High level(14+), Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rangers.

[Mechaviking]

Am I the only one who think they should be like fighters in DBZ?: Really fast with moves so blisteringly precise, accurate, like a blur through the battlefield that you wont spot it unless you are pretty high level yourself(8+) otherwise they are simply too fast and too tough for you to comprehend, easily able to fight of beings ten times their size, block their attacks and deliver deadly counters.

Considering full progression casters can reshape reality several times per day I really don´t see a problem with it.

Then Again I am the type of player sortof forced into playing a character with spell levels simply to have some more options so I´m probably biased.

But monks teleporting around delivering barrages of punches sound pretty fun and awesome to me :D

[JNAProductions]

Shadow Monks do that at level 6.

I do get what you're saying, though. However, the current classes in 5E do not support that.

My advice? Walk on over to the Homebrew forums and either find what you're looking for (I don't think it exists yet, though) or brew it up yourself. I'd be interested in seeing some homebrew changes to Fighter to let me play as Goku.

[ZenBear]

Teleporting monk? Try Way of Shadow.

I agree that martials need something to bridge the gap between their own abilities and high level spell casters. It's a widely accepted notion.

That being said, D&D has always been a more "realistic" game than DBZ. Many people dislike over-the-top anime action. Other systems support that style, like Exalted for example.

If you want to introduce anime/wuxia/super hero level powers to Fighters, Rogues, Monks, etc then feel free to post your ideas in the homebrew forum!

[Ralanr]

Am I the only one who think they should be like fighters in DBZ?: Really fast with moves so blisteringly precise, accurate, like a blur through the battlefield that you wont spot it unless you are pretty high level yourself(8+) otherwise they are simply too fast and too tough for you to comprehend, easily able to fight of beings ten times their size, block their attacks and deliver deadly counters.

Considering full progression casters can reshape reality several times per day I really don´t see a problem with it.

Then Again I am the type of player sortof forced into playing a character with spell levels simply to have some more options so I´m probably biased.

But monks teleporting around delivering barrages of punches sound pretty fun and awesome to me :D

You are not alone brother! I dream of days where I can make craters with my barbarians fists!


Teleporting monk? Try Way of Shadow.

I agree that martials need something to bridge the gap between their own abilities and high level spell casters. It's a widely accepted notion.

That being said, D&D has always been a more "realistic" game than DBZ. Many people dislike over-the-top anime action. Other systems support that style, like Exalted for example.

If you want to introduce anime/wuxia/super hero level powers to Fighters, Rogues, Monks, etc then feel free to post your ideas in the homebrew forum!


While it is more realistic than DBZ, martials are hit hard with the realism stick. Actually not even that considering how much people complain how fighters are poor comparisons to real world fighting. It is hard to justify the same kind of power of a certain spell level though.

Boosting martials seems to get people (including me for some reason) in an uproar. Nerfing casters seems less so.

[SharkForce]

if nerfing casters didn't generate an uproar, 5e would be a slightly tweaked 4e and pathfinder probably would have never got off the ground. and there wouldn't be massive threads containing arguments that the non-casters need to be buffed to caster level rather than nerfing casters down to non-caster levels (naturally, there are arguments both ways, such is the nature of arguments... but if nobody was going to be upset about nerfing casters, nobody would be arguing against it).

[Ralanr]

if nerfing casters didn't generate an uproar, 5e would be a slightly tweaked 4e and pathfinder probably would have never got off the ground. and there wouldn't be massive threads containing arguments that the non-casters need to be buffed to caster level rather than nerfing casters down to non-caster levels (naturally, there are arguments both ways, such is the nature of arguments... but if nobody was going to be upset about nerfing casters, nobody would be arguing against it).

Please forgive me, I didn't mean to say it didn't case an uproar. I meant to mean that upgrading fighters seems to cause a bigger uproar.

But I don't have much experience in RPG forums (only starting with 5e) so I can't say I really know enough. It was mainly an assumption.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I almost always prefer buffing underpowered options to nerfing overpowered ones. Give more toys to the people who need them, don't take away toys from the people who have them.

That extends to 5e, as well. Which is why, if I ever do run 5e, I'll totally let players do that sort of thing with skills and such, allow rangers to move during whirlwind attacks, etc. It's also another reason that Legend is still my system of choice, despite the difficulty in running the game.

[pibby]

WotC technically gave everyone in the last survey they had the chance to let them consider making Martial Adepts (which originally came from Tome of Battle from 3.5e); this is basically what you're asking for. I voted for it to be a thing but it didn't make the top 3, or at least have a noticeable amount of votes.

I too am sad.

There is a Martial Adept (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372008-Martial-Adept-Homebrew) in the Homebrew section but I have not taken a good look at it yet.

[Mechaviking]

WotC technically gave everyone in the last survey they had the chance to let them consider making Martial Adepts (which originally came from Tome of Battle from 3.5e); this is basically what you're asking for. I voted for it to be a thing but it didn't make the top 3, or at least have a noticeable amount of votes.

I too am sad.

There is a Martial Adept (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372008-Martial-Adept-Homebrew) in the Homebrew section but I have not taken a good look at it yet.

Thanks, it actually looks ok :D

Some of the "Martial" classes have a rather uninspiring abilities Let´s look at the worst of them(Ranger) and compare it to one of the best(Paladin).

At levels 1-3 Paladins get very fluffy abilities that have hard combat mechanics(Smite, Oath, Divine Sense & Lay on hands).

At Levels 1-3 Rangers also get pretty fluffy abilities with no combat uses(Favored enemy, Natural Explorer & Primeval awareness).

They share spells except paladins get better spells and can swap them out at will(Ranger has hunters mark which equals the best paladin spell).

At level 3 a ranger gets a path similar to a paladin oaths: All of the paladin oaths grant a bit of versatility and different capstone abilities, and double the amount of spells the paladin has compared to the ranger.

Beast master is way to constricted and a basically a trap(also the paladin has a spell that is just a better version of this entire class... Summon mount), and a hunter ranger gets a selection of 3 abilities that are all hampered in some way, one of which can be reliably used, is pretty good, well worth multiclassing into(Collossus slayer), one that is just terrible(Giant Killer) and the last one is really cool but really relies on enemies being really close together and is better suited to a Barbarian(Imo).

As the levels increase Rangers get even ****tier abilities with 2-3 spaced through the ENTIRE class which are pretty good but not nearly good enough to carry the class, the best one being able to be picked up by a Bard seven levels earlier :D.

Some of those ****ty abilities could have been written as worthwhile abilites but weren´t... for some reason.

This may be a huge rant, but that´s the way I feel about it.

[SharkForce]

WotC technically gave everyone in the last survey they had the chance to let them consider making Martial Adepts (which originally came from Tome of Battle from 3.5e); this is basically what you're asking for. I voted for it to be a thing but it didn't make the top 3, or at least have a noticeable amount of votes.

I too am sad.

There is a Martial Adept (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372008-Martial-Adept-Homebrew) in the Homebrew section but I have not taken a good look at it yet.

well, here's the funny thing.

let's take me for example. i feel like non-casters are in a bit of a bad spot. having said that... i'm not terribly interested in martial adepts. and the question was not "which do you think are most needed", but rather something along the lines of "which would you like to see most" or "what would you find interesting" or some such thing.

so... while i feel like non-casters need help... i couldn't really honestly say that i wanted martial adepts. i wanted artificers, and alchemists sounded interesting, so i voted for those (and i think i might have voted for one other, can't remember what the options were). and if they released a book for martial adepts, i honestly probably wouldn't buy it. it's just not a book that would be targeted at me.

plus, i also feel like first things first: fix the core classes. making new classes that are like the fighter (or barbarian, or whatever), except not hamstringed in terms of changing the world, doesn't fix anything. it just makes fighters (or barbarians, or whatever) really obviously a bad mechanical choice, and kinda forces people to buy the new book if they want decent non-casters.

that isn't particularly good for the game (your reputation is going to take a hit if you're basically forcing people to pay extra money for non-core options if they want a balanced game), and it is extremely bad for the fighters (or barbarians, or whatever) which get rendered obsolete. suddenly a fairly large chunk of the class section in the PHB that all their customers paid for becomes basically wasted space.

but, to go back to the point of considering my case... let's consider the case of what, as far as i can tell, is the viewpoint of the typical person who likes non-casting classes:

they think they're absolutely fine the way they are. they don't feel like they need more powers. they feel like the skill system covers everything that needs to be covered. they don't seem to want the non-caster classes to get more complicated. they don't want them to get even remotely magical. and they often seem to feel that the martial adepts are cheesy anime stereotypes, and frequently denigrate the entire martial adept system with terms like "weaboo fightan magic" or something along those lines.

now, this is obviuosly based on my perception of their arguments. to get a better picture, you should almost certainly ask them. but, having been through a fair number of fairly heated arguments on the subject of caster vs noncaster balance, that's what i've generally observed the other side saying.

so, as far as i'm concerned, that leaves D&D in a rather uncomfortable spot.

because what we apparently need is an update to the non-casters (though that isn't entirely as precise a term as i might wish; for example, i feel like rangers need help, but paladins and monks probably don't need much, and yet none of them are really what i would consider casters).

and we need that update to consist of extremely simple mechanics that allow for a lot of improvisation, but not a lot of rules, guidelines, or specific examples, and it can't feel like magic, and it probably shouldn't be a total rewrite of the core classes and archetypes either since they largely seem to be making a lot of people happy as they currently stand.

that isn't exactly what i would describe as a simple task. of course, if it *was* a simple task, someone would probably have homebrewed it by now.

[Mechaviking]

@Sharkforce: :D You pretty much nailed it and maybie I just watch to much anime or play too many jrpg´s or other action games :p.

But I still feel that the Ranger is a page 1 rewrite as it is now. Play a fighter/barbarian and dip into 3-4 levels of ranger if you want to play a Ranger´y character,

[ZenBear]

@Sharkforce: :D You pretty much nailed it and maybie I just watch to much anime or play too many jrpg´s or other action games :p.

But I still feel that the Ranger is a page 1 rewrite as it is now. Play a fighter/barbarian and dip into 3-4 levels of ranger if you want to play a Ranger´y character,

Rogues are better Rangers than Rangers. 😝

[Ralanr]

Rogues are better Rangers than Rangers. 😝

Summoner focused casters are better rangers than rangers.

That might be a stretch actually.

[Korgul]

I simply think that dragon ball z is really far to the sources that D&D is trying to emulate. Not that it's impossible to do with some tweaking, but it's not it's purpose.

There are game made to do exactly these (Anima Beyond Fantasy is the thing that spring to my mind), but D&D as it's core it's a game inspired on western fantasy and sword and sorcery. So I appreciate that, at least in the core version, a high level fighter is more akin to Conan than Goku.

By the way, a hgh level fighter can beat creatures ten time it's size.

[MrStabby]

Also a high level fighter can survive more arrows than Boromir and keep laughing, so they are still pretty special.

[Waazraath]

And a high level fighter can strike with any weapon 8 times as fast as a mere mortal, or have his wounds close through sheer force of will... a monk can move twice as fast and jump twice as far as normal characters, and some can shoot fire from their fists, other can (as mentioned) teleport, or become invisible; just as some paladins can teleport (misty step), and kill powerful opponents with a single blow (smite spell + divine smite). For my taste, they have pretty much of what the OP asks for already, within the power limits of the game. Though some additions could be made of course, like the maneuvers from 3.5 Tome of Battle that ignored hardness and damage reduction, and let a martial hit through a heavy door with a single blow.

[Ralanr]

And a high level fighter can strike with any weapon 8 times as fast as a mere mortal, or have his wounds close through sheer force of will... a monk can move twice as fast and jump twice as far as normal characters, and some can shoot fire from their fists, other can (as mentioned) teleport, or become invisible; just as some paladins can teleport (misty step), and kill powerful opponents with a single blow (smite spell + divine smite). For my taste, they have pretty much of what the OP asks for already, within the power limits of the game. Though some additions could be made of course, like the maneuvers from 3.5 Tome of Battle that ignored hardness and damage reduction, and let a martial hit through a heavy door with a single blow.

A few martial centric buffs wouldn't hurt.

[SharkForce]

I simply think that dragon ball z is really far to the sources that D&D is trying to emulate. Not that it's impossible to do with some tweaking, but it's not it's purpose.

There are game made to do exactly these (Anima Beyond Fantasy is the thing that spring to my mind), but D&D as it's core it's a game inspired on western fantasy and sword and sorcery. So I appreciate that, at least in the core version, a high level fighter is more akin to Conan than Goku.

By the way, a hgh level fighter can beat creatures ten time it's size.

Beowulf could swim for something like 3 days straight, and hold his breath for hours on end (as could his opponent in a race, who actually beat him in the swimming competition because he had to stop and fight a sea serpent. in the ocean. with his bare hands).

jack the giant killer was so clever that he could basically anticipate the next move (or several) of even the most cunning giants and consistently tricked them into killing themselves or each other or into traps where he could kill them while they could not fight back.

Hercules could lift the entire world on his shoulders and divert rivers through sheer strength way before the hulking hurler was throwing planetoids at people.

do you need me to go on, or can we agree that there are plenty of "fighters" in western fiction who make action surge and 4 attacks per round look like chump change?

[Ralanr]

Beowulf could swim for something like 3 days straight, and hold his breath for hours on end (as could his opponent in a race, who actually beat him in the swimming competition because he had to stop and fight a sea serpent. in the ocean. with his bare hands).

jack the giant killer was so clever that he could basically anticipate the next move (or several) of even the most cunning giants and consistently tricked them into killing themselves or each other or into traps where he could kill them while they could not fight back.

Hercules could lift the entire world on his shoulders and divert rivers through sheer strength way before the hulking hurler was throwing planetoids at people.

do you need me to go on, or can we agree that there are plenty of "fighters" in western fiction who make action surge and 4 attacks per round look like chump change?

It's even older than dirt, considering Gilgamesh.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I just want to throw this in here.

So my game made it to about 16th level and we had some casters and fighters in the game. Ill tell you what, the fighter characters kicked ass consistently throughout the entire leveling procedure. They were consistent, they brushed off attacks like they were nothing.

The bear barbarian laughs at any evoker wizard out there, and plants his axe in his face. The Paladin of the ancients strides right through any spell thrown at him. The monk has stupid good saves and can close super quick. The fighter heals himself at high levels and keeps coming. The ranger can fire in a volley more arrows then most people will see coming. And the redemption paladin strolls though any charm type attacks.

Casters crush encounters, kind of. They have some powerful tools that enable them to, when in a team, end threats. The difference is, they can't stack on spell protections like crazy anymore. They get one concentration buff now. They have to focus. Tanks actually matter again. Having someone who can
A. Deal 8 attacks in a round and crit on at least one, or smite, or rage strike etc is dangerous to ignore

B. Take damage and stand in front of the squishies.

This allows the caster to precisely strike at the right moment to waste some dumb fool who couldn't circumnavigate the fighter guy and kill the Dumbledore looking guy in the back.

Also a lot of higher level monsters, especially demons/devils have spell resistance, making the meat shields necessary.

At the high level of game play, at least with my group, the big guys were just as badass as the casters.

[Z3ro]

but, to go back to the point of considering my case... let's consider the case of what, as far as i can tell, is the viewpoint of the typical person who likes non-casting classes:

they think they're absolutely fine the way they are. they don't feel like they need more powers. they feel like the skill system covers everything that needs to be covered. they don't seem to want the non-caster classes to get more complicated. they don't want them to get even remotely magical. and they often seem to feel that the martial adepts are cheesy anime stereotypes, and frequently denigrate the entire martial adept system with terms like "weaboo fightan magic" or something along those lines.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am the aforementioned lover of non-casting classes. Over my 25+ years playing RPGs, I've never found a casting class in any game I really liked, and almost always prefer to play martial characters.

And my reasons are basically what you stated, especially in 5E. Even at high levels, I don't feel like my fighter or my monk or my ranger are lacking in any serious way. Heck, even the ranger, largely considered the weakest class, feels fine to me with nothing more than a few minor changes and charitable readings of abilities. But that's who I am; I'm not a complicated guy, and I like hitting things with a stick really hard and maybe having a trick up my sleeve. These classes do that really well, and I don't think that could be argued.

But when you start talking about people who like caster classes, they inevitably want to basically just make fighter into wizards, but keep the name. Look at ToB as an example; fluff aside, they took a huge chunk of how a caster was put together and grafted it on a martial. Now lots of people who like casters loved this; despite the warblade being very similar in output to a 5E fighter, people love the warblade because it has lots of different abilities that you can choose from and change, just like a wizard.

But for me, I never had much use for a warblade or any ToB classes. It took away what I loved about martial characters; simplicity. I feel like 5E did a great job of offering differing levels of complexity throughout the system, from the champion to the wizard. The player can pick what level they want to engage the system at, and that's great. Bringing the martials up to the level of the casters eliminates the simple options and forces everyone to basically play casters, which not everyone wants to do.

[mephnick]

As someone who never plays casters, I'd like to see maybe a few higher end martial abilities but I don't want Tome of Battle back. I honestly think some kind of "martial feats" modeled after the warlock invocations system would be a good compromise. Let them take a few specialties throughout leveling that don't require spellslots maneuvers. Like "oh for my level 15 martial training I'm taking Champion of the Earth which gives me a burrow speed" or something like that. I don't think you need to redo the whole system to make this work.

I think 5e did a pretty good job giving martials a bit more utility simply by how it's background and skill system works. Concentration limitations have destroyed the concept of a wizard dominating all major party positions at the same time. I think it's a good start.

[JNAProductions]

Something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431664-Champion-of-the-Earth-Feat&p=19619551#post19619551)?


Prerequisites
Level 10+
Strength 17+
Extra Attack

Benefit
Gain a burrow speed equal to your walking speed.
Increase Strength by 1, up to 20.

[mephnick]

Like that but not modeled after an actual feat, no stat bump. "Martial feats" was probably a bad title to give them. More like the invocations list in the Warlock class. I'm AFB so I can't be sure how they're modeled.

Something like

Champion of the Earth

Prerequisites
Level 10+
Strength 17+
Extra Attack

Benefit
Gain a burrow speed of 30 feet.

[JNAProductions]

Something like that would be a pretty big boost to martial characters (especially the Paladin, arguably the strongest class in the game) when they're already balanced against mages.

Unless everything is purely utility.

[mephnick]

I think they should be almost purely utility. Isn't that the problem most people try and address? I never thought 5e martials needed more combat power.

To be fair, any kind of "always on" utility can be extremely useful for battle as well, as we all know from things like blindsense and flight.

And yeah, it would require some balancing, even as purely utility.

That's just the kind of model I think needs to be used to give them a variety of powers without giving them spellslots.

[SharkForce]

Something like that would be a pretty big boost to martial characters (especially the Paladin, arguably the strongest class in the game) when they're already balanced against mages.

Unless everything is purely utility.

*shrug* utility that can be potentially used in battle anyways.

but yes, utility would be what most want to add to them. I don't think anyone believes their damage is bad, or their toughness (though as I've said before elsewhere, I don't consider them tanks... they're tougher and their offense is weaker than other classes, there is therefore no reason to focus them, and therefore they are not a tank).

and yes, different classes should get different amounts of help. I think that burrowing ability would be interesting for a ranger or maybe a barbarian, probably wouldn't fit in a fighter concept most of the time, and tbh paladins don't really need much help.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, as seen in an earlier "Earth Glide" thread, a burrow speed would kick all sorts of butt against most creatures.

[mephnick]

and yes, different classes should get different amounts of help. I think that burrowing ability would be interesting for a ranger or maybe a barbarian, probably wouldn't fit in a fighter concept most of the time, and tbh paladins don't really need much help.

Yeah, this was a thought for pure martials, not that there are many left. I think Paladins are fine. The couple decent ranger spells could probably just be wrapped into the "martial invocation" list and be made spell-less, but that ship has already sailed.

[Ralanr]

I just want to throw this in here.

So my game made it to about 16th level and we had some casters and fighters in the game. Ill tell you what, the fighter characters kicked ass consistently throughout the entire leveling procedure. They were consistent, they brushed off attacks like they were nothing.

The bear barbarian laughs at any evoker wizard out there, and plants his axe in his face. The Paladin of the ancients strides right through any spell thrown at him. The monk has stupid good saves and can close super quick. The fighter heals himself at high levels and keeps coming. The ranger can fire in a volley more arrows then most people will see coming. And the redemption paladin strolls though any charm type attacks.

Casters crush encounters, kind of. They have some powerful tools that enable them to, when in a team, end threats. The difference is, they can't stack on spell protections like crazy anymore. They get one concentration buff now. They have to focus. Tanks actually matter again. Having someone who can
A. Deal 8 attacks in a round and crit on at least one, or smite, or rage strike etc is dangerous to ignore

B. Take damage and stand in front of the squishies.

This allows the caster to precisely strike at the right moment to waste some dumb fool who couldn't circumnavigate the fighter guy and kill the Dumbledore looking guy in the back.

Also a lot of higher level monsters, especially demons/devils have spell resistance, making the meat shields necessary.

At the high level of game play, at least with my group, the big guys were just as badass as the casters.


It's nice to hear table experience once and a while. Could always use more.

[pibby]

Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am the aforementioned lover of non-casting classes. Over my 25+ years playing RPGs, I've never found a casting class in any game I really liked, and almost always prefer to play martial characters.

And my reasons are basically what you stated, especially in 5E. Even at high levels, I don't feel like my fighter or my monk or my ranger are lacking in any serious way. Heck, even the ranger, largely considered the weakest class, feels fine to me with nothing more than a few minor changes and charitable readings of abilities. But that's who I am; I'm not a complicated guy, and I like hitting things with a stick really hard and maybe having a trick up my sleeve. These classes do that really well, and I don't think that could be argued.

But when you start talking about people who like caster classes, they inevitably want to basically just make fighter into wizards, but keep the name. Look at ToB as an example; fluff aside, they took a huge chunk of how a caster was put together and grafted it on a martial. Now lots of people who like casters loved this; despite the warblade being very similar in output to a 5E fighter, people love the warblade because it has lots of different abilities that you can choose from and change, just like a wizard.

But for me, I never had much use for a warblade or any ToB classes. It took away what I loved about martial characters; simplicity. I feel like 5E did a great job of offering differing levels of complexity throughout the system, from the champion to the wizard. The player can pick what level they want to engage the system at, and that's great. Bringing the martials up to the level of the casters eliminates the simple options and forces everyone to basically play casters, which not everyone wants to do.

I will say that I respect your style of play. I also understand why people dislike ToB classes as general concepts; they were supposed to be "improvements" on the martial classes but instead overshadowed them at one point. But I don't think any of those ideas should be imposed on anyone.

I believe, if done properly, introducing Martial Adepts won't trump what traditional Martials do. Why? Because this upsetting dynamic already exists with Warlocks and Wizards.

In this case traditional Martials are akin to Warlocks and Martial Adepts are Wizards as far as Power vs Versatility. In my mind, Traditional Martials will be good at delivering damage and occasionally out of combat stuff depending on how their DM adjudicate their use of skills (like it always has been). Martial Adepts would get by in combat (like a Traditional Martial w/o passive abilities) and will have to choose whether they should use their class resources on swinging the tides of battle or out of combat use.

Another way to look at is by comparing the Rogue archetypes. An Arcane Trickster can emulate abilities that the Thief or the Assassin can do normally but at the cost of resources. And even then such emulations don't last as long as the passive abilities that the Thief or the Assassin has at their fingertips.

Am I wrong to think this way? Am I missing something?

[Mechaviking]

I guess I forgot the arbitrary monsters with spell immunities, as V once pointed out :D

[ZenBear]

The issue with martials vs casters is not killing power, as stated Fighters are incredibly potent killers and they are the most mundane of all. The issue is utility. There is no way in the book for a Fighter to travel across planes without seeking outside help, but a Wizard can cast Plane Shift and be wherever they want in an instant. There's nothing a Fighter can do to stop an avalanche without some very creative thinking and a lenient DM, but a Wizard can cast Fireball and evaporate the snow.

The idea of "Fighter Invocations" is a good one. I would do away with any prerequisites besides level constraints, as Warlocks, because who says a DEX Fighter can't find attunement with an Earth Primordial and gain a burrow speed? Perhaps replace the reroll-saves ability with Techniques gained at several levels? Another Fighter Fix idea is replacing Extra Attack 2, since a lot of people claim this is an unbalancing feature, with double damage dice (longsword becomes 2d8, greatsword 4d6), solving that problem and making Fighter AoOs more dangerous, and give a legitimately badass capstone power in place of Extra Attack 3.

[JNAProductions]

No way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427295-Epic-Wayfarer), hm? (Admittedly, it is totally homebrew, but the idea already exists.)

[Ralanr]

No way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427295-Epic-Wayfarer), hm? (Admittedly, it is totally homebrew, but the idea already exists.)

I still think the epic destiny idea could work well for martials without needing to rework them completely.

[strangebloke]

I agree completely. Western legend is full of ridiculous feats for martials.

But I do like the simplicity of Martials. I think we can give them more powerful, interesting abilities that are discreet and interesting.

Like, consider how tireless beouwulf is. If a champion could rest while marching or swimming, would that break the game? I don't think so. It would be a neat, useful ability that lets you really feel superhuman even next to the reality warper. He needs sleep, food, and water to keep going. You really don't.

Monks could use a 'shattering strike' or something, to let them punch through walls and make craters like every monk in any wuxia movie ever can. Also, how is there no way for monks to achieve flight? I thought the monk was inspired by martial arts movies?

Rangers bother me. Conceptually they're all over the place. The ranger's a nature guy, is a hunter/archer type, unless he's a swordsman, and is also empowered by supernatural racism. He's some kind of bizarre druid/fighter/vengeance pally combo.

You can probably tell, though, that I'm largely ok with the chassis that the heroes are built on. I don't think there is a compelling NEED for any of these changes.

[ZenBear]

I agree completely. Western legend is full of ridiculous feats for martials.

But I do like the simplicity of Martials. I think we can give them more powerful, interesting abilities that are discreet and interesting.

Like, consider how tireless beouwulf is. If a champion could rest while marching or swimming, would that break the game? I don't think so. It would be a neat, useful ability that lets you really feel superhuman even next to the reality warper. He needs sleep, food, and water to keep going. You really don't.

Monks could use a 'shattering strike' or something, to let them punch through walls and make craters like every monk in any wuxia movie ever can. Also, how is there no way for monks to achieve flight? I thought the monk was inspired by martial arts movies?

Rangers bother me. Conceptually they're all over the place. The ranger's a nature guy, is a hunter/archer type, unless he's a swordsman, and is also empowered by supernatural racism. He's some kind of bizarre druid/fighter/vengeance pally combo.

You can probably tell, though, that I'm largely ok with the chassis that the heroes are built on. I don't think there is a compelling NEED for any of these changes.

You're very right, actually. Granting supernatural feats of might, endurance and dexterity are definitely within the bounds of western mythology. Even feats of insight, intellect and persuasion, for any mundane class, ought to be acceptable. The only thing holding us back is tradition, and that is not sufficient reason to hold martials down.

I also have issues with Rangers. The tradition of Favored Enemy/Terrain is what really screwed them IMO. They could very easily have been an archetype for Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian or Paladin. It is fun, though, to play a belligerent a**hole and when somebody challenges me on my racism I shrug and say, "It's a class feature." 😆

[Ralanr]

I feel like Rangers favored enemy and terrain ability should allow them to change the target of it per long rest. Provided you've spent an hour studying such targets.

[Shaofoo]

The issue with martials vs casters is not killing power, as stated Fighters are incredibly potent killers and they are the most mundane of all. The issue is utility. There is no way in the book for a Fighter to travel across planes without seeking outside help, but a Wizard can cast Plane Shift and be wherever they want in an instant.

I am glad you bring this up, because you are actually very wrong.

A Wizard is just as helpless as a Fighter when it comes to plane moving, even though the Wizard can cast Plane Shift, but in order to actually cast the spell you will need a material component, a forked rod that is attuned to the plane that you want to go to. So even if you have the spell you can't go anywhere unless you have a material component in hand and that is up to the DM to decide how he should resolve this because I am sure the designers didn't want people to plane hop where they shouldn't be at the moment, leaving that for the DM to decide. And just cause it says that the rod is worth 250 gp doesn't mean that the wizard pays that, the cost to pay is probably several hundred times that (cause of the actual craftsmanship and the process to attune things), maybe money is useless and you will have to do something to acquire a forked rod, maybe you can't get any forked rods and you end up with a useless spell. A Wizard has more options than a fighter when it comes to plane shifting but they all rely on DM fiat, no one is going anywhere if the DM doesn't allow it.

I personally find it that people who say that Wizards are too powerful either carry these notions from previous editions or they play in a world where the 5MWD is possible. If you give a wizard functionally infinite slots and free expensive materials then the wizard is definitely more powerful; if as soon as the Wizard gains the Plane Shift spell the DM goes "Congrats, here is a set of forked rods attuned to every plane in my campaign, go crazy" then that is the DM favoring the Wizard.


There's nothing a Fighter can do to stop an avalanche without some very creative thinking and a lenient DM, but a Wizard can cast Fireball and evaporate the snow.


If a Wizard could stop an avalanche that is of any threat with a fireball then that also required a VERY lenient DM, cause I wouldn't let a huge wall of snow, ice and rock be stopped by a 20 foot wide Fireball. Even if you were to chain gun Fireballs or if you were to even cast Meteor Strike you could still trigger other avalanches in other areas of the mountain, so you could end up making things much worse than the Fighter who couldn't do anything.

Of course you could also Wish the avalanche away without mess or fuss... but then you are struck with severe debuffs and the chance to never cast Wish ever again. Is it worth the risk?

[SharkForce]

an object that is valued at 250 gp is, by definition, worth 250 gp. not thousands of gp. so your DM could do that, but if he just springs it on you with no warning as a hamfisted method of "balancing the game" by making sure to screw over the casters at every chance, then your DM needs to learn wheaton's law, because he is clearly breaking it.

now, i'll grant that availability could be a concern, depending on how one goes about making the item. i don't imagine a random village is going to have a lot of 300 gp diamonds in the local general store, for example.

having said that, going back to previous editions i can tell you that you attune to different planes by making the tuning fork the right size and out of the right materials, so there really isn't any particularly compelling reason a PC who wants a set of them couldn't get them provided they have access to a city of reasonable size. again, reasonable to not have it in a general store in a village of a few hundred people. not reasonable to be unable to find someone who can make it in a large city.

[ZenBear]

I am glad you bring this up, because you are actually very wrong.

A Wizard is just as helpless as a Fighter when it comes to plane moving, even though the Wizard can cast Plane Shift, but in order to actually cast the spell you will need a material component, a forked rod that is attuned to the plane that you want to go to. So even if you have the spell you can't go anywhere unless you have a material component in hand and that is up to the DM to decide how he should resolve this because I am sure the designers didn't want people to plane hop where they shouldn't be at the moment, leaving that for the DM to decide. And just cause it says that the rod is worth 250 gp doesn't mean that the wizard pays that, the cost to pay is probably several hundred times that (cause of the actual craftsmanship and the process to attune things), maybe money is useless and you will have to do something to acquire a forked rod, maybe you can't get any forked rods and you end up with a useless spell. A Wizard has more options than a fighter when it comes to plane shifting but they all rely on DM fiat, no one is going anywhere if the DM doesn't allow it.

I personally find it that people who say that Wizards are too powerful either carry these notions from previous editions or they play in a world where the 5MWD is possible. If you give a wizard functionally infinite slots and free expensive materials then the wizard is definitely more powerful; if as soon as the Wizard gains the Plane Shift spell the DM goes "Congrats, here is a set of forked rods attuned to every plane in my campaign, go crazy" then that is the DM favoring the Wizard.



If a Wizard could stop an avalanche that is of any threat with a fireball then that also required a VERY lenient DM, cause I wouldn't let a huge wall of snow, ice and rock be stopped by a 20 foot wide Fireball. Even if you were to chain gun Fireballs or if you were to even cast Meteor Strike you could still trigger other avalanches in other areas of the mountain, so you could end up making things much worse than the Fighter who couldn't do anything.

Of course you could also Wish the avalanche away without mess or fuss... but then you are struck with severe debuffs and the chance to never cast Wish ever again. Is it worth the risk?

DM fiat trumps all. That doesn't change the fact that by RAW Wizards have access to teleportation, Plane Shift, True Polymorph, Wish, etc that a Fighter never will. Accessibility of components is just a means for the DM to mitigate the imbalance.

Yes, 5E is more balanced than 3.X by a long shot. Casters are still OP because they still have reality-altering abilities and martials do not.

[Shaofoo]

an object that is valued at 250 gp is, by definition, worth 250 gp. not thousands of gp. so your DM could do that, but if he just springs it on you with no warning as a hamfisted method of "balancing the game" by making sure to screw over the casters at every chance, then your DM needs to learn wheaton's law, because he is clearly breaking it.

Value and price are not the same thing. It is very rare to find that both value and price are one and the same. I doubt that someone who knows how to do forked rods attuned to the planes would let it go for the same price as the material costs. Also this could be beyond balancing the game, maybe the DM actually wants people to work for being able to Plane Shift. This is all setting dependent so you can't just assume that just because forked rods aren't for sale in Magic Mart that somehow this is a hamfisted way to balance the game and just to screw over casters.




having said that, going back to previous editions i can tell you that you attune to different planes by making the tuning fork the right size and out of the right materials, so there really isn't any particularly compelling reason a PC who wants a set of them couldn't get them provided they have access to a city of reasonable size. again, reasonable to not have it in a general store in a village of a few hundred people. not reasonable to be unable to find someone who can make it in a large city.

Maybe in your standard setting components could be found at cost in large cities and maybe in previous settings there was explicit rules to make forks by RAW but what you are saying isn't RAW by any stretch of the word at all and what was RAW in previous settings doesn't make it true for 5e. Just cause in your mind components can be found in large cities doesn't make that the general rule in all settings or the assumed RAW standard.

If you make forked rods available to wizards then you choose to give wizards the power to plane shift, you as a DM want them to move through the plains because you wanted to. A DM can choose to not make the forks available to sell or even exist and that is his decision, you can't force your reality as a standard no more than I can also force my reality as a standard.

[SharkForce]

so your assumption is that the rules told us the value of the materials only, but not the value of the labour as well?

ok. so, do tell: since the books only tell us the cost of raw materials for everything, how much does it cost to buy... well, anything at all. anything in the entire rulebook. i mean, i can't buy a sword for the listed cost, because apparently the writers were too stupid to account for the fact that someone has to make it. i guess when i pay my money for the sword, i'm actually just buying the mineral rights to punch my way through the ground with my bare fists so that i can aquire the ore, then build a forge from scratch, smelt the ore, and forge it into a sword. but only enough for one sword, if i want the mineral rights to do that twice, i need to pay double. or alternately i have to pay a bunch extra for people to do all of that as well. i'm not sure how much it costs to pay someone to punch ore out of the ground, or to smelt the ore using only stuff that can be built without a proper set of metal tools, but i'm sure it isn't cheap. heck, when i find a gold coin, i should probably assume that it isn't and actual gold coin because it's probably just a chunk of ore somewhere in the ground which i own the rights to, and has not yet been mined, smelted, or cast into a coin.

or, alternately, the cost of things in the books already assumes that, where applicable, the labour has been performed and the cost is for a finished product including the cost of the labour required to make the item. if i buy food, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. if i buy armour, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. if i buy a gemstone or diamond powder, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. and if i buy a tuning fork, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. because doing it any other way would be so incredibly stupid that it is simply not plausible to believe that anyone is that dumb.

the DM who lets you have something that costs a given amount for that given amount is not doing some crazy outlandish thing.

[strangebloke]

I don't think that making the wizard be the only one who can bus the rest of the party around makes him OP. It just makes him slightly less dispensable than most other party members.

Lets face it, if you don't have a wizard in the party, it's only going to be a tiny sidequest in-game to find a natural portal to whatever plane you want to go to, or to find an NPC who will port you for cash. I would love to see a feat like:

Powerful Connections: minumum level:10. You are acquainted with many powerful people, and know how to make it profit you. By trading favors with these people, you can do one of the following: gain 500 GP, Gain assistance from a local lord as though he were under the charm person spell, or find a spellcaster willing to cast a spell equal to half your level. You can only use this ability when you are able to contact a major city, and you can only use this ability once a month.

It's kind of crap, but it lets you play a campaign with no full casters pretty painlessly.

[Shaofoo]

DM fiat trumps all. That doesn't change the fact that by RAW Wizards have access to teleportation, Plane Shift, True Polymorph, Wish, etc that a Fighter never will. Accessibility of components is just a means for the DM to mitigate the imbalance.

I already said my piece on Plane Shift, a Wizard and a Fighter are both grounded on their plane, neither can move out unless the DM gives his blessing by RAW.


Yes, 5E is more balanced than 3.X by a long shot. Casters are still OP because they still have reality-altering abilities and martials do not.

Every summary by people who have actually played the game says otherwise, even people playing Rangers seem to actually like it when you actually sit down and play. Just cause wizards can do stuff that fighters can't doesn't mean that it is appropriate or that it is even a good idea (Teleport has a chance to kill you or leave you stranded somewhere else, Wish has a bunch of stuff attached to it if it isn't casting an already established spell that makes it a bad idea to do, including giving the DM a blank check to do whatever he wishes, and True Polymorph... well you assume that if you transform a guy into a dragon he wouldn't use his new abilities to get what he wants and you end up with one more problem, it is very easy to assume that you can TP everyone into dragons and everyone will obey you without question)


so your assumption is that the rules told us the value of the materials only, but not the value of the labour as well?

ok. so, do tell: since the books only tell us the cost of raw materials for everything, how much does it cost to buy... well, anything at all.

Ask your DM, I don't know what your DM's world is. This answer applies to everything, I don't pretend to speak to all DMs


anything in the entire rulebook. i mean, i can't buy a sword for the listed cost, because apparently the writers were too stupid to account for the fact that someone has to make it. i guess when i pay my money for the sword, i'm actually just buying the mineral rights to punch my way through the ground with my bare fists so that i can aquire the ore, then build a forge from scratch, smelt the ore, and forge it into a sword. but only enough for one sword, if i want the mineral rights to do that twice, i need to pay double. or alternately i have to pay a bunch extra for people to do all of that as well. i'm not sure how much it costs to pay someone to punch ore out of the ground, or to smelt the ore using only stuff that can be built without a proper set of metal tools, but i'm sure it isn't cheap. heck, when i find a gold coin, i should probably assume that it isn't and actual gold coin because it's probably just a chunk of ore somewhere in the ground which i own the rights to, and has not yet been mined, smelted, or cast into a coin.

So could you please articulate your thoughts better, cause I can't make heads or tails what are you trying to prove here? That somehow the book states that the cost is the actual price forever and ever regardless of what the DM has to say? That no matter the situation or concept or rules or whatever myraid of events that could happen that should affect the price of something then it shouldn't because the PHB is law above all else?



or, alternately, the cost of things in the books already assumes that, where applicable, the labour has been performed and the cost is for a finished product including the cost of the labour required to make the item. if i buy food, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. if i buy armour, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. if i buy a gemstone or diamond powder, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. and if i buy a tuning fork, the cost in the books is the cost of the finished product including labour. because doing it any other way would be so incredibly stupid that it is simply not plausible to believe that anyone is that dumb.


Simple situations I bring to you

The kingdom has put a ban on all weapons and armor, anyone selling or even holding weapons without the proper paperwork gets the full extent of the law on their heads. You could petition and get the proper paperwork (and all the cost that it entails) so that you can get your sword and armor made so the cost of actually getting the sword is increased. Or go to the black market and buy a sword there that might be cheaper or more expensive (at the least buying a sword in the underground keeps it off the radar)

Maybe the iron to make swords is very scarce due to a war that has broken out across the land, you can still buy a sword but it will cost you a premium because of the scarcity of the materials.

Or maybe the people just don't like you, sure they might sell you a sword but expect to pay triple to actually get it. If you don't like that then there is the door and don't come back at all, and if you do expect that same sword embedded in your skull the next time.

It depends on the world and the situation, you can't just take the prices in the PHB as the absolute at all times. If you have a problem with that then I fear you just expect the PHB to trump the DM at all times, the DM is secondary to whatever the PHB brings and whatever feelings the DM might have for the PHB and his world are inconsequential. A DM is forced to put in Dragonborn and Tieflings even if his setting would have neither existing but he is forced because the PHB has them.

[Shaofoo]

I don't think that making the wizard be the only one who can bus the rest of the party around makes him OP. It just makes him slightly less dispensable than most other party members.

Lets face it, if you don't have a wizard in the party, it's only going to be a tiny sidequest in-game to find a natural portal to whatever plane you want to go to, or to find an NPC who will port you for cash. I would love to see a feat like:

Powerful Connections: minumum level:10. You are acquainted with many powerful people, and know how to make it profit you. By trading favors with these people, you can do one of the following: gain 500 GP, Gain assistance from a local lord as though he were under the charm person spell, or find a spellcaster willing to cast a spell equal to half your level. You can only use this ability when you are able to contact a major city, and you can only use this ability once a month.

It's kind of crap, but it lets you play a campaign with no full casters pretty painlessly.

Sounds like a skill check is in order here

[Z3ro]

Yes, 5E is more balanced than 3.X by a long shot. Casters are still OP because they still have reality-altering abilities and martials do not.


I don't think that making the wizard be the only one who can bus the rest of the party around makes him OP.

This sums up my feelings on the matter; while in a story, a wizard who can teleport is much more powerful than a fighter who can't, at the table it makes little difference. If the whole party needs to go, they go. I've never understood how it matters which person got the party to where the action is; they're there!

[SharkForce]

i already said the DM can break wheaton's law.

just because the DM *can* do so, doesn't mean they should. yes, in certain rare circumstances it makes sense for the DM to put a restriction in place.

that doesn't mean that the DM should be actively screwing over the players in a misguided effort to keep things "balanced". balance is important. fun is more important. if your idea of balance is to make sure that not one of a player's abilities work as described by repeatedly screwing them over, then you should not be behind the DM screen, because you are destroying fun, and that is basically the worst thing you can do as a DM.

yes, the DM can change anything they want, with no notice, and can make up whatever BS reason they want to do so.

i'll even give you a pass on it... occasionally. but if this is your grand plan, that the casters should be singled out, targeted, and screwed over repeatedly by the DM (not by monsters that are just trying to fight intelligently by attacking the glass cannon first where possible), then i will get up and walk away, and you can find someone else to play D&D with.

the cost of things in the books is the cost of things in the books. not the cost for raw materials as you have claimed. changing that arbitrarily whenever you feel like it because someone did a bad job of making certain classes is not the solution.

[strangebloke]

Sounds like a skill check is in order here

skill checks require DM arbitration to do cool stuff. This does not. (Although since its homebrew its a moot point.)

[Ralanr]

This sums up my feelings on the matter; while in a story, a wizard who can teleport is much more powerful than a fighter who can't, at the table it makes little difference. If the whole party needs to go, they go. I've never understood how it matters which person got the party to where the action is; they're there!

That is a good point. I think the arguments are more centered around being outshined or just not having much utility.

Which, let's be honest, martials aren't meant to have much out of combat utility. I'd think it'd be fine to have more out of combat utility (like jumping farther than you could before even though you have the same stats) for martials, and maybe a few more buttons (no "I-win" buttons though. Those need to stay dead).

I think magic should have difficulty in simulating what martials can do, which it does in some regards (war cleric extra attacks) and doesn't in others (jump spell vs martial jump. The spell gives x 3 jump distance).

As for feeling overshadowed, I don't. Even when my groups Druid used summon lightning to keep 1/4 of our enemies at bay, I never felt unneeded as my barbarian. In fact some characters would have died without me to save them.

[Magic Myrmidon]

With the whole plane shift fork thing, regardless of money or difficulty to find, the wizard can still handle THAT problem way better than the fighter, because they have tools to obtain the fork. For example, they have a multitude of divination spells to find out where they can obtain a tuning fork. Once they do, they can just teleport to it and take it, whether it's stealing or not, or wish for it (although you probably shouldn't), they could just spend a few minutes charging for spellcasting to get the money needed to buy it, dominate the shopkeeper to get the thing free of charge, maybe just conjure the item into their hands (not sure if there's a spell for that), and all of that is just off the top of my head.

[Shaofoo]

i already said the DM can break wheaton's law.

So if you believe "Making the world as I want it" is the equivalent of "Don't be a male organ" then I believe we have nothing more to comment since it seems that you will not be happy with any D&D game unless the world is to your liking. By this point you should just be the DM and run the show since you will not be happy with any ruling that you do not approve.


just because the DM *can* do so, doesn't mean they should. yes, in certain rare circumstances it makes sense for the DM to put a restriction in place.]that doesn't mean that the DM should be actively screwing over the players in a misguided effort to keep things "balanced". balance is important. fun is more important. if your idea of balance is to make sure that not one of a player's abilities work as described by repeatedly screwing them over, then you should not be behind the DM screen, because you are destroying fun, and that is basically the worst thing you can do as a DM.

Then I can't reason with you if "Not letting you cast Plane Shift" is the equivalent of "screwing over players". Maybe I don't want you to plane hop for my own reasons and I choose to limit my players until the time I deem right if at all. Of course I will say that before you select Planeshift as one of your spells that you might not be able to use it till later but it just seems that you are the unreasonable one and I would just let you have a useless spell.


yes, the DM can change anything they want, with no notice, and can make up whatever BS reason they want to do so.

So you think that all spell components should be available at all times no exceptions? I mean this is a way to limit Wizards in power but it just seems that material components are just extra text that the makers of the game just stuck there and obviously should've been removed, all material components are to be eliminated in your case.



i'll even give you a pass on it... occasionally. but if this is your grand plan, that the casters should be singled out, targeted, and screwed over repeatedly by the DM (not by monsters that are just trying to fight intelligently by attacking the glass cannon first where possible), then i will get up and walk away, and you can find someone else to play D&D with.

Well if me not letting you cast one spell is enough for you to walk away then good luck and see ya later, I sure don't want to play with someone that couldn't cast one spell at the moment, seems very petty.


the cost of things in the books is the cost of things in the books. not the cost for raw materials as you have claimed. changing that arbitrarily whenever you feel like it because someone did a bad job of making certain classes is not the solution.

If you don't like the world then make your own, maybe you will be happier being a DM where you can dictate the rules and you can put in all the spell component stores you want and changes the rules as you wish. You just seem to have a fit because you don't agree with the DM's choices for the world or situation.

FYI I was only talking about limiting forked rods but it just seems that you ran with it and thought that all spell components are banned in your case. But maybe you do act the way you do because of one spel being banned, well so be it.


That is a good point. I think the arguments are more centered around being outshined or just not having much utility.

Which, let's be honest, martials aren't meant to have much out of combat utility. I'd think it'd be fine to have more out of combat utility (like jumping farther than you could before even though you have the same stats) for martials, and maybe a few more buttons (no "I-win" buttons though. Those need to stay dead).

I think magic should have difficulty in simulating what martials can do, which it does in some regards (war cleric extra attacks) and doesn't in others (jump spell vs martial jump. The spell gives x 3 jump distance).

As for feeling overshadowed, I don't. Even when my groups Druid used summon lightning to keep 1/4 of our enemies at bay, I never felt unneeded as my barbarian. In fact some characters would have died without me to save them.


Well there are some things that martials can do that magic can't do as good, most Rogue things magic cannot duplicate or can't do it as well (Knock unlocks stuff but doesn't disarm traps and creates a lot of noise), you can't get information as well with magic than with skill checks. Sure magic might be able to do a lot of stuff that martials can't but it isn't everything, it is just that people only focus on what they can



With the whole plane shift fork thing, regardless of money or difficulty to find, the wizard can still handle THAT problem way better than the fighter, because they have tools to obtain the fork. For example, they have a multitude of divination spells to find out where they can obtain a tuning fork. Once they do, they can just teleport to it and take it, whether it's stealing or not, or wish for it (although you probably shouldn't), they could just spend a few minutes charging for spellcasting to get the money needed to buy it, dominate the shopkeeper to get the thing free of charge, maybe just conjure the item into their hands (not sure if there's a spell for that), and all of that is just off the top of my head.


You are assuming that you can even find a fork by yourself. Even with magic and skills a DM can just prevent you from getting a fork or rather make you really sweat for it. The DM is never under any compulsion to give you a fork, if you get one is because he wants you to and no skill or magic will ever force his hand whenever he doesn't want you to. Even if you were to use a Wish to cast Plane Shift without material components the DM has final say where you end up and he could transport you to an area where you have a deadly encounter while he just shakes his head and says "You never noticed why there aren't any Plane Shifters around? it is because they usually die when they attempt such things". Of course that might be considered a male member move but honestly I would do it if the player constantly badgered for a fork even after several times I told them they weren't getting any forks and after several warnings that the Plane SHift is useless for the moment.

[Waazraath]

Beowulf could swim for something like 3 days straight, and hold his breath for hours on end (as could his opponent in a race, who actually beat him in the swimming competition because he had to stop and fight a sea serpent. in the ocean. with his bare hands).

jack the giant killer was so clever that he could basically anticipate the next move (or several) of even the most cunning giants and consistently tricked them into killing themselves or each other or into traps where he could kill them while they could not fight back.

Hercules could lift the entire world on his shoulders and divert rivers through sheer strength way before the hulking hurler was throwing planetoids at people.

do you need me to go on, or can we agree that there are plenty of "fighters" in western fiction who make action surge and 4 attacks per round look like chump change?

I don't think these examples are too convincing, to be honest. In the first place, lifting the world would be rather game breaking (and the hulking hurler wasn't the epitome of game balance); holding breath for hours wouldn't be game breaking, but not very usefull either (because team game). No reason not to include it though. But the bigger point:

Even when a lot is possible, there are always some things that are not. Just because some things aren't it doesn't mean the system is broken. Just like, when there are some spells in the standard 'western fantasy setting' that aren't to be replicated in 5e, that doesn't make 5e magic system 'bad'.

Look at the stuff that is possible for martials: flying, teleporting, invisibility, regeneration, healing others by touch, fast moving, far jumping, 'fists of fire' (air, water) etc. etc. And you can describe action surge and 4 attacks as something really lame, but you could also describe it as a fighter moving 8 times faster then normal people, actually being the blur of speed hardly anybody can see.

If you look at DBZ, the above covers quite a lot, within the power limits of the game. The problem of covering more (flight at will, making craters by hitting with a fist, etc.) would disrupt the game too much. You don't want characters to destroy castles and cities with a single punch, nor have 'em lift mountains. Why seems obvious to me. In one of the earlier series of DBZ (Frieza saga) the main villain is strong enough to destroy a planet... and the martial super hero beats him, after that. Can make a nice tv-episode (or a 100, as we talk DBZ), but imo it simply doesn't fit in D&D.

At least, litterally. Because the system does allow that kind of 'feel', again, imo.

*edit for spelling*

[Ralanr]

Goku just might be a muscle wizard.

[djreynolds]

No one is going it alone, are they? Wizards, bards, and clerics love to buff team members. It is about team work. Your wizard can cast stone skin or haste on anyone, but its best served on their tanks. Your powers are there, but in the form of teamwork.

And the bad guys have their minions and meat shields. Unless the wizard is a complete ahole, he'll remember who got him to that level of power. He'll craft magic swords and armor for fighters and gadgets for rogues.

[SharkForce]

buffing is dead. I can buff one fighter, or prevent multiple enemies from acting or being effective. the vast majority of the time, I'm not going to buff anyone unless it does not require concentration. the fact that hasting you prevents me from being able to fear a group of enemies in a dead-end room, or webbing a bunch of strength-based melee characters, or from throwing hypnotic pattern on a group of weak-willed enemies, means that the only buffs you're getting most of the time will come from me debuffing enemies (for example, web restrains a target, which helps you hit them).

I understand *why* they introduced concentration. it certainly provides a greater weak point for casters and prevents buff stacking in normal situations. but it also prevents me from buffing and CCing at the same time. if you want haste on anything like a regular basis, you'd best be an arcane trickster or eldritch knight. otherwise, well, haste is something i'll keep handy in case we meet a rakshasa or something like that.

[KnightOfV]

I don't really understand why people want martials to have the same utility as casters. D&D has always had a killing machine/meat shield, a skill monkey/secondary fighter, a squishy utility magic guy, and a tough healer/buffer. Some overlap depending on build, but the roles are distinct and clear. If you want utility and the ability to solve specific problems inside or outside of combat, then you go wizard. If you want to hit stuff in the face, and stand next to a dragon without immediately dying, you play a fighter. Different roles, different playstyles.

YES the wizard can do reality warping awesome spells that fix problems no one else can- its their shtick. But if you only have casters, what do you do when you need to defend against an ambush? Or walk through a trap heavy dungeon? Who stands on the front lines and blocks chokepoints? I don't WANT my Paladin to fly (though a griffon mount would be awesome), or my fighters to teleport. I want them to fight.

Now I'm cool with monks shooting fireballs or teleporting or holding their breath for days, because they sacrifice tanking and killing to get that utility.

Martials failed in 3.5 because casters were better killing machines/tanks then them at higher levels. Casters could take the killing machine role and do it better. I just don't think that's the case anymore. Everyone has a role, and does it well. Of course only the wizard can plane shift, or melt walls or whatever. From what I've seen and heard, within 5th edition, martials tear it up in combat... just like they were meant to do.

Is it strange that I like that the fighter is "mundane" at higher levels? As long as he can continue to kill threats, a 'normal' guy that is super hard to kill and is instant death to anything that gets close is exactly my type of character.

If you want everyone with the same balanced utility capabilities, limited to the same tools and spells, then 4th edition is probably what you want.

[Ralanr]

One example (because honestly I just want to post it and see how people think about it): a level 20 caster with meteor storm can end or severely hinder an army. A level 20 martial will get swarmed.

Whether this is an often problem in a campaign however is debatable. I doubt a GM would want to run a whole enemy army and calculate all the damage. (Yes I am very literal).

Edit: 5e is not 3.5. It's something we need to remember. Only on these forums do I start thinking casters are overpowered and overshadow martials. I've felt none of that in gameplay, and I almost always play martials.

[strangebloke]

One example (because honestly I just want to post it and see how people think about it): a level 20 caster with meteor storm can end or severely hinder an army. A level 20 martial will get swarmed.

Whether this is an often problem in a campaign however is debatable. I doubt a GM would want to run a whole enemy army and calculate all the damage. (Yes I am very literal).

Depends on the martial. A champion fighting from a choke point would probably be able to slaughter the army, unless your DM uses very ungracious mass archer rules. A low level bear-totem barbarian with heavy armor mastery would probably be fine as well, assuming an army of mooks. But that's beside the point.

I don't think utility is the word people want to use. I think the better comparison here is power versus stamina. Most of a Wizard's class features (aka spells) express power very quickly, but are also highly finite. 90% of a fighter's class features (aka his extra attacks, Stat boosts, and feats) are essentially infinite, but simply don't express power as quickly or as efficiently as, say, a ninth-level spell. Same for Rogue skill checks.

Utility doesn't really factor in. There are things Wizards can do that martials can't do efficiently. (plane shift) There are things that martials can do that wizards can't do efficiently. (traps, killing a large number of small encounters throughout a day.)

You just need to actually tax player resources. One big balance difference between 3.5 and 5 is that you actually CAN make the wizard run out of spells.

These Wuxia-style abilities we're proposing, they're not about balance. They're about making a martial feel more thematically appropriate.

[KnightOfV]

Personally, I'm fine with that. The way Order of the Stick fought armies (in Azure City, and more recently Tarquin's) were what I would expect in a game. V's utility was turning the tide of the war with combat buffs and AOEs, while Roy drew attention to himself, protected allies, and allowed the enemy to focus (ineffectively) on him while he cut them down several at a time.

While the level 20 caster uses Meteor Swarm to wreck all the foot soldiers in an army, I'd expect the level 20 fighter to tackle whatever Cave Trolls, high level champions, dragons, or whatever that survive that magic and try to charge the caster.

[Ralanr]

Personally, I'm fine with that. The way Order of the Stick fought armies (in Azure City, and more recently Tarquin's) were what I would expect in a game. V's utility was turning the tide of the war with combat buffs and AOEs, while Roy drew attention to himself, protected allies, and allowed the enemy to focus (ineffectively) on him while he cut them down several at a time.

While the level 20 caster uses Meteor Swarm to wreck all the foot soldiers in an army, I'd expect the level 20 fighter to tackle whatever Cave Trolls, high level champions, dragons, or whatever that survive that magic and try to charge the caster.

Yes, thank you.

People should apply clark's second law when playing martials. You'll find a surprisingly amount of useful things you can do with creativity. It may not be 100% what you want, but sometimes getting what you want isn't what people want or need.

Roy is an example of a good martial player in my mind. He knows his resources and works with them to surprising effectiveness.

[GiantOctopodes]

It's nice to hear table experience once and a while. Could always use more.

My experience is this:

Playing as a Halfling Rogue at a table with a DM who absolutely seems to hate stealth, my character was routinely detected by, well, just about everything as he fumbled around in the dark, the opposite of the stealthy character I was hoping for. He would be walking through a dark cave, and despite his 20+ stealth result would be "brushing against cobwebs" which resulted in the Giant Spiders being instantly alerted to his location. His ability to hide behind creatures of medium or larger size does exactly nothing, since per the DM's logic, they still know exactly where he is, and moving from there to another hiding location puts him out in plain sight (apparently all creatures are perpetually staring at his last known location, ignoring everything else around them as they wait for him to reappear). He was infiltrating a place and was perched on the ceiling with a 25+ check result (pass without trace) and the person passing below him still arbitrarily looked up and spotted him (come on now, who looks up?). Basically, for what I wanted him for, he was useless.

On top of that, he was uninteresting in combat. Woohoo, I make my 1 attack per round, and use my bonus action to dash, disengage, or make another attack (since hiding is useless). What a plethora of options. I had originally envisioned him fighting like an Assassin from Assassin's Creed, but smoke bombs are nearly impossible to come by and stealth is impossible in combat, so that's right out.

Now, I had discussed with my DM trading in the Rogue subclass for the Monk way of the Shadow subclass. Once those things finally came online, the difference was remarkable. With the bonus action teleport, enemies can't maintain a line of sight, and I can go from hiding place to hiding place, allowing for actual stealth to occur. With Darkvision, my character is no longer the only one in the party who can't see in the dark. With Minor Illusion, I have an endless array of options, including creating my own cover to hide within. Sure, some of the options still don't matter (darkness is basically ignored by the DM, enemies automagically know where I am within it and since advantage and disadvantage cancel out, it is exactly the same as if it wasn't there, and Pass Without Trace does nothing as stealth check results don't seem to matter whatsoever), but even with only 2 cool at will abilities (the bonus action teleport and minor illusion), suddenly my character feels way more complete. Now all I need is a 2 level dip in Warlock at some point so I can grab Mask of Many Faces and Devil's Sight, and suddenly I'll be able to play my character the way I originally envisioned him.

My main point is that if all you want to do is attack things, sure, martials are absolutely fine. However, for skills in particular and much of martial's abilities, it's all reliant on DM discretion. Spells, on the other hand, along with most abilities given to casters, just work, and do exactly as described on the tin. For that reason, and that reason alone, I prefer them.

In terms of the original point, I agree that martials could use more at will abilities which expand their options. Warlock invocations are a great example of abilities done well, and even just a few of them can really make a character shine. The burrow ability mentioned earlier is a great example of something I could really get behind. I also agree that it should not be more feat options, that's too high of a tax. Depending on the strength of the class, I'd rather just give them away or trade existing features for them.

[Ralanr]

Removing brutal criticals from barbarians would be nice. That's the first ability I'd exchange.

I'm not a fan of abilities that only come on in rare situations. I like both passive and active powers, but not crit based ones built into a class. Though I'm fine with champion oddly enough.

I can see the issue with DM fiat and martials. Your DM doesn't sound like a good one or a fun one.

[SharkForce]

martials are really good at combat. so are casters (just in a different way, mostly; even DPR can be handled by casters if they so desire, though at the expense of their control or costing a lot of resources typically).

casters are really good out of combat. martials... well, they aren't completely incompetent, but nowhere near as close as casters are in-combat.

that's where the problem lies. martials don't need to equal casters in out of combat utility. but the difference should not be that large. or, alternately, the difference between casters and martials in combat should be larger in favour of martials, but the brand has pretty much made that not an option.

[Shaofoo]

martials are really good at combat. so are casters (just in a different way, mostly; even DPR can be handled by casters if they so desire, though at the expense of their control or costing a lot of resources typically).

casters are really good out of combat. martials... well, they aren't completely incompetent, but nowhere near as close as casters are in-combat.

that's where the problem lies. martials don't need to equal casters in out of combat utility. but the difference should not be that large. or, alternately, the difference between casters and martials in combat should be larger in favour of martials, but the brand has pretty much made that not an option.

It seems less that martials aren't as good as casters and more the DM or the players just doesn't use skill checks enough. You are expected to use skill checks to solve some problems, if the DM doesn't want you to use skill checks or the players don't want to then that isn't a problem with the system. It is your loss if you choose to ignore a part of the game.

And like I said before, it seems a lot of the casters > martials feelings stem from wizards living in the 5MWD, people seem to say that wizards can do A and B and C and D instead of saying Wizards can do A or B or C or D and only the one. Casters can do a lot more but they are forced to do only a limited amount, there is no limit to how you can use skills save for the appropriateness of the situation to use said skill.

[SharkForce]

casters have skill proficiencies and other class features, too.

most martials have only skill proficiencies (with the occasional class feature that mostly just adds to skills)

and while your resources are desperately stretched at low levels, they get a lot less tight at high levels.

[Shaofoo]

casters have skill proficiencies and other class features, too.

Sure they have proficiencies with skills and other class features, but will they overlap? Can you expect the Wizard to somehow get Stealth and Acrobatics? Sure you can have a Wizard with those skills but this doesn't negate that martials also get them and that skills are an often underused and even ignored part of the game.


most martials have only skill proficiencies (with the occasional class feature that mostly just adds to skills)

And other class features as well that they can use that do more than just add skills, funny how you seem to say that casters get class features yet martials only get skills and nothing else, as if things like Rage, Cunning Action or Empty Body and the like don't exist.


and while your resources are desperately stretched at low levels, they get a lot less tight at high levels.

Not really, unless you plan on only using the low level spells for the rest of your game. High level spells that people love to reference require high level slots, those slots can only be recovered with rest, no class can give you more 6-9th level slots. Sure lower level slots will be plentiful and able to be thrown around but I kinda always hear teleport and true Polymorph as the example to hold the wizard to, not Clairvoyance and Knock.

So your resources are as stretched as the abilities that you wish to do, use high level abilites and you waste more resources and can't do them as much.

[SharkForce]

why couldn't a wizard have stealth and acrobatics (not that i've ever noticed a particularly dire need for acrobatics in out-of-combat situations... good for avoiding grapples, not so good for persuading the local lord to aid you in your quest or for getting into the evil cult's meeting unless they were looking to hire entertainment). the same background rules that let warriors have persuasion and history let wizards know stealth and acrobatics, if that's what they want.

rage, cunning action, empty body, and the like are combat abilities for the most part. your ability to hide as a free action only matters when you're tracking actions (ie combat). the only non-combat action rage helps with is strength checks, which generally speaking you don't need to succeed on the first try outside of combat. empty body at least makes you invisible... but you still need successful stealth checks to hide.

high level spells are great. so are lots of low and mid-level spells. when i talk about casters, i spend lots of time talking about web, hypnotic pattern, entangle, conjure animals, phantasmal force fear, etc, and i've noticed most cleric discussions revolve around level 2-3 spells as well (sometimes in higher level spell slots for added effect). i likewise find spells like wall of force, bigby's hand, banishment, confusion, etc coming up quite often, which you can get several uses of at very high levels. certainly, level 6+ spells come up as well (sunray, mass suggestion, forcecage, simulacrum, etc), but often as not i like to use those high level spell slots as long-term investments. i'm far more likely to suggest using a level 9 spell slot for wish to duplicate a high-cost spell with a lasting impact (simulacrum, planar binding) or to true polymorph something into a minion for an extended period (ideally following up with planar binding in a level 8 slot or something like that) than i am to suggest using it for meteor swarm or gate.

[Ralanr]

why couldn't a wizard have stealth and acrobatics (not that i've ever noticed a particularly dire need for acrobatics in out-of-combat situations... good for avoiding grapples, not so good for persuading the local lord to aid you in your quest or for getting into the evil cult's meeting unless they were looking to hire entertainment). the same background rules that let warriors have persuasion and history let wizards know stealth and acrobatics, if that's what they want.

rage, cunning action, empty body, and the like are combat abilities for the most part. your ability to hide as a free action only matters when you're tracking actions (ie combat). the only non-combat action rage helps with is strength checks, which generally speaking you don't need to succeed on the first try outside of combat. empty body at least makes you invisible... but you still need successful stealth checks to hide.

high level spells are great. so are lots of low and mid-level spells. when i talk about casters, i spend lots of time talking about web, hypnotic pattern, entangle, conjure animals, phantasmal force fear, etc, and i've noticed most cleric discussions revolve around level 2-3 spells as well (sometimes in higher level spell slots for added effect). i likewise find spells like wall of force, bigby's hand, banishment, confusion, etc coming up quite often, which you can get several uses of at very high levels. certainly, level 6+ spells come up as well (sunray, mass suggestion, forcecage, simulacrum, etc), but often as not i like to use those high level spell slots as long-term investments. i'm far more likely to suggest using a level 9 spell slot for wish to duplicate a high-cost spell with a lasting impact (simulacrum, planar binding) or to true polymorph something into a minion for an extended period (ideally following up with planar binding in a level 8 slot or something like that) than i am to suggest using it for meteor swarm or gate.


Jump is a personal bane of mine. It's a nice level 2 spell, but I'm a little annoyed that a wizard with 8 strength can jump farther than a guy with 20 (maybe 24, AFB) all with the use of a spell.

I'm fine with having spells that simulate basic things like jumping and lock picking, but I'd rather they be poor in replicating those effects compared to people who practice them (lock picking probably gets away with this, and I can't imagine the art of jumping is a truly common thing to practice. But my point still remains that low level spells can replicate these things too well).

The question shouldn't be, "What wizard/caster would waste a slot/spell known on jump?" rather it should be, "Why is jump a thing and better than trying hard?"

Maybe I'm of the type that thinks magic shouldn't be able to do some things better than others.

[Arial Black]

A low level bear-totem barbarian with heavy armor mastery would probably be fine as well,

IIRC, you can't Rage in heavy armour, and must be wearing armour to benefit from Heavy Armour Mastery. Not sure how you could use both at the same time.

[Shaofoo]

why couldn't a wizard have stealth and acrobatics (not that i've ever noticed a particularly dire need for acrobatics in out-of-combat situations... good for avoiding grapples, not so good for persuading the local lord to aid you in your quest or for getting into the evil cult's meeting unless they were looking to hire entertainment). the same background rules that let warriors have persuasion and history let wizards know stealth and acrobatics, if that's what they want.

My point is that Wizards can't cover all the bases even with skills on them.


rage, cunning action, empty body, and the like are combat abilities for the most part. your ability to hide as a free action only matters when you're tracking actions (ie combat).]he only non-combat action rage helps with is strength checks, which generally speaking you don't need to succeed on the first try outside of combat. empty body at least makes you invisible... but you still need successful stealth checks to hide.

Cunning Action lets you do more than what others could which could mean the difference in time critical points, just cause you aren't in combat doesn't mean you have all the time in the world. Being dismissive of Rage's benefits doesn't also negate that it could be useful outside of combat. And if you are being dismissive of empty body then I hope you are also dismissive of Invisibility on Wizard as well.


high level spells are great. so are lots of low and mid-level spells. when i talk about casters, i spend lots of time talking about web, hypnotic pattern, entangle, conjure animals, phantasmal force fear, etc, and i've noticed most cleric discussions revolve around level 2-3 spells as well (sometimes in higher level spell slots for added effect). i likewise find spells like wall of force, bigby's hand, banishment, confusion, etc coming up quite often, which you can get several uses of at very high levels. certainly, level 6+ spells come up as well (sunray, mass suggestion, forcecage, simulacrum, etc), but often as not i like to use those high level spell slots as long-term investments. i'm far more likely to suggest using a level 9 spell slot for wish to duplicate a high-cost spell with a lasting impact (simulacrum, planar binding) or to true polymorph something into a minion for an extended period (ideally following up with planar binding in a level 8 slot or something like that) than i am to suggest using it for meteor swarm or gate.

Slots are still limited and you can only do so much per day that if the first response for your group is cast a spell on it you will run out. Sure you could just summon your mansion but you are still limited to one long rest per day and even if you could maybe you can't be wasting 8 hours at a time because the mission will otherwise fail. It is impossible for one wizard to cover all the bases at all times.

[Warwick]

Cunning Action lets you do more than what others could which could mean the difference in time critical points, just cause you aren't in combat doesn't mean you have all the time in the world.

Cunning Action gives you a bonus action in combat that can be used for some very specific things. It's not a general-purpose do-everything-faster ability. If you're not in combat, it only does anything if you can talk the GM into it.


You are expected to use skill checks to solve some problems, if the DM doesn't want you to use skill checks or the players don't want to then that isn't a problem with the system. It is your loss if you choose to ignore a part of the game.

The skill system is extremely nebulous with what skills can actually do in many cases (e.g. outside of evading grapple, it's not clear acrobatics does anything useful; investigate is either a niche perception check or a roll-to-advance the plot skill, depending on how you interpret it), skills are fairly narrow where they are well-defined (there are seriously three different 'talking to people' skills) and if your GM abides by the difficulty DCs in the PHB, characters without expertise will fail skillchecks quite frequently. Spells may cost resources, but they are well-defined, far more reliable, and unlikely to be smacked with the 'teh realizms' bat. Nor do martial characters actually have an advantage in skills aside from the Rogue.

[Waazraath]

why couldn't a wizard have stealth and acrobatics (not that i've ever noticed a particularly dire need for acrobatics in out-of-combat situations... good for avoiding grapples, not so good for persuading the local lord to aid you in your quest or for getting into the evil cult's meeting unless they were looking to hire entertainment). the same background rules that let warriors have persuasion and history let wizards know stealth and acrobatics, if that's what they want.


Except that a wizard (or sorcerer, or cleric) will usually lack the ability scores needed; great that they have stealth and acrobatics, but the rogue (with expertise!), ranger and monk are dex focussed and will perform better. A caster will max the casting stat first, and only then focus on both dex and con. Dex based martials have their highest priority maxing dex.

[EvilAnagram]

outside of evading grapple, it's not clear acrobatics does anything useful;
It's one of the most consistently used skills in the game. In the past week I've used it to prevent falling damage, dodge falling objects, catch falling explosives, and infiltrate a tower. It's extremely common to use acrobatics quite often. Any time your footing is shaky, Acrobatics.


skills are fairly narrow where they are well-defined (there are seriously three different 'talking to people' skills)
And if you don't pump those skills, you're terrible at it.


and if your GM abides by the difficulty DCs in the PHB, characters without expertise will fail skillchecks quite frequently.
Not really. At level four, a player will succeed at a moderately difficult task 60% of the time. At level 10, they'll succeed 75% of the time. At level 20, 85% of the time. If they get advantage, those percentages rise considerably. Also, bards and rogues get expertise, which means success 100% of the time at moderately difficult tasks by level 20.


Spells may cost resources, but they are well-defined, far more reliable, and unlikely to be smacked with the 'teh realizms' bat. Nor do martial characters actually have an advantage in skills aside from the Rogue.
Rangers, Monks, Fighters, and Barbarians all get specific advantages outside of spellcasting that aid in their ability to explore the world around them. Sometimes this involves skills. Sometimes it involves providing extra information about the world or special abilities unique to the class. Get over it.

[SharkForce]

Except that a wizard (or sorcerer, or cleric) will usually lack the ability scores needed; great that they have stealth and acrobatics, but the rogue (with expertise!), ranger and monk are dex focussed and will perform better. A caster will max the casting stat first, and only then focus on both dex and con. Dex based martials have their highest priority maxing dex.

yup, and it's likely worth anywhere from 1-3 points for the most part if they make a decent starting investment in dex.

though of course, this makes a rather odd assumption that dex-based skills are the only ones where it is beneficial to have a good skill check. i could just as easily argue that your fighter will be bumbling around like an idiot trying to recognize a monster, spot an ambush, or avoid embarassing himself at a high society ball, seeing as how there are intelligence, wisdom, and charisma-based skills. and yet, generally speaking, proficiency in those skills seems to still be something you can get and benefit from on a fighter according to most people. not sure why it is magically supposed to be a crippling vulnerability for a wizard to have "only" 14 dex or so when a fighter in the same situation regarding social skills is considered to be useful.

the simple fact is, everyone has access to the skill system. it isn't an advantage to a class unless that class has some form of superior access (for example, getting double proficiency or being able to add bardic inspiration or never rolling below 10). you can certainly make the argument that rogues are better at using skills and thus have a definite edge over others in skill use. that isn't really particularly the case for most other classes.

[Ralanr]

I think fighter is the only martial class that doesn't gain some sort of bonus to their proficiencies or saves.

Edit: would indomitable count? I more so mean within the base class rather than a subclass.

[ZenBear]

It's one of the most consistently used skills in the game. In the past week I've used it to prevent falling damage, dodge falling objects, catch falling explosives, and infiltrate a tower. It's extremely common to use acrobatics quite often. Any time your footing is shaky, Acrobatics.


And if you don't pump those skills, you're terrible at it.


Not really. At level four, a player will succeed at a moderately difficult task 60% of the time. At level 10, they'll succeed 75% of the time. At level 20, 85% of the time. If they get advantage, those percentages rise considerably. Also, bards and rogues get expertise, which means success 100% of the time at moderately difficult tasks by level 20.


Rangers, Monks, Fighters, and Barbarians all get specific advantages outside of spellcasting that aid in their ability to explore the world around them. Sometimes this involves skills. Sometimes it involves providing extra information about the world or special abilities unique to the class. Get over it.

A 60%, 85%, even "100%" success rate will still see regular failure. Ask any player and you will hear tales of the dreaded Natural 1, or rolling 2-9 and failing an all-important check that their unskilled companion succeeds with a 15-20. Skills are not reliable in the same way spells are.

Wizards have skills, Fighters have skills. Wizards have class features, Fighters have class features. Wizards have spells, only one subclass of Fighter has a very limited supply of combat spells.

Fighters/Barbarians are supposed to be the masters of combat, but casters have a plethora of combat spells and cantrips to match them. Rogues are supposed to be the masters of skills, but casters have spells to circumvent skill checks (locked door? Passwall) and Bards have Expertise too. Casters are the masters of utility, martials have nothing that even comes close. If casters fit their niche in the party without matching/outshining the martials in theirs I would be fine with it. That's not the case.

[Waazraath]

yup, and it's likely worth anywhere from 1-3 points for the most part if they make a decent starting investment in dex.

though of course, this makes a rather odd assumption that dex-based skills are the only ones where it is beneficial to have a good skill check. i could just as easily argue that your fighter will be bumbling around like an idiot trying to recognize a monster, spot an ambush, or avoid embarassing himself at a high society ball, seeing as how there are intelligence, wisdom, and charisma-based skills. and yet, generally speaking, proficiency in those skills seems to still be something you can get and benefit from on a fighter according to most people. not sure why it is magically supposed to be a crippling vulnerability for a wizard to have "only" 14 dex or so when a fighter in the same situation regarding social skills is considered to be useful.

the simple fact is, everyone has access to the skill system. it isn't an advantage to a class unless that class has some form of superior access (for example, getting double proficiency or being able to add bardic inspiration or never rolling below 10). you can certainly make the argument that rogues are better at using skills and thus have a definite edge over others in skill use. that isn't really particularly the case for most other classes.

Strange, you read assumptions that aren't made by me. And 'my fighter'? Which fighter of mine?

Nevertheless: of course casters also have skills, and probably different ones, in which they will be better then other classes (clerics more wis skills, wizards int skills, sorcerers cha skills)... and that's only good, cause casting classes also need the utility of skills when they haven't prepared or selected an appropriate spell for a situation, and because the rather limited spell slots of this edition. Barring the bard and the knowledge cleric, martials are generally better in this aspect, ranger with an extra skill and bonusses from terrain / fav enemy, rogue is obvious, champion fighter with half proficiency to non-proficient physical skills, etc.

[Shaofoo]

A 60%, 85%, even "100%" success rate will still see regular failure. Ask any player and you will hear tales of the dreaded Natural 1, or rolling 2-9 and failing an all-important check that their unskilled companion succeeds with a 15-20. Skills are not reliable in the same way spells are.

Spells aren't also reliable either, you must still make attack rolls and the enemies will have to make saving throws for some spells to stick. Also how does 100% still see regular failure, considering that you don't fail on a natural 1, or are you saying that the DM is just autofailing the characters because all DMs hate skills.

Everyone fails at some point, spells do not change that fact.


Wizards have skills, Fighters have skills. Wizards have class features, Fighters have class features. Wizards have spells, only one subclass of Fighter has a very limited supply of combat spells.

Fighters also have 2 more ASIs that Wizards, more profiencies with weapons and armor than Wizards and more HP and Fighters can choose from a more robust skill list for their proficiency than Wizards (granted Wizards have proficiencies that Fighters can't get but it is all moot since backgrounds can get you any skill anyway). Plus if you want to play someone that doesn't cast spells then saying Wizards have spells is only a deal breaker for them.


Fighters/Barbarians are supposed to be the masters of combat, but casters have a plethora of combat spells and cantrips to match them.

Real math and testing disagrees with you, Cantrips cannot hope to match the damage of normal weapon attacks. Even Eldritch Blast can only match the damage of ranged attacks. You will have to be an Evocation Wizard or a Dragon Sorcerer to be able to get high damage by casting cantrips. And this disparity just goes further when you introduce magic weapons into the foray. And sure you can have the big flashy spells for damage but then you will have to choose between damage and utility for your slots since you have a limited amount of those, you can't keep up with casting spells forever.


Rogues are supposed to be the masters of skills, but casters have spells to circumvent skill checks (locked door? Passwall)

Good job, you just wasted a 5th level slot on something that the Rogue could do for free. This isn't a point for the Wizard if he has to waste his limited resources just to do the same thing that the Rogue could do. Also Rogues can treat rolls of 2-9 as a 10


and Bards have Expertise too.

Well at level 3 while Rogues can get them at level 1. Also Bards can't recover spell slots like most other spell casters so such expertise in skills comes with a hidden opportunity cost. Of course I like Bards a lot but they can't replace Rogues (mostly because they sing and you can't be sneaky playing a song)


Casters are the masters of utility, martials have nothing that even comes close. If casters fit their niche in the party without matching/outshining the martials in theirs I would be fine with it. That's not the case.

People have posted their experiences where wizards don't dominate the playing field. It seems that this sentiment is either caused by bad players/DMs or just a carry over from previous editions. Most Wizards seem to understand that if you can do something without burning spell slots then it is probably better for others to do it, and just because you have an idea doesn't mean that others don't. The Passwall example, maybe the Barbarian could also just smash the door in as well and that is also free.

I would think a Wizard that blows his spells at the first chance to show off and only later end up with no slots when it actually matters will probably not be liked by the group. It is probably best to also talk to your group about how they feel about you casting spells in a certain situation.

I mean has there been any games that takes an official module from WotC and a single (or pair) of Wizards could finish with a happy ending?

[MaxWilson]

I mean has there been any games that takes an official module from WotC and a single (or pair) of Wizards could finish with a happy ending?

That's an interesting challenge. I don't really use modules, so I don't have a suggestion there other than the atrocious Rise of Tiamat book. Still, if I were trying to play through Rise of Tiamat as a solo wizard, I'd probably I'd probably try a summoner with Inspiring Leader. Early on, lean on Stealth, Expeditious Retreat, Disguise Self, and Chill Touch/Fire Bolt to try to take down enough enemies to grind up to Necromancer 6, which is the point where the dragonkilling strategy starts to take off.

Leverage skeletons with short bows and Mage Armored air elementals to kill dragons. Cast Seeming to look like something other than a skeleton archer army, maybe a squad of kobolds. Loot their hoards for gems to cast Planar Binding for more air elementals. Occasionally Finger of Death a humanoid to get more meat shields (they're not great against dragons due to melee-only, although I suppose you could give a zombie a javelin or two if you were desperate; but they can help against other creatures in the module). The goal is to have 50+ long-term air elementals by endgame, which should be enough to crush all opposition inside Tiamat's lair, reducing Tiamat's stats to the point where she can be hurt by nonmagical weapons, at which point your Simulacrum casts Otto's Irresistible Dance on her while your (Inspired) Air Elemental conga line englobes her and inflicts 295 points of damage on her per round (due to advantage) and your 80-odd skeleton archers shoot her for another 66. It's race to see how many air elementals she can wipe out with breath weapons before she dies, and if she wipes them out fast enough then you die instead (or cast Maze + Teleport to retreat). Other factors like Frightful Presence can complicate the equation (try to pre-inoculate your elementals by exposing them to her presence, then Wall of Force/scattering and running away until it wears off).

I honestly think you'd still die because Tiamat at full stats is the best anti-mage monster in the whole published game, but I also think you could get to that point just fine as a solo wizard. You'd be raking in tons of XP because you're solo so you get access to high-level spells sooner, maybe even some epic boons.

(I might be wrong about Tiamat squishing you at the end, because I don't remember exactly much she is impaired by disrupting the various rituals. If she ever loses resistance to non-magical weapons, or several points of AC, she is toast. At AC 22 and no resistance the archers alone would be doing 168 points of damage even from long range, once Otto's is taken into account. The 50 air elementals would do 535.)

[ZenBear]

Spells aren't also reliable either, you must still make attack rolls and the enemies will have to make saving throws for some spells to stick. Also how does 100% still see regular failure, considering that you don't fail on a natural 1, or are you saying that the DM is just autofailing the characters because all DMs hate skills.

Everyone fails at some point, spells do not change that fact.



Fighters also have 2 more ASIs that Wizards, more profiencies with weapons and armor than Wizards and more HP and Fighters can choose from a more robust skill list for their proficiency than Wizards (granted Wizards have proficiencies that Fighters can't get but it is all moot since backgrounds can get you any skill anyway). Plus if you want to play someone that doesn't cast spells then saying Wizards have spells is only a deal breaker for them.



Real math and testing disagrees with you, Cantrips cannot hope to match the damage of normal weapon attacks. Even Eldritch Blast can only match the damage of ranged attacks. You will have to be an Evocation Wizard or a Dragon Sorcerer to be able to get high damage by casting cantrips. And this disparity just goes further when you introduce magic weapons into the foray. And sure you can have the big flashy spells for damage but then you will have to choose between damage and utility for your slots since you have a limited amount of those, you can't keep up with casting spells forever.



Good job, you just wasted a 5th level slot on something that the Rogue could do for free. This isn't a point for the Wizard if he has to waste his limited resources just to do the same thing that the Rogue could do. Also Rogues can treat rolls of 2-9 as a 10



Well at level 3 while Rogues can get them at level 1. Also Bards can't recover spell slots like most other spell casters so such expertise in skills comes with a hidden opportunity cost. Of course I like Bards a lot but they can't replace Rogues (mostly because they sing and you can't be sneaky playing a song)



People have posted their experiences where wizards don't dominate the playing field. It seems that this sentiment is either caused by bad players/DMs or just a carry over from previous editions. Most Wizards seem to understand that if you can do something without burning spell slots then it is probably better for others to do it, and just because you have an idea doesn't mean that others don't. The Passwall example, maybe the Barbarian could also just smash the door in as well and that is also free.

I would think a Wizard that blows his spells at the first chance to show off and only later end up with no slots when it actually matters will probably not be liked by the group. It is probably best to also talk to your group about how they feel about you casting spells in a certain situation.

I mean has there been any games that takes an official module from WotC and a single (or pair) of Wizards could finish with a happy ending?

Passwall gets you through the locked door that can't be picked because the DC is too high but Passwall works without a roll. There are a lot of spells that don't require rolls, they just work.

Yes, martial attacks do more damage than cantrips, my point is that spells outshine attacks and cantrips are weaker than attacks but not by a huge margin. The margin between martial and caster utility is a lot more vast.

People still have fun as martials because they are relevant in combat and outside combat tends toward more RP than mechanics. I'm pointing out that there is still imbalance in the rules and it can be improved.

[SharkForce]

if any class can get access to any skill, then why does it matter if fighters have a more robust list or not? if you want a skill, you probably have it, regardless of class. no advantage in either direction. having a maxed attribute in that ability is nice, but not remotely close to being required for it to be useful.

and yes, casters do use skills when they're the best solution (for example, i see no reason for a wizard to use knock on every lock they encounter, only ones that are particularly difficult and need to be picked on the first attempt where alerting enemies is not a problem... which is to say, almost never, because that's a pretty specific scenario. if a wizard wants to open a door, it is recommended that they get proficiency with thieve's tools just like anyone else, and save their spells for when they need them).

edit: also, you're missing my point about fighters entirely. you claimed that not having a maxed attribute in dex was a crippling disadvantage. it is not. it is a disadvantage, yes, but not crippling. not when the fighter uses charisma-based skills (as has been widely acknowledged as being one of the key factors that puts fighters in a better situation than they were in during the 3.x era), not when the wizard uses dex-based skills (actually, in the case of stealth in particular, the fact that there is a very easily-available +10 buff spell that hits an area means that the 2-3 point difference is relatively even less important, but if we replace stealth with some less-easily-buffed skill we get the same effect). [/edit]

but they still have spells to support them when their skills are not the best use.

and for the love of all that is holy, when will people realize that DPR is not the only measurement of usefulness in combat. control is as powerful if not more powerful as damage. when you prevent an enemy from fighting for a round (or several), it is as good as dealing their full HP for that time period. a wizard in combat can dominate that combat, and they don't have to do it by dealing more damage than a fighter. yes, death is a powerful form of CC (i wouldn't say most powerful, you can reverse "dead" much more easily than you can reverse certain specific other things, but it is certainly much more readily available than those other things typically are). but the problem is that causing death frequently takes multiple actions for a single enemy, while a well-placed control spell can prevent enemies from acting (which is as good as death until it wears off) using a single action to hit several targets, which can do a heck of a lot more to win an encounter than just making an attack action.

finally, why in hell would you need to solo a module to prove that a class is OP? is anything less than being as effective solo as an entire party balanced? just take a group of 4 casters through the module. if they stomp it more easily than a group of 4 non-casters by a significant margin, that's a sign that there's a problem. if they do that in every module, you're starting to develop a pattern that shows serious problems with the system as it exists.

[Shaofoo]

That's an interesting challenge. I don't really use modules, so I don't have a suggestion there other than the atrocious Rise of Tiamat book. Still, if I were trying to play through Rise of Tiamat as a solo wizard, I'd probably I'd probably try a summoner with Inspiring Leader. Early on, lean on Stealth, Expeditious Retreat, Disguise Self, and Chill Touch/Fire Bolt to try to take down enough enemies to grind up to Necromancer 6, which is the point where the dragonkilling strategy starts to take off.

Leverage skeletons with short bows and Mage Armored air elementals to kill dragons. Cast Seeming to look like something other than a skeleton archer army, maybe a squad of kobolds. Loot their hoards for gems to cast Planar Binding for more air elementals. Occasionally Finger of Death a humanoid to get more meat shields (they're not great against dragons due to melee-only, although I suppose you could give a zombie a javelin or two if you were desperate; but they can help against other creatures in the module). The goal is to have 50+ long-term air elementals by endgame, which should be enough to crush all opposition inside Tiamat's lair, reducing Tiamat's stats to the point where she can be hurt by nonmagical weapons, at which point your Simulacrum casts Otto's Irresistible Dance on her while your (Inspired) Air Elemental conga line englobes her and inflicts 295 points of damage on her per round (due to advantage) and your 80-odd skeleton archers shoot her for another 66. It's race to see how many air elementals she can wipe out with breath weapons before she dies, and if she wipes them out fast enough then you die instead (or cast Maze + Teleport to retreat). Other factors like Frightful Presence can complicate the equation (try to pre-inoculate your elementals by exposing them to her presence, then Wall of Force/scattering and running away until it wears off).

I honestly think you'd still die because Tiamat at full stats is the best anti-mage monster in the whole published game, but I also think you could get to that point just fine as a solo wizard. You'd be raking in tons of XP because you're solo so you get access to high-level spells sooner, maybe even some epic boons.

(I might be wrong about Tiamat squishing you at the end, because I don't remember exactly much she is impaired by disrupting the various rituals. If she ever loses resistance to non-magical weapons, or several points of AC, she is toast. At AC 22 and no resistance the archers alone would be doing 168 points of damage even from long range, once Otto's is taken into account. The 50 air elementals would do 535.)

Do you actually count that you are at level at all times? cause it just seems that you basically cheat to the end where you will get all the goodies and not actually grind to get there like a normal person would. Sure you say you grind to Necromancer 6 but then everything is in a haze of stuff that you want, unless you are saying that being a Necromancer 6 is enough to break the game like Pun Pun (Not counting that you cast Planar Binding and that you don't get 5th level slots till level 9). And also this sounds extremely time consuming and that module does have time sensitive events going on.

Sure with enough stuff you could kite out a wizard to dominate everything but I am actually talking about an actual play, not a theoretical what would it take for a Wizard to solo Tiamat.


Passwall gets you through the locked door that can't be picked because the DC is too high but Passwall works without a roll. There are a lot of spells that don't require rolls, they just work.


If the DC for getting through the Locked Door is "Too High Don't Bother" then the door might as well have a slot that says "Insert 5th level spell slot to continue". Also if the DC is set to such then don't be surprised if the door also has an Anti Magic Field on it so you can't Passwall, a DM not pulling his punches will not let you through even with magic.


Yes, martial attacks do more damage than cantrips, my point is that spells outshine attacks and cantrips are weaker than attacks but not by a huge margin.

Martial attacks can normally deal double damage than attack cantrips, mostly because attack cantrips use the lower damage die and can't benefit from bonuses. And if you use your spell slots to attack then you can't use them to utility



People still have fun as martials because they are relevant in combat and outside combat tends toward more RP than mechanics. I'm pointing out that there is still imbalance in the rules and it can be improved.

Seems to me that bad DMs are more of a problem than bad rules, especially when the DM ignores chunks of the PHB

[Ralanr]

Well the rules are not written in stone. DM's are encouraged to make the game fun for everyone, even if they have to ignore certain rules.

If they ignore rules for purposes aside from "fun" (like making your rogue useless) then they are not good DM's in my opinion (and I've fell under this when I've DMed. I'm not good at it).

[ZenBear]

It seems like the main argument against my side is that the DM should change the rules to correct imbalance. My argument is the rules should be refined so that the DM doesn't have to.

[Ralanr]

It seems like the main argument against my side is that the DM should change the rules to correct imbalance. My argument is the rules should be refined so that the DM doesn't have to.

I don't fully disagree with your side of the argument (though I probably sound like it. At this point I feel like I'm fanning the flames). As long as it's not taken to extremes then I'd be ok.

Though I think too many people seem to think that fighter is the normal guy. A friend of mine that I play with thinks the know your enemy ability should belong to every class since it's something a regular adventurer would develop.

We roll insight to figure out enemy hit points as a houserule. I'm not amused.

[Shaofoo]

if any class can get access to any skill, then why does it matter if fighters have a more robust list or not? if you want a skill, you probably have it, regardless of class. no advantage in either direction. having a maxed attribute in that ability is nice, but not remotely close to being required for it to be useful.

Most people would choose skills that their stats will compliment, havint 25% better chance for a skill not to fail is good.


and yes, casters do use skills when they're the best solution (for example, i see no reason for a wizard to use knock on every lock they encounter, only ones that are particularly difficult and need to be picked on the first attempt where alerting enemies is not a problem... which is to say, almost never, because that's a pretty specific scenario. if a wizard wants to open a door, it is recommended that they get proficiency with thieve's tools just like anyone else, and save their spells for when they need them).

I meant that other people use skills so the wizard doesn't have to cast spells but good to know that you expect the wizard to want to get thieves tools proficiency. I mean here I was hoping for other people to have a shot but good to know that Wizards are a one man show.



and for the love of all that is holy, when will people realize that DPR is not the only measurement of usefulness in combat. control is as powerful if not more powerful as damage. when you prevent an enemy from fighting for a round (or several), it is as good as dealing their full HP for that time period.a wizard in combat can dominate that combat, and they don't have to do it by dealing more damage than a fighter. yes, death is a powerful form of CC (i wouldn't say most powerful, you can reverse "dead" much more easily than you can reverse certain specific other things, but it is certainly much more readily available than those other things typically are). but the problem is that causing death frequently takes multiple actions for a single enemy, while a well-placed control spell can prevent enemies from acting (which is as good as death until it wears off) using a single action to hit several targets, which can do a heck of a lot more to win an encounter than just making an attack action.

A good difference why you would want to deal damage than CC is because most CC spells don't have any lasting effects when they make their saving throw where as most attack spells at least let you deal half damage on a save. Also most CC spells require Concentration while attack spells do not. Seems to me that you are oversimplifying the situation to prop up your point. You can't say that CC spells are king of the battlefield when they require your concentration and requires slots and leaves no effects in the chance that it fails.



finally, why in hell would you need to solo a module to prove that a class is OP?

Why should it matter, you presented the Wizard as a superman anyway so such a challenge should be easy to prove. Heck he even have proficiency in thieves tools in your case. I mean you just present the Wizard as being able to replace an entire party, including the rogue.


is anything less than being as effective solo as an entire party balanced? just take a group of 4 casters through the module. if they stomp it more easily than a group of 4 non-casters by a significant margin, that's a sign that there's a problem. if they do that in every module, you're starting to develop a pattern that shows serious problems with the system as it exists.

Well I believe there are official settings where magic is severely limited or magic users are basically hated. But as of yet I haven't heard of a group of casters roflstomping modules into the dust.


It seems like the main argument against my side is that the DM should change the rules to correct imbalance. My argument is the rules should be refined so that the DM doesn't have to.

If the DM doesn't read it then no amount of changing and refining will make the situation better. If what we have now is disregarded what makes you think that switching things around will change his mind? If the DM doesn't want to deal with skill checks then maybe 3.X is more his speed. You are expected to be able to adjudicate DCs on a whim in this edition (and it isn't even hard, just say this thing is Easy, Medium, Hard and they have the numbers for you). If you think that is too much for a DM to deal with then I fear that maybe 5e isn't the kind of game for you.

[GiantOctopodes]

Spells aren't also reliable either, you must still make attack rolls and the enemies will have to make saving throws for some spells to stick. Also how does 100% still see regular failure, considering that you don't fail on a natural 1, or are you saying that the DM is just autofailing the characters because all DMs hate skills.

Everyone fails at some point, spells do not change that fact.


Except spells often have no failure rate whatsoever. Is the DC to pick a lock 30? Can anyone without expertise only ever hope to succeed on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time)? Well, it's a good thing the Wizard knows Knock that 2nd level spell! But wait, it creates a loud noise! Well, Silence, another 2nd level spell, solves that problem just fine, now doesn't it?



Fighters also have 2 more ASIs that Wizards, more profiencies with weapons and armor than Wizards and more HP and Fighters can choose from a more robust skill list for their proficiency than Wizards (granted Wizards have proficiencies that Fighters can't get but it is all moot since backgrounds can get you any skill anyway). Plus if you want to play someone that doesn't cast spells then saying Wizards have spells is only a deal breaker for them.


2 more ASIs are the only compelling thing you listed there. More armor proficiencies don't matter when Mage Armor and Mirror Image provide better protection than any armor could hope to provide (without requiring concentration) and Shield lets the wizard spike up to AC values above anything any other classes can obtain. More weapon proficiencies don't matter when the wizard does not use weapons to attack or do damage. More HP doesn't matter when things like Arcane Ward and Mirror Image (and Armor of Agathys if you have it) provide damage mitigation which readily makes up the difference (fighters start with 4 more HP than wizards and get 2 more per level, so at 20 a fighter has 44 more HP, but Arcane Ward alone provides 45 temp HP, and is able to be recharged). The more robust skill list does not matter when backgrounds can get you any skill anyway.



Real math and testing disagrees with you, Cantrips cannot hope to match the damage of normal weapon attacks. Even Eldritch Blast can only match the damage of ranged attacks. You will have to be an Evocation Wizard or a Dragon Sorcerer to be able to get high damage by casting cantrips. And this disparity just goes further when you introduce magic weapons into the foray. And sure you can have the big flashy spells for damage but then you will have to choose between damage and utility for your slots since you have a limited amount of those, you can't keep up with casting spells forever.


True, cantrips cannot. But let's take Animate Objects as an example. We'll ignore Animate Dead because from a mechanical standpoint it can readily break the game but that's supposed to be balanced by roleplaying considerations. Animate Objects is a benign, temporary combat boost. The objects created by that, assuming you use all tiny creatures, have a total of 200 HP (more than a 20th level fighter with 16 con), have 18 AC (same as a fighter in full plate), have a +8 bonus to hit (1 less than a Fighter of 9th level (when you get the spell) with a 20 in Str), and deal 6.5 damage each, for a total possible damage of 65, or an expected damage against an AC 18 opponent of 35.75. The 9th level fighter against the same opponent using GWM and Polearm Mastery (though now we've assumed 4 ASIs for the fighter at 9th level, but whatever, there are races (human, dwarf, half orc, goliath) where it works) gets 3 attacks with either a 60% hit rate dealing 1d10+5 or a 35% hit rate dealing 1d10+15. The superior option (using GWM) gives them an expected damage per round of 21.525. The thing that's sad about this, though, is that it's the Wizard's bonus action. This damage (which is equal to what the fighter hits on an action surge) is in addition to their cantrips, Admittedly the 9th level Wizard in question is doing the rather piss poor 6.6 expected damage per round, but adding them in puts them at 42.35 damage per round, just a hair less than double the damage the fighter is dealing.

And Animate Objects isn't even a particularly good summons! Conjure Animals, assuming it gives you what you want and the DM does not screw you over, provides 41.4 expected damage against an AC 18 opponent who passes all their saves against poison, uses no actions, and it's available at 5th level! By the time the Druid has a 5th level slot they're getting 16 summoned creatures (enough to encircle enemies and create barriers not present by terrain) and 82.8 expected damage per round against AC 18 opponents (roughly 4x as much damage as a fighter is putting out at that level), and can have summons out for 7 encounters per day (all but 2, even for marathon day style DMs). Meanwhile thanks to Wildshape they're taking on a form (Giant Crocodile) which gets to refresh the Fighter's entire HP pool 2x per short rest, and dealing 22.75 damage per round (more than the fighter) themselves, with an auto grapple thrown in for good measure besides. So to summarize- for one combat encounter per day, they're dealing a total of 5x the expected damage of the fighter, for another 6 per day they're dealing 3x the total damage of the fighter, and for 2 they "only" deal the same damage as the fighter. And they still have all their 1st and 2nd level slots (and ritual casting) to deal with utility concerns.

Now, you may say that all it takes is a fireball to wipe out all those summons, and that's absolutely true, and also to the point! Those 10 animated objects would take the fighter 10 rounds to deal with, 9 if he action surges. He'll be dead after 3 rounds. A Wizard can Fireball them and kill some (dex is their strong save, after all) while leaving the rest severely weakened, doing 200+ damage that turn. Or, much wiser, a Druid can cast Entangle, targeting their weak Str, and can effectively eliminate all of them with a single 1st level spell.



Good job, you just wasted a 5th level slot on something that the Rogue could do for free. This isn't a point for the Wizard if he has to waste his limited resources just to do the same thing that the Rogue could do. Also Rogues can treat rolls of 2-9 as a 10


Well at level 3 while Rogues can get them at level 1. Also Bards can't recover spell slots like most other spell casters so such expertise in skills comes with a hidden opportunity cost. Of course I like Bards a lot but they can't replace Rogues (mostly because they sing and you can't be sneaky playing a song)


Bards have invisibility, greater invisibility, silence, polymorph.... they do just fine at sneaking, thanks. A party with a Bard does not necessarily need a Rogue at all. A Bard may get expertise at 3 instead of 1 (and at 10th instead of 6th), but a Bard also gets more skills (8 instead of 6), gets half proficiency in all skills, and at 14th can add a d10 to an ability, meaning that while they have a lower floor than the Rogue (lacking practiced expertise), they also have a higher ceiling, being able to hit a max of 30+ability+double proficiency. Have someone cast guidance on them, and you're looking at the highest possible skill check results in the game (51).



People have posted their experiences where wizards don't dominate the playing field. It seems that this sentiment is either caused by bad players/DMs or just a carry over from previous editions. Most Wizards seem to understand that if you can do something without burning spell slots then it is probably better for others to do it, and just because you have an idea doesn't mean that others don't. The Passwall example, maybe the Barbarian could also just smash the door in as well and that is also free.

I would think a Wizard that blows his spells at the first chance to show off and only later end up with no slots when it actually matters will probably not be liked by the group. It is probably best to also talk to your group about how they feel about you casting spells in a certain situation.

I mean has there been any games that takes an official module from WotC and a single (or pair) of Wizards could finish with a happy ending?

No, but that's because Wizards have the lowest at will damage of just about any class in the game. A 2 level warlock dip gets that figure higher, but not that much higher (after all, Cha isn't their primary or even secondary focus usually). A pair of Druids I would expect to do just fine. More to the point, a party of a Wizard, a Bard, a Druid, and a Cleric will be absolutely fine in all things. A party of a Champion Fighter, an Assassin Rogue, a Bear Totem Barbarian, and an Open Hand monk will do absolutely fine in combat (though they may struggle against swarms of enemies), but will have far, far less options for how to overcome challenges outside of combat. You don't ever need a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk. You don't ever need a spellcaster either, but it certainly helps to have them.

Edit:


-snip-
If the DC for getting through the Locked Door is "Too High Don't Bother" then the door might as well have a slot that says "Insert 5th level spell slot to continue". Also if the DC is set to such then don't be surprised if the door also has an Anti Magic Field on it so you can't Passwall, a DM not pulling his punches will not let you through even with magic.

I believe they are referring to the door in Rise of Tiamat which requires a DC 70 Str check to open. I firmly believe that is a typo and it's meant to be DC 30, because DC 70 is literally impossible for all players and creatures in the game, and it's not even close! 55 is the absolute highest you could attain, and it would require legendary magic items and a supporting cast to attain it. Even still, the door in question specifically opens with "knock", a 2nd level spell. A DC 30 lock is relatively easy to come by. There is no in game method to have a permanent Anti Magic Field. The DM can always do whatever he wants, but no published adventures have such a thing anywhere in them.

[EvilAnagram]

A 60%, 85%, even "100%" success rate will still see regular failure. Ask any player and you will hear tales of the dreaded Natural 1, or rolling 2-9 and failing an all-important check that their unskilled companion succeeds with a 15-20. Skills are not reliable in the same way spells are.
Nat 1s do not necessarily result in skill check failures by RAW. And if you're a Rogue, you can treat a Nat 1 as a 10 at level 11, which means at level 11 you can complete a moderate task in which you are trained 100% of the time, and you can treat a hard task in which you are trained 100% of the time by level 20.

Also, it's very disingenuous to claim that a 15%, or even 0% chance of failure will "see regular failure." Failing 0% of the time, or even the 5% you would fail if you house-ruled crit fails for skill checks, is not "regular failure."


Wizards have skills, Fighters have skills. Wizards have class features, Fighters have class features. Wizards have spells, only one subclass of Fighter has a very limited supply of combat spells.
That's a silly way of putting things. Spellcasting is a class feature in and of itself, and in the case of casters it is used to increase both the combat and exploration capabilities of the PC. Wizard features tend to revolve around their spells because the spells provide them with almost the entirety of their usefulness.

Fighters tend not to have magic, but their basic features provide them with excellent combat potential so each archetype has one or twp designed specifically around aiding exploration. Champions get a great skill boost with Remarkable Athlete, a pared down Jack of All Trades. Battle Masters get an artisan's tool proficiency and Know Your Enemy. Eldritch Knights get spells. They all provide flavorful abilities for different character concepts. Sure, a well-prepared Wizard will have an edge when it comes to exploration, but a Fighter has the edge in actual combat. There's give and take.


Fighters/Barbarians are supposed to be the masters of combat, but casters have a plethora of combat spells and cantrips to match them.
Point of order, casters tend not to be able to match Fighters or Barbarians in combat, whether in survivability or damage output. Even Onion Druids don't work out as well in practice as a Fighter.


Rogues are supposed to be the masters of skills, but casters have spells to circumvent skill checks (locked door? Passwall) and Bards have Expertise too.
The fact that a Wizard can match a Rogue in his ability to explore the environment does not render the Rogue useless or outdated. A Rogue can pick a lock and infiltrate a building without spending any resources.

And Bards have skill boosts because they have limited spells known compared to other full casters. Even Sorcerers can reliably regenerate slots, which means they'll be able to more regularly use their spells. Bards needed a boost to their exploration potential.


Casters are the masters of utility, martials have nothing that even comes close. If casters fit their niche in the party without matching/outshining the martials in theirs I would be fine with it. That's not the case.
Casters have better utility provided they have prepared for it properly. This is true, to a point. Fighters and Barbarians are certainly more limited in their utility. Rogues and Monks, however have excellent utility. Hell, even the Open Hand Monk can replicate several different spell effects using less limited resources by level 20. And Rogues, as mentioned above, are amazing at their trained skills and pretty damned good at other depending on the archetype.

Of course, the thing about all these classes is that they can consistently deal more damage than a Wizard every round while being more survivable in combat. So while a Wizard is better at utility, he is not better - or even as good - at dealing regular damage to baddies. You can pretend that he is if you really want to, but numbers disagree.

[EvilAnagram]

Except spells often have no failure rate whatsoever. Is the DC to pick a lock 30? Can anyone without expertise only ever hope to succeed on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time)? Well, it's a good thing the Wizard knows Knock that 2nd level spell! But wait, it creates a loud noise! Well, Silence, another 2nd level spell, solves that problem just fine, now doesn't it?
Actually, you can't cast Knock within an area affected by Silence. It's only component is vocal. You can't cast a spell with a vocal component in an area affected by silence.


2 more ASIs are the only compelling thing you listed there. More armor proficiencies don't matter when Mage Armor and Mirror Image provide better protection than any armor could hope to provide (without requiring concentration) and Shield lets the wizard spike up to AC values above anything any other classes can obtain.
I mean, that depends on what your DEX is, doesn't it? Sure, if a Wizard has 20 DEX and casts both Shield and Mage Armor he's at 23 AC for that turn, but you'd have to dump your CON to get it that high, and that's probably not a great idea seeing as its your suggested secondary and needed to make Concentration checks. Plus, the Wizard's HP will be pretty damn low with a d6 and no CON to help him out. Meanwhile, the Fighter and Barbarian don't really have to minmax to have good AC, resist damage, regenerate HP, or have really good HP in general.


More HP doesn't matter when things like Arcane Ward and Mirror Image (and Armor of Agathys if you have it) provide damage mitigation which readily makes up the difference (fighters start with 4 more HP than wizards and get 2 more per level, so at 20 a fighter has 44 more HP, but Arcane Ward alone provides 45 temp HP, and is able to be recharged).
More HP, HP regeneration, no-cost AC, and damage resistance are all available to Fighters and/or Barbarians. Pretending these don't all add up to more survivability is silly.


The more robust skill list does not matter when backgrounds can get you any skill anyway.
It kind of does? It at least doesn't shackle you to specific backgrounds to get the skills you need. Having more options is, by definition, an advantage over not having as many options. Of course, this just helps to mitigate utility disparity.


Animate Objects.
Yeah, that's a pretty neat bit of mid-level cheese. Of course, it has diminishing returns and is easily countered with an AOE. Still, neat cheese.


Conjure Animals
Also something I've found less effective in practice than having a Fighter. This practice was with poisonous snakes and an ogre-orc encounter, mind you.


Now, you may say that all it takes is a fireball to wipe out all those summons, and that's absolutely true, and also to the point! Those 10 animated objects would take the fighter 10 rounds to deal with, 9 if he action surges. He'll be dead after 3 rounds. A Wizard can Fireball them and kill some (dex is their strong save, after all) while leaving the rest severely weakened, doing 200+ damage that turn. Or, much wiser, a Druid can cast Entangle, targeting their weak Str, and can effectively eliminate all of them with a single 1st level spell.
Why would the Fighter not simply attack the Wizard? He spent his turn animating objects, not beefing his defenses, and any Fighter archetype at that level can put out enough damage to kill a Wizard of 16 constitution at that level, even with Shield.


Bards have invisibility, greater invisibility, silence, polymorph.... they do just fine at sneaking, thanks. A party with a Bard does not necessarily need a Rogue at all. A Bard may get expertise at 3 instead of 1 (and at 10th instead of 6th), but a Bard also gets more skills (8 instead of 6), gets half proficiency in all skills, and at 14th can add a d10 to an ability, meaning that while they have a lower floor than the Rogue (lacking practiced expertise), they also have a higher ceiling, being able to hit a max of 30+ability+double proficiency. Have someone cast guidance on them, and you're looking at the highest possible skill check results in the game (51).
Bards are the utilitest. Rogues are lesser skill masters, but still deal more damage. This is because the classes are built on a balance of utility and damage, with Fighters and Barbarians on the far side of damage and Wizards and Bards on the far side of utility. Rogues are more middling for both.

Balance.

[Shaofoo]

Except spells often have no failure rate whatsoever. Is the DC to pick a lock 30? Can anyone without expertise only ever hope to succeed on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time)? Well, it's a good thing the Wizard knows Knock that 2nd level spell! But wait, it creates a loud noise! Well, Silence, another 2nd level spell, solves that problem just fine, now doesn't it?


Simple, locks that also have traps that are still active because just unlocking the door doesn't disarm the trap, you need the actual key or similar movements to make the door safe. Also just as a remainder, I will not take any single event seriously because you created the wizard for this event only and now for any future events you will use another wizard that didn't expend 2 level 2 slots. You can basically take every single encounter piecemail and throw a fresh wizard and thereby ignoring the main weakness of the wizard. If you have infinite slots then the wizards becomes the most powerful class.



2 more ASIs are the only compelling thing you listed there. More armor proficiencies don't matter when Mage Armor and Mirror Image provide better protection than any armor could hope to provide (without requiring concentration) and Shield lets the wizard spike up to AC values above anything any other classes can obtain.

But those require investments in slots while the fighter has them for free, you are also forcing Wizards to have these spells as well.


More weapon proficiencies don't matter when the wizard does not use weapons to attack or do damage.

That still doesn't mitigate my point that the Fighter has them and the Wizard doesn't, if you don't care that doesn't change the fact.


More HP doesn't matter when things like Arcane Ward and Mirror Image (and Armor of Agathys if you have it) provide damage mitigation which readily makes up the difference (fighters start with 4 more HP than wizards and get 2 more per level, so at 20 a fighter has 44 more HP, but Arcane Ward alone provides 45 temp HP, and is able to be recharged). The more robust skill list does not matter when backgrounds can get you any skill anyway.

Nice misdirection, you speak as all wizards are Abjuration Wizards and they can all have Arcane Wards, all fighters get d10 so I fear that you are just trying to change what really matters. Also the Armor spell is Warlock only, if we are going to add multiclassing here then I fear we might never ever get any good discussion done.

But of course you will then say that HP doesn't matter because Wizards gets all the spells anyway, so I doubt I'll be able to change your mind.




True, cantrips cannot. But let's take Animate Objects as an example. We'll ignore Animate Dead because from a mechanical standpoint it can readily break the game but that's supposed to be balanced by roleplaying considerations. Animate Objects is a benign, temporary combat boost. The objects created by that, assuming you use all tiny creatures, have a total of 200 HP (more than a 20th level fighter with 16 con), have 18 AC (same as a fighter in full plate), have a +8 bonus to hit (1 less than a Fighter of 9th level (when you get the spell) with a 20 in Str), and deal 6.5 damage each, for a total possible damage of 65, or an expected damage against an AC 18 opponent of 35.75. The 9th level fighter against the same opponent using GWM and Polearm Mastery (though now we've assumed 4 ASIs for the fighter at 9th level, but whatever, there are races (human, dwarf, half orc, goliath) where it works) gets 3 attacks with either a 60% hit rate dealing 1d10+5 or a 35% hit rate dealing 1d10+15. The superior option (using GWM) gives them an expected damage per round of 21.525. The thing that's sad about this, though, is that it's the Wizard's bonus action. This damage (which is equal to what the fighter hits on an action surge) is in addition to their cantrips, Admittedly the 9th level Wizard in question is doing the rather piss poor 6.6 expected damage per round, but adding them in puts them at 42.35 damage per round, just a hair less than double the damage the fighter is dealing.

You also have to have the tiny objects in hand, I mean you can say that you have 10 tiny objects on you at all times. But anyway you are comparing a spell over regular attacks, and a fifth level spell no less. So you can eventually run out of minions while the Fighter can just keep attacking


And Animate Objects isn't even a particularly good summons! Conjure Animals, assuming it gives you what you want and the DM does not screw you over

And that is all I needed to hear, most of whether martials and casters are good or not is dependent on DM so I honestly can't take the rest of your fragment serious if the DM has all the power.


Now, you may say that all it takes is a fireball to wipe out all those summons, and that's absolutely true, and also to the point! Those 10 animated objects would take the fighter 10 rounds to deal with, 9 if he action surges. He'll be dead after 3 rounds. A Wizard can Fireball them and kill some (dex is their strong save, after all) while leaving the rest severely weakened, doing 200+ damage that turn. Or, much wiser, a Druid can cast Entangle, targeting their weak Str, and can effectively eliminate all of them with a single 1st level spell.

Or smack the Wizard and end the spell via making him fail a Concentration check. It seems that you just expect people to not think and target the objects when the Wizard is so much easier. Of course you will probably pull something that will negate everything I said because Wizards have all the spell slots.




Bards have invisibility, greater invisibility, silence, polymorph.... they do just fine at sneaking, thanks.

And they can do that at once because they have an ability that lets them have 3 Concentration spells on at once... wait.


A party with a Bard does not necessarily need a Rogue at all.

So, I never said that the Rogue is indispensable to a party, just that they are the best at skills.



No, but that's because Wizards have the lowest at will damage of just about any class in the game. A 2 level warlock dip gets that figure higher, but not that much higher (after all, Cha isn't their primary or even secondary focus usually). A pair of Druids I would expect to do just fine. More to the point, a party of a Wizard, a Bard, a Druid, and a Cleric will be absolutely fine in all things. A party of a Champion Fighter, an Assassin Rogue, a Bear Totem Barbarian, and an Open Hand monk will do absolutely fine in combat (though they may struggle against swarms of enemies), but will have far, far less options for how to overcome challenges outside of combat. You don't ever need a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk. You don't ever need a spellcaster either, but it certainly helps to have them.

A spellcasting party will do poorly if magic is somehow wonky or weakened, you can't just plant a group and suddenly say "They win ALL the adventures, gg gimme my prize now". But of course I am sure if I were to present such a situation I'd get chewed out cause I'd just be trying to rebalance the game in a hamfisted way by nerfing spellcasters, nevermind that if you put in too high DC checks then no one bats an eyelash.


Edit:

I believe they are referring to the door in Rise of Tiamat which requires a DC 70 Str check to open. I firmly believe that is a typo and it's meant to be DC 30, because DC 70 is literally impossible for all players and creatures in the game, and it's not even close! 55 is the absolute highest you could attain, and it would require legendary magic items and a supporting cast to attain it. Even still, the door in question specifically opens with "knock", a 2nd level spell. A DC 30 lock is relatively easy to come by. There is no in game method to have a permanent Anti Magic Field. The DM can always do whatever he wants, but no published adventures have such a thing anywhere in them.

If it requires a Strength check to open then how can you open it with Knock? If it is like a huge metal slab that slams shut then Knock cannot magiclaly lift the slab open, Knock can only open things that have been locked by locks, it seems that the heavy mass is what is keeping that door closed my friend and Knock will be useless.

[GiantOctopodes]

Simple, locks that also have traps that are still active because just unlocking the door doesn't disarm the trap, you need the actual key or similar movements to make the door safe. Also just as a remainder, I will not take any single event seriously because you created the wizard for this event only and now for any future events you will use another wizard that didn't expend 2 level 2 slots. You can basically take every single encounter piecemail and throw a fresh wizard and thereby ignoring the main weakness of the wizard. If you have infinite slots then the wizards becomes the most powerful class.


You only need those 2 spell slots (which by the way, Wizards don't have silence. This is a party game after all, the expectation there is that the Bard or Cleric in the party casts silence, the Wizard uses Knock, so it's one spell slot per person) if you encounter a DC 30 lock. You don't encounter DC 30 locks very often, the discussion here was on reliability, not frequency. If you want to shift the discussion to frequency, it's certainly true that in a Gerudo Fortress (from Zelda Ocarina of Time) style environment with an endless series of DC 25 locks with a time requirement a Rogue will be invaluable vs using spell slots, assuming the Rogue in question has as one of his expertise areas his thieves tools. However there is no guarantee that the Rogue in question has used one of his limited expertise selections on that, and if he has not, he's little better than any other high dex character at that task. The number of spell slots only becomes a factor if it proves inadequate for the tasks at hand. My party of 4 full casters at 9th level has 56 spell slots to use throughout the day, ignoring ritual casting (which every one of them has access to). That's plenty to go around.



But those require investments in slots while the fighter has them for free, you are also forcing Wizards to have these spells as well.

That still doesn't mitigate my point that the Fighter has them and the Wizard doesn't, if you don't care that doesn't change the fact.


Sure, and honestly as a Wizard I would not waste spell slots on that task unless I lacked superior options. But that's the whole point- options. The things you listed raise combat efficiency, nothing more. There are plenty of other ways to raise combat efficiency, I was simply demonstrating some of the myriad of options available to achieve that task. You act like the combat efficiency gains for those classes are insurmountable or the be all end all of combat, when that is simply not the case.



Nice misdirection, you speak as all wizards are Abjuration Wizards and they can all have Arcane Wards, all fighters get d10 so I fear that you are just trying to change what really matters. Also the Armor spell is Warlock only, if we are going to add multiclassing here then I fear we might never ever get any good discussion done.

But of course you will then say that HP doesn't matter because Wizards gets all the spells anyway, so I doubt I'll be able to change your mind.


The Wizard I personally play with is a Abjuration Wizard, that's why I bring them up. The Armor of Agathys is a 1st level spell, so it's anyone's spell with Magic Initiate, and I personally have it because it's awesome for an Abjuration Wizard. If we're not including feats, then that's a whole different thing, since suddenly the value of the fighter's ASI drops tremendously, so let me know if that's the case.

Also, let me rephrase my point so it's better explained: Bards get superior HP recovery methods on short rests, improving (as they are wont to do) the whole party's HP pool by an amount that is superior to the difference between a Bard and a fighter in HP. Clerics get healing, druids get Wildshape, Wizards get Arcane Ward, Warlocks get Armor of Agathys. Options exist for all classes to raise their HP and survivability totals, and the Monk's bonus action dodge, when used, is far more impactful to survivability than the fighter's extra HP.





You also have to have the tiny objects in hand, I mean you can say that you have 10 tiny objects on you at all times. But anyway you are comparing a spell over regular attacks, and a fifth level spell no less. So you can eventually run out of minions while the Fighter can just keep attacking


Heck yes, my character carries around 10 brass objects which are in the form of wasps, which he animates using the spell, and then repairs any that are damaged using mending after combat is over. Currently I have to pull them out (but that's just an object interaction, which you get one free every round), but I've been toying with having them somehow on his clothing, so they seem to take off from his body (for style points). And sure, you eventually run out of minions, but the fighter also eventually runs out of HP (and far faster than the minions, I might add). Now, if you want all day combat utility, we can reenter Animate Dead into the conversation, but I think we all know what happens if we do. And of course I'm comparing a spell over regular attacks, what of the fighter would you have me compare them against, other than regular attacks?



And that is all I needed to hear, most of whether martials and casters are good or not is dependent on DM so I honestly can't take the rest of your fragment serious if the DM has all the power.


Says the same person who is arguing that skills are a very reliable and useful option and not DM dependent at all.



Or smack the Wizard and end the spell via making him fail a Concentration check. It seems that you just expect people to not think and target the objects when the Wizard is so much easier. Of course you will probably pull something that will negate everything I said because Wizards have all the spell slots.


We gave the fighter 4 ASIs, the Wizard can't even have one for Resilient (Con)? Assuming a 16 con (same as we gave our fighter, it is after all 2nd highest priority for both), the Wizard at 9th level has a +7 to his con saves. The fighter is dealing at most around 20 damage per attack, meaning the Wizard needs to get a 3 or higher on the roll. I think he'll be ok. Also, how are you getting to the Wizard? Walking past all the summons, going the long way around to do so, while taking 10 opportunity attacks? Doesn't seem like a good plan to me, suddenly you're dead in 2 rounds, not 3.



And they can do that at once because they have an ability that lets them have 3 Concentration spells on at once... wait.


Once again, they don't need to use all their options. The fact that they have those options lets them use the right one for the situation. As a Rogue with silence, I can't begin to tell you how useful it is. When you leave the territory of being able to kill enemies in a single round, and have guards watching an empty corridor, being able to cast silence and spend the necessary time taking them out makes the whole thing much easier. I can't wait, at all, for invisibility, where I don't need to take them out at all and can instead just walk right past with my high stealth results, without the DM saying "sorry, nowhere to hide". When facing enemies with tremorsense, being able to polymorph into a bat and fly past them provides stealth options impossible for the Rogue. And so on and so forth. They don't need to be an invisible bat in a field of silence, they just need the right tool for the job, and they have that.



So, I never said that the Rogue is indispensable to a party, just that they are the best at skills.


And as a Rogue, I know they're very good at skills, and I can get better check results than the rest of the party could ever hope for, on a fairly consistent basis. However, they're not necessarily better than Bards, and there's something to be said for Enhance Ability and / or Guidance to make other party members better at their skills, something the Rogue just can't do, but a Bard and a Cleric can certainly accomplish.



A spellcasting party will do poorly if magic is somehow wonky or weakened, you can't just plant a group and suddenly say "They win ALL the adventures, gg gimme my prize now". But of course I am sure if I were to present such a situation I'd get chewed out cause I'd just be trying to rebalance the game in a hamfisted way by nerfing spellcasters, nevermind that if you put in too high DC checks then no one bats an eyelash.


Not to the extent you think. As indicated, Bards still have their skills just fine, Druids still have Wildshape, Clerics will struggle, but perform passably in combat. Only Wizards become sniveling useless wretches when their magic is denied to them. But how often, in a campaign featuring 4 spellcasters, is that really going to happen? Certainly it can come up, but with enough regularity for it to be a major concern? That's like saying the party of 4 martial characters will be routinely put on the Elemental Planes of Fire or Water and drown or die since they lack spellcasters and elemental protections. Talk about a bad DM...



If it requires a Strength check to open then how can you open it with Knock? If it is like a huge metal slab that slams shut then Knock cannot magiclaly lift the slab open, Knock can only open things that have been locked by locks, it seems that the heavy mass is what is keeping that door closed my friend and Knock will be useless.

"Blagothkus has secured the door to this tower with an arcane lock. It can be opened normally by a giant or by the knock spell. For everyone else, breaking it down is largely impossible, because a DC 70 strength check is required"

I'm not saying it's good design, I'm saying it's in the published adventures, whereas the situations you posit are not.

[Shaofoo]

You only need those 2 spell slots (which by the way, Wizards don't have silence. This is a party game after all, the expectation there is that the Bard or Cleric in the party casts silence, the Wizard uses Knock, so it's one spell slot per person)

Then what is the point of your post. We are talking about Wizards and you come with "Well other people can cast the spells needed to mitigate Knock". That kinda is off topic dude. We are talking about a single spell caster, if you want to throw spellcasters until the problem is solved is not an acceptable answer to the topic at hand.



Sure, and honestly as a Wizard I would not waste spell slots on that task unless I lacked superior options. But that's the whole point- options. The things you listed raise combat efficiency, nothing more. There are plenty of other ways to raise combat efficiency, I was simply demonstrating some of the myriad of options available to achieve that task. You act like the combat efficiency gains for those classes are insurmountable or the be all end all of combat, when that is simply not the case.

Your perceved value of what classes have is not reason to dismiss them as a whole. Also a Wizard has very limited ways to raise his combat effectivness that isn't locking to a particular type of WIzard or expending spell slots, something that the Fighter can just have for existing.




The Wizard I personally play with is a Abjuration Wizard, that's why I bring them up.

You tried to use them as an Universal example, you presented them as if all wizards have Arcane Wards on them. If you can say that then I can say that Fighters all have spells because you can have them as an Eldritch Knight and everything is in balance.


The Armor of Agathys is a 1st level spell, so it's anyone's spell with Magic Initiate, and I personally have it because it's awesome for an Abjuration Wizard.

So you first have to wait till 4th level and spend an ASI to get Magic Initiate, and you can only cast it once per day since there is a ruling that you can't use slots to fuel Magic Initiate spells unless you could cast spells of the chosen class.

And like I said, you are presenting your own personal preference as an universal absolute, and how funny that your preference just so happens to coencide with trying to refute my point.



Also, let me rephrase my point so it's better explained: Bards get superior HP recovery methods on short rests, improving (as they are wont to do) the whole party's HP pool by an amount that is superior to the difference between a Bard and a fighter in HP.

Okay, and now please explain how does short rest healing have to do with the actual HP pool, cause you can heal 1000 HP after you are done fighting, it is pointless if your HP during the fight goes to 0 or lower. You can't heal death with HP.


Clerics get healing

Yes they do.


druids get Wildshape,

Which is cheese only at level 20 when it is infinite and there is a whole bunch of rules questions that I don't think you could use it as an absolute fact


Wizards get Arcane Ward, Warlocks get Armor of Agathys.

No, they don't. If you want to present your Wizard as the absolute Wizard then you will have to discard all other Wizards.


Options exist for all classes to raise their HP and survivability totals, and the Monk's bonus action dodge, when used, is far more impactful to survivability than the fighter's extra HP.

But the fighter's extra HP helps in survivability, you are basically saying just because other characters can up their survivability that it is pointless to be a fighter, but all your examples has some expenditure of abilities or resources, Fighters get their high HP just for being fighters, you don't get to do anything more.




Heck yes, my character carries around 10 brass objects which are in the form of wasps, which he animates using the spell, and then repairs any that are damaged using mending after combat is over. Currently I have to pull them out (but that's just an object interaction, which you get one free every round), but I've been toying with having them somehow on his clothing, so they seem to take off from his body (for style points). And sure, you eventually run out of minions, but the fighter also eventually runs out of HP (and far faster than the minions, I might add).

No they don't, unless there is some rule that they have to spend HP to attack then Fighters do not run out of HP at all, their HP is still the same after 1 attack and after 100 attacks, you on the other hand will run out of slots because Animate Objects is on a time limit and you have limited slots.


Now, if you want all day combat utility, we can reenter Animate Dead into the conversation, but I think we all know what happens if we do. And of course I'm comparing a spell over regular attacks, what of the fighter would you have me compare them against, other than regular attacks?

Nothing, because it is a pointless endeavor, obviously spells will be better than attacks, but there is no way to compare because the current measuring stick is only one encounter or situation. You can just present the situation and nova it and the next situation you will encounter you will just ignore the previous encounter and come at it fully restocked. I can't argue when you give your wizards functionally infinite slots for each situation that I can devise.




Says the same person who is arguing that skills are a very reliable and useful option and not DM dependent at all.

Mind pointing where I said that? Cause I am sure I said the exact opposite of what you accused. Heck I think I even said that DMs should be always attentive and put DCs themselves.




We gave the fighter 4 ASIs, the Wizard can't even have one for Resilient (Con)?

Woah hold on there, what about this?


If we're not including feats, then that's a whole different thing, since suddenly the value of the fighter's ASI drops tremendously, so let me know if that's the case.

So then, do we include feats or not here? Cause suddenly the Fighters ASI drops tremendously then what does that say about the Wizard that can't get what he needs? You can't just be for both sides at the same time. What is it then?


Assuming a 16 con (same as we gave our fighter, it is after all 2nd highest priority for both), the Wizard at 9th level has a +7 to his con saves. The fighter is dealing at most around 20 damage per attack, meaning the Wizard needs to get a 3 or higher on the roll. I think he'll be ok.

It is still a chance to fail, also Fighters can multi attack and crit. But of course 15% is a 0% chance always


Also, how are you getting to the Wizard? Walking past all the summons, going the long way around to do so, while taking 10 opportunity attacks? Doesn't seem like a good plan to me, suddenly you're dead in 2 rounds, not 3.

Longbow, simple and no expenditure. Heck if I can choose a feat then how about Sharpshooter, you can't even reach the Fighter in time as he pelts you with arrows from far away. Of course then you will add your own super death spell of far awayness and ignore the summons and spend all the slots and then ignore it and continue on as if nothing happened because nothing happened in your mind. Like I said I can't really fight with you if you don't fight fair, of course this isn't about fighting fair anyway and I knew this from the moment go.




Once again, they don't need to use all their options. The fact that they have those options lets them use the right one for the situation.

They can't use all their options because they don't have the power to do so. Sure they can pick and choose what options are best but that doesn't let them do everything at once.


As a Rogue with silence, I can't begin to tell you how useful it is. When you leave the territory of being able to kill enemies in a single round, and have guards watching an empty corridor, being able to cast silence and spend the necessary time taking them out makes the whole thing much easier. I can't wait, at all, for invisibility, where I don't need to take them out at all and can instead just walk right past with my high stealth results, without the DM saying "sorry, nowhere to hide". When facing enemies with tremorsense, being able to polymorph into a bat and fly past them provides stealth options impossible for the Rogue. And so on and so forth. They don't need to be an invisible bat in a field of silence, they just need the right tool for the job, and they have that.

Well unless you need to Silence a 20 foot circle at all times then Silence is good, you can't move the Silenced area or center it on anything, just one spot. Also Silence has verbal components so you will have to speak the words needed so you will probably alert someone.

Again Invisibility requires Verbal so you must speak the words and if you aren't careful the guards will be on alert, and if you are very unlucky they might identify your words as an Invisible spell and be on even more high alert, sure you don't need to be hidden but everyone will be swarming to find the intruder.

Again Polymorph, Verbal, same verse, you know. Also it is funny how you can sneak through an entire place filled with tremorsense guys, are you infiltrating the mole people? You are saying that all people with tremorsense are blind and wouldn't notice a lone bat flying around?




And as a Rogue, I know they're very good at skills, and I can get better check results than the rest of the party could ever hope for, on a fairly consistent basis. However, they're not necessarily better than Bards, and there's something to be said for Enhance Ability and / or Guidance to make other party members better at their skills, something the Rogue just can't do, but a Bard and a Cleric can certainly accomplish.

So Bards can do stuff that Rogues can't, vice versa as well. That doesn't diminish what the Rogue can bring anyways, plus everyone can use Help so if they really want to buff skills everyone can do that already, no need for spells at all and Help doesn't cost spell slots or Concentration.




Not to the extent you think. As indicated, Bards still have their skills just fine, Druids still have Wildshape, Clerics will struggle, but perform passably in combat. Only Wizards become sniveling useless wretches when their magic is denied to them.

So then in your case, your dream team of 4 will fail to match the pace of people who don't require spells to compliment their abilities?

Also considering that some Bardic abilities require his music and that is how his magic is made and that Wild Shape is still magic don't think you can lean on those in such a setting.


But how often, in a campaign featuring 4 spellcasters, is that really going to happen?

As often as the DM wants it to. It might not be what comes up often if you poll players but it can happen and has happened in official settings.


Certainly it can come up, but with enough regularity for it to be a major concern? That's like saying the party of 4 martial characters will be routinely put on the Elemental Planes of Fire or Water and drown or die since they lack spellcasters and elemental protections. Talk about a bad DM...

There are other ways to get elemental protections than just spellcasters, Of course if the DM just wants the players to die then he can do that easily.


"Blagothkus has secured the door to this tower with an arcane lock. It can be opened normally by a giant or by the knock spell. For everyone else, breaking it down is largely impossible, because a DC 70 strength check is required"

I'm not saying it's good design, I'm saying it's in the published adventures, whereas the situations you posit are not.

There are examples of wild magic and magic not working in various settings, heck even magic being hated is also abundant so even if you can cast spells prepare to be hated by people by large.

But to the point, I would need more context before I pass judgement, cause basically negating progress because you don't have the one needed spell is bad design, regardless if it is official or not. It is just as bad if I made an indestructible door that needs to have words spoken to in Druidic when no one is a Druid, or using the Thieves Cant or any other singular ability or spell (because even if you have spell casters that doesn't guarantee you have Knock).

Maybe you are supposed to fool the door into being a Giant somehow if you know that much but otherwise I am just gonna call very bad game design. Just cause it is publish doesn't mean ti is good.

[ZenBear]

Until you remove DM fiat from the equation this conversation is going nowhere. As I said before, DM trumps all, casters and martials alike are at their mercy. Balance can only be found in a standardized setting, no custom benefits or constraints.

[Mara]

Bards and rogues are both pretty good with skills. Bards bring spells, rogues bring action economy and damage. You don't need a rogue in 5e which is why rogues are actually good in 5e.

[Lucas Yew]

As skill DCs require DM fiat (like not many DMs, unlike me, would actually let you run on cloudtop with a DC 30 Acrobatics check), they should have given clear examples for setting up DCs in the PHB of DMG, not those obscure ones that say like "15=Moderate" something (Hint: They are too subjective as of now!).


Am I the only one who think they should be like fighters in DBZ?: Really fast with moves so blisteringly precise, accurate, like a blur through the battlefield that you wont spot it unless you are pretty high level yourself(8+) otherwise they are simply too fast and too tough for you to comprehend, easily able to fight of beings ten times their size, block their attacks and deliver deadly counters.

Considering full progression casters can reshape reality several times per day I really don´t see a problem with it.

Then Again I am the type of player sortof forced into playing a character with spell levels simply to have some more options so I´m probably biased.

But monks teleporting around delivering barrages of punches sound pretty fun and awesome to me :D

I'm completely good with OP's idea. :smallcool:

[djreynolds]

Great discussion.

Again it's all about team work. I'm not sure if I want my wizard wasting spells scouting or jumping or picking locks. I play as a fighter and continually do ammo checks, spell checks. The rogue can scout. I play the game as if the dragon is around the corner, cautiously.

But the unlimited cantrips is outta hand as are proficiency to hit bonus. It used to be nice when the wizard saved the day with his dart, no he's doing every round. He has the same to hit as a fighter if the same level does.

Bard and paladin and warlocks feel like overpowered prestige classes, not base classes. And besides volley, the ranger is sad. Clerics and paladins are no longer MAD.

I find myself multiclassing fighter and rogue a lot.

As for skills, everyone not an elf is a sailor in my company. So I took history and nature.

That said your insights are spot on. My opinion, give casters back their old hit die.

[Vogonjeltz]

an object that is valued at 250 gp is, by definition, worth 250 gp. not thousands of gp. so your DM could do that, but if he just springs it on you with no warning as a hamfisted method of "balancing the game" by making sure to screw over the casters at every chance, then your DM needs to learn wheaton's law, because he is clearly breaking it.

now, i'll grant that availability could be a concern, depending on how one goes about making the item. i don't imagine a random village is going to have a lot of 300 gp diamonds in the local general store, for example.

having said that, going back to previous editions i can tell you that you attune to different planes by making the tuning fork the right size and out of the right materials, so there really isn't any particularly compelling reason a PC who wants a set of them couldn't get them provided they have access to a city of reasonable size. again, reasonable to not have it in a general store in a village of a few hundred people. not reasonable to be unable to find someone who can make it in a large city.

Any and all values are reflective of typical market value. The PHB (the rules) specifies on page 144 that even though magic items have a typical market value listed, their actual value is well beyond petty mundane things like gold, and that such things typically won't be available for purchase.

i.e. Yeah, it's approximately worth 250gp, but nobody is going to sell you something as epically valuable as an attuned planar key for such a thing as paltry as mere gold. It's a placeholder, nothing more.

[strangebloke]

A caster is powerful. In any given round, they have more power than any martial character. Sometimes this lets them do things martials straight up can't do, like plane-shifting or teleporting.

But they need to conserve their spells. Playing as a cleric, I'm constantly torn between "this spell would completely trivialize this encounter," and "I can only cast it once more and we could have as many as three encounters yet." Even though we usually only have two or three encounters in a given day, the thought is still there.

Personally, I think that its too hard as a DM to justify six encounters a day. So I play by the rules where a short rest is a whole day and a long rest is a whole week.

This thread shouldn't be about balance. We've argued that one to death.

What are some cool tricks/heroic abilities that we could give martials?

I'd REALLY like to see super mobility tricks for high level monks. I want to see a 'jumping strike' or something similar, where they get to leap fifty feet into the air and attack. If these guys are supposed to emulate martial arts movies? Where is the running on water and the pseudo-flying?

[Ralanr]

A caster is powerful. In any given round, they have more power than any martial character. Sometimes this lets them do things martials straight up can't do, like plane-shifting or teleporting.

But they need to conserve their spells. Playing as a cleric, I'm constantly torn between "this spell would completely trivialize this encounter," and "I can only cast it once more and we could have as many as three encounters yet." Even though we usually only have two or three encounters in a given day, the thought is still there.

Personally, I think that its too hard as a DM to justify six encounters a day. So I play by the rules where a short rest is a whole day and a long rest is a whole week.

This thread shouldn't be about balance. We've argued that one to death.

What are some cool tricks/heroic abilities that we could give martials?

I'd REALLY like to see super mobility tricks for high level monks. I want to see a 'jumping strike' or something similar, where they get to leap fifty feet into the air and attack. If these guys are supposed to emulate martial arts movies? Where is the running on water and the pseudo-flying?

Technically they can do all of that. Running on water and walls by level 9, step to the wind doubles their jump distance for 1 ki.

Monks are great in 5e.

[Malifice]

DM fiat trumps all. That doesn't change the fact that by RAW Wizards have access to teleportation, Plane Shift, True Polymorph, Wish, etc that a Fighter never will. Accessibility of components is just a means for the DM to mitigate the imbalance.

Yes, 5E is more balanced than 3.X by a long shot. Casters are still OP because they still have reality-altering abilities and martials do not.

We've been over this before. Having access to teleportation, plane shift and similar isnt always a benefit to the Wizard; in a sense - it's a drawback.

Remember, the DM imagines, plans, constructs and balances adventures. The DM decides before the fact where to set the adventure. He does this having regards to the capabilities (level, classes, alignment and power) of his PC's.

An adventure that 'requires travel to the outer planes' has only been placed there by the DM with full knowledge of the fact the PC Wizard can cast the spell 'Plane Shift'. The spell is not an enabler (although it appears so to the player, who no doubt is chuffed when he casts the spell to whisk the party to the Plane in question); the spell is actually a resource tax (the Wizard in question expends a high level spell slot for the privlege).

If the same party consisted of (say) Fighters only, and the DM wanted to set an adventure on the outer planes, the adventure would sure as hell contain a 'Macguffin' (Dimensional portal, gate, NPC, mystical time space anomoly, magical accident etc) that has exactly the same effect; just with no resource expenditure involved.

The end result is largely the same each and every time. There isnt much (if anything) a Wizard can do that a Fighter cant - the Wizard just gets to do it quicker. A Fighter can find a gate to the outer planes, buy or draw an army to him by virtue of his skill instead of raising or summoning one with magic, capture and ride a pegasus instead of casting the fly spell, ride instead of teleport, intimidate and seduce instead of enchant, build a wall instead of click his fingers for one etc.

The 'horror stories' re campaigns being smashed by high level Wizards are always down to DM's that dont know how to DM high level parties (and casters in general). They get frustrated when they plan an adventure, only to have the Wizard 'scy and fry' avoiding all the minions, and nuking the BBEG with a save or suck. In other words, they havent planned the adventure correctly. It's not the ability to cast those spells thats 'broken'; it's the DM's fault for not taking those abilities into account when desigining and planning the encounter. Its no different to planning an adventure for high level Fighter and totally fogetting he has an army. To be fair to DM's uness youre experienced with what casters are capable of, it can catch you off guard.

[Doug Lampert]

We've been over this before. Having access to teleportation, plane shift and similar isnt always a benefit to the Wizard; in a sense - it's a drawback.

Remember, the DM imagines, plans, constructs and balances adventures. The DM decides before the fact where to set the adventure. He does this having regards to the capabilities (level, classes, alignment and power) of his PC's.

An adventure that 'requires travel to the outer planes' has only been placed there by the DM with full knowledge of the fact the PC Wizard can cast the spell 'Plane Shift'. The spell is not an enabler (although it appears so to the player, who no doubt is chuffed when he casts the spell to whisk the party to the Plane in question); the spell is actually a resource tax (the Wizard in question expends a high level spell slot for the privlege).

If the same party consisted of (say) Fighters only, and the DM wanted to set an adventure on the outer planes, the adventure would sure as hell contain a 'Macguffin' (Dimensional portal, gate, NPC, mystical time space anomoly, magical accident etc) that has exactly the same effect; just with no resource expenditure involved.

The end result is largely the same each and every time. There isnt much (if anything) a Wizard can do that a Fighter cant - the Wizard just gets to do it quicker. A Fighter can find a gate to the outer planes, buy or draw an army to him by virtue of his skill instead of raising or summoning one with magic, capture and ride a pegasus instead of casting the fly spell, ride instead of teleport, intimidate and seduce instead of enchant, build a wall instead of click his fingers for one etc.

The 'horror stories' re campaigns being smashed by high level Wizards are always down to DM's that dont know how to DM high level parties (and casters in general). They get frustrated when they plan an adventure, only to have the Wizard 'scy and fry' avoiding all the minions, and nuking the BBEG with a save or suck. In other words, they havent planned the adventure correctly. It's not the ability to cast those spells thats 'broken'; it's the DM's fault for not taking those abilities into account when desigining and planning the encounter. Its no different to planning an adventure for high level Fighter and totally fogetting he has an army. To be fair to DM's uness youre experienced with what casters are capable of, it can catch you off guard.

Except, NOT putting in plane shift required adventures just because your players CHOOSE not to have plane shift is ****ty GMing. You're denying your players agency! You're going out of your way to deny your players agency!

If you don't have plane shift, and need it, then find a freaking way to plane shift anyway! You're adventurers! There's a whole world!

And if you lose because you can't plane shift in time, how is this any worse GMing than a party losing because they can't do enough damage to the big bad in the main fight? You build your characters and control them. I build a world.

I'm not supposed to either hold your hand or to go out of my way to screw with you. Your choices determine how well you do. Your resource management matters. Your decisions about which items you need to quest for and what companions and allies to have all matter. I'm not going to take that away from you by feeding you eigenplots!

[SharkForce]

Any and all values are reflective of typical market value. The PHB (the rules) specifies on page 144 that even though magic items have a typical market value listed, their actual value is well beyond petty mundane things like gold, and that such things typically won't be available for purchase.

i.e. Yeah, it's approximately worth 250gp, but nobody is going to sell you something as epically valuable as an attuned planar key for such a thing as paltry as mere gold. It's a placeholder, nothing more.

it's not a magic item. it's a tuning fork. made of specific materials, and of a certain size. a completely mundane tuning fork, with no rituals required to enchant it, no magical recipe, no spellcasting required to make it, etc.

plus, every single edition where they make stupid claims about magic items being too valuable to sell are quickly proven wrong once they start showing us the worlds and they typically both include magic item shops, and frequently appearing NPCs with several magic items on their person at all times.

now, i'll agree that you won't necessarily be able to find the specific item you want in a given shop... they're not factory-made, so if you specifically want a flametongue, well, there may be a store that has one for sale, but it isn't necessarily anywhere near you. the person (or people) who has (or have) the recipe for enchanting flametongues may be far away. they may not be human or even humanoid, they may not be living, and they may not be particularly willing to make one for you.

your personal campaign world may actually fit this logic. but for all the time the books across various editions have told me that magic items aren't for sale, i have to say that's a load of crap. they might not be for sale just anywhere, to anyone. you almost definitely won't have your choice of whatever item you want if you can find the place that sells them and are allowed in. but there's gonna be a place somewhere that sells them (quite possibly the same place that you would use to sell those ridiculously expensive art pieces and gemstones you can find).

[Ralanr]

We really cannot have D&D without magic items being rare can we?

[strangebloke]

Technically they can do all of that. Running on water and walls by level 9, step to the wind doubles their jump distance for 1 ki.

Monks are great in 5e.

I had missed the running on water thing. woops. But when I say big jumps I mean the hulk type, where its basically flight. (ok, so maybe not that crazy, but still. hundreds of feet at least.)

[Ralanr]

I had missed the running on water thing. woops. But when I say big jumps I mean the hulk type, where its basically flight. (ok, so maybe not that crazy, but still. hundreds of feet at least.)

Ahh. Sadly the closest is the jump spell, which warlocks can get at will at 9.

I both love and hate that spell.

[Malifice]

Except, NOT putting in plane shift required adventures just because your players CHOOSE not to have plane shift is ****ty GMing. You're denying your players agency! You're going out of your way to deny your players agency!

What? The players have chosen not to have plane shift. If they wanted to adventure on the planes, I'm sure they would exersize that agency to locate a means to do so, and any reasonable DM would accomodate such agency.

Perhaps you didnt read my post properly. I clearly pointed out 'DM Macguffin' as a means to enable planar adventures for characters that dont have access to plane shift as a class feature (either by virtue of being too low level, or not having casters or items capable of travelling through the planes).

When you as DM design a planar adventure its because your players want to go there (and have thus likely sourced some means in game to do so, or have expressed an intrest to do so, and youve decided to give them a taste via a macguffin NPC/planar gate/ or whatever) OR it's because you as the DM think it would be cool to send them there, and design an adventure in an outer plane (replete with macguffin to get there, or based on the knowledge that the party can find their own means to follow the hook)

If you don't have plane shift, and need it, then find a freaking way to plane shift anyway! You're adventurers! There's a whole world!

Agreed; but WHO is in charge of when the players NEED to plane shift? As a hint, its not the players.


And if you lose because you can't plane shift in time, how is this any worse GMing than a party losing because they can't do enough damage to the big bad in the main fight? You build your characters and control them. I build a world.

When a DM plans an adventure, he does not do so in a manner that your party cannot defeat; he has regards to their skills and experience. You dont put a CR20 pit fiend in front of a 1st level party (unless it's a non combat encounter) just like you dont put put a requirement to Plane Shift to win an adventure into an adventure when your PC's cant use that class feature.

It's just as easy for me do design an adventure that requires the use of the Divine Smite class feature (to open a special door) as it is for me to design an adventure that can only be accessed by virtue of using the 'spell casting' class feature. I could have a special door that can only be opened by virtue of a Battlemaster fighter using a specific manouver too.

If you plan on doing to to a party that inherently lacks access to such abilities, then you should either have a macguffin prepared, or allow reasonable attempts to aquire such abilities (as part of the adventure as planned - remember - YOU as DM planned the adventure, and YOU as DM planned it for YOUR party).


I'm not supposed to either hold your hand or to go out of my way to screw with you.

Then you miss the whole point of DMing. You are supposed to hold the parties hand - by designing encounters based aroud that parties skills and experience (CR appropriate encounters that fit with that parties play style). Feel free to throw CR innapropriate encoutners in waves at a group that prefers RP heavy political intruige, or constantly throw adventures that require a particular class feature for success (that you as the DM know the party dont have); it's not how I interpret the guidleines on DMing in the DMG, but it's your game.

Im not saying that you cant occasionally hit the party 'where it hurts' (noticed the party doesnt carry missile weapons? Hit them with flying creatures - in a non lethal way or possibly with macguffins located nearby that can get them out of the pickle, such as a cave they can hide in to avoid the TPK etc). It's just a **** move to design encounters without having regards to both your players AND thier characters (allowing certain characters to shine at different points, weaving character backstory into the plot, tailoring your adventures to your players desires in the game, making sure your challenges are CR appropriate and balanced against your party etc).

Seriusly; have you ever rocked up to a session of DnD and had the DM go 'OK fellas, this adventure I have planned is set in the Abyss - seeing as you blokes dont have the ability to cast plane shift, so the adventure doesnt go ahead. It's a pity becuase It was a good one and I spent a ton of time on it' - I bet not. I bet it went 'As the (BBEG) spots you, he turns and leaps into a magical glowing gate - what do you do?' (No spell casters capable of casting plane shift - gate stays open and the players leap in and adventure in the planes happens - or when you have players with Plane Shift they hear news (a hook) that leads them to cast the spell and travel there to chase the BBEG). Both results are the same - one cost a party resource to enable the adventure (a spell slot) the other cost a macguffin from the DM to enable the adventure.

If you want to design detailed and cool adventures for your party - that they have no means of actually completing or even finding out about having regards to their level, resources and class features - then go right ahead. I personally factor my PC's skills and resources into my adventure planning so I can both A) not have the aventure be triviallised by unforseen combos of class features (scry and die, onion druid, feat combos etc) and have the adventure be a fizzer, and B) not to overwhelm the PC's with an impossible task that requires completion for the story to advance (or for the PC's to survive) that could fizz out the whole darn campaign.

Spell casters (or any class for that matter) triviallise adventures or hog the limelight only when the DM screws up.

[Sindeloke]

Is this where I have to remind everyone again that some groups like sandbox games and some groups like themepark games and neither of them are somehow "doing it wrong" and both should be genuinely catered to by a game that claims to do so?

[Malifice]

Is this where I have to remind everyone again that some groups like sandbox games and some groups like themepark games and neither of them are somehow "doing it wrong" and both should be genuinely catered to by a game that claims to do so?

None of which conflicts with anything I said above.

[strangebloke]

Regardless, I think its safe to say that the discussion has gone rather far afield. Which is sad because I love stuff like this.

Any other epic tricks to pull off? I'd like to see crazy trick shots for rangers. Like we have sharpshooter which is good for getting around cover, but what about hitting somebody from a mile away? Or deflecting an enemy's attack, ranged or otherwise, with a bow shot? Or shooting a target they can't see? (call it 'instinct' if you like.)

For fighters I would like to see an adrenaline rush or cleave type ability, to help them in fighting groups and to reinforce the 'tireless warrior that can't be killed' archetype. Like every enemy they drop renews their battle vigor, healing them for x hp or something. Or maybe every enemy they drop they get to shift an additional time, or something.

Barbarian rage just needs to be more interesting. Taking less damage and dealing a little bit more is cool, but I'd really like something like the good 'ol intimidating rage build back in 3.5. You rage, and instantly paralyze an enemy, or even a group of enemies, with fear. Or maybe a deafening roar as a bonus action with an effect akin to thunderwave.

[Ralanr]

Regardless, I think its safe to say that the discussion has gone rather far afield. Which is sad because I love stuff like this.

Any other epic tricks to pull off? I'd like to see crazy trick shots for rangers. Like we have sharpshooter which is good for getting around cover, but what about hitting somebody from a mile away? Or deflecting an enemy's attack, ranged or otherwise, with a bow shot? Or shooting a target they can't see? (call it 'instinct' if you like.)

For fighters I would like to see an adrenaline rush or cleave type ability, to help them in fighting groups and to reinforce the 'tireless warrior that can't be killed' archetype. Like every enemy they drop renews their battle vigor, healing them for x hp or something. Or maybe every enemy they drop they get to shift an additional time, or something.

Barbarian rage just needs to be more interesting. Taking less damage and dealing a little bit more is cool, but I'd really like something like the good 'ol intimidating rage build back in 3.5. You rage, and instantly paralyze an enemy, or even a group of enemies, with fear. Or maybe a deafening roar as a bonus action with an effect akin to thunderwave.

Rangers: I've always loved the concept of recoiling shots off corners. Unrealistic? Probably. Cool? Yes!

Fighter: I always imagined action surge as an adrenaline rush. Adding extra effects to action surge would be cool. Broken but cool.

Barbarian: Rage seems like something that makes people terrified of you in combat. Making people roll a will save I could see.

[Vogonjeltz]

it's not a magic item. it's a tuning fork. made of specific materials, and of a certain size. a completely mundane tuning fork, with no rituals required to enchant it, no magical recipe, no spellcasting required to make it, etc.

It's not a tuning fork, it's a forked metal rod that is attuned to a particular plane of existence. It's in no way mundane (those items are listed in the Equipment chapter of the PHB) and in no way readily available (those items that are are also listed in the equipment section of the PHB). This rarity is more valuable than most suits of armor, it's value is a veritable fortune.


plus, every single edition where they make stupid claims about magic items being too valuable to sell are quickly proven wrong once they start showing us the worlds and they typically both include magic item shops, and frequently appearing NPCs with several magic items on their person at all times.

Other editions need not apply. This is 5th edition, magic items are, by default, so rare and precious they are not available for sale. It's not that the price is wrong, it's that they simply can not be found.


now, i'll agree that you won't necessarily be able to find the specific item you want in a given shop... they're not factory-made, so if you specifically want a flametongue, well, there may be a store that has one for sale, but it isn't necessarily anywhere near you. the person (or people) who has (or have) the recipe for enchanting flametongues may be far away. they may not be human or even humanoid, they may not be living, and they may not be particularly willing to make one for you.

your personal campaign world may actually fit this logic. but for all the time the books across various editions have told me that magic items aren't for sale, i have to say that's a load of crap. they might not be for sale just anywhere, to anyone. you almost definitely won't have your choice of whatever item you want if you can find the place that sells them and are allowed in. but there's gonna be a place somewhere that sells them (quite possibly the same place that you would use to sell those ridiculously expensive art pieces and gemstones you can find).

Again, this specific edition has declared magic items unpurchasable by default. Of course, there's no reason you can't homebrew a setting where every corner store has hundreds of racks containing rods to each of the major planes, but homebrewed campaign settings also shouldn't be a factor in consideration of high level character play balance because it's not going to apply to the majority of tables.


Then you miss the whole point of DMing. You are supposed to hold the parties hand - by designing encounters based aroud that parties skills and experience (CR appropriate encounters that fit with that parties play style). Feel free to throw CR innapropriate encoutners in waves at a group that prefers RP heavy political intruige, or constantly throw adventures that require a particular class feature for success (that you as the DM know the party dont have); it's not how I interpret the guidleines on DMing in the DMG, but it's your game.

Im not saying that you cant occasionally hit the party 'where it hurts' (noticed the party doesnt carry missile weapons? Hit them with flying creatures - in a non lethal way or possibly with macguffins located nearby that can get them out of the pickle, such as a cave they can hide in to avoid the TPK etc). It's just a **** move to design encounters without having regards to both your players AND thier characters (allowing certain characters to shine at different points, weaving character backstory into the plot, tailoring your adventures to your players desires in the game, making sure your challenges are CR appropriate and balanced against your party etc).

Seriusly; have you ever rocked up to a session of DnD and had the DM go 'OK fellas, this adventure I have planned is set in the Abyss - seeing as you blokes dont have the ability to cast plane shift, so the adventure doesnt go ahead. It's a pity becuase It was a good one and I spent a ton of time on it' - I bet not. I bet it went 'As the (BBEG) spots you, he turns and leaps into a magical glowing gate - what do you do?' (No spell casters capable of casting plane shift - gate stays open and the players leap in and adventure in the planes happens - or when you have players with Plane Shift they hear news (a hook) that leads them to cast the spell and travel there to chase the BBEG). Both results are the same - one cost a party resource to enable the adventure (a spell slot) the other cost a macguffin from the DM to enable the adventure.

If you want to design detailed and cool adventures for your party - that they have no means of actually completing or even finding out about having regards to their level, resources and class features - then go right ahead. I personally factor my PC's skills and resources into my adventure planning so I can both A) not have the aventure be triviallised by unforseen combos of class features (scry and die, onion druid, feat combos etc) and have the adventure be a fizzer, and B) not to overwhelm the PC's with an impossible task that requires completion for the story to advance (or for the PC's to survive) that could fizz out the whole darn campaign.

Spell casters (or any class for that matter) triviallise adventures or hog the limelight only when the DM screws up.

I think it's interesting the different ways that DMing can be approached. Personally I think it's not a bad thing to simply present a scenario irrespective of the group's capabilities, so long as you are able to handle whatever the players decide to do or throw at the situation. Meaning: If your players discover there's some hook that involves an alternate plane of existence, but the players group consists of a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk, then it's up to the players to figure out how to get to that other plane.

The most obvious course of action would seem to be discovering another way to the other plane (i.e. a portal; some magical creature that can cross the boundaries of the planes; enlisting the aid of a powerful NPC wizard; finding a magical item that can tear a hole to the plane; how this is achieved could even be linked to the background of one of those players, the rogue calling in work associates for favors and information gathering, the Barbarian consulting a Shaman of his tribe, the Monk knows a monastery where knowledge of the planes can be found, the Fighter having heard tales of fantastical places from their social circle, etc...)

Finding that method to get to the planned adventure might be a whole nother adventure on its own. That sounds less like a burden and more like fun! Sure, if you're playing a wizard you can short-cut the side adventure, but in doing so you're also missing out on whatever journey that involves which has the potential to be a fantastic roleplaying experience.

[SharkForce]

strange that the edition which declares magic items to be impossible to buy has rules for buying and selling magic items right in the core rule books, isn't it?

i mean, if it's so impossible... why even provide rules for it?


which is beside the point.

it doesn't need to be magical to be attuned to a plane. nothing says it's a magical rod, any more than the variety of gems, diamond dust, special chemicals, etc required as components for other spells are magical.

again, previous editions tell you *exactly* how you go about getting the tuning fork attuned to the plane, and it is just a matter of size and material. there's no magical process of enchanting them. they aren't ANY sort of magic item, common or otherwise. they're just tuning forks constructed to very exacting specifications using very specific materials.

or perhaps you'd like to suggest that works of art and gemstones are also magical, since they aren't listed in the PHB's equipment section.

or, alternately, the PHB does not list (and in fact never made any claims to list) every single nonmagical object in existence within the equipment chapter. personally, my money is on this one being correct, but hey, if you want to assume that anything not listed in the PHB must therefore be a magical item and is therefore impossible to buy or sell by default, go right ahead. in your games that is. mine will continue to feature non-magical stuff that isn't listed in the PHB on a regular basis. stuff like roads, and buildings, and rocks, and trees, doors, etc.

[Mara]

Someone in this thread called skills DM Fiat. PFF. 5e is more a set of guidelines than rules. Either learn to deal with that or go back to 3.x

[Shaofoo]

strange that the edition which declares magic items to be impossible to buy has rules for buying and selling magic items right in the core rule books, isn't it?

i mean, if it's so impossible... why even provide rules for it?

The DMG is basically a big book of suggestions, nothing in it is required to play the game. The DM has all the power to make the prices and rules for selling and buying magic items (in fact the rulings on buying and selling all say that they are suggested prices). The DM can make magic items be basically unsellable and the DM can have big MagicMarts everywhere with magic items abounds, it is up to the DM's world to decide what is appropriate.



which is beside the point.

it doesn't need to be magical to be attuned to a plane. nothing says it's a magical rod, any more than the variety of gems, diamond dust, special chemicals, etc required as components for other spells are magical.

There is nothing that defines what is considered to be attuned. Basically the DM has to make a ruling as to what the fork is. Maybe any fork is attuned to the place it is made or maybe you need to cast a ritual to enchant the fork for it to be attuned. The Dm has the answer here as to what is what.


again, previous editions tell you *exactly* how you go about getting the tuning fork attuned to the plane, and it is just a matter of size and material. there's no magical process of enchanting them. they aren't ANY sort of magic item, common or otherwise. they're just tuning forks constructed to very exacting specifications using very specific materials.

Previous editions have no power over this edition. If in your world you choose to use previous edition's rules for your own then that is your decision but you can't shackle other people to a book that they might not even know exists. It is purely DM fiat what the rod is and you have no say what it is or isn't except in your own games.


or perhaps you'd like to suggest that works of art and gemstones are also magical, since they aren't listed in the PHB's equipment section.

Sure, why not? Why can't works of art and gemstones be magical? Why can't we have the Arkenstone or those living paintings from Harry Potter? Just cause they don't have some mechanical benefit to a player doesn't mean that it isn't magical.


or, alternately, the PHB does not list (and in fact never made any claims to list) every single nonmagical object in existence within the equipment chapter. personally, my money is on this one being correct, but hey, if you want to assume that anything not listed in the PHB must therefore be a magical item and is therefore impossible to buy or sell by default, go right ahead. in your games that is. mine will continue to feature non-magical stuff that isn't listed in the PHB on a regular basis. stuff like roads, and buildings, and rocks, and trees, doors, etc.

Technically anything can be impossible to sell or buy even if it is in the PHB as the DM decides. There is no ruling that the DM is forced to make everything available. And even if it is available the DM can change the price as he sees fit, he isn't shackled to any sort of rule that he must honor the prices. Of course it does help to have a reason but if he does then the players have no say, except maybe try to change the market somehow.

[Ralanr]

Ok, so we've learned that magic items are BS and component attainment difficulties vary from DM to DM.

Am I on track?

On the topic of martials: Not really a high level thing, but I really do think Rangers should be allowed to change their favored enemy and favored terrain once every long rest where half of it is spent studying their new target. I've never liked how "favored" abilities pretty much become useless if you are forced out of your choices. Which being D&D, can very likely happen.

[Mara]

As far as I can tell ranger's favoured stuff isn't core to thier strength at all.

[Shaofoo]

I also don't like having to choose your favored enemy, mostly because you can't predict what you'll come up with next.

Personally I would in addition to having his choices also give him the addition to learn more types of enemies or terrain for some gold and downtime. I don't have any numbers that I would use but I can't see how it is broken if the Ranger gets all the types of monsters (I mean besides Foe Slayer but I don't think Wisdom to attack or damage to all enemies once per round is so broken but maybe I am looking at it wrong)

I would also give all their favored enemies a lesser version on Hunter's Mark on it without the Ranger doing anything, they just exist for the Ranger. You can only deal 1d6 extra damage once but it will always be there and nothing can take that away.

[EvilAnagram]

On the topic of martials: Not really a high level thing, but I really do think Rangers should be allowed to change their favored enemy and favored terrain once every long rest where half of it is spent studying their new target. I've never liked how "favored" abilities pretty much become useless if you are forced out of your choices. Which being D&D, can very likely happen.
I think that's a pretty terrible idea. The idea is that you're extremely experienced in dealing with a specific kind of enemy, so you have a handful of utility powers that are neat and flavorful to do with that enemy. How do you change your past experiences over the course of a short rest?

And even if you ignore the fact that there are no combat advantages to Favored Enemy, you gain new favored enemies as you level up, so there's doubly no reason for this. Pick an enemy you tend to run into. My favored enemies are beasts, orcs, and humans. I picked them because I typically run into them quite a lot, and it fits with my backstory. It doesn't affect my combat effectiveness at all.

[Ralanr]

I think that's a pretty terrible idea. The idea is that you're extremely experienced in dealing with a specific kind of enemy, so you have a handful of utility powers that are neat and flavorful to do with that enemy. How do you change your past experiences over the course of a short rest?

And even if you ignore the fact that there are no combat advantages to Favored Enemy, you gain new favored enemies as you level up, so there's doubly no reason for this. Pick an enemy you tend to run into. My favored enemies are beasts, orcs, and humans. I picked them because I typically run into them quite a lot, and it fits with my backstory. It doesn't affect my combat effectiveness at all.

Long rest.

I haven't looked much into Rangers favored abilities too much I'll admit, I kept thinking they had a combat benefit to their abilities.

I still think it's way too specific.

[EvilAnagram]

Long rest.
I think your ability to dramatically alter your past over the course of eight hours should be roughly similar to your ability to dramatically alter your past over the course of a single hour.


I still think it's way too specific.
What exactly do you mean by this? How is it too specific?

[ZenBear]

I hate Favored Enemy/Terrain. Such a narrow benefit that actually is a core source of their power because it kicks in at 1st level and ties to their capstone feature.

Rangers are very similar to Paladins but are so inelegantly designed as opposed to the stunning power and elegance of the Paladin. Oath of Ancients aside, Rangers are to Druids what Paladins are to Clerics.

In my campaign I am removing Favored from the features and just giving Rangers all the tracking, survival and general outdoorsy awesomeness regardless of enemy or terrain. The way I see it, their connection to nature is magical, hence their spellcasting as a core feature. If I were to write up a Ranger overhaul I would build archetypes around various terrains similar to Circle of the Land spell lists.

[Ralanr]

I think your ability to dramatically alter your past over the course of eight hours should be roughly similar to your ability to dramatically alter your past over the course of a single hour.


What exactly do you mean by this? How is it too specific?

I didn't view such abilities as so ingrained into the character's past, I viewed the ability to acquire the knowledge needed for those favored to be ingrained into the characters past. I guess I see it a lot like the studied target ability with Slayers in Pathfinder.

Reading over natural explorer, I have to wonder how much this comes up. I only have personal experience to go by (and I would love to hear others) but travel as described in it has only happened once in my groups campaigns. And that was when we took a short cut through a desert landscaped hell after being in a woodsy area for most of the campaign.

Granted we were level 6, so a ranger could have picked "desert". But if it took a lifetime to gain the benefits of favored abilities, then how would suddenly knowing desert stuff make more sense than being able to swap it after intense study once per long rest?

Edit: I didn't actually answer the question. My apologies. Considering how easy it is for a DM to change the area of the world one can be in, I just don't like the concept of having a favored terrain. It's a small and most likely petty view, but that's my reason.

[EvilAnagram]

I hate Favored Enemy/Terrain. Such a narrow benefit that actually is a core source of their power because it kicks in at 1st level and ties to their capstone feature.
It's not a core source of their power. You can tell because it provides no mechanical advantage in combat for the first 19 levels. If it was the core source of their power, then it would affect a Ranger's ability to fight in combat at some point in those 19 levels.


Rangers are very similar to Paladins but are so inelegantly designed as opposed to the stunning power and elegance of the Paladin. Oath of Ancients aside, they are essentially the Druidic, as opposed to Clerical, Paladin.
I think the one problem with Rangers is that their archery abilities are all concentration. Aside from that, they tend to keep up pretty well both in damage and utility.


In my campaign I am removing Favored from the features and just giving Rangers all the tracking, survival and general outdoorsy awesomeness regardless of enemy or terrain.
That's sad. It's a really flavorful ability that can easily tie into your back story.

[strangebloke]

It's not a core source of their power. You can tell because it provides no mechanical advantage in combat for the first 19 levels. If it was the core source of their power, then it would affect a Ranger's ability to fight in combat at some point in those 19 levels.


I think the one problem with Rangers is that their archery abilities are all concentration. Aside from that, they tend to keep up pretty well both in damage and utility.


That's sad. It's a really flavorful ability that can easily tie into your back story.

My issue with rangers is not so much that they're bad, because they're really not. My problem with them is that they're thematically all over the place, and that half of their abilities do nothing. It just feels weird to have this character who's obsessed with, say kobolds, but then never fights them throughout the entire campaign.

Also, like I said before, what is the Ranger's theme? Why do you play them? Is it archery? Fighters and rogues do it better. Is it their nature magic? Druids. Is it fantastic racism? Vengeance palladins. Nature skillmonkey? With the way skills work now, you could just play a rogue or bard. Every niche they could have is already better filled by someone else, and their abilities are all over the place.

The only sort of unique thing they have is their pet, which is pretty bad unless played in a very specific way.

For fixing them, I don't know. Pick one thing, and make it awesome! I would love a spell-less ranger that was just all about hunting down bad guys and animals and making them pay. Really fast overland speed, really amazing tracking, (can even track something that teleports) and keep the favored enemy, sure. I don't know.

[EvilAnagram]

Also, like I said before, what is the Ranger's theme?

Rangers are warriors of the wilds who have dedicated themselves to mastering the art of hunting quarry, be they humanoid or beast. They are trackers and hunters attuned to the natural world, at home with weapons where the Druid is not, at home with nature where the Fighter is not. And I do not see how any of their abilities fail to support this theme.

[djreynolds]

Very true. I like the discussion about this. Rangers have so much out of combat utility that is just there. I think we view the game, at least myself, only in terms of combat and the dungeon crawl, that we forget out of combat.

But fighters, rangers, and rogue have the ability to multiclass very easily without losing out on much. Ranger can grab 2 levels of fighter for an extra style and action surge, and them grab rogue for expertise, sneak attack. IMO, the wizard or cleric is usually looking to stay pure. It's doesn't level the playing ground but it is a good aspect.

Many players like the martial classes because of the non dependence on magic and rest. A fighter, rogue, and even a ranger can keep going.

And when I play a wizard, I'm very cautious with spells. I save and conserve. I have attack and contingency spells, but very few utility other than rituals. So if a rogue can scout let him, I'm not wasting invisibility on that. I need that for me. And if fighter can jump a span, good my jump spell is for retreat.

But yes, in a one on one battle, high level wizards are scary. But low level wizards are not IMO. Yes rangers could use something more. I see many DMs combining both archetypes and I'm fine with that or giving them expertise, but they can easily grab a yummy level of rogue for that.

I do feel paladins are overpowered without wisdom dependency for spells and no dex bonuses on heavy armor. And shillelagh is little overpowered because of the ease to obtain it.

How powerful is disarm and trip in a martial repertoire? For wizard beatings?

[Shaofoo]

Very true. I like the discussion about this. Rangers have so much out of combat utility that is just there. I think we view the game, at least myself, only in terms of combat and the dungeon crawl, that we forget out of combat.

But fighters, rangers, and rogue have the ability to multiclass very easily without losing out on much. Ranger can grab 2 levels of fighter for an extra style and action surge, and them grab rogue for expertise, sneak attack. IMO, the wizard or cleric is usually looking to stay pure. It's doesn't level the playing ground but it is a good aspect.

Many players like the martial classes because of the non dependence on magic and rest. A fighter, rogue, and even a ranger can keep going.

And when I play a wizard, I'm very cautious with spells. I save and conserve. I have attack and contingency spells, but very few utility other than rituals. So if a rogue can scout let him, I'm not wasting invisibility on that. I need that for me. And if fighter can jump a span, good my jump spell is for retreat.

But yes, in a one on one battle, high level wizards are scary. But low level wizards are not IMO. Yes rangers could use something more. I see many DMs combining both archetypes and I'm fine with that or giving them expertise, but they can easily grab a yummy level of rogue for that.

I do feel paladins are overpowered without wisdom dependency for spells and no dex bonuses on heavy armor. And shillelagh is little overpowered because of the ease to obtain it.

How powerful is disarm and trip in a martial repertoire? For wizard beatings?

I just want to say that multiclassing is an optional part of the game and the DM has the right to allow or deny it in his game per the RAW. If you feel that multiclassing gives too much you can deny it.

Also nearly everyone is looking to stay pure, Fighters lose out on their 4th attack and Rogues lose out on an automatic hit or 20 to a skill check every rest if you multiclass. The only ones that I find don't care much are Monks and Warlocks since their capstones are very weaksauce.

And I don't think that a PvP match is a good measuring stick as to how the classes balance out, like I said before if you just throw wizard into a single encounter he can nova it up and whatever next encounter you will probably forget the previous encounter. It is like if in the game the Wizards get their full spell slots as soon as the battle is over.

Well you can't really put disarm and trip in a martial repertoire because both of them can only be done by Battlemaster Fighters and I don't think either of them can help in killing a Wizard in PvP

[strangebloke]

Rangers are warriors of the wilds who have dedicated themselves to mastering the art of hunting quarry, be they humanoid or beast. They are trackers and hunters attuned to the natural world, at home with weapons where the Druid is not, at home with nature where the Fighter is not. And I do not see how any of their abilities fail to support this theme.

Lets look at their abilities, then.

favored enemy and natural explorer. Fine. Totally relevant for a hunter/tracker, except that these abilities really don't do anything because they're so specific. Same thing goes for land's stride and hid in plain sight later on. Not useless, but highly situational

Fighting style. Archery befits a hunter, but the other three? What are you hunting where two swords seems like a good idea? Why are you dueling, or defending? It's not awful but its awkward.

Ignoring archetypes because we're talking about the core chassis here, that and spellcasting is all they get until 14th level. Even then, vanish is good, but you don't actually have any class features that make you benefit from hiding in combat. When your palladin is smiting for tons of damage, your fighter is loading up on SLAs and extra attacks, your rogues are getting double proficiency, your bards are advancing their spellcasting and becoming a true jack-of-all trades, and your monks are jumping way into the air and running on water...

You get a few highly-situational class features that actually promote your archetype, and a few non-situational ones that don't. It's awkward.

[mephnick]

Favoured enemy is way too specific. My ranger is great at tracking fey, which was a heavy part of the first few sessions of our campaign (because I specifically started it there to match his choice..), but now we've been out on the plains and the fey thing will likely never come up again..like, ever.

It should be a larger selection of enemies, to mimic the knowledge of an experienced survivalist. I don't really care about combat advantage, but right now it's borderline useless just like it was in 3.5. It's something the devs can point to and say "Look at what you get!" instead of giving the ranger a useful class feature.

[strangebloke]

In the spirit of sticking true to the thread, how can we make favored enemy more better/interesting/fun. It's already plenty thematic.

I'd start by broadening the categories. Use categories big enough that every monster fits into say, 4 or 5 categories. Something like:
Outsiders (Angels/Demons/Devils/elementals etc.)
Natural Creatures (beasts/monstrosities/Plants)
Humanoids
Artificial creatures (golems/abberations)
Dragons

[EvilAnagram]

Fighting style. Archery befits a hunter, but the other three? What are you hunting where two swords seems like a good idea?
People. A tracker and scout working for an army in the wilderness still hunts things, just not animals.


Ignoring archetypes because we're talking about the core chassis here, that and spellcasting is all they get until 14th level. Even then, vanish is good, but you don't actually have any class features that make you benefit from hiding in combat. When your palladin is smiting for tons of damage, your fighter is loading up on SLAs and extra attacks, your rogues are getting double proficiency, your bards are advancing their spellcasting and becoming a true jack-of-all trades, and your monks are jumping way into the air and running on water...
As spellcasters, a Ranger's spells are used to boost his ability to explore the world around him. Speak with Animals, Fog Cloud, Beast Sense, Pass Without Trace, Plant Growth and even Jump and Longstrider can easily help you to increase your ability to explore the world around you, especially with your other abilities helping you out.

You also get an extra attack and multiple ways of increasing your damage from Hunter's Mark and Hail of Thorns to all your archetype abilities. It's a very flavorful, fun class that can consistently deal decent damage while opening up several exploration opportunities.

[EvilAnagram]

In the spirit of sticking true to the thread, how can we make favored enemy more better/interesting/fun. It's already plenty thematic.

I'd start by broadening the categories. Use categories big enough that every monster fits into say, 4 or 5 categories. Something like:
Outsiders (Angels/Demons/Devils/elementals etc.)
Natural Creatures (beasts/monstrosities/Plants)
Humanoids
Artificial creatures (golems/abberations)
Dragons
I don't know. If you pick beasts and monstrosities, you've already taken care of a massive portion of the MM. Take the most common two races in your setting, and you're pretty well covered by level 14. If your campaign frequently involves certain types of enemies, picking up them seems like a good idea. Since the advantage is just a boost to knowledge checks and tracking, it doesn't seem too necessary to expand on it.

[Mara]

I like how people argue whether the fighter or ranger is the worse class. The ranger is a half caster that gets access to some of the most power spells in the game along with good DPR. It obviously does just fine. What I like about the argument is that it says good things about fighters and the caster/martial disparity as a whole. In 3.x by mere virtue of having spells at all the ranger outpaced the fighter.

[choryukami]

In response to the original post: In my opinion, this can be done with refluffing. Your high level barbarian/fighter hits 4 times a round? Well don't forget combat is an abstraction. At low level, one HIT every six seconds is what's happening. You are actually making more attacks. So at level 20 a fighter who hits 4 times around makes how many attacks? 16? 20? You decide. And then when you make a strength check to break down a door? At level 1 you barely make it and smash it off its hinges. At level 20 you shatter it to splinters with an effortless wave of your hand.

Aside from that I have another point to make. D&D is meant to be realistic. But how many actual level 16-20 people have you met? Most people are level 1-5 in the real world. A level 20 person has fought dragons (and can take a direct hit from a dragon breath) giants (and hits as hard as one) ghosts, and everything else you can imagine without flinching. They ARE wuxia. They are anime-style, nearly god-like in their strength and skill.

In response to the ranger discussion, I agree. They're kinda all over the place. They make pretty damaging archers and great wilderness skill monkeys. I recently made great use of 5 levels of ranger as a dip for an assassin rogue. Hunter's mark and colossus slayer replace 2d6 SA and now the build gets two assassinates the first round of combat. Besides that she has 9 trained skills (4 rogue, 1 ranger, 1 elf, 2 background).

[djreynolds]

I just want to say that multiclassing is an optional part of the game and the DM has the right to allow or deny it in his game per the RAW. If you feel that multiclassing gives too much you can deny it.

Also nearly everyone is looking to stay pure, Fighters lose out on their 4th attack and Rogues lose out on an automatic hit or 20 to a skill check every rest if you multiclass. The only ones that I find don't care much are Monks and Warlocks since their capstones are very weaksauce.

And I don't think that a PvP match is a good measuring stick as to how the classes balance out, like I said before if you just throw wizard into a single encounter he can nova it up and whatever next encounter you will probably forget the previous encounter. It is like if in the game the Wizards get their full spell slots as soon as the battle is over.

Well you can't really put disarm and trip in a martial repertoire because both of them can only be done by Battlemaster Fighters and I don't think either of them can help in killing a Wizard in PvP

Very true. But if multiclassing is allowed, I find the fighter and rogue really benefit in it.

I feel that this one aspect of three martial classes, fighter, rogue, and ranger, that they can easily multiclass with great synergy. The fighter needs a 13 in strength or dexterity, unlike the barbarian or paladin who must have a 13 strength. Thus limits their multiclassing options.

A fighter, rogue, or ranger strength is their ability to multiclass and maintain their martial prowess through it. A wizard who does multiclass, and do have good options out there, one being two levels of fighter, will forgo because of the limitations it may place on spell progression. Where as the fighter rogue or ranger greatly benefit from multiclassing.

I'm just trying to showcase the options a 14th level martial character may implement to stay viable. Barbarian is a tough sell because of the capstone is awesome. But 17 fighter and 3 assassin, or 12 fighter and 8 assassin is a good melee damage dealer who can nova. Waiting until level 20 for that fourth attack is a long wait, but gaining auto crit is worth the dip and you still get two action surges.

[SharkForce]

the problem with the multiclass synergy is that it isn't so much multiclass synergy as it is a lack of good abilities at high levels.

i mean, it isn't like monk 5 has nothing to offer to a rogue. and it isn't like rogue 5 has nothing to offer to a monk. it's just that the extra ki a monk gets from those 5 levels, plus the monk's really high level abilities, are so amazing that you're actually having to give up something good to get the multiclass benefits. in contrast, a fighter loses very little once they've hit level 11. the next interesting ability is pretty much at 17, and after that 20.

[djreynolds]

the problem with the multiclass synergy is that it isn't so much multiclass synergy as it is a lack of good abilities at high levels.

i mean, it isn't like monk 5 has nothing to offer to a rogue. and it isn't like rogue 5 has nothing to offer to a monk. it's just that the extra ki a monk gets from those 5 levels, plus the monk's really high level abilities, are so amazing that you're actually having to give up something good to get the multiclass benefits. in contrast, a fighter loses very little once they've hit level 11. the next interesting ability is pretty much at 17, and after that 20.

Excellent point

And that's why fighters best ability is to multiclass with ease. No matter the other class, they either have a 13 in strength or dexterity. And now you just have to match up in wisdom, intelligence, or charisma.

Eldritch Knight 11 and Wizard 9 is a sweet build, but so wizard 15/fighter 5.

Rogue is also easy to multiclass and a five level dip in any combat class gives you the extra attack you need.

Yes, rogues and fighters have big 20th level capstones but these two classes are perfect for multiclassing

[Ralanr]

Not sure the same can be said for barbarians. It's an awesome capstone, so much that I keep debating if I should multiclass my barbarian at all (because action surge seems pretty awesome).

[djreynolds]

Not sure the same can be said for barbarians. It's an awesome capstone, so much that I keep debating if I should multiclass my barbarian at all (because action surge seems pretty awesome).

Mr Ralanr, question, I have an app on my phone, 5th edition character sheets, that lets me create characters. Hit points are always max at first and then say for a barbarian 7 per level after, 1/2 +1

But my question is, and it could be a design flaw, that when I achieve 20th level with the barbarian the additional 4 con points are not retroactive. Please tell me that in the real game these are retroactive as any another bump in constitution.

And I'd leave barbarian alone if that's the base chassis.+

But I wished capstones came earlier, 20th level is so far away from me.

[Ralanr]

Mr Ralanr, question, I have an app on my phone, 5th edition character sheets, that lets me create characters. Hit points are always max at first and then say for a barbarian 7 per level after, 1/2 +1

But my question is, and it could be a design flaw, that when I achieve 20th level with the barbarian the additional 4 con points are not retroactive. Please tell me that in the real game these are retroactive as any another bump in constitution.

And I'd leave barbarian alone if that's the base chassis.+

But I wished capstones came earlier, 20th level is so far away from me.

I believe that they are as with any increase in constitution.

I've been wrong before. I don't see how I could be wrong here.

[SharkForce]

I believe that they are as with any increase in constitution.

I've been wrong before. I don't see how I could be wrong here.

agreed. someone coded the app wrong.

anyways, barbarian actually has some pretty solid upgrades at high level, though it's still somewhat unimpressive compared to casters who get new and more awesome abilities every 2 levels in addition to their class and subclass abilities.

[djreynolds]

agreed. someone coded the app wrong.

anyways, barbarian actually has some pretty solid upgrades at high level, though it's still somewhat unimpressive compared to casters who get new and more awesome abilities every 2 levels in addition to their class and subclass abilities.

What would you have done to level the playing ground? There's no magic resistance. Unfaif to have wizards revert to 3.5 1d4 hit die, which I liked because it reminded me of Raistlin and the sacrifice of casting magic, but even he became a god. Outlaw spells, increase warrior hit die?

[SharkForce]

*shrug* what i would have done would apparently make a lot of other people unhappy. i would have given fighters crazy ridiculous things they can do also. based on responses from these forums, i don't think that's what most people that play fighters want.

as i've said elsewhere: basically we need a flexible improvement that doesn't come from the core system (ie not a generic enhancement to what skills can do), doesn't feel magical, doesn't add much (or ideally any) complexity or greatly increase the number of choices a player has to make when building the character or especially when playing the character, doesn't add resources to track, and otherwise has half a dozen requirements that are nearly impossible to reconcile with each other.

this is not a one-man job. this is a job that WotC should have taken on when they designed the game.

alternately, we could also just give non-casters an across-the-board substantial damage increase at higher levels (not all at a single level of course), and tweak high-level monster's HP to match. but i suspect that would make a lot of other people scream bloody murder too (personally, i don't mind if my wizard's damage sucks royally compared to a fighter's damage, but a lot of people seem to get really angry if casters fall too far behind warriors in at-will damage for some incomprehensible reason; personally, i like casters that provide a crap-ton of control but deal awful damage to complement warriors that deal a crap-ton of damage but have really lousy control, but it does not appear that i'm in the majority on this subject).

[Ralanr]

Isn't that what casters are supposed to be? More of a crowd control role?

[SharkForce]

Isn't that what casters are supposed to be? More of a crowd control role?

depends on caster and setting, i suppose.

in world of warcraft you can make a caster that is either/or, for example.

in D&D, priests were traditionally not as good at CC as magic-users (not that they were terrible; command was good, after all, it just wasn't as good as sleep. hold person is good, just not as good as web and stinking cloud, which is a 2nd level spell in 2e. and so on).

that said, they are also quite good at buffing in earlier editions of D&D. in my 2e group, it feels amazing to buff a fighter up to 18/00 strength, enlarge is hilariously strong, and when you haste the party fighters, they just start cutting through enemies like you wouldn't believe (double attacks on multiple targets, none of this single extra attack on a single target nonsense). properly buffed, 2e fighter damage is dramatically higher than 5e fighters when compared to the world around them. and also much more necessary than 5e; in 5e, your caster can sustain pretty good damage. not just from cantrips (in fact, only a select few can sustain good damage from cantrips), but from summons or other persistent effects. i'm pretty confident that i've cleared out large groups of enemies more quickly by hasting the fighters than by throwing a fireball against anything even remotely tough. that aspect has been unfortunately lost almost entirely, a casualty to the quest to prevent casters from stacking defensive buffs to near indestructibility on themselves. while i can certainly support the need to prevent casters from buffing themselves into better fighters than fighters, i generally never saw that coming up in any 2nd edition game i played.

[MeeposFire]

depends on caster and setting, i suppose.

in world of warcraft you can make a caster that is either/or, for example.

in D&D, priests were traditionally not as good at CC as magic-users (not that they were terrible; command was good, after all, it just wasn't as good as sleep. hold person is good, just not as good as web and stinking cloud, which is a 2nd level spell in 2e. and so on).

that said, they are also quite good at buffing in earlier editions of D&D. in my 2e group, it feels amazing to buff a fighter up to 18/00 strength, enlarge is hilariously strong, and when you haste the party fighters, they just start cutting through enemies like you wouldn't believe (double attacks on multiple targets, none of this single extra attack on a single target nonsense). properly buffed, 2e fighter damage is dramatically higher than 5e fighters when compared to the world around them. and also much more necessary than 5e; in 5e, your caster can sustain pretty good damage. not just from cantrips (in fact, only a select few can sustain good damage from cantrips), but from summons or other persistent effects. i'm pretty confident that i've cleared out large groups of enemies more quickly by hasting the fighters than by throwing a fireball against anything even remotely tough. that aspect has been unfortunately lost almost entirely, a casualty to the quest to prevent casters from stacking defensive buffs to near indestructibility on themselves. while i can certainly support the need to prevent casters from buffing themselves into better fighters than fighters, i generally never saw that coming up in any 2nd edition game i played.

Well that was because buffing a wizard to that point was very resource intensive and AD&D wizards had far less resources to work with (less spells per day due to no bonus spells and less access to wands that you want at a drop of a hat due to harder crafting rules and less likely to get specific treasures). 3e wizards could get most of the fighters base abilities with only losing a caster level or two which means it did not take much to overtake the fighter in 3e. In 2e you would have to be a fighter/mage of some sort to get that but while that works great at low levels at high levels your mage level starts to really lag behind if your DM even allows for you to get high levels due to optional level limits (dual classing has its own problems so I will leave that out for now).

[Malifice]

A fighter loses very little once they've hit level 11. the next interesting ability is pretty much at 17, and after that 20.

Aside from (assuming a lowly Champion):

1. Anywhere from two to four extra ability score improvements/ feats he would have lost via multi-classing
2. Two extra uses of indomitable per long rest
3. An extra use of action surge per short rest
4. A fourth attack per attack action
5. An 18-20 crit range
6. the ability to regenerate on half HP or less
7. 1d10 HD per level (only matched by Rangers/ Paladins and exceeded by Barbs).

Not sure I would call that 'losing very little'

[SharkForce]

honestly, i'm not sure you could ever buff a wizard (or cleric) to fighter levels.

specialization was a pretty big deal, exceptional strength was a big deal, weapon proficiency was a big deal, ability to use two weapons was a big deal. if your wizard uses tenser's transformation (a 6th level spell, so you needed to be level 12 to use it at all), you doubled your HP (fighters could still get more), AC improved by 4 (no, that wasn't remotely close to what actual armour could give you), and you could attack twice with a staff or once with a dagger at a fighter's THAC0... except with no exceptional strength.

also, you had to chug a potion of heroism as a spell component.

in contrast, a fighter drinking that same potion of heroism would have 3 attacks per round with probably a longsword and 1 with a short sword, more hit points, better THAC0, probably has exceptional strength and potentially near 18/00, and you don't need to blow a level 6 spell to do it.

as to fewer resources.... eh, not so much. at level 1, sure, wizards in 2e have fewer resources than 5e. then you factor in specialization if you can qualify. and all the items that can give you more spells. and the fact that when you're level 9, your magic missile is 5 missiles from a level 1 spell slot, your fireball does 9d6 damage, your slow spell hits 9 targets, and a number of your spells will let you apply a fairly significant penalty to the target's saving throw and in some cases don't allow saving throws at all (otto's irresistible dance used to be irresistible for the entire duration, not just the first round, for example). spells frequently last a long time; on a day off, i can cast armour on the entire party and unless they take a bunch of damage, it's still there a week later. i can cast stoneskin on my days off as well, and again, it sticks around. objects that have fire trap on them can be moved around all i want, and there's even an official book that straight up tells you to go ahead and enchant arrows with it (the complete book of elves, if you're wondering). i can haste a bunch of targets at a time, my enlarge/reduce and shield spells last 45 rounds (and rounds are minutes, so it lasts longer while traveling). i can use a lowly charm person spell to get someone to be extremely helpful for months at a time (for low intelligence targets, they get a new save once per three month period). protection from normal missiles lasts 1 turn/level (that's 10 rounds, and again, travel time is using up less of that) so i get an hour and a half out of it (also, it completely negates arrows, not just makes you resistant). invisibility lasts 24 hours (or until you attack), and an AoE version as a level 3 spell lasts the same (presumably at least, it doesn't specify beyond telling you it grants invisibility) so long as you stay near the person in the middle.

as far as i'm concerned, 2e mages had more total resources in the long run. of course, they also didn't have any at-will resources at all beyond stabbing things with a dagger, so there's that i suppose.

edit: @ malifice:

1) not typically that significant for a fighter. if it was a monk or paladin, that would be a big deal; they need as many ASIs as they can get. for a fighter, it's pretty "meh". you have enough to max your attack attribute, get your damage-increasing feats, and still have a good con attribute. obviously, more attributes (or feats) is better than not having more feats, but we're not weighing against nothing, we're weighing against what you could get instead. and what you could get instead is a lot better.
2) indomitable is pretty bad. it could be made good. but by default, you're probably still going to fail a save you were likely to fail, and probably didn't need it for saves you weren't likely to fail. at least it doesn't get used up until after you know, but still... how often do you find yourself failing your strong saves and it being super-important that you don't? i mean, not just annoying, but really really critical?
3) that would be at level 17, the "next interesting ability" i mentioned one whole sentence later. you couldn't manage to read one extra sentence before answering?
4) that would be at level 20. see number 3 above.
5) which isn't really that great. i mean, it's better than a sharp stick in the eye, but ultimately, it's a small increase to damage, and worst of all isn't reliable. you have no control over whether it goes to the BBEG or the 10 HP skeleton guarding the front gate.
6) that's nice and all, but i don't see a lot of people who think it's a great idea to walk around with barely more HP than a 12 con wizard to start off a fight. it's certainly a nice ability (and probably the best of the archetype abilities, sadly enough). but it isn't wish or true polymorph 1/day nice, or even remotely close. you're still going to need to heal up the second half, and it's only important if enemies aren't ignoring you to focus down the characters who can paralyze them, enslave them, banish them, or otherwise negate their contribution to the fight.
7) AKA +1 HP over a d8 hit die class, which is what was the lowest discussed HD of classes to multiclass into?

now let's compare what you gain from taking 9 levels of rogue in place of that:

expertise in 4 skills (or 3 skills and thieve's tools)
extremely reliable sneak attack damage (you probably have 4 attacks per round, and if one of them hits, you probably get to add your sneak attack damage to it)
cunning action, which is amazing
uncanny dodge (if you use it even once, it'll probably make up the HP difference, and saves healing resources just like champion)
evasion (if it works once, again, it'll probably make up the HP difference, and is another way to save healing resources)
your first 2 rogue archetype abilities (guaranteed crits in the first round against a target of your choice sounds like it compares *slightly* more favourably than critting a bit more often)
a bonus skill from the rogue list and thieve's tools proficiency

so, you lose a whole bunch of trash and a little bit of awesome, and gain a whole bunch of awesome and a little bit of trash. that second use of action surge would be really nice, but it's not nice enough to be worth slogging through the rest of those levels gaining not much worth mentioning. if you're really hard-up for ASIs, i could see going as far as fighter 12, but if the core of your build is fighter, you really shouldn't be hard-up for ASIs, because you don't need a ton of stats to do what you want.

[Mara]

Aside from (assuming a lowly Champion):

1. Anywhere from two to four extra ability score improvements/ feats he would have lost via multi-classing
2. Two extra uses of indomitable per long rest
3. An extra use of action surge per short rest
4. A fourth attack per attack action
5. An 18-20 crit range
6. the ability to regenerate on half HP or less
7. 1d10 HD per level (only matched by Rangers/ Paladins and exceeded by Barbs).

Not sure I would call that 'losing very little'
True, but 5th level wizard spells basically turn you into an arcane paladin.

I would call it an even trade. But most of the diehard 4e fans have decided that the game is so imbalanced that spells > not-spells

[SharkForce]

True, but 5th level wizard spells basically turn you into an arcane paladin.

I would call it an even trade. But most of the diehard 4e fans have decided that the game is so imbalanced that spells > not-spells

nobody said there was great synergy with casters. 9 levels in a caster class at level 20 is kinda bad, unless you don't really want a caster at all. it can be ok in certain specific builds, like paladin/sorcerer multiclass, but the whole point i was trying to make is that casters give up a whole lot to do a deep multiclass whereas the same cannot be said for several non-caster classes.

also, whatever else i am, a fan of 4e is not one of those things. i didn't like 4e. i hated what it did to casters, and i didn't particularly like how it did what it did to non-casters (non-casters getting awesome stuff is great, fighters having daily abilities just doesn't make sense to me though).

[Ralanr]

Could 9th level spells be the problem?

[Mara]

Could 9th level spells be the problem?
The one you get a day? They are strong not all powerful.

[Ralanr]

The one you get a day? They are strong not all powerful.

Exactly. I used to think they're another example of casters being too powerful, but it's only once a day. It's possible that some people see that power cap and compare it to their own with too much haste.

[SharkForce]

level 9 spells (especially the ones that can be used to alter the entire day) are a part of the problem, in the sense that the casters have been progressively getting better and better in new ways while non-casters are generally getting only a little bit better in the same way they were good before...

but no, that isn't *the* problem. the problem is that when non-casters get their level 11 spike (third attack for fighter, multiattack for ranger, etc), casters get their level 6 spells, which are also quite awesome... and then 2 levels later they get their level 7, which is also awesome, and non-casters get... typically nothing worth mentioning. then 2 levels later casters get level 8 spells, and non-casters get... again, typically nothing worth mentioning. all while also gaining more of their lower-level resources, which all get massively better with their increasing proficiency bonus because it increases their save DCs while for many creatures saving throws are not increasing (or at least, not across the board, and you only need to have one really bad save for a caster to be able to target it).