How do people treat the combat cantrips?

[Jeivar]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the discussions.

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?

[Kryx]

the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers.?
This is only true for Eldritch Blast after 5th level. Before then an archer does d8-d10+dex and a caster does d6-d10+stat.

The Warlock can match the Ranger's DPR at the later tiers, but no other caster can.

It's not a problem.

However if you want to downgrade them:

One idea: one free casting of each cantrip, then finish a short/long rest or use a spell slot to cast again.

[MadGrady]

Also keep in mind that most do not get to add their modifier to the damage dice. So a cantrip doing 1d10 is actually worse than that of an archer doing 1d8+3 or more (which is usually what their modifier will be).

As stated above - it won't be until later levels that these cantrips start to outpace, but (hopefully) then you start getting abilities like extra attack, a ranger's hunters mark and colossus slayer, etc to *help* get them closer.

[EvilAnagram]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?

This is really not a problem. A caster dealing 1d12 damage is averaging 6.5 damage per turn. An archer with a longbow dealing 1d8+3 averages 7.5 damage per turn, and it will only increase as the archer gets extra attacks, spells, class features, or sneak attack dice, while casters do not. Even when a caster can deal 3d12 damage, a Ranger (often claimed to be underpowered) can put out two attacks worth 1d8+1d6+5 damage. That's an average of 19.5 vs. an average of 26, and that's without considering any subclass abilities.

[Shaofoo]

Also the 1d12 cantrip is both touch range and poison damage, which a great number in the MM are immune to poison damage, it is more like if you swing a Greataxe that a good chunk of the people will not care for since they won't get hurt.

[Shining Wrath]

Last night, L2 party, wizard was tossing off D10 Fire Bolts. Ranger was firing arrows for D8 + 4. 8.5 > 5.5 by quite a bit.

Then consider ranger gets +2 to hit based on fighting style and therefore hits more often.

Then there was the glorious moment against the BBEG when the ranger put on Hunter's Mark and then rolled a critical. Twenty-six points of damage with one arrow at level 2, admittedly a good damage roll after a critical but still what I thought was going to be a tough fight lasted less than 2 rounds.

[MrUberGr]

I have a fighter in my group using two hand-crossbows.

Currently we are level 12. If everything were to hit, he deals 4d6+68, with +7 to attack rolls.

[xroads]

...a caster does d6-d10+stat.


Are you sure about this? I don't remember the spell description of any of the cantrips saying the caster gets to add stat modifier damage to their cantrips. Is it mentioned somewhere in the PhB and I just missed it (entirely possibe :smallbiggrin:)?

I think the comparison is more like 1d10 + dex (archer) vs 1d0 with (ex. "Firebolt"). An archer with a 16 dex, for example, would be doing an average of 8.5 dmg while the caster with a Firebolt would be doing 5.5 dmg.

Edit: Lol! Looks like I got ninja-ed by a bunch of people.

[Kryx]

Are you sure about this? I don't remember the spell description of any of the cantrips saying the caster gets to add stat modifier damage to their cantrips. Is it mentioned somewhere in the PhB and I just missed it (entirely possibe :smallbiggrin:)?
I was assuming the best caster case which is wiz or sorc. Others used more precise numbers so I won't try to clarify mine.

In the end only EB does more damage than an archer. The rest aren't even close.

[EvilAnagram]

This is not possible by RAW, even if you have a player with +4 dex. roll an 8 + 4 dex + 8 from an extra dice = max 20 from a longbow.
He clearly stated that he had placed Hunter's Mark on the big bad. That's another 2d6 thanks to the crit.

[Kryx]

He clearly stated that he had placed Hunter's Mark on the big bad. That's another 2d6 thanks to the crit.
And that's how the got 26. Settled. The more likely scenario is an average which is 2d8+2d6+4 = 20.

[Arial Black]

I have a fighter in my group using two hand-crossbows.

Currently we are level 12. If everything were to hit, he deals 4d6+68, with +7 to attack rolls.

That seems to be 4 attacks each doing 1d6+17.

Where does the +17 come from? If getting +10 damage from taking a -5 attack penalty, then the base attack is +12. The proficiency bonus at level 12 is +4, Archery style gives +2, 20 Dex gives +5, so it looks like a pair of +1 hand crossbows.

So the damage would be +5 (Dex), +1 (magic weapon), +10 (feat) = +16

Where am I going wrong?

[EvilAnagram]

I have a fighter in my group using two hand-crossbows.

Currently we are level 12. If everything were to hit, he deals 4d6+68, with +7 to attack rolls.

I do not see how that is remotely possible. Even at +5 Dex, with Sharpshooter and Archery, you could only attack with a +6 and deal 1d6+15 damage. That's a max of 4d6+60. I don't know where the +2 damage could come from.

Also, doesn't the errata explicitly state that you need a free hand to load a hand crossbow, even with Crossbow Expert?

[PoeticDwarf]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?

First, don't let anyone use psychic.

Second, the d12 cantrip is just bad, so with d10 cantrips you do 1d10, and with the best bow you do 1d10+3, what is more.

With martial you have more AC and more HP, I don't understand your problem.

[Shining Wrath]

And that's how the got 26. Settled. The more likely scenario is an average which is 2d8+2d6+4 = 20.

Even said it was a good roll: 14 on the 2d8, 8 on the 2d6, 4 for dex. Got that L6 Death Cleric's attention. Two players later the druid missed with the bear bite but the claw also critical hit, and what I thought was going to be an epic battle was over.

[Zevox]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?
Casters using cantrips will not outdo any decent archer, save only a Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast. Archers add their dexterity to damage, casters do not add their casting stat to damage save in a few specific cases: a level 2+ Warlock with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast, a level 6+ Dragon Sorcerer casting a cantrip of his Dragon's element, a level 8+ Knowledge or Light domain Cleric, or a level 10+ Evoker Wizard. And the Sorcerer, Cleric, and Wizard don't get cantrips that attack multiple times in one round, so by the time they get theirs, they're still not doing as much as an archer, who can shoot twice or more in a round and add his dexterity - and potential magic bonuses from the weapon - to each shot. Warlock being able to equal a typical archer, meanwhile, is intentional: it's ones of the class' main features for combat purposes, one way they make up for having so few spell slots compared to other casting classes.

Basically, combat cantrips in 5e exist to give casters a way to contribute in a fight when their spell slots are empty or the thing they're fighting isn't worth using spell slots on. In previous editions they'd have had to carry around a crossbow or the like to do that, which was silly - they're supposed to be wizards, not crossbowmen with a couple of spell slots, yet that's exactly what low levels worked out in 3rd edition for example. They're not a balance issue in any way.

Oh, and about the "Mystic," do note that that's an early, playtest version of the class. It has some balance issues. Though I personally don't think that Mind Thrust with no power points spent is one of them. Since it doesn't scale at all without spending resources, it's actually currently worse than any cantrips as a source of at-will damage - although granted you'll only start seeing that at level 5+, when cantrips get their damage boosted.

[Slipperychicken]

Shouldn't this be a 5e thread?

I haven't noticed a real problem with it. Damage cantrips (EB with invocations excluded) deal just enough damage to be worth the action, and they spare casters from having to use crossbows, but they are not competitive with dedicated damage-dealers.

[D.U.P.A.]

I would not even mind if the cantrips would not scale. Sure, martials get more attacks and maneuvers, but casters get more spells slots, so instead of using cantrips they could burn one of their many spell slots, when running out of spells they can still use cantrips (still better than crossbow). But now you have cases where at sufficiently high levels cantrips become better than lvl1 spells.

[ImSAMazing]

First, don't let anyone use psychic.

Second, the d12 cantrip is just bad, so with d10 cantrips you do 1d10, and with the best bow you do 1d10+3, what is more.

With martial you have more AC and more HP, I don't understand your problem.

Have you seen the thread about the Mystic that was playtested by a group 48 hours long? They found out that a Mystic isn't really OP, there are some features that need a small change. Standard saving throw should be Intelligence, and the lvl 1 ability that targets Intelligence should ask for a Intelligence(or a Wisdom) saving throw. Else it is just fine.

[Kryx]

Have you seen the thread about the Mystic that was playtested by a group 48 hours long? They found out that a Mystic isn't really OP
Did you see the reply to it from another guy? He tested it and found the opposite result. It depends on group.

[Ramshack]

Cantrips are an essential part of the Magic Users Abilities. Without damage cantrips they could cast what 2 spells at level 1? You're going to be doing a whole lot of nothing for most of the night. Without stat modifiers being added to the damage Martial's easily average more damage than their cantrip casting counterparts. It's essential design and balance element of 5e. Martials do more consistent at will damage while magic users spike with their spell abilities.

To be honest your party should be happy the casters have a way to contribute each round.

[WickerNipple]

To be honest your party should be happy the casters have a way to contribute each round.

And you should have a word with your archers about why they're bad at their jobs.

Outdamaged by cantrips. Lulz.

[rollingForInit]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the discussions.

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?

A Fighter archer will always outdo cantrip damage, except for the Warlock who'll match it. But a Fighter with a heavy crossbow generally has much better range, not to mention better AC, HP, or other features that enhance their attacks (maneuvers, increase crit chance, cast spell and attack same round).

A Ranger has several class features that add damage, and they've got spells that can boost the damage further.

And that's before considering Archery (which I hope your archers have), giving them +2 to hit. Which will put the Fighter and Ranger ahead of the Warlock in accuracy, which means they'll get more damage over time. Other spellcasters are already behind on at-will damage.

So no, there's no issue, really. Maybe your archers just rolled badly? In that case, it's bad luck. Nerfing cantrips will only make spellcasters useless if they run out of spell slots, and you'll have players refusing to keep going because they need a long rest. And the Warlock class would just be completely unplayable unless you only do melee builds, since, given the limited number of spell slots, it really, really needs Eldritch Blast at will.

[JAL_1138]

Back in my day, consarn it, a wizard had d4 + maximum of 2 con bonus (and bonuses started at much higher stats) for HP, AND WE ROLLED FOR IT AT FIRST LEVEL, died instantly at 0HP, had terrible THAC0, and had one spell at first level. ONE. "Cantrip" was the NAME OF A FIRST LEVEL SPELL. Spells had casting time modifiers to initiative, and if you took a hit--ANY hit--while casting, the spell fizzled and was lost for the day. And we liked it that way, you dagnabbed whippersnappers! *shakes cane* [/grognard] [/crazyoldcoot] [/getoffmylawn]

[Shining Wrath]

Back in my day, consarn it, a wizard had d4 + maximum of 2 con bonus (and bonuses started at much higher stats) for HP, AND WE ROLLED FOR IT AT FIRST LEVEL, died instantly at 0HP, had terrible THAC0, and had one spell at first level. ONE. "Cantrip" was the NAME OF A FIRST LEVEL SPELL. Spells had casting time modifiers to initiative, and if you took a hit--ANY hit--while casting, the spell fizzled and was lost for the day. And we liked it that way, you dagnabbed whippersnappers! *shakes cane* [/grognard] [/crazyoldcoot] [/getoffmylawn]

I do remember my wizard, hanging out in the second row, throwing darts at orcs because he was saving his Sleep spell for a crisis.

[Naanomi]

I do remember my wizard, hanging out in the second row, throwing darts at orcs because he was saving his Sleep spell for a crisis.
Yeah and taking the 'witch' kit so you had no weapon proficiency, so all those attacks were at -4 (along with awful THACO) and probably no bonuses from stats.

I remember rolling a grey-elf diviner and having negative HP from low CON... Died in childbirth

[Magic Myrmidon]

I get that all of that is sarcastic, and all, but boy, why on earth did D&D move on from such fun and flavorful design choices?

[Safety Sword]

I think it's been said but the only cantrip of concern is Eldritch Blast. And to make it a concern you have to invest invocation class features into it.

This part of the game isn't broken.

[JAL_1138]

I do remember my wizard, hanging out in the second row, throwing darts at orcs because he was saving his Sleep spell for a crisis.

Oh man, darts. The crazy-good rate-of-fire on those things made them pretty much cheese for a Fighter to specialize in.


I get that all of that is sarcastic, and all, but boy, why on earth did D&D move on from such fun and flavorful design choices?

...actually I rather liked those things about AD&D; it was less sarcasm and more good-natured ribbing / edition warring, phrased in a way that makes me look like a comically-exaggerated version of the grumpy old coot I feel like when I realize how long it's been since then. They were fun and flavorful design choices, just in a different way.

[SharkForce]

yeah, make fun of them all you want, but i don't recall my 2nd edition groups ever suggesting that we just not have any fighters.

probably because being a wizard actually had associated drawbacks.

[EvilAnagram]

yeah, make fun of them all you want, but i don't recall my 2nd edition groups ever suggesting that we just not have any fighters.

probably because being a wizard actually had associated drawbacks.

Being a wizard does have drawbacks. Your damage potential is well below that of most martials, you cannot take a hit nearly as well as martials can, and you rely on more limited resources than martials.

Of course, these aren't major drawbacks, but there's no reason to have major drawbacks when fighters and wizards are not at terribly disparate power levels in 5e. Instead, this is a system in which any combination of classes is perfectly viable, so it's perfectly acceptable not to have a fighter. It's also perfectly acceptable not to have any primary caster, and you don't suffer any major setbacks from it.

So we have a system in which everyone can play exactly the kind of character they want! Hurray!

[Nifft]

yeah, make fun of them all you want, but i don't recall my 2nd edition groups ever suggesting that we just not have any fighters.

probably because being a wizard actually had associated drawbacks. Edition warring is cancer. Don't be a 2mer.

5e has plenty of reasons for a Wizard to hide behind a Fighter-type, without resorting to making him throw darts.

[SharkForce]

your damage potential is fine with the right spell selection, taking hits is not a required part of any fight (though obviously execution on the "don't get hit" plan is a concern, and there isn't a particularly useful difference between enough resources and more than enough resources. since wizards (and casters in general) do get enough, it isn't really much of a drawback unless you're bad at resource management.

meanwhile, fighters get the drawback of only having one big special way to interact with the game world, and that one way is just to interact the same way as everyone else but more often.

this is not an equal trade.

[JAL_1138]

I was just trying to be funny, not start an argument.

[Malifice]

I have a fighter in my group using two hand-crossbows.

Currently we are level 12. If everything were to hit, he deals 4d6+68, with +7 to attack rolls.

Why is he using two and not just the one?

Crossbow master feat allows him to fire a single hand crossbow with his action, and then fire the exact same xbow again with his bonus action.

Also - he needs a free hand to reload:

Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the
ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if
you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each
time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece
of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver,
case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a
free hand to load a one-handed weapon).

Finally, +68? From 4 shots? I see +40 (4 x marksman) and another +20 (assuming dex 20 x 4) where is the other 8 coming from? +2 crossbows?

If he's firing +2 crossbows, and has a Dex of 20 and the archery fighting style, he should be shooting at +8 (factoring in the -5).

[Magic Myrmidon]

I was just trying to be funny, not start an argument.

Sorry, didn't wanna start anything myself, either. Old-school systems just aren't my thing, I guess.

[charcoalninja]

Back in my day, consarn it, a wizard had d4 + maximum of 2 con bonus (and bonuses started at much higher stats) for HP, AND WE ROLLED FOR IT AT FIRST LEVEL, died instantly at 0HP, had terrible THAC0, and had one spell at first level. ONE. "Cantrip" was the NAME OF A FIRST LEVEL SPELL. Spells had casting time modifiers to initiative, and if you took a hit--ANY hit--while casting, the spell fizzled and was lost for the day. And we liked it that way, you dagnabbed whippersnappers! *shakes cane* [/grognard] [/crazyoldcoot] [/getoffmylawn]

Course Stoneskin made you immune to a staggaring number of attacks and hp was so low that it was trivial to reduce nearly anyone to ash in a spell or two.

Just sayin.

[Raxxius]

Combat cantrips are essentially flavour.

They give the magic user a minor upgrade from shooting a crossbow/throwing darts/swinging a stick around, but does it in a manor which allows the wizard to be magical.

Personally I liked that Wizards got their hands dirty early levels, but then again I prefer low magic gritty campaigns over high magic.

[JAL_1138]

Course Stoneskin made you immune to a staggaring number of attacks and hp was so low that it was trivial to reduce nearly anyone to ash in a spell or two.

Just sayin.

It was a 4th level spell and didn't block magic, even Magic Missile, which also reduced the attacks it blocked. So good luck surviving that long--level 7 is the earliest you could possibly cast it--if you're starting at first level. Plus, you level slower than anyone else through the early levels (with a bump in midlevel and then tapering off again). There was also debate over whether a spell still fizzled if a hit (which didn't need to do damage to cause spell failure) was blocked by Stoneskin. In any event, a couple enemies could chew through it real quick. Plus, based on the rules for learning spells, there was no guarantee you could learn it. Remember, in 2e only specialists learned spells automatically, 1 per spell level from their own school, and you needed great stats in something besides Int to specialize (15 or 16 in Wis, Con, Dex, or Cha, depending on school) and it might be in one of your banned schools (if you're an abjurer anyway), you'd have to be a specialist Transmuter to learn it automatically, and the rules in the PHB said it was pure DM fiat whether you got to pick what your one spell per spell level from specializing was or if the DM did. And if you found it in someone else's spellbook or on a scroll, there was still a pretty rough "failure to learn spell" chance to get past, made tougher if you weren't a specialist transmuter.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Did you see the reply to it from another guy? He tested it and found the opposite result. It depends on group.

Yup, it falls under the same lines as other casters.

Sure, they aren't always broken when played by the average person but their potential to be broken is there.

I do believe that the Mystic can be balanced versus other casters but not with martials.

[Shining Wrath]

your damage potential is fine with the right spell selection, taking hits is not a required part of any fight (though obviously execution on the "don't get hit" plan is a concern, and there isn't a particularly useful difference between enough resources and more than enough resources. since wizards (and casters in general) do get enough, it isn't really much of a drawback unless you're bad at resource management.

meanwhile, fighters get the drawback of only having one big special way to interact with the game world, and that one way is just to interact the same way as everyone else but more often.

this is not an equal trade.

And yet, the fighter at my table contributes and has fun. We must not be playing correctly.

[charcoalninja]

It was a 4th level spell and didn't block magic, even Magic Missile, which also reduced the attacks it blocked. So good luck surviving that long--level 7 is the earliest you could possibly cast it--if you're starting at first level. Plus, you level slower than anyone else through the early levels (with a bump in midlevel and then tapering off again). There was also debate over whether a spell still fizzled if a hit (which didn't need to do damage to cause spell failure) was blocked by Stoneskin. In any event, a couple enemies could chew through it real quick. Plus, based on the rules for learning spells, there was no guarantee you could learn it. Remember, in 2e only specialists learned spells automatically, 1 per spell level from their own school, and you needed great stats in something besides Int to specialize (15 or 16 in Wis, Con, Dex, or Cha, depending on school) and it might be in one of your banned schools (if you're an abjurer anyway), you'd have to be a specialist Transmuter to learn it automatically, and the rules in the PHB said it was pure DM fiat whether you got to pick what your one spell per spell level from specializing was or if the DM did. And if you found it in someone else's spellbook or on a scroll, there was still a pretty rough "failure to learn spell" chance to get past, made tougher if you weren't a specialist transmuter.

The in text example for Stoneskin was IIRC literally ignoring a club attack from a giant, so the argument that being struck for 0 effect would inturupt your spell is pretty threadbear IMO. To extend Stoneskin's use there's always displacement and Mirror Image, the staples of winning. Yes, the chance to learn spells was something to be overcome, but I tend to view rulesets in their entirity, not merely in what a DM may or may not decide to hand out for 'reasons' since down that way lies madness.

Anyway, twas stated in jest, and my comment was tongue in cheek as a light hearted reminder that 2e casters weren't actually the sissies most people seem to believe them to be. Clerics for example would reduce you to 1-4 hp in a single spell no save with a 6th level slot and they had no problems getting to high level.

[SharkForce]

And yet, the fighter at my table contributes and has fun. We must not be playing correctly.

being equally useful is not a prerequisite to having fun, no, but it does help. the fact that you are not having problems does not mean that there are no problems.

[rollingForInit]

meanwhile, fighters get the drawback of only having one big special way to interact with the game world, and that one way is just to interact the same way as everyone else but more often.

this is not an equal trade.

I can see what you mean by this, that is the reason I'm not very interested in playing a plain old fighter. Maybe an EK, since they get spells, but even then I'd likely multiclass.

Still ... I think it's very intentional. The Champion especially is so straightforward that I find it utterly boring, but I know people who love it because of the same reason. They don't want tons of class features to choose from, they don't want to keep track of resources or have the huge spell selection that the majority of the classes have. They want to hit things hard, and when not fighthing, they just want to role-play.

So I think it makes sense that there's something that is that simple and streamlined.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I can see what you mean by this, that is the reason I'm not very interested in playing a plain old fighter. Maybe an EK, since they get spells, but even then I'd likely multiclass.

Still ... I think it's very intentional. The Champion especially is so straightforward that I find it utterly boring, but I know people who love it because of the same reason. They don't want tons of class features to choose from, they don't want to keep track of resources or have the huge spell selection that the majority of the classes have. They want to hit things hard, and when not fighthing, they just want to role-play.

So I think it makes sense that there's something that is that simple and streamlined.

It's definitely intentional, for many wrong reasons.

The big thought is that new players will take the easy class (Fighter) and learn the rules through that class. However I don't know of any new player who picks Fighter. Paladin and Ranger tend to be the most common class for new players, that I've seen this far.

The only people I've seen playing Fighters are people coming in from 2e/3e and who liked the 4e Essentials Fighter.

And even then, they never stay there long.

But new players see this general class and don't think much of it because you don't get cool things to do. Then they see the Paladin and Ranger, who can be what the Fighter is and more, and really latch o to them.

They do pretty well too, moat players don't need a "simple" class to learn the game. Even the casters are pretty simple though some spell.combos aren't known. However I ran a kids day game (I owed a friend a favor, I don't like having to watch my language outside of work haha) and a couple kids who never played before picked up the wizard and cleric and went to town on the adventure after reading the spells.

I really wish 4e Essentials never came out, it really hobbled the fighter to such a degree that it is still having issues in 5e.

(Note: 5e is more of a child of 4e Essentials than people know... Like a 4e.E in a 3e skin... And that isn't a good thing.)

[Shining Wrath]

being equally useful is not a prerequisite to having fun, no, but it does help. the fact that you are not having problems does not mean that there are no problems.

The fact that you have problems does not mean that everyone shares those problems.

My table's fighter got the party across a ravine with the bridge out by grabbing puny weak people and jumping across. The fighter shut down a sahuagin baron by grappling him for two rounds, which turned out to be long enough (and earned him an inspiration point for sheer brass). The guy playing the fighter has found ways to contribute beyond "I attack with my weapon".

I am not responsible for the inability of your friends to imagine ways for a super strong athlete to solve problems. Yeah, magic is better. That's not the same as there being no role for physical skills.

[unbeliever536]

being equally useful is not a prerequisite to having fun, no, but it does help. the fact that you are not having problems does not mean that there are no potential problems.

ftfy.

If that group isn't having problems, then obviously there's no issue for them. That said, the imbalance could stand to be addressed in the system generally.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The fact that you have problems does not mean that everyone shares those problems.

My table's fighter got the party across a ravine with the bridge out by grabbing puny weak people and jumping across. The fighter shut down a sahuagin baron by grappling him for two rounds, which turned out to be long enough (and earned him an inspiration point for sheer brass). The guy playing the fighter has found ways to contribute beyond "I attack with my weapon".

I am not responsible for the inability of your friends to imagine ways for a super strong athlete to solve problems. Yeah, magic is better. That's not the same as there being no role for physical skills.


I built an abjuration wizard with high Strength, he could do the same as what you are suggesting.

That isn't a feature of the class, it is a feature of the ability score/skill system.

And a Strength based rogue can out grapple the Fighter all day long while a low Strength rogue could match the Fighter all day long.

You are giving examples of how the Fighter excelled when it wasn't the Fighter who excelled but the streamlined rules that excelled.

Name a class, that if you gave them high Strength, couldn't do the same thing as the Fighter? A str/Dex/Con dragon sorcerer (low Cha, using buff/utility Spells) can grapple just as well as the Fighter...


Heck... Proficiency in athletics and a magic item (19 Str) copies the Fighter well enough for grappling, jumping, and being a pack mule.

[Shining Wrath]

I built an abjuration wizard with high Strength, he could do the same as what you are suggesting.

That isn't a feature of the class, it is a feature of the ability score/skill system.

And a Strength based rogue can out grapple the Fighter all day long while a low Strength rogue could match the Fighter all day long.

You are giving examples of how the Fighter excelled when it wasn't the Fighter who excelled but the streamlined rules that excelled.

Name a class, that if you gave them high Strength, couldn't do the same thing as the Fighter? A str/Dex/Con dragon sorcerer (low Cha, using buff/utility Spells) can grapple just as well as the Fighter...


Heck... Proficiency in athletics and a magic item (19 Str) copies the Fighter well enough for grappling, jumping, and being a pack mule.

I guess if you have unlimited ability scores then certainly you can build a high strength wizard. So the wizard dumped INT ... no, that would be dumb, he dumped CON ... no, wait, no one does that. So STR is going to be that wizard's 3rd best score, and he's going to be competing with someone who makes STR his primary and gets more ASI to boot. That bit about more ASI, in fact, means that any problem that can be solved by strength or dexterity, fighters will tend to be better at.

Nice theory crafting, won't happen often enough to worry about.

That there is A class (rogue) which can also grapple effectively does not mean that a fighter using grapple is boring. It just means that one of the things a fighter can do besides attack is also available to a few other classes. You don't disrespect a wizard's Sleep spell because bards can cast it, too. There are certainly many classes which won't grapple very well unless, as noted above, you build a suboptimal theorycraft build to do it. It's a plus to the class.

So, I repeat - a skilled D&D player can contribute often and well with a fighter. And the fighter excels at what is often the single most important aspect of the game - defeating monsters in combat. "Dead" remains the single most debilitating condition to impose on your enemies, and on one does "Dead" quite like the fighter. "Best at what is often the single most important thing in the game" plus "has several other ways to contribute" is nothing to sneeze at.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I guess if you have unlimited ability scores then certainly you can build a high strength wizard. So the wizard dumped INT ... no, that would be dumb, he dumped CON ... no, wait, no one does that. So STR is going to be that wizard's 3rd best score, and he's going to be competing with someone who makes STR his primary and gets more ASI to boot. That bit about more ASI, in fact, means that any problem that can be solved by strength or dexterity, fighters will tend to be better at.

Nice theory crafting, won't happen often enough to worry about.

That there is A class (rogue) which can also grapple effectively does not mean that a fighter using grapple is boring. It just means that one of the things a fighter can do besides attack is also available to a few other classes. You don't disrespect a wizard's Sleep spell because bards can cast it, too. There are certainly many classes which won't grapple very well unless, as noted above, you build a suboptimal theorycraft build to do it. It's a plus to the class.

So, I repeat - a skilled D&D player can contribute often and well with a fighter. And the fighter excels at what is often the single most important aspect of the game - defeating monsters in combat. "Dead" remains the single most debilitating condition to impose on your enemies, and on one does "Dead" quite like the fighter. "Best at what is often the single most important thing in the game" plus "has several other ways to contribute" is nothing to sneeze at.

No theory crafting needed, these are all builds I've seen played (or very similar).

When using utility/buff spells the caster needs no more than a 13 in their ability score.

The issues isn't about boring, it is about being invalidated as a class because everything you can do can be done by anyone one else who wants to build that way (Str based Fighter is a choice too, they do well with Dex).

The Str Rogue completely invalidates the Fighter. Other classes can do it too.

You keep talking about things a Fighter can do if they choose to. It isn't the Fighter it is ANYONE that chooses to do it. Hell, the Fighter doesn't even do it easier. Grapple Paladin is pretty nifty as their smite targets don't get away that easy.

The Fighter is extra baggage that isn't needed. Sure you may like it, but that doesn't mean it is needed.

A skilled D&D player isn't contributing because of the Fighter, they are contributing because of the rules that anyone can use.

You need to separate the general rules (anyone can use) with the specific rules (only X class can use). The Fighter doesn't have any specific rules that makes it a valid class.

Others get the fighting style they need/want, others can do enough weapon damage to keep up with the game, others can use general rules, action surge is a horrible mechanic (way too general), extra attack (2&3) breaks the streamlined rules, and indomitable and second wind are pathetic.

Edited

The Fighter has a lot of good ideas but very very very poor execution. Most of the problems stem from the fact that the Fighter is how it is.

[Shining Wrath]

No theory crafting needed, these are all builds I've seen played (or very similar).

When using utility/buff spells the caster needs no more than a 13 in their ability score.

The issues isn't about boring, it is about being invalidated as a class because everything you can do can be done by anyone one else who wants to build that way (Str based Fighter is a choice too, they do well with Dex).

The Str Rogue completely invalidates the Fighter. Other classes can do it too.

You keep talking about things a Fighter can do if they choose to. It isn't the Fighter it is ANYONE that chooses to do it. Hell, the Fighter doesn't even do it easier. Grapple Paladin is pretty nifty as their smite targets don't get away that easy.

The Fighter is extra baggage that isn't needed. Sure you may like it, but that doesn't mean it is needed.

A skilled D&D player isn't contributing because of the Fighter, they are contributing because of the rules that anyone can use.

You need to separate the general rules (anyone can use) with the specific rules (only X class can use). The Fighter doesn't have any specific rules that makes it a valid class.

Others get the fighting style they need/want, others can do enough weapon damage to keep up with the game, others can use general rules, action surge is a horrible mechanic (way too general), extra attack (2&3) breaks the streamlined rules, and indomitable and second wind are pathetic.

Edited

The Fighter has a lot of good ideas but very very very poor execution. Most of the problems stem from the fact that the Fighter is how it is.

And ... we're done. I know fanaticism when I see it. Have a wonderful day and may your dice lack 1's.

[Doug Lampert]

And ... we're done. I know fanaticism when I see it. Have a wonderful day and may your dice lack 1's.

You're done, except you have to post to say so and try to get the last word by accusing the other side of being a fanatic.

So I'll ask: Would the fanatic be the one who claims builds that are actually used and seen in play are theory crafting? Or is it the guy trying to claim that things absolutely anyone can try and that a rogue can trivally be better at are advantages for the fighter?

Because I'm pretty sure both of those are you.

[ThermalSlapShot]

And ... we're done. I know fanaticism when I see it. Have a wonderful day and may your dice lack 1's.

I actually don't play with critical successes as I prefer my abilities to come from my character and not completely random chance.

I don't care that others use them, they just aren't for me unless I feel like specifically making a build that relies on crits or whatever (or I need to determine average damage and such).


You're done, except you have to post to say so and try to get the last word by accusing the other side of being a fanatic.

So I'll ask: Would the fanatic be the one who claims builds that are actually used and seen in play are theory crafting? Or is it the guy trying to claim that things absolutely anyone can try and that a rogue can trivally be better at are advantages for the fighter?

Because I'm pretty sure both of those are you.

Thank you, I really didn't want to respond to that part of the post but I couldn't have said it better.

[SharkForce]

The fact that you have problems does not mean that everyone shares those problems.

My table's fighter got the party across a ravine with the bridge out by grabbing puny weak people and jumping across. The fighter shut down a sahuagin baron by grappling him for two rounds, which turned out to be long enough (and earned him an inspiration point for sheer brass). The guy playing the fighter has found ways to contribute beyond "I attack with my weapon".

I am not responsible for the inability of your friends to imagine ways for a super strong athlete to solve problems. Yeah, magic is better. That's not the same as there being no role for physical skills.

the fighter is not a super strong athlete, nor is the fighter a master of physical skills. *A* fighter can be a super strong athlete, and pretty decent at physical skills. but, as has been pointed out, that option is not a fighter ability, it's simply an ability that people with decent physical attributes have. a strength-based paladin, rogue, barbarian, bard (presumably valour), cleric (use spells for buffing and healing), ranger, or multiclass build with appropriate skill selection can also do these things.

but they can also do other things. the barbarian does better damage, and gets damage resistance, and has better ability to "draw aggro" (figuratively speaking), plus a few other perks. the paladin can do all that and gets smites and spells and auras and healing. and so on.

the fighter has one special way to interact with the world: they can stab/punch/slice/bash/etc more often in the same amount of time than anyone else, assuming equal buffs. that's nice. it's useful. it is far better than cantrips. but it is their only special way of interacting with the world, while damaging cantrips are one of many ways casters can interact with the world.

i don't necessarily need the fighter to have a million spell-equivalent abilities to accept that it is on equal footing (or rather, that it has an approximation of equal footing, which is about as close as you can get when everyone has different strengths and weaknesses). but that doesn't mean that all they need is more attacks per round.

[Estralita]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about cantrips? There are threads about martial/caster balance if you want to talk about that. I know, I started one.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about cantrips? There are threads about martial/caster balance if you want to talk about that. I know, I started one.

Eh, until we either A: get rid of the Fighter or B: make the Fighter more than "new user friendly" every discussion will devolve into casters v martials.

But it does show how cantrips are superior to weapon damage.

You can interact with the world in more ways than *I aim and do damage*. Those other ways of interacting make up for the lesser damage.

Vicious Mockery is one of the best cantrips out there and it only has a base d4 damage.

[EvilAnagram]

Champions get proficiency in all physical skills and a jump boost, plus health regeneration and a second fighting style.

Battle Masters get maneuvers that allow for various combat options and a singular intelligence gathering tool.

Eldritch Knights get magic.

"Fighters are only good at hitting and stabbing."

Anyways, cantrips lower the distance between the damage capabilities of martials and casters, but do not harm balance.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Champions get proficiency in all physical skills and a jump boost, plus health regeneration and a second fighting style.

Battle Masters get maneuvers that allow for various combat options and a singular intelligence gathering tool.

Eldritch Knights get magic.

"Fighters are only good at hitting and stabbing."

Anyways, cantrips lower the distance between the damage capabilities of martials and casters, but do not harm balance.


No they do not. They get 1/2 prof in untrained skills and ability checks. So for skills they get a bonus in something they weren't going to focus on in the first place... Yay! My full plate Fighter can get a +3 Stealth with disadvantage!

Jack of all trades is every skill. Expertise is skills you care about.

Guidance is .5 (average) less of a boost and it can go to any skill.

Besides, remarkable athlete just allows you to p anything that you can already do. Just with moar numbahs.

Battle Master has one good ability and one good Maneuver that lets you do something no one else can effectively do in the same way. That's not a good justification for 20 levels of an entire class.

Eldritch Knight gets magic, which is the anti-fighter Fighter. They don't really get enough and it is based on Int so it ends up being MAD (Str or Dex + Con + little bit of Dex or Str + Wis + Int). This is why so many people pick Gnome or stick with buff/utility Spells for the Fighter. Plus they get Spells so dang late that what's the point of shooting a fireball when the save is low and the damage is low...

Cantrips do not harm balance. The Fighter harms balance. If the Fighter had decent options outside of damage then the idea of cantrips being unbalanced due to damae wouldn't come up.

Edit

And they get a jump boost that maxes out at +5 feet... That is just Fighter in a nut shell. Here is an ability with a cool idea ... that falls flat.

But hey, half life 3 so who cares.

[Sigreid]

Eh, until we either A: get rid of the Fighter or B: make the Fighter more than "new user friendly" every discussion will devolve into casters v martials.

But it does show how cantrips are superior to weapon damage.

You can interact with the world in more ways than *I aim and do damage*. Those other ways of interacting make up for the lesser damage.

Vicious Mockery is one of the best cantrips out there and it only has a base d4 damage.

I've said this before in another thread. It's totally cool if there are martials that do whatever fancy things you want to do. I would be very disappointed if they took away the fighter. Sometimes he's exactly what I want to play.

And incidentally, I'm glad they moved a lot of abilities out of the classes and into skills and backgrounds. It gives me flexibility.

[D.U.P.A.]

Can someone who played many editions, how the cantrips (aka at will spells) did 'evolve' during various editions, so I can compare? Preferably those combat useful.
1e: no cantrips?
2e: some minor utility?
3e:???
3.5:???
PF: non scalable low damage at will spells?
4e: at will powers
5e: at will scalable spells

[Sigreid]

Can someone who played many editions, how the cantrips (aka at will spells) did 'evolve' during various editions, so I can compare? Preferably those combat useful.
1e: no cantrips?
2e: some minor utility?
3e:???
3.5:???
PF: non scalable low damage at will spells?
4e: at will powers
5e: at will scalable spells

1e, no cantrips and wizards were bad with weapons and had low hp. They were brought along and largely carried by their comrades for the when they leveled up a bit and he could start doing game changers more and more often.

2e Introduction of cantrips as 0 level spells. Not really powerful or that useful most of the time. They were basically there to give the wizard a few extra mostly meaningless toys to play with so he could feel like a wizard more often. Mostly they worked like regular spells, but less powerful.

3/3.5e The start experimenting with allowing wizards to have at will magic powers that are actually useful in the form of reserve feats. Reserve feats basically gave you a fairly low powered but useful magic ability you could use every round provided you maintained a spell slot with a spell that met certain criteria. The at will power became more powerful based on the level of the slot you were using to fuel it.

4e No idea. I'm glad many people enjoyed it, but I read through the PHB and decided it wasn't what I wanted in a game.

5e At will cantrips that you can't normally replace. Damaging cantrips scale up with level at around the same rate as extra attacks and other combat abilities come online for other classes. They are basically a way to let a wizard consistently participate in a fight without them having to carry a crossbow or get extra attacks. With the exception of warlock (who is basically an arcane archer) even the best combat cantrips aren't on par with martial combat abilities, but do allow the wizard to feel like he's contributing to the fights throughout his Carrier. Cantrips are expescially important because 5e does not assume it's "Mr. Wizard and his magical junk show featuring 50 wands."

[JAL_1138]

Can someone who played many editions, how the cantrips (aka at will spells) did 'evolve' during various editions, so I can compare? Preferably those combat useful.
1e: no cantrips?
2e: some minor utility?
3e:???
3.5:???
PF: non scalable low damage at will spells?
4e: at will powers
5e: at will scalable spells

1e: No cantrips but the first-level(!) spell called "Cantrip" (renamed in later editions to Prestidigitation). Utility spells exist but are leveled spells.
2e: Ditto 1e. There are no cantrips but the particular first-level spell called "Cantrip." Utility spells exist but are leveled spells.
3.PF: "Cantrip" renamed "Prestidigitation," 0th-level spells created and named "cantrips." Few do damage, those that do often deal 1d3. Can't remember if they were X/day or unlimited. I think X/day. Several new ones created, several old first-level utility spells moved to the cantrip classification.
4e: At-will combat powers. Utility magic moved to highly-limited "utility powers," or rituals which were too expensive and/or too time-consuming to ever use unless the plot demanded it, lest you fall off the wealth-by-level treadmill.
5e: At-will spells which do not use and cannot be cast out of spell slots, some of which are the only spells that scale by caster level instead of slots. Damage cantrips do up to d12, but never quite match Fighter damage. Utility cantrips return.

[D.U.P.A.]

So wizard resorted to slings/crossbows only in 1e and 2e? Later they were already able to attack with some sort of at will magic?

[Sigreid]

So wizard resorted to slings/crossbows only in 1e and 2e? Later they were already able to attack with some sort of at will magic?

No, the reserve feats came out in a later splat book.

[Kurt Kurageous]

1e they didn't even get crossbows. I don't recall slings. Best range weapon was the dart or thrown dagger!

[JAL_1138]

So wizard resorted to slings/crossbows only in 1e and 2e? Later they were already able to attack with some sort of at will magic?


No, the reserve feats came out in a later splat book.

I don't have much 3.PF experience, but like I said I think in 3rd cantrips were X/day, and not a great many, to start with. I think. Probably did go to at-will via splat or PF.
Either way--I think in 3rd Ray of Frost was 1d3, better used as a utility than an attack. If your options are a d8+dex crossbow or a flat 1d3+nothing, you're better off with the xbow.

[Sigreid]

1e they didn't even get crossbows. I don't recall slings. Best range weapon was the dart or thrown dagger!

You're right. It was club, dagger, dart, staff end of story.

[Sigreid]

I don't have much 3.PF experience, but like I said I think in 3rd cantrips were X/day, and not a great many, to sart with. I think. Probably did go to at-will via splat or PF.
Either way--I think in 3rd Ray of Frost was 1d3, better used as a utility than an attack. If your options are a d8+dex crossbow or a flat 1d3+nothing, you're better off with the xbow.

They were literally memorized and expended just like any other spell but labeled as zero level. Wizards started with all of them in their book.

[JAL_1138]

You're right. It was club, dagger, dart, staff end of story.

Did 1e darts have the crazy ROF of 2e darts? I seem to recall missile weapons being insane in surprise rounds in 1e.

EDIT:

They were literally memorized and expended just like any other spell but labeled as zero level. Wizards started with all of them in their book.

That was it. I couldn't recall, been too long. Thanks!

[ThermalSlapShot]

I've said this before in another thread. It's totally cool if there are martials that do whatever fancy things you want to do. I would be very disappointed if they took away the fighter. Sometimes he's exactly what I want to play.

And incidentally, I'm glad they moved a lot of abilities out of the classes and into skills and backgrounds. It gives me flexibility.

I actually think that unless we bring back the 4e Fighter and get rid of this 3e/4eEssentials Fighter we may as well just leave the Fighter behind and move forward with classes like the Rogue, Barbarian, and Warlord (4e). Specific martial classes.

If we had enough martial classes then we won't even need the Fighter for anything other than a NPC.

Edited

The Fighter has once again become a dip class with the same problems that it had in the past... If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat of it... Perfect example of 3e and 5e Fighter.

[Hawkstar]

I actually think that unless we bring back the 4e Fighter and get rid of this 3e/4eEssentials Fighter we may as well just leave the Fighter behind and move forward with classes like the Rogue, Barbarian, and Warlord (4e). Specific martial classes.

If we had enough martial classes then we won't even need the Fighter for anything other than a NPC.

Edited

The Fighter has once again become a dip class with the same problems that it had in the past... If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat of it... Perfect example of 3e and 5e Fighter.But the 4e fighter wasn't any more capable of doing anything but hitting guys than the 5e fighter is.

[Pex]

There's also practicality of fun for the spellcaster player. Spellcasters do have shiny boombas of spectacular power with their spells, but they are limited. Spellcasters need to conserve spells for when the need is there. It just wouldn't be fun for a spellcaster player to do nothing because he needs to hold onto a spell for an Honest True more important situation or he's run out of spells altogether due to Honest True need. Cantrips allow the player to do something that's still effective enough and feel like being a spellcaster. It feels and sounds better for a spellcaster player to say "I cast Firebolt" than it is to say "I fire my crossbow".

[Sigreid]

I actually think that unless we bring back the 4e Fighter and get rid of this 3e/4eEssentials Fighter we may as well just leave the Fighter behind and move forward with classes like the Rogue, Barbarian, and Warlord (4e). Specific martial classes.

If we had enough martial classes then we won't even need the Fighter for anything other than a NPC.

Edited

The Fighter has once again become a dip class with the same problems that it had in the past... If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat of it... Perfect example of 3e and 5e Fighter.

Again, I understand you don't dig the fighter. There are plenty of us that do. I don't see why you can't have what you want and leave those of us that like the fighter what we want. The conflict between our viewpoints is being caused solely by your absolutism. I don't mean that to be as provocative as it might sound, I just want you to understand that others have a different viewpoint than you, and that should be OK.

[JAL_1138]

2e Introduction of cantrips as 0 level spells. Not really powerful or that useful most of the time. They were basically there to give the wizard a few extra mostly meaningless toys to play with so he could feel like a wizard more often. Mostly they worked like regular spells, but less powerful.


Unless they were in Complete Wizard or something, or Spells & Powers, in the PHB there was just "Cantrip" the first-level spell. I'll admit to having nearly zero experience with the "Player's Option" splats and only spotty experience with Complete X's Handbooks, though. They weren't in the PHB, at any rate, whether the old three-column or the 90s black-border.

[Sigreid]

Unless they were in Complete Wizard or something, or Spells & Powers, in the PHB there was just "Cantrip" the first-level spell. I'll admit to having nearly zero experience with the "Player's Option" splats and only spotty experience with Complete X's Handbooks, though. They weren't in the PHB, at any rate, whether the old three-column or the 90s black-border.

while there was indeed a spell called cantrip, there was a stage in 2e where they released a PHB with a long list of 0 level spells (not called cantrips).

[Naanomi]

Somewhere late in 2e cantrips/orisons became their own thing (maybe as late as the spell compendiums) that you could memorize 2-for-1 in a level 1 spell slot

At later levels, I rarely bothered to even throw a dart if I didn't have a spell I wanted to cast in a round, my to-hit and damage was so bad it was better to do nothing.

[Nifft]

Can someone who played many editions, how the cantrips (aka at will spells) did 'evolve' during various editions, so I can compare? Preferably those combat useful.
1e: no cantrips?
2e: some minor utility?
3e:???
3.5:???
PF: non scalable low damage at will spells?
4e: at will powers
5e: at will scalable spells

1e: No cantrips. Wizards are artillery. A single sleep spell has a very good chance to flat-out end an otherwise overwhelming encounter. The Wizard's game was about pacing his spells, each of which was incredible. Most of the time, he did nothing that a hireling couldn't do (i.e. carry a lantern, draw the map, etc.). As balance, Wizards needed one hour per spell-level to prepare spells. Yes, a high-level Wizard who cast all her spells would need days to get them prepared again. This was part of the game's balance.

2e: Go play Baldur's Gate, it was exactly like that.

3e: Major attempt to regularize and rationalize spellcasting. Cantrips and Orisons created so low-level casters have something to do other than just hurl their "big" first-level spells; unfortunately, cantrips are too weak to be useful except in very niche situations (i.e. Rogue who finds a wand of Ray of Frost can use it for touch-attack Sneak Attack dice).

Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved: I think this was the first d20 game where unlimited cantrips were available. They're not available at 1st level, but rather they happen as you level up. First cantrips, then you could get unlimited level 1 spell, then level 2, etc. up to level 3 spells at character level 30 or something.

3.5e: Like 3e, except less rigid. Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts showed that at-will "spells" were viable. Tome of Battle showed that more complex martial classes were viable. Binder showed that mix-and-match at-will abilities were viable. Dragon Shaman and Marshal showed that at-will and constant bonuses were not even all that strong.

Pathfinder: Haven't played it seriously since the open beta, so I'm not qualified to discuss its innovations.

4e: Another major attempt to regularize and rationalize spellcasting, plus it incorporated (and regularized) all other abilities on the same basic scheme. At-will abilities were a thing that every class gained. All at-will powers scaled up with character level.

4.5e (Essentials): Another less-rigid follow-up. Allegedly pretty good; I didn't play it enough to have an opinion.

5e: Cantrips scale up like 4e at-will powers.

[SharkForce]

But the 4e fighter wasn't any more capable of doing anything but hitting guys than the 5e fighter is.

sure he was. i mean, it wasn't anything like you could do in other editions of D&D, but nobody had that. the wizard could cast jump, the fighter could just jump that far with a power that wasn't called jump and wasn't called a spell. the wizard could cast a spell that would make wind to reposition all the enemies, the fighter had a taunt that he could use to force all enemies in range to attack him (whether they were mindless or not). the wizard had a shield spell, the fighter most likely had some sort of parry. the priest could heal others, the fighter had abilities that allowed him to recover his own health.

no, he wasn't summoning powerful elementals to crush his enemies, but nobody was doing that in 4th edition (summon spells mostly consisted of "here's an extra option for an at-will attack that uses up concentration, a slight boost to your defensive stats, and an extra reaction per turn" as far as i played at least). the kinds of things that wizards could do were also the kinds of things that fighters could do.

there are a lot of things i wasn't a fan of in 4th edition, but this is one accusation i definitely cannot make. if wizards had any advantage at all, it was actually in their ability to target basically any defense they wanted, not in their superior utility (because if they had any extra utility, it certainly wasn't a huge amount extra, and most of it came from having the ritual spellcasting feat for free).

[ThermalSlapShot]

Again, I understand you don't dig the fighter. There are plenty of us that do. I don't see why you can't have what you want and leave those of us that like the fighter what we want. The conflict between our viewpoints is being caused solely by your absolutism. I don't mean that to be as provocative as it might sound, I just want you to understand that others have a different viewpoint than you, and that should be OK.

What I want gives everyone what they want. I would love to see a generic Fighter.

However the 5e Fighter, as made, doesn't even fit in with the rest of the game.

You can make a simple class if you want, simple doesn't mean that it can't be effective at more than just *move and stab/bash/slash*. However wotc has shown us yet again that they have decided that the Fighter will be only one thing.

However we don't really need the Fighter, every single thing it can do everyone else can do just as well or better. However if you make the Fighter a real class comparable to the other classes then you might bebonto something.

I've seen plenty of simple yet great Fighter homebrew. If people who don't get paid to make the Fighter (due to different career choice) can make quality work then I should be able to hold wotc to a higher standard than the drivel they sling at us under the guise of "Fighter".

Though 3e, 3.5, 4e Essentials, and now 5e has all been garbage Fighters so I guess that IS what a Fighter is.

[Sigreid]

What I want gives everyone what they want. I would love to see a generic Fighter.

However the 5e Fighter, as made, doesn't even fit in with the rest of the game.

You can make a simple class if you want, simple doesn't mean that it can't be effective at more than just *move and stab/bash/slash*. However wotc has shown us yet again that they have decided that the Fighter will be only one thing.

However we don't really need the Fighter, every single thing it can do everyone else can do just as well or better. However if you make the Fighter a real class comparable to the other classes then you might bebonto something.

I've seen plenty of simple yet great Fighter homebrew. If people who don't get paid to make the Fighter (due to different career choice) can make quality work then I should be able to hold wotc to a higher standard than the drivel they sling at us under the guise of "Fighter".

Though 3e, 3.5, 4e Essentials, and now 5e has all been garbage Fighters so I guess that IS what a Fighter is.

Ok, I'll take a stab at telling you where I am coming from. When I play something like a champion fighter it's actually much more complex that playing any other class. Since I don't have a bunch of this ability does X options to rely on the game becomes all about the player. If I want to make something happen, get an opponent to focus on me, gain advantage, whatever I have to figure out how to make that happen instead of just saying I use my ability. It's the diametric opposition to a wizard relying on their spells and it really appeals to me.

[JAL_1138]

while there was indeed a spell called cantrip, there was a stage in 2e where they released a PHB with a long list of 0 level spells (not called cantrips).

They're not in either my three-column or my black-border, and I can't find anything about it online. Might have been Player's Option: Spells & Magic, which was a hardback with a black border that looked very much like the PHB (and the rest of the black-border printing), and some googling says it included them as an optional rule.

Unearthed Arcana from 1e had a long list of 0-levels (just bought it today, didn't know about that 'till now) and maybe that's what you're thinking of if it wasn't Player's Option. But I'm positive they were not in any 2e Player's Handbook.

[Sigreid]

They're not in either my three-column or my black-border, and I can't find anything about it online. Might have been Player's Option: Spells & Magic, which was a hardback with a black border that looked very much like the PHB (and the rest of the black-border printing), and some googling says it included them as an optional rule.

Unearthed Arcana from 1e had a long list of 0-levels (just bought it today, didn't know about that 'till now) and maybe that's what you're thinking of if it wasn't Player's Option. But I'm positive they were not in any 2e Player's Handbook.

You're right, I'm thinking of 1 and 2e unearthed arcanas. Sorry for the confusion, ancient history man. lol

[JAL_1138]

You're right, I'm thinking of 1 and 2e unearthed arcanas. Sorry for the confusion, ancient history man. lol

It happens, no worries. I blanked on 3rd earlier. Decade-and-a-half since 2e ended is a long time to remember which book had what in it.

[Zevox]

So wizard resorted to slings/crossbows only in 1e and 2e? Later they were already able to attack with some sort of at will magic?
In 3e (including 3.5) as well. Cantrips there were level 0 spells, but still had limited spell slots, just like any other spell level. In fact, Wizards usually ended up with fewer cantrips per day than 1st-level spells, and other classes could as well if their casting stat was high enough (you got bonus spell slots based on your casting stat in 3e, but never got bonus cantrips).

And as others have said, damage cantrips in 3e were 1d3 damage. Not even worth using compared to a crossbow. The only really useful cantrips in that edition were the utility ones, like Light, Message, or Detect Magic.

[Arial Black]

There are lots of character ideas/classes that I want to play, but even more than that is the character that I don't want to stop playing: my single class human battle master fighter.

I'm 5th level right now, and at every level-up I've considered the multi-class possibilities, then realised that I'm better off taking another fighter level.

Now that I'm about to level up to 6th, I still think that I'd rather get that juicy ASI that 6th level fighters get, and be another step closer to more superiority dice and maneuvers, than anything I'd get as a fighter 5/anything else 1.

I also try to think of replacement characters if this one should die. Maybe I'd retire my fighter so that I could play one of these other ideas.

But no, I like my fighter too much.

He's also the most effective character in the group in fights, and the best at social skills. He is a close second in stealth/lockpicking.

What's more, I didn't even feel the need to optimise. Str 8 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 13 Cha 16, at first level. At 4h my Dex hit 18 and at 6th it will be 20. So my second best stat is Cha, and none of my class abilities key off Cha. Do I feel gimped? Not in the least! I rule!

And then I come on this thread and I'm told that fighters are so pointless that there is literally no point to them/they suck/play ANY other class because fighters are so useless.

I must be playing him wrong...!

[SharkForce]

the only part of your character that comes from being a fighter is the part where you're effective in fights. the rest comes from attributes and proficiencies which are not part of being a fighter, they're just part of being a character.

and being effective in fights is mostly a matter of player skill, not class power, at low levels (there is certainly a difference between classes, in some cases very pronounced differences, such as the moon druid before melee classes get their second attack, but mostly at low levels there won't be a huge difference).

the fact that the class has a good start is nice. it certainly helps. it's a big part of what makes fighter a good class to splash into almost anything.

that doesn't mean the entire class is fine. it just means that the first half of it is fine.

[Nifft]

the only part of your character that comes from being a fighter is the part where you're effective in fights. the rest comes from attributes and proficiencies which are not part of being a fighter, they're just part of being a character.

Hmm. Not sure this is entirely accurate.

Fighters get more attributes due to having more ASIs.

He's anticipating having higher attributes at level 6, and that is kind of a Fighter-only thing.

[Orbis Orboros]

Hmm. Not sure this is entirely accurate.

Fighters get more attributes due to having more ASIs.

He's anticipating having higher attributes at level 6, and that is kind of a Fighter-only thing.

Attributes affect three things: combat, skills, and saves. Sharkforce conceded combat. Saves... well, so what, you can have one save slightly better. And skills are better done by Rogues or Bards even considering that the Fighter gets an extra ASI.

[SharkForce]

Hmm. Not sure this is entirely accurate.

Fighters get more attributes due to having more ASIs.

He's anticipating having higher attributes at level 6, and that is kind of a Fighter-only thing.

*shrug* negligibly small benefit. obviously better than nothing, but not exactly a major buff to contributing outside of combat (the most likely benefit is that eventually he'll be able to afford the 2-3 combat feats that boost your damage dramatically).

[ThermalSlapShot]

I feel like cantrips should be made into items (foci) that require proficiency to use. Make these mirror weapons in the sense that you have to buy them, they can be stolen, and classes are proficient with certain ones.

At-will wands, staves, orbs, or holy symbols. Hell some of them could be *dead lizard*.

The magic comes from the PC but they need a focus to channel it.

Then if you don't want the Warlock casting EB to much you can sunder their dead lizard.

Actually, a system where all Spells come through magic items would be interesting. Only certain classes can use them like the FF games where some may be able to equip an item but others can equip and draw out the magic.

[Hawkstar]

the only part of your character that comes from being a fighter is the part where you're effective in fights. the rest comes from attributes and proficiencies which are not part of being a fighter, they're just part of being a character.
The combat superiority is the most important part. There's nothing else other classes can do that a fighter needs to be able to do, because just being a Character is enough. The options other classes get for doing things are absolutely trivial.

[Sigreid]

I feel like cantrips should be made into items (foci) that require proficiency to use. Make these mirror weapons in the sense that you have to buy them, they can be stolen, and classes are proficient with certain ones.

At-will wands, staves, orbs, or holy symbols. Hell some of them could be *dead lizard*.

The magic comes from the PC but they need a focus to channel it.

Then if you don't want the Warlock casting EB to much you can sunder their dead lizard.

Actually, a system where all Spells come through magic items would be interesting. Only certain classes can use them like the FF games where some may be able to equip an item but others can equip and draw out the magic.

The more of your posts I read, the more I think D&D 5e may simply not be the game for you. I say this because my perception is that the majority of your posts suggest sweeping changes to the core mechanics of the game. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, there's nothing wrong with making whatever changes to your game that your table is happy with. I just get the feeling you're in a similar place with 5e that I was with 4e which I felt was ok for what it was, it just wasn't what I wanted. I'm not trying to start any kind of an edition battle or anything, just making an observation based on my perceptions.

[SharkForce]

The combat superiority is the most important part. There's nothing else other classes can do that a fighter needs to be able to do, because just being a Character is enough. The options other classes get for doing things are absolutely trivial.

the combat superiority (as opposed to just contributing like everyone else) is coming from perception of events and player skill, not class capabilities. treantmonk has a guide on the WotC forums where he talks about an experience he had where he joined a D&D group with a crazy optimized fighter, realized that wasn't fitting in (the group claimed min/maxed was needed, but obviously he had a different idea of optimization than they did), then came back with a wizard and where the group had previously been experiencing constant character deaths and losses, suddenly nobody lost a character ever after that... and the entire group thought his wizard sucked and had nothing to do with the change because he wasn't casting fireball or magic missile all the time, but was instead using CC effects. in 3.x D&D, they thought the wizard using save-or-suck was ineffective and even worthless. meanwhile, he was enjoying a tremendously effective character that essentially set things up for the rest of the party so that they were practically forced into success without ever even realizing that his character was the source of that success.

now, i don't sit at the same table, so for all i know, arial black's fighter really is legitimately pulling most of the weight in his group. but it is also entirely possible that someone else is pulling equal or greater weight and nobody notices. in any event, it is unlikely due to fighter superiority that he would be star of the show constantly, since at this point in the game a wizard can practically end level 1 encounters with a sleep spell twice per day, at level 3 they can have a huge impact with web (and sleep can still majorly swing smaller fights), and just now they've picked up access to level 3 spells which can include fireball, hypnotic pattern, stinking cloud, fear, etc, all of which can swing a fight massively, and only one of those spells actually does any damage at all. it may not be immediately visible that the fight basically ended when the wizard throws a fear spell that makes half the enemies spend their next 1-2 turns running away instead of fighting, and the 1-2 turns after that coming back, and yet that fear spell may have basically won the fight in spite of not dealing even a single point of damage or killing a single enemy. even if casters are not dominating every fight (which ideally they wouldn't be), if they are not dominating some of the fights (visibly or invisibly), then the problem is player skill, not class strength.

so, if there is any dominance, it is most likely due to player skill rather than class capabilities. which, considering he is also dominating in the parts of the game where his class adds essentially nothing (social skills, thief skills), is fairly likely to be the case.

in any event, it is spurious at best to claim that only the combat matters. we know that the game is designed around *three* pillars, and only *one* of those pillars is combat. power in those other two pillars may or may not be of equal importance in your games, but if it is of no importance, then you are playing a very different game from the one i am playing.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The more of your posts I read, the more I think D&D 5e may simply not be the game for you. I say this because my perception is that the majority of your posts suggest sweeping changes to the core mechanics of the game. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, there's nothing wrong with making whatever changes to your game that your table is happy with. I just get the feeling you're in a similar place with 5e that I was with 4e which I felt was ok for what it was, it just wasn't what I wanted. I'm not trying to start any kind of an edition battle or anything, just making an observation based on my perceptions.


It was a headcannon, one that already fits into the game.

There are holy symbols and components needed for spells, my headcannon would just expand upon an idea that is already within the game.

I love the base rules and the casters, if the other half could catch up (martials) then we would have a complete game. As of right now we have an incomplete product.

[Coidzor]

it may not be immediately visible that the fight basically ended when the wizard throws a fear spell that makes half the enemies spend their next 1-2 turns running away instead of fighting, and the 1-2 turns after that coming back, and yet that fear spell may have basically won the fight in spite of not dealing even a single point of damage or killing a single enemy.

It really, really should be though. Since splitting a fight up into two smaller fights where it's all of you against half of them is really, really overt.

[Hawkstar]

in any event, it is spurious at best to claim that only the combat matters. we know that the game is designed around *three* pillars, and only *one* of those pillars is combat. power in those other two pillars may or may not be of equal importance in your games, but if it is of no importance, then you are playing a very different game from the one i am playing.
The fighter, by virtue of being a Player Character, is more than competent enough in handling the other two pillars. Other classes have trivial improvements in those areas through class features, but trivial is all they are.

[Dimolyth]

Eh, until we either A: get rid of the Fighter or B: make the Fighter more than "new user friendly" every discussion will devolve into casters v martials.

But it does show how cantrips are superior to weapon damage.

You can interact with the world in more ways than *I aim and do damage*. Those other ways of interacting make up for the lesser damage.

Vicious Mockery is one of the best cantrips out there and it only has a base d4 damage.

I`ll vote that Fighter is not "new user friendly", but rather an "old-school ROLE-player favorite" (which involves lovers to make notes only for in game information, not in system math, OR old-theme "dwarves don`t rely on magic ever", OR "I`m archer, not a forester guy", OR "Hey kids, Idon`t know your modern tricks, I`m just 50 years old veteran... etc, etc).
And as oposite, that`s 90% of new players, who wants to be something more special and definite, than a fighter...
Though, it was not my point.

My point was that most of cantrips (with exception of cantrip-oriented build) rest back-up options, which are worse than martials` back-up options. Sword-and-board fighter throwing javerlin, or crossbow rogue striking with his dagger, or barbarian waving his axe without rage all doing their work better, than a caster with damaging cantrip.

[Sigreid]

It was a headcannon, one that already fits into the game.

There are holy symbols and components needed for spells, my headcannon would just expand upon an idea that is already within the game.

I love the base rules and the casters, if the other half could catch up (martials) then we would have a complete game. As of right now we have an incomplete product.

Cool, carry on. I was just curious. :smallsmile:

[SharkForce]

The fighter, by virtue of being a Player Character, is more than competent enough in handling the other two pillars. Other classes have trivial improvements in those areas through class features, but trivial is all they are.

uh-huh. so your fighter contributes equally to someone who can make the whole party fly, or who can dig tunnels almost as fast as the party can move, or who can build a (permanent) small building in an hour or so, or a temporary bridge in 6 seconds or so, no problem. and has no difficulty scouting out an entire fortress in an hour with basically no risk to himself. and can ask powerful immortal beings about whatever they feel like at a moment's notice. or can create a small completely loyal competent army given sufficient supplies (of corpses, mostly) and time.

sure, you just keep telling yourself that.

[Coidzor]

who can dig tunnels almost as fast as the party can move, or who can build a (permanent) small building in an hour or so

Which spells are those?

[SharkForce]

Which spells are those?

for tunneling, polymorph is a good option, true polymorph is better of course. building a building, wall of stone is probably your best option (fabricate (mostly for wooden structures) and whatever the renamed transmute mud to rock/transmute rock to mud spell is in the EE player's book, as well as shape earth, can all potentially be used for both, although shape earth won't give you the same speed as walking as far as tunneling is concerned unless you have a lot of people using it or you walk really slow).

[Hawkstar]

uh-huh. so your fighter contributes equally to someone who can make the whole party fly, or who can dig tunnels almost as fast as the party can move, or who can build a (permanent) small building in an hour or so, or a temporary bridge in 6 seconds or so, no problem. and has no difficulty scouting out an entire fortress in an hour with basically no risk to himself. and can ask powerful immortal beings about whatever they feel like at a moment's notice. or can create a small completely loyal competent army given sufficient supplies (of corpses, mostly) and time.

sure, you just keep telling yourself that.
Yes. All those things you described are largely trivial.

[Sigreid]

Yes. All those things you described are largely trivial.

I've made the point before that many of the spells people talk about as being the "story drivers" really just do ordinary mundane things...a lot faster. Teleport as an example doesn't do anything a horse and buggy doesn't, but it does do it a whole lot faster making the wizard the party's Pontiac.

[Arial Black]

the combat superiority (as opposed to just contributing like everyone else) is coming from perception of events and player skill, not class capabilities. treantmonk has a guide on the WotC forums where he talks about an experience he had where he joined a D&D group with a crazy optimized fighter, realized that wasn't fitting in (the group claimed min/maxed was needed, but obviously he had a different idea of optimization than they did), then came back with a wizard and where the group had previously been experiencing constant character deaths and losses, suddenly nobody lost a character ever after that... and the entire group thought his wizard sucked and had nothing to do with the change because he wasn't casting fireball or magic missile all the time, but was instead using CC effects. in 3.x D&D, they thought the wizard using save-or-suck was ineffective and even worthless. meanwhile, he was enjoying a tremendously effective character that essentially set things up for the rest of the party so that they were practically forced into success without ever even realizing that his character was the source of that success.

Treantmonk's experience doesn't illustrate that wizards are better than fighters; it illustrates that a balanced party (with well-thought-out characters in every role) is better than a party composed entirely of one kind of character, be that all fighters or all wizards.

[SharkForce]

Treantmonk's experience doesn't illustrate that wizards are better than fighters; it illustrates that a balanced party (with well-thought-out characters in every role) is better than a party composed entirely of one kind of character, be that all fighters or all wizards.

treantmonk's experience took place sometime in the third edition spectrum (don't think it was pathfinder, but not sure if it was 3.0 or 3.5).

there is no room for rational discussion in 3.5 whether a party is better with all wizards than it is with any number of fighters. about the only classes where a party of wizards is not better in 3.x is if the party instead of wizards has druids, archivists, artificers, clerics, and maybe a few other classes i'm not remembering. one of the most frequently-cited complaints about third edition is specifically the fact that fighters are absolutely awful unless you optimize the hell out of them, while full casters are godlike, with wizards being at or near the top of the heap.

but that wasn't the point. the point was that the group might not even notice that one character is making a massive difference, in spite of having remarkable amounts of what should be incredibly obvious evidence.

[Coidzor]

I've made the point before that many of the spells people talk about as being the "story drivers" really just do ordinary mundane things...a lot faster. Teleport as an example doesn't do anything a horse and buggy doesn't, but it does do it a whole lot faster making the wizard the party's Pontiac.

And yet when humans started riding horses that was a game changer. And when humans discovered mechanized infantry, that was another game changer.

[DemonSlayer6]

I realise I'm probably bringing up something that has been discussed quite a bit, but my group hasn't played the new system much and I haven't partaken in the discussions.

We just started the Horde of the Dragon Queen, and the group as a whole isn't pleased with spellcasters getting 1d10 or 1d12 damage spells as infinite-use cantrips, outdoing actual archers. My friend is playing the new Psychic thingie, and even though it was highly useful to him he feels it's overpowered that he can stealthily mind-blast anyone in visual range as much as he wants.

Are there any established house rules for downgrading the cantrips?

There is only one cantrip, Poison Spray, that does 1d12 damage. It is limited to Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards and Warlocks, has a range of 10 feet, requires a Constitution saving throw, and does not have its spellcasting ability modifier added to the damage. I mean, seriously, what insane idiot would think even for a second that the absolute squishiest member of the team is going to survive being 10 feet away from the enemy? And I mean that: 1d6 HP with no armor, 1d8 HP with light armor, 1d6 HP with no armor, and 1d8 HP with no metal armor.

Meanwhile, Rangers and Fighters are proficient in heavy crossbows (1d10+dex), glaives (1d10+str), lances (1d12+str), longswords (1d8+str or 1d10+str), rapiers (1d8+dex or str), and more. They have a longer range for their ranged attacks, do more damage with their ranged attacks than every spellcaster other than the Warlock (who get the only 1d10 cantrip), and once they run out of arrows they can switch to melee at no risk.

-----

Let me reiterate this:


You party opposes spellcasters having access to 1d10 and 1d12 cantrips.
The reason for this opposition is because they think it make the spellcasters better at ranged attacks than trained archers because it gives spellcasters more damage output.
This is despite the fact that archers add their ability modifier to damage.
This is also despite the fact that archers are proficient in melee weapons that do up to 1d12 and 2d6 damage.
This is also despite the fact that only one class has a cantrip that does 1d10 damage, and that this 1d10 cantrip has a paltry 60 ft maximum range.
Lastly, this is despite there being a single cantrip that does 1d12 damage, and that this cantrip has a maximum range of 10 ft and so is literally the polar opposite of a "ranged attack".


I mean, did anyone in your party even read the spell descriptions for the two specific spells they are so vehemently against? And if they did, do they really think that "sniping" and "ranged attacks" are defined as a character with absolutely no armor running into the heat of combat and then running out? Because if they do, I'm willing to sell them a bridge.

[Naanomi]

A green-dragon sorcerer could add charisma to poison spray and... Um... Nothing else?

[SharkForce]

A green-dragon sorcerer could add charisma to poison spray and... Um... Nothing else?

I think chromatic orb also has a poison option.

[DemonSlayer6]

That's still pretty freakin' insane: "A specific color of a specific path of a specific class can add his spellcasting ability modifier to a single cantrip to boost it from 1d12 to a max of 1d12+5".

Meanwhile, any fighter or cleric or ranger or paladin can attack for 1d12+mod regardless of whatever path they choose or choices they make. And there's still the fact that the sorcerer is still one of the squishiest characters on the team: even with draconic resilience, AC 13+Dex caps at AC 18 max. Unless you expend a spell slot to cast "Shield"...but doing this every round is absurdly wasteful.

My point still remains that "Poison Spray" doesn't make spellcasters as "broken" as the original poster and his group seems to thing.

[Sigreid]

And yet when humans started riding horses that was a game changer. And when humans discovered mechanized infantry, that was another game changer.

Yes, the horse made travel quite a bit faster and allowed moving heavy gear easier. As did the internal combustion engine. But the point was that access to a faster way of doing something doesn't, or shouldn't mean they wind up making all the decisions. My experience in game and out is that the person who makes a decision is the one who takes the initiative and sets a path regardless of the relative levels of skill or power of those involved.

[Flashy]

A green-dragon sorcerer could add charisma to poison spray and... Um... Nothing else?

Ray of Sickness for sure. Not sure if there's anything else though.

[SharkForce]

Ray of Sickness for sure. Not sure if there's anything else though.

cloudkill. if sorcerers get cloudkill, that is. i can't remember, and they have other fairly arbitrary spells removed from their list.

[PoeticDwarf]

Have you seen the thread about the Mystic that was playtested by a group 48 hours long? They found out that a Mystic isn't really OP, there are some features that need a small change. Standard saving throw should be Intelligence, and the lvl 1 ability that targets Intelligence should ask for a Intelligence(or a Wisdom) saving throw. Else it is just fine.

Maybe that's in combat, but the mystic can do much instand damage and can just get truesight at a low level...
You know you have to use a lv. 6 spell slot to get true sight?...

[HoarsHalberd]

The fighter, by virtue of being a Player Character, is more than competent enough in handling the other two pillars. Other classes have trivial improvements in those areas through class features, but trivial is all they are.

Haha. A fighter doesn't get access to persuasion or deception skills and shouldn't be pumping cha anyway. If they lucked out enough to put a 12 in cha that means that vs a bard with 16 in it at level 1, they are at a difference of +4 at level 1. Meaning the bard will be on average 20% better in social endeavours. This difference grows immensely with proficiency increases, expertise, Cha bumps and spells. Fighters are more than trivially handicapped in the social pillar. Heck even vs a sorcerer/paladin/warlock you'll be significantly handicapped.

Exploration pillar, you can be useful depending on what skills you've got. Athletics will make a strength fighter one of the best potential climbers and lifters (after barbarian or a rogue with expertise in it.) Dex fighters can be moderately good scouts (but you're not going to have them scout over the rogue, ranger, monk or druid or even a dex cleric.) Overall they can be very useful in certain aspects of this pillar, but in others there is more than a trivial difference.

I don't see how never getting below a ten for skills for a rogue, or expertise for rogue and bard or all of the skill boosting spells can be considered "trivial" by anyone who understands the system

[SharkForce]

pretty much every class gets access to at least 2 skills that they want from the entire list thanks to backgrounds, actually. i won't argue that the fighter is as good in other pillars as a bard, but a fighter with proficiency in persuasion and/or deception is completely plausible, if that's what the fighter wants to do.

[Sigreid]

Haha. A fighter doesn't get access to persuasion or deception skills and shouldn't be pumping cha anyway. If they lucked out enough to put a 12 in cha that means that vs a bard with 16 in it at level 1, they are at a difference of +4 at level 1. Meaning the bard will be on average 20% better in social endeavours. This difference grows immensely with proficiency increases, expertise, Cha bumps and spells. Fighters are more than trivially handicapped in the social pillar. Heck even vs a sorcerer/paladin/warlock you'll be significantly handicapped.

Exploration pillar, you can be useful depending on what skills you've got. Athletics will make a strength fighter one of the best potential climbers and lifters (after barbarian or a rogue with expertise in it.) Dex fighters can be moderately good scouts (but you're not going to have them scout over the rogue, ranger, monk or druid or even a dex cleric.) Overall they can be very useful in certain aspects of this pillar, but in others there is more than a trivial difference.

I don't see how never getting below a ten for skills for a rogue, or expertise for rogue and bard or all of the skill boosting spells can be considered "trivial" by anyone who understands the system

This isn't true anymore. With backgrounds, and the background text specifically stating you can swap in any skill or tool proficiency you want a fighter can be competent in whatever the player wants. I think they successfully corrected their mistake in 3.0 where the fighter was given only 2 skill points per level and the worst skill list of all the classes. That was one of the worst things in 3.x that helped lead to the fighter being a bottom barrel class.

[Arial Black]

My first (and still current) 5E character is a single class human fighter who started with 16s in Dex and Cha, with proficiency in Stealth, Perception and Persuasion, and Thieves' Tools.

[HoarsHalberd]

This isn't true anymore. With backgrounds, and the background text specifically stating you can swap in any skill or tool proficiency you want a fighter can be competent in whatever the player wants. I think they successfully corrected their mistake in 3.0 where the fighter was given only 2 skill points per level and the worst skill list of all the classes. That was one of the worst things in 3.x that helped lead to the fighter being a bottom barrel class.

Yes, and if you focus on making your fighter almost acceptable in the social pillar you gimp him in the exploration pillar. A good fighter is Great at combat Good at fighting and Poor at social. Trading out exploration for social skills tends to be weaker for fighters because they don't have the wisdom or charisma to make them decent at them. But athletics or acrobatics+stealth can really help a fighter in exploration.

But they'll never be -as- good as a rogue/bard/ranger in most aspects of exploration and they'll never be as good as a rogue/bard/paladin/sorc/warlock at the active part of social and never as good as rogue/bard/cleric/ranger/druid at the receptive side of social (insight/perception). And not by a "trivial" degree.


My first (and still current) 5E character is a single class human fighter who started with 16s in Dex and Cha, with proficiency in Stealth, Perception and Persuasion, and Thieves' Tools.

And my first character was a rogue who started with 15 dex and 8 cha (really bad rolls, a consistent part of my games) and expertise in persuasion and stealth. And by 9th level he'd be as good as yours at persuasion and miles better at stealth. And by 11th level he will be getting better rolls 45% of the time. Giving an average roll of 10.5 vs 12.75. And most importantly, he can't fail on DC's less than 22 (23 at 12 and 25 at 13) on stealth or DCs less than 16 on persuasion.

[Sigreid]

Yes, and if you focus on making your fighter almost acceptable in the social pillar you gimp him in the exploration pillar. A good fighter is Great at combat Good at fighting and Poor at social. Trading out exploration for social skills tends to be weaker for fighters because they don't have the wisdom or charisma to make them decent at them. But athletics or acrobatics+stealth can really help a fighter in exploration.

But they'll never be -as- good as a rogue/bard/ranger in most aspects of exploration and they'll never be as good as a rogue/bard/paladin/sorc/warlock at the active part of social and never as good as rogue/bard/cleric/ranger/druid at the receptive side of social (insight/perception). And not by a "trivial" degree.

I doubt any character excels at all 3 pillars. Generally if you aren't optimizing it's pretty easy to be good at one pillar, solid at a second and not horrible at the third. Hopefully the party has mixed up their priorities a little bit. If all you can do is fight, you're not only limiting your own options, but you're less likely to have built a person instead of a chess piece.

[HoarsHalberd]

I doubt any character excels at all 3 pillars. Generally if you aren't optimizing it's pretty easy to be good at one pillar, solid at a second and not horrible at the third. Hopefully the party has mixed up their priorities a little bit. If all you can do is fight, you're not only limiting your own options, but you're less likely to have built a person instead of a chess piece.

I'm not saying fighters can only fight. But the person I was quoting was saying there were only "trivial" differences between PCs at the other two pillars.

[Sigreid]

I'm not saying fighters can only fight. But the person I was quoting was saying there were only "trivial" differences between PCs at the other two pillars.

Apologies then. I think I was reacting as much to how often I've seen a character be built to be a one trick pony and then people complain that their character is a one trick pony.

[HoarsHalberd]

Apologies then. I think I was reacting as much to how often I've seen a character be built to be a one trick pony and then people complain that their character is a one trick pony.

Hey no worries. Nothing like being in a bit of violent agreement. :smallbiggrin:

[Hawkstar]

Haha. A fighter doesn't get access to persuasion or deception skills and shouldn't be pumping cha anyway. If they lucked out enough to put a 12 in cha that means that vs a bard with 16 in it at level 1, they are at a difference of +4 at level 1. Meaning the bard will be on average 20% better in social endeavours. This difference grows immensely with proficiency increases, expertise, Cha bumps and spells. Fighters are more than trivially handicapped in the social pillar. Heck even vs a sorcerer/paladin/warlock you'll be significantly handicapped.

Exploration pillar, you can be useful depending on what skills you've got. Athletics will make a strength fighter one of the best potential climbers and lifters (after barbarian or a rogue with expertise in it.) Dex fighters can be moderately good scouts (but you're not going to have them scout over the rogue, ranger, monk or druid or even a dex cleric.) Overall they can be very useful in certain aspects of this pillar, but in others there is more than a trivial difference.

I don't see how never getting below a ten for skills for a rogue, or expertise for rogue and bard or all of the skill boosting spells can be considered "trivial" by anyone who understands the system

A fighter is free to put his stats wherever the hell he wants them and remain extremely effective, as long as STR OR Dex is at least a 16 by level 4. They can freely make CHA their highest stat if they want to rock the social game, or WIS if they , and they can get away with lower CON than most other classes because of their HD, Second Wind, and Save Proficiency. Backgrounds grant Fighters access to their choice of any skill and tool proficiencies in the game.

Everything is on the same scale. That rogue you mentioned is only 20% better. This isn't 3.5, where, after level 3, dice rolls were irrelevant and modifiers were binary 'Either you can do this, or you can't".

[HoarsHalberd]

A fighter is free to put his stats wherever the hell he wants them and remain extremely effective, as long as STR OR Dex is at least a 16 by level 4. They can freely make CHA their highest stat if they want to rock the social game, or WIS if they , and they can get away with lower CON than most other classes because of their HD, Second Wind, and Save Proficiency. Backgrounds grant Fighters access to their choice of any skill and tool proficiencies in the game.

Everything is on the same scale. That rogue you mentioned is only 20% better. This isn't 3.5, where, after level 3, dice rolls were irrelevant and modifiers were binary 'Either you can do this, or you can't".

Only 20% different? At level 20, a rogue will be just as good at any skill it has expertise and a 8 in as a fighter is. And 45% of the time it will be better due to reliable talent. A rogue with the same stat will be more than 50% different before taking into account reliable talent. Rogues also gain 50% more skills to choose from than a fighter.

Perhaps you don't know what "of little value or importance." means. a 20% difference is a huge difference in 5e. You're thinking solely in terms of 3.5. 20% is not trivial. 50% is nowhere near trivial. 50%+more skills+the inability to roll less than a 10 is bloody massive.

The difference between a rogue hand crossbow wielder at 20 2(0.6(1d6+5)+0.05(2d6+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(10d6) = 2(0.6(3.5+5)+0.05(7+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(35) = 42.115
whereas a GWF using -5/+10 on every attack gives (4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(2d6+5+10+1.33(gwf))+0.15(4d6+5+10+2. 66(gwm))=(4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(7+5+10+1.33)+0.15(14+5+10+2.66))=47. 383 (Polearm master might improve your dmg)
The difference is a mere ~10%. Much less than the "only" 20% difference you're complaining about. Now this is before taking into account action surge, the bigger health die and more AC. But it also doesn't take into account the much more plentiful advantage opportunities for a rogue or any subclass abilities.

[Arial Black]

Only 20% different? At level 20, a rogue will be just as good at any skill it has expertise and a 8 in as a fighter is.

A rogue who's not there can be as good as he wants. The question is not, 'Can a rogue who optimises a skill be better at that skill than a fighter who optimises the same skill?'; the question is, 'Can a fighter be really effective in meeting the challenges using certain Dex/Cha based skills?'

The answer is, Yes'. The fighter can be the party face, the party scout, and/or the party lockpicker, and do a good job. The fact that you can design a rogue with better numbers is irrelevant.

[HoarsHalberd]

A rogue who's not there can be as good as he wants. The question is not, 'Can a rogue who optimises a skill be better at that skill than a fighter who optimises the same skill?'; the question is, 'Can a fighter be really effective in meeting the challenges using certain Dex/Cha based skills?'

The answer is, Yes'. The fighter can be the party face, the party scout, and/or the party lockpicker, and do a good job. The fact that you can design a rogue with better numbers is irrelevant.

No. The question he put forth, for the umpteenth time, is "Are there non-trivial differences between classes at other pillars besides combat." I fail to see the need to explain myself twice on the matter.

[DemonSlayer6]

There seems to be a massive "Fighters are OP" thing going on concerning the pillars of an adventure.

To this discussion...
Class combat mechanics are clearly unique, but they are also balanced. A rogue's sneak attack is pretty powerful, spell-casters get access to lots of strong magic, and fighters get multiple attacks and diverse range of weapons and skill-sets with which to attack.

Class social mechanics are slightly less unique because everyone gets 2 free skill proficiencies unrelated to their class and whatever proficiency they get from their race. But even though there is less diversity between the classes in terms of the social component, they are still pretty distinct.

My party is led by our Fighter. He's the face, and directs most social interaction. He introduces us to NPCs, and accepts adventurers and quests on our behalf.
Despite this, my party's mouth is the Sorceress. Whenever there's a social check to be made or our wording has to be careful, it's her who steps up to bat. Persuasion or Deception or Intimidation, or just making sure they don't attack us because our Druid decided to try and eat a murder victim again.
And our Cleric keeps us protected. When someone is lying or setting us up it is his Insight and Perception that enables us to respond quickly enough that we survive.
When it comes to infiltration, that is relegated to our Stealthy Monk, often in conjunction with the Sorceress to Deceive those we are infiltrating.


The two people of our six-member party who aren't regularly used in the Social pillar are the Druid (who in-character isn't fond of people) and my Bard (who is the newest member, and so hasn't proven herself reliable to the same extent as everyone else).

But as to the Exploration pillar...

Our Druid takes the stage, being an avid naturalist and able to seek guidance from the woodland critters.
Likewise, out Monk uses his stealth to wander around unnoticed.
And our Cleric observes the environment, finding details and important clues we can use in our adventure.


If it weren't for our Fighter's "Alert" feat, then he wouldn't be that useful in the Exploration pillar since the feat makes him unable to be surprised. So he watches and alerts us to potential ambushes that the Cleric might not initially see.

The net result is that

Our Fighter is excellent in Combat, decent in Social Interaction, and respectable in Exploration.
Our Sorceress is excellent in Social Interaction, pretty good in Combat, but pretty useless in Exploration.
Our Druid is excellent in Exploration, pretty good in Combat, but pretty useless in Social Interaction. Unless we are dealing with giants...for some reason.
Our Monk is pretty good in both Exploration and Social Interaction, and is respectable in Combat.
Our Cleric is pretty good in both Combat and Exploration, and is respectable in Exploration.


Of course, any class can be made to be any of these builds...but the specifics are different. The Sorceress is good at social interactions because she has a high charisma and so can make the checks with ease, while the Fighter is good at social interactions because he has to be for the sake of the rest of the team and actually tries to avoid the checks unless absolutely necessary.

[SharkForce]

There seems to be a massive "Fighters are OP" thing going on concerning the pillars of an adventure.

i never said that.

i just said that they don't have a complete and utter inability to pick up skill proficiencies in whatever area they choose.

or did you mean UP? because i can't help but notice that your fighter being useful in social appears to have very little to do with the character (doesn't have particularly good checks), and much more to do with the player.

the thing is, the fighter really isn't great at social. oh, you can have basic competency, just like anyone else (and to be fair, other strong classes aren't really much better; a wizard or druid have no inherent advantages in social skill checks, though i would say their ability to, say, obtain blackmail information, should you choose to go that route, is greater). but you don't turn to the fighter for social situations because the fighter is good at it. you turn to the fighter because the player behind the character is good at it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Being a wizard does have drawbacks. Your damage potential is well below that of most martials, you cannot take a hit nearly as well as martials can, and you rely on more limited resources than martials.

Of course, these aren't major drawbacks, but there's no reason to have major drawbacks when fighters and wizards are not at terribly disparate power levels in 5e. Instead, this is a system in which any combination of classes is perfectly viable, so it's perfectly acceptable not to have a fighter. It's also perfectly acceptable not to have any primary caster, and you don't suffer any major setbacks from it.

So we have a system in which everyone can play exactly the kind of character they want! Hurray!

If those aren't major drawbacks, nothing is.

Regarding the suggestion that cantrips be turned into something short rest...that would gimp wizards into the nearly unplayable territory I would think.



I built an abjuration wizard with high Strength, he could do the same as what you are suggesting.

That isn't a feature of the class, it is a feature of the ability score/skill system.

And a Strength based rogue can out grapple the Fighter all day long while a low Strength rogue could match the Fighter all day long.

You are giving examples of how the Fighter excelled when it wasn't the Fighter who excelled but the streamlined rules that excelled.

Name a class, that if you gave them high Strength, couldn't do the same thing as the Fighter? A str/Dex/Con dragon sorcerer (low Cha, using buff/utility Spells) can grapple just as well as the Fighter...


Heck... Proficiency in athletics and a magic item (19 Str) copies the Fighter well enough for grappling, jumping, and being a pack mule.


Last edited by ThermalSlapShot; 2015-07-15 at 12:31 PM.

Extra Attack (just the first one at level 5) makes a Fighter twice as good as even the most specialized Wizard at those same combat tasks. The Fighter can fail at grappling, and then try again in the same round. The Wizard can fail at grappling...and sit down because his turn is done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at telling you where I am coming from. When I play something like a champion fighter it's actually much more complex that playing any other class. Since I don't have a bunch of this ability does X options to rely on the game becomes all about the player. If I want to make something happen, get an opponent to focus on me, gain advantage, whatever I have to figure out how to make that happen instead of just saying I use my ability. It's the diametric opposition to a wizard relying on their spells and it really appeals to me.

This is my experience as well. Playing a Fighter at its best hinges on roleplaying well.


And yet when humans started riding horses that was a game changer. And when humans discovered mechanized infantry, that was another game changer.

Technically no. The gamechanger was when someone learned to use those things effectively.

i.e. Tanks existed for quite some time prior to their use in blitzkrieg warfare.


No. The question he put forth, for the umpteenth time, is "Are there non-trivial differences between classes at other pillars besides combat." I fail to see the need to explain myself twice on the matter.

If we were to compare the classes we'd find that, except for the class that specializes in skill proficiencies (Rogue) to the same degree that Fighters specialize in combat, there are basically trivial differences.

Everyone has access to 2 proficiencies by virtue of their class (specialization's within classes may open up one or more proficiencies) and 2 by virtue of their background.

It's possible for any class to gain any proficiency, and proficiency + a good stat allows any class to accomplish any task up to Nearly Impossible.

Yes, Rogues are slightly more likely succeed, but there is no task they can succeed at that another class is incapable of succeeding at.

[DemonSlayer6]

Sharkforce, I wasn't replying solely to you. HoarsHalberd, for example, asks
"Are there non-trivial differences between classes at other pillars besides combat?"

And I think I listed some such non-trivial differences, based predominately in class capabilities: the druid isn't good at social things because druid, the sorceress is excellent at social things because high charisma and such, the fighter is as good as he needs to be at social things and can always delegate the task to others if necessary.

Incidentally, we haven't had a lot of social interaction with the fighter outside of his delegation. Nearly every session which has been based on social interaction (infiltrating a cult's hideout, attending a major political council, trying to find information in a town, trying to stop the Sorceress and Cleric from stabbing and flaying each other with their spells, etc), the Fighter typically either can't make it or is the DM for the session because our normal DM can't make it.

Plus, as you said, it's what you kind of expect a fighter with a neutral Charisma stat to do: know when to let one character do something and when another character should do something. Lead, but not be social himself.

[SharkForce]

Sharkforce, I wasn't replying solely to you. HoarsHalberd, for example, asks

And I think I listed some such non-trivial differences, based predominately in class capabilities: the druid isn't good at social things because druid, the sorceress is excellent at social things because high charisma and such, the fighter is as good as he needs to be at social things and can always delegate the task to others if necessary.

Incidentally, we haven't had a lot of social interaction with the fighter outside of his delegation. Nearly every session which has been based on social interaction (infiltrating a cult's hideout, attending a major political council, trying to find information in a town, trying to stop the Sorceress and Cleric from stabbing and flaying each other with their spells, etc), the Fighter typically either can't make it or is the DM for the session because our normal DM can't make it.

Plus, as you said, it's what you kind of expect a fighter with a neutral Charisma stat to do: know when to let one character do something and when another character should do something. Lead, but not be social himself.

the rogue can easily with class features only get +16 to a skill check. others can get +11. so actually, the rogue very much can hit skill checks that others can't.

the druid in your party isn't worse than the fighter at social skills because of being a druid. the druid is worse at social because the character doesn't want to be social towards most people you have met with. druids are perfectly capable of choosing the same skills that can make a fighter good, and as i said, can be superior in other ways. heck, if the druid is a moon druid, then probably dex and strength are total dump stats (and con may be considered relatively unimportant compared to how most characters value it) for him so the druid has a fair chance to have a higher charisma than normal, if he cares to.

[HoarsHalberd]

Sharkforce, I wasn't replying solely to you. HoarsHalberd, for example, asks


Is this site trying to give me an aneurysm? I never asked that. I answered someone who said it was.





If we were to compare the classes we'd find that, except for the class that specializes in skill proficiencies (Rogue) to the same degree that Fighters specialize in combat, there are basically trivial differences.

Everyone has access to 2 proficiencies by virtue of their class (specialization's within classes may open up one or more proficiencies) and 2 by virtue of their background.

It's possible for any class to gain any proficiency, and proficiency + a good stat allows any class to accomplish any task up to Nearly Impossible.

Yes, Rogues are slightly more likely succeed, but there is no task they can succeed at that another class is incapable of succeeding at.

Is it wrong to think you haven't read the PHB if you think only the rogue has significant bonuses to skills. Bards and rangers gain 1 more skill. Bards also get expertise. Lore bards get two bonus skills taking their total skill count above rogues. All bards can give significant bonuses to others ability to do so. Knowledge clerics gain two bonus knowledge skills at expertise level. Warlocks can gain 3 bonus social skills. Monks can speak all languages. These are all non-trivial bonuses to skills
Even the ranger has a 25% bonus in the number of skills they are proficient in over the fighter.

Rogues aren't "slightly more likely to succeed." At a skill they have expertise in and a dump stat of 8 in at level 17 they will AUTO succeed on anything with a DC of 21 or less. If they have equal stats in a skill they are significantly more likely to succeed. If the fighter needs to roll a 17 they need to roll an 11. If a fighter needs to roll a 16 on a skill they have at equal stat and expertise in at level 17+ then the rogue has already succeeded.

A character with expertise in a skill and 20 points in the relevant stat will succeed on a nearly impossible DC 15% of the time. A character with maxed out stat and proficiency will succeed on it... never.

A character with expertise in a skill and 20 in the relevant stat will succeed on a formidable DC 40% of the time. (Over half if they have advantage) A character with maxed out stat and proficiency will succeed on it 10% of the time.

These are not trivial differences. Perhaps you don't know what trivial means:

Trivial: of little value or importance.

These are of huge value when performing in the other pillars.

There are smaller % differences in combat ability between the rogue and the fighter than there are skill differences at any given skill, ignoring the rogues greater versatility and auto success on anything below formidable for stats he has maxed and anything below very hard for dump stats.

[Vogonjeltz]

Is it wrong to think you haven't read the PHB if you think only the rogue has significant bonuses to skills. Bards and rangers gain 1 more skill. Bards also get expertise. Lore bards get two bonus skills taking their total skill count above rogues. All bards can give significant bonuses to others ability to do so. Knowledge clerics gain two bonus knowledge skills at expertise level. Warlocks can gain 3 bonus social skills. Monks can speak all languages. These are all non-trivial bonuses to skills
Even the ranger has a 25% bonus in the number of skills they are proficient in over the fighter.

Rogues aren't "slightly more likely to succeed." At a skill they have expertise in and a dump stat of 8 in at level 17 they will AUTO succeed on anything with a DC of 21 or less. If they have equal stats in a skill they are significantly more likely to succeed. If the fighter needs to roll a 17 they need to roll an 11. If a fighter needs to roll a 16 on a skill they have at equal stat and expertise in at level 17+ then the rogue has already succeeded.

A character with expertise in a skill and 20 points in the relevant stat will succeed on a nearly impossible DC 15% of the time. A character with maxed out stat and proficiency will succeed on it... never.

A character with expertise in a skill and 20 in the relevant stat will succeed on a formidable DC 40% of the time. (Over half if they have advantage) A character with maxed out stat and proficiency will succeed on it 10% of the time.

These are not trivial differences. Perhaps you don't know what trivial means:

Trivial: of little value or importance.

These are of huge value when performing in the other pillars.

There are smaller % differences in combat ability between the rogue and the fighter than there are skill differences at any given skill, ignoring the rogues greater versatility and auto success on anything below formidable for stats he has maxed and anything below very hard for dump stats.

Error of omission on mentioning Bards; Rangers get an extra skill, meh.

And they 'are' only slightly more likely to succeed at the tasks up to the Nearly Impossible level which is 30. +5 stat mod +6 proficiency mod, 20 roll = 31, which exceeds the DC 30 giving any character that has proficiency and stat a 10% chance of success. Rogues are in the same boat (10% chance of success), although at 20 they can auto-succeed at one such check per rest, Bards with max stat and expertise in the skill get a 40% chance of success at 20. So, quantitatively better, but not so much better that you're guaranteed success. And, as I said in the first place, we're talking the (at best) two classes that specialize in skills and forgo good offense.

I was attempting to make the comparison between the non-skill specializers. Which is what, everyone but Bard and Rogue? They might as well all be in the same boat.

[HoarsHalberd]

Error of omission on mentioning Bards; Rangers get an extra skill, meh.

And they 'are' only slightly more likely to succeed at the tasks up to the Nearly Impossible level which is 30. +5 stat mod +6 proficiency mod, 20 roll = 31, which exceeds the DC 30 giving any character that has proficiency and stat a 10% chance of success. Rogues are in the same boat (10% chance of success), although at 20 they can auto-succeed at one such check per rest, Bards with max stat and expertise in the skill get a 40% chance of success at 20. So, quantitatively better, but not so much better that you're guaranteed success. And, as I said in the first place, we're talking the (at best) two classes that specialize in skills and forgo good offense.

I was attempting to make the comparison between the non-skill specializers. Which is what, everyone but Bard and Rogue? They might as well all be in the same boat.

Knowledge clerics also get expertise. Like I said. Then there's the fact warlocks can have 7 skills to a fighters 4 if they choose the right invocation. But hey.

Okay so lets deconstruct your argument:
"Forgo good offence." - Rogue, not so much. 10% difference between hand crossbow user and GWM champion user against 18 AC. It's hardly a massive difference in offence, and all sorts of tactical utility.

And rogues don't have a 10% chance of success, bards and rogues both get expertise. So they both have a 40% chance of success at DC 30 at max stat.

Rogues also have a 100% chance of success on DC26 or below. (Reliable skill ability.)

There's also a huge difference in versatility between other classes.

Also: Any class with expertise auto succeeds on 17 DC (including the 15 AC moderate tasks) whereas maxed out other classes can only auto succeed on easy tasks.

Surely you have to admit there are non-trivial differences between the most skill focussed classes and the other classes at the very least.

[georgie_leech]

Snip


Snip

I don't have a stake in this discussion, but since the difference between combat ability and skill ability are about the same magnitude, either they're both trivial, or neither are. That's just been kind of bugging me.

[SharkForce]

I don't have a stake in this discussion, but since the difference between combat ability and skill ability are about the same magnitude, either they're both trivial, or neither are. That's just been kind of bugging me.

but they aren't the same magnitude. the rogue is dealing something like 90% damage, but has something like double the number of skills, a 50% larger bonus (which leads to quadruple the chance to succeed on nearly impossible tasks), and a much higher chance of making difficult checks, far more than the 1/9 increase that the fighter enjoys in damage. (though, to be fair, the fighter does have much higher *burst* damage unless we're comparing to an assassin).

that is not equivalent.

[Vogonjeltz]

Knowledge clerics also get expertise. Like I said. Then there's the fact warlocks can have 7 skills to a fighters 4 if they choose the right invocation. But hey.

Okay so lets deconstruct your argument:
"Forgo good offence." - Rogue, not so much. 10% difference between hand crossbow user and GWM champion user against 18 AC. It's hardly a massive difference in offence, and all sorts of tactical utility.

And rogues don't have a 10% chance of success, bards and rogues both get expertise. So they both have a 40% chance of success at DC 30 at max stat.

Rogues also have a 100% chance of success on DC26 or below. (Reliable skill ability.)

There's also a huge difference in versatility between other classes.

Also: Any class with expertise auto succeeds on 17 DC (including the 15 AC moderate tasks) whereas maxed out other classes can only auto succeed on easy tasks.

Surely you have to admit there are non-trivial differences between the most skill focussed classes and the other classes at the very least.

Fighters have an extra ASI which translates into a talent granting +3 skill proficiencies, the champion specifically gets 1/2 proficiency to all physical ability checks (broader than just skills).

I mention this because if we want to go down the rabbit hole of every option this conversation will become tedious quickly, and because I excluded subclass features in the broad strokes description. Yes, particular subsets are better at skills than others.

I will caveat so we can avoid these tangents: Broadly speaking most classes get 2 skills placing them on essentially equal footing in capabilities that rely on ability checks outside combat. Particular skill proficiency accesses are trivial amongst that set.

Rogues and Bards with expertise in the task see a marginal 30% improvement.

Re combat...what? Rogue gets 1 attack for 1d6, champion would have 4 and, if they only are hitting on the crit, he's doing not just the default 200% damage that a greatsword does over a hand crossbow, but 400% of the damage the rogue is.


I don't have a stake in this discussion, but since the difference between combat ability and skill ability are about the same magnitude, either they're both trivial, or neither are. That's just been kind of bugging me.

Georgie, yes expertise applies a success rate improvement roughly equal to the value provided by extra attacks for a Fighter. However expertise is a one trick pony, it only applies to that particular skill, so it's value is inherently lower.

[HoarsHalberd]

Fighters have an extra ASI which translates into a talent granting +3 skill proficiencies, the champion specifically gets 1/2 proficiency to all physical ability checks (broader than just skills).

I mention this because if we want to go down the rabbit hole of every option this conversation will become tedious quickly, and because I excluded subclass features in the broad strokes description. Yes, particular subsets are better at skills than others.

I will caveat so we can avoid these tangents: Broadly speaking most classes get 2 skills placing them on essentially equal footing in capabilities that rely on ability checks outside combat. Particular skill proficiency accesses are trivial amongst that set.

Rogues and Bards with expertise in the task see a marginal 30% improvement.

Re combat...what? Rogue gets 1 attack for 1d6, champion would have 4 and, if they only are hitting on the crit, he's doing not just the default 200% damage that a greatsword does over a hand crossbow, but 400% of the damage the rogue is.



Georgie, yes expertise applies a success rate improvement roughly equal to the value provided by extra attacks for a Fighter. However expertise is a one trick pony, it only applies to that particular skill, so it's value is inherently lower.


Rogues and bards with expertise in a task see a 54.5% improvement overall at max level (17 vs 11 is a 54.5% improvement) and are 4 times more likely to succeed at DC 30 tasks. Rogues are also, once again, guaranteed to succeed on anything below a DC 27. DC 28 is the smallest difference a level 17+ warrior will have from a level 17 Rogue With a 20% chance of success for a fighter and a 50% chance of success for a rogue there is a "trivial" difference of the rogue being 2.5 times more likely to make the DC.

And particular skill differences may be trivial between classes which don't have access to more skills. But that was NEVER the subject of debate. The subject of debate being whether all differences between character classes in the other two pillars were trivial. Which I've demonstrated is false.

"Georgie, yes expertise applies a success rate improvement roughly equal to the value provided by extra attacks for a Fighter. However expertise is a one trick pony, it only applies to that particular skill, so it's value is inherently lower" - Except that rogues and bards gain expertise in as many skills as fighters have. So it's value in the other pillars is, relative to the other classes, as large as extra attacks.

Re combat:



The difference between a rogue hand crossbow wielder at 20 2(0.6(1d6+5)+0.05(2d6+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(10d6) = 2(0.6(3.5+5)+0.05(7+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(35) = 42.115
whereas a GWF using -5/+10 on every attack gives (4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(2d6+5+10+1.33(gwf))+0.15(4d6+5+10+2. 66(gwm))=(4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(7+5+10+1.33)+0.15(14+5+10+2.66))=47. 383 (Polearm master might improve your dmg)
The difference is a mere ~10%.

I'd recommend reading at least the page you're on before wading into an argument.

[Vogonjeltz]

The difference between a rogue hand crossbow wielder at 20 2(0.6(1d6+5)+0.05(2d6+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(10d6) = 2(0.6(3.5+5)+0.05(7+5)) + (1-0.35^2)(35) = 42.115
whereas a GWF using -5/+10 on every attack gives (4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(2d6+5+10+1.33(gwf))+0.15(4d6+5+10+2. 66(gwm))=(4+(1-0.85^4))(0.25(7+5+10+1.33)+0.15(14+5+10+2.66))=47. 383 (Polearm master might improve your dmg)
The difference is a mere ~10%.

Oh I read it when you erroneously assumed advantage allowing sneak attack damage as a constant. For the sake of argument, let's compare.

Rogue hand crossbow vs Champ hand crossbow.

damage: 1d6+5, crit: 2d6+5
Assuming max proficiency and max stat rogue has +11 to hit, champ with ranged fighting style has +13
rogue hits on a roll of 7+ vs AC 18, champ roll of 5+

rogue damage: 1x (((13x(1d6+5)) + (1x(2d6+5)))/20)
champ damage: 4x (((13x(1d6+5)) + (3x(2d6+5)))/20)

converts to: 1d6+5 = 8.5; 2d6+5 = 12
rogue: 6.125 average damage per round
champion: 29.3 average damage per round.

The champion is doing 4.78 times as much damage as the rogue per round in normal conditions using the exact same weapon.

If we switch the champion to a Greatsword with GWM, his damage per attack changes to:

hits on roll of 7+
2d6+5 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 13.333
4d6+5 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 21.667

(11x13.333 + 3x21.667)/20 = 10.5832 x 4 = 42.3328
of course, with the GWM the Fighter gets a bonus action attack on crits. That ups their average damage per round to: 47.391503455

11x13.333 = 146.663
3x21.667 = 65.001

if we apply the +10 damage for -5 to hit the numbers convert to:

2d6+15 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 23.333
4d6+15 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 31.667

6x23.333 = 139.998
3x31.667 = 95.001
234.999
11.74995 x 4 = 46.9998, or 52.6162026628125 per round, average.
On a round where the rogue is given sneak attack they increase their damage by 10d6 on a hit, 20d6 on a crit or: 26.25
This is impressive, but their average damage on a sneak attack round is still only 32.375, 61% of what the champion does. On a normal round it's 11% of what the champion does.

So...yeah, in most cases the rogue is doing a tenth of the damage the fighter is. In the best case scenario, they're doing little more than half.

[Orbis Orboros]

This is impressive, but their average damage on a sneak attack round is still only 32.375, 61% of what the champion does. On a normal round it's 11% of what the champion does.

So...yeah, in most cases the rogue is doing a tenth of the damage the fighter is. In the best case scenario, they're doing little more than half.

Without touching anything else in your post:

What game are you playing in which a rogue getting sneak attack is not a normal round?

[Vogonjeltz]

Without touching anything else in your post:

What game are you playing in which a rogue getting sneak attack is not a normal round?

Requires advantage on the attack. So, this one.

[Demonic Spoon]

Requires advantage on the attack. So, this one.

No it doesn't. It requires that OR having an ally (technically an enemy of the target) within 5 feet of the target. That's a really, really easy thing to get consistently in most parties.

[SharkForce]

Oh I read it when you erroneously assumed advantage allowing sneak attack damage as a constant. For the sake of argument, let's compare.

Rogue hand crossbow vs Champ hand crossbow.

damage: 1d6+5, crit: 2d6+5
Assuming max proficiency and max stat rogue has +11 to hit, champ with ranged fighting style has +13
rogue hits on a roll of 7+ vs AC 18, champ roll of 5+

rogue damage: 1x (((13x(1d6+5)) + (1x(2d6+5)))/20)
champ damage: 4x (((13x(1d6+5)) + (3x(2d6+5)))/20)

converts to: 1d6+5 = 8.5; 2d6+5 = 12
rogue: 6.125 average damage per round
champion: 29.3 average damage per round.

The champion is doing 4.78 times as much damage as the rogue per round in normal conditions using the exact same weapon.

If we switch the champion to a Greatsword with GWM, his damage per attack changes to:

hits on roll of 7+
2d6+5 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 13.333
4d6+5 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 21.667

(11x13.333 + 3x21.667)/20 = 10.5832 x 4 = 42.3328
of course, with the GWM the Fighter gets a bonus action attack on crits. That ups their average damage per round to: 47.391503455

11x13.333 = 146.663
3x21.667 = 65.001

if we apply the +10 damage for -5 to hit the numbers convert to:

2d6+15 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 23.333
4d6+15 (re-roll 1s and 2s) = 31.667

6x23.333 = 139.998
3x31.667 = 95.001
234.999
11.74995 x 4 = 46.9998, or 52.6162026628125 per round, average.
On a round where the rogue is given sneak attack they increase their damage by 10d6 on a hit, 20d6 on a crit or: 26.25
This is impressive, but their average damage on a sneak attack round is still only 32.375, 61% of what the champion does. On a normal round it's 11% of what the champion does.

So...yeah, in most cases the rogue is doing a tenth of the damage the fighter is. In the best case scenario, they're doing little more than half.

you're seriously comparing a rogue with no sneak attack whatsoever?

well, there goes any credibility you might have imagined yourself ever having.

[Orbis Orboros]

Requires advantage on the attack. So, this one.


Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: Ninja'd, but I wanted to get the exact wording.

[Vogonjeltz]

No it doesn't. It requires that OR having an ally (technically an enemy of the target) within 5 feet of the target. That's a really, really easy thing to get consistently in most parties.

My experiences have not had that occur as frequently as you claim. More often the pcs are outnumbered.


you're seriously comparing a rogue with no sneak attack whatsoever?

well, there goes any credibility you might have imagined yourself ever having.

Yes, because it requires special circumstances, so we should most certainly discuss the baseline damage (which is quite low, below even a wizard), because that is the most likely circumstance. This is especially important in one on one situations.

The cherry picked scenario does not hold as true in all cases, to claim otherwise is the credibility destroying argument.

[Vogonjeltz]

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: Ninja'd, but I wanted to get the exact wording.

That is changing the assumed rules to include additional combatants. We might just as well assume the enemy is in close range imposing disadvantage while we are at it.

[SharkForce]

My experiences have not had that occur as frequently as you claim. More often the pcs are outnumbered.



Yes, because it requires special circumstances, so we should most certainly discuss the baseline damage (which is quite low, below even a wizard), because that is the most likely circumstance. This is especially important in one on one situations.

The cherry picked scenario does not hold as true in all cases, to claim otherwise is the credibility destroying argument.

uh-huh. well fine then. the champion scenario doesn't hold when the champion has no arms or legs and is blind and deaf and paralyzed, so obviously it isn't a good measure then, since that damage doesn't hold as true in all cases.

edit: the rogue has crossbow expert. he doesn't take disadvantage at short range. seriously, your comparison is absurd.

[Orbis Orboros]

My experiences have not had that occur as frequently as you claim. More often the pcs are outnumbered.

And the rogue doesn't attack someone already in combat? This doesn't make sense tactically (get those d6, yo) OR thematically (a rogue is after every advantage they can get their hands on, like attacking someone who's distracted).

And if the rogue seriously can't find any way to get it, they can just hold their action. Seriously, I can count on one hand the number of times per campaign I've had a Rogue incapable of getting sneak attack off in a round.


Edit:

That is changing the assumed rules to include additional combatants. We might just as well assume the enemy is in close range imposing disadvantage while we are at it.

Or that the Champion fighter can't get in close? Besides, the example was with a crossbow. Any self-respecting player using a crossbow at level 20 will have the crossbow expert feat.

[HoarsHalberd]

That is changing the assumed rules to include additional combatants. We might just as well assume the enemy is in close range imposing disadvantage while we are at it.

And once again you prove you haven't read the book very well. Hand crossbow mastery removes the close range disadvantage. I'd advise you to stop digging. Also, I can only surmise you either have a terrible rogue if he isn't getting sneak attacks most rounds or your group has no melee characters, summoners, beast masters or necromancers and predominantly fight foes that prefer ranged combat as well. Otherwise they should focus foes your melee character has engaged after stealth is broken. Maybe once every other encounter (and that's favourable to your side) will I have to spend a round without sneak attacking when I play my rogue.

As for your maths. It again shows a terrible lack of understanding as to what hand crossbow mastery does. A rogue gets 2 attacks a turn with hand crossbow mastery as they can perform a bonus action attack.

I would advise you to read the feats you are referencing when you are making arguments.

Sorry if I'm being overly aggressive here. It's just this thread has worn me out explaining the simplest things over and over again. It's not intended as a slight against you.

[Vogonjeltz]

uh-huh. well fine then. the champion scenario doesn't hold when the champion has no arms or legs and is blind and deaf and paralyzed, so obviously it isn't a good measure then, since that damage doesn't hold as true in all cases.

edit: the rogue has crossbow expert. he doesn't take disadvantage at short range. seriously, your comparison is absurd.

The default condition of the character is none of those things, much as the default condition of the Rogues attack does not have advantage. (Even lacking disadvantage by giving him crossbow expert)


And the rogue doesn't attack someone already in combat? This doesn't make sense tactically (get those d6, yo) OR thematically (a rogue is after every advantage they can get their hands on, like attacking someone who's distracted).

And if the rogue seriously can't find any way to get it, they can just hold their action. Seriously, I can count on one hand the number of times per campaign I've had a Rogue incapable of getting sneak attack off in a round.


Edit:


Or that the Champion fighter can't get in close? Besides, the example was with a crossbow. Any self-respecting player using a crossbow at level 20 will have the crossbow expert feat.

I agree, provided they have an enemy within 5 feet who isn't incapacitated on the rogues turn. We didn't establish that prior to the claim however, and even when we liberally apply sneak attack the damage is substantially lower.

[HoarsHalberd]

I agree, provided they have an enemy within 5 feet who isn't incapacitated on the rogues turn. We didn't establish that prior to the claim however, and even when we liberally apply sneak attack the damage is substantially lower.

No, if we assume that, like me when I play rogue, the rogue can sneak attack most every turn AND account for the fact Hand Xbow mastery gives two, it gives very close damage.

Average damage on a hit: 1d6+5 = 8.5 Hitting on a 7 gives a 0.7 probability of hitting. a 0.65 of a normal hit and 0.05 of a critical hit. So from weapon damage rogues get

2(0.65(8.5)+0.05(12)) = 12.25.
Then assuming that like any half way decently played rogue in a balanced group it can get sneak attack every round the chance of getting a sneak attack = the probability of hitting once. So:

(0.65+0.7-0.7^2)(35) + (0.05)(70) (slight underestimate of the critical chance but I can't be arsed to work out probability first missed and second critted and put that in) = 33.6

So 45.85 DPR for a halfway decently played rogue in a balanced team.

I'd also recommend reading my last comment on the last page. Let me know if it's too rude so I can work on it. But the explanation for why a decent rogue should be getting it every turn is there.

[georgie_leech]

That is changing the assumed rules to include additional combatants. We might just as well assume the enemy is in close range imposing disadvantage while we are at it.

In that case we should be comparing Wizards without any spells memorized then, since by default they need to be filled and there's no guarantee that they will have the chance or will have done so.

[DemonSlayer6]

To HoarsHalberd, the discussion goes on for currently 6 pages. So sorry for mis-attributing a quote to you; but I think the point still stands. This thread has moved away from combat cantrips quite a bit.

Also, as to "Rogue vs fighter" damage output, the way my one party sees it is that Fighters will do more consistent damage overall with their multiple attacks. However, the Rogue has the potential to do a lot of damage at once because of their sneak attack.

In fact, this party has a rogue dual-wielding short swords who gets to hit almost every turn (sometimes more than once a turn) and adds her sneak attack to whichever hit she makes. Why can she sneak-attack every turn? Because she is always next to a Paladin with the protective fighting style, giving her target an adjacent "distracting enemy" that meets the rules for Sneak Attack.

I could do the math right now if I wanted, but the point of the classes is to be able to play the style you want. If you want someone who can swing a giant axe and slice a giant in half, play a barbarian or fighter. You want someone who can heal the team and fight vampires with a single finger, play a cleric. You want someone who can sneak around attacking unsuspecting enemies, play a rogue.

-----

Actually, let's get some rough math on who hits best.

A Fighter 20 gets 4 attacks per turn, while a Rogue 20 gets 2 if they dual-wield but has 10d6 on a Sneak attack. Let's assume they both have their attack stat at a +5 mod.

The Fighter could use a 2d6 Greatsword, for 2d6+5 per hit for 7 to 17 per hit; 12 average. In a full combat sequence where every attack hits, this results in 8d6+20 per round, for 28 to 68 per round; 48 average.
The Rogue could use two 1d6 Shortswords for 1d6+5 and 1d6 per hit, respectively. Hitting with both and using sneak attack for an additional 10d6 per turn yields 12d6+5 per round, for 17 to 77 per round; 47 average.

Also, and this is important, to make them conceptually even more equal it must be remembered that Sneak Attack is only active in certain conditions (the target is adjacent to an enemy not the rogue, or the rogue has advantage on the attack). So the rogue would want to be next to the fighter so as to be most effective.

-----
NINJA's: My math-example is to not target any specific person but instead hopefully quell the disagreement between everyone in this endeavor/discourse.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, if we assume that, like me when I play rogue, the rogue can sneak attack most every turn AND account for the fact Hand Xbow mastery gives two, it gives very close damage.

Average damage on a hit: 1d6+5 = 8.5 Hitting on a 7 gives a 0.7 probability of hitting. a 0.65 of a normal hit and 0.05 of a critical hit. So from weapon damage rogues get

2(0.65(8.5)+0.05(12)) = 12.25.
Then assuming that like any half way decently played rogue in a balanced group it can get sneak attack every round the chance of getting a sneak attack = the probability of hitting once. So:

(0.65+0.7-0.7^2)(35) + (0.05)(70) (slight underestimate of the critical chance but I can't be arsed to work out probability first missed and second critted and put that in) = 33.6

So 45.85 DPR for a halfway decently played rogue in a balanced team.

I'd also recommend reading my last comment on the last page. Let me know if it's too rude so I can work on it. But the explanation for why a decent rogue should be getting it every turn is there.

We can't assume the former because it's not true that they would be able to, and there's no such thing as Hand Crossbow Mastery, so I can only assume you mean Crossbow Expert which does not grant an extra attack with the same crossbow.

Even if the Rogue were dual-wielding to get two attacks (say, with shortswords) they'd have to either miss the first attack or hit but choose not to apply sneak attack damage in the hopes they crit on the second attack. If they do that, they have a 9.75% chance of critting. If the attacks were made with advantage (and not simply adjacent enemy) the chance of critting per attack would be 9.75% and cumulatively 18.6% (rounded up).


In that case we should be comparing Wizards without any spells memorized then, since by default they need to be filled and there's no guarantee that they will have the chance or will have done so.

That's exactly what we typically do in comparing cantrips to weapon damage.

I don't object to comparing the difference between the classes in both circumstances, but we should be comparing them as such and not granting one side more favorable conditions. Anyway, I included how much additional average damage there is when sneak attack is possible, and it's simply not enough.

[HoarsHalberd]

We can't assume the former because it's not true that they would be able to, and there's no such thing as Hand Crossbow Mastery, so I can only assume you mean Crossbow Expert which does not grant an extra attack with the same crossbow.

Even if the Rogue were dual-wielding to get two attacks (say, with shortswords) they'd have to either miss the first attack or hit but choose not to apply sneak attack damage in the hopes they crit on the second attack. If they do that, they have a 9.75% chance of critting. If the attacks were made with advantage (and not simply adjacent enemy) the chance of critting per attack would be 9.75% and cumulatively 18.6% (rounded up).



You seem to be several months behind the times if you still think hand crossbow 2 attacks a round is even a contentious issue. (Though I do apologise for using mastery, I'm so used to GWM and PM I forget Xbow is an expert.)

"Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action? It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks." - https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats

As for not assuming the former. You are evidently playing a very different game. My fighters have wasted more rounds dashing to a target than I have been unable to get a sneak attack.

As for the crits, I know one would have to choose to ignore a hit, that's why I skipped the crit for the second one and just assumed a 5% chance from the first and took it into account in the beginning.

[WickerNipple]

I remember not getting sneak attack on my 5e rogue. Once.

[PoeticDwarf]

Conclusion: cantrips are weak and 5e is balanced. Can we now end the whole discussion.

[PoeticDwarf]

To HoarsHalberd, the discussion goes on for currently 6 pages. So sorry for mis-attributing a quote to you; but I think the point still stands. This thread has moved away from combat cantrips quite a bit.

Also, as to "Rogue vs fighter" damage output, the way my one party sees it is that Fighters will do more consistent damage overall with their multiple attacks. However, the Rogue has the potential to do a lot of damage at once because of their sneak attack.

In fact, this party has a rogue dual-wielding short swords who gets to hit almost every turn (sometimes more than once a turn) and adds her sneak attack to whichever hit she makes. Why can she sneak-attack every turn? Because she is always next to a Paladin with the protective fighting style, giving her target an adjacent "distracting enemy" that meets the rules for Sneak Attack.

I could do the math right now if I wanted, but the point of the classes is to be able to play the style you want. If you want someone who can swing a giant axe and slice a giant in half, play a barbarian or fighter. You want someone who can heal the team and fight vampires with a single finger, play a cleric. You want someone who can sneak around attacking unsuspecting enemies, play a rogue.

-----

Actually, let's get some rough math on who hits best.

A Fighter 20 gets 4 attacks per turn, while a Rogue 20 gets 2 if they dual-wield but has 10d6 on a Sneak attack. Let's assume they both have their attack stat at a +5 mod.

The Fighter could use a 2d6 Greatsword, for 2d6+5 per hit for 7 to 17 per hit; 12 average. In a full combat sequence where every attack hits, this results in 8d6+20 per round, for 28 to 68 per round; 48 average.
The Rogue could use two 1d6 Shortswords for 1d6+5 and 1d6 per hit, respectively. Hitting with both and using sneak attack for an additional 10d6 per turn yields 12d6+5 per round, for 17 to 77 per round; 47 average.

Also, and this is important, to make them conceptually even more equal it must be remembered that Sneak Attack is only active in certain conditions (the target is adjacent to an enemy not the rogue, or the rogue has advantage on the attack). So the rogue would want to be next to the fighter so as to be most effective.

-----
NINJA's: My math-example is to not target any specific person but instead hopefully quell the disagreement between everyone in this endeavor/discourse.

The fighter has a fighting style + more ASI. The fighter can get with the feat GWM for +40 damage and -5 to hit every attack. Aversge it's still more often.

[Hawkstar]

Fighters have an extra ASI which translates into a talent granting +3 skill proficiencies, the champion specifically gets 1/2 proficiency to all physical ability checks (broader than just skills).
... can we not talk about the embarrassment that is "Remarkable Athlete"? Because, seriously, that 'class feature' is the most painful non-ability I think I've ever read.

[HoarsHalberd]

... can we not talk about the embarrassment that is "Remarkable Athlete"? Because, seriously, that 'class feature' is the most painful non-ability I think I've ever read.

It's a free +2-3 to initiative if you are using it for nothing else.

[Vogonjeltz]

You seem to be several months behind the times if you still think hand crossbow 2 attacks a round is even a contentious issue. (Though I do apologise for using mastery, I'm so used to GWM and PM I forget Xbow is an expert.)

"Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action? It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks." - https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...geadvice_feats

As for not assuming the former. You are evidently playing a very different game. My fighters have wasted more rounds dashing to a target than I have been unable to get a sneak attack.

As for the crits, I know one would have to choose to ignore a hit, that's why I skipped the crit for the second one and just assumed a 5% chance from the first and took it into account in the beginning.

Nitpicking aside, the Rogue is still behind by anywhere from 40% to 90%. I agree the rogue has superiority on some skills.

My anecdotal data to counterbalance yours: I've seen fighters lose exactly 0 rounds to chasing enemies.


... can we not talk about the embarrassment that is "Remarkable Athlete"? Because, seriously, that 'class feature' is the most painful non-ability I think I've ever read.

Hardly any more painful than other comparable abilities. Quite useful actually, in that it applies to things for which there can be no skill proficiency. The PHB has a fairly lengthy list of such examples, and others can easily be inferred.

[HoarsHalberd]

Nitpicking aside, the Rogue is still behind by anywhere from 40% to 90%. I agree the rogue has superiority on some skills.

My anecdotal data to counterbalance yours: I've seen fighters lose exactly 0 rounds to chasing enemies.


No. It is not nitpicking. I showed you that even accepting your utterly biased assumption rogues aren't getting SA's most rounds your numbers were still utterly wrong as Crawford explained, in a full sage advice article, that Crossbow expert allows a hand crossbow to shoot with it's bonus action after shooting itself. I cannot fathom why you are still making your false assertions based on your old numbers.
My numbers showed that a Hand crossbow user using their bonus attack as made clear in sage advice and with access to an ally within 5 ft of the enemy like any half-way decently played rogue in a balanced group.


As for: "I've seen fighters lose exactly 0 rounds to chasing enemies." - So you're saying all your encounters start within 30 feet of your opponents?

[Raimun]

I'm pretty sure people have said this before but let's say it again.

1D10 (or 1D12) damage Cantrip does not out do 1D8+Dex. Cantrips don't usually get the casting stat to damage.

If you don't know already, damage die/dice don't mean nearly as much as static modifiers to damage (unless you got ridiculous amount of damage dice). Just ask from people who liked to use twohanded weapons in D&D 3.5/3.P. Big damage die is just a nice bonus. If you could have have real modifiers, it wouldn't matter that much if you rolled snake eyes as the damage with your zweihander, since you would still deal over 20 points of damage.

[georgie_leech]

I'm pretty sure people have said this before but let's say it again.

1D10 (or 1D12) damage Cantrip does not out do 1D8+Dex. Cantrips don't usually get the casting stat to damage.

If you don't know already, damage die/dice don't mean nearly as much as static modifiers to damage (unless you got ridiculous amount of damage dice). Just ask from people who liked to use twohanded weapons in D&D 3.5/3.P. Big damage die is just a nice bonus. If you could have have real modifiers, it wouldn't matter that much if you rolled snake eyes as the damage with your zweihander, since you would still deal over 20 points of damage.

:thog: Thog Agrees. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0121.html)