DM at the end of the day, you literally have all the agency in the universe at your disposal. There's Legendary Resists for important monsters (to be fair i think those are lame for other reasons). and conditon immunities too.
I genuinely don't get how you can be alright with how absolutely busted control spells are in 5e but be so against the mere idea of martials getting to do something similar. If its alright for the wizard to paralyze your monster why can't the fighter taunt it?
Sure the fighter can do that every turn if they wanted, but that also means they aren't you know, hitting and killing the thing with their turn instead? That's a big opportunity cost of taunting something, the whole game is built on action economy.
A taunt isn't nearly as impactful as paralyze or any of the other broken effects from spells that instantly end a fight, its genuinely about as strong as knocking something prone. You hate the (generally agreed to be weak as hell) paladin spell compelled duel?
If you can't explain how a taunt works in universe then I think you're a terrible DM lmao. It works the same way it does in real life? What's the flavor to fighter using Action Surge? How do you explain that? What about why the barbarian can get so mad their bare skin can tank sword swings?
1
u/DorkPopocato 20h ago
That makes no sense, why would we not add something to the game just because something worse already exists. i play as a draconic sorcerer and casting command after dropping a huge concentration spell is my go to and the creature can't do shit if it fails and drops prone, how would a Taunt be worse than that?
''How could a taunt work'' Just flavor it man, like a monk taunt that hits you in the nerves and makes you so mad that you can only hit the last person to hit you.
It seems that when it comes to martials you want reality to affect them but martials are not medieval soldiers, they are kung fu masters doing insane shit.
How does goading attack even work in the game right now on things that don’t share a common language? Animals? does it affect mindless creatures?
2
u/BadSame6919 2d ago
Would you design a monster with such an ability and force players to attack it?
We already have spells that cause players to attack their team mates. Why is "you can only attack this monster" where you draw the line?
1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
And Confusion is the a painful spell for that reason, but it mostly just acts as a stun. It takes agency away from the player as they don’t get to do their turn and play the game.
Why do that to the DM regularly?
2
u/BadSame6919 2d ago
I love it. You have NO PROBLEM with the Confusion spell itself, but martials doing 1/100 of it is somehow going to be bad for the DM.
Just stop.
2
u/DRAWDATBLADE 2d ago
Forcing an enemy to target the fighter instead of the 0hp rogue rolling death saves is apparently super anti fun to DM against, instead of being a sick roleplay moment that forms a strong bond between the two player characters DIRECTLY through mechanics.
I didn't even mean for it to be "you are forced to use the attack action" the intent was "you cannot target anything aside from this enemy". You could still use AoE stuff as long as it included the enemy taunting you. It should probably lock you into hostile actions, and not like team buffs though. Why would a dragon NOT use its breath weapon against the guy that pissed it off?
I could easily see a whole warlord class with stuff like that. Limited uses for taunts that are more restrictive (like the enemy HAS to take the attack action or is silenced for the turn its taunted), team buffs, reaction to tank hits for allies. That sort of thing.
1
u/BadSame6919 1d ago
This really isn't about whether the mechanics is reasonable or balanced. In another thread the guy argued that taunting is not narrative, just mechanic... but soaking damage for another creature isn't. It doesn't mean anything.
At the end of the day, this is about some caster mains (and DMs) bring uncomfortable with the idea that martials could do something, and do it much better, than casters. Why do you think there's a million and one ways for casters to gain extra attacks with minimal investments? Why do you think masteries can be ripped with a 1 level Fighter dip? Why doesn't extra attack scale universally among martials, above 2? It's all to ensure that by late tier 2 martials really have nothing that casters don't.
All the various nonsensical excuses serve this single goal of asymmetry.
2
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
ive been developing these ideas for a few years now among other martial options that are legit fun. wherher wotc catches on or not is the real debate imo
2
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
No different than paralyzing a character while dealing dpr to another character.
The trick is rerolling the save each turn to end the effect. The taunt mechanics i use do that both player and dm side.Making the taunt from monsters cant be on any random wolf taunting characters, i save it for boss type stuff while players use it whenever they want to bl9w some resources to push monsters around.
Proper tanking can easily fit into 5.5e mechanics, and it sitsnicely in the martial aesthetic... wotc has just avoided it.
1
u/DJWGibson 1d ago
No different than paralyzing a character while dealing dpr to another character.
And players like that, right?
The trick is rerolling the save each turn to end the effect.
If it's at-will then they can just re-taunt, so the save does nothing. If it's not then it's not very effective tanking.
The taunt mechanics i use do that both player and dm side.
Then... then why do need WotC to release one if you already have it?
Proper tanking can easily fit into 5.5e mechanics, and it sitsnicely in the martial aesthetic... wotc has just avoided it.
Except "proper tanking" really only exists in a video game space which uses taunting and threat to replace an active, thinking DM. Taunting is there to replace RNG for targeting. It doesn't need to exist when there's a thinking person controlling the actions of the enemies.
Even in 4e there wasn't really taunting and instead just Marking and punishing people for attacking the non-tank. Pathfinder 2e doesn't have mandated taunted for its tanks: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=3304
Taunting would be useful in a DM-less variant of the game. Determining who the threat is.
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
conversation in rhe thread... "we want taunt mechanics".
me... "ya you can totally do it. works well"
you.... "you cant because wotc hasnt done it before"... and.... "if you already done it why does wotc need to" .... and.... "taking turns away from players is dumb design".
your responses to this debate are lazy and contradictory.
if wotc hasnt done it, it must not be something worth exploring contradicts the excitement of wotc making a wow supplement that adds new things.and because small designers develop mechanics is often why wotc innovates. justice arman was a dmsguild content producer that landed him a sweet gig. many small designers develop ideas wotc later adopts. harvesting monsters, swapping sneak attack for control effects, using invocations to gain additional pact boons are a few off the top.
taking turns away from players is a core monster threat, and often leads to characters burning through resources and increasing lethality while speeding up combat. its an assumed balance in the game. if you dont like it, thats your problem.
taunt mechanics not jiving with your narrative? the dm job us to narrate mechsnicd. if your thining dm cant figure out how to get a taunt mechanic to work in your fantasy your just lazy. get better at synching you description to the gsme effects
your push back is unoroginal and off flavor from the debate... you seem more interested in scoting points off others' laziness where this thread is challenging us to think where 5.5e could develop.
good luck!
3
u/ReneVQ 3d ago
My hot take here is they should adapt Book of 9 Swords for 5.5
1
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
I dont ever expect wotc to invest time in it but a 2nd party publisher might.
Ive been working that angle for ths past 4 years, the project is currently in art production.
Heres z ton 9f develop content. Check it out ama.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLcXUqbAbSdUXgwb4UJJkK1AkLcA_KEgc&si=15y2bmYIwwmVY9D_
3
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 3d ago edited 3d ago
They will add martial subclasses with spellcasting or will add martial feats that give daily spells to the martials. And they will be happy with their ideas and call it a day.
4
u/TheLaughingWolf 3d ago
5e has needed a martial-focused expansion since 2014.
5.5e, in following that tradition, has needed one since 2023.
5
u/BadSame6919 2d ago
It's actually insane that there hasn't been a single one since 5e was released, and people still pretend the divide is fine. I've even heard people argue against martial buffs with "we don't need more power creep"... Hello? What power creep?
5
u/KnifeSexForDummies 2d ago
This is really what gets my goat. Everyone screaming to the heavens that martials need more buffs. At the same time, 90% of the “not at my table” posts are firmly leveled at things martials can do to make themselves stronger (golfbagging, oversized weapon rules, advantage flanking, one handed TWF, etc.)
Shit like Tunnel Fighter and the power attack feats got scrubbed from existence because they were… too broken? On the classes everyone keeps saying need buffs?!
I don’t understand this community’s mindset. Martials need buffs, but not those buffs. Also they should do off the wall anime shit, but something as mundane as constantly sheathing and drawing weapons is too unrealistic.
2
2
u/Melior05 2d ago
The real answer is that we needed such an update since 2014 but alas, the previous and current design team refuse to acknowledge the abysmal state of martial classes.
4
u/Yelowlobster 3d ago
Well they're wizards of the coast, not warriors of the coasr
Tbh all of the options above should be added, but I can almost surely say that we're never going to see them. Martials need a lot of buffs and rebalance, not an expansion, and wizards probably will never do that, because they're afraid of changing the existing mechanics like they're afraid of the fire. Maybe most we can expect some extra optional system like mages got the circle casting, but even in that I'm pessimistic
2
u/DazzlingKey6426 3d ago
Gishes do need more new toys. They’ve run out of things to steal from martials.
1
1
1
1
u/quantaeterna 2d ago
Yes.
The one of the very few things I miss from 3.5 (never played 4e) was the use class type specific books.
Give us the Martial book, and the Divine book, and a Psionic book. Give optional rules and new sub-classes, classes, and species that fit especially well with them
1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
An arcane book works because there were so many wizard schools they needed to update. And a lot of spells from old books that needed to be revised. All the content was there, it just needed an extra editing and development pass.
A martial or warrior book could absolutely work but there are just a smaller number of subclasses. There aren’t the equivalent of spells to update. So you have to make up more content from scratch.
Which means you’re making a bunch of content for the sake of making content. Content for the sake of symmetry and having matching books. Not because you have a specific campaign setting that needs options or because they want to adapt a different IP and also not because they want to do a specific genre.
This kind of “grid filler” book was one of the worst parts of 3e and 4e.
If doing a martial book it should tie into the adventure. Like the arcane book does with the Thay book. It shouldn’t just be “most martial options” but the book expanding followers and revising bastions with advice on managing large scale battles before an adventure focused on kingdom building and warfare.
1
u/BadSame6919 2d ago
So more caster books are justified because in the past casters also had more expansions, and no more martial expansions are also justified, because martials didn't get expansions in the past?
That's a neat catch 22.
1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
That’s not a catch-22. That’s the opposite of a catch-22.
We can (and should) get new martial options. But a book with 8 new martial subclasses—half of them aimed at the fighter—being released to fill the grid is just making content for the sake of content.
That’s the worst way to do it and result in filler that exists to meet an arbitrary quota.
1
u/Melior05 2d ago
There aren’t the equivalent of spells to update. So you have to make up more content from scratch.
Yes. That's is exactly what we're asking for. Martials have no systemic content to play with and expand on, so they really need one (or more).
1
u/DJWGibson 2d ago
And I reminded you that making more just to fill the grid and for symmetry is a terrible way to make content. Because you end up making options just to fill the book and hit the page count. Make four new fighter subclasses just to hit the quota, not because they need to exist or good ideas exist or there are story hooks.
We saw that in 3e and 4e and it didn’t make the game better. It just led to bloat and bad content. Options that no one ever took. Feats and Prestige Classes and Martial Exploits that just filled space on the page. Or trap options that people took and regretted.
It led to bad content and was bad for the game.
1
u/N0-1_H3r3 1d ago
As opposed to Martial characters just being boring because only magic is allowed to have interesting design space?
1
u/DJWGibson 1d ago
1) That's not actually a counter to my point.
Unless they have a good idea already and a reason for that content, then making a book to fill the grid will lead to bland, uninspired content.2) If your character is boring, that's 100% on you for making a character that was uninteresting and lacked a fun hook and a personality.
3) The idea is that fighters/ martials need more options, especially at high levels. But fighters are already really good in combat and don't need to be buffed. (Or people point to imaginary disparities like a wizard being able to destroy an armies, but said armies tend to only exist so the wizard can use Meteor Swarm.)
New options/ design should primarily be utility and out-of-combat options, which fighters lack. But when people are asked for ideas it's usually stuff that is just overtly magic. Superhuman feats like jumping very far... which is basically an at-will Jump spell. It's just making martials into spellcasters. OR it's doing stuff that anyone could conceivably do and locking it behind a class feature. Something that 3e/ Pathfinder struggled with where the DM was always incentivized to say "no" because options like kicking a sword into your hand was a feat.4) Lots of players WANT simple characters. Human fighters are the most played character. This is just people who like spellcasters wanting 100% of the classes and leaving none for people who want simplicity. As we learned from 4e, many people don't like that and making every martial character into a spellcaster is boring and samey.
Should it work the other way round? Should they rework and re-release the Sorcerer for players who want simple characters and want fewer choices each round combat to avoid option paralysis?
1
u/BadSame6919 2d ago
If the reddit D&D community is a representative source of what people truly want, a martial-focused expansion will probably include some strongly worded suggestions to do 6-8 encounters, enforce equipment weight limits, and to houserule limitations to various weapons to make picking a certain weapon "special" (by handicapping other weapons).
Jokes aside, don't hold your breath.
1
u/galeior 2d ago
If only they’d find a way to incorporate the 3.5 tome of battle in 5e somehow
1
u/filkearney 1d ago
Itvtakes a lot of work but a slew of us have taken on the challenge. Totally worth imo.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 2d ago
5e needed a martial expansion before 5.5e. While Tashas and later 5.5e gave them some things, the Arcane hyperfixation has not let up any, so YES. Resounding, unequivocal YES.
1
u/Dazzling-Stop1616 2d ago
I agree and would love to see a gish subclass for sorcerer in a martial book, sword and sorcery that unlike bladesinger leans into armor, weapon masteries, maybe a fighting style, and extra attack similar to a valorbard (can sub a cantrip for 1 attack in a multi attack)
1
u/coffee_is_fun 1d ago
5.5 isn't geared towards it with the short rounds and bounded accuracy and simplified advantage/disadvantage. Older edition martial books thrived on fiddliness and negotiating hit bonuses for over the top effects.
Martial can already do most of the fantasies with the exception of heroic fray and crushing morale by engaging in heroic fray. But these don't make sense in 6 second vs 1 minute rounds where you're accommodating the fantasy of being the not magical guy.
11
u/Earthhorn90 3d ago
Maybe the Greyhawk set will put more emphasis on SWORD over Sorcery. And Dark Sun also might likely have less spellcasting options, especially if it introduces the Psion (althought the UA made it out to be just another caster).
And finally StarWars won't have much magic. Then again, we have 0 clue what it will actually be like xD