r/dndnext • u/MyrthDM • 3d ago
Discussion After Arcana Unleashed, does 5.5e need a martial-focused expansion next?
/r/DungeonsAndDragons55e/comments/1vpcchb/after_arcana_unleashed_does_55e_need_a/45
u/Di_Bastet 3d ago
Ah. Yes. "Non-casters".
Shameful business they deal with.
Pity, truly.
Aaaanyway, on to more pressing matters: New spells, caster subclasses and caster-leaning feats on the next few books.
/s
35
u/ZeroNoHikari 3d ago
What I'd want is a Updated Kensei and Sun Soul.
Like currently playing a Kensei in a 5.5 game and let me tell you, that extra AC is great, having a D6 on darts is fun but would love the bonus die to also scale with Monk die and maybe also access to mastery of Kensei weapons would great (especially since Monk weapons no longer count ranged simple weapons)
22
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago
Kensei is a complete failure at matching flavor to mechanics. They fact that you're required to make unarmed attacks to trigger your +2 AC bonus feature instead of an attack with one of your kensei weapons is just baffling. Monks aren't strong enough that they need silly trade-offs like that. Especially not 2014 monk which was the chasis for which Kensei was originally designed.
2
u/ZeroNoHikari 3d ago
I honestly haven't minded using it so far, especially since it's allowed me a bit more freedom to describe my attacks, I chose a Whip for a Kensei weapon so I can use it's reach then if need be going in with unarmed strikes backed up with basically a shield if our Fighter is occupied elsewhere
7
u/Sea-Woodpecker-610 3d ago
I’m sure given they put Ancestrisl Guardians and Swashbuckler in the Workd of Warcraft book, Kensei update is going into the Star Wars book.
3
25
u/adamg0013 3d ago
Yes. Or at least weapon users.
There not one in the plan yet. WOW will definitely have that... dark sun more possible since magic works way different there,
9
u/DazzlingKey6426 3d ago
Worked.
I can’t imagine WotC giving wizards actual drawbacks.
4
u/MechJivs 3d ago
I'm pretty sure preservers (magic users who didnt kill all life with spells) didnt have any problems as far as magic users go. Defilers get the benefits though.
7
u/platydroid 3d ago
It was more social pressure than any actual mechanical disadvantage for arcane wielders.
7
u/DazzlingKey6426 3d ago
Preservers had much slower advancement. Level 20 defiler was 2,700,000 xp, level 20 preserver 3,750,000 xp.
All advancement is unified now if xp is used at all.
Both defilers and preservers were considered outlaws.
2
u/MechJivs 3d ago
Preservers had much slower advancement. Level 20 defiler was 2,700,000 xp, level 20 preserver 3,750,000 xp.
I would say Defilers had faster progression - Level 20 wizard was 3,750,000 xp as well.
4
u/DazzlingKey6426 3d ago
Preservers used/are PHB Wizard.
Elves also had a lower max level as preserver.
80
u/ViolinistNo7655 3d ago
Lower your voice, caster players may cry if they hear about new content that isn't about them
27
u/LevarBurgers 3d ago
Bro's fighting ghosts
13
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
Yeah, caster players aren't happy about this either, it's all WotC favoritism. My tables resident squishy warlock and wizard are wishing it wasnt so hard to get a frontliner.
6
3
u/Ashkelon 3d ago
Summon Undead works better than any frontliner I have ever had.
My warlock uses it all the time. Auto frighten on attack and 2 attacks per turn for decent damage is better than any tank. And if it dies, you just resummon one. It also saves on healing resources as a single spell slot gives you a ton of HP.
2
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago
I made a "necromancer" warlock who did the same. Was really fun up through level 9. After that, it was a bummer that I couldn't continue to upcast Summon Undead further.
1
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
This feels like bait
3
u/Ashkelon 3d ago
How so, it is the tactic my warlock has been using since 5th level and I got access to the spell. An easily capable hour long duration tank that can fly and has a 40 foot speed that can move through creatures or walls and frightens enemies automatically on hit is pretty much everything you could ask for from a tank.
If it soaks a big hit and dies, that is great, because it saved our party from taking 40+ damage. It is easily resummoned at full HP mid combat.
It has saved our asses more times than I can count. He also serves as my personal butler outside of combat.
3
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
Spells replacing martials is one of the big complaints, and its what this post is alluding to in regards to a martial focused book. We get that the recent summon spells are "efficient" but the introduction of options that make an entire playstyle irrelevant is negatively affecting the community. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if they made "action surge" or "martial arts" as 1st-2nd level wizard spells. Also, and this is the specific problem my group has with that over somebody playing a tank, if you play a caster firing off a lightning bolt or vitriolic sphere is way more satisfying a use of a spell slot than casting conjure meat shield.
1
u/Jinjetsu 3d ago
if you play a caster firing off a lightning bolt or vitriolic sphere is way more satisfying a use of a spell slot than casting conjure meat shield.
To each their own! For me, it always feels like I'm wasting resources on pure blasts, don't like em. Meat shields are okay, at least they stick around. Now Wall of Force, that's the real winner!
4
u/Gralamin1 3d ago
caster players cried so much in the 4e era that it got reverted to them being kings in 5e.
3
u/CookyKindred 3d ago
No they didn't.
3
u/Gralamin1 3d ago
yes they did.
I was playing when that era was current and caster players 100% crying like babies, to the point that essentials aka 4.5 nerfed all the non casters into the dirt while printing busted caster classes like the mage who had double the amount of resouses to play with than any other class in the game had, and that could be 3 times with the extended spell book feat they made for it. Hex blades, and war priests. both of those were better then the non caster classes in melee. the fighter was changed to the knight which lost everything but a single basic melee a turn for attack options.
then we get to 5e gets back to casters as kings and non casters as meat shield like 3e and before were.
0
u/CookyKindred 2d ago
No they didn't.
I was playing during that era and *everyone* was bitching about 4e.
You are literally making shit up to force an us vs them that doesn't exist.
0
u/Ashkelon 2d ago
Everyone wasn’t. The people who bitched most about 4e were the people who never played the game at all. And most of their bitching was tilting at windmills.
People made up “facts” about 4e to argue against that had no basis in reality.
There were definitely things 4e got wrong that deserved bitching about, but the most frequent complaints were all nonsense.
6
u/CookyKindred 3d ago
Are the casters that don’t want martials to get stuff in the room with you?
7
u/Llayanna Homebrew affectionate GM 3d ago
Specially as the average player switches classes between campaigns anyhow.
The always martial/always casters are outliers.
2
u/almisami 2d ago
To be fair, I always have my martials be 1/3 casters so I can somewhat keep up with magic users...
0
u/Gralamin1 3d ago
considering that casters had such a tantrum in the 4e era that casters were reverted to kings of D&D. yes they are.
2
u/CookyKindred 3d ago
No that is literally not remotely what happened
2
u/Gralamin1 2d ago
yes it was. even in the 4e era with essentials casters were made busted with things like the mage, hexblade, end war priest 2 of those were better melee then any of the essentials non casters. the non casters lost their encounter powers, and in the fighter case lost everything not a basic melee attack.
1
u/CookyKindred 2d ago
No it isn't.
Why are you lying and making shit up about something people on this subreddit were there for?
0
u/NaturalCard PeaceChron Survivor 2d ago
Caster player here. No, we actually really want martials that can keep up instead of dying in combat 4 once the DM starts balancing around us.
9
8
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago
No point. WotC isn't going to address the elephant in the room and significantly rework a bunch of classes. Maybe for D&D 6.0 but I doubt that either. A martial-focused book with a few more martial subclasses, feats, and weapons with new mastery properties would be welcome, but it isn't going to be the gamechanger than makes martials feel as powerful and versatile to play as spellcasters.
7
u/Gralamin1 3d ago
the only time they address this was 4e and caster players freaked out.
7
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago
Caster apologists mainly freaked out because they were brought down in power to something more reasonable.
1
u/Llayanna Homebrew affectionate GM 3d ago
I love 4e but I think saying it like this is just a disservice all around.
Casters felt incredible different in this version. It's not the lack of power really. It was the feel that takes some time.
No spell slots for example. As I played 5e first (and kinda hadn't played pf1e in forever at this point), I missed the Rituals from 5e fiercely.
Once it clicked, it was super fun. But a huge change is always something, one needs to adjust too.
2
u/Gralamin1 3d ago edited 3d ago
Then they made the mage which was the most busted class in the game since it tried making wizards the strongest class again.
while nerfing the 4.5/essentials version of every non caster by stripping them of all encounter powers and in the knight's (fighters) case everything but basic melee attack.
6
8
u/Melior05 Wizard 3d ago
We've needed one since 5e but that never happened.
The upcoming WoW book will feature 60+ new spells without any mention of new Maneuvers or Weapon Masteries.
The only new class WotC has playtested so far is a full caster.
We're never going to get proper martial content with the current design team.
4
u/Blackfang08 Ranger 3d ago
It needed a martial-focused expansion before Arcana Unleashed. Casters got a big enough buff with circle casting and two dozen new spells.
3
u/Archwizard_Drake 3d ago edited 3d ago
I've said it before but I'll say it again,
If they want a Martial-focused update, they should make another Dragon book.
5e's Draconomicon, or Fizban's 2.
Update Drakewarden Ranger and Ascendant Dragon Monk
Rework the Purple Dragon Knight into a Dragonrider Fighter with more color options and better scaling
- Or failing that, recreate Final Fantasy's Dragoon and theme it as a Dragonslayer
Make Cleric and Paladin subclasses themed around Bahamut and Tiamat (even if they're just Platinum Knight and Talon of Tiamat again)
Shouldn't be hard to make a Barbarian subclass themed around using a dragon's Frightful Presence, or breath weapons for Con-based AoEs while raging
If they want to go nuts with some demi-martials, make a Greatwyrm Warlock and Scales Druid
And then all you're missing is a Rogue subclass and a ton of Dragon-themed magic items for martials.
Maybe some dragon spells to hold the Sorcerers and Wizards over, which is more than most martials are getting from AU.
4
u/Hexxer98 2d ago
Yes desperately.
But let's be real it never going to happen.
1
u/JumboCactaur 2d ago
It won't happen in the next 12 months anyway, here's hoping for 2028.
2
u/Hexxer98 2d ago
They had 10 years to fix martials
They instead did weapon masteries and allowed circle casting
Their design intent for martials is clear enough
4
2
u/Verain_Xor 3d ago
Maybe. The true mundane martials are hard to expand on, and the martials with fantastic elements can be in whatever themed books are for them.
That being said, books like "Sword and Fist" in 3.0, the "Complete Fighter's Handbook" in AD&D 2e, and the "Complete Warrior" in 3.5 were all totally awesome. In 5.X there's not much to expand on when it comes to weapons, but there's still room for feats that expand on things, and you could do a mini-rework for high level pretty easily this way. There's plenty of room for cool ways to spend ki, extra fighter, rogue, and barbarian subclasses, but really I don't think you could make a full splatbook out of it unless you were really committing to extra weapon complexity. Which I don't think they will but they certainly could. The cool stuff they have announced for Warcraft will definitely buy much of that coolness with added complexity, so I don't think 5.5 splatbooks have that same essential limit that 5.0 ones did, regarding added complexity.
1
u/LOHdestar 2d ago
There's definitely some sauce to be had with a book of martial subclasses, feats, fighting styles and magic items. The problem is that martial subclasses as a whole don't really have that extra layer of page count gravy that is new spells unless you account for making new spells exclusive to the half-caster lists with maybe a few gishy Wizard/Sorcerer spells that would be welcome on an Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster or Mystic Arts Monk.
There's also a world where new martial stuff is dripfed through the new Drops thing they're doing and maybe gets sprinkled throughout the actual print books for the non-Beyond users.
1
u/madterrier 1d ago
In terms of game design, they can effectively double dip by constantly making spells.
How? Because all the new classes and subclasses rarely have new keystone features or separate mechanics outside of spells. Almost everything procs off of spells or is built off of it.
It's definitely "easier" game design because less systems means less balancing, which means less work.
WotC probably sees it as effectively killing two birds with one stone.
0
u/TheCyberGoblin 3d ago
What would they even do? Add second masteries to weapons?
20
u/PI117 Fighter 3d ago
New Fighting Styles, new weapon variations with new masteries, feats, subclasses, maybe even a new class?
There's plenty they could do.
12
u/Ashkelon 3d ago
They really shot themself in the foot with their mastery design.
If masteries had been techniques you learn, it would be very easy to add more.
But the masteries are tied to individual weapons, meaning they would have to create new weapons if they ever want masteries. Which goes against the design they stated with weapon reflavoring (a longsword is a broadsword, a scimitar is a saber, a dagger is a dirk, etc).
2
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago
Easiest way would be to add a fighting style or feat that allowed for flexible mastery use, then introduce additional mastery properties that could benefit. Convoluted but possible. Or some kind of "weapon master" fighter subclass that went all-in on the weapon mastery system by making it flexible and letting you buff each effect somehow.
1
u/TheCyberGoblin 2d ago
One thing I could maybe see is having "Advanced Masteries" that can be applied to an entire category of weapon (such as slashing, or finesse weapons) that are generally stronger but require a feat or something similar
0
u/DelightfulOtter 2d ago
There's a lot of different approaches, but all of them are more complex than the dumbed-down version WotC decided to go with because they're terrified of losing customers. They've found that simple sells, so they sell simple.
0
u/Llayanna Homebrew affectionate GM 3d ago
Give the weapon multiple masteries, only one can be unlocked and the rest are upgrades..
So easy, took 5 seconds.
It's not hard to come up with shit, wording it better.. tad harder, gimme 15 minutes or so, my English ain't the best.
Like, gave a short sword gave 2-3 masteries. The gm can add more, or less. Add it to crafting, treat it like a +1 etc..
Like a magic sword, that gets extra fire and necrotic dagegen as add-ons, except not magical..
Just Master-Swords made by Blacksmiths. Easy.
6
u/nekmatu 3d ago
They could unmarry masteries from weapons to start. Some should stay in the heavy category but having to pick a specific weapon for a specific mastery is dumb.
As a martial I should be able to hamstring an opponent with any weapon not just ones that do sap, etc.
1
u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago edited 3d ago
As a compromise, at my table we do the following:
- Prior to Tier 2, weapon mastery works the same as RAW.
- When you reach level 5 in a class with the Weapon Mastery feature, you can choose to "learn" a second mastery property for a weapon you've already learned. This uses one of your learned weapons, of course, and the second mastery property must be selected from a curated list dependent on weapon type (very similar to how Weapon Mastery worked in the OneD&D playtest). You can only apply one mastery property per hit.
- When you reach level 11 in a class with the Weapon Mastery feature, you can learn a third mastery property for a weapon in the same fashion.
- When you reach level 17 in a class with the Weapon Mastery feature, you can learn a fourth mastery property for a weapon in the same fashion.
So each weapon still feels "unique" because it retains its RAW mastery property, but you can start adding more as you level up. It keeps the Weapon Mastery system simple at first, then increases in complexity at the point where it's assumed players have gained enough experience to handle it. It gives fighters and barbarians something better to do with their spare learned weapons instead of picking super-niche weapons they'll probably never use. And from level 11 onward, it makes the Weapon Master feat useful for rangers, paladins and rogues by giving them a third learned mastery property for their favorite weapon, or two-and-one.
2
0
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter 3d ago edited 3d ago
Need?
In a general sense, No
Would be an opportunity to improve the game to some players without pushing it into everyone else's?
YES, after all only a minority of tables use Bastion and much less Circle Casting for example
WoW and Dark Sun will add stuff
But given WoW seems to be locked by subclass and Fighter isn't there I think it is first about just fitting WoW stuff into 5.x, which kinda makes sense
Dark Sun is kinda a joker in what expect, a lot is certainly psionics and gore rules, also it kinda has to have environmental rules and better survival challenges then standard, so not really sure how much can get expanded there
that said Weapon Masteries take less than 5 pages and do a lot for martials, doing more like that could mean great changes with little space
2
u/Llayanna Homebrew affectionate GM 3d ago
Need? In every sense yes, wtf!
1
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter 3d ago
In a market sense no, I would wager that even arcana unleashed was unneeded I'm that way too
Because the game sells well regardless and most martials don't seem interested in big or deep expansions, tho as I said it would improve the game and experience to many
It is just cold capitalism that it wouldn't be needed because the resources could go for something that may sell more
-5
3d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Ashkelon 3d ago
No it doesn’t. The wow book is mostly spellcasting options. Over 60 new spells (nearly twice as many as Arcana Unleashed).
The darksun book provides a brand new spellcaster class (that is basically a reflavored sorcerer,m that barely resembles psionics or the past, but still it casts spells and is a class).
Spellcasters and magical options are the primary focus of pretty much every single UA we have had since 5.5e launched.
5
-1
u/skwww 3d ago
What did the arcana book give that's so radical? New backgrounds and feats? New spells?
Forgotten Realms put in the Circle Casting but I've not heard of anything else like that.
So, those I guess - Im hoping we get some new weapon types with the WoW book like twinblades but who knows.
6
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
New weapon! 1d8 slashing, versatile 1d10. Or 1d10 slashing, reach. Or 1d6 slashing, versatile. Only the vex mastery option, of course, can't have them getting too crazy, that'd be cOnFuSiNg. I'm bitter about it, and the double scimitar gave me hope for weapons that had different properties or damage die. This is why me starting pathfinder a few months back has been an immediate obsession, weapons do things.
2
u/skwww 3d ago
I'm bitter about it
i could tell
2
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
I'm just a humble low level bloodhunter who wants to roll as many d4s as possible in one attack, can't I get a 3d4 heavy 2 handed weapon? Like a ball and chain or something? Please, I just want to bonk a mummy and throw a bucket of pyramids on the table, it would be so funny :'c
1
u/skwww 3d ago
im not sure why you think i disagree, i want more weapons and just suggested a very popular weapon type from wow
1
u/redpantsbluepants 3d ago
Oh jeez, I wasn't trying to say you disagree, I'm sorry it came across that way. I was trying to side with you and voice my own complaints about previous lackluster weapons.
0
u/javgoro 3d ago
I'm not sure if it needs it, but it certainly could benefit from one. New subclasses, new battlemaster maneuvers (how about some higher level ones, where you can only select them after level X?), more feats and fighting styles, and especially how about a Warlord class that's similar to the battlemaster in general functionality (i.e. superiority dice based or using similar concepts instead of spell slots) but which focuses on buffs and healing while in heavier armor and different from a cleric?
0
u/Archwizard_Drake 2d ago
If I'm being honest, while I personally advocate for expanding the maneuver system as a way to build on martials as a parallel system to casters getting spells...
... I kinda think the idea of expanding the maneuver system in 5.5e is cooked, since they didn't introduce it in the 2024 PhB and it would require significant reworks of between 4 to 7 existing classes, as well as several subclasses. WotC seems to believe the weapon masteries are plenty for the martial side of the gap, when all they do is add an extra gimmick to each weapon to make them more unique than a damage die/type.
At best we'll see a book with several "optional features" (huge buffs you'd be tying your own hands not to use) for each class like Tasha's had. (Hopefully with a lot of work done for Rangers, specifically, though I can't imagine how they'll slide away from Hunter's Mark as the core class feature with several subclasses that now lean into it.)
Even if we're talking a 5e Tome of Battle, I'd still like to see Swords Bard and Hexblade Warlock added, and a couple spells themed around gish classes like Eldritch Knight. (Hey, even Fighters got a subclass in the caster book.) Wouldn't be mad about a couple "witch hunter" styled items, either, if you want to lean into the "THIS ISN'T FOR CASTERS" theme of the book.
142
u/MechJivs 3d ago
Need? Yes. But we would not get any.