So, are Fighters finally up to snuff with the other martial classes?

[Soarel]

Aside from 4th, almost all editions of D&D have had fighters who start out strong, but are eventually outclassed by all other classes (especially spellcasting classes) past 6th level or so. The only option, at least in my experience, was for fighters to multiclass into a more powerful class. Even rogues and barbarians, the other two classes who lack spellcasting, were far more capable than the fighter.

But it appears in 5e that the single-class fighter is finally up to snuff with his spell casting brethren. The 5th edition feat system and the battle master archetype make fighters a lot more fun and capable IMHO.

Is this anyone else's impression?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Yes, with the caveat that the battlemaster may have resource management problems.

[Soarel]

Yes, with the caveat that the battlemaster may have resource management problems.

Would you say that the rogue, barbarian, paladin, and ranger are on equal footing with the full-time spellcasting classes?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I would argue that all the classes are roughly equal with each other. There's really only Tier 2 and Tier 3 anymore for you 3.5'rs.

[mabriss lethe]

Mundanes are on "more equal" footing, but the game is still weighted more toward spellcasting by a noticeable margin. The flipside of that is this: While the classes still aren't balanced in regards to one another, They are far more balanced vs. the expectations of the game.

[KnightOfV]

Casters still have more options than melee, every spell is a potential problem solved. But thanks to new concentration rules, in combat casters can really only solve one problem at a time. A wizard can still fly and make melee useless against him, but if bows come out he's in trouble. Windwall can block arrows, but then the fighter can hit you with his sword again..

Mage Slayer is a single feat that really ruins any full caster's day as soon as distance is closed no matter what level. And casters can't stack stoneskin/blur/fly/haste before going into a fight to make themselves invincible. In a combat situation, I think full casters will always have to take martial classes seriously in 5th which is my favorite thing about the new edition. They CAN still end the martial guy with one shot of the right spell to the right save, but they have a lot fewer ways to protect themselves unless... they have their own martial guys there to keep them safe. Wizards need fighters (or rogues, or rangers). Fighters need wizards (or bards, or sorcs). That's as much equality as you are likely to get in any edition.

[Falka]

The key issue is here is not whether spellcasters are still strong or not. As long as they have spells, they have more options than Fighters, buuuut...

They run out of spells way quicker in this edition.

You have a casting limit that cannot be increased with your casting stat. You have no Scribe Scroll feats. You cannot buy frequently magic scrolls or spells in a can. This vastly reduces caster's potential to completely trivialise challenges.

Not mentioning the Concentration rules which further limit many spell combos, and the usual broken utility spells (Knock as a basic example) have been given some downsides when used, so you won't use them as eagerly as before.

[Strill]

Would you say that the rogue, barbarian, paladin, and ranger are on equal footing with the full-time spellcasting classes?

Ranger no. Other classes yes.

[Rummy]

Fighters rock the party. Personally, I think they are more fun/powerful with some intelligent multiclassing, but they absolutely do not have to multiclass to remain viable.

[archaeo]

Ranger no. Other classes yes.

Nah man, Rangers are okay. The PHB hides their competency in that snarl of a spell list or in the funky animal companion rules.

[Easy_Lee]

In combat everyone is reasonably balanced in that everyone can contribute. This or that person may be more or less important in a given situation.

But for any non combat situation, where being able to communicate telepathically, detect lies, fool people, charm people, go invisible, or teleport might be needed, casters have a humongous advantage. A druid can feed 8 people for a day at level one using a spell slot, and can turn into a wide variety of animals including birds and fish by level 2. Think about that in terms of real life, and you'll see why casters are so powerful.

[Galen]

Tactically, within a battle or a skirmish, all the classes are on equal footing, more or less. Same within a contained linear dungeon/adventure. The full casters still have strategic options the mundanes can't even dream about. Teleport, Raise Dead, Plane Shift, etc.

[Falka]

In combat everyone is reasonably balanced in that everyone can contribute. This or that person may be more or less important in a given situation.

But for any non combat situation, where being able to communicate telepathically, detect lies, fool people, charm people, go invisible, or teleport might be needed, casters have a humongous advantage. A druid can feed 8 people for a day at level one using a spell slot, and can turn into a wide variety of animals including birds and fish by level 2. Think about that in terms of real life, and you'll see why casters are so powerful.

Have you read the limitations for Wild Shape?

[Easy_Lee]

Have you read the limitations for Wild Shape?

It has a multi-hour duration and lets you transform into animals you have seen. Even if you're not a circle druid, there are many animals which have no effective challenge rating, meaning a level 2 druid can easily transform. Lasts an hour at level 2 and goes up from there. Am I missing something?

[Falka]

It has a multi-hour duration and lets you transform into animals you have seen. Even if you're not a circle druid, there are many animals which have no effective challenge rating, meaning a level 2 druid can easily transform. Lasts an hour at level 2 and goes up from there. Am I missing something?

You have level restrictions for creatures with swimming speed and flying speed. You can't turn into a bird or a fish at level 2.

[Galen]

It has a multi-hour duration and lets you transform into animals you have seen. Even if you're not a circle druid, there are many animals which have no effective challenge rating, meaning a level 2 druid can easily transform. Lasts an hour at level 2 and goes up from there. Am I missing something?

You are missing the fact that at level 2 it can't swim nor fly. You get those at later levels, I forget when.

[Easy_Lee]

You are missing the fact that at level 2 it can't swim nor fly. You get those at later levels, I forget when.

Giant eagle is CR1, which means moon druids can do it at 2. Hawk is lower, 1/2 I think. Frogs are amphibious and have no CR. Unless there is something which explicitly forbids creatures with a flying or swim speed before a certain level or CR, then I don't see the issue.

Either way, you guys are picking out a single tiny piece of my post and debating it, ignoring everything else I wrote. Forest for the trees much?

[Galen]

Unless there is something which explicitly forbids creatures with a flying or swim speed before a certain level
Yes. Yes, there is.


Either way, you guys are picking out a single tiny piece of my post and debating it, ignoring everything else I wrote. Forest for the trees much? I never argued with the fact casters have a strategic advantage over mundanes. But there's no need to help them even more by misreading the rules.

[Shining Wrath]

What I keep saying (so pardon if you're read this before) is that while in 5e a well-optimized Wizard beats a well-optimized Fighter, a well-optimized Wizard no longer beats two well-optimized Fighters. Or Rangers. He may be able to escape, but that's not the same thing as winning.

The contrast to 3.5 where the Wizard would have cast Time Stop, numerous self-buffs, and closed by Gating in a Pit Fiend should be apparent.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes. Yes, there is.

Ah, must have missed that one. It's a dumb rule if you ask me, since there's no logical reason for it, just a limitation. But arbitrary limitations to keep PCs under control seems to be the name of the game this edition. For example, illusion wizards can creat partially real illusions such as bridges, but those illusions explicitly can't do damage. It's silly.

Martials still need some boosts at later levels if you ask me.

[nmott]

Giant eagle is CR1, which means moon druids can do it at 2. Hawk is lower, 1/2 I think. Frogs are amphibious and have no CR. Unless there is something which explicitly forbids creatures with a flying or swim speed before a certain level or CR, then I don't see the issue.

Either way, you guys are picking out a single tiny piece of my post and debating it, ignoring everything else I wrote. Forest for the trees much?

When the "single tiny piece" of your post is one of two bits of evidence used to support your claim, I think it's less "missing the forest for the trees" and more "wondering if one tree is a forest."

I've yet to play a game -- first session is Sunday! -- but this is the first edition that really made me want to play a Fighter. Restricting extra attacks (with the exception of the second attack granted to other primarily-martial characters) to the Fighter helps with that, as do Second Wind and Action Surge. In general, it seems like the class is as badass as it was always meant to be.

[Easy_Lee]

When the "single tiny piece" of your post is one of two bits of evidence used to support your claim, I think it's less "missing the forest for the trees" and more "wondering if one tree is a forest."

I suggest you reread my post, specifically the bits about charming, detecting lies, etc. Basically, my entire post besides the two low level examples of what just one of the casters can do.

Here's another fun example. The spell fabricate turns production for any good you can think of, be it a vial of poison (20 days) or full plate armor (300 days) into gather the materials plus a few minutes. Only limitation is that the wizard must know how to make the good, a limitation which can likely be circumvented by getting a skilled crafter to assist and instruct.

The PHB includes such things as powerful illusions, spells that cure any wound, disease or poison, teleportation, so on and so forth (bolded so you don't miss the forest this time). When those things are limited only to casters, it does not take a genius to tell you that casters have the best out of combat abilities.

[Shining Wrath]

I suggest you reread my post, specifically the bits about charming, detecting lies, etc. Basically, my entire post besides the two low level examples of what just one of the casters can do.

Here's another fun example. The spell fabricate turns production for any good you can think of, be it a vial of poison (20 days) or full plate armor (300 days) into gather the materials plus a few minutes. Only limitation is that the wizard must know how to make the good, a limitation which can likely be circumvented by getting a skilled crafter to assist and instruct.

The PHB includes such things as powerful illusions, spells that cure any wound, disease or poison, teleportation, so on and so forth (bolded so you don't miss the forest this time). When those things are limited only to casters, it does not take a genius to tell you that casters have the best out of combat abilities.

There are 18 skills. A typical caster (not a half elf, not a bard) will have 4 of them. While spells do solve problems, any DM worth his salt can set a problem that a spell can't solve, or can't solve entirely.

So the caster has more flexibility - no debate. But out of combat or in it, a spell caster will find having mundane partners to be a efficient boon. That is, while the Wizard may be able to cast a spell which does X, if the Fighter / Rogue / Paladin can also do X and not consume a spell slot, that is better for the Wizard.

In 5e the best party of 4 will usually have 4 different classes in it - that's what I *feel* right now. Experience will tell.

EDIT: I suspect that a lot of DMs will rule strictly on the fabricate spell - the Wizard must be able to produce the item without magic. One does not want to allow "sell the Wall of Salt" level cheese in one's campaign.

[archaeo]

Here's another fun example. The spell fabricate turns production for any good you can think of, be it a vial of poison (20 days) or full plate armor (300 days) into gather the materials plus a few minutes. Only limitation is that the wizard must know how to make the good, a limitation which can likely be circumvented by getting a skilled crafter to assist and instruct.

It seems self-evident to me that fabricate was written in such a way to allow DMs wide latitude in saying "yes" or "no" to whatever they please. Not to mention that by the time you gain access to fabricate at level 7, it seems likely that anybody who might want plate will have already purchased plate.

Fabricate leaves the economic effects open-ended, however, should you want your Wizard to quit adventuring and start a business selling stuff he makes. Since D&D is not John Maynard Keynes: The RPG, however, I'd suggest that you've exited the model and entered into territory the game has no interest in dealing with. And why should it?


The PHB includes such things as powerful illusions, spells that cure any wound, disease or poison, teleportation, so on and so forth (bolded so you don't miss the forest this time). When those things are limited only to casters, it does not take a genius to tell you that casters have the best out of combat abilities.

Maybe. Personally, I see a pretty limited number of spell slots for the vast majority of the campaign. Clerics and Druids can prepare whatever spells they like, but both roles are also sharply curtailed from freely breaking every out-of-combat situation by the fact that they need to keep their parties alive.

Frankly, I think it's very easy to see the theoretical flexibility of the casters than the practical results of playing the game as it is intended to be played. And, as the designers have said, they had no real interest in writing a huge pile of rules just to prevent people from playing a game that isn't D&D. You could theoretically reign in casters to the point where they no longer "have the best out of combat abilities," but wouldn't that just curtail a bunch of stuff that is justifiably beloved in order to satisfy theorycrafters?

[Symphony]

Here's another fun example. The spell fabricate turns production for any good you can think of, be it a vial of poison (20 days) or full plate armor (300 days) into gather the materials plus a few minutes. Only limitation is that the wizard must know how to make the good, a limitation which can likely be circumvented by getting a skilled crafter to assist and instruct.

Two levels of Cleric (Knowledge Domain) gets you 10 minutes of proficiency in any tool or skill. There you go, a level 9 Cleric 2/Wizard 7 or level 12 Cleric 2/Bard 10 can fabricate anything (unless your DM rules that you run out of proficiency six seconds before you've finished casting Fabricate, which has a casting time of 10 minutes, and the spell therefore fails).

[Cambrian]

Two levels of Cleric (Knowledge Domain) gets you 10 minutes of proficiency in any tool or skill. There you go, a level 9 Cleric 2/Wizard 7 or level 12 Cleric 2/Bard 10 can fabricate anything (unless your DM rules that you run out of proficiency six seconds before you've finished casting Fabricate, which has a casting time of 10 minutes, and the spell therefore fails)."we are not going to try to make rules that would stop people who want to be bored from doing boring things"

-- Mike Mearls

Many "issues" can be resolved by reminding people of this. D&D is like Skyrim, if you want to break the system you can-- but you're only disrupting your own experience.

[archaeo]

"we are not going to try to make rules that would stop people who want to be bored from doing boring things"

-- Mike Mearls

Many "issues" can be resolved by reminding people of this. D&D is like Skyrim, if you want to break the system you can-- but you're only disrupting your own experience.

I agree with most of the practical effects of this (e: and certainly think D&D is a better game when it isn't trying to cover every possible corner case), but a couple things occur to me:

First, this design philosophy is always so moralizing. "Boring things" and "disrupting your own experience" is an explicit judgement call, and while it's one I agree with, it's nevertheless kind of a stealth insult toward people who find those things fun.

Second, the logical conclusion of this idea is that optimization/RAW power is boring, but that sort of disagrees with a lot of really fundamental human things going on in our monkey brains. Of course bigger DPR numbers are better. Of course I'm a better player at this game if I can accomplish more using less.

In ideal world, we could have this cake and eat it too. We could acknowledge that it's fun to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them without calling those loopholes "broken" or those that enjoy finding them "boring." Alas, this is the Internet, and these are a bunch of nerds, and so the world turns.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, allow me to share a story from my last game. I as a druid cast speak with animals as a ritual to figure out where an enemy camp was located and how many were there. No roll required.

Another character magically disguised himself as a kobold so he could walk in and start a coup. Since his disguise automatically succeded, he just had to roll charisma a few times until he had them all convinced to coup, no risk. So for the cost of one spell slot between us, we trivialized an encounter.

The same kind of thing happened a few more times throughout the session. We let the martial characters clean up the mess afterwards.

Point is, casters have a wide variety of options like this, even at the lowest levels. Martials are good at hitting things, and sometimes their skills come up, but they don't have nearly as much influence as a caster outside of combat.

Rather than nerf casters, I as a DM would find ways to buff melee so they had more of these kinds of options. Perhaps monks should be able to supercharge their wisdom skills due to ki influence. Perhaps fighters should be naturally intimidating and able to take ten and add both strength and charisma to the roll. Perhaps rogues should automatically succeed on stealth checks vs completely unaware foes, within reason. Things like that could give martials more narrative power without breaking anything.

And for Pete's sake, someone please update the crafting rules. I can't imagine trying to craft anything as a non wizard. What's stopping the wizard from fabricating armor using the first Dragon scales or other useful hide he encounters? Many DMs would allow that just for coolness and creativity.

Rogues have expertise, which is quite nice. Anythimg martials can do that doesn't require a roll is a good thing, in my opinion.

[Cambrian]

[good stuff, but long :biggrin:]
If the playgroup enjoys those things then the statement doesn't apply. It's not a statement of a right way play, it's a statement that they aren't looking to make the game immune to RAW abuse.

I never took that quote to be commenting on people making mechanically strong characters. I understood it to be commenting on rules abuses like trying to get infinite Wishes with Simulacrum, Cone of Cold with Find Steed, or Fast crafting with Fabricate.

Again like an elder-scrolls game if you try you can break the system. But your only disrupting your own local (or, in D&D, play-group's) experience and should game designers need to idiot proof a game? This edition they understood there's no need-- the DM can handle that, possibly by not inviting the problem player back.

Edit:


Well, allow me to share a story from my last game. I as a druid cast speak with animals as a ritual to figure out where an enemy camp was located and how many were there. No roll required.
The DM has a great deal of leeway with that spell. Most creatures it can communicate with have severely limited intelligence and would have trouble communicating direction, distance, the exact type of creatures, especially numbers, etc... with any accuracy. They likely couldn't distinguishing one encampment from another, combine that with the past 24 hour memory limitation and any given creature might direct you to a different encampment than the one you seek.


Another character magically disguised himself as a kobold so he could walk in and start a coup. Since his disguise automatically succeded, he just had to roll charisma a few times until he had them all convinced to coup, no risk. So for the cost of one spell slot between us, we trivialized an encounter.That sounds like an issue with a DM setting DCs too low or being too generous with the results of skill checks. Sure the spell enabled it, but it was the DM's generosity that lead to the encounter being circumvented.

[archaeo]

Well, allow me to share a story from my last game. I as a druid cast speak with animals as a ritual to figure out where an enemy camp was located and how many were there. No roll required.

Another character magically disguised himself as a kobold so he could walk in and start a coup. Since his disguise automatically succeded, he just had to roll charisma a few times until he had them all convinced to coup, no risk. So for the cost of one spell slot between us, we trivialized an encounter.

Alternately, the martial characters could've used a disguise kit and passed a few skill checks. Or intimidated a guard into helping them into the camp. Or rolled stealth to sneak up and check things out without asking local rabbits or whatever. Or used a myriad of other skills in order to tackle this challenge without needing any spell slots at all. See,


Point is, casters have a wide variety of options like this, even at the lowest levels. Martials are good at hitting things, and sometimes their skills come up, but they don't have nearly as much influence as a caster outside of combat.

The only advantage casters have is the degree to which spell lists make it easy to see the huge variety of things they can do. Martial classes can accomplish most of the same things given a) a clever player and b) a DM who isn't blinded by the meme of caster supremacy. Casting speak with animals is no different mechanically than rolling well in skill checks to scout the place. Casting disguise self is virtually the same as a successful use of a disguise kit and some skill checks. Of course, you say,


Anythimg martials can do that doesn't require a roll is a good thing, in my opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Eliminating rolls (and speeding up travel/crafting) is just about the only advantage that magic gives over martial methods. In exchange, while casters have to spend resources to resist effects or become more buff, most of the martial classes get that outright. Certainly, at high levels, casters get world-changing effects. But martial characters can change the world too; they just have to do it through the mundane ways that have worked here in the real world, like raising armies, leading nations, etc.

I don't know, man, I get the impression we're not going to agree on this, so I'm willing to let it drop. I'm interested to see how this is developed in play; in my opinion, WotC should address the martial vs. caster dynamic directly in the DMG, but I'm not holding my breath.


If the playgroup enjoys those things then the statement doesn't apply. It's not a statement of a right way play, it's a statement that they aren't looking to make the game immune to RAW abuse.

I never took that quote to be commenting on people making mechanically strong characters. I understood it to be commenting on rules abuses like trying to get infinite Wishes with Simulacrum, Cone of Cold with Find Steed, or Fast crafting with Fabricate.

Again like an elder-scrolls game if you try you can break the system. But your only disrupting your own local (or, in D&D, play-group's) experience and should game designers need to idiot proof a game? This edition they understood there's no need-- the DM can handle that, possibly by not inviting the problem player back.

Oh, sure. I mean, I think one guy's "abuse" is another guy's "playstyle," though, and I don't really see much distinction between "rules abuses" and "optimization." They come from the same rules-centric mindset, imo. "Optimization" is just a polite way of saying "exploiting the broken interclass and intraclass balance in order to become mechanically superior," isn't it?

Mearls is correct, however, that trying to write rules to prevent any possible "abuse" leads to a place that gets absurd rather quickly. It's not that it makes a bad TRPG -- 4e proves that designing with the purpose of providing perfect balance and closing all avenues for rules abuse can create a very tactical and interesting game -- but it doesn't necessarily lead to what the majority of the playerbase sees as "D&D," not to mention the ridiculously complex rules it creates.

But whatever, yeah, we basically agree. I do think that both sides of this argument can tend toward accusing the other side of being badwrongfun, but we're on the Internet, so, once again, zero people are surprised here.

[Snails]

Mearls is correct, however, that trying to write rules to prevent any possible "abuse" leads to a place that gets absurd rather quickly. It's not that it makes a bad TRPG -- 4e proves that designing with the purpose of providing perfect balance and closing all avenues for rules abuse can create a very tactical and interesting game -- but it doesn't necessarily lead to what the majority of the playerbase sees as "D&D," not to mention the ridiculously complex rules it creates.

I agree with Mearls, too. An unambiguous rule for a complex issue is always torture to read, but it will also, counterintuitive as it may seem, get misread in a bad way more often than a concise and somewhat ambiguous rule.

Trying to avoid any kind of incompleteness guarantees everyone suffers from very heavy rules, with no guarantee of a better result at the table.

[Lokiare]

It seems self-evident to me that fabricate was written in such a way to allow DMs wide latitude in saying "yes" or "no" to whatever they please. Not to mention that by the time you gain access to fabricate at level 7, it seems likely that anybody who might want plate will have already purchased plate.

According to the treasure tables they won't. Of course according to the released adventures they will.


Fabricate leaves the economic effects open-ended, however, should you want your Wizard to quit adventuring and start a business selling stuff he makes. Since D&D is not John Maynard Keynes: The RPG, however, I'd suggest that you've exited the model and entered into territory the game has no interest in dealing with. And why should it?

All they have to do is find one decent priced gem and then have a little down time. We aren't talking about things that are extremely difficult to pull off and require 20 moving parts. We are talking about spells working as intended here.


Maybe. Personally, I see a pretty limited number of spell slots for the vast majority of the campaign. Clerics and Druids can prepare whatever spells they like, but both roles are also sharply curtailed from freely breaking every out-of-combat situation by the fact that they need to keep their parties alive.

According to the DM document an average adventuring day is 6 average encounters. Most encounters can be trivialized with a single daily spell. Casters have over 6 spells by level 3-4. Do the math. I can't imagine a caster ever running out of spells by level 7 or so.


Frankly, I think it's very easy to see the theoretical flexibility of the casters than the practical results of playing the game as it is intended to be played. And, as the designers have said, they had no real interest in writing a huge pile of rules just to prevent people from playing a game that isn't D&D. You could theoretically reign in casters to the point where they no longer "have the best out of combat abilities," but wouldn't that just curtail a bunch of stuff that is justifiably beloved in order to satisfy theorycrafters?

I've played all the play tests and the casters I played with reserved their spells not because they needed to, but because they didn't want to ruin the players fun. In fact I was one of those casters and right when the party got to a green dragon I decided to unload my spells and right about that time the game ended. The DM just said 'you win'. I can't imagine from what I've seen that the final game is any different.


If the playgroup enjoys those things then the statement doesn't apply. It's not a statement of a right way play, it's a statement that they aren't looking to make the game immune to RAW abuse.

Unfortunately they aren't doing anything at all for RAW abuse, not even getting rid of the most common ones that have existed since 2E. Which is sad.


I never took that quote to be commenting on people making mechanically strong characters. I understood it to be commenting on rules abuses like trying to get infinite Wishes with Simulacrum, Cone of Cold with Find Steed, or Fast crafting with Fabricate.

Again like an elder-scrolls game if you try you can break the system. But your only disrupting your own local (or, in D&D, play-group's) experience and should game designers need to idiot proof a game? This edition they understood there's no need-- the DM can handle that, possibly by not inviting the problem player back.

Edit:

The DM has a great deal of leeway with that spell. Most creatures it can communicate with have severely limited intelligence and would have trouble communicating direction, distance, the exact type of creatures, especially numbers, etc... with any accuracy. They likely couldn't distinguishing one encampment from another, combine that with the past 24 hour memory limitation and any given creature might direct you to a different encampment than the one you seek.

That sounds like an issue with a DM setting DCs too low or being too generous with the results of skill checks. Sure the spell enabled it, but it was the DM's generosity that lead to the encounter being circumvented.

The designers need to 'idiot' proof the game because people will look at the rules and say 'oh that's allowed, I'm going to do it.'. Not all players and DMs go to forums and know what to avoid or how to handle situations. Many of them just say "well this isn't fun anymore, lets go play another game." without taking even a second to analyze what went wrong.

Every broken combo of 1 to 3 skills, spells, class features, racial traits, feats, etc...etc.. should be fixed. If it takes more than 3 of those then sure don't worry about it. At the very least the 1's should be taken care of. Which they aren't in 5E.

As to animals. I don't know where people get the mistaken idea that animals aren't smart. I have a dog that can learn a trick in just a few minutes and then recall it a day or two later. Dogs also watch human reactions and then decide how to act in response. They look at a different species that has a totally different behavior pattern to them and adapt to it and 'trick' the humans into feeding them, playing with them, and giving them treats.

I also had a cat that watched my dog beg for food by standing on her back paws and holding her paws up in the air. The cat replicated this so I gave it a treat. The next day I called my dog to do the trick and the cat was doing it first.

Animals have different goals than humans. We have goals of higher learning, dominating each other, making war, making machines to make our lives easier. Animals have the goals of eating, breeding, having fun and sleeping.

A quote comes to mind to describe this dichotomy:

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.” -- Douglas Adams

[archaeo]

According to the treasure tables they won't. Of course according to the released adventures they will.

You mean the playtest treasure tables? That are probably nearly a whole year old?


All they have to do is find one decent priced gem and then have a little down time. We aren't talking about things that are extremely difficult to pull off and require 20 moving parts. We are talking about spells working as intended here.

What part of my point are you responding to? Fabricate requires only the raw materials of what you'll be constructing. And you're right, it isn't very difficult. I mean, you've stopped playing D&D in order to gain all the pretend money in your pretend world, so, victory, I guess?


Most encounters can be trivialized with a single daily spell. Casters have over 6 spells by level 3-4. Do the math. I can't imagine a caster ever running out of spells by level 7 or so.

Right, so you roll perfectly every encounter, every day? And you have exactly the spells you need for every encounter, every time? From what I remember from Dune, seeing into the future is a terrible burden, Lokiare.


I've played all the play tests and the casters I played with reserved their spells not because they needed to, but because they didn't want to ruin the players fun. In fact I was one of those casters and right when the party got to a green dragon I decided to unload my spells and right about that time the game ended. The DM just said 'you win'. I can't imagine from what I've seen that the final game is any different.

So you did nothing but cast cantrips all game and then nova'd the last encounter. Yes, truly you have broken 5e.


The designers need to 'idiot' proof the game because people will look at the rules and say 'oh that's allowed, I'm going to do it.'. Not all players and DMs go to forums and know what to avoid or how to handle situations. Many of them just say "well this isn't fun anymore, lets go play another game." without taking even a second to analyze what went wrong.

Yes, this is clearly how people have reacted to broken rules throughout the years.

In reality, most of the "broken combos" that exist don't manifest until hours and hours of play have been accomplished. If a group manages to make it that far into the game, I sincerely doubt one broken mechanic is going to make them all throw away their books and swear off D&D. Some of those broken rules are outright mistakes, and will be corrected via errata. Most of them, however, are written in such a way as to make it easy for any DM to say "No, we won't be playing the game that way." Easy because RAW leaves room, and easy because it's transparently obvious what broken nonsense results otherwise.


As to animals. I don't know where people get the mistaken idea that animals aren't smart. I have a dog that can learn a trick in just a few minutes and then recall it a day or two later.

Nobody said animals weren't smart. But there's a big difference between "teaching Fido a new trick" and "using magic to ask Fido for information regarding troop deployments and goblin military strategy." In any case, speak with animals is written with a great deal of leeway available to the DM; if you would like your animals to all be little woodland Ph.D.s, nothing bars your way.

[Cambrian]

As to animals. I don't know where people get the mistaken idea that animals aren't smart. I have a dog that can learn a trick in just a few minutes and then recall it a day or two later.

Nobody said animals weren't smart. But there's a big difference between "teaching Fido a new trick" and "using magic to ask Fido for information regarding troop deployments and goblin military strategy." In any case, speak with animals is written with a great deal of leeway available to the DM; if you would like your animals to all be little woodland Ph.D.s, nothing bars your way.
Going beyond that, the spell reads:
The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence, but at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day.
Beyond the past day there is no DM obligation to share information. Not to say a DM should always be as strict as possible, but if the spell is an issue...

Furthermore a dog is the product of generations of selective breeding for obedience, intelligence, and good temperament-- Speak with Animals has you question wild mammals, reptiles, and birds. Their mental capabilities, though in some respects extraordinary, are going to be limited and drastically different making communication still difficult.

[Lokiare]

You mean the playtest treasure tables? That are probably nearly a whole year old?

Yes, the treasure tables that they have not mentioned changing at all. Even if they did change it the adventures they've released have lots of treasure that ruins their precious bounded accuracy.


What part of my point are you responding to? Fabricate requires only the raw materials of what you'll be constructing. And you're right, it isn't very difficult. I mean, you've stopped playing D&D in order to gain all the pretend money in your pretend world, so, victory, I guess?

You are acting like it takes lots of time and effort. When in fact it takes a very small amount of downtime and only a few easily obtainable items.


Right, so you roll perfectly every encounter, every day? And you have exactly the spells you need for every encounter, every time? From what I remember from Dune, seeing into the future is a terrible burden, Lokiare.

You don't have to roll perfectly, just average. If you take out 15 out of 20 enemies in an encounter then the encounter is trivialized. Enemies only have to fail an average number of saves to trivialize encounters. Sure the fighter gets to mop up but that's not exactly fun for everyone.


So you did nothing but cast cantrips all game and then nova'd the last encounter. Yes, truly you have broken 5e.

Uh, no. I used all kinds of normal spells during the rest of the encounters. I simply had many spells left over by the time I got to the dragon. by level 2 most casters have 6 spells. After that they get even more which means they can use multiple daily spells each encounter if they feel like it to further trivialize those encounters.


Yes, this is clearly how people have reacted to broken rules throughout the years.

In reality, most of the "broken combos" that exist don't manifest until hours and hours of play have been accomplished. If a group manages to make it that far into the game, I sincerely doubt one broken mechanic is going to make them all throw away their books and swear off D&D. Some of those broken rules are outright mistakes, and will be corrected via errata. Most of them, however, are written in such a way as to make it easy for any DM to say "No, we won't be playing the game that way." Easy because RAW leaves room, and easy because it's transparently obvious what broken nonsense results otherwise.

Not really. I've played with people that have made broken combos by accident and totally destroyed adventures. They also thought that's how the game is supposed to play. The DM was just bewildered and didn't want to play. 5E is worse though because several of these broken things are features that are working as intended, brought to their logical conclusion. Its not like 3E where you have to look for broken combos. They are lying right there in the open.

There is no arguing that web or fireball end encounters. The only thing the DM can do is house rule it away. Personally I believe house rules are for changing the feel of a game not fixing the developers problems.

You assume there will be errata. This is not in evidence. In fact in several of the articles they talked about not wanting to put out errata because of the trouble it caused in 4E. The DM can say 'we aren't playing that way', but then the players look at the rules and say 'you should have warned us ahead of times about any personal house rules you have'.


Nobody said animals weren't smart. But there's a big difference between "teaching Fido a new trick" and "using magic to ask Fido for information regarding troop deployments and goblin military strategy." In any case, speak with animals is written with a great deal of leeway available to the DM; if you would like your animals to all be little woodland Ph.D.s, nothing bars your way.

Sure, but the quoted description flat out tells you they can tell you about creatures as long as it is within 24 hours.

Sure DMs can twist the game world into contorted knots to counter all the broken things in the games, but should they really have to go to all that trouble? What if they want to run a dungeon that is guarded by mindless undead and traps? What if they want to run a murder mystery? They can't because the game is broken and spells solve everything.

[Fwiffo86]

Snipped for space by Fwiffo86

Are you saying that because the game has put arbitration back into the hands of the DM instead of the power being in the hands of the player almost exclusively, that 5e is a bad game?

[MadBear]

Are you saying that because the game has put arbitration back into the hands of the DM instead of the power being in the hands of the player almost exclusively, that 5e is a bad game?

No, he's mainly mad that 5e isn't 4th edition, and until Mike Mearls and the rest of WOTC publicly apologizes for saying that they were trying to make a game that catered to everyone, he'll continue to be a dog with a bone. Because, you see, 5e is much closer to 3.5 then it is to 4th, and that just isn't ok.

[archaeo]

I'm going to stop the fractal growth of commentary here and just rebut a few select points.

First, more generally: do you even have the PHB? Have you bothered reading it? Apologies if I'm incorrect, but it certainly seems as though you have not, and have instead based most of your criticism on hearsay and forum discussions.


You assume there will be errata. This is not in evidence. In fact in several of the articles they talked about not wanting to put out errata because of the trouble it caused in 4E.

This is simply not true. Mearls & Co. have openly discussed the surveys they are planning for next spring and plans for more concrete rules clarifications in the future. You may remember Mearls using the exact phrase "living edition" in L&L articles.


the game is broken and spells solve everything.

Why should any caster class bother solving everything when they have limited slots and an entire party to rely on? What happens the first time the caster miscalculates the number of slots they'll need for the day? What happens when long rests are in incredibly short supply given a timer or a hostile environment?

You mention things like murder mysteries and traps being trivialized, but actually looking at the spells involved shows language specifically showing the DM how the spells are limited. You've complained bitterly and at length about how much work it takes to reign in casters, but all I see is a system that, at every opportunity, explains the limitations of magic in a manner that invites the DM to capitalize on said limitations whenever it would be useful for building a good story.

As for those specific examples, casting find traps may say "Welp there's a trap that spits fire here" but not how to prevent its triggering, while watching literally any primetime crime procedural from the last several decades will show how easy it is to have a dramatic murder mystery despite the murderer being known. Speak with dead might get you the name of the assassin, but it doesn't tell you who put the coins in their purse.

These are the kinds of nuances you seem eager to brush under the table in your rush to judgement. 5e is by no means perfect, but it hardly the objectively lousy game you believe it to be.

--------

EDIT: To everybody else, I urge you to consider that a Fighter has access to many skills, enough feat opportunities to obtain even more, and the best stats possible to ensure good use of combat maneuvers that, when used in concert, can be extremely effective. Outside of combat, Fighters can easily be made competent at a variety of useful skills with a modicum of cleverness. Personally, I think they have the capability to be just as flexible as any other class; you just have to apply the skills you're given with some smart play.

[Uldric]

What Lokiare fails to account for how routine it is for a DM to account for these encounter breaking spells. Things like not bunching the bad guys unless I am inviting the Wizard to use an big AoE, having baddies come in waves, having monsters with good saves. For the BBEG we have Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance. Sure in the old days a Wizard could just follow one AoE CC with another but the concentration rules neuter that.

[Geoff]

Aside from 4th, almost all editions of D&D have had fighters who start out strong, but are eventually outclassed by all other classes (especially spellcasting classes) past 6th level or so. The only option, at least in my experience, was for fighters to multiclass into a more powerful class. Even rogues and barbarians, the other two classes who lack spellcasting, were far more capable than the fighter. The 3.5 Fighter could always do things that other classes couldn't, by virtue of accumulating so many feats. Throw in a few low-level magic items or a friendly caster, and he was never really out-done by things like raging barbarians or Druid animal companions or whatnot. True, casters could do far more than the Fighter outside of his personal-weapon-using-combat arena, but the fighter has always been pretty impressive. In 2e, fighters were double-specialized DPR machines. In 4e, of course, they were right up there with everyone else, daillies and all, and were often seen as the best Defender in the game, making the 'finally' in the title rather silly. Fighters have been up to snuff with other martial classes /and/ with casters, since 2008, even by the very high bar of overall class balance. Consider being able to fill a niche or support a concept no other class can (quite) do, and the 3.5 fighter's had a solid place in the game, the whole time, too.

So the 5e fighter has a lot to live up to. The fantastic customization of the 3e fighter, the crazy DPR of the 2e fighter, and the actual overall class balance of 4e.



But it appears in 5e that the single-class fighter is finally up to snuff with his spell casting brethren. The 5th edition feat system and the battle master archetype make fighters a lot more fun and capable IMHO.

Is this anyone else's impression?Not so much. The 5e fighter reminds me of the 2e fighter: a DPR machine with some kits that don't do much beyond flavor (those'd be backgrounds). 5e gives the fighter a couple of choices and a couple of bonus feats that don't add up to all that much customization, but do deliver some of the raw power possible with bonus feats. Two bonus feats when everyone else gets five is not as big a deal as 11 when everyone else gets 7 - I'm not sure if them being stat bumps that you trade in for (optional) feats makes it better or worse. Probably worse, since you might not even have the option of feats.

Now, the Eldritch Knight does just plain cast spells, so I guess he's keeping up with the casters by being one. Maybe that's what you meant.

Apart from the EK, there's nothing to compare to the powers the fighter got in 4e, while casters, in contrast, have far more spells/day than they did in 4e.

Similarly, the Fighter's athletics and two bonus feats hardly stack up to the skill supremacy of the Rogue out of combat.

So, the 5e fighter hits the mark on being a multi-attacking damage machine like the 2e fighter, doesn't quite live up to the legacy of the 3.5 fighter, and certainly fails to balance as well as the 4e fighter (probably more the fault of the other classes).

[Lokiare]

No, he's mainly mad that 5e isn't 4th edition, and until Mike Mearls and the rest of WOTC publicly apologizes for saying that they were trying to make a game that catered to everyone, he'll continue to be a dog with a bone. Because, you see, 5e is much closer to 3.5 then it is to 4th, and that just isn't ok.

Sorry no. Why don't you try attacking my arguments instead of my person? Might net you more points with the clearer thinkers on this forum.

I could care less if they made the game completely different from 4E. What I'm looking for is not 4E, but what 4E allowed me to do with the game.

It allowed me as a DM to quickly make adventures and not have to worry about them being broken. It allowed me to not have to worry about the rules breaking and making constant adjustments and house rules to patch over the underlying structure of the game. It allowed me to focus on making interesting adventures and a living breathing world instead of dealing with an underlying system that didn't work.

As a player I knew that my contributions mattered and that the casters weren't holding back just to make me feel better. I knew that my choices mattered more than random dice rolls. So strategy was required rather than choosing which encounter ending spell to use on any given combat, exploration, or social situation.

I was hoping that 5E would provide the same kind of outcome while reducing combat and fixing some of the more broken things about 4E. unfortunately they didn't do that. They instead re-introduced the same problems that were fixed.

I would have been completely happy with a well balanced streamlined 2E/3E retroclone, but what we got instead was a slightly more balanced than 3E jumbled mess that resembled 2E/3E if you squint right. It certainly doesn't provide anything that 4E did.


Are you saying that because the game has put arbitration back into the hands of the DM instead of the power being in the hands of the player almost exclusively, that 5e is a bad game?

It sure can. I mean yeah extremely good DMs won't see a problem, but they could probably arbitrate monopoly into a fun TTRPG experience. In the hands of a mediocre or inexperienced DM, yeah, compared to just about any edition but 1E, 5E will be a bad game. Not only that it falls into the same traps as previous editions where it makes the DM work much harder than they should to be able to run a smooth engaging game.

[AmbientRaven]

Similarly, the Fighter's athletics and two bonus feats hardly stack up to the skill supremacy of the Rogue out of combat.


pretty sure bards can get more skills.
15 is the top achieved with bard, with 4 of those 15 being expert level

[Easy_Lee]

In the hands of a mediocre or inexperienced DM, yeah, compared to just about any edition but 1E, 5E will be a bad game. Not only that it falls into the same traps as previous editions where it makes the DM work much harder than they should to be able to run a smooth engaging game.

Amazing that you can reach that conclusion before the DMG even comes out.

4e was math-heavy. In the hands of an inexperienced DM, nothing is worse than trying to resolve the long list of equations that was 4e. It played less like a tabletop game and more like an MMO than previous versions. You might as well have been playing D&D online.

You want balance between martials and casters? How's this: if your BBEG tries to cast spells, a properly built monk will shrug them off and stunlock the BBEG. If he's proficient in CON saves, he's probably not proficient in CHA or WIS saves which a wizard can easily target. If he is, then there's probably nothing stopping blasters and melees from just beating him down. Low str save, and a fighter can just trip him, grapple him, and keep him pinned down while everyone else beats on him.

Casters can do more things out of combat than martials because magic is magic. With the exception of stealth-heavy games, casters have always had this niche. There's not much getting around it. Whatever a martial can do with a skill, a wizard can find a spell for, if that spell is provided by the DM, if the caster can afford the spell slot, and especially if that caster is built for it. As long as mind reading, teleportation, flight, etc exist, they will be almost exclusively in the domain of casters because they're inherently magical. If these things don't exist, then you're no longer dealing with D&D.

But then again, magic items are a thing. Tell your polearm master fighter about a mythical halberd that will let him spring over buildings, and ask him if he feels satisfied when he finds it. Hand a thief some wands and magic items, and watch him use two in one round to do crazy stuff. Tell your moon druid about a mythical phoenix, and see how excited he gets when he finds it, observes it, and can transform into it afterwards.

Don't worry about combat. 5e did a good enough job balancing combat that there aren't many overly broken options. Everyone keeps talking about warlock 2 / sorc x because it's likely the highest damage build that exists in core. But even that build isn't going to do more than 1.5 times anyone's damage normally, except in massive aoe situations where casters always have and always will reign supreme. If you feel like your casters are doing too well compared to your melees, just reduce their opportunities for resting safely and the problem will fix itself.

Outside of combat, don't worry about it. The best RPers are going to have an edge regardless of who can do what. Sure, your conjurers might be conjuring expensive spell components, and you can allow that if you want. But even that isn't going to push them very far ahead until very late levels. You can pretty much fix all of 5e's caster-dominance problems by removing just a handful of spells, mostly high-level, such as simulacrum and wish. That's awesome, especially considering the 4e approach was to take magic away from the casters and turn the martials into weeaboo fightan magic warrior princesses.

{{scrubbed}}

[Cambrian]

EDIT: To everybody else, I urge you to consider that a Fighter has access to many skills, enough feat opportunities to obtain even more, and the best stats possible to ensure good use of combat maneuvers that, when used in concert, can be extremely effective. Outside of combat, Fighters can easily be made competent at a variety of useful skills with a modicum of cleverness. Personally, I think they have the capability to be just as flexible as any other class; you just have to apply the skills you're given with some smart play.While I don't think a Fighter can be as versatile as a Wizard or a Bard playing equally smart, I very much agree that there is plenty of room for fighters to be useful outside of combat. Characters have far more access to skills, and with feats, which the Fighter gets plenty, they can learn all sorts of things including gaining equal access to rituals.

The game also has a DM which can respond to a character that is less involved. All characters come with a background, and unless that character's background was 'everyone I knew was killed in front of me and then I joined the party before meeting anyone else' they will have some past to play with. This is for casters and martial characters alike.

Furthermore, in an edition where one character can not go at it alone, why are we concerned with the abilities of a single character? Given characters have to rely on each other we should be looking at play and seeing if each character class can contribute meaningfully at different times.

Though a wizard is able to cast fly, if they're best off casting it on a fighter then how is that a problem? Versatility is a problem when it is better, not limited, and most importantly makes the more specialized characters not unnecessary but not useful. Casters are not better than martial characters in their roles. A wizard with knock (which is loud) is not going to spend a spell slot when the rogue is there. Many of the spell alternatives to abilities have innate negative consequences to keep them from being better than the nonspell alternatives.

So far most of the problems I've seen in play reports where spells were a problem they were given far more reach than the spell was intended to have. I'm still waiting to experience higher level play and looking to seeing more play reports to see what can be learned.

[Demonicattorney]

I think people are drastically overrating caster power, especially at high levels. Casters are extremely squishy this time around, they don't have stacked, long duration defensive abilities like they used to. They get stoneskin, or protection from energy, or fly, they don't get all of them. Second, look at the high level monsters, look how their saves, their immunities, and their abilities. Magic resistance is among the most common high level abilities. Many monsters posses at least resistance if not immunity to many elemental damage types. Most high CR monsters are too large to be force-caged or wall of forced, or can teleport. Casters are still good at destroying a lot of weaker enemies, but during the epic fights against the high CR enemies, I expect Fighters and Paladins to shine far brighter than the pure casters.

[Person_Man]

My table and theorycrafting experience is that the Fighter works fine for the first five levels or so, but then gets increasingly outpaced by most other classes. Full casters start getting a much wider variety of spells and a lot more of them, Rogue gets Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, Paladin gets Aura of Protection and Aura of Warding, Monk gets Evasion, Diamond Mind, and enough Ki to be useful. Arguably the Fighter is on par with the Ranger or Barbarian.

The Fighter is also just a mechanically boring class to me, in that 90% of the time you are basically just using your Action to make useful but mundane attacks. This was done on purpose by the designers, because apparently there are players who enjoy that style of gameplay.



I think people are drastically overrating caster power, especially at high levels. Casters are extremely squishy this time around, they don't have stacked, long duration defensive abilities like they used to. They get stoneskin, or protection from energy, or fly, they don't get all of them. Second, look at the high level monsters, look how their saves, their immunities, and their abilities. Magic resistance is among the most common high level abilities. Many monsters posses at least resistance if not immunity to many elemental damage types. Most high CR monsters are too large to be force-caged or wall of forced, or can teleport. Casters are still good at destroying a lot of weaker enemies, but during the epic fights against the high CR enemies, I expect Fighters and Paladins to shine far brighter than the pure casters.

Encounters with high level monsters is basically an elaborate game of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock. Yes, high level monsters have many different types of special defenses. But spellcasters have many different options available. They can target any of the six ability score saving throws or armor class, and use any type of damage (Fire, Cold, Necrotic, etc) . They can Conjure or Animate minions. They can use divination to scout their enemies out and prepare as needed. They can use an area of effect spell that can wipe out a mob of mooks in a single Action. They can create illusions to trick their enemies, or control their minds in various ways. And so on.

The gulf between casters and non-casters is not as bad as it was in 1E/2E/3E. But its still there once you get to mid-high levels.

[Fwiffo86]

My table and theorycrafting experience is that the Fighter works fine for the first five levels or so, but then gets increasingly outpaced by most other classes. Full casters start getting a much wider variety of spells and a lot more of them, Rogue gets Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, Paladin gets Aura of Protection and Aura of Warding, Monk gets Evasion, Diamond Mind, and enough Ki to be useful. Arguably the Fighter is on par with the Ranger or Barbarian.

The Fighter is also just a mechanically boring class to me, in that 90% of the time you are basically just using your Action to make useful but mundane attacks. This was done on purpose by the designers, because apparently there are players who enjoy that style of gameplay.




Encounters with high level monsters is basically an elaborate game of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock. Yes, high level monsters have many different types of special defenses. But spellcasters have many different options available. They can target any of the six ability score saving throws or armor class, and use any type of damage (Fire, Cold, Necrotic, etc) . They can Conjure or Animate minions. They can use divination to scout their enemies out and prepare as needed. They can use an area of effect spell that can wipe out a mob of mooks in a single Action. They can create illusions to trick their enemies, or control their minds in various ways. And so on.

The gulf between casters and non-casters is not as bad as it was in 1E/2E/3E. But its still there once you get to mid-high levels.

Let's clarify things a bit: casters have the potential to do all of these things if they have the spell known or in their divine list. Is it possible we stop talking as if all casters have all spells prepared all the time?

[MeeposFire]

Well to be fair you do get a fair number of spells to prepare for most classes that rely on spells and with the new idea of boosting spells by what spell slot you use you don't have to invest in a bunch of high level spells for every situation and instead spread all of those out over a bunch of different leveled spells.

This is not to say that they don't have limits though I also have to say targeting every defense is probably overkill. I would think being able to target say 4 of them would be more than enough. Chances are that one or more of those 4 would be low.

[Shining Wrath]

For combat situations, a high level magic user, by virtue of having a dozen or two spells prepared each day, will probably be able to attack all 6 saving throws and generate most of the various damage types.

This makes the spell caster a solid contributor, not necessarily a "press win button" character.

[Fwiffo86]

For combat situations, a high level magic user, by virtue of having a dozen or two spells prepared each day, will probably be able to attack all 6 saving throws and generate most of the various damage types.

This makes the spell caster a solid contributor, not necessarily a "press win button" character.

25 slots (20 + 5 att mod) is a good selection of spells. Easily targeting each save throw. But I find that a round or two of X spell does not turn the tide sufficiently for level 20 encounters.

[MeeposFire]

Isnt this conversation supposed to be about whether fighters are up to par with other warrior type characters not a conversation about whether they compete with primary casters?

[Demonicattorney]

Actually the point is that people have it wrong. They assume that the martial types are far behind this time around because the game closely resembles 3.5 where that was true. AC matters, HP matters, these things didnt really matter in 3.5. Save or Suck spells last about one round against high CR enemies, if they work at all. Monsters get resaves, many of the harder ones have Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance or immunities, and solid Wisdom and Con saves, good luck holding them down. Most of the save or suck spells require concentration, which not only can be broken, but doesn't allow the caster to have any good defensive magics at the same time. If a Red Dragon breathes on you Wizard, I can guarantee they wont make the Con check to keep if for the next breath weapon.

Seriously, I have played a Wizard for about 5 sessions at lvl 12-17, if you actually follow the concentration rules they are no stronger than the Fighter, and even weaker against the Legendary creatures. I remember being a God in 3.5 this feels nothing like that. You will have to make decisions, about whether you want your defensive spells to lapse to throw that Web or Cloudkill or Wall of Ice because your Stoneskin will lapse and you might fail your Con check because what your fighting does more than 20 damage in a hit, and a DC15 Con save isnt that easy.

[Galen]

Actually the point is that people have it wrong. They assume that the martial types are far behind this time around because the game closely resembles 3.5 where that was true. AC matters, HP matters, these things didnt really matter in 3.5. Save or Suck spells last about one round against high CR enemies, if they work at all. Monsters get resaves, many of the harder ones have Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance or immunities, and solid Wisdom and Con saves, good luck holding them down. Most of the save or suck spells require concentration, which not only can be broken, but doesn't allow the caster to have any good defensive magics at the same time. If a Red Dragon breathes on you Wizard, I can guarantee they wont make the Con check to keep if for the next breath weapon.

Seriously, I have played a Wizard for about 5 sessions at lvl 12-17, if you actually follow the concentration rules they are no stronger than the Fighter, and even weaker against the Legendary creatures. I remember being a God in 3.5 this feels nothing like that. You will have to make decisions, about whether you want your defensive spells to lapse to throw that Web or Cloudkill or Wall of Ice because your Stoneskin will lapse and you might fail your Con check because what your fighting does more than 20 damage in a hit, and a DC15 Con save isnt that easy.
Thank you. I don't have direct experience of 5E high-level play, but those are very encouraging news.

[Fwiffo86]

Actually the point is that people have it wrong. They assume that the martial types are far behind this time around because the game closely resembles 3.5 where that was true. AC matters, HP matters, these things didnt really matter in 3.5. Save or Suck spells last about one round against high CR enemies, if they work at all. Monsters get resaves, many of the harder ones have Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance or immunities, and solid Wisdom and Con saves, good luck holding them down. Most of the save or suck spells require concentration, which not only can be broken, but doesn't allow the caster to have any good defensive magics at the same time. If a Red Dragon breathes on you Wizard, I can guarantee they wont make the Con check to keep if for the next breath weapon.

Seriously, I have played a Wizard for about 5 sessions at lvl 12-17, if you actually follow the concentration rules they are no stronger than the Fighter, and even weaker against the Legendary creatures. I remember being a God in 3.5 this feels nothing like that. You will have to make decisions, about whether you want your defensive spells to lapse to throw that Web or Cloudkill or Wall of Ice because your Stoneskin will lapse and you might fail your Con check because what your fighting does more than 20 damage in a hit, and a DC15 Con save isnt that easy.

Could not have said it better myself. I have had the same experience.

[Demonicattorney]

I guess I should actually talk about fighters relative to other martial classes, they are average, better than a Ranger, worse than a Paladin (though a fighter is better than a second Paladin). Fighters are sort of feat taxed into buying resilient for wisdom saves (there are a ton of fear saves among epic monsters, you need to make them (or have a Paladin). The best thing a Fighter gets is the 3rd Attack (the 4th attack is illusory because you only get to use it for a level). Don't underestimate Second Wind, it puts Fighter HP well above Barb HP and Paladin HP in actual play. People will talk about Barb rage making them better tanks, that is not really true, in most parties. Your Druid, Ranger or Wizard (sometimes Cleric or Bard) will often drop Stoneskin, on the frontliners, making the Fighter a better tank than the Barbarian (bear style excepted). Remember that resistance and advantage can be gained a number of ways, but cannot be stacked, so Barbs are weaker than they appear on paper, and Fighters are stronger. The Fighter will also improve more than other martials with magical gear, attacking 3x with a flametongue sword is far better than attacking twice. What I have found is Paladin>Fighter=Barbarian>Ranger, but I could see Rangers being very good in certain campaign styles.

If you wanted Fighters to be as good as Paladins, just house rule Indomitable into an Auto-Save, which is probably what it should have been anyway (this also has the nice parallelism of giving 17th level Fighters Legendary Resistance).

[Geoff]

Isnt this conversation supposed to be about whether fighters are up to par with other warrior type characters not a conversation about whether they compete with primary casters? What are the other 'martial' characters?

Paladins & Rangers cast spells, Monks & Barbarians have supernatural abilities. The Rogue is more non-combat-skill-based than martial. Heck, a Fighter, the EK, casts spells.

So, as the sole "Martial" class the (non-Eldritch-Knight) Fighter is 'finally up to snuff' with itself? Is that the point?

I still question the "finally."

[MeeposFire]

What are the other 'martial' characters?

Paladins & Rangers cast spells, Monks & Barbarians have supernatural abilities. The Rogue is more non-combat-skill-based than martial. Heck, a Fighter, the EK, casts spells.

So, as the sole "Martial" class the (non-Eldritch-Knight) Fighter is 'finally up to snuff' with itself? Is that the point?

I still question the "finally."

IN previous editions just having spells did not make you not a warrior. Paladins and rangers were explicitly warriors in 2e for instance. I would compare them in particular to those two classes and possibly the monk just because it tends to be a warrior type even if it is a bit different in use. Of course every class will tend towards certain strategies but would you be as happy with a fighter in your party as any of those classes or at least close enough that it does not really matter?

[Doug Lampert]

Actually the point is that people have it wrong. They assume that the martial types are far behind this time around because the game closely resembles 3.5 where that was true. AC matters, HP matters, these things didnt really matter in 3.5. Save or Suck spells last about one round against high CR enemies, if they work at all. Monsters get resaves, many of the harder ones have Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance or immunities, and solid Wisdom and Con saves, good luck holding them down. Most of the save or suck spells require concentration, which not only can be broken, but doesn't allow the caster to have any good defensive magics at the same time. If a Red Dragon breathes on you Wizard, I can guarantee they wont make the Con check to keep if for the next breath weapon.

Seriously, I have played a Wizard for about 5 sessions at lvl 12-17, if you actually follow the concentration rules they are no stronger than the Fighter, and even weaker against the Legendary creatures. I remember being a God in 3.5 this feels nothing like that. You will have to make decisions, about whether you want your defensive spells to lapse to throw that Web or Cloudkill or Wall of Ice because your Stoneskin will lapse and you might fail your Con check because what your fighting does more than 20 damage in a hit, and a DC15 Con save isnt that easy.

Contagion. Takes three rounds of stun for a legendary creature to act again. No concentration required.

One spell, used as intended in a straightforward way, and that legendary dragon is toast against your level 12-17 party.

[Anubis Dread]

Contagion. Takes three rounds of stun for a legendary creature to act again. No concentration required.

One spell, used as intended in a straightforward way, and that legendary dragon is toast against your level 12-17 party.

Actually per twitter that's NOT as intended - as intended the effect doesn't take hold until three saves are failed, rather than forcing three saves and stunning after each one. As written? I honestly couldn't tell you if it's actually parsed this way, but since we have Word Of God this was the way it was intended...

Anyway on topic, fighters are awesome this edition. I played a dex based fighter for a bit, and it was both incredibly fun and effective to throw out a bunch of high damaging attacks. Healing surge was a wonder too, I never felt like I was ever in danger of being knocked out even when everyone else was running on fumes.

...and then he died picking a lock at level 2 when the door was to the tower of a level 16 or so wizard, but that was his own damn fault :smalltongue:. Though the fact he could even attempt to pick the lock because of his background shows how much background can effect a characters utility.

[Demonicattorney]

I love how people point to the spell that is clearly misprinted in order to prove a point. Every single DM or serious player had one look at Contagion or had one player cast it at the table and said, "that doesn't seem right", and never used it subsequently. It was cast at my group's table exactly once.

[pwykersotz]

I love how people point to the spell that is clearly misprinted in order to prove a point. Every single DM or serious player had one look at Contagion or had one player cast it at the table and said, "that doesn't seem right", and never used it subsequently. It was cast at my group's table exactly once.

I'll be honest though, the spell really doesn't read like that. The twitter interpretation makes it run entirely counter to how it reads. Don't get me wrong, I like the twitter interpretation more, but the spell is VERY badly misprinted if that was the intended use all along.

[Galen]

I agree the wording is poor. However accepting the "three rounds of stunning, no save" interpretation as RAW-gospel and actually playing by it - you know, in an actual game with people, not in some theory exercise - is a borderline insanity.

[pwykersotz]

I agree the wording is poor. However accepting the "three rounds of stunning, no save" interpretation as RAW-gospel and actually playing by it - you know, in an actual game with people, not in some theory exercise - is a borderline insanity.

I am in fervent agreement.

[SaintRidley]

It's not really that hard to read the spell as explained. You pick a disease, the baddie makes saves, and if the saves fail "the disease's effects last for the duration" - sounds clearly like the intent is for the effects to take effect after the incubation period represented by three failed saves.

I can see the broken reading if I squint a little, I suppose, and don't read carefully.

[pwykersotz]

It's not really that hard to read the spell as explained. You pick a disease, the baddie makes saves, and if the saves fail "the disease's effects last for the duration" - sounds clearly like the intent is for the effects to take effect after the incubation period represented by three failed saves.

I can see the broken reading if I squint a little, I suppose, and don't read carefully.

Ah, so this is what it feels like to be on this side of the discussion. :smalltongue:

I suppose it's the part where it says:

After failing three of these saving throws, the disease’s effects last for the duration...After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends.

The use of the bolded words as opposed to 'occur for the duration' or 'the creature does not contract the disease' are what throw me. In my mind I have to twist the words to make them read how I see you reading them instead. Ah English, you are a cruel mistress. :smallsmile:

[Cambrian]

I wouldn't be surprised if the DMG contains rules for diseases, including those of contagion, and gives them an incubation period which would put this all into context.