Fighter and Rogue question

[Spacehamster]

Just curious if the playground know why the fighter and the rogue gets more ASI/Feats compared to other classes, just seems bit odd since
unless you go one of the 1/3rd caster subclasses they are not very MAD at all, are they just slightly weaker compared to others and need 2 and 1 ASI´s to compensate?
Thoughts? :)

[MadBear]

Just curious if the playground know why the fighter and the rogue gets more ASI/Feats compared to other classes, just seems bit odd since
unless you go one of the 1/3rd caster subclasses they are not very MAD at all, are they just slightly weaker compared to others and need 2 and 1 ASI´s to compensate?
Thoughts? :)

I think it's mainly to open up the possibility for feats. Since feats add unique features to a class, a fighter can have both high Ability scores, and new interesting class features (Sharp shooter/Sentinel/Pole Arm Master/ Shield Master etc.)

[Grand Warchief]

This is an amusing concept that I have often asked myself as well, because feats are optional. Really makes you wonder if their idea to have feats be optional was an after thought.

[Rad Mage]

I think it might be due to a possible dependency on Ability modifiers in combat. Fighters and rogues don't really have combat options that don't have attack rolls as opposed to many spells.

Throwing a bone to people who honest roll their characters, maybe?

[ChubbyRain]

Just curious if the playground know why the fighter and the rogue gets more ASI/Feats compared to other classes, just seems bit odd since
unless you go one of the 1/3rd caster subclasses they are not very MAD at all, are they just slightly weaker compared to others and need 2 and 1 ASI´s to compensate?
Thoughts? :)

It comes down to a few things but the biggest one is somewhere between laziness and overestimation of their abilities.

Fighters and Rogues don't grow much at all in levels 8-20, they are still playing the same game they were playing at level 3. Casters and partial casters however are now playing a new game called high fantasy. The thought that if you have more ASI/feats then it will equal out was proven to not work in 3.5 but they tried it again with 5e. It has proven yet again that class features are worth more than ASI or Feats.

I say laziness because it is easy to instead of creating an interesting and valanced ability to just throw an ASI or feat at the class and call it a day. They did better in 5e than in 3e but they fell into the same mistakes, thankfully though the new core rules support the fighter and rogue a lot more than they did before.

Do note, I think the rogue up to level 9 is fantastic. Bonus action uses for non-direct damage things and the ability to adapt to situations (how you fight with a rogue) is just great. Past that it is all downhill. Great intentions but bad applications. You are still a low fantasy rogue playing in a high fantasy world.

The three non-caster core classes really got shafted mid to late game. Sure they can deal damage but so can everyone else and everyone else can do other things on top of that. With their own class no less, they don't have to rely on "use the vague and unreliable skill system" to do stuff.

I find it facinating that when given actual class features and nonmagical abilities the fighter jumps from being one of the most hated on classes to top tier. But when they are given lazy class features again (more feats, more ASI, or more attacks) they go right back to being hated on. Not as much, since they can actually fulfill one role but still hated on quite a bit. Maybe the option of giving them class abilities that aren't lazy throw ins is the right answer?

But anyways, if you don't know what to do with a class and you think they a boost to keep up, wotc answer is to throw ASI/feats at them.

To bad the feats that expand options all are hampered by the core rules... But hey! At least the rogue and fighter can do +x more damage!

[MrStabby]

A little less so for the Rogue with cunning action but for the fighter feats make them much more interesting to play. By selecting feats they can have choices of what to do with bonus actions and reactions rather than be stuck in the 1 thing per round monotony.

[Galen]

This is an amusing concept that I have often asked myself as well, because feats are optional. Really makes you wonder if their idea to have feats be optional was an after thought.
"Feats are optional" they say, but we know the truth. In fact the lack of feats is optional. It's an option for people who want to play D&D-lite and not worry about customizing their character. Those are the same people who are unlikely to even notice the difference between 5 ability score increases and 7. So it's all good. Everyone got what they wanted.

[ChubbyRain]

A little less so for the Rogue with cunning action but for the fighter feats make them much more interesting to play. By selecting feats they can have choices of what to do with bonus actions and reactions rather than be stuck in the 1 thing per round monotony.

The problem is, the feats we have now in no way shape or form give the fighter new options in co.vate that make them more effective at new roles.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon both improve on something the fighter can already do. Move and attack.

Polearm and Sentinel have a huge glaring issue that no one talks about. They take your reaction which you get 1 per round. You can't defend with these. And a fighter can already twf or take the twf feat... But again they are just doing the same thing as before... Move, attack, attack.

Some feats like alert/resilent is great for everyone, but doesn't change what the fighter does.

Some feats make the fighter MAD, and if you are taking feats you can't raise your ASI. Actor comes to mind.

Grappler may or may not help... They need to actually read the feat and tell us what it really does because most of it is just garbage. Heavily Armored doesn't change much on a fighter.

Mage Slayer is nice, to bad you have 1 reaction a round and casters have spells that cost actions and bonus actions. Teleportation is a bonus action with misty step and an action with dimensional door... I've seen players take both for situations like this. Mage slayer might be the best reaction feat but after you stop a mage from casting a spell they can just walk away from you. Better hope they didn't have a spell like expeditious retreat up or whatever.

Mounted Combat is nice if you are small and a beast master ranger...

Savage attacker... Meh, you can already do this on 1's and 2's or you are getting a good flat damage of +2. Why take this?

Now there are three feats that are fantastic for fighters and rogues, depending on how you want to build them.

Shield Master: Bonus Action non-direct damage control effect? Yes. The other two points are gravy but will usually be more helpful to a rogue.

Skulker. As a fighter you may not be great at stealth, or you may be good at it. Sure you are no rogue (and really this helps the rogue out more) but when you do have stealth going for you a blown attack roll sucks. It sucks so fricken much. This turns that miss into something that sucks much less... Sure you missed your target but they don't know where you are. Plus you get a vision upgrade if you are a race that doesn't have dark vision... Way to many races may have dark vision.

Tavern Brawler is just as nice, and for similar reasons, as Shield Master. Bonus Action non direct damage control effect? Nice. An effect that the opponent must beat me at my game to get out of? Even nicer. This is perhaps the best feat for a fighter. Improvised weapons can deal as much damage as a normal weapon, this part depends on your DM, sure a glass bottle may break and deal d4 damage but that metal pipe you found will probably deal d8 or d10 damage. Or that door your rogue friend opened by taking the hinges off? Yeah d10 easily. This feat is much better for rogues, d4 improvised shank will give you sneak attack and expertise in athletics will make you full of grapple win.

So really only 3 feats really improve upon the fighter or rogue. The rest add fiddly little things to stuff they can already do or add effects that don't really help you all that much.

Magic Initiate can be nice if you take spells that don't rely on ability scores. But you can't upgrade the first level spell and the cantrips that do anything effective in or out of combat do require ability scores... Except for guidance as guidance is king of the cantrips. I would go for guidance, mending, and... Goodberry. To bad your magic friends have this covered.

[Mara]

It seems like the mundanes get higher stats/feats and more actions than the more magical classes.

Of course you can also just go the archetype that gives you fringing spell casting and take the feat that lets you ritual cast all ritual spells of a particular class.

This is a glorious edition for fighters and rogues. I've only seen one person who thinks otherwise.

[Easy_Lee]

Really, it's to make fighters and rogues more versatile than other classes, to reflect the wide range of fighters and rogues across the world. Other classes are less common and, often, less varied than fighters and rogues. Their extra feats / ASIs allow their mechanics to reflect their iconic verisimilitude.

[Galen]

It seems like the mundanes get higher stats/feats and more actions than the more magical classes.
They need something to compensate for the lack of 9th level spells, you know :smallwink:



This is a glorious edition for fighters and rogues. With that, I whole-heartedly agree.

[Person_Man]

I agree that its basically just laziness and/or a design error.

An Ability Score Increase or Feat is equally useful at level 4 as it is at level 16. Full casters get high level spells. Non-Full Casters mostly just get a replication of their low level abilities.

[ChubbyRain]

This is a glorious edition for fighters and rogues. I've only seen one person who thinks otherwise.

This would be something I could agree with if the only other editions of D&D was 1e, 2e, ToB-less 3e, PF, and 4essentials.

However this opinion falls flat when you take into account Tome of Battle and 4e. The Warblade, Fighter, Rogue and Warlord from those editions make the 5e version look like a commoner.

In a fantasy game everyone who comes to the table should be able to play a fantasy character of their design and be on equal footing. All those editions I listed place such constraints on fighters that as a player you couldn't play your fantasy fighter, you had to play lotr fantasy fighter or none at all.

The rogue in 4e was also awesome. Throwing a hail of weapons (shurikens) that blinded someone for a round? Awesome. If someone threw shurikens at my face I would look away as the shurikens hit me (d&d always takes a hit is not really always a hit), probably for a few seconds as I ponder my life and why I'm in a situation where someone is throwing shurikens at my face.

The inclusions of dailies for martials were weird, no question about that (just like how vancian magic makes no sense either), but the ToB/4e Fighters and Rogues are miles past their 5e counterparts.

Though really the Fighter and Rogue are just the 4essentials fighter and rogue. The rogue got a bit better and a bit worse while the fighter got worse(because he went from top tier damage dealer to middle of the pack damage dealer).

They both get 1 role now, do damage. Everyone gets to do damage about on par with each other (very videogamey eh ;) ) so that's a wash. They don't get anything really unique except move and hit more/harder and defenses (armor or Dex saves/uncanny dodge). The ASIs/feats don't help all that much either.

This edition so far is a wolf in sheep's clothing for Fighters and Rogues.

I'm glad that the rogue is no longer the delegated skill monkey though and cunning action is a great class feature.

The two classes yet again make good to great low level options but past level X they aren't needed.



Really, it's to make fighters and rogues more versatile than other classes, to reflect the wide range of fighters and rogues across the world. Other classes are less common and, often, less varied than fighters and rogues. Their extra feats / ASIs allow their mechanics to reflect their iconic verisimilitude.


The problem is that the ASIs or feats don't allow a fighter or rogue to become more versitile than anyone else.

Not only are there at most 3 feats that give the fighter rogue new things to do effectively but others can capitalize on them as well. Plus the skill system a made in order to say "no" while the spell system is made to say "yes".

No one bats an eye if a fighter can't use intimidate or medicine to do something amazing but as soon as you say its a spell... Well go ahead and auto succeed on that.

The core concept of spells is "yes, this is what you can do" while the skill system is based on "well, maybe you can do it... Maybe, but you know the DM might or might not have a problem with this".

The fighter and rogue have potential versatility while the casters have actual versatility. I don't mean an answer to every question, because neither has that but if I want to make a battlefield controller I won't pick the class that can always only control one or two enemies at a time, but the class that can actually control the battlefield.

Sure casters can do it only X times per day, but the game was made around the casters doing it X times per day. When not using homebrew the casters always have enough juice for the day. And if they run out of juice they have some good cantrips (Frostbite or Eldritch Blast for example) that can still keep up with damage enough and perform battlefield control at range.

[Mara]

@ChubbyRain

You are making mountains out of molehills.

4e is a complete game that you can still play with like minded people.

You are complaining that every class cannot be viable in every role. This is called asymmetrical balance or asymmetrical mechanics. It is a perfectly fine way to make a game. Not every game has to have 4e nearly symmetrical mechanics and balance.

EDIT: Also, lol at your signature. That is not how genres work at all.

[ChubbyRain]

@ChubbyRain

You are making mountains out of molehills.

4e is a complete game that you can still play with like minded people.

You are complaining that every class cannot be viable in every role. This is called asymmetrical balance or asymmetrical mechanics. It is a perfectly fine way to make a game. Not every game has to have 4e nearly symmetrical mechanics and balance.

EDIT: Also, lol at your signature. That is not how genres work at all.

I like the bounded accuracy and use of advantage in 5e, I play systems where I like the rules. I love playing casters but I also love playing non casters. I shouldn't have to be forced to play a different game with different people based on the fact that I choose caster or non-caster. I tend to do a lot of high level one shots, hardly anyone ever brings a non-caster to the game anymore.

It all comes down to laziness though. Instead of making non casters have abilities that allow them to keep up at higher levels.

A fighter doesn't have to be able to do every role at every time. I never have said that so don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is to be able to sit down at a game with friends or strangers and be able to say "I'm making a non-caster who can control the battlefield" or "I'm making a non-caster that can lead my allies into battle". To be effective at high levels and not just be there so my character can be a target. To be a fantasy character.

Full casters can do this (Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard)

Partial/Weird casters are a bit more constrained but can still cover 1 or 2 roles of their choosing.

Non-caster get 1 role. Feats, ASI, and the skill system doesn't change that.

So you can imply that I should shut up or get out of 5e all you want, but I like the core of the system and the casters. I just k ow that if they given the non casters as much time and effort then we could have a game where every class gets to be keep up.


At your edit...

Would you call Eclipse Phase a fantasy game or a science fiction game? You would say science fiction. D&D is just like eclipse phase except replace the science with magic and you have D&D. D&D is a magic fiction game. Sure they are both fantasy games but they have specifics on what type of game they really are.

D&D sells itself as a fantasy game when that is dishonest to itself and to people who buy it. D&D 5e is a magic fiction game. If you have the magic you get to be the fiction, if you don't have magic you get to be the non-fiction.

[Mara]

@ChubbyRain

You state opinions as facts. Those are your opinions. They are not wrong, but your lack of being able to enjoy the non-caster options is primarily a problem of your own perspective, not one of the rules or mechanical balance.

You seem to have a narrow perspective on what counts as controlling the battlefield or leading allies into battle. That is not a 5e problem.

[Vogonjeltz]

Just curious if the playground know why the fighter and the rogue gets more ASI/Feats compared to other classes, just seems bit odd since
unless you go one of the 1/3rd caster subclasses they are not very MAD at all, are they just slightly weaker compared to others and need 2 and 1 ASI´s to compensate?
Thoughts? :)

Mechanically the specific answer is that the additional ASIs occupy slots where other classes have some other class feature:

All classes have ASIs at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th.

Rogue gets one at 10th, other classes gain
Fighter gets one at 6th and 14th.

Other classes at 6th, 10th, and 14th get path specialization features.
So instead of getting a specific path specialization feature there, Fighters and Rogues get better stats and/or a feature of their choice.

If you want to know the reasoning behind this structuring, you're probably out of luck unless the developers are secretly posting here.

[ChubbyRain]

@ChubbyRain

You state opinions as facts. Those are your opinions. They are not wrong, but your lack of being able to enjoy the non-caster options is primarily a problem of your own perspective, not one of the rules or mechanical balance.

You seem to have a narrow perspective on what counts as controlling the battlefield or leading allies into battle. That is not a 5e problem.

No. It is certainly a fact that non casters can not effectively be a battlefield controller, or any other role outside of striker.

We are not talking about ineffective options here.

The only options a non-caster has for battlefield control/defender is

1: Maybe lock down a creature with grapple. I say maybe because the d20 is very swingy. If you are a rogue then one of your skill choices and expertise choices are now locked Into a specific role (and if you want to be effective you ha e be a rogue or use optional rules for MC). Casters hit multiple creatures at once and can target specific saves (entangle, evards, or hold person) or no saves at all (walls/fog).

2: Use your reaction to make OA. Sorry but unless you are a rogue then your OA damage does not scare higher CR creatures from walking right past you. And even if you are a rogue against high number of low CR creatures... Once you use said reaction once the rest of the monsters can walk right to the ones you are "defending".

3: Use your reaction for a special defense/control mechanism (defense fighting style, pole arm feat, sentinel feat) which again at level 1 and at level 20 you can only do this 1/round. Once you use up your reaction your ability to be a defender or controller becomes 0.

The facts are, the rules do not allow for noncasters to be effective at anything other than direct damage no matter what options you take, unless you become a caster. Even when you specialize via rogue, you are still hampered by the rules in ways that partial/weird casters and full casters are not.

[Mara]

@ChubbyRain

Mundanes only do damage?
What are skills then? What are maneuvers, shoves, and grapples? What are those defensive class features?

It's amazing that you brought up 2 and then mentioned the sentinel feat in 3.

Maybe you can rephrase you complaint, because all I am interpreting from your statements is anger that mundanes can't essentially cast spells with it flavored as martial power.

You could do that with DM permission. Make a blade warlock who made a pact with the Joestar family spirit, therefore all his powers are technically martial arts.

[Wartex1]

Mundanes specialize in skills.

Playing a Mundane is all about thinking. Realize what tools you have. Understand what you can do with them. Sure, a Wizard could fireball a group of goblins, but a Fighter could collapse the ceiling above the Goblins. A Wizard probably wouldn't have the strength or skills to do so. You have to think about how you're fighting.

[Shining Wrath]

And after due deliberation, I just added chubbyrain to my ignore list. I'm tired of every discussion of fighters becoming a duel between c.rain and others as he or she is refuted in excruciating detail and keeps arguing.

[Submortimer]

Ugh. This again.

You know what I thought was awesome? Tome of Battle. I freaking LOVED that book. I immediately got rid of Fighters and Paladins from every 3.5 game I play after that, and replaced them with Warblades and Crusaders.

You know what else I like? Fighters and paladins in 5e.

You know what's not going to change? The stuff that's printed in the book.

[SharkForce]

Mundanes specialize in skills.

Playing a Mundane is all about thinking. Realize what tools you have. Understand what you can do with them. Sure, a Wizard could fireball a group of goblins, but a Fighter could collapse the ceiling above the Goblins. A Wizard probably wouldn't have the strength or skills to do so. You have to think about how you're fighting.

the caster can summon strong things. the fighter is generally quite lacking in the means to duplicate high level spells, however.

casters are perfectly capable of thinking, too, and have more tools available to get creative with.

[Wartex1]

Let's say there's a boulder on a cliff which can crush a troop of kobolds.

A Wizard could expend one of his precious spells in order to move it, but the Fighter could push it no problem, due to his high ability scores and wider set of skills.

[SharkForce]

Let's say there's a boulder on a cliff which can crush a troop of kobolds.

A Wizard could expend one of his precious spells in order to move it, but the Fighter could push it no problem, due to his high ability scores and wider set of skills.

the wizard could expend a spell, sure. or, the wizard could summon a bunch of creatures, have them push the boulder as well or better than the fighter (considering the size of boulder you'd need to move to actually crush a troop of kobolds, you're unlikely to budge it with a single person whether their strength is 8 or 20), and the spell still has an hour duration left on it for the wizard to do whatever else he wants, including mop-up operations on any kobolds that avoid the trap, and possibly fighting in several more encounters if they survive. thus gaining the full benefit without truly expending any spells on that task at all, because he lost none of its effectiveness.

at higher levels, the wizard may even just have a minion hanging around from a planar binding spell that was cast several weeks ago, and doesn't even need to cast anything at all.

or, for that matter, the wizard could just have a peasant follow him around that he pays to carry a torch, and offer him an extra gold for the day if he'll push the boulder down the hill.

wizards can access high strength without a fighter. if that is the only benefit the fighter brings to the table, then there is a problem.

[Wartex1]

I doubt a commoner would have a Strength of 20.

Also, the Fighter has proficiencies that the summoned creatures don't have, and summoning a creature expends a spell slot. Also, the fighter could take care of the leftover Kobolds as well. Same with hiring a commoner. That fighter might also be the only thing standing between a Storm Giant and the squishy Wizard, and I'm fairly certain the Fighter would last a bit longer.

[SharkForce]

really? the fighter is somehow miraculously guaranteed to have proficiencies that the summoned creature guaranteed does not have? that's truly remarkable. do tell, precisely where is this class feature of the fighter? i can't quite seem to recall it being in the version of the books that i've read.

the fighter may or may not last longer as well, depending on what i've summoned. i might have summoned something with immunity to normal weapons, or immunity to poison, or immunity to the element of damage which an enemy primarily deals. but who cares if it lasts longer, i just need it to last long enough to deal with it. if necessarily, i can expend *two* of last week's spell slots instead of one to also have a good DPR creature, or maybe even three or four, and who cares, because they're last week's spells slots and money isn't good for anything other than flushing down the toilet anyways.

(and if the high level wizard is faced with a single storm giant, then it is quite possible that the wizard will shortly have a new storm giant friend who can help with strength checks far better than the fighter could have).

strength checks simply do not compete with high level spells in the default system. unless your DM has basically ruled that DC 30 skill checks can literally accomplish things that are truly impossible (piledriving an enemy so hard they are buried, hiding in your own shadow, or talking a giant into disembowling itself to prove how tough it is, for example), in which case fighters still suck (as do wizards, admittedly) on the basis that they are neither rogues nor bards, which get free unlimited use wish spells for all intents and purposes.

[Wartex1]

A lot of monsters don't have skill proficiencies, and summoned monsters that actually obey you can't be higher than CR9. That's casting a 9th-level spell

Fighters, unlike monsters, gain access to useful and active skill proficiencies (Athletics is going to be a lot more applicable than Religion), and with more ASI, are bound to have higher ability scores and feats. You know what else a fighter would have?

Magic items.

This isn't 3.5.

EDIT: Also, if you're trying to be smug, at least use proper grammar. Your lack of capitalization is eye-crippling.

[SharkForce]

so, just to be clear... your position is that summoned monsters can't have athletics proficiency (which is the only one you've mentioned fighters as having), that CR 9 monsters cannot be tough or deal damage, that monsters cannot have higher attributes than your attribute-capped fighter, and that having magic items is somehow a class feature of fighters which nobody else could possibly have, then?

because if not, i'm not seeing how you've refuted the usefulness of summoned creatures relative to what a high-level fighter brings to a party.

this is not to say that what a level 20 fighter brings is useless, or that they might as well not show up. you're right. this isn't 3.5, and they can do useful things. the problem is that the useful things they can do are not particularly unique, and can be replaced by any number of other things (though at least not without *some* sacrifice typically being required). given a choice between adding a level 6 paladin and a level 20 fighter to the party, it's a hard choice... there's lots of ways to deal damage (perhaps not quite as well as the fighter, but still, even the paladin will bring a significant portion of the DPR the fighter would bring), there are almost no ways to give a sizable stacking bonus to saving throws, plus the paladin can heal. given a choice between a level 20 fighter or a level 20 paladin, it isn't even close. i'll take the paladin every time (unless he's lawful stupid, but that's not a problem with paladins, that's a problem with the player). at level 1, fighters bring enough to contribute fairly equally. caster resources are extremely limited, and their DPR is quite poor. at level 5, fighters are still quite good. caster resources have improved, but they still don't have encounter-ending powers and the fighter's superior DPR is still very valuable. at level 10, it's starting to get a bit murky... fighters still contribute excellent DPR... just like they did at level 1. and they're still fairly tough, just like they were at level 1. unfortunately, whereas at level 1 their DPR and nova are enough to keep them a primary target, and so their inability to stop more than one monster (if even that, it's kinda dependant on feats rather than any class feature) from ignoring them entirely starts to become a problem. mostly because casters are starting to get abilities that change the course of an entire fight. at level 15, casters are up to level 8 spells and some of them can literally copy all of the fighter's class features into a disposable minion. the fighter is still tough, still does good DPR, and still can only force one monster to not ignore them. you still aren't going to get better DPR into a single package for the most part, but it's getting a lot less impressive. other classes bring DPR that is almost as good, but offer a heck of a lot more than just DPR. by level 20, well... still good DPR (basically best in the game for the most part really). still tough. still only able to lock down one creature, if that. they have no features that let their innate toughness really come to the forefront, because they have nothing that makes them be a target, and again, the casters have been improving in their abilities to the point where they can now throw around encounter-ending abilities several times a day. per caster.

the rogue at least is in much better shape. still brings DPR, and toughness (honestly, imo in some ways better than what the fighter has in toughness). but they also bring skills. in fact, they are far better at skills than the fighter. they get more skills, they're better at the skills they have, and they get more skills to choose from, plus frequently class features they can synergize with those skills.

the extra ASIs are nice. fighters are much better off than they were in 3.x as well. but no, they are not the equal of a high-level caster of any flavour.

[Mara]

I would take the level 20 fighter over he level 6 paladin every time. That is not close.

I just read through both classes word by word. Between a level 20 paladin or a level 20 fighter, then one I would prefer in the party depends entirely on party composition. If we already have the support role thoroughly covered, give me the fighter. If we don't have the support role covered, give me the paladin.

I would not think that either would need to be carried or is only viable with the correct kit of party buff spells.

[SharkForce]

okay then. explain to me what there is that a level 20 fighter brings to the party that could not be replaced by a caster spending a few spell slots from a week ago to summon a few powerful minions.

because i can tell you right now, the level 20 paladin is bringing up to +5 to the saving throws of everyone standing near him, has more powerful opportunity attacks, deals similar (but slightly lower) sustained DPR, is about equal in toughness, powerful nova damage, healing, whatever utility their spells offer after blowing some on smite, and more depending on archetype. i don't care if i do have support covered already, the paladin covers 90% of what the fighter does (including athletics checks) and then *adds* support to that with all their spells, auras, and healing. the paladin is no better at keeping enemies from walking past and hitting the squishies (well, ok, slightly better; higher damage on opportunity attacks, after all), but at least he has healing he can distribute to keep the squishies alive when they do get hit. meanwhile, the fighter can heal himself, except there's little need to because he's the lowest threat target with the highest defense, which puts him at the bottom of the priority list for anything intelligent. his DPR is higher than everyone else's, but DPR ends combats after spending a bunch of actions on it (and after letting the enemy act for the majority of that time). high level spells properly used tend to end fights immediately, before the enemy gets to use their actions to do anything to you (or, at the very least, to make the value of the enemy's actions drop to near zero).

a level 20 fighter can contribute, but does not contribute anything particularly special. his DPR is higher, but not that much higher than several other classes that bring a lot more other things to the table. his toughness is high, but largely irrelevant because it's hard to leverage it. his utility is primarily limited to skill selections and attributes which anyone can have. he isn't useless, but the situations where it is better to have a fighter than any other class are few and far between.

[silveralen]

High level fighter nova can match/beat paladin nova so it's weird you mention it for paladin and not fighter (even more true if you are battlemaster). Battle master can also offer some buffing/debuff/support stuff, usually of different nature than paladin. Moving or granting teammates attacks, giving advantage, moving enemies about, etc. He doesn't have quite as many such abilities as a full caster (and some don't scale well like rally) but with 6 short rest dice he can keep up with paladin generally, plus have better action economy generally.

Really, manuevers vs paladin spells are generally a trade off between duration and economy. A paladin buff lasts for a combat but takes up a full turn. A fighter buff/debuff might only have an impact on one round but uses up potentially no extra time, or a bare third/fourth of a turn. In 4e that'd be bad, because long combats. In 5e, where even deadly encounters can end in 4-5 rounds, this tradeoff can be beneficial as it helps front load damage from fighter and his teammates.

Now, one thing that should have been a bigger factor but, for some reason, wasn't is multiple attacks+marking. If marking was in the PHB instead of tucked away in the back of the DMG those extra attacks would suddenly be so much better, as would the ability to grab things like sentinel. That is my biggest complaint.

[SharkForce]

fighter nova is pretty big. so is paladin nova. if the fighter nova is slightly stronger, that's nice and all, but it still isn't going to end the encounter. it'll deal lots of damage, which is helpful (far more so than 3.x where enemies could easily be killed regardless of their health), but ultimately, it's still not paralyzing half a dozen enemies or turning them to your side or sending them to the plane of fire where they will burn to death, which are the kind of things a caster can do.

and actually, plenty of paladin buffs or debuffs use a bonus action to cast, so no it isn't taking a full round. particularly since their auras are always on and cost no actions whatsoever, meaning the paladin is giving buffs that will last the entire fight just by existing. as an added bonus, that also means that the paladin didn't just give up 100% of his buffing, debuffing, and utility power until the next short rest to pull off a nova.

[silveralen]

fighter nova is pretty big. so is paladin nova. if the fighter nova is slightly stronger, that's nice and all, but it still isn't going to end the encounter. it'll deal lots of damage, which is helpful (far more so than 3.x where enemies could easily be killed regardless of their health), but ultimately, it's still not paralyzing half a dozen enemies or turning them to your side or sending them to the plane of fire where they will burn to death, which are the kind of things a caster can do.

and actually, plenty of paladin buffs or debuffs use a bonus action to cast, so no it isn't taking a full round. particularly since their auras are always on and cost no actions whatsoever, meaning the paladin is giving buffs that will last the entire fight just by existing. as an added bonus, that also means that the paladin didn't just give up 100% of his buffing, debuffing, and utility power until the next short rest to pull off a nova.

Paralyzing half a dozen enemies for a turn isn't going to end an encounter either though. Sure, gives your team a nice initial advantage, but it won't end it outright. I mean, paralyzing half a dozen is pretty optimistic at high levels regardless. Hold monster with a DC 19 will still struggle to grab multiple, demons, devils, celestials, elementals, or dragons of that CR. Undead are immune. You can get giants though, but only through cr 8/9, storm giants and cloud giants have pretty good wis saves. By high levels most of the stuff in the MM will shrug of this sort of spell fairly consistently.

Turning half a dozen to your side? I don't even know what spell does that. Mass suggestion maybe with a really liberal DM? Still have the same problem as hold monster with the added issue of immunity to charm being very common at said levels. Dominate person/monster is single target with advantage to resist in combat, so that's basically just wasting your turn the majority of the time. Sending them to the plane of fire is right out, plane shift is single target when used offensively.

I think you have a very unrealistic idea of what casters can do this edition.

*looks through paladin list* Compelled duel and shield of faith are the only two buff spells that are BA. He has a couple smites that have debuff riders, but they still take concentration and save each turn, meaning these are mostly 1-2 turn debuffs in the same vein as the maneuvers.

[Mara]

Apparently we are not allowed to talk about eldritch guardian...

Well anywho, battle master does some neat things, but if we really want to talk about DPR, that would be a champion, who at this level frigging regens up to half health. 18-20 crit range is pretty devastating.

If you ignore the champion AND give him free OAs you're going to die pretty quickly (9 attacks per round), at least faster than the casters you are going after. If you target the Champion, he is going to shrug off lots of damage and makes sticking a spell effect fairly hard.

Now that is assuming the champion doesn't just grapple you and bash your face in or doesn't just shove you down when you try to run past him.

The paladin is a fine class, but let's not pretend that a level 20 fighter is anything short of a complete monster. Indomitable is just a slightly nerfed legendary ability.

[silveralen]

Apparently we are not allowed to talk about eldritch guardian...

Yes, eldirtch knight doesn't count as a fighter because fighters have to be martial non casters. EK is some sort of really heavily altered wizard subclass that got stuck in on the fighter page to avoid reprinting abilities.

At least, that seems to be the logic people have. Baffles me.

[SharkForce]

so pick spells with different saves that your enemies are not so good at based on what you're fighting. hold monster is one of about 20 spells a high level caster can have access to.

not every spell will be the solution to every fight. but with good choices, you can pick spells that will together allow you to massively swing in your favour almost any fight. with the new elemental spells available, for example, druids (and/or bards) have a fair shot at locking down several targets at a time using bones of the earth, unless they have a good dex save. whirlwind can do the same thing for several other types of caster, though it requires concentration (but then, it also deals a decent chunk of damage). with a good illusion, you can keep other enemies occupied. and so on.

(also, even a mere 50% success rate on mass suggestion can get you half a dozen creatures on your side).

and i'll still take a paladin's support over a fighter's any day. the paladin auras alone are worth more than everything the fighter can offer combined in terms of support, and the paladin's DPR and nova isn't very far behind the fighter.

edit: champion is not attacking 9 times per round. he's doing that twice per short rest. that's it. even with that, he's dealing about 100 DPR to an AC 19 target (yes, that even includes crits and feats), which is nice and all, but depending on target may not even kill one. he can stop precisely *one* creature from walking right past him, which is better than zero but no better than what the paladin can do. his indomitable is sorta decent for himself (until it runs out, or unless he just doesn't have a good chance to make the save in the first place), and does absolutely nothing for anyone else in the party. and you can feel free to talk about the eldritch knight all you want. from what i can tell, it's the least popular of the fighter archetypes, but hey, if you think it's going to outperform the paladin in terms of protecting the rest of the party, feel free to demonstrate their awesome power. but if you can prove that a nerfed version of 1/3 caster progression operating on what is likely a low caster attribute is so strong, what do you think that says about full caster progression backed by the caster attribute being the primary one?

[Mara]

"in terms of support"

Well no **** sherlock. Fighters are the kings of damage. If they were better support than a paladin then that would be unbalanced.

Say it with me, "Asymmetrical Mechanics, Asymmetrical Balance".

Fighters aren't going to have paladin auras and they aren't going to be full casters, and that is fine. Fighters don't have to do everything and fill every role and concept to be balanced.

[silveralen]

so pick spells with different saves that your enemies are not so good at based on what you're fighting. hold monster is one of about 20 spells a high level caster can have access to.

not every spell will be the solution to every fight. but with good choices, you can pick spells that will together allow you to massively swing in your favour almost any fight. with the new elemental spells available, for example, druids (and/or bards) have a fair shot at locking down several targets at a time using bones of the earth, unless they have a good dex save. whirlwind can do the same thing for several other types of caster, though it requires concentration (but then, it also deals a decent chunk of damage). with a good illusion, you can keep other enemies occupied. and so on.

So, you have what, 2-3 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells know each of which you use once a day? Even then you'll better have one 6th/7th level spell for every save if you want to eb able to target at the drop of a hat. that's ignoring the fact most of these spells do target wis, con and dex, with wis being the one predominate to the type of effects you mention. Oh, and the fact half these monstrs have magic resistance, multiple condition immunities, and all round strong saves by mid-high CR.

Whirlwind requires two consecutive failed saves, one dex and one strength (I actually looked, not a single monster seems to have both low str and dex past mid CR), while bones of the earth can't even target large or larger creatures.

The sort of thing you describe isn't happening this edition currently. It just isn't. Casters are not as strong as you think.

[SharkForce]

"in terms of support"

Well no **** sherlock. Fighters are the kings of damage. If they were better support than a paladin then that would be unbalanced.

Say it with me, "Asymmetrical Mechanics, Asymmetrical Balance".

Fighters aren't going to have paladin auras and they aren't going to be full casters, and that is fine. Fighters don't have to do everything and fill every role and concept to be balanced.

they're king of damage by a tiny amount, yes. the top-tier fighter can do something around 50 DPR. the paladin is something like 45. oh wow, your +10% DPR is so awe-inspiring and is clearly worth the massive amount of utility that several other classes bring to the table while nearly equalling your DPR. great balance, there.

asymmetrical balance doesn't work when everyone else is also really good at the only thing you're good at, *and* can do other things.

@silveralen: conveniently, everyone casts spontaneously. if i have a level 6 spell that targets dex, i *do* have one of each level from 6-9. if i have a level 1 spell that targets will, i have that spell from levels 1-9. so ummm... no, it really isn't that difficult to keep them handy at all. in fact, it's quite easy, and only gets easier as i gain levels. my apologies about whirlwind, i read it wrong... but then so did you. it doesn't require that they fail a dex and a str save. the dex is for damage. the str is for being restrained inside the whirlwind and lifted up. so yeah, as far as the CC portion is concerned, purely a str save, not dex and str. (it *is* dex or str to escape, but it's a check, not a save - typically no proficiency bonus - and it will be at disadvantage... so still not that easy).

again, all i have to do is target the weak save. and if they don't have one, i'd STILL rather have ANY of the other DPR classes than fighter, because they all do great DPR and something more (even if it isn't much more, it's still more than the fighter).

[Mara]

I honestly doubt your math. Compare actual Fighter damage in an actual campaign to other PCs and then tell me how close the damage is.

[Shining Wrath]

I see lots of theorycraft debates about Fighters.

I see very few threads "I played a Fighter, I was disappointed, I asked my DM if I could play something else". It appears practice is not matching one side of the theory.

[SharkForce]

I honestly doubt your math. Compare actual Fighter damage in an actual campaign to other PCs and then tell me how close the damage is.

if you doubt the math for sustained DPR, then prove it wrong. if you can't prove it wrong, well then, maybe you should stop doubting it.

let's ignore hit chance, style bonus, weapon damage, critical chance, etc for a moment (unless you're a champion, those are all going to be identical anyways if using the same build). the fighter has 4 attacks at W + 5 damage, or 4W + 20 for the round. the paladin has 2 attacks at W + 5 + 2d8 damage, or 2W + 10 + 4d8 (average 18) for the round.

so the fighter's average weapon damage minus 8 is going to be the difference, multiplied by how often they hit. even assuming a 2d6 weapon, you're looking at 6 points. *before* factoring in how often you hit (that is, it will get smaller).

if both find some way to get a bonus action attack (which they probably should), it gets even closer. (though to be fair, if you add in GWM, it gets larger again... but hit chance reduces the impact of the difference, and the paladin benefits disproportionately more from crits which reduces it a bit again).

even when you compare to the champion, where the crit difference is greatest, it's not that huge of a difference. fighter does more DPR. but it really isn't that much more than other similar non-fighter builds that it leaves them in the dust. both of them beat the pants (err... robes?) off a wizard in DPR, but then again, the wizard's nova just might be "i win".

[JNAProductions]

This was brought up a bit ago and I made a thread about it. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?406018-Playing-As-A-Martial-Class

It's about how much fun a Fighter actually is, ignoring all the theorycrafting about caster supremacy. Figured it'd be worth a look-through to anyone reading this thread as well.

As for the "I win" nova, which spells do that? Because chances are, they aren't quite that good except under optimal circumstances.

[Galen]

both of them beat the pants (err... robes?) off a wizard in DPR, but then again, the wizard's nova just might be "i win".
The wizard's nova might very well be "I win this encounter". And what's he going to do when the next encounter rolls along? And the next, and the next, and the next ... the fighter never runs out of sword.

[SharkForce]

The wizard's nova might very well be "I win this encounter". And what's he going to do when the next encounter rolls along? And the next, and the next, and the next ... the fighter never runs out of sword.

that's nice. the game is balanced around a day where the high level full caster never runs out of "i win", and ultimately the fighter runs out of "not dead" just like everyone else, so he still has to stop.

and for that matter, paladins, rogues, and monks also never run out of sword (or equivalent). but they also do a hell of a lot more besides just never running out of sword.

[Galen]

that's nice. the game is balanced around a day where the high level full caster never runs out of "i win", and ultimately the fighter runs out of "not dead" just like everyone else, so he still has to stop.A caster on most levels only has 1-2 spell slots of his highest level, and same of his next-highest level. Those are his "i win" buttons, and maybe not even then. Depends on circumstances, luck of the saving throw, etc. The rest of his spells are his "I'm contributing" buttons.

[SharkForce]

you can change the face of a fight from challenging to trivial with the right spell. the right spell is not always your highest level one, however. no, you won't use a level 9 spell on every single fight you come across. but that's fine. at the right time, even a level 1 or 2 spell can be your "i win" button, though that is certainly more rare at level 20 than it would be at level 3.

[silveralen]

you can change the face of a fight from challenging to trivial with the right spell. the right spell is not always your highest level one, however. no, you won't use a level 9 spell on every single fight you come across. but that's fine. at the right time, even a level 1 or 2 spell can be your "i win" button, though that is certainly more rare at level 20 than it would be at level 3.

You see, stuff like the lvl 1/2 spell bit is the point where I give up trying to get through to you. That's just not true. Nothing you've said about caster power is remotely true. You vastly overestimate the breadth and depth of the spells available to them, the variety of spells of that purpose and power is simply not what you claim, and no you won't trivialize a lvl 20 CR encounter with a lvl 2 spell unless you are talking about clever usages that depend on DM fiat as anyone can do such things with DM fiat and a justification fitting to their class.

[Shining Wrath]

You see, stuff like the lvl 1/2 spell bit is the point where I give up trying to get through to you. That's just not true. Nothing you've said about caster power is remotely true. You vastly overestimate the breadth and depth of the spells available to them, the variety of spells of that purpose and power is simply not what you claim, and no you won't trivialize a lvl 20 CR encounter with a lvl 2 spell unless you are talking about clever usages that depend on DM fiat as anyone can do such things with DM fiat and a justification fitting to their class.

Still waiting for the "I played a Fighter and couldn't contribute" thread by someone with actual in-game experience.

[Mara]

fighter has 4 attacks at W + 5 damage, or 4W + 20 for the round.

Oh look 4e damage notation.
That explains a lot.

Sorry not every game has nearly symmetrical mechanics.

Also paladin damage is just 2 attacks. Divine smite and spells cost resources. So yeah fighter pulls WAY ahead. Paladin damage boost are per long rest. Fighter damage boost are per short rest.

[SharkForce]

Oh look 4e damage notation.
That explains a lot.

Sorry not every game has nearly symmetrical mechanics.

Also paladin damage is just 2 attacks. Divine smite and spells cost resources. So yeah fighter pulls WAY ahead. Paladin damage boost are per long rest. Fighter damage boost are per short rest.

news flash: that is also a means of representing the mathematical concept of a variable number, and has been for many years more than it was ever a thing in 4th edition D&D. as is traditional, i chose a letter that is related to what i'm representing. it could have been X, or pi, or theta, but i figured it made a lot more sense to pick one that people will recognize.

in point of fact, i didn't particularly like 4th edition. it didn't feel like D&D to me. on the other hand, it did a very good job of balancing things.... it was, in fact, a very good game. it just wasn't the game i was looking for.

in any event, i was afb and was off on the value of their improved smite... it should have been 1d8 per attack (which a level 20 paladin gets absolutely free, no spell slots required). which does drop their damage slightly... and still, by the time you've multiplied through their hit chance, leaves them within about 5 points of where a fighter of equivalent build would be.

as to level 1 spells that change an encounter from challenging to trivial, against enemies with low strength entangle is a pretty good example. faerie fire against enemies that rely on being invisible. fear is not level 1 (it's level 3) but is still a good example of a low-level spell that can make a tough encounter, even at high levels, easy, by simply causing half of the enemies to run away (about what you'd expect for enemies with a +9 to save. plus, in addition to burning actions on running and not defending themselves, they drop anything... so possibly no weapons when they come back). heat metal against certain opponents. hypnotic pattern is another level 3 spell, but again, good example of a low level spell that can massively turn the tides of a fight (again, even if half save, and the other half shake them out of it, you've just taken what you have described as a 4-5 turn fight and taken away an entire enemy turn). phantasmal force is a great one against an individual creature with a poor int save. for a poison-focused enemy, protection from poison is a huge difference. protection from evil and good on someone with a poor wisdom save can keep them from being turned against you by a vampire, which is pretty freaking huge. in a tight space, shield of faith on a high-AC ally can make them almost impervious to attack rolls (especially if they dodge) while those behind do something about the attacking melee enemies from almost total safety (combine with wind wall for total immunity to ranged attacks, if available and necessary). silence on an otherwise immobilized enemy can prevent them from casting spells, which can be the difference between them being about as useful as a commoner, or being able to kill people with a single word. warding bond is yet another good spell to make a doorstop better at being a doorstop. web can do the same (and contrary to what you seem to think, having a good dexterity save does not mean the spell will fail; a +11 means that almost half of the targets will fail, and can only escape by spending actions to make strength checks, which they likely are not proficient in). wind wall is another level 3 spell, but can make you immune to normal ranged attacks and many gas attacks.

but of course, i'm sure minor things like those never turned any fight around from difficult to easy. it's not like having people fail the saving throw against a vampire's charm ever resulted in a TPK or anything, right?

[silveralen]

That sounds great until you actually look at high level stat blocks. Seriously, at high levels most enemies have legendary saves or magic resistance (or both for that double dosage of screw you). Many of them have teleports, and legendary actions to boot even if such spells do go through. They have spells of their own, condition immunities, and bonus/reaction abilities. You might be able to buy a turn for half of them, but that requires you to be familiar with the stat blocks and too metagame a bit (depending on your table, that may stop working eventually).

Even then, you know what that won't actually do? Win the fight. Those sort of spells on high level monsters are delaying tactics. You are spending turns and resources for other players to deal damage, because such spells aren't winning them without someone to beat on them during this period. Which is exactly why you need damage dealers still, because cantrip damage (excepting warlock) isn't really going to cut it when half your group is tossing disables that rarely last more than a single turn (and may not fully disable so much as slightly limit).

Sure you could just try more casters, but man you are draining your spell slots heavily there. Casters don't do well in battles of attrition which is exactly what such spells turn them into. It's making fights lasts longer, thus forcing casters to use more slots and fewer cantrips. I mean, web and fear aren't actually going to boost the raw damage of your attacks much (just advantage). Now, that'd be another story if you had a power attacking archer/great weapon user.

One or two characters tossing such spells works if you have some muscle to back them up. Trying to have everyone do that? It won't work. All muscle tends to have the opposite problem, relying on decapitory strikes to mitigate damage. It works best with both.

[Logosloki]

Yes, eldirtch knight doesn't count as a fighter because fighters have to be martial non casters. EK is some sort of really heavily altered wizard subclass that got stuck in on the fighter page to avoid reprinting abilities.

At least, that seems to be the logic people have. Baffles me.

The only problem I have had with the EK and the AT are that both sub-classes could probably do with an actual spell list rather than "these two schools plus what you want at level 8,12,16". I put the fact that they don't have spell lists to laziness and an overzealous page budget.

Also, they could of made them 2/5ths casters rather than 1/3 casters so that they could unlock a whopping one more fourth level slot. Then again I think all non-full casters are kinda under-tuned (here's looking at you ranger, back to being magical and one with nature but no ritual caster because otherwise they might as well have baked ritual caster into spellcaster).

[silveralen]

The only problem I have had with the EK and the AT are that both sub-classes could probably do with an actual spell list rather than "these two schools plus what you want at level 8,12,16". I put the fact that they don't have spell lists to laziness and an overzealous page budget.

Also, they could of made them 2/5ths casters rather than 1/3 casters so that they could unlock a whopping one more fourth level slot. Then again I think all non-full casters are kinda under-tuned (here's looking at you ranger, back to being magical and one with nature but no ritual caster because otherwise they might as well have baked ritual caster into spellcaster).

EK is problematic due to the lack of coherency between his spell list, subclass abilities, and what he actually needs.

What the class could actually use is buffs, utility spells, and AoE.

What his spell list gives him is AoE that is barely better than just hitting multiple enemies with his sword (it just scales too slowly comapred to the main class), and extremely limited access to buffing and utility.

His subclass abilities push him towards single target damage and single target disables. Except his main class abilities do the first about as well as his subclass abilities, and he lacks many disable spells.

It isn't bad, mainly because you can cherry pick enough spells to keep things working, but you very much feels like you are working against the class at times.

It wouldn't be hard to improve it though. A focus on buff spells over evocation spells plus subclass abilities tied into maintaining spells better. Or drop most of the subclass abilities and just speed up spell gain so the AoE spells lag less. The current subclass abilities actually look more suited towards a wizard who wants to be more like a fighter than they do a fighter with spell casting.

[Mara]

Also, they could of made them 2/5ths casters rather than 1/3 casters so that they could unlock a whopping one more fourth level slot. .

Um no, EK is a 1/3 caster that rounds up. This can "hurt" them in multiclassing.

[Maxilian]

Just curious if the playground know why the fighter and the rogue gets more ASI/Feats compared to other classes, just seems bit odd since
unless you go one of the 1/3rd caster subclasses they are not very MAD at all, are they just slightly weaker compared to others and need 2 and 1 ASI´s to compensate?
Thoughts? :)

Most likely to give them more options with the feats, because they are one of the less versatile classes (because of the lack of spells) -the extra ASI give them more versatility-

[SharkForce]

That sounds great until you actually look at high level stat blocks. Seriously, at high levels most enemies have legendary saves or magic resistance (or both for that double dosage of screw you). Many of them have teleports, and legendary actions to boot even if such spells do go through. They have spells of their own, condition immunities, and bonus/reaction abilities. You might be able to buy a turn for half of them, but that requires you to be familiar with the stat blocks and too metagame a bit (depending on your table, that may stop working eventually).

Even then, you know what that won't actually do? Win the fight. Those sort of spells on high level monsters are delaying tactics. You are spending turns and resources for other players to deal damage, because such spells aren't winning them without someone to beat on them during this period. Which is exactly why you need damage dealers still, because cantrip damage (excepting warlock) isn't really going to cut it when half your group is tossing disables that rarely last more than a single turn (and may not fully disable so much as slightly limit).

Sure you could just try more casters, but man you are draining your spell slots heavily there. Casters don't do well in battles of attrition which is exactly what such spells turn them into. It's making fights lasts longer, thus forcing casters to use more slots and fewer cantrips. I mean, web and fear aren't actually going to boost the raw damage of your attacks much (just advantage). Now, that'd be another story if you had a power attacking archer/great weapon user.

One or two characters tossing such spells works if you have some muscle to back them up. Trying to have everyone do that? It won't work. All muscle tends to have the opposite problem, relying on decapitory strikes to mitigate damage. It works best with both.

that's a nice sentiment, except that at higher levels you can summon DPR. potentially using spell slots from quite some time ago (finger of death zombies, planar binding, possibly even creatures summoned through a glyph of warding or mercenaries gained using a mass suggestion spell). so the all-caster team is perfectly capable of having DPR also, at high levels. level 1? yeah, that's gonna be rough. but level 15, not so much of a problem. level 20, heck, if stamina is a concern, you can get unlimited use of some of those level 1 and 2 spells (and for that matter, i'm utterly baffled as to how you think a caster using a level 1 or 2 spell to deny a full turn's worth of actions or more to the enemies is in some way a bad investment of resources. with that one action alone, they may have quite possibly done more to win the fight than the fighter did). will they solve every fight? not unless you're in a very unusual campaign. but not every fight will be against teleporting monsters with legendary resistance and magic resistance. (in fact, very few fights should be against enemies with legendary resistance... by definition, they tend to be boss monsters), and even if you are against it you can burn through their legendary saves and then they're just as screwed as anyone else, and magic resistance doesn't help *that* much if you have a bad save in the first place. kinda like fighter indomitable mostly only helps with saves you're good at already.

not to mention that this edition is explicitly set up so that high level fights can include a large number of weaker creatures, which are still a major threat.

at high levels, DPR is cheap, and CC is what wins fights. it isn't as dramatically in favour of casters as it was in 3.x, but it is in their favour.

(also on a side note, can't find who it was that was waiting for someone dissatisfied with their fighter... it's not about being satisfied, it's about effectiveness. also, tbh, i'm still waiting for someone to actually post about anything above level 10 at all, pretty much.... i know i saw someone somewhere say they play high-level one-shots, and that the non-casters were less useful, but one is hardly a useful sample size, and i can't recall anyone else mentioning higher levels at all)

[silveralen]

The problem with summoning spells is it is very easy to completely wipe that damage out in a single turn. One enemy who can dispel magic or a failed concentration check and you can be done.

Even then, these spells are usually inferior to an actual character most of the time. The ones that might be able to keep up (planar ally for example) also happen to be the ones that are 100% DM fiat in effectiveness. I noticed you tried very hard to picks one that don't take concentration, doing this sort of thing literally requires you to try and find exploits and loopholes in the rules, so I can't imagine any DM worth his salt would be lenient when ambiguity enters the picture (once again you cast planar ally and once again you get a Pegasus. Or mass suggestion and the "reasonable" requirement).

A level 2-3 spell can possibly negate a single turns worth of actions, but only on half the enemies on the field (and that's assuming you can catch all of them in one AoE without hitting an ally). Factor in that the examples, web and fear, allow for some actions to be taken (legendary, bonus actions, reactions, or even normal actions for web) and you'd be lucky to actually prevent 25% of a turn per usage. It's useful sure, but it won't win encounters it will merely contribute.

[Mara]

I'm still waiting for a complaint that doesn't simplify to, "Things are different!"

[SharkForce]

The problem with summoning spells is it is very easy to completely wipe that damage out in a single turn. One enemy who can dispel magic or a failed concentration check and you can be done.

Even then, these spells are usually inferior to an actual character most of the time. The ones that might be able to keep up (planar ally for example) also happen to be the ones that are 100% DM fiat in effectiveness. I noticed you tried very hard to picks one that don't take concentration, doing this sort of thing literally requires you to try and find exploits and loopholes in the rules, so I can't imagine any DM worth his salt would be lenient when ambiguity enters the picture (once again you cast planar ally and once again you get a Pegasus. Or mass suggestion and the "reasonable" requirement).

A level 2-3 spell can possibly negate a single turns worth of actions, but only on half the enemies on the field (and that's assuming you can catch all of them in one AoE without hitting an ally). Factor in that the examples, web and fear, allow for some actions to be taken (legendary, bonus actions, reactions, or even normal actions for web) and you'd be lucky to actually prevent 25% of a turn per usage. It's useful sure, but it won't win encounters it will merely contribute.

- none of the options i listed earlier require concentration.
- most enemies don't routinely throw around dispel magic all over the place. in fact, almost no enemies do that. and since you aren't limited to one of these allies, a dispel magic is going to be a chance (not a guarantee by any means) to dispel a single one of your minions. possibly.
- planar binding, not planar ally. you summon (or otherwise gain access to) a creature of a specific type, and then you proceed to use planar binding on it. if you have a wish spell available (at level 17+), you can get half a year of servitude out of a defeated enemy of the appropriate type (or a full year if you're a sorcerer), for example. alternately, if you somehow never fight such enemies, you can summon one using certain spells, or create one using true polymorph (though again, that's level 17+).
- a group of creatures are working for your enemy for some reason. most of the time, that reason will be something that you can offer them as well; a group of creatures willing to fight for the opportunity to plunder places can be offered the chance to plunder places with you. a group of creatures willing to fight for the joy of fighting is even easier; you're practically guaranteed to get into fights. a group of creatures that will fight for money, well, conveniently, you have easy ways to make money and by default no ability to buy the things you need most with it.
- yes, the low level spells don't shut down every enemy equally. that's why they SOMETIMES win the fight for you, and were never described as being perfect solutions for every fight that exists ever (i don't know why you seem to think that every fight at high levels is against legendary creatures, because a great deal of effort has gone into making sure that you have options other than every fight being against a pit fiend or ancient red dragon). when they aren't the right option, you can go for a different solution. when they are the right option, well, that's a higher level spell slot you saved for something important (like using planar binding on one of the powerful outsiders you just fought so that you can keep renewing your supply of minions).

[MadBear]

- none of the options i listed earlier require concentration.
- most enemies don't routinely throw around dispel magic all over the place. in fact, almost no enemies do that. and since you aren't limited to one of these allies, a dispel magic is going to be a chance (not a guarantee by any means) to dispel a single one of your minions. possibly.
- planar binding, not planar ally. you summon (or otherwise gain access to) a creature of a specific type, and then you proceed to use planar binding on it. if you have a wish spell available (at level 17+), you can get half a year of servitude out of a defeated enemy of the appropriate type (or a full year if you're a sorcerer), for example. alternately, if you somehow never fight such enemies, you can summon one using certain spells, or create one using true polymorph (though again, that's level 17+).
- a group of creatures are working for your enemy for some reason. most of the time, that reason will be something that you can offer them as well; a group of creatures willing to fight for the opportunity to plunder places can be offered the chance to plunder places with you. a group of creatures willing to fight for the joy of fighting is even easier; you're practically guaranteed to get into fights. a group of creatures that will fight for money, well, conveniently, you have easy ways to make money and by default no ability to buy the things you need most with it.
- yes, the low level spells don't shut down every enemy equally. that's why they SOMETIMES win the fight for you, and were never described as being perfect solutions for every fight that exists ever (i don't know why you seem to think that every fight at high levels is against legendary creatures, because a great deal of effort has gone into making sure that you have options other than every fight being against a pit fiend or ancient red dragon). when they aren't the right option, you can go for a different solution. when they are the right option, well, that's a higher level spell slot you saved for something important (like using planar binding on one of the powerful outsiders you just fought so that you can keep renewing your supply of minions).

Out of curiosity, if you were a 20th level wizard, what would be spell list if you were raiding a Mummy's tomb?

I noticed that when I was creating a spell list for a wizard who could do anything, that often the actual number of spell I got were more limiting then I initially realized. I'm not saying it was impossible, but it wasn't as easy nor as straight forward as I thought it would be.

[silveralen]

-No enemies use dispel magic? Why? That's a pretty common way of dealing with enemies who cast a lot. Must be some really stupid enemies.

-Planar binding... the spell that literally states the bound creature plays evil genie with your commands. Cool, go for it. The DM will have some fun screwing with you and if it ever becomes a problem toss some dispel magic at it eventually to let it free (unless these enemies apparently don't think to cast dispel magic on obvious magical creatures presumably bound/summoned, even when said creature is 100% known to be part of the group. Because no tactical thought at all).

-Or you could buy magic items/hire a wizard in order to provide support as a fighter. Either way it's DM fiat.

-But they still won't end encounters unless the encounter itself is trivial. Sure, they can shift the balance somewhat but so can a well timed action surge.

[SharkForce]

- most enemies don't throw around dispel magic regularly because they don't have it, and therefore cannot. there simply are not a lot of enemy spellcasters around unless you're fighting humans.
- you know what is a worse drawback than "sometimes the creature won't follow your orders perfectly"? how about "the creature will never follow your orders", which is what non-casters get. do note that it explicitly mentions that if the creature is hostile to you... which is not necessarily the case. for defeated enemies, sure (unless you have some means of changing their hostile status, which you might, but not with spells... yet, at least). for summoned creatures, not so much, typically (some do note that they don't like long-term service but are fine with short-term service, and to be fair, most fiends will never truly be friendly to you without a charm spell or something). same for creatures created with true polymorph, for that matter (of course, unless you have two casters you can't combine the true polymorph + wish trick unless you have two days... but you can use planar binding still).
- you could, but the wizard has a tool to make them much more willing, and can use it on enemies to turn them into allies whether they were planning on it or not. for a fighter... well, good luck with that. unless the enemy was already looking for an opportunity to turn on their boss, it isn't likely to happen any time soon. or ever. especially good luck with getting magic items to replace a caster in a game that goes out of it's way to make magic items not for sale.
- it will turn the encounter from a challenge to something that is trivial if you get the right effect at the right time. the encounter may not technically be over, in the same way that a football game has technically not been won if one team is up by 200 points but there is still time left... but nobody in their right mind is predicting a different outcome.

[Vogonjeltz]

so, just to be clear... your position is that summoned monsters can't have athletics proficiency (which is the only one you've mentioned fighters as having), that CR 9 monsters cannot be tough or deal damage, that monsters cannot have higher attributes than your attribute-capped fighter, and that having magic items is somehow a class feature of fighters which nobody else could possibly have, then?

Could you provide the specific conjurable creature that has proficiency in Strength (Athletics)? I'm away from the MM so...


mass suggestion can get you half a dozen creatures on your side).

Obviously harmful acts are ignored, so they won't be choosing to aid an enemy in combat, an obviously harmful course of action, ever.


Still waiting for the "I played a Fighter and couldn't contribute" thread by someone with actual in-game experience.

I "suggestion" you not engage in an obviously harmful course of action, such as holding your breath on any change in that one. For what it's worth, I play a Fighter with a Bard and a Wizard who have both openly expressed envy of the Fighter's contributions in the game relative to their own characters.


The only problem I have had with the EK and the AT are that both sub-classes could probably do with an actual spell list rather than "these two schools plus what you want at level 8,12,16". I put the fact that they don't have spell lists to laziness and an overzealous page budget.

Also, they could of made them 2/5ths casters rather than 1/3 casters so that they could unlock a whopping one more fourth level slot. Then again I think all non-full casters are kinda under-tuned (here's looking at you ranger, back to being magical and one with nature but no ritual caster because otherwise they might as well have baked ritual caster into spellcaster).

I actually like that they did that, it makes the classes a) more elegant, and b) better scalable with the introduction of new spells. Now instead of having to say: Hey look a new abjuration/evocation spell for Wizard...does the EK also get it? We just know: Yes, yes they do.

[Xetheral]

- most enemies don't throw around dispel magic regularly because they don't have it, and therefore cannot. there simply are not a lot of enemy spellcasters around unless you're fighting humans.

Almost any race can have spellcasters, and any that can cast 3rd level spells are likely to take Dispel Magic.

Also, the rate of appearance of enemy spellcasters (or any other type of foe) is highly dependent on the campaign. I'm not sure on what you're basing your claim that "there simply are not a lot of spellcasters around...." That may be true in some campaigns, but it certainly can't be assumed.

[ChubbyRain]

Almost any race can have spellcasters, and any that can cast 3rd level spells are likely to take Dispel Magic.

Also, the rate of appearance of enemy spellcasters (or any other type of foe) is highly dependent on the campaign. I'm not sure on what you're basing your claim that "there simply are not a lot of spellcasters around...." That may be true in some campaigns, but it certainly can't be assumed.

Probably the monster manual and official published encounters.

But who cares about that stuff?

[Xetheral]

Probably the monster manual and official published encounters.

But who cares about that stuff?

I don't see any reason to assume that in the general case rates of foe appearance will mirror official encounters or will be a representative sample of the monster manual.

[Gwendol]

Probably the monster manual and official published encounters.

But who cares about that stuff?

Most likely the DM wanting to make his/hers own adventures. Enemy spellcasters are common enough adversaries in fantasy litterature.

[SharkForce]

Most likely the DM wanting to make his/hers own adventures. Enemy spellcasters are common enough adversaries in fantasy litterature.

common is a matter of perspective. orcs are pretty common. orc shamans? well, not exactly super-rare, but you've got maybe one shaman for every hundred orcs, *if* that. most likely, you'll have at most two shamans per tribe.

do they have spellcasters? sure. are they nearly as common as regular orcs? no.

same goes for almost anything else. even races where magic is considered to be more common (like elves) the default creature entry will typically be for a warrior, not a mage or a priest or a bard.

most spellcasting monsters don't even really have spellcasting, they just have a few spells they can use as abilities most of the time and don't have the option of swapping out their fireball (or whatever) for a dispel magic spell.

spellcasters are out there. but they are not even remotely as commonly encountered as non-spellcasters.

you're fighting a lich? sure, you need to worry about the lich dispelling your stuff. fighting a lich's minions? well, depending on who they are, maybe. xykon has a high level goblin priest, after all. but he doesn't have an army of goblin priests, even though he has perhaps thousands of goblinoid minions. same thing when you look at most fantasy kingdoms... they'll have a court wizard or something like that, and that is often the only spellcaster you'll hear about (though again, maybe some priests).

[Gwendol]

Maybe you are fighting the red wizards?

Your listing of examples is fine, but I could make similar lists of all caster opponents. Not sure what that would prove. In any case, your experience of caster frequency in a campaign is not necessarily typical.

[SharkForce]

you could list examples of mostly casters.

and they would be pretty unusual in that respect. which is probably related to the fact that they tend to be unique enough that it's a major PITA for the DM to track dozens of different spell lists such as you would actually see in a group of casters, and they tend to be rather too "special" to be a regular opponent.

spellcasters tend to be, for lack of a better way to put it, "named" characters. to be done justice, they typically need to be given individual attention. I have played (and am still playing in) a campaign where casters are a major opponent. we still mostly fight orcs, ogres, giants, etc, because tracking the hit points and different AC etc of the different creatures is already annoying enough, never mind trying to track what spells each caster has prepared and keeping track of a dozen or more spell slots for each and every one of them if you're going to be running half a dozen in the encounter.

the one encounter where he tried to run a couple of properly unique spellcasters (a hag coven where each was written up as a wizard with their own spell list etc) pretty much started off according to plan in round 1 for him, then fell to pieces afterwards because it was simply too much to keep track of.

even with something like the red wizards, you will face lots of their minions, and most groups of their minions will not, in fact, have a full-blown red wizard in it.

[JNAProductions]

Scrolls of Dispel Magic. Easy to keep track of, easy to use, available to many.

[SharkForce]

Scrolls of Dispel Magic. Easy to keep track of, easy to use, available to many.

has a chance of failure (and backfire) if used by someone who can't cast it already, requires someone who has it on their class list to even attempt it if you follow the vastly more in-depth and likely primary source for spell scrolls on page 200 (page 139 appears to be talking about other types of scrolls, since spell scrolls get a specific entry later on), is only available to people with a formula for that specific type of scroll which is supposed to be as rare as rare category magic items, and probably costs ~250 gold to make (it's on the high end of uncommon scrolls; level 4 scrolls are rare). also, since it has neither an attack roll or a save DC, it defaults to flat no modifier technically as far as i can tell (though i'd say a reasonable ruling would make it +4, which appears to be the assumed attribute modifier for level 3 spell scrolls as far as i can tell... which, at high levels, is... shall we say "not ideal")

oh yeah, that's the very epitome of "Easy to keep track of, easy to use, available to many" if i ever heard it.

[JNAProductions]

Sure it is. Give 'em a few levels in Rogue (Cunning Action and Sneak Attack are easy to keep track of) for their Use Magic Device ability, or just say that in a group of five grunts and a saergent, the saergent has been trained in how to use this one scroll. Nothing major, nothing gamebreaking, but a solid counter to an abuse of spells.

[SharkForce]

oh, of course, we just have to add 13 rogue levels to every monster in the DMG to keep casters in check. well, i'm sure that's not a design flaw of any sort. carry on. (hmmm... obviously i should have left that earlier sarcasm tag open, since i wasn't done using it).

how is it an abuse of spells to use them exactly as described? i mean, you can argue there are unintended consequences in terms of, say, the fact that simulacrum never actually states that a simulacrum doesn't heal on its own, or that a simulacrum cannot have its own simulacrum ad infinitum.

but the spells in question let you control things, and explicitly have durations that, at high levels, scale up to a year and a day. what exactly do you think the intended use of a mind control spell that lasts a year and a day *is* if the intended use is *not* to mind control something for a year and a day? if finger of death is *not* supposed to grant you an indefinite duration zombie minion, then why does it explicitly give you an indefinite duration zombie minion? if glyph of warding is not supposed to be usable to set up traps that summon monsters, then why does it *explicitly* mention that you can use a glyph of warding to set up a trap and mention summoning monsters as an acceptable use of a spell glyph?

how can it possibly be an "abuse" to use the spell in exactly the way it is described as being used?

if you feel it makes fighters kinda unnecessary at high levels, then for the love of all that is holy, wouldn't it be a better idea to look for ways to make the fighter equally awesome in their own sphere of influence rather than trying to take away from casters when there is *already* a perfectly-functioning edition of D&D that made sure casters couldn't do world-altering things? (hint: i'm talking about 4th edition. if you want casters that can barely CC things for 2 rounds if they're lucky, well, i've got great news: that game already exists, and you can probably pick it up from the used bin at various gaming stores for far cheaper than you can pick up 5th edition)

[JNAProductions]

Because WotC is bad at making RPGs, maybe?

It's abuse because it comepletely overshadows someone else. It's just plain rude to use it in that fashion continuously.

It should be noted, though, this isn't actually an issue in play. I've heard a lot of stories of "Playing Martial is awesome" and even an occasional "Martials are overshadowing casters", but never "Casters are overshadowing martials".

Edit: 13 Rogue levels? Yup, AFB, thought it was a lot less. As it is, just nab the ability for a few magic skillmonkeys. Homebrewing to the rescue!

[Forum Explorer]

SharkForce will you kindly stop derailing so many threads to bring up yet another Spellcasters vs Martials fight? You must have had this conversation over twenty times by now.

To the OP, why do they have them? As a design decision to add some more customization and versatility (with feats enabled) or some additional durability/damage (with feats disabled)

Are they weak? No, the extra feats actually make them pretty strong/versatile. Without feats, well they don't really have a weak save with the extra ability points.

[SharkForce]

you wanna complain about derailing, go back to the people who started the discussion about how ASIs don't compensate for actual class features even though they were evidently intended to. it wasn't me. this train was already off the rails when i got on it.

[Wartex1]

That's sort of what the topic was about to begin with.

[Forum Explorer]

you wanna complain about derailing, go back to the people who started the discussion about how ASIs don't compensate for actual class features even though they were evidently intended to. it wasn't me. this train was already off the rails when i got on it.

They were talking about ASIs, which is what the thread is about, and comparing them to all other classes (Rangers, Monks, Barbarians, and Paladins all don't have extra ASIs IIRC), not just spellcasters, and not just the spells in spellcasters.

But it's not the derailment that I mind so much. It's that you keep having the same conversation about martials vs casters in multiple threads, all the time. Just start a new thread if you want to talk about that so badly.

[Gwendol]

you could list examples of mostly casters.

and they would be pretty unusual in that respect. which is probably related to the fact that they tend to be unique enough that it's a major PITA for the DM to track dozens of different spell lists such as you would actually see in a group of casters, and they tend to be rather too "special" to be a regular opponent.


They are not that hard to use for a DM. Low level casters make for good mooks as they offer some variety. That said, this argument is pointless and off-topic.

The fighter and rogue can pick extra feats instead of actual class abilities. You might say this harkens back to the 3.5 classes which offered bonus feats as well.

[MrStabby]

For what it's worth I have found in my settings when I DM that I tend to run a lot of Multi-class casters. Combat is fun but I have a personal rule that in every encounter there should be at least one opponent to the party that does something more than simply poke them with something sharp. This could be real battlemaster with lots of trips, shoves, ripostes etc. or a rogue or just a champion with a couple of mage levels (often for plot reasons).

And yes, when the caster levels allow for 3rd level spells then dispel and counterspell almost always go on the list. Not taking protective spells on a wizard is like a martial going into combat with no armour.

[SharkForce]

They were talking about ASIs, which is what the thread is about, and comparing them to all other classes (Rangers, Monks, Barbarians, and Paladins all don't have extra ASIs IIRC), not just spellcasters, and not just the spells in spellcasters.

But it's not the derailment that I mind so much. It's that you keep having the same conversation about martials vs casters in multiple threads, all the time. Just start a new thread if you want to talk about that so badly.

funny story, i spent a bunch of time talking about paladins and how their *class features* provide something more than just DPR, which i pointed out was non-valuable, and dedicated like 2 sentences to mentioning summoning spells.

this current debate isn't about casters in general, it's about whether casters (and others) can bring DPR, and on a related note, whether having DPR as your only class feature is strong enough (that being primarily what feats bring to the fighter). the only reason we're not talking about rogue sneak attack or hunter rangers is that nobody challenged their ability to bring DPR while also having other class features that let them do more than just DPR.

[silveralen]

Champion is mainly DPR with some solid single target burst and toughness.

Battle master is that with a bit of battle field control and team support and less DPR/Survability.

They are a long way from being soley DPR, they simpy are focused on DPR and the best at DPR. You seem to find it unimportant think the difference is irrelevant (or think everyone has a planar bound deva the moment they get lvl 5 spells).

[SharkForce]

they are the best at DPR by a narrow margin. that does not justify a lack of other useful class features (and no, being able to inflict low levels of control effects or being a bit tougher does not justify that either. especially toughness; if you have no way to force things to attack you instead of the glass cannons, who cares how tough you are).

every other class in the game brings DPR to some extent. several other classes bring near-equal DPR (in both quantity and reliability), but also get to enjoy having interesting and powerful class features as well. i see no reason why the fighter should not be able to enjoy such class features as well.

[JNAProductions]

Because they're a perfectly fun class to play with their existing features? Feats, some nifty survivability and nova tricks, and generally being a BA warrior seems to be plenty.

Sharkforce, have you played a 5E Fighter or Rogue? Or is this all theoretical?

[Easy_Lee]

they are the best at DPR by a narrow margin. that does not justify a lack of other useful class features (and no, being able to inflict low levels of control effects or being a bit tougher does not justify that either. especially toughness; if you have no way to force things to attack you instead of the glass cannons, who cares how tough you are).

every other class in the game brings DPR to some extent. several other classes bring near-equal DPR (in both quantity and reliability), but also get to enjoy having interesting and powerful class features as well. i see no reason why the fighter should not be able to enjoy such class features as well.

Action surge, indomitable, and fighting styles are all useful class features. Having two extra feats is a very useful class feature, and many build concepts rely on fighter levels. Being able to use any weapon or armor is a useful class feature.

The archetypes also add useful features. Being able to cast spells in the same round as making an attack is a useful feature, as is having spells (EK). Maneuvers are useful features (BM). Having expanded critical range, adding half proficiency to non proficient physical checks including initiative, and automatically healing when below half health are also useful features (Champion).

The fighter has useful features. And before anyone says that feats are not features, bear in mind that variant humans are a popular race specifically because of the feat. Fighters get two more ASIs than normal, which is a very useful feature to have when trying to customize one's character or maximize stats on a MAD build.

[Beowulf DW]

I'm just going to add this in. I don't present this as proof of anything, or as anything more than anecdotal evidence at most, but I hope that it might contribute to some of the discussion.

In the 5e game that I'm currently running through with my friends, there was a tourney. A whole bunch of events and competitions that we all competed against each other in. The PCs were using a melee-oriented wizard (lots of abjuration), a sorcerer con-artist, a shadow monk, a valor bard, a battlemaster fighter, and a champion fighter (me; I had recently played a fun but resource-intensive Battle Templar in a Pathfinder game, and I wanted something simple). To be clear, all participants are permitted to any means at their disposal to accomplish the given challenges.

So far, only 2 events have been won by casters and my fighter has won so many that even if he loses the remaining events, he'll still win the tournament itself. The events were quite varied and most don't involve combat at all. Not once have I felt left in the dust in this campaign.

[Xetheral]

...if you have no way to force things to attack you instead of the glass cannons, who cares how tough you are...

One doesn't need a mechanical ability to be an effective tank. A tactically-minded player can often find a way to make themselves the most appealing or immediately threatening target, particularly if the DM is good about giving enemies a sense of self-preservation when making their targeting choices. As a group, their long-term survival might be enhanced by ignoring the tank, but only the most-disciplined of foes would risk ignoring the swordsman standing in their face.

Sure, mechanics like Reckless Attack, Sentinel, and Opportunity Attacks make the tank's job easier, but one can still be a useful tank without mechanical support.

[MadBear]

One thing that I'll add.

Sharkforce, you keep saying that the damage increase by the fighter is only minimal, and that there is no reason to go after you rather then the glass cannon. If that's true, then you'll be getting your opportunity attack almost every turn as the enemy ignores you and focuses on the wizard/cleric/etc. In that case, the DPR you actually manage a round increases by quite a bit (or at least by another free attack per round).

That isn't to say that full casters won't get their reactions now and again, but it would have to be minimal compared to the fighter who they'll ignore as being a "useless" non-threat.

[SharkForce]

more likely, once per combat they'll get that extra attack.

they're not going to run past you, hit the squishies, and then leave. they're going to run past you, you will get to attack one of them only (and deal less damage on your opportunity attack than any other tough DPR class would have been capable of with it, thus making them lose ground, not gain it), and then they will stick to the squishies like glue. if they fly or otherwise don't have to go right past the fighter (for example, if you're not in a narrow hallway or if your enemies can teleport, or walk through the walls, etc), you may not even get that.

[JNAProductions]

And then your squishy players Disengage and flee. Possibly by flying themselves, since they have that spell. (Assuming they aren't concentrating on another thing.)

Or you snag a chokepoint, so they can't actually get past. Or grapple/shove them away. (And, if you have Extra Attack, attack after that too.)

And really, a pretty large amount of enemies have to walk past you. Not a ton have at-will teleports or flight, and ceilings can stop flight just as hard as not actually having it. Forcing an enemy to use a once per rest power is valuable in and of itself.

[Icewraith]

I'm not seeing a whole lot of caster dominance, and I'm playing a caster with a rogue, a monk, a fighter, and two clerics. Specifically, I'm playing a wizard.

Several times I've gone "Oh! I have the perfect spell for this situation!" only to discover I don't have it prepared.

My vast repertoire of useful ritual spells has been of little use in combat, and limited use out of combat.

I had a dragon locked down with an awesome control spell, then blew a con save and lost my 5th level spell slot after two rounds of use.

Suggestion hasn't been useful yet, it's either been saved against or I've spammed it to try and burn through legendary saves so the monk can do his stun thing.

I've had to use fireball a lot. The huge fights I've been in there are bunches of minions that are usually trying to take out one of our clerics and failing. I can either hit them with a control spell that won't do anything if they save, or I can fireball them, deal some decent damage, and injure them even on a successful saving throw.

The incremental cost of boosting most spells seems too high compared to what the baseline effect of spells in the next level is. Trading up seems wasteful except for specific spells that gain new capabilities at a certain level, unless I'm out of spells of the original level. I don't ever want to trade up to my top two or three tiers of spell slots unless I absolutely have to. Right now my best tricks have been spherical wall of force as a pseudo-forcecage, Greater Invisibility on the rogue, and fireballing groups of minions for damage and freeing up the martials to put attacks on the heavy hitters. (Ideally, fireballing the heavy hitters AND the minions without hitting the party. Kind of wish I was an evoker. Seriously.)

We've brought back a number of characters from two death saving throws with clutch in-combat heals. Seriously!

Maybe my DM just has hot dice, but let me tell you- in a world of good saving throws, legendary saves, and concentration using con saves as a mechanic, crowd control has its place, but damage is king. And the champion fighter, especially using archery, is GREAT at damage.

[SharkForce]

ok, and where exactly in the list of fighter abilities will i find "create fully enclosed hallway" if i may ask?

sometimes it will work. much of the time, it won't. those same high-level enemies you're so fond of pointing out the high defenses of also tend to have more of other things too... more mobility, more ability to make clever plans, more minions (which tends to favor not setting up their home turf to favor choke points that can be held by a couple of medium-sized humanoids), and home ground advantage (so that they're more likely to have picked a place that offers the ability to make use of those advantages... don't expect long narrow hallways unless it favors your enemy as much as it favors you). also more ability to use ranged attacks and shoot past

for that matter, who's to even say the squishies are spellcasters at all? what if the "squishies" are a pair of hunter archetype rangers that can't cast fly, and have no particular ability to run through a group of enemies (but deal more DPR, albeit spread across many targets)? what if the squishies are spellcasters that don't typically have an abundance of escape spells, like clerics or druids? heck, for that matter, if they're trading one attack (which may or may not hit) for the full action of 2-3 squishy characters, i think they'll take that one to the bank laughing the whole way there).

and in any event, the fighter is *still* worse for that situation than either the barbarian or the paladin (or even a melee ranger), either of which probably boasts a more damaging and threatening melee attack than the fighter in addition to abilities that tempt you to get rid of them first (the barbarian because reckless attack makes it look like it should be easier to kill him, the paladin because auras make the rest of the party harder to kill plus healing.

[JNAProductions]

And Fighters, at high levels, have twice as many chances to grapple or shove an enemy.

Also, Clerics? Squishy? That's possible, I suppose, but Clerics tend to be either front liners or durable back liners in my experience. Same for Rangers. Similar for Druids, though not as much.

As for the various advantages your enemies will have, that is highly dependent. Are you assualting their fortress? Yup, they get home ground advantage. (Which might include choke points for them to defend against armies, which doesn't work so well because a party is an elite strike force.) But what if you're stopping an invasion? Or an assassination in your king's palace? Or a ritual, in a place of natural power (and natural terrain)? Or so on and so forth.

[SharkForce]

the chokepoint that a tribe of orcs will use against an army is unlikely to be sized for 2 people. more likely, they will want to have 3-4 ranks deep of melee warriors... if they expect to have 100 fighting, you can expect it to be 25-30 feet wide. good luck holding that with a couple of front-liners.

as to toughness of priests and rangers, that depends a lot. there are a lot of different kinds of clerics, and only some of them have heavy armour. even fewer will take feats like heavy armour mastery, they don't have anything to improve saving throws, and they infrequently have abilities that reactively prevent damage like evasion, uncanny dodge, etc. not as squishy as a typical wizard or sorcerer, perhaps, but not as tough as you can reasonably expect a paladin, fighter, or barbarian (or even rogues and monks, if they build for it) can be.

i don't deny that fighters are pretty tough. they are. it's just that their toughness only matters as a party resource if they can force their enemies to deal with their toughness rather than walking past and going after the less tough members of the party. being the last one to die after all your glass cannons got taken out is not a useful ability. being able to keep fighting when the rest of the party can't is, again, not a useful ability.

if the party consists of 4 fighters, then sure, at that point the fighter's toughness is relevant. also, at that point, their lack of class features sticks out most painfully, because the best CC fighters can only cause negative effects to single targets, their strongest CC is all level 1 abilities, and after they run out of those strongest effects their limited CC comes at the expense of the only thing they really truly had going for them in the first place (specifically, their DPR).

[Gwendol]

Still, those that present actual gameplay experience seem to differ a lot from you (theoretical?) assertion of how the game should play out. I for one find that telling.

[SharkForce]

Still, those that present actual gameplay experience seem to differ a lot from you (theoretical?) assertion of how the game should play out. I for one find that telling.

do they? because the "how is the game holding up at high levels" thread seems to have several people who disagree (and a bunch of people who are insisting that those who are having problems are not, in fact, having any problems at all, it's just a figment of their imagination apparently), and the vast majority of the people who've said there's no problem seem to be playing at level 10 and lower.

[Gwendol]

do they? because the "how is the game holding up at high levels" thread seems to have several people who disagree (and a bunch of people who are insisting that those who are having problems are not, in fact, having any problems at all, it's just a figment of their imagination apparently), and the vast majority of the people who've said there's no problem seem to be playing at level 10 and lower.

There are quite a few examples above 10 that point in this and that direction. I for one am not to dismiss a gameplay experience, they are all of some kind of equal value/weight after all. It is interesting enough to note that there is quite a spread in the collective experience, which is to be expected. One conclusion to draw is that categorically dismissing classes for higher level play is likely not mirrored by the general outcome (whether them being too powerful or not able to keep up).

[SharkForce]

alternately, the fact that the road has pitfalls in it doesn't mean everyone is going to fall through. some people will go on a different road, some people will just not walk on top of the pitfall, some people will notice the pitfalls and patch them up, and some people will fall through.

that doesn't mean that there were pitfalls in only one of those four cases.

some groups use houserules that deal with the issue. some groups simply won't use resources optimally (i thought it odd that one person mentioned a wizard burning spell slots to clear out legendary resistance so that a monk could stun a dragon, which is exactly the opposite of how i would want to run it; the monk can potentially blow through a dragon's legendary resistance in a single round, while with the wizard you may be waiting quite a while, particularly since as described i don't think either one was targeting a weak save for most dragons). some groups notice the problems, don't fix them directly, but simply choose not to use those things at all (someone in this very thread made the claim that using spells in exactly the manner they are described as being used to be abuse of those spells... obviously, he's not going to have problems, because he's not going to use them as written. that doesn't mean there's not a problem). some groups simply haven't reached the problem levels yet, as well (i notice at least a few in the "how are martials doing" thread that at least a few of the posts discuss how they're doing at levels under 10, for example, where the balance is much better).

another thing i've noticed is that almost every post talks about fun, but relatively few talk about effectiveness (though some do). now, effectiveness is not necessarily tied in to fun; some people like to take on a challenge, some people just don't care. with that said, if effectiveness is not tied to fun, there's no reason for a class to lag behind in effectiveness unless it is specifically designed to provide a challenge for those that want it, because not everyone is a natural performer that will enjoy describing their actions more than they will enjoy the tactical game. additionally, most of the posts talking about warriors talk about how the warriors are actively describing what they do, while no such mention is made for spellcasters; the player can certainly make a difference in effectiveness if they're very persuasive. finally, many of the posts are about the classes that scale a bit better than fighter. paladins don't ever get to summon an army of minions or create ancient gold dragon allies, but they do get unique and powerful class features that cannot be trivially replaced at any level, low or high.

so really, it's not that odd that some people are not experiencing problems in their games. not everyone will. that doesn't mean there aren't problems to be had, though.

[Gwendol]

Well, it could be argued that if people don't experience problems, then there is none to fix, at least for them. My guess (and suggestion) is to hold off this particular debate a little longer to see some more stratification in the results or experiences from high level play.

[SharkForce]

i wouldn't agree that just because some people haven't experienced problems yet that there are no problems to fix for them.

if there are problems, it is generally better to fix them before they become an issue. a person who has driven a car drunk may not have had a problem (yet), but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to stop driving drunk. obviously, the consequences of driving drunk are far greater than the consequences of imbalance at the high levels of a D&D game, but if the problem can be avoided altogether by fixing it before it impacts anything, that's better than fixing the problem after it has had an impact.

that said, if you are of the perspective that there is definitely no problem, i can certainly understand a desire to not touch anything... in fact, if you don't think there are problems, the only rational response is to not want to touch anything, because you might mess up something that doesn't have problems.

i just happen to disagree that there are no problems. fewer problems than, say, 3.x, absolutely.

[silveralen]

But you also have to consider theoretical vs practical problems. For example, hordes of undead following a caster around or keeping a planar creature bound to them.

Realistically, those are both going to have major roleplay considerations in every setting I've ever played. It's likely to create as many problems as it solves. It also has rather major vulnerabilities for a metagaming perspective.

So is your DM one who focuses on roleplay? Then yes keeping a celestial or fiend bound to you is probably going to draw a lot of negative attention. You are either walking around with a horde of creatures who will go wild and attack anyone around them if you forget to/can't renew the spells (or die), consorting with Devils or have made a celestial into your slave, and yes they are going to be fighting against your control whenever they can why else would you need to bind them? If they were just allies they wouldn't need to be bound, and even if they were before most creatures take offense at being enslaved.

If you have a more gamey DM who often reacts to the parties tactics, I imagine dispel magic becomes much more common, or banishment, or enemy clerics etc. This sort of tactic has such a clear counter that it does suffer if exploited.

That's why such things never happened even in the higher level campaigns I've played (highest was 18). Certain spells are very powerful, but not to be point they overshadow other players.

[SharkForce]

planar binding very explicitly provides a means to get creatures to bind without having them be hostile, by simply extending the duration of the various summoning spells to match the duration of the planar binding. alternately, certain creatures are specifically noted to not mind being bound within limits (iirc some of the genies in particular, as one example).

the categories you can choose from are fairly broad. you don't necessarily need celestials or fiends. you can, for example, bind elementals, and if you can get them, fey (practically speaking, fey are fairly limited to druids (and some bards) though. elementals, on the other hand, are fairly readily available to most casters)

furthermore, how does everyone know that you're even binding them? it's not like you're walking around with a sign that says so. depending on what you bind they may not even be visible.

furthermore, while a celestial (or fiend) may not particularly like being bound, it is unlikely that they will complain too much if you bring them along to help with something they believe should be done anyways (if you run out of things they like to do, you may very well hear from them though). particularly if you managed to bring them to this plane only through the strength of a limited-duration summoning spell (though i don't believe there are presently any spells that do that, other than planar ally). if you literally created them (from a rock or something like that), they may even feel grateful enough to agree to serve you for a period of time defined by a planar binding. for all we know, it's just a fact of life to many of them, and is not particularly more noteworthy to them than, say, having to go to work is to you.

not to mention that, having reached the point where you can call up powerful allies so easily, the number of people who can do something about it even if they know of and disapprove of your actions is going to be limited.

[silveralen]

planar binding very explicitly provides a means to get creatures to bind without having them be hostile, by simply extending the duration of the various summoning spells to match the duration of the planar binding. alternately, certain creatures are specifically noted to not mind being bound within limits (iirc some of the genies in particular, as one example).

the categories you can choose from are fairly broad. you don't necessarily need celestials or fiends. you can, for example, bind elementals, and if you can get them, fey (practically speaking, fey are fairly limited to druids (and some bards) though. elementals, on the other hand, are fairly readily available to most casters)

True, but it is still a concentration spell despite that. Unless you argue extending duration somehow removes concentration, which is a very weird definition of extend. So it isn't exactly a great choice, not like you'll avoid dropping the spell 2-3 days in a row. So, at that point, why does planar binding even help?

If you are arguing that planar binding makes it non concentration, it completely breaks the game anyways, as you can have infinite armies of summoned creatures. So given that it doesn't say it removes the need for concetration, plus the fact doing so obviously breaks the spell beyond repair, plus it merely says extend the duration not even replace, it seems absurd to claim otherwise.

But beyond that? It'll last 2-3 encounters if enemies target you at all.

[SharkForce]

"If
the creature w as summoned or created by another spell,
that spell’s duration is extended to match the duration
o f this spell."

the duration of "this spell" does not require concentration, and concentration is part of the duration. so no, you don't need to concentrate, because this spell removes that requirement as part of what the spell does. again, this is the intended function of the spell.

(in fact, now you've made me go and look it up, this actually makes true polymorphed creatures stay friendly and under your direct control, action for action, for the entire duration of planar binding... so much for hostility).

[silveralen]

"If
the creature w as summoned or created by another spell,
that spell’s duration is extended to match the duration
o f this spell."

the duration of "this spell" does not require concentration, and concentration is part of the duration. so no, you don't need to concentrate, because this spell removes that requirement as part of what the spell does. again, this is the intended function of the spell.

(in fact, now you've made me go and look it up, this actually makes true polymorphed creatures stay friendly and under your direct control, action for action, for the entire duration of planar binding... so much for hostility).

Not even slightly. Concentration is part of duration, but you can't extend something so it no longer has concentration. That quite literally makes no sense for what the word extends means.

"I extend this spells duration." "So it lasts longer?" "No, but I don't have to concentrate on it!" ".... extend doesn't mean what you think it means."

If you have a DM stupid enough to listen to that argument by all means do it, but I can't imagine playing at a table where the entire game is rendered broken due to a spineless DM who caves to the most ludicrous unbalanced requests will be very enjoyable. Or have any bearing on the actual balance of the game for people who play the the real version.

[Icewraith]

alternately, the fact that the road has pitfalls in it doesn't mean everyone is going to fall through. some people will go on a different road, some people will just not walk on top of the pitfall, some people will notice the pitfalls and patch them up, and some people will fall through.

that doesn't mean that there were pitfalls in only one of those four cases.

some groups use houserules that deal with the issue. some groups simply won't use resources optimally (i thought it odd that one person mentioned a wizard burning spell slots to clear out legendary resistance so that a monk could stun a dragon, which is exactly the opposite of how i would want to run it; the monk can potentially blow through a dragon's legendary resistance in a single round, while with the wizard you may be waiting quite a while, particularly since as described i don't think either one was targeting a weak save for most dragons). some groups notice the problems, don't fix them directly, but simply choose not to use those things at all (someone in this very thread made the claim that using spells in exactly the manner they are described as being used to be abuse of those spells... obviously, he's not going to have problems, because he's not going to use them as written. that doesn't mean there's not a problem). some groups simply haven't reached the problem levels yet, as well (i notice at least a few in the "how are martials doing" thread that at least a few of the posts discuss how they're doing at levels under 10, for example, where the balance is much better).

another thing i've noticed is that almost every post talks about fun, but relatively few talk about effectiveness (though some do). now, effectiveness is not necessarily tied in to fun; some people like to take on a challenge, some people just don't care. with that said, if effectiveness is not tied to fun, there's no reason for a class to lag behind in effectiveness unless it is specifically designed to provide a challenge for those that want it, because not everyone is a natural performer that will enjoy describing their actions more than they will enjoy the tactical game. additionally, most of the posts talking about warriors talk about how the warriors are actively describing what they do, while no such mention is made for spellcasters; the player can certainly make a difference in effectiveness if they're very persuasive. finally, many of the posts are about the classes that scale a bit better than fighter. paladins don't ever get to summon an army of minions or create ancient gold dragon allies, but they do get unique and powerful class features that cannot be trivially replaced at any level, low or high.

so really, it's not that odd that some people are not experiencing problems in their games. not everyone will. that doesn't mean there aren't problems to be had, though.

When you've cleared out a dragon's lair and then get jumped by a SECOND consecutive draconic hit squad before you can long rest, you don't exactly have a lot of spell slots left. I was actually so careful in my spell slot usage over the past few sessions that I STILL would have had my 6th level slot available for the last fight if I hadn't had to burn it to reapply the 5th level CC in the previous fight that I lost early due to a natural "2" on a con save.

I went through something like a level and a half's worth of XP in encounters without a long rest before I finally just ran out of gas.

I wasn't spamming suggestion on a dragon out of choice, I was doing it because I mainly had second level spells left, and the dragon couldn't afford to do nothing but fly around the room for eight hours while we mopped up its allies. If it had legendary saves left, the dragon could have potentially run the monk out of ki or attacks before the monk could actually land a stun, and then gotten another entire initiative round of legendary actions to mess with the party. I figured potentially burning through legendary saves was more valuable than the cantrip damage I could be doing with my standard, plus the way my dice had been rolling I was not feeling confident about my ability to land any kind of attack roll.

At some point, even with careful use of spell slots to win/dominate encounters or save the party's bacon, you run out of (useful) spell slots that actually do those things. And when you do, the martial characters, especially the fighters, still have their attack routines that cost few to no resources. That last combat we won by in-combat healing, sustained martial damage, and because we had two clerics. Our opponents lost because they were too busy trying to kill the spellcasters and hinder the martials by spamming darkness to actually kill the martials before the martials ran them out of HP. The rogue in particular seems pretty envious of the fighter's third attack right now.

[SharkForce]

Not even slightly. Concentration is part of duration, but you can't extend something so it no longer has concentration. That quite literally makes no sense for what the word extends means.

"I extend this spells duration." "So it lasts longer?" "No, but I don't have to concentrate on it!" ".... extend doesn't mean what you think it means."

If you have a DM stupid enough to listen to that argument by all means do it, but I can't imagine playing at a table where the entire game is rendered broken due to a spineless DM who caves to the most ludicrous unbalanced requests will be very enjoyable. Or have any bearing on the actual balance of the game for people who play the the real version.

extends to match means the new concentration entry will match. not sort of match, or kinda match if you look at it funny. just "match". so long as concentration is part of spell duration, yes, making the duration match will mean that no concentration is required. otherwise, it wouldn't be matching.

[JNAProductions]

But it's only modified by "extend". Extension means to make longer, not to modify in any other way. You might have an argument by RAW, but as has been pointed out, you don't have any arguement RAI or with Rule Zero.

[Wartex1]

So I guess dead PCs can act, because there is nothing that says that they can't in the rules.

*rolls eyes*

You're twisting the wording and the rules. The concentration isn't part of the duration, it just means that the duration requires concentration.

[SharkForce]

So I guess dead PCs can act, because there is nothing that says that they can't in the rules.

*rolls eyes*

You're twisting the wording and the rules. The concentration isn't part of the duration, it just means that the duration requires concentration.

if the concentration isn't part of the duration, then why is it right there in the duration entry for every concentration spell. they explicitly talk about using the spell to increase the duration of other spells to ten days. you *really* think they meant for you to concentrate for 10 days on something? that's your read on the situation, that the devs want you to be forced to stay awake for 10 days straight if you don't want a summoned creature to go berserk (while you're asleep and helpless, no less)? oh, and just for the fun of it, they went ahead and made it cost 1,000 gp too, because nothing says fun like paying a hefty premium so you can get screwed over.

no. that would be stupid. incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid. it would be idiotic game design that could serve no purpose other than to troll the players, and that simply does not make sense no matter how you look at it.

[Wartex1]

It's because it's a duration modifier. Extension of duration does not eliminate concentration, unless you deliberately interpret the rules like a jackanape.

Also, it's not idiotic game design. It's loophole abuse prevention.

[SharkForce]

concentration *is* part of the duration. it bloody well doesn't *match* if it isn't the same.

and like i said, interpreting it that way leads to an idiotic situation where a spell with a MINIMUM 10 day duration is going to screw you over, guaranteed, because there is no way you can concentrate for 10 days, and if you stop concentrating, the controlled creature goes berserk.

that interpretation leads to stupid results that would only make sense if the author was trolling us. why do you believe that WotC would be trolling us? in what crazy world does it make sense that the authors would have sat down and decided that they should make a spell that is not just useless, but worse than useless, and then make you pay for each single use of it. the described standard use of the spell (summoning minions into a reversed magic circle, then using this spell to extend the duration to 10 days) only makes sense if extending the duration to 10 days could ever possibly be a desirable thing, which it never is if that leads to a guaranteed failure to keep concentrating.

edit: seriously, read the damn spell. it's DEFAULT USE is to use it to summon creatures and then extend the bloody spell to 10 days. it is not "preventing abuse" to have the spell screw you over every time you use it to summon a creature that is guaranteed to stab you in the back when you inevitably fail to stay awake for 10 days. that is just stupid.

[Wartex1]

The duration is extended to match. Concentration is not part of duration, but a condition that effects the duration. That's why the Extended Spell Metamagic doesn't cancel Concentration.

Plus, Planar Binding takes 1 hour to cast. The summoning spells only last for one hour, so it wouldn't work. The spell is designed to bind extraplanar creatures that you don't summon.

[Mara]

Plus, Planar Binding takes 1 hour to cast. The summoning spells only last for one hour, so it wouldn't work. The spell is designed to bind extraplanar creatures that you don't summon.

Actually I would disagree with that. It seems the intent is to summon into a magic circle and then bind the creature.

I don't see a problem with that. (Also yes concentration is extended too, but I would rules once it is broken the creature becomes hostile but is still bound)

[Wartex1]

Creatures summoned just "disappear" once the duration is over, if read as written. Because this either counts as the creature "dying", or extraplanar travel (setting-dependent), an inverse Magic Circle would only force a CHA save or do nothing once the duration of the summoning spell ends.

This could be avoided entirely by using the Extend Spell Metamagic, but Sorcerer doesn't get Planar Binding.

[SharkForce]

you are attempting to interpret the spell in a way that the description makes absolutely clear it cannot be intended. i'm done wasting any more time discussing it with you. the spell explicitly describes using summoning spells and extending them. it is physically impossible to cast this spell UNLESS the duration is altered to exclude concentration. casting a spell with a casting time that is not 1 action, 1 bonus action, or a reaction requires concentration. you cannot concentrate on two spells at a time. therefore, the only way to use this spell in the default way that is explicitly described is if the duration is both extended immediately and the concentration requirement is removed immediately as part of the duration.

we either have a spell that is impossible to use (but if you do somehow use it anyways, it's guaranteed to end in the creature's untimely death or the creature going berserk because you lost concentration) and the authors just included it to troll us, or we have a spell that works and removes the concentration requirement.

one of those is a plausible scenario. the other one is not.

[Wartex1]

Or you have a spell designed to control a non-summoned creature, because removal of Concentration for summoned creatures is ridiculous imbalanced. It's not a wrong interpretation, since it, you know, actually follows the rules unlike the inanity that you put forth.

The effect from Planar Binding also wouldn't take effect until after the spell is cast, so the proposed ridiculousness of concentration removal wouldn't matter, because you couldn't cast the spell in the first place.

[SharkForce]

for anyone else who is still reading, the following is an excerpt from the spell in question. assuming you are capable of reading, this should resolve any question as to whether this spell is intended to be used on summoned creatures or not. removed text that was not relevant to the argument, and was probably taking things too personally.

"Typically, the creature is first summoned into the center of an inverted magic circle in order to keep it trapped while this spell is cast"

note that the only summoning spells that do not require concentration are instantaneous duration and thus have nothing to extend. in order for this spell to function as described, it must remove concentration requirements.

[silveralen]

for anyone else who is still reading, the following is an excerpt from the spell in question. assuming you are capable of reading, this should resolve any question as to whether this spell is intended to be used on summoned creatures or not. removed text that was not relevant to the argument, and was probably taking things too personally.

"Typically, the creature is first summoned into the center of an inverted magic circle in order to keep it trapped while this spell is cast"

note that the only summoning spells that do not require concentration are instantaneous duration and thus have nothing to extend. in order for this spell to function as described, it must remove concentration requirements.

No it doesn't. Planar binding doesn't require concentration. Nor does magic circle. Meaning you can cast both while maintaining the summoning spell of the creature you attempt to bind. I have no idea what you are even trying to get at, but it appears to be 100% wrong.

How it actually works:

1. Create magic circle (no concentration required).

2. Summon monster inside circle, using concentration.

3. Bind monster using planar binding. Planar binding does not require concentration, meaning you can continue to concentrate on the summoning spell.

4. You no have the creature bound and can continue to concentrate on it for the entire duration of planar binding, rather than the duration of the original spell.

Just in case anyone following wants to know the actual rules.

[Wartex1]

I was using his example of casting for more than one action requires concentration, which was another glaring flaw in his argument.

The summoning spells only last for 1 hour to begin with, which is the casting time for Planar Binding. When it is the time to cast it, the Conjure *blank* spell ends, so unless you did nothing but those two spells, it wouldn't work. It still requires concentration to maintain.

[SharkForce]

No it doesn't. Planar binding doesn't require concentration. Nor does magic circle. Meaning you can cast both while maintaining the summoning spell of the creature you attempt to bind. I have no idea what you are even trying to get at, but it appears to be 100% wrong.

How it actually works:

1. Create magic circle (no concentration required).

2. Summon monster inside circle, using concentration.

3. Bind monster using planar binding. Planar binding does not require concentration, meaning you can continue to concentrate on the summoning spell.

4. You no have the creature bound and can continue to concentrate on it for the entire duration of planar binding, rather than the duration of the original spell.

Just in case anyone following wants to know the actual rules.

there are 4 different categories of casting time for spells: action, bonus action, reaction, and anything longer (contextually, longer than a regular action is what they mean i presume). for the anything longer, (including rituals, if that ever matters) casting the spell requires concentration.

so actually, here's how it really works:

1) create a magic circle. as noted, no concentration required.

2) summon monster. concentration is required to keep the spell up.

3) start casting planar binding. you have just started concentrating on a new spell, so your concentration on the previous spell (the one you used to summon a monster) ends.

4) either the summon monster spell stops and the entire process, which is described as the typical use of the planar binding spell, is impossible, *or* the summoning spell has its duration retroactively extended to match the duration of the planar binding spell and ceases to require concentration and it can work.

if the concentration requirement is not removed, it is literally impossible to use planar binding in what it describes as being the typical way to use it. that reading of the rules does not work. the duration is extended to match the planar binding, and so long as the planar binding is active, so is the original summoning spell.

[MadBear]

3) start casting planar binding. you have just started concentrating on a new spell, so your concentration on the previous spell (the one you used to summon a monster) ends.


I'm confused. Planar binding doesn't require concentration. So when you say that you start concentrating on a new spell what do you mean? Is there something in this discussion that I'm missing.

[Gwendol]

Madbear: Sharkforce is referring to the rules of casting on page 202, under "longer casting times". Because Planar Binding takes an hour to cast, it requires concentration. Either the rules for planar binding using a summoned creature are dysfunctional (you can't concentrate on both spells simultaneously) or the requirement of concentration to keep the summoned creature in the circle has to be waived. Even if one accept the latter, it doesn't really make sense since the effect of the binding doesn't happen until the casting is complete.

EDIT: There is a third option: that the summoned creature is supposed to be held in place by another caster.

[Mara]

You know plenty of summons stay around after a broken concentration check. They just turn hostile.

EDIT: Also the magic circle could prevent summons from leaving. In 5e you summon an actual creature.

[Gwendol]

That was actually my next question after reading what the magic circle does. In that case it is clear the caster breaks concentration on the summon to cast planar binding.

[Mara]

That was actually my next question after reading what the magic circle does. In that case it is clear the caster breaks concentration on the summon to cast planar binding.This seems to be the case.

All that really means is you are either binding minor summons or 1 hostile big summon. Which the original start of this conversation was someone claiming you could bind a cr 5 friendly elemental instead of a hostile one looking to undermine your demands.

By the way, I so prefer how summoning and planar binding work in this edition than any other.

[SharkForce]

if you are assumed to have to stop concentrating, then out of curiosity, what do you propose the following text is referring to:

"If the creature was summoned or created by another spell, that spell’s duration is extended to match the duration of this spell."

which spell? the one that expired an hour ago and is no longer running at all? which makes more sense, for the spell to be extended beginning from the moment the planar binding begins to be cast, or for the spell to suddenly come back full strength after it has no longer been active for an hour?

and someone else summoning the creature makes no sense either. if that is the case, then the creature would have two separate masters; the one who cast the planar binding, and the one who cast the original summoning spell. which one has to concentrate? can i screw someone over by leaving this hanging threat of their minion spending the next 10 days hunting them down unless they concentrate for the full duration somehow?

the spell only makes sense if you read it as removing the concentration requirement. the only other option is that the spell was designed by a blithering idiot who has no idea what they're doing, and the general quality of the rest of the product the spell is found in would suggest that the authors are not blithering idiots.

if you want to change it for your game, fine. but by default, it has to remove concentration.

[Gwendol]

But it doesn't do that, and the extension of the duration of the spell doesn't kick in before the casting of planar binding is complete.
Implictly or explicitly the combination of spells suggested is not straightforward.

[SharkForce]

But it doesn't do that, and the extension of the duration of the spell doesn't kick in before the casting of planar binding is complete.
Implictly or explicitly the combination of spells suggested is not straightforward.

it doesn't do what? the text of the spell that i quoted word for word in this thread in my last post?

if that's your assessment, i'm going to have to disagree. the spell definitely must do what it says it does by default. it says it extends spells of a certain nature to match its own duration.

the only eligible spells are concentration spells. there are precisely zero spells in the game that it could function with if it doesn't remove the concentration requirement and we're several months through the release cycle, even less indication that there will *ever* be a spell it could interact with if it does not remove the need for concentration, and it very explicitly is supposed to be used in combination with summoning spells.

the only way it could have been explicitly intended to not remove the concentration requirement is really bad design. and as i've said, the general quality of the material available indicates that to be pretty unlikely. we're not talking about some combination of things that would never come up in a playtest or something like that; we're looking at spells that are being used in the exact manner described. there's nothing weird or unusual or unexpected being done, it's all within the bounds of what the spell was explicitly designed to do. this isn't like a simulacrum army or the proxy simulacrum wish stunt, this is doing things that the spell clearly and explicitly describes doing.

[Wartex1]

How is not removing the Concentration requirement bad game design?

Is it because it prevents the spell from being overpowered?

[silveralen]

it doesn't do what? the text of the spell that i quoted word for word in this thread in my last post?

if that's your assessment, i'm going to have to disagree. the spell definitely must do what it says it does by default. it says it extends spells of a certain nature to match its own duration.

the only eligible spells are concentration spells. there are precisely zero spells in the game that it could function with if it doesn't remove the concentration requirement and we're several months through the release cycle, even less indication that there will *ever* be a spell it could interact with if it does not remove the need for concentration, and it very explicitly is supposed to be used in combination with summoning spells.

the only way it could have been explicitly intended to not remove the concentration requirement is really bad design. and as i've said, the general quality of the material available indicates that to be pretty unlikely. we're not talking about some combination of things that would never come up in a playtest or something like that; we're looking at spells that are being used in the exact manner described. there's nothing weird or unusual or unexpected being done, it's all within the bounds of what the spell was explicitly designed to do. this isn't like a simulacrum army or the proxy simulacrum wish stunt, this is doing things that the spell clearly and explicitly describes doing.

But it still wouldn't do that until it was cast regardless, so any conflict between the two will be there regardless. You don't get the effect of a spell when you start casting it. Whether or not it removes concentration, it is still worthless with any summoning spell that requires concentration. That's RAW apparently.

However, worth noting by RAW is that conjure elemental and conjure fey do not disappear when concentration is lost, they merely turn hostile then disappear an hour later. So magic circle, summon the creature inside the circle, then begin planar binding it which finishes just in time. Why else would you need the magic circle if not for that? No Celestial though, just a CR 5-9 elemental/fey. Which isn't matching a fighter at the level where the caster can actually do this, and he is blowing through 3 spells, one 3rd, one 5th, and one 5th-9th, to do so. Oh, and the monster is always hostile towards you if bound in this way, so yay for overly literal evil genie fun!

This isn't overpowered because no caster should be trying to do this. It is a waste. It doesn't overshadow jack. It is a round peg trying to into a square hole. You will likely need to perform this same thing every day as well, as the creature has no way to heal via hit dice (long rests may or may not apply, the only thing the resting section covers is the player characters, not NPCs or monsters). Maybe the cleric can burn through a ton of spells keeping it alive. Or just have a class capable of filling this role since your summon will struggle greatly.

[Wartex1]

Also, Magic Circle has to be cast as a 4th level spell, or else it wears off while casting Planar Binding.

[SharkForce]

ok, and what spells is it supposed to be extending then? it says it extends the duration of a certain subgroup of spells, and your ruling tells us that it cannot physically accomplish that (also, technically your spell completes *after* the 1 hour duration so no matter how you slice it, you'll be at least 6 seconds off) because every single one of them requires concentration and has a duration of 1 hour, which will end just seconds before you can finish the ritual.

if an interpretation makes it so that the spell is not capable of doing what the spell does. it is a safe bet that said interpretation is not the correct one.

[Wartex1]

Or that it's not designed to be used by yourself, or on self-summoned creatures. That's like saying that buffs that only affect others are poorly designed because it requires teamwork.

Plus, I'm fairly certain that removing Concentration isn't part of the spell, because there's no mention of it anywhere.

[silveralen]

ok, and what spells is it supposed to be extending then? it says it extends the duration of a certain subgroup of spells, and your ruling tells us that it cannot physically accomplish that (also, technically your spell completes *after* the 1 hour duration so no matter how you slice it, you'll be at least 6 seconds off) because every single one of them requires concentration and has a duration of 1 hour, which will end just seconds before you can finish the ritual.

if an interpretation makes it so that the spell is not capable of doing what the spell does. it is a safe bet that said interpretation is not the correct one.

Well no actually. It sticks aroud exactly one hour after you lose concentration. If you start casting an hour long spell, dropping concentration to do so, the disappearing and binding would happen at the same moment.

I'd say the spell gets reastablished after casting with the new longer duration, a hostile creature, and no concentration. By RAW the creature would still fade even with planar binding, but RAI I'd count the second hour long period before going back home as a secondary duration that planar binding extends.

However, yes by RAW it is strictly non functional and cannot be used as described. Even RAI you can't get around certain parts, it cannot extend the duration until after it is cast full stop. It doesn't do anything to the duration of the summoning spell when you start to cast it. That simply isn't how spells work in any situation. The absolute best RAI is it allows the summoning spell to be reastablished with a new longer duration.

The fact is what we are discussing is irrelevant to whether or not it removes concentration requirements. Unless a sorcerer extends a conjure spell and you start binding it you won't be able to cast it on a concentration summoned creature it appears. So that interpretation is irrelevant to getting magic circle+planar binding to work as a single person as all the issues we have deal with it before the spelk goes off.

This is worth repeating: spells do not take effect till the end of the casting, so you lose concentration regardless.

[Mara]

However, yes by RAW it is strictly non functional and cannot be used as described.

Interpreting something so it contradicts is no academic feat. The rules are in plain English not legal language. The rules obviously mean one of two things.

1) You can only bind summons that stick around after lost concentration (but are hostile)
2) Since you are bringing a real creature into the world with 5e summoning. When the summon ends (and the summon is one that automatically goes back) then they need to make a cha check to get through the magic circle (as outlined in that spell).

I would lean 2, since summoning in this edition is very different than 3.5. The only reason to think 2 is false is from a 3.5 perspective.

[silveralen]

Interpreting something so it contradicts is no academic feat. The rules are in plain English not legal language. The rules obviously mean one of two things.

1) You can only bind summons that stick around after lost concentration (but are hostile)
2) Since you are bringing a real creature into the world with 5e summoning. When the summon ends (and the summon is one that automatically goes back) then they need to make a cha check to get through the magic circle (as outlined in that spell).

I would lean 2, since summoning in this edition is very different than 3.5. The only reason to think 2 is false is from a 3.5 perspective.

1). Again it works, but the problem is extending the listed duration won't, by RAW, keep them astound.

2). Same problem as number 1, as soon the circle goes down they still jump back. I'm AFB but I'd need to read the magic circle spell again.

[SharkForce]

again, planar binding is very clearly designed to allow you to summon (or create) a creature with a different spell, and then use planar binding to extend that spell to 10 days.

the only way for that to remotely make sense is if:

1) it actually works somehow.
2) the way it works retroactively extends the duration including removing the concentration requirement.

[Mara]

1). Again it works, but the problem is extending the listed duration won't, by RAW, keep them astound.

2). Same problem as number 1, as soon the circle goes down they still jump back. I'm AFB but I'd need to read the magic circle spell again.

Unless you read extend as + duration.
Which would mean it works just fine since 8 hours has no concentration indicator.

[Gwendol]

I think that RAI, it's supposed to work. How is another story. I'll have to re-check the summons and magic circle spells again.

[silveralen]

again, planar binding is very clearly designed to allow you to summon (or create) a creature with a different spell, and then use planar binding to extend that spell to 10 days.

the only way for that to remotely make sense is if:

1) it actually works somehow.
2) the way it works retroactively extends the duration including removing the concentration requirement.

1) Yes it should work.

2) No it doesn't need to. In fact, the spell literally can't remove the concentration during the portion that causes problems

Here is the closest way it works by RAI

1). Cast magic circle.

2). Summon creature in circle

3). Start casting planar binding.

4). Concentration on the summoning spell is lost leading to either:


4a). The creature becomes hostile due to concentration being lost (conjure fey/conjure elemental) but sticks around for the hour it takes to complete the summoning.

5a). Planar binding completes, the duration of the secondary summon duration is now extended to planar binding's duration, though the creature counts as hostile. Concentration is not required as it was already lost.

Or

4b). The creature tries to return home but is halted by the magic circle (potentially) and is thus stuck until it wears off. Only for spells where the creature disappears after concentration breaks.

5b). Planar binding is cast. The summoning spell is reastablished fully with an extended duration and may or may not require concentration at DM's choice.

The first set seem far closer to the actual rules in my opinion, but it'll depend on your DM. The latter may also cause problems as magic circle wears off before the spell is finished being cast if it is an hour duration (technically both would but in he first case that just means dealing with a hostile enemy for a turn) so they hop back before the binding works without a house rule.

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter for either whether or not planar binding removes concentration as it doesn't extend the duration till after it is cast. Spells do not take effect till they are finished, that's not something you can handwave away. Nor does it require it to work. In fact it's 100% irrelevant to the issues you presented. In fact, if you could concentrate the whole time you wouldn't need the magic circle, so RAI magic circle is clearly there to either keep a hostile summoned from attacking or too keep a summoned from returning.

Like I said I think the first one makes more sense because conjure elemental/fey still is around and has an additional hour duration after concentration is lost, so it's a short jump to extend that duration with planar binding. The latter requires extending the duration of a spell that has fully ended, which makes less sense to me and seems more house rule considering planar binding doesn't really indicate such an effect. Still, it could work, but this version most certainly would require concentration.

[SharkForce]

except that the spell is explicitly described as having the function of extending duration. it *could* recast the spell somehow, but there is nothing else in the game remotely like that.

alternately, casting the planar binding can put the spell duration on hold while it is being cast, (and spells that modify the duration of an associated spell when cast do exist elsewhere, such as glyph of warding or contingency). but then we end up with a 10 day concentration spell, which makes no sense. no spell intended for broad use is going to require 10 straight days of concentration (never mind up to a year) to get proper use out of it. unless of course, matching duration includes the actual duration entry, not just half of the duration entry for the spell.

also, if you stop concentrating on a summon that sticks around, it disappears one hour after you summoned it, not one hour after you stopped concentrating for all of the conjure <creature type> spells that i can see.

edit: also, both of the conjure spells that keep the summon around take 1 minute to cast, so you're actually losing the circle 66 seconds before potentially (though you can simply cast magic circle in a higher level slot to avoid that problem).

[Wartex1]

Magic Circle lasts for longer when cast at higher levels.

Magic Circle also prevents interplanar travel unless the creature makes a CHA saving throw, which means that a summoned creature can't leave until making such a saving throw.

Also, the 10 days of concentration isn't broken, because if it eliminated concentration, then you could do this as many times as you want to.

[silveralen]

except that the spell is explicitly described as having the function of extending duration. it *could* recast the spell somehow, but there is nothing else in the game remotely like that.

alternately, casting the planar binding can put the spell duration on hold while it is being cast, (and spells that modify the duration of an associated spell when cast do exist elsewhere, such as glyph of warding or contingency). but then we end up with a 10 day concentration spell, which makes no sense. no spell intended for broad use is going to require 10 straight days of concentration (never mind up to a year) to get proper use out of it. unless of course, matching duration includes the actual duration entry, not just half of the duration entry for the spell.

also, if you stop concentrating on a summon that sticks around, it disappears one hour after you summoned it, not one hour after you stopped concentrating for all of the conjure <creature type> spells that i can see.

edit: also, both of the conjure spells that keep the summon around take 1 minute to cast, so you're actually losing the circle 66 seconds before potentially (though you can simply cast magic circle in a higher level slot to avoid that problem).

Then RAW and RAI it doesn't work and requires a house rule of some sort. Either planar binding needs an additional effect not described (such as maintaining the summoning spell while being cast) or planar binding has to reinstate the spell. Both require things simply not present in the game at this point with nothing to indicate they should be.

So how they in work conjunction is up to the DM entirely. This means by RAW you can't use planar binding+conjure to replace a fighter, your DM would explcitly need to house rule you the ability to do so. Even if you could, this would still be a daily spell renewal without even more favorable DM interpretations as such creatures aren't listed as healing while resting.

Glyph of warding explictly waves the concentration requitment. Contingency doesn't have the concentration take effect until the trigger is activated, at which point the spell activates as normal including concentration. So, where concentration is ignored, it is specified. Where it isn't, it doesn't need to be for the spell to work properly.

TL;DR There are just too many issues and questions regarding this tactic for it to definitively do what you claimed it could.

[Mara]

Also, the 10 days of concentration isn't broken, because if it eliminated concentration, then you could do this as many times as you want to.You can't maintain concentration while sleeping.

I don't see how multi-binding is all that powerful.

[SharkForce]

*shrug* worst-case scenario, you've pretty much just pushed it back some (until level 17, specifically).

true polymorph to create a at least a CR 7 fey, elemental, celestial, or fiend from scratch. ideal form is a fey version of a giant ape (requires some measure of DM ruling, but we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are fey creatures with the exact same stats as every beast in existence with a CR of less than 2, it's merely an extrapolation that there would also be the same for beasts with a CR greater than 2. a regular planar binding to bind it (possibly requiring multiple attempts). the next day, if your DM rules that fey giant apes don't exist, true polymorph it into a giant ape.

very respectable damage and attack rolls (not quite as high as a level 20 fighter, but then again, you can get one of these for every 1-2 days of downtime and they last for up to half a year, so you could potentially be looking at having as many as ~180 of them at a time), respectable ranged attack (tbh probably better than a melee-specialized fighter's ranged attack), athletics at +9, and being of (high) animal intelligence is likely not going to be hostile to you unless you treat it badly. being large, it can lift more than a medium-sized fighter as well.

as to the not healing argument, that's pure BS. they obviously heal. you can argue that we don't know what rate that they heal at, but unless you want to claim that humanoids have some sort of special healing powers it's going to be the same rate as anyone else. also, making any stupid rulings are going to screw over other characters with your "nuke it from orbit" solution. bonus marks if you make plate barding for them to compensate for their otherwise awful AC.

feeding your small army of apes may be a bit of a challenge if you go completely ridiculous on that front. on the plus side, you can carry an awful lot of food courtesy of the apes, and you may have the means to feed large numbers of creatures.

that said, i find it *incredibly* doubtful that the devs intended for there to be a spell with a minimum duration of 10 days that would require concentration the entire time. no other spell with a duration of more than one day has any similar requirement. any scenario that allows you to do what the planar binding spell describes should equally allow you to ignore the concentration requirement, because as written the duration is extended to match, and duration includes concentration.

[Wartex1]

Concentration is not part of duration, same as area not being the same as range.

It's a condition.

{scrubbed}

[silveralen]

as to the not healing argument, that's pure BS. they obviously heal. you can argue that we don't know what rate that they heal at, but unless you want to claim that humanoids have some sort of special healing powers it's going to be the same rate as anyone else.

Oh no, if I were actually running it I'd say "oh, so you want to bypass the concentration mechanic specifically designed to prevent such things? You want to use true polymorph to gain full control over a creature, despite the fact you could already do this with true polymorph in a balanced manner using object to creature? No, and if you try this again your character dies of a heart attack."

But if I were the sort of person obsessed with RAW? Then I'd prevent it in that manner, because I still need to keep the game from completely breaking and rule exploiting munchkins from ruining everyone's' fun.


that said, i find it *incredibly* doubtful that the devs intended for there to be a spell with a minimum duration of 10 days that would require concentration the entire time. no other spell with a duration of more than one day has any similar requirement. any scenario that allows you to do what the planar binding spell describes should equally allow you to ignore the concentration requirement, because as written the duration is extended to match, and duration includes concentration.

But the fact of the matter is that, if you want to talk about intent, you are clearly trying to bypass mechanics (concentration) deliberately designed to prevent such game breaking tactics. You are actively ruining the game for other players trying to find fun killing rules exploits. So unless it is 100% RAW legal with no wiggle room at all such tactics won't work at any table (even if they do only at tables that consider pure RAW the most important thing) because the moment it needs the least bit of RAI it will be shut down. Hard.

[SharkForce]

Oh no, if I were actually running it I'd say "oh, so you want to bypass the concentration mechanic specifically designed to prevent such things? You want to use true polymorph to gain full control over a creature, despite the fact you could already do this with true polymorph in a balanced manner using object to creature? No, and if you try this again your character dies of a heart attack."

But if I were the sort of person obsessed with RAW? Then I'd prevent it in that manner, because I still need to keep the game from completely breaking and rule exploiting munchkins from ruining everyone's' fun.



But the fact of the matter is that, if you want to talk about intent, you are clearly trying to bypass mechanics (concentration) deliberately designed to prevent such game breaking tactics. You are actively ruining the game for other players trying to find fun killing rules exploits. So unless it is 100% RAW legal with no wiggle room at all such tactics won't work at any table (even if they do only at tables that consider pure RAW the most important thing) because the moment it needs the least bit of RAI it will be shut down. Hard.

i don't have to argue intent. the spell explicitly tells us that it is intended to extend the duration of spells that summon or create creatures of a certain type. it further indicates that the duration is extended to *match*, and duration includes concentration. the entire basis of this argument is predicated on a houserule against it in the first place.

and i'm not using true polymorph to gain full control in that case. i just described to you how you obtain non-hostile creatures, and if they don't start off in the shape you want, how to get them into the shape you want. nothing more, nothing less. all control is being exerted by the planar binding spell. you permanently turn something (a rock, or a stick, or whatever else you feel like) into a creature that is an eligible target for planar binding of at least CR 7. you concentrate for the full duration, while it sits in a long-lasting magic circle. then you use planar binding. the next day, you get to the final shape you want.


if arguing intent means that you're doing something horrible and awful and abusive, then i would point out that you are arguing intent when you claim that the spells should not be allowed to function in a certain way because it's against the author's intent.

the problem is not "casters can do all kinds of things". the problem is that fighters can only do all kinds of things if your DM takes a *very* generous interpretation of the skill "rules" (if you can call them that), but only for certain skills, and even then other people can do all those skills but better.

if one class's supposed niche is so readily destroyed, then they should have a better niche than being a tiny bit better at DPR than other classes at the expense of everything else save personal toughness and the basic skills that everyone gets. they should have class abilities that are unique and valuable rather than being so severely threatend by weak minions that were supposed to have been impressive 10 levels ago, but certainly not any more. the simple fact of the matter is that if i bring *one* of those apes into battle, i'm probably bringing about as much toughness between myself and that single ape, and as much DPR between myself (casting cantrips) and that single ape, as a fighter. there is no need to bring 100 apes.

there are plenty of classes that cannot have their role overshadowed by a few summoned mooks. perhaps it is time to take a closer look at the fighter and ask yourself why the fighter is not one of them.

[Wartex1]

So apparently not allowing a ridiculously overpowered exploitation (caused by a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules) is "destroying" the niche of a class that, by your own words is "better" than others. Also, that a very specific skill should be just as useful as a skill that encompasses many other things like Athletics, or that limiting a skill to what it actually does to enforce this is somehow "neutering" the other skills and is being "unfairly generous" to the more valuable and useful skill.

[Asyrin]

the problem is not "casters can do all kinds of things". the problem is that fighters can only do all kinds of things if your DM takes a *very* generous interpretation of the skill "rules" (if you can call them that), but only for certain skills, and even then other people can do all those skills but better.

Eh...I must be one of those generous DMs then because the very first time my fighter player said, "I rip off the mind flayer's arm and start beating him to death with it." I knew what rolls that encompassed and how to do it. (And it was awesome)

Athletics and Strength checks are the two strongest combat abilities the fighter in the group I DM has.

[Vogonjeltz]

The first set seem far closer to the actual rules in my opinion, but it'll depend on your DM. The latter may also cause problems as magic circle wears off before the spell is finished being cast if it is an hour duration (technically both would but in he first case that just means dealing with a hostile enemy for a turn) so they hop back before the binding works without a house rule.

spells that interact without having to make unexplained allowances:

Conjure Fey - remains when concentration is broken, hostile.
Conjure Elemental - remains when concentration is broken, hostile.
Gate - Uncontrolled creature gets pulled through.
Planar Ally - uncontrolled, no time limit.

For the other spells (which are all lower level), I would probably allow the magic circle to prevent the creature from disappearing for concentration spells, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that that is how it actually operates (magic circle prevents teleportation and interplanar travel, whereas the conjuration spell simply indicates the conjured creatures disappears.)

[silveralen]

there are plenty of classes that cannot have their role overshadowed by a few summoned mooks. perhaps it is time to take a closer look at the fighter and ask yourself why the fighter is not one of them.

No there aren't. What problem can't be summoned by a 100+ count army that can include flying, swimming, and burrowing creatures? None.

Do you need to be able to stun people? Nope drown them in bodies. Burst damage? More monsters, drown them in at will damage. Need to sneak past someone? Burrow. Access a hard to reach area? Again burrow/swim/fly. Healing? Apparently your limitless horde heals so just rotate them off day to day and you are fine. Or summon fresh bodies later. Lock down/control an area? Just grapple. Some of these creatures have other abilities that do it as well. AoE? Just spread the damage around.

Social skills are still useful. That's it. That is the only niche this doesn't remove. Literally anything else can be done by drowning them in your 100 summon army.

[SharkForce]

eh, no.

you're not going to build things (though they can help with this somewhat). you're not going to solve puzzles. you're not going to sneak anywhere. you're not going to instantly travel to the other side of a continent or go to another plane (though your army might have those abilities, they're typically self-only). you're not going to make crops more fertile, or CC a huge radius while running away and not suffering untenable losses.

the army of 100 summons could probably be defeated by a competent party of 4 high level adventurers (though they'd have to do something smarter than just charging straight into them and having a big brawl). many problems can be solved with violence. many cannot.

heck, several other classes get the opportunity to be more powerful because you bring in a few summons. paladins get more out of their auras and can buff the entire area with bonus damage per attack, for example.

the problem is that all fighters get is more low-level options that are not particularly hard to duplicate by just having more people.

the only real high-level ability fighters get (that is, one that is not just "here's a lower-level ability an extra time or slightly improved") are the champion's regeneration and the eldritch knight's ability to make a single attack the same round as they cast a spell.

the first 6 levels of fighter are great... you get lots of abilities that are great at those levels, regardless of archetype. the next 5 are pretty decent... not much new, but they're all still good abilities after all. then it's 9 more levels before your next major DPR boost, and you get next to nothing in between.

the ASIs are certainly not the only culprits. but fact is, if fighters got something similarly unique to a paladin's aura at level 6, they'd be much better off (the same way that paladins are much better off because of the handful of unique things they can do, although they also lack slightly in high-level class features). the vast majority of their power is currently crammed into the first 3 levels or so. almost anyone can take 3 levels of fighter and enjoy most of what makes a fighter awesome (even 2 levels is enough to get a large portion of it).

DPR is easily replaced. tons of people can do it. even the expendable mooks the enemy is throwing at the party can do it, the ones that are mostly considered roadblocks on the way to killing the important targets. some do it better than others, but there are several other classes that do it almost as well as the fighter, and get other stuff too.

[Easy_Lee]

@SharkForce fighters are designed to do two things: deal damage and survive hits. That's all that they do by default, with champion adding more of that, battle master adding some versatility, and Eldritch Knight adding spells. But at the end of the day, fighters handle the damage; that's all.

If you don't feel that dealing in damage is a good enough role by itself, no one is forcing you to play a fighter. But many of us are just fine with it.

[SharkForce]

it isn't a good enough role by itself for a few main reasons:

1) everyone can do that, to varying degrees. it's not unique in any way.
2) some people can do that very well, *and* a bunch of other stuff.
3) they aren't better by that much in most cases
4) their progression is not in line with how most other classes progress; most classes get better at the things they did at level 1 and also get to do new things that they couldn't do at level 1. things appropriate for the higher levels they reach, more specifically.

(there's also a possibility that they are not even the best at DPR, but that's based only on a single claim I've seen from one poster regarding the DPR king threads on the WotC forums which I have not gone over particularly well at all, and which may very well be full of highly questionable builds and odd rulings or even flat-out errors for all I know... when I looked at the first post or two, for example, I noticed that you were supposed to account for crits by multiplying damage by 1.05, and I don't recall anything that made me believe it was only referring to the dice roll portion. certainly it is possible for certain caster tricks to exceed their DPR provided you're not picky about it all coming from one source).

[MadBear]

@SharkForce fighters are designed to do two things: deal damage and survive hits. That's all that they do by default, with champion adding more of that, battle master adding some versatility, and Eldritch Knight adding spells. But at the end of the day, fighters handle the damage; that's all.

If you don't feel that dealing in damage is a good enough role by itself, no one is forcing you to play a fighter. But many of us are just fine with it.

I think the problem stems from the fact that the fighters damage is only marginally better then everyone else's, and classes that get versatility, generally can also contribute a close amount of damage to the fighter.

Let me try an out of the box analogy:


Johnny: It's not fair that Timmy chose the rainbow cookie as his favorite, and he got a chocolate chip cookie, rainbow cookie, and peanut butter cookie, while I chose chocolate chip as my favorite and only get the chocolate chip cookie and a few crumbs of the others.

Mom: But your chocolate chip cookie is bigger then his chocolate chip cookie, because it's your favorite.

Johnny: Mine is only a tiny bit bigger, and his other cookies more then outweigh the one cookie I got.

Mom: But if we were to compare chocolate chip cookies, you'd come out ahead. Besides there should be variation in cookies. I mean how boring would the world be if everyone got the same types of cookie.

Johnny: But that's the problem, I'd like to live in a world where by choosing my favorite cookie, I still get some of the variety like the other kids who didn't choose chocolate chip.

Mom: Well that's your fault then. If you wanted a variety then you should have picked the cookie that gives you a variety.

Johnny: That'd be true if Timmy didn't get almost everything I got and more. It's like I'm being punished for liking chocolate chips.

Mom: Well that's just not true. Look there's chips and a variety of dip, you can have as much of that as you want.

Johnny: That's for everyone. While I appreciate it, it doesn't make my cookie dilemma any less true

Mom: Look it's fair. You get the biggest cookie, a tiny amount of other cookies, and chips and dip. You really need to stop complaining.

Johnny: ... ok, I guess

That's where I feel this whole conversation is at this point.

[Easy_Lee]

I think the problem stems from the fact that the fighters damage is only marginally better then everyone else's, and classes that get versatility, generally can also contribute a close amount of damage to the fighter.

If you run the numbers, martial at-will damage is actually significantly higher than everyone who's not a warlock with agonizing blast, and usually beats the warlock too.

An evocation Wizard, for example, adds INT one time to his cantrip which at 17 will do 4d10 damage or less. So even the best cantrips, besides EB, are only doing 27DPR average for casters who can add their mod.

A maxed fighter can easily double that, with rogues breaking 40 DPR. Rangers can hit 25.5-34DPR as early as 8 with the right setup (dual wield + hoard breaker + max dex = 4*(1d6+5)). And that's without consuming any resources. Even a basic monk with a quarterstaff can reach 23.5 at-will DPR by 5 (2d8+1d4+3*4), and they have more options than just about any other "mundane."

There are ways to keep up with melee DPR as a caster, but most of them involve multiclassing into warlock or careful resource management. Casters have an easier time and are much better off using their spells to solve problems that can't be solved with violence or to buff allies. Consider just how much mileage a sorcerer can get out of twin-casting haste on the mundanes in the party, and you'll see that working as a team is pretty clearly the name of the game.

[SharkForce]

If you run the numbers, martial at-will damage is actually significantly higher than everyone who's not a warlock with agonizing blast, and usually beats the warlock too.

An evocation Wizard, for example, adds INT one time to his cantrip which at 17 will do 4d10 damage or less. So even the best cantrips, besides EB, are only doing 27DPR average for casters who can add their mod.

A maxed fighter can easily double that, with rogues breaking 40 DPR. Rangers can hit 25.5-34DPR as early as 8 with the right setup (dual wield + hoard breaker + max dex = 4*(1d6+5)). And that's without consuming any resources. Even a monk with a quarterstaff can reach 23.5DPR by 5 (2d8+1d4+3*4), and they have more options than just about any other "mundane."

There are ways to keep up with melee DPR as a caster, but most of them involve multiclassing into warlock or careful resource management. Casters have an easier time and are much better off using their spells to solve problems that can't be solved with violence or to buff allies. Consider just how much mileage a sorcerer can get out of twin-casting haste on the mundanes in the party, and you'll see that working as a team is pretty clearly the name of the game.

sure, I don't question that martial damage is higher than casters (barring the caster using class features to obtain minions which are perfectly capable of dealing out plenty of DPR).

the problem is that a paladin will deal, say, around 2 times as much as a wizard. and then the fighter will deal 2.1 times as much as the wizard, but meanwhile the paladin has 5 levels of spellcasting, lay on hands, the ability to dispel spells, 1-2 auras, and channel divinity on top of their nearly equal DPR and toughness.

a rogue will deal, say, 1.9 times as much damage as a wizard but can also provide stealth, traps, perception, and be just as good as the fighter in athletics even if the rogue dumped strength entirely (and should the rogue ever get his hands on a girdle of giant strength, he gets markedly better than the fighter), plus evasion, uncanny dodge, etc.

a warlock will have 1.9 times as much damage as a wizard, and gets to see through magical darkness, shove people around like crazy, inflict disadvantage on an enemy's attributes, gets a decent selection of buff, debuff, and nuke spells, can use all rituals, has a positively terrifying opportunity attack, etc.

so even if we buy into double DPR (and larger nova, at least as far as single targets are concerned) and impressive toughness being worth all of the extra stuff that a full caster gets... you compare the fighter in particular to, say, a paladin, and you have to start asking yourself whether an extra little bit of extra DPR is worth all of the stuff that paladins get *in addition* to DPR and toughness.

[silveralen]

eh, no.

you're not going to build things (though they can help with this somewhat). you're not going to solve puzzles. you're not going to sneak anywhere. you're not going to instantly travel to the other side of a continent or go to another plane (though your army might have those abilities, they're typically self-only). you're not going to make crops more fertile, or CC a huge radius while running away and not suffering untenable losses.

Right. Because we all know how much of the game involves building things. Mechanical abilities don't solve puzzles, player cleverness does so irrelevant to class balance (unless said puzzles are benefited by being able to fly/burrow or any of the other 1000 abilities available with these summons). Sure they can sneak somewhere, tons of different ways to travel and you can summon/bind fey or beast troops with stealth abilities. Yeah, because that's totally an ability fighters would ever have, planar travel. Same to the latter two. Inf act... none of this is anything even vaguely related to a fighter archetype except maybe building things or stealth and those are huge stretches.

This sort of tactic invalidates any ability fighter would ever have which makes any sense for fighter to have.


the army of 100 summons could probably be defeated by a competent party of 4 high level adventurers (though they'd have to do something smarter than just charging straight into them and having a big brawl). many problems can be solved with violence. many cannot.

Yes, with a DPR of 3000 or higher and a CR, I'm sure the party would be fine. No problems at all.

Helpful hint: fighter. The class will always be about combat and violence. Nothing that would make sense for the class would be outside this.


heck, several other classes get the opportunity to be more powerful because you bring in a few summons. paladins get more out of their auras and can buff the entire area with bonus damage per attack, for example.

the problem is that all fighters get is more low-level options that are not particularly hard to duplicate by just having more people.

Except... no because this trivializes all combat forever. It renders combat irrelevant because it gives you a practically limitless army. What paladin buff is going to be better than bringing another wizard with another 100+ minions? Nothing. Not a single thing comes even close. No spell or ability paladin has is going to beat another 3000 DPR and 10000 disposable HP in any sort of combat.

the only real high-level ability fighters get (that is, one that is not just "here's a lower-level ability an extra time or slightly improved") are the champion's regeneration and the eldritch knight's ability to make a single attack the same round as they cast a spell.


DPR is easily replaced. tons of people can do it. even the expendable mooks the enemy is throwing at the party can do it, the ones that are mostly considered roadblocks on the way to killing the important targets. some do it better than others, but there are several other classes that do it almost as well as the fighter, and get other stuff too.

That isn't all he can do, but what he can do is focused around combat and nothing comes close to what this brings to combat. Nothing could ever come close. Being able to permanently turn yourself into a dragon is, compared to this, a complete waste of because it is too weak to matter. That's how utterly absurd such exploits are. Complaining this is why fighter is "too weak" is idiotic.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that the whole at-will/short rest/long rest balance doesn't mean that much to most full casters in 5E once you hit mid-high levels and have a bunch of spells slots (and maybe a class ability that refreshes them).

For example, pretty much every Cleric 8ish+ could spam Spiritual Weapon in every combat, unless the DM is running 8+ combat encounters per day. So in effect, Cleric 8 "at-will" damage is really much higher then it seems at first glance (though still not game breaking), assuming that damage output is what he wants to sink his spell slot resources into. (Plus he retains the option to heal/summon/buff/etc in many other ways, if he's willing to have lower damage output).

[Forum Explorer]

It's also worth mentioning that the whole at-will/short rest/long rest balance doesn't mean that much to most full casters in 5E once you hit mid-high levels and have a bunch of spells slots (and maybe a class ability that refreshes them).

For example, pretty much every Cleric 8ish+ could spam Spiritual Weapon in every combat, unless the DM is running 8+ combat encounters per day. So in effect, Cleric 8 "at-will" damage is really much higher then it seems at first glance (though still not game breaking), assuming that damage output is what he wants to sink his spell slot resources into. (Plus he retains the option to heal/summon/buff/etc in many other ways, if he's willing to have lower damage output).

Shouldn't they?

Right now I'm averaging 2-3 combats per short rest, and 2-3 short rests per long. So on average I'm between 6-12 combats per day. Going over eight isn't rare.

[Person_Man]

Shouldn't they?

Right now I'm averaging 2-3 combats per short rest, and 2-3 short rests per long. So on average I'm between 6-12 combats per day. Going over eight isn't rare.

My experience has been that PCs can Rest whenever they want unless the DM forces them not to.

So for particular game session or two its possible that the PCs have to "beat the clock" plot element, or are constantly harassed by wandering monsters, or whatever. I personally tend to lean very heavily on the latter balancing mechanism - if players aren't in a town or other well defended area, there's always a chance of a random encounter (with the probability of an encounter scaling up based on how dangerous the area might be).

But that's not necessarily sustainable over a long running campaign unless the DM starts the players at the bottom of the world's largest dungeon or otherwise railroads them. Eventually, the players will get access to Rope Trick, Wind Walk, etc, or will just go back to town and Rest when they start running low.

Though obviously, a lot depends on the specific DM and the expectations of the players. Different people are different.

[Xetheral]

Shouldn't they?

Right now I'm averaging 2-3 combats per short rest, and 2-3 short rests per long. So on average I'm between 6-12 combats per day. Going over eight isn't rare.

I've never run eight encounters in a single day. Maybe I once or twice hit seven? I'll occasionally do six, but that's a once-or-twice in a campaign thing, and usually results from unexpected player choices rather than a deliberate plan on my part.

I know the 5e DMG speaks of 8-10 as "typical", but I find that mind-boggling. The sheer level of violence that assumption implies in the campaign setting strains my credulity.

Sure, you can run a game that violent, but I can't believe the DMG is correct in assuming that fully half of all tables average more than 8-10.

[Forum Explorer]

My experience has been that PCs can Rest whenever they want unless the DM forces them not to.

So for particular game session or two its possible that the PCs have to "beat the clock" plot element, or are constantly harassed by wandering monsters, or whatever. I personally tend to lean very heavily on the latter balancing mechanism - if players aren't in a town or other well defended area, there's always a chance of a random encounter (with the probability of an encounter scaling up based on how dangerous the area might be).

But that's not necessarily sustainable over a long running campaign unless the DM starts the players at the bottom of the world's largest dungeon or otherwise railroads them. Eventually, the players will get access to Rope Trick, Wind Walk, etc, or will just go back to town and Rest when they start running low.

Though obviously, a lot depends on the specific DM and the expectations of the players. Different people are different.

So far I haven't needed to use the clock (though I did have one running, they beat it anyways, without knowing about it) cause my group just keeps going for as long as they possibly can before resting.


I've never run eight encounters in a single day. Maybe I once or twice hit seven? I'll occasionally do six, but that's a once-or-twice in a campaign thing, and usually results from unexpected player choices rather than a deliberate plan on my part.

I know the 5e DMG speaks of 8-10 as "typical", but I find that mind-boggling. The sheer level of violence that assumption implies in the campaign setting strains my credulity.

Sure, you can run a game that violent, but I can't believe the DMG is correct in assuming that fully half of all tables average more than 8-10.

My campaign is super violent, admittedly. (All evil creatures and people have gone berserk and are attacking wildly. So lots of violence to be had)

[archaeo]

I've never run eight encounters in a single day. Maybe I once or twice hit seven? I'll occasionally do six, but that's a once-or-twice in a campaign thing, and usually results from unexpected player choices rather than a deliberate plan on my part.

I know the 5e DMG speaks of 8-10 as "typical", but I find that mind-boggling. The sheer level of violence that assumption implies in the campaign setting strains my credulity.

Sure, you can run a game that violent, but I can't believe the DMG is correct in assuming that fully half of all tables average more than 8-10.

This isn't what the DMG says, though. It says:


Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

Emphasis mine, though the rest of that "The Adventuring Day" subheading is worth reading again, especially since it basically restates that in terms of an XP-per-adventurer-per-day table. Perhaps it'd be better if the DMG just came out and said it, but it seems clear enough to me that the intention of this advice is to say "If you want fewer encounters, consider ratcheting the difficulty up, and vice versa."

Otherwise, the system just assumes that you synthesize all this information. It'd be just as easy to say "Players will likely need a short rest after 1/3 of the day's expected XP is accrued," or something.

[silveralen]

My experience has been that PCs can Rest whenever they want unless the DM forces them not to.

So for particular game session or two its possible that the PCs have to "beat the clock" plot element, or are constantly harassed by wandering monsters, or whatever. I personally tend to lean very heavily on the latter balancing mechanism - if players aren't in a town or other well defended area, there's always a chance of a random encounter (with the probability of an encounter scaling up based on how dangerous the area might be).

But that's not necessarily sustainable over a long running campaign unless the DM starts the players at the bottom of the world's largest dungeon or otherwise railroads them. Eventually, the players will get access to Rope Trick, Wind Walk, etc, or will just go back to town and Rest when they start running low.

Though obviously, a lot depends on the specific DM and the expectations of the players. Different people are different.

I've started handling this problem by cutting XP rewards, for the rather logical reason that the PCs aren't pushing themselves at all and thus their abilities aren't growing particularly fast. So if you long rest after a mere 4 average encounters, you get half the normal XP from those encounters (I've always rewarded XP after multiple encounters to save wear and tear on character sheets, so that didn't take much of a change).

Nothing motivates players to keep pushing themselves like the threat of losing that sweet XP.

[SharkForce]

you're right, many of those are not things the fighter can do. most of them even.

and that's the problem. in any situation other than combat, the fighter has nothing particularly special to bring. in any combat situation, the only special thing the fighter brings is a smidgeon more DPR than anyone else, and even that isn't entirely certain.

as to bringing 100 summons, again, plenty of other classes add more than just DPR. certainly, you're unlikely to suffer 0 attrition once you start adventuring if you just brute-force things, and you're going to need to take regular breaks to get your numbers back up (if you want 100 minions, we're talking either 100 days prep time or 200 days prep time). far more likely, you'll be able to bring a few minions, but not remotely close to 100 to the vast majority of situations (and when you do bring 100 minions, you're giving up your downtime that could be spent doing something else).

[Xetheral]

This isn't what the DMG says, though. It says:



Emphasis mine, though the rest of that "The Adventuring Day" subheading is worth reading again, especially since it basically restates that in terms of an XP-per-adventurer-per-day table. Perhaps it'd be better if the DMG just came out and said it, but it seems clear enough to me that the intention of this advice is to say "If you want fewer encounters, consider ratcheting the difficulty up, and vice versa."

Otherwise, the system just assumes that you synthesize all this information. It'd be just as easy to say "Players will likely need a short rest after 1/3 of the day's expected XP is accrued," or something.

I was remembering wrong--thanks! I'll reread the section later to get the rest of the context. After reading the myriad threads on encounter pacing, I had it in my mind that 8-10 (or 6-8, as the case may be) was described as "typical", suggesting it was the median across tables.

[silveralen]

you're right, many of those are not things the fighter can do. most of them even.

and that's the problem. in any situation other than combat, the fighter has nothing particularly special to bring. in any combat situation, the only special thing the fighter brings is a smidgeon more DPR than anyone else, and even that isn't entirely certain.

Okay, how many of those things do you want fighter to do?

1. Building stuff: Is your definition of a fighter an architect? An engineer? I can see justification for siege engines or the like similar to some of the 2nd edition rules (or was that just darksun?) but are we wanting anything beyond that?

2. Puzzle Solving: Well... this is incredibly open ended. Most puzzles are solved by player creativity and thought, not class abilities. It's also so open ended it is hard to define what would and wouldn't contribute.

3. Sneak: A dex based fighter isn't bad at stealth as is. EK helps a little extra, and champion should except exceptional athlete has a silly restriction I hope gets errata'd. But beyond that not really much to do here.

4. Teleport/planeshift: No. EK shouldn't be getting to that level of spell casting and it certainly shouldn't happen without spells.

5. Make crops more fertile: I mean... do we really want this as a fighter ability? Is this a thing anyone cares about for their fighter?

6. CC a huge radius: Again, this simply isn't something fighter or any class similar to him has done. How would he even begin to CC a huge area? Some incredibly loud shout? It isn't something I'd ever feel is a huge part of fighter, EK has some because it actually makes sense there, but without spells there is no even moderately sane way to emulate a huge area.

This is my problem, the things you mentioned the 100 minion swarm not being able to do are things fighter shouldn't be doing, abilities that make little sense on fighter and arguably screw up his flavor. Things that do make sense would still be rendered worthless. It doesn't matter if he is a master athlete able to scale mountains without using his hands when you have a 100 minions who can fly ready to ferry everyone to the top. It doesn't matter if he can perform a whirlwind attack hitting everyone in a 10 m radius around him when that still ails miserable to even come close to the carnage 100 minion can put out. Any niche he could fill will be rendered useless.


as to bringing 100 summons, again, plenty of other classes add more than just DPR. certainly, you're unlikely to suffer 0 attrition once you start adventuring if you just brute-force things, and you're going to need to take regular breaks to get your numbers back up (if you want 100 minions, we're talking either 100 days prep time or 200 days prep time). far more likely, you'll be able to bring a few minions, but not remotely close to 100 to the vast majority of situations (and when you do bring 100 minions, you're giving up your downtime that could be spent doing something else).

Nope, no breaks needed, unless by breaks you mean short/long rests. It is unlikely your minions will get taken down in a single encounter and apparently they can heal so just cycle through your army and let them heal (since apparently no one enforces encounters per day either). Why won't you have 100? Nothing stops you. Just have 100 days of down time pre adventure. Then rotate through them and let them constantly heal to keep a constant 25-50 on the field at any time.

Don't start tossing out "well, you won't be able to bring 100 for nebulous reasons I don't mention despite there being no game restriction and my own arguments having already invalidated the only RP reasons to not". when i point out how it renders anyone without access useless.

Any class that can't bring 100 minions? Not worth having. Paladin? Worthless, who cares about saving throws and crappy burst damage that can't even come close to 5 summons DPR. Monk? Nope, who needs to stun when you can just out muscle them. Warlock? No reason to, his advantage over other casters is now inconsequential DPR. Cleric? Why not be a bard instead, then you get access to all the spells you need to have infinite minions and most of the better cleric spells (and you can grab whatever you missed). Sorcerer? Same thing, no reason to not go wizard it isn't like any of his metamagic holds a candle to this tactic. It isn't fighter, this tactic has screwed over everyone but bard and wizard. There is no point, you found a tactic that completely breaks the game for everyone and are trying to use that to justify a single class being weak when it renders the majority useless by comparison. That's insane troll logic if I ever saw it.

[SharkForce]

well, the first reason you can't plausibly have 100 summoned minions is that it would cost you 100,000 gold (unless you're prepared for them all to be hostile instead of helpful) which requires that you somehow be *earning* that much gold in spite of spending so much of your downtime on keeping your army maintained, require that you have the downtime, know you're going to need them in advance, and don't have anything better to do with your time like research more spells. you *can* get them free, of course, but that means you need at least two days each.

which brings us to the second reason you can't plausibly have 100 summoned minions at all times. you're only going to have them for 183 days (or thereabouts), and at 1 every 2 days (the rate at which you can get free minions via wishing on the day after you true polymorph) you're going to run out of time on your first summons before the last one is summoned. at 1 per day, you've got them for a while, but you've got to come up with a lot of cash (and hope you don't need your level 4, 8, and 9 slot on those days while we're at it). plus of course free minions are only available to the wizard and the bard in the first place (nobody else gets both wish and summoning spells).

thirdly, you don't get all kinds of abilities, practically speaking. there is no spell to control fiends safely, and frankly i don't think i'd trust a fiend even if it was the fiend version of friendly, so they're all off the list unless you're crazy enough to want to have 100 hostile fiends twisting your every command (even evil people shouldn't want that, if they're at all sane). you can get elementals, but their ability list is pretty limited. you can get fey, which are fairly limited in abilities (even the hags don't have a lot of variety). celestials are an option, but there isn't a huge variety of abilities there either (at least, not at CR 9). you don't, as a rule, get teleports and plane shifts and such. you can get a fair amount of healing out of unicorns, though i would argue that binding an army of unicorns has it's own limitations similar to having an army of undead. not to mention good luck getting unicorns into a dungeon with stairs and narrow corridoors. the giant apes are kind of ideal for a variety of reasons, not least of which would be that you can bring them most places you could bring a humanoid and a diet reasonably similar to humanoid creatures, combined with high animal intelligence that likely lets them understand a wider range of commands).

more practically speaking, it's fairly reasonable to keep a smaller number around at any given time, of a few of the more widely useful types of minion (giant owls are another good option).

and this is where the breakdown occurs. because, like i said, even one moderately high CR minion (eg the ape) can bring the caster's DPR up to pretty much the same place as the fighter. bring along a couple, and the fighter is probably close to being out-DPR'd by just those two minions alone (especially if they manage to get off some of their rather punishing opportunity attacks). not to mention the apes, being huge, can do some things the fighter couldn't (truthfully, at times you may need to make them smaller; 10-foot hallways won't make them very happy).

and that is why you have a problem with fighter not bringing something more than just toughness and DPR. they bring nothing unique. if you have a party where just two people bring along giant apes, using spell slots from 3 months ago when the party was resting between adventures, you have a party that can pretty much replace a fighter's main contribution. and two giant apes? totally plausible to bring along. heck, from what i can tell, even you would allow two casters to bring along a giant ape each.

which creates the problem that last month's spell slots (plus some gold possibly) are worth uncomfortably close to half a fighter today. not many other classes can be replaced so easily.

edit: and to clarify, i don't want fighters to be able to do everything on the list i posted. rather, i want fighters (and every other class) to have at least one thing they can point to and say "i do this and nobody else can", and for at least one of the things they can do that nobody else can to be of value to the party.

[silveralen]

To be frank I'm not letting anyone use planar binding for things other then guard duty, or sending them on tasks, or other things people have actually bound summoned creatures to do, the intent of the spell. If it's in combat you are using your action to order it around (locking it at one max). Getting around concentration is a big no, you never get a summoned creature you control without it this edition full stop. That's how I'd balance it. That's not RAI or anything, that's just me stopping people like you from ruining the fun of someone who wants to play a simple DPR class with a couple extra combat features. Who exist. Heck I enjoy playing such a class I have a lvl 12 champion fighter right now I'm enjoying, though apparently I'm not allowed to.

Of course I'm still curious why you'd bother with a warlock over a wizard in your example. Sorcerer as well. Seems like being able to rock 5/10 summoned creatures is far better than anything unique their class brings.

You found a rule exploit that screws up balance of, at minimum, two classes (fighter/warlock). That's all you've managed. Proves nothing about those classes being weak, just that you found a way to screw over one of their major niches.

But seriously, if I want to play a simple DPR class without much beyond that, I basically have one class and subclass (maybe two subclasses). I do enjoy playing that sometimes. It is relaxing. I'm not super big on tactical combat in table top games (I associate this more with computer games), so I tend towards the simpler classes with straightforward repeatable tactics. You could play literally anything else and have what you want. Why can't I just be a good DPR class and be better at it than others? If that's enough, for me, as a player, to enjoy myself, why is that wrong? Because you don't like it? I don't enjoy playing wizards, should we strip out all their spells so they only have a handful of scaling cantrips to choose between? That's more the sort of caster I enjoy (and yes, warlock is my favorite caster). No, because different classes appeal to different people.

[Mara]

@silveralen

Haha. Dude, you don't need to nerf planar binding. You know he will never move from his position.

Planar binding is probably just worse than managing businesses/lands/titles and fielding an army. Which is something any class can do in the time it takes to bind all these outsiders and maintaining them. Those 100 elementals you have will be crushed by 3000+ militia. Humans rule the D&D universe for a very good reason (and other things exist because humans are not overly cheap with their lives).

Yeah summons do not replace the fighter. No one could honestly argue that. Keyword: Honestly
Even champion fighters have scary amounts of versatility with adding half prof bonus to all str, dex, and con checks that they don't already add prof too. The simplest class in the game has limitless possibilities facilitated by class features. Do caster get shiny toys? Well sure, but I don't think anyone is arguing against casters having nice things.

[SharkForce]

the problem is that they get the exact same nice things that everyone gets as a baseline, and then their only class feature is "i do a bit more damage (usually) and am tougher than average". you're strong? good for you. nothing unique there, though. you're agile? again, that's all very well and good, but nothing particularly unique. lots of other people can fill that role. everything you do, with the exception of the regeneration that high level champions get, is to do the same thing everyone else does, except slightly better. you're not even a *lot* better.

i'm not saying the class needs to turn into a wizard. i'm saying that DPR alone is not enough of a class feature to keep you relevant in the end game as written. the only reason it isn't a problem in your games is because you house rule the problem away. you're completely within your rights to change the rules to make the game more enjoyable for yourself. but that doesn't change what the rules in the book say. it's crazy to try and tell me that i'm playing the game wrong by looking at what is placed in front of me, and accepting that it is the default. it's even crazier to try and tell me that the existing rules should not be the default for online discussion when it is the *only* thing we each have equal access to.

it isn't a rule exploit. there's nothing being used in a suspect way. everything is being used exactly how it is described as being used.

as to why you would be a warlock or a sorcerer instead of a wizard (mechanically), well, let's take it one at a time:

warlock: invocations are the main reason. stamina is the secondary reason. you sacrifice versatility for those things. a warlock can keep healthy on short rests by using vampiric grasp (up to 40d6 HP per time you cast it), uses a far more useful attribute for active skills, and can cast far more level 5 spells than anyone else in an adventuring day while being only slightly behind on higher level spells. they get the only DC-boosting item you're likely to get any time soon, which is a very important in its own way. they are tougher than a wizard by a fairly significant margin. it also takes a lot less system mastery and planning to make a warlock work. the wizard can plan for specifics better, but the warlock has better resources to be prepared for situations in general.

sorcerer: metamagic. plain and simple. every other caster in the game wishes they had access to it. they do, in my opinion, trade a bit too much for it (the loss of nearly all of the most versatile spells is the real kicker, imo, although i do also feel that their archetypes suffer pretty badly as well). but that's pretty much the whole reason to go sorcerer... to twin haste spells when needed, or to cast spells underwater with subtle spell, or to quicken a scorching ray in the same round that you twin a firebolt. or to get a heighten at just the right time to land that critical CC spell.

as to why those things are more important than being able to summon a few creatures, it's quite simple: if you don't get to act, i don't care what your DPR is. it can be enough to kill me in a single round, and if i land the right CC on you, it doesn't matter at all. and the main thing that summoned minions will be good for, is DPR. oh, some of them have decent CC. a few can even mind control a few enemies (mostly fiends, which you can't trust in the best of situations, but dryads can be handy for that too if you meet the right type of enemy). but mostly what you're going to get out of summoned minions is DPR. that's not bad or anything; certainly, it speeds up the death of CC'd enemies. but ultimately, it still all comes down to action economy, and those who can remove or devalue the actions of their opponents will tend to win more often than not at high levels. at low levels, DPR is king because you can relatively easily inflict one of the most powerful and reliable forms of CC: death. at higher levels, HP increases faster than DPR, and it is no longer so easy to do.

[silveralen]

the problem is that they get the exact same nice things that everyone gets as a baseline, and then their only class feature is "i do a bit more damage (usually) and am tougher than average". you're strong? good for you. nothing unique there, though. you're agile? again, that's all very well and good, but nothing particularly unique. lots of other people can fill that role. everything you do, with the exception of the regeneration that high level champions get, is to do the same thing everyone else does, except slightly better. you're not even a *lot* better.

Here is the thing: Literally anything any class can do another class can do except not quite as good. It doesn't matter what you are talking about. No role, focus, or tactic is unique to a single class to the point another cannot emulate it to a lesser degree. The only issue is if the focus of class is bypassed by another class whose focus lies elsewhere. Then it becomes a problem. Otherwise it is not.

You seem to think DPR isn't worth focusing on, in which case I highly recommend you not play a class that focuses on it. I want a class who focuses on it. i want a class for whom that is their big thing. That class is currently fighter. This means I like fighter. You don't, so don't play it. This is not complicated.


i'm not saying the class needs to turn into a wizard. i'm saying that DPR alone is not enough of a class feature to keep you relevant in the end game as written. the only reason it isn't a problem in your games is because you house rule the problem away. you're completely within your rights to change the rules to make the game more enjoyable for yourself. but that doesn't change what the rules in the book say. it's crazy to try and tell me that i'm playing the game wrong by looking at what is placed in front of me, and accepting that it is the default. it's even crazier to try and tell me that the existing rules should not be the default for online discussion when it is the *only* thing we each have equal access to.

it isn't a rule exploit. there's nothing being used in a suspect way. everything is being used exactly how it is described as being used.

The thing is, you aren't talking about fixing a problem. I'm discussing preserving fighter's niche as the highest DPR class. That's fixing the problem.

You are taking evidence of a class losing their niche as evidence that class suddenly needs to have access to a ton of different abilities in no way represented by the base class, because that is the sort of class you want to play. That is not fixing the problem. That is ignoring the problem and deciding it means an entire style of class is thus useless and not worth worrying about. Thus we lose an actual unique class and get it replaced by something we already have plenty of.

It's 100% a rules exploit using multiple spells to get around concentration and have a constant swarm of combat pets, something concentration is explicitly designed to prevent. That's a loophole you have found in the concentration mechanic and certain spells. That is not intended, or else why would concentration exist? Why would object to creature polymorph simply allow permanent control of the new creature without concentration, something it goes out of its way to prevent. It's a RAW exploit that clearly isn't RAI.

[SharkForce]

i'm not using object to creature polymorph to control anything. i'm using object to creature polymorph to create permanent creatures which can be turned into minions using planar binding (and which can then potentially be given ape form if needed by the same spell). object-to-creature polymorph explicitly stops controlling once the spell is made permanent (but also explicitly says that the creature's opinion of you depends on how it is treated, rather than making it hostile or sending it back to its home plane as other concentration spells do), and i've already explicitly said you concentrate until it's permanent.

planar binding is the no-concentration-required spell that is doing the control. it is working exactly as intended; it is a spell that controls creatures, for a long period of time, with no concentration requirement. you just have to find a creature that won't object to being in a subservient position for extended periods of time; animal-intelligence creatures that typically live in groups are basically ideal for that, for the same reason that they make better minions even without any spells to control them. they're used to taking orders from a stronger member of the (pack, troop, pride, murder, or whatever a group of them is called). treat them well (feed them, provide care for wounds, etc), and you should have no more problems than you would with a warhorse or a trained dog.

DPR alone can be easily replaced. many other things cannot. a DPR-focused class is fine; paladins, rogues, and even monks are primarily DPR with some toughness mixed in... but they also enjoy other things, like party support, stealth and skill use, mobility and control, etc.

i don't even think the fighter needs to be made more complex. the paladin save bonus aura is a very simple ability that requires few choices (primarily positioning). it is also a tremendously powerful ability that nobody else gets, which gives the paladin tremendous value in the late game when it makes the difference between throwing +0 vs DC 18+ effects (1 in 10 or 1 in 20), and throwing +5 vs those same effects (about 1 in 3 odds... a drastic improvement).

it doesn't have to be complicated. it just needs to be something that adds to the party in a way that another character (or a couple of added mooks) can't.

[silveralen]

DPR alone can be easily replaced. many other things cannot. a DPR-focused class is fine; paladins, rogues, and even monks are primarily DPR with some toughness mixed in... but they also enjoy other things, like party support, stealth and skill use, mobility and control, etc.

i don't even think the fighter needs to be made more complex. the paladin save bonus aura is a very simple ability that requires few choices (primarily positioning). it is also a tremendously powerful ability that nobody else gets, which gives the paladin tremendous value in the late game when it makes the difference between throwing +0 vs DC 18+ effects (1 in 10 or 1 in 20), and throwing +5 vs those same effects (about 1 in 3 odds... a drastic improvement).

it doesn't have to be complicated. it just needs to be something that adds to the party in a way that another character (or a couple of added mooks) can't.

Oh? Things mooks can't provide?

Paladin: The paladin save aura bonus can be replicated by getting a number of low level low level minions to spam resistance on party members. Or you could polymorph whatever you have bound into a couple hobgoblin captains/warlords instead. Smites are just damage so that's easy, and buff spells are handled better by others in any case.

Monk: Mobility? Any flying summoned creature laughs at monks. Fly speed 60ft isn't even hard to get, and more than a few monsters can teleport, or phase through object. Control? Water elementals and air elementals are kinda neat in that regard. Think what 2-3 could do a turn. Or enough ghasts till they inevitably fail a save.

Rogue: Stealth? Unicorn can spam pass without trace as an at will, which can target other people. Not to mention all the creatures that are always invisible. Skill use? Any skill you want I bet some creature in the MM has at some value, mix that with one that can cast guidance or the spell which gives advantage on certain skill checks and you are golden.

What on earth makes you think being able to cart around 5-10 of any creature in the MM is only going to boost DPR? You could arguably do anything they do, either slightly worse or dramatically better depending on exactly how many creatures you bring along. None of the abilities you mention are any more protected from his tactic than DPR is. None of them. Because this tactic breaks the game and has nothing to do with fighter being weak, it is 100% gamebreaking and renders any class that can't do it worthless. You are just to biased to see that.

[SharkForce]

actually, i did some checking. i knew the apes had athletics. what is surprising is how few other creatures have it and can actually be controlled by planar binding and have a CR that makes it reasonable to actually expect to be able to get them (you can try gate... but you're gonna *really* regret it if you gate in a CR 21 creature and fail to control it before your magic circle wears off, plus, the magic circle isn't exactly total protection either).

so... as far as athletics is concerned, you have two choices; apes and giant apes. invisibility doesn't make you that stealthy, it just lets you try and hide. pass without trace does make you stealthy, but seeing as how it stacks and hits an area, the rogue will still be *more* stealthy than everyone else. plenty of flying creatures are fast. very few of them can stun up to 4 targets in a single round, and even fewer of them have DC 19 (in fact, if we're talking about CR 9 or less, which are the only ones that are easy to get your hands on, i don't think *any* of them have a particularly high DC saves). the hobgoblin captain ability is pretty good, but it's much easier to get rid of a hobgoblin captain than a high level paladin, or even a giant ape (and the ability doesn't come back if you get the captain back on its feet). it's also an action to activate (note it is listed under "actions") which means it does nothing in the event of a surprise attack. it is also language-dependant, which means that giant apes, for example, cannot benefit from it. still, it is not completely far off.

some skills can be obtained fairly easily in some measure (perception and stealth are probably the most common, though many creatures actually have none at all). the giant ape is the only option i could find that was remotely competitive with a high level fighter in athletics (at +9, it isn't quite as good... but it also isn't that far behind). if you want to compare to what a specialized rogue can do in a skill they're focusing on, it isn't even close.

practically speaking, if you have a few summoned creatures, you can cover a few bases, but not that many. the only one you can cover to the same extent as an actual character, however, is the fighter. 2 level 1 rogues with +7 in a certain skill are handy to have around, but a level 11+ rogue can have +13 to that same skill and be guaranteed to never roll less than 10, even with disadvantage. the level 11 rogue will *never* have less than a roll of 23 on a skill they specialized in. meanwhile, the minimum the level 1 thieves can hit is 8.

in 10 years, if they're still on 5th edition and there are 10 monster manuals full of creatures you can bind, there might be grounds to say that you can obsolete anyone who can't summon their own collection of minions. even then, i have my doubts so long as we're sticking to CR 9 or less for many roles.

[Mara]

On the other thread there is a good comparison how the all wizard party fared worse than the sorcerer/cleric/fighter/rogue party against simple encounters.

Turns out, real PC DPR is very handy.

Of course the idea that Fighters are just tanky DPR is completely false. The 5e skill system is the strongest I have seen in any edition. And aside from facetious claims about how Arcane checks should add d10s to fireballs, the skill system boosts martials more. (Alought knowledge checks are still needed for critical monster information).

[silveralen]

invisibility doesn't make you that stealthy, it just lets you try and hide. pass without trace does make you stealthy, but seeing as how it stacks and hits an area, the rogue will still be *more* stealthy than everyone else.

So? If you have a giant ape and a fighter you have more DPR than just a giant ape or a fighter. If you have a rogue and a unicorn you have more stealth. But we are talking in a vacuum. Otherwise, why not look for ways to use your summoned creatures to boost the fighter DPR, rather than supplant it.

Grab yourself one to thing to polymorph into an invisible stalker and one unicorn. Stealth checks at +20. A rogue on their own is a +17 with a minimum roll of 10. DC 25 rogue is better, DC 30 the planar binding offers more stealth, everything else the exact same. Well, plus the invisible stalker has the benefits of invisibility. For a fun alternative, young brass shadow dragon (barely scrapes in at 9 cr). Same stealth check, but it's a dragon which is hilarious.


plenty of flying creatures are fast. very few of them can stun up to 4 targets in a single round, and even fewer of them have DC 19 (in fact, if we're talking about CR 9 or less, which are the only ones that are easy to get your hands on, i don't think *any* of them have a particularly high DC saves).

A giant ape can't hit as often or deal as much damage as a fighter, it doesn't have as high a hit bonus or as much damage, so why on earth would you need the same DC? The giant ape is maybe half as effective as a fighter, so a dc 14-16 is perfectly capable of "invalidating" a monk as easily as fighter using you own logic. It doesn't have to be as good, your own rules that make that clear, just good enough.

So how about a spectator? 2 paralyze/confusions attempts to anyone within 90 ft per turn. He even can deflect spells like a monk deflect arrows. Three of those lock down a nice big area, and paralyze can possibly last multiple turns. Lower save DC, but hey you can target two different saves so that helps. Shame we don't have a slightly stronger cr 6-7 beholder equivalent, just stuck with cr 3 and 13. Then it would be more comparable.

Or we can go with a mind flayer. 60 ft cone to stun or single target grapple+stun. both with a DC 15. Nifty. Targets intelligence as well so it probably ends up being as accurate as monk's stuns overall. Not as mobile, but more potential range, and an arcanist could cast fly for that added boost. Or confusion/hold person/hold monster. Still comes in a tonly one CR more than a giant ape.


the hobgoblin captain ability is pretty good, but it's much easier to get rid of a hobgoblin captain than a high level paladin, or even a giant ape (and the ability doesn't come back if you get the captain back on its feet). it's also an action to activate (note it is listed under "actions") which means it does nothing in the event of a surprise attack. it is also language-dependant, which means that giant apes, for example, cannot benefit from it. still, it is not completely far off.

Captain? Try warlord. He may not be as tough as a paladin, but your ape isn't as tough as a fighter so again irrelevant. Oh and look, he even has a sneak attack extra damage to compare to paladin's smites! Oh, and the constant boost to attack rolls that is a better version of bless.


in 10 years, if they're still on 5th edition and there are 10 monster manuals full of creatures you can bind, there might be grounds to say that you can obsolete anyone who can't summon their own collection of minions. even then, i have my doubts so long as we're sticking to CR 9 or less for many roles.

Well, let's put it to this test. Assemble team planar bondage! Nothing higher than CR 9, no more than 7 creatures (two weeks worth).

The caster (kinda important): Bard! Inspiration and enhance ability to boost all these minions skill checks even higher!

2 Arcanist mind flayers: Provides lots of stuns and paralysis, as well as utility spells to supplement the bard's spell slots.

2 Hobgoblin warlords: For all the save passing, attack boosting, and sneak attacking one could need.

1 Unicorn: Pass without trace, some healing, and teleports. Not too shabby. Could possibly drop this, but who doesn't like unicorns?

1 Shadow brass dragon: It flies, it has stealth, it has multiple AoE weapons one of which helps the mind flayers with crowd control. What more do you need?

1 Kuo-Toa Priest: Heal bot and guidance spammer, just in case inspiration and enhance ability couldn't cut it.

So, there you go. You have an entire adventuring party in one character. Not half bad. You okay putting in a month of prep? Double the numbers of everything, enjoy soloing the game!

Can you think of any character that really offers something this layout doesn't? I can't. I struggle too think of any character without planar bound minions I'd call competitive or uniquely powerful in comparison. I mean, the fact we are discussing a bard means high level spells don't even help, he can grab any he needs for himself even if none of his summons can swing it.

[SharkForce]

i didn't say anything about adding fireball damage with arcana. i suggested things like using medicine to identify enemy's weak spots, or history to know about historical battles where a monster had a vulnerability. you may want to look up "straw man", because you're doing it right now, and it's a poor choice.

as to that other example, it's in a thread about *high* levels, and is specifically at level 8. it does nothing to answer the thread's concern, and equally does nothing in this thread to show that a lack of class features on the fighter is what won them the battle. the party had *a* fighter. one. and then, several others... and those characters were capable of DPR *and* other things. but hey, i'm sure the sorcerer dumping *two* scorching ray spells had absolutely nothing to do with winning the fight, or anything like that.

as to the skill system, yes, it's very nice. but since fighters have no special access to it, that's a moot point. i can bring a paladin or a monk with equal access to the skill system, and do DPR, and do other things. i can bring a rogue, and have *superior* access to the skill system, and do DPR, while still enjoying a considerable amount of toughness.

and as i've demonstrated already several times, no matter how much you may dislike it and houserule it away in your games, at high levels a caster can summon DPR anyways. your houserules work fine for your games, but they do not make a general statement about how the game actually is across all groups. you can *houserule* something into being a certain way, and are indeed encouraged to if you feel it improves the game for your group, but that does not mean it is not a houserule.

[silveralen]

and as i've demonstrated already several times, no matter how much you may dislike it and houserule it away in your games, at high levels a caster can summon DPR anyways.

As I demonstrated, a high level caster can summon practically anything. Skills? Yep. Teammate boosts? Sure. Stuns? Got it. More spells? Can do.

Congratulations, you've proven nothing about fighters and everything about a certain combination of spells being OP and game breaking! Brightside, we only need to houserule one or two to even things out. Anything which offers a weaker low level version is going to be useless when you let someone generate the weaker version without any limitation.

[Mara]

I don't see how summons invalidate a fighter or any other class.

A fighter is way more than just DPR (and better DPR than summons). Anyone who thinks otherwise just has limited imagination or poor skill. (or you know page 291 of the MM)

[SharkForce]

As I demonstrated, a high level caster can summon practically anything. Skills? Yep. Teammate boosts? Sure. Stuns? Got it. More spells? Can do.

Congratulations, you've proven nothing about fighters and everything about a certain combination of spells being OP and game breaking! Brightside, we only need to houserule one or two to even things out. Anything which offers a weaker low level version is going to be useless when you let someone generate the weaker version without any limitation.

you can summon things with skills. you probably can't summon one with skills as good as a character class built for skills, and i don't think it's even possible to get to where a rogue is in terms of skills at all with a summon. teammate boosts? yeah, you found one. it's substantially worse than the paladin's aura in several ways, and the hobgoblin won't stay alive very long (i think the ape could actually kill it with just one of it's two attacks) so your 1,000 gp is likely going to go down the drain along with the bonuses the hobgoblin was offering. stuns: you got a list of those? not a lot of monsters actually stun. very few can inflict 4 high DC stuns in a single round, and even if you get multiples they're probably not going to land on the important targets you want to CC at high levels. more spells? for the most part, no. innate spell abilities, yes, but your selection is very limited on those. again, unless you're blowing true polymorph on it, you don't have a lot of variety in creature options, and ultimately you don't have a huge number of minions, practically speaking. you'll have a handful, so unless the situation comes up repeatedly, you're not likely to have the minion for casting the spell. even then, CR 9 and lower creatures (which is as high as you can go if you want to be confident they'll stay friendly) don't tend to get much in the way of amazing spells. some of them get healing, a few get entangle or similar that i can recall, and they generally don't have good DCs on their spells.

summons don't solve *everything* very well. they do, however, solve any need for DPR you might have quite well, because as i've said several times, even a crappy minion is designed to be able to provide DPR at high levels.

DPR is rendered less valuable because there's pretty much no increase in quality of it. with crowd control, you want high DC at high levels. low DC crowd control is pretty much a pointless waste of time. with skill checks, you once again want a high skill check. there really are not a lot of creatures with skill checks that compete with even a regular character (seriously, the giant ape is an outlier, I've *looked* for other options that have good athletics, and they really are not easy to find), never mind a high level rogue that can hit DCs over 20 with 100% success rate.

DPR, on the other hand, you just add together for the most part. there are pretty much two ways you can do anything at all to improve the quality of it: 1) make it ranged, and 2) make it count as a magical weapon. both of those things *are* readily available from sub-CR 9 summons, and so yes, it makes DPR pretty irrelevant... but for everything else, you're unlikely to get good quality out of CR 9 and less, and having substantially inferior versions of most things isn't really that valuable.

(that said, if i was to list a second area that is somewhat rendered less valuable by the ability to summon, out of combat healing would be it, because much like DPR, you can just add it together to get a higher total).

basically, DPR can be replaced because the quality of DPR is determined largely by the quantity of DPR (same with out of combat healing). most other things can't be replaced so easily.

[silveralen]

stuns: you got a list of those?

Yes. Four posts up. Where I address basically everything in your latest post. Though, it bears mentioning, no none of the options need to be as good as the options by a class. You don't need 4 high DC stuns, you have shown that a creature directly worse at a role can still invalidate a class. Or so you claim. Unless you claim a giant ape is equal to a fighter now?


The hobgoblin won't stay alive very long (i think the ape could actually kill it with just one of it's two attacks) so your 1,000 gp is likely going to go down the drain along with the bonuses the hobgoblin was offering.

Okay, what?

Hobgoblin warlord has AC 20 and 97 HP. Giant ape hits for 3d10+6 twice at a +9. So no, not only could one attack not kill it, both attacks couldn't kill it even if both hit for max damage crits, which they won't thanks to a mediocre attack bonus.

In fact, let's actually do a giant ape vs fighter comparison here, to see who could kill it faster! First, average damage: In fact, let's do a comparison, the DPR of a fighter compared to a giant ape. http://anydice.com/program/5958

So a giant ape has 22 vs fighters 41. So the fighter kills it in 3 turns at base, the ape kills it in 5. So let us say 60% as effective is the benchmark for what it takes to "invalidate" a class. Because if one can get that close, you can easily find a way to boost it, either with spells, other abilities, or stacking more of the same monster.

Not that we included the majority of the fighter class in the comparison, no EK buffs, maneuvers, criticals, action surging, can't account for indomitable/healing surge orthe difference in AC, HP, and saving throws between the two.

[SharkForce]

hmmm... missed your list of CC. must've been posted while i was posting i guess.

anyways, an individual summon isn't as good at DPR as a fighter. the difference between DPR and CC is that the way you make DPR better is with more DPR, while the way you make CC better is by giving it a higher save DC.

on a side note, planar binding won't work directly on anything that isn't a celestial, fiend, fey, or elemental, so renewing your control will require that you cast true polymorph again as a best-case scenario (as a worst-case scenario, the DM might decide that your control spell no longer works... it is strongly recommend that you test this on something less scary first or just directly ask your DM). that also means you're not going to be able to get this free of charge, since you're using your true polymorph spell on the process instead of wish.

mind flayers: evil, good luck with them obeying your orders the way you want them to (they're friendly, but they're also not heroes). also, have fun being associated with them, i'm sure that has no drawbacks. also, enjoy feeding them when you have to have the brains of sentient beings available, i'm sure that diet won't be inconvenient in the slightest. i also could've swore there was a general rule preventing polymorph-type effects from granting class features (so you'd gain innate spellcasting, but not the spellcasting feature), but i can't find any such passage now. there probably should be one, mind you, because otherwise polymorph lets you turn into an archmage for an hour at level 12 (edit: my bad, no it doesn't, archmage is not a beast. it's still a problem with true polymorph, though), blow all your spell slots, revert, and then use another level 7 slot to do it again (or even just use one from the archmage) which is probably not intended, to say the least.

hobgoblin warlords: my apologies, i only noticed you mentioning captains. warlords are indeed tougher. they also still have a much worse save aura than a paladin, for reasons noted earlier. they are also evil, so once again, good luck getting them to interpret your commands the way you want them to. and again, you need true polymorph every time you want to renew your control. note that only creatures which understand them will benefit from their save-boosting ability. this means that your mind flayers are either always contacting only one of the warlords and nobody else (which will make inter-group communication "fun"), or that they don't benefit from the warlords.

unicorn: minimal healing, yes. still, better than none at all i suppose. good-aligned, i'm sure that won't cause any problems when you're traveling with mind flayers and such, nor will the other creatures in any way respond poorly to it. this appears to be the only member of the "party" that you can actually get before level 17 at all, and the only one that won't need repeated true polymorphs to replace your control spell. the teleport can't even manage half your party though.

kuo-toa priest: does not understand common or goblin and won't benefit from the warlords. sucks massively in sunlight. once again, is an evil creature, i'm sure that won't cause problems. have fun dealing with the fact that it's stark raving mad and obeys the commands of it's sanity essentially as a form of worship upon which it's power is dependant.

shadow dragon: oh hey look, another good aligned creature. again, i'm sure that this won't cause any tension or result in the dragon not caring if it catches all the evil creatures in the party.

most of the roles filled are not being filled particularly well (low DCs on all the CC for the level at which you can do this). DPR, on the other hand, should be doing just fine, assuming your DM let's the controlling spells continue working after polymorphing them. but you're going to spend every waking minute micromanaging this group, it's certainly not going to do your reputation any good, and doesn't work at all for the first 17 levels because you won't have true polymorph which is absolutely essential to get all but one of the creatures in your listed party. half the creatures in your party can't communicate effectively with the others, most of them will hate each other, and one of them is literally insane. if you don't want wherever you are to go up in flames, you're pretty much going to spend your entire day babysitting them.

not one of them has any spells above 5th level. not one of them has skills above +9, from what i recall. the highest save DC is, what, 15? the save-boosting ability is half as strong as a paladin, requires an action to set up, and only works on things they can see and only helps things that can understand them. and if there isn't a rule that prevents gaining spellcasting abilities (as opposed to innate abilities) from polymorph effects, there really should be one, because like i said, it breaks things wide open way earlier than any planar binding shenanigans could ever hope to, and in ways that make summoned minions look tame.

[silveralen]

hmmm... missed your list of CC. must've been posted while i was posting i guess.

anyways, an individual summon isn't as good at DPR as a fighter. the difference between DPR and CC is that the way you make DPR better is with more DPR, while the way you make CC better is by giving it a higher save DC.

False! Two attempts to stun a target at a low DC, either of which, if successful, stuns them, can be more likely to succeed than a single high DC.

Logically speaking, which is more likely to stun, 100 dc 15 or 1 dc 19? Now what about 10 dc 15 vs 1 dc 19? 5? 4? 2?

At some point more stuns>a high DC. The same way it doesn't matter if fighter has a higher attack bonus than a giant ape or more attacks, enough apes negate both advantages. Same with skills, you might only have a +9/+10 to a skill, but enough skill boosting abilities to supplement the base value and the difference disappears.

Enough minions always wins in every situation. Every. Single. One.


mind flayers: evil, good luck with them obeying your orders the way you want them to (they're friendly, but they're also not heroes).

shadow dragon: oh hey look, another good aligned creature.


True polymorph: Creature retains alignment and personality. So yep, they will, as long as you use single "base" creature. So use true polymorph to start with a bunch neutral elementals or whatever, then bind, then true polymorph into desired form. Tada!

For someone who thrives on using gamebreaking RAW exploits you seem to be very bad at noticing the small details. Well... noticing them when they don't support your point. You'll notice every little detail that supports your argument, but man you become forgetful when it comes to the bits that don't.

[SharkForce]

elementals are CR 4. you're going to have to downgrade your group dramatically (feel free to use invisible stalkers, which explicitly only perform two specific tasks for you as part of their personality and get up to CR 6... i'm sure that'll be fun when you try to get them to do something else and run into specific rules trumping general). pretty much the only thing that isn't going to have baggage and have a decent CR range are fey animals. and since the only thing anything less than a massive horde of minions is going to do well is DPR, and massive hordes are extremely impractical, you may as well stick with just having a small group of DPR minions.

and yes, eventually enough CC will get through. as to what different save DCs are worth, that depends a great deal. but a weak save DC will not only be unlikely to work, it's unlikely to stick the next round either if it allows recurring saves, even against a weak saving throw for the target should they fail the first save. sure, if you have an unlimited number of minions, you can overcome that. but you don't. you have a limited amount of time to get them, a limited amount of time to maintain them, and a limited amount of ability to replace them if something happens because they probably don't leave a body behind to raise (most likely they either disappear, turn into an inanimate object, or return to their home plane, depending on the spell they use). you even have a limited amount of space to fit them in, unless it's got range and no targeting issues (cones, for example, are not ideal for someone who's got a horde of minions following them around everywhere). against a strong save at level 17+ a lower DC is pathetically unlikely to work. yeah, again, if you spam it enough, eventually it goes through. once. but again, practically speaking, you don't get an unlimited number. actually maintaining 100 minions is not practical. you can get them together if you have enough prep time (and money) and know you're going to need them, but unless you have several months of advance notice that you're going to need an army, that isn't much use.

and no, you really don't have an unlimited amount of buffs to raise skills up. very few buffs give numerical advantages. no matter how many +8 skill mooks you have, they're not going to equal the rogue with +15. pretty much the only exception for numeric boosts is stealth, and even then, with the same buffs, like i said, the rogue will outperform in stealth situations (particularly since a stealth-focused rogue will have other proficiencies to complement it, like perception to spot alarms and traps, deception and disguise kit to blend in, etc).

DPR you just add together and it becomes better DPR. it isn't so easy for most things.

[silveralen]

You realize elemental is a type, not 4 creatures? Though I suppose it is an interesting question as to what happens when you cast conjure elemental as a 9th level spell since no cr 9 elementals exist in the MM. Technically through, cast that spell once, DM homebrews something, you now have your true polymorph fodder. Or use the spell as proof such a creature much exist, same as your "all beasts have a fey equivalent" bit. Could go with fey T-Rex if we stick with invisible stalkers and classic mind Flayers.

Remember monk's stuns can't stick around multiple rounds in a row, so the fact a mindflayer's has that potential is a major leg up, even if unlikely. Two 60ft cones of DC 15 is also likely to hit at least four a piece. We also aren't talking about 100, I picked 7. That's barely more than an adventuring party.

One of the two classes with access to this tactic is bard. Expertise+bardic inspiration bard. So enjoy the skill bonuses you get from expertise, with guidance and enhance ability, and be a lore bard for even more oomph. Or use bardic inspiration on a minion for an extra 1d12 to the check, actually better than expertise on average and stacks with the other two. The ability to keep 2-3 buffs on yourself (and yes 2-3 buff exist for most things, even skills) is great. It's one of the reasons having another way to bypass concentration via minions is broken. Gets back to 3.5 edition "stack 3-4 spells on me at a time and infringe on everyone".

[Ralanr]

Whenever I see a caster superiority thread discussion, I'm always confused why people bring out the big guns on their class feature right away. Each caster class has a max of 1 level 9 spell. Why would you use your nuke right away?


Also how many castors have proficiency in con saves? Two, sorcerers and warlocks, one of which has access to spells to 6th level and higher spells (I don't understand warlocks at all).

Also, how high do creatures hit at epic level, cause if it's more than 10 your con save DC is equal to the damage you just took. Isn't DC of 30 considered impossible?

Also what is with the casting time for these spells? Simulacrum takes 12 hours. 12 HOURS. Why? The clone spell takes up to 120 days for it to grow to maturity. So if you die before then it might be a problem. Wish has a 33% chance of never being able to be cast again (Are DM's lenient against this? Whenever someone just resorts to wish right away I wonder if they feel like there is no repercussions.) and it reduces your strength to 3 for 2d4 days. Sure if you rest well enough it's only 1 day and what kind of wizard uses strength? Though good luck carrying all these components you apparently have with you for every spell you have. You could get a mule, or someone else to carry it, but a weak caster who takes 1d10 necrotic damage PER LEVEL OF SPELL he casts after using wish, damage that CANNOT BE PREVENTED OR REDUCED.

Course for wish that's only if you don't use it to cast a spell of 8 level or lower. But if you use it for that, why not use your freaking 8th level spell slot? Did they not have any? I assume a caster has all their spell slots in every simulation used.

If wish is a part of a basic combat strategy, then that is not a good strategy. It's powerful, but one use per day with 33% chance of never happening again.

Casters are powerful, no one is denying this. But they aren't gods. And if anything, Martials AREN'T peasants or background characters. I have not seen anyone dissatisfied with their martial characters. That is what I have to assume was the problem with the martial characters in 3.5 (I only played pathfinder before 5e). They weren't satisfied cause everyone out shined them to the point of uselessness. Not the biggest problem anymore

You know what I'm playing? A barbarian. You know what I like doing? Tactics, strategy, IMPROVISING. It feels so satisfying to improvise my way to victory. And before ANYONE says something along the lines of "If your class forces you to improvise then it's not doing it's job" (Which is not an argument I've been seeing, but I can think of the argument fitting here). No. It is doing it's job. The game encourages you to improvise. Page 193 in PHB, green box.

Wanna know what I've done with improvised actions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsUCRcK7QYc To a Grell. That I threw at a gibbering (glibbering?) Maw afterwards. I was also BLIND. (Rage cancels out disadvantage. I had 18 str, not capped. Still not). Level 5 at that time also.

Sorry I just wanted to get this off my chest.

[Mara]

The downsides of wish only come when not duplicating a spell.

Warlocks do get 6-9 spells but in a very limited way.

Hulk smash :smallcool:

[SharkForce]

@ ralanr:

- you're using your level 9 spell slots first in this case because you're using them during your downtime and the benefit lasts for half a year.
- if feats are allowed, probably the vast majority of casters have con save proficiency, actually.
- concentration DC is 10 or half the damage you took, whichever is higher. not 10 or the full damage you took. concentration on most regular attacks (which seem to cap out at around 30 each) are quite possible. concentration after, say, a dragon's breath attack, or a near-max damage critical hit... you're right, those are not so likely. they also don't come up every round. and of course, just because most attacks don't deal that much, doesn't mean that none do (the purple worm, for example, has poison that can hit for 42 damage average, which i would say most DMs would add to the 19 average damage from the attack that causes the poison damage). of course, you have to get hit before that matters, which is by no means guaranteed either.
- wish is often used to cast spells like simulacrum because it removes the casting time. also the expensive material component. it doesn't help quite as much with clone, though, because the 120 day part isn't casting time. still, there are plenty of great uses to consider for wish when it casts in a single action and removes expensive components from the equation. hero's feast is an example of a spell that is often mentioned as not being desirable because of the expensive material component... but you can wish for a hero's feast, and the effects of it (in the right situation) are extremely powerful and valuable, and you can do that every single time you take a long rest.

@ silveralen: like i said, in 10 years, if we have 10 monster manuals or something like that, this might be a problem. right now, your choices for elementals below CR 9 are very limited. incidentally, it is worth noting that if your summons hit 0 HP, they disappear... so you don't get the usual extra layer of defense from polymorph HP.

and no, you didn't pick 7 creatures capable of CC... you picked 4. and between them, you can only target 3 saves if you want to get an actual decent CC effect (con, int and wis). and one of them is either insane, or probably doesn't actually get its spells (the spells come from the insanity, so if you rule it's not insane, it should not be getting spells) (you do also have a 1 round single-target knock prone that allows both save and AC to resist it, which is a good DPR boost but a lousy CC effect because the enemy still gets to act)., and your best CC comes from cone effects and won't combine well with your melee allies. and 2 of them require a special diet of intelligent humanoids.

[Ralanr]

The downsides of wish only come when not duplicating a spell.

Warlocks do get 6-9 spells but in a very limited way.

Hulk smash :smallcool:

I...ok now I get the power of wish. You're basically removing the duration of those lower level spells. Huh.

Still weird to use in combat if you ask me. But whatever

Edit: Ninja'd

[Mara]

I...ok now I get the power of wish. You're basically removing the duration of those lower level spells. Huh.

Still weird to use in combat if you ask me. But whatever

Some people like to make mountains out of mole-hills. 1 9th level spell does not obsolete the fighter.

[Ralanr]

Some people like to make mountains out of mole-hills. 1 9th level spell does not obsolete the fighter.

Oh I agree. I don't think any of the classes make others obsolete.

Well...maybe ranger. But that's another topic

[archaeo]

Oh I agree. I don't think any of the classes make others obsolete.

Well...maybe ranger. But that's another topic

Well, but that's the thing. In situations where people aren't trying to win D&D, both of the Ranger subclasses perform perfectly well. Beast Master's mechanical answer to the problem of overpowered allies really bums a lot of people out, as it's hard for them to justify a beast not taking independent actions, but it's otherwise a perfectly solid class. Anybody drawn to the Ranger archetype will, I think, be broadly satisfied.

All that said, the 5e designers have already said, more or less, that Ranger is going to be getting a thorough review for the first round of errata and revisions, so hopefully it will only get better.

[Ralanr]

Well, but that's the thing. In situations where people aren't trying to win D&D, both of the Ranger subclasses perform perfectly well. Beast Master's mechanical answer to the problem of overpowered allies really bums a lot of people out, as it's hard for them to justify a beast not taking independent actions, but it's otherwise a perfectly solid class. Anybody drawn to the Ranger archetype will, I think, be broadly satisfied.

All that said, the 5e designers have already said, more or less, that Ranger is going to be getting a thorough review for the first round of errata and revisions, so hopefully it will only get better.

Dungeons and Dragons. Is there a I in there? I can't seem to find it. :smallconfused:

I don't get the concept of winning D&D. I get the concept of wanting to be good/powerful in the game, but winning it? No so much.

Then again, I'm the only person close to an optimizer in my group. But I am trying to lay back on that...baby steps.

Edit: This is by no means an insulted directed towards anyone specifically.