Strong Conditions vs. Weak Conditions

[Witty Username]

Wisdom saves aren’t defined by the effects they counter act but by the means of resistance. Iron will and clear of mind and all that. In 5e it is the expectation that certain conditions like charmed or frightened are likely to have a wisdom save to resist, but notably there is no requirement for the effect to be supernatural or not. If this where AD&D where save vs spell was its own thing I would be much more on board with this (since it emphasizes the magic not the bravery)

That does get the mind turning though,
Say an effect which produces adrenaline in the target, Con save to resist or be frightened - essentially forcing the body to a panic state bypassing the mind entirely.
I may homebrew some monsters later.

[Dr.Samurai]

Dragons are weird in that they’re “magical” non-“magic” beings. The fear they cause isn’t normal fear. The way their ability works it’s an effect they choose. Dragons can be afraid of other (even younger, smaller) dragons, for instance.
We can agree to disagree. Again, I don't think the point is all that relevant, given that the outcome, regardless of how you categorize it, is that fighters and barbarians will more often be Frightened than other adventurers with better Wisdom saves. And that, in my humble opinion as someone that loves stories about stalwart warriors that brave the dangers of their various fantasy settings to fight evil, is a major narrative mistake and bad design.

They’re no more or less scared than the other adventures.

This is just factually and mathematically untrue when monsters start slinging around Frightened effects.

I’m not sure there’s necessarily a “common way to play”: every DM and every table will have variances in playstyle, type of game they’re playing, strategies, meta gaming vs non-meta gaming, etc.
That there are variances doesn't mean there aren't also similarities. The game is designed in a certain way. The weaknesses of casters (well, supposed weaknesses lol) is meant to keep them engaging monsters from a distance, because otherwise they will keep falling to 0hp, as in your experience.

This is why I keep saying the issue with “hard” conditions or saving throws isn’t a system problem, but a table one.
This argument would suggest that there can't be any system problems. Do you believe that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

We can agree to disagree. Again, I don't think the point is all that relevant, given that the outcome, regardless of how you categorize it, is that fighters and barbarians will more often be Frightened than other adventurers with better Wisdom saves. And that, in my humble opinion as someone that loves stories about stalwart warriors that brave the dangers of their various fantasy settings to fight evil, is a major narrative mistake and bad design.


IMO, if you want your particular warrior to be a brave, stalwart one in a class/level game, you have a few choices--
a) pick one of the archetypes that specifically provides that (e.g. a paladin).
b) pick one of the customization options that provides that (i.e. Resilient Wisdom).
c) choose to devote a couple ability points to Wisdom (probably wise anyway, since Perception is so valuable), putting you on par with everyone else who doesn't get proficiency normally (Barbarians, Bards, Fighters, Monks until level 14, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers)

Because there are lots of archetypes for "warriors" who don't have any particular resistance to fear, supernatural or otherwise.

[Dr.Samurai]

IMO, if you want your particular warrior to be a brave, stalwart one in a class/level game, you have a few choices--
a) pick one of the archetypes that specifically provides that (e.g. a paladin).
Nah, I'm good. Not interested in spellcasting, smiting, lacking mobility, not having Str/Con saves, etc.

b) pick one of the customization options that provides that (i.e. Resilient Wisdom).
If available, sure. And I have. But this could easily be a feature wrapped up in the class instead of a feat tax. You're basically saying, if you don't want to get stunned, paralyzed, incapacitated, dominated, etc out of a fight, you need to take this feat. Because good design/strengths and weaknesses or whatever.

c) choose to devote a couple ability points to Wisdom (probably wise anyway, since Perception is so valuable), putting you on par with everyone else who doesn't get proficiency normally (Barbarians, Bards, Fighters, Monks until level 14, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers)
We've been through this at length in this thread.

Because there are lots of archetypes for "warriors" who don't have any particular resistance to fear, supernatural or otherwise.
And there are LOTS who ARE stalwart and brave in point of fact. And I don't want to have to play a paladin to have that. Having a class feature that provides an option (similar to Hunter subclass that gives options for different features at those levels) would be great, and I can then choose if I want to be stalwart or not, as opposed to not having that option and being told I'm making bad choices, and/or hoping my DM allows a variant rule.

Feat taxes or bumping my bonus from 0 to +1 is not a good solution, IMO.

[TaiLiu]

An idea I had is that you could have the dragon's frightful presence only inflict the frightened condition on a passed save instead of a failed one.
I don't fully like it as it implies bravery only comes from not understanding the threat, something counter to what I imagine many are looking for in their class fantasy.

It also requires an inverse bonus to the save DC with dragon age, or the wyrmling becomes the most terrifying age.
I briefly considered this solution as well. My problem with it is that it contradicts the core d20 system of higher is better. But if D&D 5e weren't built around its d20 system, this would be a surprisingly elegant solution.


Indomitable should be a more central ability of the fighter, available earlier with more uses per rest. They just grit through it and decide nah, I actually passed.

Rage should come with more and more condition immunities as the barb gains levels. They should also have an Iron Heart Surge type of ability that lets them end conditions

Rogue should get a luck themed power, letting them reroll failed saves and checks (divine soul has a good model for this)

Ranger should have a better spell list that includes some defensive options

Monk should get proficiency in all saves WAY earlier, like 6-7
Those are good solutions, though things like proficiency and advantage are less effective than I'd like.


IMO, if you want your particular warrior to be a brave, stalwart one in a class/level game, you have a few choices--
a) pick one of the archetypes that specifically provides that (e.g. a paladin).
b) pick one of the customization options that provides that (i.e. Resilient Wisdom).
c) choose to devote a couple ability points to Wisdom (probably wise anyway, since Perception is so valuable), putting you on par with everyone else who doesn't get proficiency normally (Barbarians, Bards, Fighters, Monks until level 14, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers)

Because there are lots of archetypes for "warriors" who don't have any particular resistance to fear, supernatural or otherwise.
This feels like a condemnation of either D&D 5e's class system or its monster design. Surely the point of a class system is to provide useful archetypes. And the archetype of the big strong warrior who stands strong in the face of danger—even foolishly—is an obvious one.

Your solutions are to either pick very particular archetypes, use an optional system and spend an ASI, or spend points in an ability score that the game fails to recommend for most warriors. Surely game mastery shouldn't be required to fulfill such a basic class fantasy.

If a new player wants to play a big strong warrior who stands foolishly strong in the face of danger, maybe they'd play a Barbarian and choose the stereotypical half-orc and follow the quick start recommendation to prioritize Strength and Constitution.

Their resulting character sucks at resisting a dragon's fearful presence, contradicting the basic class fantasy. To me, this is obviously bad.

[RSP]

And that, in my humble opinion as someone that loves stories about stalwart warriors that brave the dangers of their various fantasy settings to fight evil, is a major narrative mistake and bad design.

But “stalwart warrior” can be almost anyone: a Bladesinger, for instance, could very much RP’d as a stalwart warrior. My Sorc could fit this description.

Again, every PC can be (and probably is) well above average in terms of bravery.



This is just factually and mathematically untrue when monsters start slinging around Frightened effects.

How so? Isn’t the Wis 14 Fighter with Resilient (Con) way more likely to pass the Wis save than the Wis 8 Sorc without the feat?



That there are variances doesn't mean there aren't also similarities. The game is designed in a certain way. The weaknesses of casters (well, supposed weaknesses lol) is meant to keep them engaging monsters from a distance, because otherwise they will keep falling to 0hp, as in your experience.

This argument would suggest that there can't be any system problems. Do you believe that?

There absolutely can be. But if a player (or group of players) don’t like a monster or an ability or failing a save; I don’t see that as “this system is at fault”, it’s a table issue.

For instance, if a DM decided they’d have 3 Mind Flayers and their six hobgoblin henchmen, take on their group of four level 6 PCs, and the party gets TPK’d, it’s not the system being broken: it’s the DM not building appropriate encounters for their table.

If a group doesn’t like facing Mind Flayers in general, that should be discussed with the table and probably opt not to use them. But it doesn’t mean the system messed up.

If a table decides “hey don’t like failed saves so everyone gets +5 to every save”, all they’ve done is make any monster that has abilities tied to saving throws easier. They didn’t solve any system issue (though they may have created one).



This feels like a condemnation of either D&D 5e's class system or its monster design. Surely the point of a class system is to provide useful archetypes. And the archetype of the big strong warrior who stands strong in the face of danger—even foolishly—is an obvious one.

A level 1 fighter can foolishly stand strong in front of a Fire Giant. All you need for that is role playing.



Your solutions are to either pick very particular archetypes, use an optional system and spend an ASI, or spend points in an ability score that the game fails to recommend for most warriors. Surely game mastery shouldn't be required to fulfill such a basic class fantasy.

If a new player wants to play a big strong warrior who stands foolishly strong in the face of danger, maybe they'd play a Barbarian and choose the stereotypical half-orc and follow the quick start recommendation to prioritize Strength and Constitution.

Their resulting character sucks at resisting a dragon's fearful presence, contradicting the basic class fantasy. To me, this is obviously bad.

They’re mechanical options. Just like the Sorc shouldn’t get d12 HP and Heavy Armor prof just because they want to play a Sorc and don’t want sacrifices for picking that class.

[TaiLiu]

A level 1 fighter can foolishly stand strong in front of a Fire Giant. All you need for that is role playing.
Yes.


They’re mechanical options. Just like the Sorc shouldn’t get d12 HP and Heavy Armor prof just because they want to play a Sorc and don’t want sacrifices for picking that class.
I don't understand your sorcerer analogy.

[Dr.Samurai]

This feels like a condemnation of either D&D 5e's class system or its monster design. Surely the point of a class system is to provide useful archetypes. And the archetype of the big strong warrior who stands strong in the face of danger—even foolishly—is an obvious one.

Your solutions are to either pick very particular archetypes, use an optional system and spend an ASI, or spend points in an ability score that the game fails to recommend for most warriors. Surely game mastery shouldn't be required to fulfill such a basic class fantasy.

If a new player wants to play a big strong warrior who stands foolishly strong in the face of danger, maybe they'd play a Barbarian and choose the stereotypical half-orc and follow the quick start recommendation to prioritize Strength and Constitution.

Their resulting character sucks at resisting a dragon's fearful presence, contradicting the basic class fantasy. To me, this is obviously bad.
Very well said.

But “stalwart warrior” can be almost anyone: a Bladesinger, for instance, could very much RP’d as a stalwart warrior. My Sorc could fit this description.
I don't think this is a reasonable response to what we're saying. I just said I'm not interested in spellcasting in response to the paladin suggestion, so now you're suggesting I play a wizard or sorcerer in order to play a stalwart warrior.

Again, every PC can be (and probably is) well above average in terms of bravery.
Already addressed this RSP.

How so? Isn’t the Wis 14 Fighter with Resilient (Con) way more likely to pass the Wis save than the Wis 8 Sorc without the feat?

You made a general statement that you are now qualifying with specific ability scores and feats.


There absolutely can be. But if a player (or group of players) don’t like a monster or an ability or failing a save; I don’t see that as “this system is at fault”, it’s a table issue.

The vulnerability that these martials have to stun-lock effects is a well known phenomenon that isn't isolated to a handful of people on this forum.

But noted that you don't think it's a system problem. I'm not particularly interested in trying any further to persuade you otherwise.

They’re mechanical options. Just like the Sorc shouldn’t get d12 HP and Heavy Armor prof just because they want to play a Sorc and don’t want sacrifices for picking that class.

I don't understand your sorcerer analogy.
Generally the analogies ignore most of the context provided in this thread for our position, so they wind up not making sense.

Thinking a fighter shouldn't run in fright so easily from monsters is not the same as thinking a sorcerer should have the highest AC and HP in the game. But some people pretend they are.

[Witty Username]

Because there are lots of archetypes for "warriors" who don't have any particular resistance to fear, supernatural or otherwise.

Meanwhile there are plenty of wizard archetypes that can resist temptation... something I just said doesn't add up.

[JNAProductions]

Meanwhile there are plenty of wizard archetypes that can resist temptation... something I just said doesn't add up.

Harry Dresden is pretty good at resisting temptation. And he's definitely a wizard-it says so in the phone book.

[Witty Username]

Harry Dresden is pretty good at resisting temptation. And he's definitely a wizard-it says so in the phone book.

I was more thinking of Sparrowhawk, The Wizard of Earthsea, athough I am unfortunately only familiar with the movie.

[RSP]

I don't think this is a reasonable response to what we're saying. I just said I'm not interested in spellcasting in response to the paladin suggestion, so now you're suggesting I play a wizard or sorcerer in order to play a stalwart warrior.

You misunderstand me: I’m not saying your stalwart warrior needs to be a Spellcasting class: I’m saying any class can be a stalwart warrior, because all you’re describing is how you want to RP your character.

So saying “stalwart warriors” need prof in all saves is just saying “anyone who role plays their character as brave should have prof in all saves”.

This, to me, is the same thing as taking a level 1 fighter and role playing them as “the greatest swordsman in the world”: you can act that way, but mechanically you’re still a level 1 fighter. Don’t try to argue that you have to one-shot the Fire Giant because you’re “the greatest swordsman in the world”.

Trying to no sell being magically frightened by arguing your guy is brave, isn’t playing a cooperative storytelling game: it’s trying to write the script for the DM.

[Dr.Samurai]

You misunderstand me: I’m not saying your stalwart warrior needs to be a Spellcasting class: I’m saying any class can be a stalwart warrior, because all you’re describing is how you want to RP your character.
That's not all I'm describing, and that's why I misunderstood you; you're not engaging with the greater context, as usual. You are reading everything in this thread as "I don't want bad things to happen, so change the game".

So saying “stalwart warriors” need prof in all saves is just saying “anyone who role plays their character as brave should have prof in all saves”.

This, to me, is the same thing as taking a level 1 fighter and role playing them as “the greatest swordsman in the world”: you can act that way, but mechanically you’re still a level 1 fighter. Don’t try to argue that you have to one-shot the Fire Giant because you’re “the greatest swordsman in the world”.

Trying to no sell being magically frightened by arguing your guy is brave, isn’t playing a cooperative storytelling game: it’s trying to write the script for the DM.
This is a really uncharitable read of what's being said. I'm not surprised. I guess I'm surprised that I keep responding lol.

It's a pity the forum shields debate "strategy" like this from being called out directly.



With regards to Dresden... D&D Harry will be doing a lot of fighting alone since Murph will fail all her Wisdom saves lol.

[Nagog]

Nah, I'm good. Not interested in [...] not having Str/Con saves, etc.


If you're not interesting in not having these saves, you have the option of playing a level 14+ Monk, a level 7+ Samurai Fighter, or picking up the Resilient (Wis) feat at your earliest convenience.

Each class only gets 2 saving throws innately. If you're dead set on having Str and Con, it sounds like Wisdom saves aren't as high a priority for you anyway. Which leads me back to what I've been saying this whole time: your argument repeatedly comes around to "I want to be great at these but I don't want to sacrifice anything for it", when that's not how game balance works on any level. If you want to homebrew a version of every Martial class that has that, you are welcome to, but it's not going to be automatically accepted at any given table like the options everybody has (exhaustively) presented in this thread would be.

You can continue raging against the system as much as you'd like, but homebrewing has always been an option, with all the strings attached that it always has had.

[TaiLiu]

Generally the analogies ignore most of the context provided in this thread for our position, so they wind up not making sense.

Thinking a fighter shouldn't run in fright so easily from monsters is not the same as thinking a sorcerer should have the highest AC and HP in the game. But some people pretend they are.
Oh, I see.

[Dr.Samurai]

If you're not interesting in not having these saves, you have the option of playing a level 14+ Monk, a level 7+ Samurai Fighter, or picking up the Resilient (Wis) feat at your earliest convenience.

Each class only gets 2 saving throws innately. If you're dead set on having Str and Con, it sounds like Wisdom saves aren't as high a priority for you anyway. Which leads me back to what I've been saying this whole time: your argument repeatedly comes around to "I want to be great at these but I don't want to sacrifice anything for it", when that's not how game balance works on any level. If you want to homebrew a version of every Martial class that has that, you are welcome to, but it's not going to be automatically accepted at any given table like the options everybody has (exhaustively) presented in this thread would be.

You can continue raging against the system as much as you'd like, but homebrewing has always been an option, with all the strings attached that it always has had.
Wow, this checks all the boxes of people not engaging with your points:

1. If you want to [insert something I've never said I want to do before] you are free to do so but [insert passive aggressive/underhanded consequences].
2. Granting faux permission to continue speaking on the internet
3. "It sounds like you don't care about the thing you purport to care about..."

Nagog, you started a thread asking the forum if certain things are balanced, so maybe pump the breaks before you lecture me on balance. I've provided context for why I have the opinion I do. I do, in fact, take the Resilient (Wisdom) feat, and currently have it on my Rune Knight fighter (as I've already mentioned). But I still think that easily frightened fighters and barbarians is a freaking mechanical travesty and should be fixed. And that's based on fantasy tropes. And a feat tax is an annoying solution, and that's not an unreasonable take, as many people have complained about feat taxes throughout every edition of D&D that have feats in them. You can disagree of course, but clawing your eyes out over it is dramatic (I consider consistently mischaracterizing me and engaging in fallacies as "clawing your eyes out over it"). IN ADDITION to the position on tropes and fear, I think getting stun-locked out of encounters is not fun, and it simply and factually isn't a crime to wonder aloud if the system can be tweaked in some way to prevent that from happening. And that goes for any class that is susceptible to some sort of stun-lock effect. It just so happens that most of these effects target wisdom, of which NONE of the non-spellcasting classes has proficiency in.

I get it that you and others have a real tough guy "work it out or get over it" attitude but like... who cares? I consider your take on this an extremely bad take.

You and RSP have put forth that in order for the game to be balanced and fun and challenging, the fighter and barbarian MUST be stun-locked/paralyzed/dominated/incapacitated/etc, therefore tweaking the system in anyway to modify this is destroying this delicate balancing, resulting in a less challenging and less fun game. Not only is this OBVIOUSLY not true on its face, but if it were true it would be a problem. Because being locked out of an encounter is not fun most of the time for most people. And given that you can make an entire party of characters that can make these saving throws with ease, it would suggest that the balance of the game is rather quite swingy (and therefore the fun of the game and challenge of the game). At the same time that you hold this position, you then recommend all the various ways that someone could play a character that can make these saving throws more easily, putting yourself in a position where you must either agree that you're recommending a playstyle that results in a less fun and less balanced game (characters that can resist getting stun-locked) or your original point was BS (spoiler alert, it's the latter).

Yeah, I think it can be done better, and I'm not worried if that deeply offends you. It's just an opinion man. Ignore it if it bothers you.

[Skrum]

If you're not interesting in not having these saves, you have the option of playing a level 14+ Monk, a level 7+ Samurai Fighter, or picking up the Resilient (Wis) feat at your earliest convenience.

Each class only gets 2 saving throws innately. If you're dead set on having Str and Con, it sounds like Wisdom saves aren't as high a priority for you anyway. Which leads me back to what I've been saying this whole time: your argument repeatedly comes around to "I want to be great at these but I don't want to sacrifice anything for it", when that's not how game balance works on any level. If you want to homebrew a version of every Martial class that has that, you are welcome to, but it's not going to be automatically accepted at any given table like the options everybody has (exhaustively) presented in this thread would be.

You can continue raging against the system as much as you'd like, but homebrewing has always been an option, with all the strings attached that it always has had.

I would find this to be a far more compelling argument if the classes were more balanced, and if saves in general (in terms of who gets targeted more often) were more equally distributed.

Edit: Dr Sam said it far more eloquently and comprehensively than I would.

[Witty Username]

This, to me, is the same thing as taking a level 1 fighter and role playing them as “the greatest swordsman in the world”: you can act that way, but mechanically you’re still a level 1 fighter. Don’t try to argue that you have to one-shot the Fire Giant because you’re “the greatest swordsman in the world”.


I mean, if I picked fighter, and wanted to play a swordsman, wouldn't the expectation be, to be good at fighting with a sword - at least better than a wizard?

What is the point of fighter, if they are bad at fighting?

--
When you DM, are PCs always able to RP as they will? Or do you have them roll checks?
Like say an Orc attempts to intimidate a fighter (it is a skill after all) does a PC automatically avoid intimidation or do they roll something?

If you are easy to frighten into submission, how are you brave?

[RSP]

I mean, if I picked fighter, and wanted to play a swordsman, wouldn't the expectation be, to be good at fighting with a sword - at least better than a wizard?

What is the point of fighter, if they are bad at fighting?

It’s not that they’re bad at fighting, it’s the idea that what they want to have in their RP idea should dictate the mechanics.

Like if a Player just decided they wanted their new character to be immune to fire because they like Daenerys in Game of Thrones. Certainly a DM could work on this with a player (maybe a custom Targaryen race), but just having the Player say “my PC is immune to fire” skews the game.

So choosing a fighter and having them be good at fighting works. Wanting the rest of the game to adjust so that a level 1 fighter is definitively the best fighter the characters ever encounters removes a lot of monster/npc options from the game.

Now there are build options one can use to make a character a certain way (like a fire resistant race for a Targaryen or a Battlemaster for a swordsman), but for the Barb, any talk of “you have options to build your character to help pass saves” have been met with “I don’t want options, I just want to be able to do it regardless of what character choices I make”.

So this is, to me, the same thing as “I don’t want existing choices to create a resemblance of a fire-immune Targaryen”, but “regardless of whatever else my character is, they are fire immune because that’s what I want.”



When you DM, are PCs always able to RP as they will? Or do you have them roll checks?
Like say an Orc attempts to intimidate a fighter (it is a skill after all) does a PC automatically avoid intimidation or do they roll something?

If you are easy to frighten into submission, how are you brave?

Players are free to roleplay their characters as they wish, but they don’t determine the outcome of their actions, they describe what they want to attempt, and the DM determines outcome resolution (which could be dice rolls).

So if the PC is the Orc in your question, they don’t determine that they are “intimidating”, but rather attempt to intimidate the fighter, and they roll an intimidation skill check.

If they’re the fighter and the Orc is an NPC I’m running as the DM, I’d do one of two things: a) if the Orc is successful on an intimidation check, which would be rolled “secretly”, I would just describe the Orc as someone who appears to be a legit threat to the fighter, then the Player can decide how they want their PC to respond. In this, I’d imagine they’re free to “RP as they will” (again noting they’re not “free” to “RP” scripting outcomes). or
b) if the Orc character has depth to what they’re doing, i may add an Insight check to the fighter to get additional info, such as “the Orc appears to be trying to intimidate you, but as your Gnome fighter is the smallest creature in this bar, it very well might just be because he’s significantly bigger than you.” Or some such.

But the question at hand for the overall conversation seems more in the vein of “my character is too brave to be affected by magical fear, so it doesn’t matter that they have bad saves, or rolled poorly: they aren’t frightened.” It’s trying to dictate the outcomes of dice rolling situations with “but I want my character to not have that happen”.

I think it’s a much better approach to the game and character building in less absolute terms (regarding who the character “is”). For instance, it’s better to have a character who believes themself to be fearless, rather than a character who is fearless. The latter is a absolute and requires something making them immune to the frightened condition to successfully have the in-game experience match the head cannon of the Player (barring lucky rolls for the entirety of the campaign). The former gives opportunities for character growth and additional RP routes (what happens when they’re faced with not always being able to stand resolute? Do they try to hide that fact, or face it? Etc.

If a player doesn’t care about the RP opportunities, cool, not every player does, nor do they have to overly invest in it. But then, don’t get upset that the absolute their headcannon is trying to dictate on the in-game world, that their PC can never be frightened, isn’t being held up by the dice.

Hopefully that answers your question.



You and RSP have put forth that in order for the game to be balanced and fun and challenging, the fighter and barbarian MUST be stun-locked/paralyzed/dominated/incapacitated/etc, therefore tweaking the system in anyway to modify this is destroying this delicate balancing, resulting in a less challenging and less fun game.

I’ll just respond to this with…



1. If you want to [insert something I've never said I want to do before] you are free to do so but [insert passive aggressive/underhanded consequences].

[Witty Username]

But the question at hand for the overall conversation seems more in the vein of “my character is too brave to be affected by magical fear, so it doesn’t matter that they have bad saves, or rolled poorly: they aren’t frightened.” It’s trying to dictate the outcomes of dice rolling situations with “but I want my character to not have that happen”.


So, the complaint isn't that Characters shouldn't fail saves.
The complaint is two fold:
Certain archetypes are put at a disadvantage by the needs of their role. You reject outright the concept of melee and ranged so I don't expect you to agree. But the argument is that Characters reliant on melee are easier to outright disable with poor saves. Sorcerer for example is less likely to be affected by a mind flayer than a Paladin, because they have the capacity to fight from range (even though the Paladin has superior saves across the board). This also affects the disabling over time, since getting into melee also takes time. Picking up a bow is an option, but I suspect that Dr. Samurai would take that as an admission that melee characters are simply not a supported playstyle.
Note, some would take this is the very reason Paladin has good saves, it helps them get in and stay in combat like a martial is want to do.

The second is what classes are intended to represent narratively. A fighter is inherently cowardly due to how saves work. Conan cowering in a corner constantly, while funny to me with my sense of caster superiority, isn't really what anyone expects of a barbarian.

[Rerem115]

Just kinda collating my ideas/opinions here:

1. Due to design philosophy, hit points scale faster than defenses against conditions, and because the primary mechanism of attrition is the loss of said hit points, there are many, many, many options for mitigating hit point damage.

2. Because of the hit point scaling, saves (Dexterity, and to a lesser degree Constitution and Strength) and conditions (Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, lit ablaze) that primarily deal damage or make it easier for enemies to hit you are the easiest to deal with — again, you're spoiled for choice when it comes to mitigating hit point damage.

3. This goes double if you retain the use of your action. Sure, it may suck to be Restrained, but you still have access to almost all of your character options when it comes to fighting back.

4. Therefore, effects that bypass hit point damage (either through massive damage in the form of Paralysis, or effectively instant death, such as Petrification, Charm/Dominate, Suffocation, reduce to 0, or devour mind) or wholly deny your actions (Forcecage and related, Stunned, some Fears, Banishment...Paralysis, Petrification, Charm/Dominate) are the most dangerous. Note that some effects qualify for both!

5. Additionally, almost everything that can inflict one of the above conditions targets a mental save or Constitution. Suffocation is the odd one out, usually being tied to Strength, but it's also relatively infrequent, generally confined to lower levels, and mitigated by Constitution. Dexterity is the only ability score that doesn't have a save or die/be permanently disfigured effect to my knowledge; no instant death guillotines in this edition!

6. So, having good mental saves makes you much less likely to suffer from a character-ending saving throw. However, because of save scaling—or lack thereof—it's expensive to invest in good mental saves if your class doesn't natively get them. Adding insult to injury, proximity based effects and/or DM targeting mean that classes that want to get in melee (i.e., classes that generally specialize in physical saves) are disproportionately afflicted with both physical and mental effects, while their more erudite counterparts are targeted less frequently, and are often more resilient when they are.

7. In summary, a disparity between conditions and their associated saves exists, and therefore an inherent disparity between classes exists. Players and DMs can choose to simply accept the disparity and say 'Of course Wizards and Clerics should have an advantage over Barbarians'. Or, they can rework traps, modules, and the monster manual to spread dangerous conditions more evenly across the 6 saves. Or, they can give the disenfranchised classes tools to help them bridge the gap.

Personally, I wish that the designers had done the second, but in the absence of that I prefer the third; it's the least amount of work to adjust while still accomplishing better parity between the classes.

[Dr.Samurai]

Just kinda collating my ideas/opinions here:

1. Due to design philosophy, hit points scale faster than defenses against conditions, and because the primary mechanism of attrition is the loss of said hit points, there are many, many, many options for mitigating hit point damage.

2. Because of the hit point scaling, saves (Dexterity, and to a lesser degree Constitution and Strength) and conditions (Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, lit ablaze) that primarily deal damage or make it easier for enemies to hit you are the easiest to deal with — again, you're spoiled for choice when it comes to mitigating hit point damage.

3. This goes double if you retain the use of your action. Sure, it may suck to be Restrained, but you still have access to almost all of your character options when it comes to fighting back.

4. Therefore, effects that bypass hit point damage (either through massive damage in the form of Paralysis, or effectively instant death, such as Petrification, Charm/Dominate, Suffocation, reduce to 0, or devour mind) or wholly deny your actions (Forcecage and related, Stunned, some Fears, Banishment...Paralysis, Petrification, Charm/Dominate) are the most dangerous. Note that some effects qualify for both!

5. Additionally, almost everything that can inflict one of the above conditions targets a mental save or Constitution. Suffocation is the odd one out, usually being tied to Strength, but it's also relatively infrequent, generally confined to lower levels, and mitigated by Constitution. Dexterity is the only ability score that doesn't have a save or die/be permanently disfigured effect to my knowledge; no instant death guillotines in this edition!

6. So, having good mental saves makes you much less likely to suffer from a character-ending saving throw. However, because of save scaling—or lack thereof—it's expensive to invest in good mental saves if your class doesn't natively get them. Adding insult to injury, proximity based effects and/or DM targeting mean that classes that want to get in melee (i.e., classes that generally specialize in physical saves) are disproportionately afflicted with both physical and mental effects, while their more erudite counterparts are targeted less frequently, and are often more resilient when they are.

7. In summary, a disparity between conditions and their associated saves exists, and therefore an inherent disparity between classes exists. Players and DMs can choose to simply accept the disparity and say 'Of course Wizards and Clerics should have an advantage over Barbarians'. Or, they can rework traps, modules, and the monster manual to spread dangerous conditions more evenly across the 6 saves. Or, they can give the disenfranchised classes tools to help them bridge the gap.

Personally, I wish that the designers had done the second, but in the absence of that I prefer the third; it's the least amount of work to adjust while still accomplishing better parity between the classes.
Extremely well put Rerem115 :smallsmile:.

[sithlordnergal]

RSP said earlier that there is no "front line/back-line" dynamic in his games and he is currently playing a melee sorcerer. So I actually believe him that casters go down frequently in his games. I just don't think it's a common way to play.


I'd be surprised if its not a common way to play. There is no front or back line in any of my games either. There is no amount of movement a wizard can use, outside of using Dimension Door to move 500 feet away, which removes them from combat entirely, that gets them out of targetable range. Even if a player chooses to remain outside of a room, hidden behind a door, NPCs will ignore everyone else to chase down that one player if they prove to be a threat. That's been my experience with all games I've played.

[Skrum]

I'd be surprised if its not a common way to play. There is no front or back line in any of my games either. There is no amount of movement a wizard can use, outside of using Dimension Door to move 500 feet away, which removes them from combat entirely, that gets them out of targetable range. Even if a player chooses to remain outside of a room, hidden behind a door, NPCs will ignore everyone else to chase down that one player if they prove to be a threat. That's been my experience with all games I've played.

Right but at the end of the day, the wizard has range and can benefit from things like cover, dropping prone, and running away, while the melee barb is in the thick of, possibly getting flanked, and in full view of everyone.

"Back line" doesn't mean the wizard rarely gets attacked. It means they rarely get dogpiled, or focus-fired, or get hit and go down and then get hit 4 more times because that's how many bag guys were near them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd be surprised if its not a common way to play.
Interesting. My experience has been that tough characters go in front. My current Ravenloft game, the Paladin and Armorer Artificer lead. They have highest armor and highest hit points. In my Castlevania game, the barbarian leads.

In my Avernus game, same. In my Against the Giants game, my fighter leads. Ranger maintains distance in combat. Monk skirmishes. Druid casts from a distance, sometimes uses moon druid features to engage in melee.

There is no front or back line in any of my games either. There is no amount of movement a wizard can use, outside of using Dimension Door to move 500 feet away, which removes them from combat entirely, that gets them out of targetable range.
But these are two different things. I don't think anyone suggested that ranged characters are outside of "targetable range".

Even if a player chooses to remain outside of a room, hidden behind a door, NPCs will ignore everyone else to chase down that one player if they prove to be a threat.
This comes down to DM/table playstyle. It's not obvious to everyone that only a single party member "proves to be a threat" and everyone else must be ignored at all costs.

It sounds like you play mostly in wide rooms where you can't gain distance on enemies, but there's space for enemies to move around melee characters and have their pick of the backline.

That's been my experience with all games I've played.
Is it also your experience that casters go down frequently as RSP said?

[RSP]

So, the complaint isn't that Characters shouldn't fail saves.

Going off the posts in this thread, others disagree.



The complaint is two fold:
Certain archetypes are put at a disadvantage by the needs of their role.

Certain players like to play in ways that regularly put their characters in certain situations - table dependent. No “archetype” is put at disadvantage.



You reject outright the concept of melee and ranged so I don't expect you to agree.

I have no idea where you’re getting your info, but it isn’t correct.



But the argument is that Characters reliant on melee are easier to outright disable with poor saves.

Then that’s a bad argument: they’re statistically just as easy to disable as others with similarly poor saves.



Sorcerer for example is less likely to be affected by a mind flayer than a Paladin, because they have the capacity to fight from range (even though the Paladin has superior saves across the board).

Why? Why is a Sorcerer less likely to be affected by a MF? Why is an AC15, 71HP creature that is designed to have minions, anywhere near melee? If a DM is using a MF as a frontline fighter, in a level appropriate encounter, congratulations, they’ve made them far less effective than they should be.



This also affects the disabling over time, since getting into melee also takes time.

Melee requires being in melee range, yes. That does not make failing saves easier.



Picking up a bow is an option, but I suspect that Dr. Samurai would take that as an admission that melee characters are simply not a supported playstyle.

The argument, as I understand it, is Dr. Samurai acknowledges that there are ways to build characters to improve their saves, but they don’t want that: they want their character to be good at resisting everything with no cost to how they want to build their character.

So long as that’s the expectation, it’s a bad expectation.



The second is what classes are intended to represent narratively. A fighter is inherently cowardly due to how saves work.

Absolutely false. The fighter is as brave as the Player wants to RP them, just like every other class.

Supernatural effects have nothing to do with character bravery. You have a very selective idea of what the fighter represents. Superman, for all is strength is weak against magic. Likewise Hulk. Likewise tons of “sun god” types.



Conan cowering in a corner constantly, while funny to me with my sense of caster superiority, isn't really what anyone expects of a barbarian.

Then don’t RP them that way.

But to say “my Barb is immune to magic because it makes the game not fun for me” isn’t a system problem. It’s a problem of the player deciding they don’t want to play a character according to the rules of the game. It’s no more a system problem than if I say I don’t accept that my character dropped to 0 as it’s no fun for me to be at 0.

If that occurs, it’s not an issue of “this game system is broken because my character dropped to zero”, it’s the player not wanting to play 5e.



"Back line" doesn't mean the wizard rarely gets attacked. It means they rarely get dogpiled, or focus-fired, or get hit and go down and then get hit 4 more times because that's how many bag guys were near them.

Why? How come no encounters use strategy for the NPCs? Why is every encounter a white room “enemies 30’ over there, ready to be engaged and willing to just duke it out with the Barb”?

That’s an extreme lack of creativity on the DM’s part.

And if that is how the DM runs every encounter, and you don’t like how that interacts with the character you want to play, talk to the DM about your concerns.

But it’s not a system problem.


Interesting. My experience has been that tough characters go in front. My current Ravenloft game, the Paladin and Armorer Artificer lead. They have highest armor and highest hit points. In my Castlevania game, the barbarian leads.

Sure by why are enemies just sitting there waiting and allowing the party to dictate tactics?

Again, why is the MF anywhere near the Barb?

[sithlordnergal]

Interesting. My experience has been that tough characters go in front. My current Ravenloft game, the Paladin and Armorer Artificer lead. They have highest armor and highest hit points. In my Castlevania game, the barbarian leads.

In my Avernus game, same. In my Against the Giants game, my fighter leads. Ranger maintains distance in combat. Monk skirmishes. Druid casts from a distance, sometimes uses moon druid features to engage in melee.

The problem is there is no "front" to be in. There are very few skills and spells that force an enemy to aggro on a specific character, or prevent them from passing you. As such, there is no back line unless you are in a very tight corridor, and NPCs have no way to get behind you. That's a pretty specific type of encounter.

Like, you can try to maintain distance as a Druid, Range, or Monk, but its not really possible. I'd love to hear how you do it...cause I can be as far back as physically possible, and the DM will ignore everyone, take multiple attacks of opportunity, and go straight for me.



But these are two different things. I don't think anyone suggested that ranged characters are outside of "targetable range".

This comes down to DM/table playstyle. It's not obvious to everyone that only a single party member "proves to be a threat" and everyone else must be ignored at all costs.


I guess that is down to DM style.



It sounds like you play mostly in wide rooms where you can't gain distance on enemies, but there's space for enemies to move around melee characters and have their pick of the backline.

Is it also your experience that casters go down frequently as RSP said?

Eh, I play in a variety of areas. Its more that the DMs, and myself, will happily take opportunity attacks just to push past a front line and reach the backline. Like...Is there a ranger in the back being annoying? Just move past the "frontline" and take some attacks of opportunity to hit that ranger specifically.

And yes, its very frequent. Hell, its pretty frequent for casters to be fully surrounded because they just lack ways to escape enemies in combat, and people will actively ignore all martial characters just to deal with them. The general target focus goes:

Arcane Casters are the primary target

Healers are secondary

Strikers like Rogues and Paladins are third

Barbarians and the like aren't targeted until the very end, unless you have a spell or ability that can just remove them from combat like Hold Person

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem is there is no "front" to be in. There are very few skills and spells that force an enemy to aggro on a specific character, or prevent them from passing you. As such, there is no back line unless you are in a very tight corridor, and NPCs have no way to get behind you. That's a pretty specific type of encounter.
Tight corridors seem more common to me than wide shallow rooms. In our current live game, we fight in large rooms where there is plenty of space to move around, but there is also space for distance. It's not that the enemies can't possibly reach the ranged characters, but it's not the first immediate thing they do, and perhaps by the time they do, the encounter is virtually over.

Like, you can try to maintain distance as a Druid, Range, or Monk, but its not really possible.
If the space doesn't exist, sure.

But in our current game, the ranger just stays back when the encounter starts, and if he has to move away, he does. He can turn invisible to avoid OAs, he uses Zephyr Strike to double his speed and avoid OAs, he has a climb speed. He's pretty mobile. Same with the monk, except the monk can also Dash and Disengage as a bonus action. The druid is a different story, but that's more on the player not making great decisions.

But certainly, reaching our ranger (and sometimes druid) often requires Dashing, or the monster has been knocked Prone by the monk (Open Hand, targets Dex save, their weakness), or I'm murdering them (rune knight fighter has three attacks that roughly deal ~30 damage each).

I'd love to hear how you do it...cause I can be as far back as physically possible, and the DM will ignore everyone, take multiple attacks of opportunity, and go straight for me.
That sounds brutal.

Eh, I play in a variety of areas. Its more that the DMs, and myself, will happily take opportunity attacks just to push past a front line and reach the backline. Like...Is there a ranger in the back being annoying? Just move past the "frontline" and take some attacks of opportunity to hit that ranger specifically.

And yes, its very frequent. Hell, its pretty frequent for casters to be fully surrounded because they just lack ways to escape enemies in combat, and people will actively ignore all martial characters just to deal with them. The general target focus goes:

Arcane Casters are the primary target

Healers are secondary

Strikers like Rogues and Paladins are third
This sounds very specific to me, and if it is so frequent, I can't imagine that it's true that casters don't have a way to escape being mobbed. Like... if this is the known playstyle and caster mortality is this frequent, no one grabs Misty Step and Shield?

Warriors don't use Grapple, or grab the Sentinel feat? No one is using spells for battlefield control? It just seems like a very specific way to run and play the game.

I also can't help but feel that this particular example is doomed to not be helpful. Because suppose that in games where "there is no frontline" the casters do not die often and do just fine. That would suggest that the game does not have suitable strengths/weaknesses and there is an imbalance, and so the arguments appealing to balance are weakened because clearly the balance is already off. Casters shouldn't be able to hang out in melee with impunity and not be in serious danger. But then suppose instead that the casters are dying very frequently as you said, that would then suggest to me that they shouldn't really be in melee and that there are in fact a frontline and backline, and the reason casters have the proficiencies they do (or don't) is because they are expected to be mostly away from melee. Unless the argument is that casters are meant to be dying very frequently, which I don't think the game expects (or many people for that matter).

Barbarians and the like aren't targeted until the very end, unless you have a spell or ability that can just remove them from combat like Hold Person
That's amazing. I'd love to never suffer the negative effects of Reckless Attack. And my current Rune Knight fighter in our Against the Giants campaign can kill a hill giant if he crits or uses action surge. I'd love for them to ignore me so I can do this with impunity and never get hit back.

@RSP: So there's no frontline, but why is the mind flayer so close to the frontline? A question for the philosophers I suppose :smallamused:.

[Witty Username]

I have no idea where you’re getting your info, but it isn’t correct.
--
Why? How come no encounters use strategy for the NPCs? Why is every encounter a white room “enemies 30’ over there, ready to be engaged and willing to just duke it out with the Barb”?


Claim to not reject the differences between melee and ranged combat.
Reject the differences between melee and ranged combat.

A sorcerer, for the sake of argument, can have firebolt, 120ft range.
A mind flayer has a range of 60ft on its mind blast.
At 120ft, a mind flayer cannot stun the sorcerer.

A paladin, does not have firebolt, but they have longsword, 5ft range.

A mind flayer can stun the paladin, admitedly only about half the time.

So the sorcerer even though it has a negligible int save, is much less likely to be stunned. Because it has the option, of not being in range.

Why is the mind flayer in melee range of a barbarian? it isnt, its 60ft away and has the barbarian stunned or dominated. It can still be 2 rounds away and force saves that a barbarian will likely not make.
Even 1 fail will rob the barbarian of a turn, potentially distance which costs more, and rage for that matter.
And the barbarian's solution, close distance and hope they roll well against another blast.

[RSP]

@RSP: So there's no frontline, but why is the mind flayer so close to the frontline? A question for the philosophers I suppose :smallamused:.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Are you trying to play off my asking why the MF is next to the Barb? I don’t expect a MF being played intelligently to be near a threat.

Hopefully that answers your question.


Claim to not reject the differences between melee and ranged combat.
Reject the differences between melee and ranged combat.

A sorcerer, for the sake of argument, can have firebolt, 120ft range.
A mind flayer has a range of 60ft on its mind blast.
At 120ft, a mind flayer cannot stun the sorcerer.

A paladin, does not have firebolt, but they have longsword, 5ft range.

A mind flayer can stun the paladin, admitedly only about half the time.

So the sorcerer even though it has a negligible int save, is much less likely to be stunned. Because it has the option, of not being in range.

Do you really play with PCs regularly 120’ away from each other during combat? In my experiences, that isn’t the case. If I’m the MF, I’d definitely take advantage of the Barb being 120’ away from the Sorc. A few minions to make that distance less navigable and MF is feasting on Sorc brains.



Why is the mind flayer in melee range of a barbarian? it isnt, its 60ft away and has the barbarian stunned or dominated. It can still be 2 rounds away and force saves that a barbarian will likely not make.
Even 1 fail will rob the barbarian of a turn, potentially distance which costs more, and rage for that matter.
And the barbarian's solution, close distance and hope they roll well against another blast.

Why is the Barb the only character in this situation? Why aren’t other players losing their turns of concern here? Why is the MF only targeting the Barb and not the rest of the party? Is each of the other party members all at least 60’ from each other?

I’m not sure what tactical situation your presenting in which the Barb is so far out front of the rest of the party.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don’t expect a MF being played intelligently to be near a threat.
Replace "MF" with "spellcaster" and welcome to the dark side :smallamused:.



So clearly I think the game expects the spellcasters to be away from combat, hence lower HD and few or no armor/weapon proficiencies. No Str/Con proficiencies. Their spells are almost all ranged. To me, the game is communicating that casters aren't meant to be in melee combat. Yes, table variance is a thing of course and I believe people when they say they play without a frontline. But I don't think it has a place in a discussion about game balance because I don't think the game is balanced around casters being in melee combat and frequently going down to 0.

My own experiences have been that it's not that difficult to do this. My fighter has the Charger and Mobile feats. I can open an encounter by dashing 80ft forward and shoving an enemy 10ft away if I want to and there was available space. Even if we don't maximize this feature, it's easy to see how easily I can attempt to establish a "frontline". If I move forward 40ft and do this, the enemy has to dash to reach our sharpshooter ranger (who takes no penalty for long distance shots or cover and is free to move back further). If I grow large and grab an enemy, they can't move away. If the monk knocks them prone, they lose half their speed.

The DM allowed the monk to switch over to the 1D&D monk. So now the monk can taxi my fighter 100ft. Then my fighter can move from there. If the monk starts knocking enemies prone, and I starting carving off 60-80 hit points of damage, the enemies aren't like "damn, let's get up and start dashing after those nimble guys back there". They have plenty to deal with in front of them. If I grow large and block off additional space, I can do that too.

And yes, before it's asked, the dungeons we're in allow for this kind of movement and this kind of blocking (assuming I'm large from Giant Might). I'm NOT saying I'm always rushing forward 80-100ft, only that I can engage up to that distance away, especially with 120ft darkvision. Another thing I would like to do but haven't is optimize my Initiative to really take advantage of this. I currently have -1, but the enemies also don't have great dexterity scores, so it's just been luck of the dice mostly. But that would be one way to make this work better (and ranger and monk usually act before the enemies so they can position first as well).

And I have to emphasize this... we are not an optimized party. Like... at all. The players in my group are very casual. You won't find a single one of them on a forum chatting D&D every day of the week. So I find it hard to believe that in these games where "there are no front lines" and the casters are so dominant that they are immediately targeted for deletion by every single enemy... the group can't actually get a handle on the battlefield.

[sithlordnergal]

Tight corridors seem more common to me than wide shallow rooms. In our current live game, we fight in large rooms where there is plenty of space to move around, but there is also space for distance. It's not that the enemies can't possibly reach the ranged characters, but it's not the first immediate thing they do, and perhaps by the time they do, the encounter is virtually over.


I guess that is the big difference. The first thing I and the DMs I play with do is find a way to neutralize the backline. Especially if there are casters in the back. Gloomstalkers are equally dangerous, though those are much easier to deal with.


But in our current game, the ranger just stays back when the encounter starts, and if he has to move away, he does. He can turn invisible to avoid OAs, he uses Zephyr Strike to double his speed and avoid OAs, he has a climb speed. He's pretty mobile. Same with the monk, except the monk can also Dash and Disengage as a bonus action. The druid is a different story, but that's more on the player not making great decisions.

But certainly, reaching our ranger (and sometimes druid) often requires Dashing, or the monster has been knocked Prone by the monk (Open Hand, targets Dex save, their weakness), or I'm murdering them (rune knight fighter has three attacks that roughly deal ~30 damage each).

Ohh, I actually had a player that was a Gloomstalker that did stuff like that too. They were pretty strong. They had actually swapped to a Gloomstalker after their Moon Druid died to a Disintegrate trap in Tomb of Annihilation. They eventually asked if they could swap their Gloomstalker out for a spell caster, and kinda killed themselves by fighting multiple enemies alone in a brightly lit area...I did find that bright light was pretty good at dealing with the Gloomstalker in general.





That sounds brutal.

This sounds very specific to me, and if it is so frequent, I can't imagine that it's true that casters don't have a way to escape being mobbed. Like... if this is the known playstyle and caster mortality is this frequent, no one grabs Misty Step and Shield?

Warriors don't use Grapple, or grab the Sentinel feat? No one is using spells for battlefield control? It just seems like a very specific way to run and play the game.


Its pretty fun though. You need to make sure you can survive in the frontline, or you die.

And most Casters do use things like Misty Step, or at least the ones who can get it. But that's generally shut down by the fact that you'll either just be surrounded again after using a 2nd level slot and a cantrip, or you'll be counterspelled. Shield is a must have though. I find the best way to survive is find a way to cause disadvantage on all attacks against you, have a high AC, and then use Shield.

And yeah, as the caster I tend to focus on battlefield control. Grapple and Sentinel are also great tools. But they also have their weaknesses. Sentinel only works on one target, while Grapple is limited to your number of free hands and size. Spells do make for excellent control though, and I do tend to use them. Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that everything will fail the save. And if even one succeeds, they'll look for a way to break concentration even if it kills them.




I also can't help but feel that this particular example is doomed to not be helpful. Because suppose that in games where "there is no frontline" the casters do not die often and do just fine. That would suggest that the game does not have suitable strengths/weaknesses and there is an imbalance, and so the arguments appealing to balance are weakened because clearly the balance is already off. Casters shouldn't be able to hang out in melee with impunity and not be in serious danger. But then suppose instead that the casters are dying very frequently as you said, that would then suggest to me that they shouldn't really be in melee and that there are in fact a frontline and backline, and the reason casters have the proficiencies they do (or don't) is because they are expected to be mostly away from melee. Unless the argument is that casters are meant to be dying very frequently, which I don't think the game expects (or many people for that matter).


I mean, a Caster can't survive on the front lines, not without investing some part of their build into being decent at defense. A Wizard with Mage Armor and Shield won't last long at all, because that AC is not nearly high enough to survive what the Martial characters face. So I do think there is supposed to be some kind of frontline. However, WotC forgot to create anything that would allow for a frontline and backline to exist. Outside of Sentinel, what is there to stop an enemy from ignoring the Fighter and running right past them during that enemy's turn? Nothing that I can think of. And even Sentinel has issues because you can only pin down a single enemy at a time. Great against a single monster, not so great if you're up against 5 or 6 relatively equal foes.

So sure, Casters are supposed to be avoiding melee, but they realistically can't avoid it without the DM making a purposeful choice to avoid targeting the caster first and foremost. As such, Casters have to invest in increasing their AC so they can survive the frontlines. Just like martial characters need to invest something to survive mental saves.



That's amazing. I'd love to never suffer the negative effects of Reckless Attack. And my current Rune Knight fighter in our Against the Giants campaign can kill a hill giant if he crits or uses action surge. I'd love for them to ignore me so I can do this with impunity and never get hit back.

Yeah, you won't suffer damage. Though if you did prove to be a huge hindrance, you might get stunned via a Wisdom, Intelligence, or Charisma save. I ended up stunning a Barbarian that was particularly strong with a Mind Blast for about 3 or 4 rounds. Made sure not to attack him on the second round too so that he lost Rage early, before hitting him with Brain Extraction. Nearly killed him too.

Or if I'm feeling cheeky, I enjoy using Dominate Person on the person with the weakest Wisdom save and have them fight the party while wasting as many of their resources as possible.

[RSP]

My own experiences have been that it's not that difficult to do this. My fighter has the Charger and Mobile feats. I can open an encounter by dashing 80ft forward and shoving an enemy 10ft away if I want to and there was available space. Even if we don't maximize this feature, it's easy to see how easily I can attempt to establish a "frontline".

It’s not only PC choices though. For instance, my table recently had the following two encounters:

1. We’re in caverns with tight corridors but various ways to go. A larger cavern is behind us. Bat-like creatures start dropping down all through the caverns (we can see them at least down three different paths). If one were to charge one group, our “back line” is still dealing with at least two other groups.

2. We’re in a 150’x100’ cavern but on a small 20’x30’ island, surrounded by deep water. Multiple enemies encircle us, some with ranged abilities, some pseudo-teleporting to the island. Some heavy hitters that auto-grab on hits and then drag us under the water. One boss-type can Charm and Dominate a character and of course they get the chance to do so against the best Wis save, who has Advantage, and yet still fails.


All of this to say: tables vary.

The fact that your DM request has encounters with one set of enemies that are easily contained, means your strategy of engaging them at a distance has been successful. It’s a good strategy. But you choosing to put your PC in those situations that specifically expose them to save effects, doesn’t mean the system is flawed, or your fighter now deserves extra stuff from the system.

Absolutely, I’d expect your party mates to help your fighter if you’re constantly stopping enemies from engaging the other members. This could very easily be an in-character discussion.

But it’s not an example of the system being broken.

It is very similar to my Warlock example. My Warlock would run into melee, engaging enemies, only to quickly drop as attacks and damage got higher. It wasn’t a system issue that meant “well since I run my Warlock into melee combat, then they should now get Rage or similar.”

Or, if your Wizard started regular using Wall of Force to block of enemies rather than you having to engage them. Now your fighter isn’t alone at a distance anymore, but they are regularly using their 5th+ slots to protect the party. Should they now get extra 5th level spells to compensate for the tactics they’re using?

I’d very much say no. I’d also say complaints about them using their spells slots would not be a system problem.




…Another thing I would like to do but haven't is optimize my Initiative to really take advantage of this. I currently have -1, but the enemies also don't have great dexterity scores, so it's just been luck of the dice mostly. But that would be one way to make this work better (and ranger and monk usually act before the enemies so they can position first as well).

And I have to emphasize this... we are not an optimized party. Like... at all. The players in my group are very casual. You won't find a single one of them on a forum chatting D&D every day of the week. So I find it hard to believe that in these games where "there are no front lines" and the casters are so dominant that they are immediately targeted for deletion by every single enemy... the group can't actually get a handle on the battlefield.

Part of your issue is probably that you are optimized for what you’re doing (engaging enemies at range to protect the party) but they aren’t likewise optimized to help you protect them.

That, again, isn’t a system issue. But it can lead to good conversations where the party (assuming they appreciate and approve of the tactic) can start working with you on how to make that tactic work better for everyone.

[Skrum]

Was your warlock a hexblade? Because I'd argue that yes, a hexblade should be able to engage in melee combat - that's what they're sold as, a melee warlock. The fact that they can't beyond level 6 or so is a condemnation of the subclass. All of which is to say that the game designers can get things wrong, and you arguing for complete status quo simply because it (might be) theoretically possible to bend over backwards and make up for glaring shortcomings in class design doesn't change that.

[Amnestic]

The fact that they can't beyond level 6 or so is a condemnation of the subclass.

They...can't? Why not?

[Skrum]

They...can't? Why not?

Their AC is too low, hit points too low, and warlocks in general struggle in the 6-10 range as their 2 spell slots really fall behind.

[Dr.Samurai]

I guess that is the big difference. The first thing I and the DMs I play with do is find a way to neutralize the backline. Especially if there are casters in the back. Gloomstalkers are equally dangerous, though those are much easier to deal with.
In an effort not to dissect every comment you've made, I'm going to just spring off of this here.

It is clear to me that we play in very different groups/styles. And that's simply a relevant observation, not a judgement. My DMs (both in live games and in play by posts) don't run combat as a race to kill the casters on the backline. And that's not to say that casters (or ranged attackers) are never targeted. But their D&D worlds don't operate with this a priori assumption that all monsters recognize "bum-rushing guys wearing robes" as the ultimate strategy to every encounter.

That strategy may make sense sometimes, so this isn't a denouncement that it should never happen. But to happen so frequently, combined with restrictive terrain, that the casters are dropping to 0 all the time seems like an outlier, and not like the normal D&D experience, or what the game intends the experience to be. Sure, I'm making assumptions here, but I feel pretty safe in those assumptions.

And that's not to say you're playing wrong, but it is to say that I don't think "casters are in melee all the time and get knocked down to 0 all the time" is a good rebuttal to the points we've been making about melee warriors and their saving throws.

With regards to Gloomstalker, I just want to clarify that the Ranger I mentioned is a Hunter. He uses Nature's Veil to turn invisible, so he's not relying on Darkness.

So sure, Casters are supposed to be avoiding melee, but they realistically can't avoid it without the DM making a purposeful choice to avoid targeting the caster first and foremost.
Racing to kill the caster and ignoring the other party members is as equally a purposeful choice on the part of the DM. I know many consider this playstyle to be the "logical" playstyle, but it isn't.

As such, Casters have to invest in increasing their AC so they can survive the frontlines. Just like martial characters need to invest something to survive mental saves.
Not quite.

Between you and RSP, to prove your points, you're insisting that the game be played backwards. You are saying that casters have no choice but to be in melee, and RSP later is telling me that I am "choosing" to be out in front as a melee fighter, implying that I have the option of instead being ranged and fighting from a distance. The classes aren't designed the way they are for the casters to be next to the monsters and the fighters to be keeping their distance. Again, not saying it's a wrong playstyle, but it's not the right style to discuss balance.



It’s not only PC choices though.
But there are a lot of PC choices though right? I mean... that's what you have been hitting back with this whole time, that we can choose to grab a feat, or put our point buy points elsewhere, or play a specific class or subclass. So let's not stray too far from the point now.

For instance, my table recently had the following two encounters:

1. We’re in caverns with tight corridors but various ways to go. A larger cavern is behind us. Bat-like creatures start dropping down all through the caverns (we can see them at least down three different paths). If one were to charge one group, our “back line” is still dealing with at least two other groups.

2. We’re in a 150’x100’ cavern but on a small 20’x30’ island, surrounded by deep water. Multiple enemies encircle us, some with ranged abilities, some pseudo-teleporting to the island. Some heavy hitters that auto-grab on hits and then drag us under the water. One boss-type can Charm and Dominate a character and of course they get the chance to do so against the best Wis save, who has Advantage, and yet still fails.
I've included the caveat of "if there is space". If you're getting surrounded or on a tiny island, obviously you can't easily move back.

But to prove your point, you are saying that your casters die very frequently because there's no room to keep away from bad guys. Sithlordnergal has supported that claim, also saying that "caster murder" is the main strategy of his DMs.

My point doesn't require that you can never be surrounded or in a small room. Yours requires that you are almost always in these conditions, and that's what I'm calling out as a specific playstyle (coupled with the "kill all casters" prime directive). So we have a few things:

1. Never space to keep distance from enemies and maintain a frontline/backline.
2. Even if one were maintained, DM would do everything they could to ignore the frontline to reach the backline.
3. Party is incapable of setting up a frontline/backline and keeping enemies from advancing either through making use of terrain, spells, grappling, crowd control, etc.

Point 1 obviously can happen in the game, but I wouldn't expect it to always be the case. Point 2 I have never experienced. Point 3 also seems strange to me because I suspect the people touting it are generally more game savvy than most.



But you choosing to put your PC in those situations that specifically expose them to save effects, doesn’t mean the system is flawed, or your fighter now deserves extra stuff from the system.
What situations should I choose to put my melee fighter in that won't expose them to save effects?


But it’s not an example of the system being broken.
I think you're not following what the point is.

I'm not pointing to my strategy to prove that the system is broken, nor have I ever put forth that "the system is broken". I believe that's your language.

I brought up my fighter to demonstrate that it doesn't take a lot to establish a frontline. There's a myth that because the game doesn't have some sort of "You can't move any further and must target me" feature, that monsters will just rush past everyone and hit the wizard in the back. That's not my experience.

Warriors alone, without magic, can rush forward and block corridors with their bodies, grab enemies so they can't move, push them and/or knock them prone to limit how far they can move, and deal a crap-ton of damage to make themselves a threat. The point was the mobility allows me to engage enemies further away from my allies so they can keep a distance. The point is not that the system is broken.

When you throw in Sentinel, Stunning Fist, a steed or animal companion, you can do more. When you throw in spells, even more. That's the point. Saying "there's no way to keep a backline/frontline" means your DM puts you in small rooms and/or no one is trying to control enemy movement.

It is very similar to my Warlock example.
Not at all, actually. A fighter is designed to be in melee.

My Warlock would run into melee, engaging enemies, only to quickly drop as attacks and damage got higher. It wasn’t a system issue that meant “well since I run my Warlock into melee combat, then they should now get Rage or similar.”
This comment, coupled with your comment earlier about choosing to be in range of save effects, is just a different way of saying "melee characters should accept that they will be stun-locked".

Like... I've already put forth that melee characters should expect to make more saving throws, and we're saying that getting stunned out of an encounter sucks. So I think you're just reasserting your disagreement here.

Part of your issue is probably that you are optimized for what you’re doing (engaging enemies at range to protect the party) but they aren’t likewise optimized to help you protect them.
Sorry, what issue are you referring to? I wasn't describing an issue, I was describing how my party plays with a backline and a frontline.

That, again, isn’t a system issue.
I think there's a misunderstanding here.

A warrior being in melee and making saving throws is the system working as intended. A warrior having a tough time against an int/wis/cha saving throw is the system working as intended. A warrior being stunned for three rounds from a Mind Blast is the system working as intended.

Some of us are saying the system should be tweaked.

You keep repeating "that isn't a system issue" but I don't know what you're trying to say with that. Like... we're telling you we think being stun-locked out of an encounter isn't fun and disproportionately impacts certain classes. We know that the system is designed this way. We're critiquing the system.

[Amnestic]

Their AC is too low, hit points too low, and warlocks in general struggle in the 6-10 range as their 2 spell slots really fall behind.

Hexblades get medium armour and shields, they're doing just fine for AC. They'll be ahead or equal to a heavy armour guy with a 2her, depending on if they have Defense or not. No one is going to say 2h strength fighters have "too low AC" to get in melee.

They get one less HP/level than fighters/rangers/paladins, which isn't nothing, but with Armour of Agathys they're solid in that regard too. Even if they're just blowing spell slots on AoA and nothing else, they're doing absolutely fine as a melee character.

Clerics run around in melee just fine and they're almost universally in the same position as hexblades for AC and HP. Ditto for artificers.

[Skrum]

Hexblades get medium armour and shields, they're doing just fine for AC. They'll be ahead or equal to a heavy armour guy with a 2her, depending on if they have Defense or not. No one is going to say 2h strength fighters have "too low AC" to get in melee.

They get one less HP/level than fighters/rangers/paladins, which isn't nothing, but with Armour of Agathys they're solid in that regard too. Even if they're just blowing spell slots on AoA and nothing else, they're doing absolutely fine as a melee character.

Clerics run around in melee just fine and they're almost universally in the same position as hexblades for AC and HP. Ditto for artificers.

This is simply not my experience, and FWIW, I've seen several other accounts on this forum of people saying that as the game progressed into T2, they were forced to transition their hexblade into a ranged focus.

19 AC is not good enough, not without significant other defenses (e.g., frequent use of the shield spell or rage resistances).

AoA would be a good defense, but only if 1) it can spammed, or 2) there's some way to extend it's use, like resistance. Warlocks natively have neither. By itself, AoA is unreliable *at best.* One solid hit and it's gone, and you've spent 50% of your slots on it and possibly an action. Warlocks simply cannot afford to get that little mileage out of a spell. Which leads to another point: warlocks don't get Con save proficiency. Losing concentration on spells is devastating to a warlock, who again cannot afford to get that little mileage from a spell.

So yeah, I really disagree. Hexblades get enough of the basic tools to *look like* a melee character, but they ain't it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Maybe RSP can explain why they felt they had to swap characters. He’s already said his hex blade was dying all the time and it wasn’t fun.

[Amnestic]

19 AC is not good enough, not without significant other defenses (e.g., frequent use of the shield spell or rage resistances).

How on earth can AC19 not be good enough in tier 2? It's two lower than the 'maximum' at plate+shield+Defense, two higher than the 'minimum' (studded leather + +5 dex). For melee characters, it's entirely serviceable. They do not in any sense have 'low AC'.

Even if you're fighting nothing but CR=level enemies, the vast majority have a less than 50% chance to hit you at AC19, and I would expect there's still plenty of lower level mooks. Likewise, their damage is rarely going to knock out even a 3rd level AoA in one hit - average damage means the majority of creatures (which, again, are CR=Level, we're not even talking mooks) need minimum two hits. It only gets easier as soon as they hit 7th and 9th level.

A fighter with their +1 hp/level and Second Wind is still averaging less effective hit points per day than a hexblade that spams AoA and nothing else with their spell slots. No one is out here saying a fighter 'can't engage in melee combat', so it's bizarre anyone would do so for a pure hexblade.

[Skrum]

How on earth can AC19 not be good enough in tier 2? It's two lower than the 'maximum' at plate+shield+Defense, two higher than the 'minimum' (studded leather + +5 dex). For melee characters, it's entirely serviceable. They do not in any sense have 'low AC'.

Even if you're fighting nothing but CR=level enemies, the vast majority have a less than 50% chance to hit you at AC19, and I would expect there's still plenty of lower level mooks. Likewise, their damage is rarely going to knock out even a 3rd level AoA in one hit - average damage means the majority of creatures (which, again, are CR=Level, we're not even talking mooks) need minimum two hits. It only gets easier as soon as they hit 7th and 9th level.

A fighter with their +1 hp/level and Second Wind is still averaging less effective hit points per day than a hexblade that spams AoA and nothing else with their spell slots. No one is out here saying a fighter 'can't engage in melee combat', so it's bizarre anyone would do so for a pure hexblade.

We clearly play in wildly different games, so idk how much value disputing this is. Suffice to say, I disagree with everything you just said (lol).

A 40% chance to hit rises to 63.9% with flanking or some other form of advantage. At 63% chance to hit, a CR 3 creature is going to do 11.34 damage per round. A CR 7 is going to do 23.94, more than enough to take out a level 4 AoA in a single round. And that's just one creature; it's entirely realistic to expect a party of level 7's to encounter 2-3 CR 7's and 5-6 CR 2's and 3's. If the hexblade engages in melee and gets attacked by 3 or 4 creatures, they're gonna lose their AoA and most of their hit points instantly.

The table I play at is perhaps more optimized than most, but the characters that excel at melee have a minimum of 22 AC and other defensive options (like hill and cloud rune, or shield + shield of faith or blur), or they're a barb with resistance, or they're a monk with cloak of displacement. IME, melee characters need their chance of being hit to be at like 20% or less, or they just absorb way too much damage and cannot continue beyond a single fight.

[Amnestic]

We clearly play in wildly different games,

I think that's the case.


it's entirely realistic to expect a party of level 7's to encounter 2-3 CR 7's and 5-6 CR 2's and 3's.

That doesn't sound like a regular encounter at all, it sounds like a climactic bossfight. 2 CR7s on its own is a Deadly encounter vs 4 level 7 characters, before you toss in 7 more creatures on top of it.





The table I play at is perhaps more optimized than most, but the characters that excel at melee have a minimum of 22 AC

Minimum AC22 is utterly unreachable for the vast majority of characters unless you're adding magic items which hexblades can use too.

Rangers cap out at 19, same as hexblades.
Barbarians cap out at 19, same as hexblades.
Monks cap out at 20 (but almost certainly aren't close to that in tier 2, they're probably at 17-18 between 18-20 dex and 16 wis).
Rogues cap out at 17.
Artificers might be able to reach 20 with an infusion, if they choose it for them and not someone else and also had the infusion available.
Clerics can make it to 22 if they happen to be specifically Forge and spend their concentration on SoF, an extremely limited build for sure.
Fighters can't reach it.
Paladins can't reach it unless they're blowing their concentration on SoF.
A bladesinging wizard might make it if they've got bladesong (3/day) and somehow found a bunch of extra dexterity somewhere - unlikely. More likely they barely tickle 21, more likely 19-20 (13+2-3 Dex+4-5 Int).

Unless you're playing with significant magic item allotment (which, again, hexblades can benefit from) or houserules I've got no clue how you can think AC22 is the minimum, unless literally no one gets to stay in melee.

[Witty Username]

A quick note that a fighter can get an AC of 22-25 with the shield spell, which is accessible with EK.
I would expect 23, plate plus shield, personally.

Hexblade also has access to the shield spell, but it is alot less significant when they are spamming AoA for rigidity reasons. And that does reduce the offensive potential of Hexblade significantly.

Ranger and Rogue don't have AC, but they have a moderate contuor to a ranged character which have different defensive needs. But also it was mentioned resistance can substitute for high AC. Ranger does get Absorb elements and Rogue Uncanny Dodge which are fairly significant defensive options in that category.

Hexblade hasn't had much of a problem at my tables, but my group has tended to use them as eldritch blast spammers, rather than melee tanks.

[Skrum]

Combination of everyone has at least +1 AC from magic items (but usually not more than that) and yeah, only certain builds are "allowed" to be dedicated melee.

We have 2 monks, both have 18 AC and a cloak of displacement. They also both play a melee auxiliary roll; being really careful with placement and knowing when it's time to get out.

Rangers and rogues cannot melee. Their armor and defenses are not good enough. Anyone who plays those classes are ranged - though rogues can skirmish, if they're careful and have mobility or are swashbucklers.

Every cleric has at least 20 AC. My forge cleric has 25, though he's an outlier even at this table. One peace cleric has 21 and regularly throws herself into danger, and regularly has to be scraped off the floor.
----------------
In the thread "why are 5e characters so powerful," one of the pieces of advice that came up a few times was sticking closer to the book recommended encounters per rest schedule. The infamous 5 Minute Adventuring Day can greatly enhance PC power (as well as exacerbate class imbalances). I think this is true and good advice.

But then, when I mention how high the AC is of the characters that fight in melee at the table I play at (23ish, plus defensive options and abilities), most people are like "that's crazy, that's not reflective of the normal table," etc. Which leaves me wondering, how do melee characters function *at all.* Our table does skew towards the 5 minute adventuring day, making combats pretty intense, but if a fighter only has 19 AC, and then there's 4 encounters per long rest, like.... how is that possible. A character with 75 hit points cannot absorb 35 damage per encounter and also fight 4 times before resting.

High AC feels non-negotiable, if a character wants to engage in melee regularly. Otherwise they just take way too much damage and become a drag on the party.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well... I usually play barbarians with moderate AC and damage resistance, so that's not helpful here.

The current fighter I'm playing is running around with 18 AC, but the Hill Rune grants Resistance to B/P/S, and also I have magic armor that is granting me resistance to various energy types (non-magical types though), so that helps. It also gives my Vulnerability to Bludgeoning, which sucks. And my fighter does drop to 0. But I think that's more to do with my party not being very optimized. That's changing though.

I think a lot of this forum conversation ignores debuffs and terrain, which can make a big difference. Once my hexblade ran out of slots, there's really not much going on; no bonus to speed or movement, no help with shoves/prone, no str/con saves. It leaves a lot to be desired.

Of course, when you're Eldritch Smiting or casting some other spell, it's great. But I ran out of my 2 slots lightning fast. After that, it's not much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Combination of everyone has at least +1 AC from magic items (but usually not more than that) and yeah, only certain builds are "allowed" to be dedicated melee.

We have 2 monks, both have 18 AC and a cloak of displacement. They also both play a melee auxiliary roll; being really careful with placement and knowing when it's time to get out.

Rangers and rogues cannot melee. Their armor and defenses are not good enough. Anyone who plays those classes are ranged - though rogues can skirmish, if they're careful and have mobility or are swashbucklers.

Every cleric has at least 20 AC. My forge cleric has 25, though he's an outlier even at this table. One peace cleric has 21 and regularly throws herself into danger, and regularly has to be scraped off the floor.
----------------
In the thread "why are 5e characters so powerful," one of the pieces of advice that came up a few times was sticking closer to the book recommended encounters per rest schedule. The infamous 5 Minute Adventuring Day can greatly enhance PC power (as well as exacerbate class imbalances). I think this is true and good advice.

But then, when I mention how high the AC is of the characters that fight in melee at the table I play at (23ish, plus defensive options and abilities), most people are like "that's crazy, that's not reflective of the normal table," etc. Which leaves me wondering, how do melee characters function *at all.* Our table does skew towards the 5 minute adventuring day, making combats pretty intense, but if a fighter only has 19 AC, and then there's 4 encounters per long rest, like.... how is that possible. A character with 75 hit points cannot absorb 35 damage per encounter and also fight 4 times before resting.

High AC feels non-negotiable, if a character wants to engage in melee regularly. Otherwise they just take way too much damage and become a drag on the party.

You're in a degenerate[0] spiral. You're only taking 35 per encounter because you've gotten into a space where all encounters are super-super deadly. Which means damage numbers get ramped up because they might only hit once. Which means that now you can't fight more, which means you have to ramp up further, which means people optimize harder...

The way out is to reset everything back to system default. Your game is way far off the beaten path, and you're encountering pathologies as a result. It feels to me much like someone complaining that their utensil isn't working for their soup, and turns out they're using a pitchfork!

The system expects that monsters will hit the high-armor folks ~40-50% of the time and the low-armor folks ~70% of the time (about the same that players hit monsters). It expects that the bulk of what you will face is well below you in CR (roughly half). It expects that most fights will be in the Medium to Hard as experienced range (ie use Hard as a descriptor[1], not an XP statement). It expects somewhere between 3 and 5 fights, with most people spending around half their HD over short rests on an average day and possibly more on a hard day. It expects substantial variation between fights and days. It expects the modal fight to run about 3 rounds. It expects monsters to scale mostly in volume of attacks, not size of any given attack. It expects the normal person melee or not to sit in the 17-18 range on AC when the cap out, with particularly defensive characters hitting 20-22. And yes, that's including magic armor. It does not expect that you will cap your defensive stat even if it's your offensive stat!. Etc.

Arguments from personal experience have weight, but when they're substantially different from system design, that weight is more limited and they don't generalize as well.

[0] not a pejorative--it's the technical meaning of "all the options collapsing into a couple". In this case, you've wedged yourself into a place that only has one possible playstyle for melee. Which colors the viewpoint significantly.
[1] That is, Hard means "The party will expend resources and someone might go to 0 if they are unlucky or the party doesn't use good tactics" as opposed to "X <= adjusted XP < Y for Z party members at level L".

[Skrum]

Maybe so, but what you're describing is an incredible brittle system that relies on bilateral disarmament. And if one player decides, hey, it would be grand if I had 23 AC, like that's all it's gonna take for optimization to kick in. Either that character is untouchable, or everyone gets on board.

The base problem is bounded accuracy is only partially enforced. If what you're saying is true and the game is balanced around heavies getting hit 45% of the time, the game should be *hard* capped at that level. But it's not; particularly with AC, it's possible to string together impressive defenses - and it doesn't even take magic items.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe so, but what you're describing is an incredible brittle system that relies on bilateral disarmament. And if one player decides, hey, it would be grand if I had 23 AC, like that's all it's gonna take for optimization to kick in. Either that character is untouchable, or everyone gets on board.

The base problem is bounded accuracy is only partially enforced. If what you're saying is true and the game is balanced around heavies getting hit 45% of the time, the game should be *hard* capped at that level. But it's not; particularly with AC, it's possible to string together impressive defenses - and it doesn't even take magic items.

Temporary AC spikes aren't (usually) a problem assuming a regular rate of attrition. And nobody can, without magic items, reach 22 passive AC until the level 20 barbarian capstone (assuming capped DEX and CON). It always takes at least someone's concentration or a limited-use feature.

Generally, the doom spiral requires multiple parts to really kick in. I've got a high-AC character in my party--that's fine. He takes damage from saving throw effects just fine. Over the course of a regular adventuring day, that all adds up just fine. It's when you get into the mindset that everyone either

a) never gets attacked
or b) needs 22+ AC

that you're definitely deep into that spiral.

And yes, I'd personally prefer if sources of stacking AC were removed and monster attack bonuses were lowered. In my WIP, I do exactly that. There is one way to increase AC above the base armor--everyone gets a Defensive Duelist-like reaction that consumes a resource (one that martials have way more of than casters). There are no +X armor of any type, and no items that increase AC. On the flip side, monster attack bonuses come down substantially at higher tiers. That means the highest possible static AC is 20 (plate + shield) and the game is balanced around 17-18 being the normal cap.

Additionally, everyone gets a reaction ability to add proficiency to a save even if they already had proficiency. That costs a resource as well, depending on which save type it is (martials have more fuel for physical saves, casters for mental saves, but either way it cuts into your main offensive resource budget).

So you can say no to a save or attack, but at a significant cost. NO ONE should just be able to blanket say no to all attacks (barring crits) or all saves of a particular type.

[Dr.Samurai]

@PP: How do debuffs factor into that?

It's one thing to measure AC/HP and compare to traditional frontliners, but what about grappled/restrained riders, and saves vs Poison damage/condition? Or mobility to reach melee targets?

I feel like these sorts of things are lost in these conversations but actually do matter at the table. A hexblade might have a buff to keep concentration, but they don't have proficiency in Con saves to avoid poison. My barbarian has a 40ft speed and uses a reach weapon, and can move 20ft as part of his Rage activation, but my armor artificer with a 30ft speed using Thunder Gauntlets might have trouble reaching certain enemies if they're being mobile and making use of features/terrain. My fighter can push an enemy grappling him with one attack to break the grapple, and still make two attacks, but my hexblade that dumped Strength will have to use their entire action to make an Acrobatics check, or remain Restrained.

I feel like we put a hexblade warlock and a barbarian in a white room together and say "these two things are the same", but when played at the table, they really aren't.

[Skrum]

Temporary AC spikes aren't (usually) a problem assuming a regular rate of attrition. And nobody can, without magic items, reach 22 passive AC until the level 20 barbarian capstone (assuming capped DEX and CON). It always takes at least someone's concentration or a limited-use feature.

This isn't really true though; my 25 AC cleric is a warforged fighter 1 forge cleric 6. Without magic items, he'd have 24 AC (plate, shield, +1 from warforged racial, +1 defensive fighting style, +2 from forge cleric).

An eldritch knight can dip 2 levels of wizard for war magic's arcane deflection, allowing them to boost AC by 2 or a save by 4 unlimited times per day. The cost is almost entirely negligible cause they're gonna be attacking anyway.

An artificer can make their own magic items. They can have 21 AC as early as level 2 (though that's unlikely since they'd need plate), but they certainly can have 22 AC by 6 (+1 plate and a reflector shield) and 24 AC at level 10 (+2 plate, reflector shield, cloak of protection). Since they make these items themselves, they're more akin to class features than actual magic items.

An armored kensei monk can reach 22 AC via Agile Parry starting at level 5. Take tavern brawler to reestablish d4 punches, or better yet use a race that has a boosted unarmed strike, and you're not even giving up that much from the monk chassis.

I also think you're underweighing on-use abilities. Spells like blur can turn solid defense to nearly impenetrable defense. And sure, more encounters will make it so that these can't be used all the time, but unless those encounters are hard enough that they actually require expenditures, there's no point - the character just won't use those resources. And if they are hard enough to require those resources, now we're in "must have 22+ AC" territory. An series of encounters that will whittle down a character with 23 AC will just outright kill a similar character that only has 18 AC.




In my WIP, I do exactly that. There is one way to increase AC above the base armor--everyone gets a Defensive Duelist-like reaction that consumes a resource (one that martials have way more of than casters). There are no +X armor of any type, and no items that increase AC. On the flip side, monster attack bonuses come down substantially at higher tiers. That means the highest possible static AC is 20 (plate + shield) and the game is balanced around 17-18 being the normal cap.

Additionally, everyone gets a reaction ability to add proficiency to a save even if they already had proficiency. That costs a resource as well, depending on which save type it is (martials have more fuel for physical saves, casters for mental saves, but either way it cuts into your main offensive resource budget).

So you can say no to a save or attack, but at a significant cost. NO ONE should just be able to blanket say no to all attacks (barring crits) or all saves of a particular type.

This sounds like extremely sound game design that makes far more classes and builds viable options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@PP: How do debuffs factor into that?

It's one thing to measure AC/HP and compare to traditional frontliners, but what about grappled/restrained riders, and saves vs Poison damage/condition? Or mobility to reach melee targets?

I feel like these sorts of things are lost in these conversations but actually do matter at the table. A hexblade might have a buff to keep concentration, but they don't have proficiency in Con saves to avoid poison. My barbarian has a 40ft speed and uses a reach weapon, and can move 20ft as part of his Rage activation, but my armor artificer with a 30ft speed using Thunder Gauntlets might have trouble reaching certain enemies if they're being mobile and making use of features/terrain. My fighter can push an enemy grappling him with one attack to break the grapple, and still make two attacks, but my hexblade that dumped Strength will have to use their entire action to make an Acrobatics check, or remain Restrained.

I feel like we put a hexblade warlock and a barbarian in a white room together and say "these two things are the same", but when played at the table, they really aren't.

How do debuffs factor into what, specifically?

As for my WIP, I'm adjusting lots of things save related. From outright switching what effects call for what saves, to changing lots of hard control to soft control unless you fail by more than 5 (or requiring multiple progressively worse saves) to allowing more ways to break conditions at some cost. As well as adding more movement and abilities to smack the "back line" with conditions, and adjusting some conditions to fall more equally[1].

I'm also giving melee-focused martials (like barbarians) more movement options.

Basically, I describe the classes' combat focuses as four parameters: Support, Damage, Control, and Toughness. Every class should have something in each bucket, but the total "points" (on an abstract 1-10 scale) should all add up to about the same amount AND no one should have 10s in anything. Full casters tend to have lower T in exchange for having more points elsewhere. Toughness includes saves against hard control.


Note that many classes have been renamed or redesigned entirely. These are general things--subclasses modify this somewhat.

Arcanist (fka sorcerer, includes wizard, the basic arcane full-caster): 2S 7D 7C 4T. Squishy (relatively) but good at aoe damage and control especially.

Armsman (fka fighter): 3S 6D 4C 7T. Naturally durable via good AC[2], even if not in full tank mode. Their support and control mostly is local, and they're good at single-target or cleave-style (2-3 target) damage.

Brawler (FKA monk): 3S 6D 5C 6T. Less armor-durable, more save-durable. Good control, imposes conditions really well.

Oathbound (FKA paladin): 5S 6D 3C 6T. Armor-durable, more supporty. Less burst-nova than 5e's paladin by default.

Priest (FKA cleric): 7S 5D 4C 4T. Remade into a "white mage" (light armor only except subclasses that give medium). Support kings, but pay for it by doing significantly less damage base than an arcanist.

Ranger: 3S 7D 5C 5T. half-caster controller. Fewer defensive tools than either brawlers or armsmen.

Rogue: 3S 6D 6C 6T. More control than current rogues. A few more defensive options.

Shaman (fka druid): 4S 5D 7C 4T. No wildshaping, but creating elemental zones. Hard in on control.

Spellblade (replaces bard): 4S 6D 5C 5T. Fairly balanced half-caster, focus on debuffing more than hard control.

Warden (fka barbarian): 3S 7D 3C 7T. Hits hard and tanky. King of crits (rage is now damage dice + escalating crit range)

Warlock: ?S ?D ?C 5-6T. Quite open. Not a traditional spell-caster at all, but can use invocations (which it has more of) to steal specific spells from any list. Brought back blast shapes/effects from 3e.

[2] they and paladins are the only base heavy-armor folks, and armsmen get features so they can switch hit in heavy armor without pumping dex.


[1] Such as throwing in more effects that directly affect/hamper save spells, including making somatic components harder while restrained and adding some qualifiers on the easy escape spells (e.g. misty step requires more than just verbal components and requires a clear path to target).

[PhoenixPhyre]

This isn't really true though; my 25 AC cleric is a warforged fighter 1 forge cleric 6. Without magic items, he'd have 24 AC (plate, shield, +1 from warforged racial, +1 defensive fighting style, +2 from forge cleric).

An eldritch knight can dip 2 levels of wizard for war magic's arcane deflection, allowing them to boost AC by 2 or a save by 4 unlimited times per day. The cost is almost entirely negligible cause they're gonna be attacking anyway.

An artificer can make their own magic items. They can have 21 AC as early as level 2 (though that's unlikely since they'd need plate), but they certainly can have 22 AC by 6 (+1 plate and a reflector shield) and 24 AC at level 10 (+2 plate, reflector shield, cloak of protection). Since they make these items themselves, they're more akin to class features than actual magic items.

An armored kensei monk can reach 22 AC via Agile Parry starting at level 5. Take tavern brawler to reestablish d4 punches, or better yet use a race that has a boosted unarmed strike, and you're not even giving up that much from the monk chassis.

I also think you're underweighing on-use abilities. Spells like blur can turn solid defense to nearly impenetrable defense. And sure, more encounters will make it so that these can't be used all the time, but unless those encounters are hard enough that they actually require expenditures, there's no point - the character just won't use those resources. And if they are hard enough to require those resources, now we're in "must have 22+ AC" territory. An series of encounters that will whittle down a character with 23 AC will just outright kill a similar character that only has 18 AC.


Those are all either busted (warforged, where the warforged racial was IIRC removed in the published version), emulate magic items (forge cleric, artificer), or aren't static (being only up for a single hit, requiring actions, or requiring resources).

And personally, all of those + multiclassing are on the this is substantial power creep that has caused problems list for me.

And, apropos of the OP, all of those fall over hard as soon as you're restrained or hit with a condition because you failed a save.

[Witty Username]

Those are all either busted (warforged, where the warforged racial was IIRC removed in the published version), emulate magic items (forge cleric, artificer), or aren't static (being only up for a single hit, requiring actions, or requiring resources).


+ 1 AC is the fixed version. Prior to the published version it was something like 16+ prof AC. It mapped to about +1 over magic armor If I remember the math right.

[Dr.Samurai]

@PP: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant how to debuffs like Disadvantage to your attack rolls and enemies having Advantage to hit you mesh with the system expectations? Because my experience is that those things are more frequent than forum conversation tends to suggest.


FWIW, I don't think "someone is concentrating on this" is good enough reason to break system expectations. That means casters get to do cool stuff and if martials do it it's OP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

+ 1 AC is the fixed version. Prior to the published version it was something like 16+ prof AC. It mapped to about +1 over magic armor If I remember the math right.

Ah. I stand corrected. I still don't like it.


@PP: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant how to debuffs like Disadvantage to your attack rolls and enemies having Advantage to hit you mesh with the system expectations? Because my experience is that those things are more frequent than forum conversation tends to suggest.


FWIW, I don't think "someone is concentrating on this" is good enough reason to break system expectations. That means casters get to do cool stuff and if martials do it it's OP.

Both of those have counterplay and don't stack with other similar effects, and in my experience, those reduce damage output and increase damage input (respectively) somewhat, but aren't significant contributors in the absence of more dramatic conditions[1]. And the big thing about those is that while they shift the hit-curve, they don't push things entirely off it like static AC (or save bonuses/DCs) do.

Specifically, having save bonuses too high OR DCs too high (both of which can occur) mean that particular abilities just cannot ever land OR cannot ever be saved against. Both are failure states for the system. Attacks still hit on a crit, but too-high of a static AC means that only crits land...which means that damage input becomes wildly swingy.

On the other hand, I've seen enough double-nat-1s (or double misses) with Advantage/double-nat-20s (or double hits) with Disadvantage to mean they're still serving their purposes.

Thus, I strongly prefer to use Advantage/Disadvantage as my levers for debuffs/buffs rather than stacking flat numbers.

And while I agree that simply "concentrating, so ok to be OP" is bad, preferring to decide "would this be too much to have up for every fight that matters", concentration is a significant cost, so saying that someone's AC is 20+ and then including concentration spells as means to get there is even more of an outlier from system-expectation standpoints. No, the system does not expect you to always spend your concentration on +AC or Disadvantage to be hit if you want to melee. That's just...not a thing.

[1] especially paralysis with its auto-crit.

[RSP]

Maybe RSP can explain why they felt they had to swap characters. He’s already said his hex blade was dying all the time and it wasn’t fun.

My experience with the Hexblade was from playing an SKT campaign, level 3-12. I played him generally as a “frontline” melee combatant, but did have SoM, Fear, Sickening Radiance and/or Synaptic Static available when needed.

Don’t remember everything about the character but he generally would use Hex to help weapon damage. So something like 2x 1d8+1d6+5 for damage. At some point he got a flame tongue so +2d6 fire. Average per attack was about 20 damage.

I liked Hex because it helped a little with damage, and after 5th, would stay up through SRs, so could keep it going while having slots available for Shield/AoA early on, Counterspell, or, later, Synaptic.

Our group, as I recall, included a ranged fighter (who started with a monk until they lost out to a semi-Lich), a cleric (who was originally a rogue), a ranged ranger, a Barb and an Evoker Wizard (who started with a Paladin until he was disintegrated by a beholder). And my Warlock.

Barb was easily our sturdiest PC throughout the campaign.

I’d regularly be engaging in melee with the Barb, though not always together.

General strategy was to save slots for Counterspell or starting a fight with Synaptic.

I believe I had 14 Dex w Adamantine Half Plate and a Sentinel Shield (19 AC). I had Warcaster to cast with hands full and Adv on Conc. 16 Con, I believe, so 75 HPs at 9th, 83 at 10th.

Issue was there’s really no damage mitigation available. Using Shield with a 4th or 5th level slot is possible, but certainly not ideal.

Fighting a Fire Giant (+11 to hit, 28 (6d6 + 7) slashing damage) means they need an 8 or higher to hit (65% hit rate). So generally getting hit at least once, for roughly 28. Three hits (or less with a high roll) knocks me out.

Even against Stone Giants (+9 to hit, 19 (3d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.), it’s a 55% hit rate, 4 hits knocking me out at 9th, 5 at 10th.

AoA doesn’t do anything really, as it’s 20-25 mitigation so generally one hit absorbed, but at the cost of an action and a spell slot (really Shield is even a better use of the slot for mitigation as it may negate more than one hit, and only costs a Reaction). Synaptic is much better for that slot/action. SoM helped but Disadvantage with two attacks at 55%+ to hit, still leaves a good chance you’ll get hit at least once per turn, and then roll Conc (I also liked Hex because it could stay up through encounters but if it dropped, it wasn’t awful). And again, is the cost of an Action.

For either SoM or AoA, the Action economy doesn’t work: use Action on SoM/AoA, then take hits and AoA is done and maybe SoM drops, plus you still lose HPs. Enemy took about 9 or 20 HPs. Now you’re less a slot, less HPs and still in the position. You could cast your last spell to try and stay on the front line, but a slot/turn doesn’t work when you have 2 slots.

Hexblade’s Curse isn’t worth it really either as it’s 1/SR as a BA and Reaction, and isn’t reliable (50% success - the three times I tried using it, it failed to do anything). Early on, Shield is better for Reaction, slot and reliability, and later Reaction is better for Counterspell.

The Barb was way more durable. Being downed after two turns by an enemy isn’t great for a melee attacker. That doesn’t even factor in minions chipping away or not being 100%.

Prior to the back half of tier 2, I didn’t have that issue. Shield was more reasonable to use, AoA would last more than one hit and might do enough damage to take out minions (preventing them from attacking anymore); and damage didn’t come in such big hits, with such high to hit numbers.

I don’t actually remember the Barb even dropping to 0 (it’s possible it happened, just don’t remember it), yet it became rather common at that point for my Warlock.

Other “Gish” type characters have more reasonable uses of defensive spells available (Shield or AE mainly), plus other mitigation abilities (Bladesinger has additional AC and can use slots to absorb hits, for instance; my current Clockwork Sorc can cast Aid to bulk up, cast Shield, cast AoA and extend it with Bastion of Law; etc).

Barb’s obviously have Rage and Paladins have self healing and either has more HPs. Rogues have Uncanny Dodge (though still shouldn’t be trying to face tank probably), fighters have more bulk and BA self healing. All of those also each have subclass features that help them out too (to differing degrees of effectiveness: BM maneuvers can help, grapples, EK’s defensive spells, Bearbarian’s Resist everything but Psychic, etc).

Maybe others had different experiences, this was just mine. (Note I played a different SKT campaign with the same DM, but for that I played a Lore Bard. The Bard didn’t have the same drop rate though wasn’t looking for melee combat. In that campaign, we had a Barb/Rogue who was effective in melee and didn’t have the same issues as my Warlock; and that campaign only had 3 PCs (3rd character was a Moon Druid who didn’t get into melee nearly as much as you would think)).

[RSP]

Between you and RSP, to prove your points, you're insisting that the game be played backwards. You are saying that casters have no choice but to be in melee, and RSP later is telling me that I am "choosing" to be out in front as a melee fighter, implying that I have the option of instead being ranged and fighting from a distance...

…But there are a lot of PC choices though right? I mean... that's what you have been hitting back with this whole time, that we can choose to grab a feat, or put our point buy points elsewhere, or play a specific class or subclass. So let's not stray too far from the point now….

…What situations should I choose to put my melee fighter in that won't expose them to save effects?


A lot of this is inaccurate, at least for what I’ve been saying.

Casters get into melee, yes, but they tend to have ways to get out of it (Misty is popular); though those tend to be wins for the bad guys anyway, as it’s now essentially a wasted turn getting away (as you used a 2nd level spell, your BA, and now can’t cast anything but a cantrip).

There also is no “race to kill the casters” as you put it, though enemies that are intelligent, and know about Conc or whatever may choose to target casters.

As to your choices, it’s not a choice between ranged or melee that I was referencing, it’s that you specifically said it’s normal for your PC to engage enemies 40’+ away from the rest of the party that is the choice I’m referencing: between that and your DM using one group sets that get contained by this strategy, then, yeah, you’re opting to put your PC in range of enemies and their abilities, while keeping the rest of the PCs away.

That’s a strategic choice that I hope the rest of the players appreciate and help out with, but it’s not a problem for the saves system.

Again, that wasn’t the case in any of my games, regardless of PC class/playstyle: everyone, generally, was just as likely to be targeted by save abilities as anyone else.



The classes aren't designed the way they are for the casters to be next to the monsters and the fighters to be keeping their distance. Again, not saying it's a wrong playstyle, but it's not the right style to discuss balance.

In a way, they very much are: fighters get a lot of very good support for ranged combat; and casters get ways to protect themselves in melee, either via escape (Misty Step, Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc) or mitigation of attacks/damage (Shield, AE).

[Rerem115]

That might just be SKT being SKT; giants are obviously prominent, and they definitely skew towards being big, hard-hitting bruisers.

One or two rock-hurling fire giants is a very different encounter than, say, a Necromancer and his skeleton bodyguards and mummy lieutenant.

[Dr.Samurai]

My experience with the Hexblade was from playing an SKT campaign, level 3-12. I played him generally as a “frontline” melee combatant, but did have SoM, Fear, Sickening Radiance and/or Synaptic Static available when needed.

Don’t remember everything about the character but he generally would use Hex to help weapon damage. So something like 2x 1d8+1d6+5 for damage. At some point he got a flame tongue so +2d6 fire. Average per attack was about 20 damage.

I liked Hex because it helped a little with damage, and after 5th, would stay up through SRs, so could keep it going while having slots available for Shield/AoA early on, Counterspell, or, later, Synaptic.

Our group, as I recall, included a ranged fighter (who started with a monk until they lost out to a semi-Lich), a cleric (who was originally a rogue), a ranged ranger, a Barb and an Evoker Wizard (who started with a Paladin until he was disintegrated by a beholder). And my Warlock.

Barb was easily our sturdiest PC throughout the campaign.

I’d regularly be engaging in melee with the Barb, though not always together.

General strategy was to save slots for Counterspell or starting a fight with Synaptic.

I believe I had 14 Dex w Adamantine Half Plate and a Sentinel Shield (19 AC). I had Warcaster to cast with hands full and Adv on Conc. 16 Con, I believe, so 75 HPs at 9th, 83 at 10th.

Issue was there’s really no damage mitigation available. Using Shield with a 4th or 5th level slot is possible, but certainly not ideal.

Fighting a Fire Giant (+11 to hit, 28 (6d6 + 7) slashing damage) means they need an 8 or higher to hit (65% hit rate). So generally getting hit at least once, for roughly 28. Three hits (or less with a high roll) knocks me out.

Even against Stone Giants (+9 to hit, 19 (3d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.), it’s a 55% hit rate, 4 hits knocking me out at 9th, 5 at 10th.

AoA doesn’t do anything really, as it’s 20-25 mitigation so generally one hit absorbed, but at the cost of an action and a spell slot (really Shield is even a better use of the slot for mitigation as it may negate more than one hit, and only costs a Reaction). Synaptic is much better for that slot/action. SoM helped but Disadvantage with two attacks at 55%+ to hit, still leaves a good chance you’ll get hit at least once per turn, and then roll Conc (I also liked Hex because it could stay up through encounters but if it dropped, it wasn’t awful). And again, is the cost of an Action.

For either SoM or AoA, the Action economy doesn’t work: use Action on SoM/AoA, then take hits and AoA is done and maybe SoM drops, plus you still lose HPs. Enemy took about 9 or 20 HPs. Now you’re less a slot, less HPs and still in the position. You could cast your last spell to try and stay on the front line, but a slot/turn doesn’t work when you have 2 slots.

Hexblade’s Curse isn’t worth it really either as it’s 1/SR as a BA and Reaction, and isn’t reliable (50% success - the three times I tried using it, it failed to do anything). Early on, Shield is better for Reaction, slot and reliability, and later Reaction is better for Counterspell.

The Barb was way more durable. Being downed after two turns by an enemy isn’t great for a melee attacker. That doesn’t even factor in minions chipping away or not being 100%.

Prior to the back half of tier 2, I didn’t have that issue. Shield was more reasonable to use, AoA would last more than one hit and might do enough damage to take out minions (preventing them from attacking anymore); and damage didn’t come in such big hits, with such high to hit numbers.

I don’t actually remember the Barb even dropping to 0 (it’s possible it happened, just don’t remember it), yet it became rather common at that point for my Warlock.

Other “Gish” type characters have more reasonable uses of defensive spells available (Shield or AE mainly), plus other mitigation abilities (Bladesinger has additional AC and can use slots to absorb hits, for instance; my current Clockwork Sorc can cast Aid to bulk up, cast Shield, cast AoA and extend it with Bastion of Law; etc).

Barb’s obviously have Rage and Paladins have self healing and either has more HPs. Rogues have Uncanny Dodge (though still shouldn’t be trying to face tank probably), fighters have more bulk and BA self healing. All of those also each have subclass features that help them out too (to differing degrees of effectiveness: BM maneuvers can help, grapples, EK’s defensive spells, Bearbarian’s Resist everything but Psychic, etc).

Maybe others had different experiences, this was just mine. (Note I played a different SKT campaign with the same DM, but for that I played a Lore Bard. The Bard didn’t have the same drop rate though wasn’t looking for melee combat. In that campaign, we had a Barb/Rogue who was effective in melee and didn’t have the same issues as my Warlock; and that campaign only had 3 PCs (3rd character was a Moon Druid who didn’t get into melee nearly as much as you would think)).
Thanks for sharing. Yeah, I think giants are pretty sobering monsters to face. We are currently running through Against the Giants, and they deal so much damage and receive so much damage. My fighter is only sporting an 18 AC so I understand the experience. The Hill Giant Rune makes a huge difference, as does the Cloud Rune. I have found that imposing Disadvantage on their attack rolls makes very little difference; they still usually hit.

A lot of this is inaccurate, at least for what I’ve been saying.
You've been saying that casters are in melee as much as barbarians, so there's no difference in frequency of making saving throws. You've gone on to tell me that moving toward the enemy to engage them in melee is "a choice", as if warriors wielding two-handed melee weapons should do something else.

Casters get into melee, yes, but they tend to have ways to get out of it (Misty is popular); though those tend to be wins for the bad guys anyway, as it’s now essentially a wasted turn getting away (as you used a 2nd level spell, your BA, and now can’t cast anything but a cantrip).
I don't understand and have questions.

1. You keep insisting that casters are in melee just as much as barbarians and other melee warriors, to rebut the idea that melee characters make more saving throws. Now you're saying that casters use spells to get out of melee. Later you will say they're designed to be in melee because they have spells to escape from being in melee. If they are escaping the melee, how are they in melee? My barbarian, as an example, doesn't immediately dip out of melee if enemies get next to him.

2. You keep treating my example of the fighter and monk rushing forward and the ranger staying behind as some sort of anomaly style of play. You've replied with "we were on a tiny island with nowhere to go" and "we were surrounded in every direction by monsters" to counter the example of encounters with space to have a backline. But now you're again talking about the casters escaping melee with Misty Step. Escaping to where? If there is space to teleport away to, then there is space to establish a frontline. Instead of insisting on being in melee and then using a spell to retreat... just establish those ranks from the beginning and you don't have to waste a spell slot.

3. If the caster is out of melee in a turn... how likely is it that they are making as many saving throws as the melee warriors?

There also is no “race to kill the casters” as you put it, though enemies that are intelligent, and know about Conc or whatever may choose to target casters.
There absolutely is, as described by sithlordnergal.

As to your choices, it’s not a choice between ranged or melee that I was referencing, it’s that you specifically said it’s normal for your PC to engage enemies 40’+ away from the rest of the party that is the choice I’m referencing: between that and your DM using one group sets that get contained by this strategy, then, yeah, you’re opting to put your PC in range of enemies and their abilities, while keeping the rest of the PCs away.
I didn't say this is what I normally do; I said I am capable of doing this. If I move forward 30ft and the ranger moves backward 30ft, we're golden. But I feel like I'm not understanding your full point, maybe because you're more implying something than outright saying it? What do you think I should opt to do instead? Throw javelins and let the monsters close in on the party so that my ranged teammates are as close to the monster as I am? Can you elaborate on the alternative you think works better?

That’s a strategic choice that I hope the rest of the players appreciate and help out with, but it’s not a problem for the saves system.
Again, I didn't present it as a problem for the saves system. I'm rebutting the, frankly, silly claim that everyone is equally in melee.

Again, that wasn’t the case in any of my games, regardless of PC class/playstyle: everyone, generally, was just as likely to be targeted by save abilities as anyone else.
You agree with me whether you want to admit it or not. Your point that your casters were targeted equally by save abilities is predicated on them being in melee, which was my entire point in the first place. Being in melee forces you to make more saving throws, generally.

In a way, they very much are: fighters get a lot of very good support for ranged combat; and casters get ways to protect themselves in melee, either via escape (Misty Step, Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc) or mitigation of attacks/damage (Shield, AE).
And in every other way, they are not.

[Nagog]

Wow, this checks all the boxes of people not engaging with your points:

1. If you want to [insert something I've never said I want to do before] you are free to do so but [insert passive aggressive/underhanded consequences].
2. Granting faux permission to continue speaking on the internet
3. "It sounds like you don't care about the thing you purport to care about..."

Nagog, you started a thread asking the forum if certain things are balanced, so maybe pump the breaks before you lecture me on balance. I've provided context for why I have the opinion I do. I do, in fact, take the Resilient (Wisdom) feat, and currently have it on my Rune Knight fighter (as I've already mentioned). But I still think that easily frightened fighters and barbarians is a freaking mechanical travesty and should be fixed. And that's based on fantasy tropes. And a feat tax is an annoying solution, and that's not an unreasonable take, as many people have complained about feat taxes throughout every edition of D&D that have feats in them. You can disagree of course, but clawing your eyes out over it is dramatic (I consider consistently mischaracterizing me and engaging in fallacies as "clawing your eyes out over it"). IN ADDITION to the position on tropes and fear, I think getting stun-locked out of encounters is not fun, and it simply and factually isn't a crime to wonder aloud if the system can be tweaked in some way to prevent that from happening. And that goes for any class that is susceptible to some sort of stun-lock effect. It just so happens that most of these effects target wisdom, of which NONE of the non-spellcasting classes has proficiency in.

I get it that you and others have a real tough guy "work it out or get over it" attitude but like... who cares? I consider your take on this an extremely bad take.


Look, I don't really care about your opinion on whether or not the Fighter and Barbarian need Wisdom saves, or whatever else you've been running in circles on. What I do care about is the fact that this conversation has been going around and around in circles for 11 pages and almost 2 months and barely any of that has been on the topic I came to this community to discuss. You've made your opinion on this clear, and the last several pages of posts in this thread have been you tearing into anybody who voices disagreement. If you really want to keep airing this topic out, please make another thread where people who want to discuss this can more easily find it. Continuing the discussion here keeps the conversation circulating among the same 4-5 people who's opinions have been made clear time and time again already and drowns out anything actually relating to the query I posted. For the love of Io, I am literally begging you to make your own thread to discuss this so this one can die and I can actually get the information I've needed for 2 months.



You and RSP have put forth that in order for the game to be balanced and fun and challenging, the fighter and barbarian MUST be stun-locked/paralyzed/dominated/incapacitated/etc, therefore tweaking the system in anyway to modify this is destroying this delicate balancing, resulting in a less challenging and less fun game. Not only is this OBVIOUSLY not true on its face, but if it were true it would be a problem. Because being locked out of an encounter is not fun most of the time for most people. And given that you can make an entire party of characters that can make these saving throws with ease, it would suggest that the balance of the game is rather quite swingy (and therefore the fun of the game and challenge of the game). At the same time that you hold this position, you then recommend all the various ways that someone could play a character that can make these saving throws more easily, putting yourself in a position where you must either agree that you're recommending a playstyle that results in a less fun and less balanced game (characters that can resist getting stun-locked) or your original point was BS (spoiler alert, it's the latter).

Yeah, I think it can be done better, and I'm not worried if that deeply offends you. It's just an opinion man. Ignore it if it bothers you.

Furthermore, I don't believe that. If you're going to put opinions in my mouth, at least make them believable.
My argument is that there are plenty of ways to gain the defenses you're complained that Fighters and Barbarians don't have, and after 5 minutes of cursory research, I've found that Fighters already have plenty of them built-in to plenty of subclasses. Samurai gets Wisdom Save Proficiency at level 6, Psi Warrior can end Charm or Frightened with no action at the cost of a psionic die, Rune Knight can use Storm Giant's Prophetic Visions to gain advantage starting at level 7 (Which also stacks with Indomitable), and Indomitable on the base class.

Barbarians have the built-in flavor of the "Reckless Berserker" trope, but even they have the Berserker that makes them straight up immune. If you don't want to take these options (or Resilient: Wis, or be an Elf of any variety, or any of the other options present here), you're welcome to make your own and implement it in your own games. Problem solved. Can we please move on now?



they can rework traps, modules, and the monster manual to spread dangerous conditions more evenly across the 6 saves.


Honestly, this is the solution imo. That's exactly the kind of thing I would very much like to do, and why I came here to ask the question that has been all but ignored for this spiraling cesspit of a conversation.

[OvisCaedo]

Okay, then to answer your original question: No, there's not really any correlation to "strong" or "weak" conditions. The only weak saves in terms of likely conditions inflicted are.... strength and dex? The answer to "would it be balanced to mix up examples of what saves inflict what conditions?" is "the save system is not well balanced or designed to begin with, but if you're setting that aside anyhow, varying who gets screwed over more is probably an improvement."

[Dr.Samurai]

Look, I don't really care about your opinion on whether or not the Fighter and Barbarian need Wisdom saves, or whatever else you've been running in circles on. What I do care about is the fact that this conversation has been going around and around in circles for 11 pages and almost 2 months and barely any of that has been on the topic I came to this community to discuss. You've made your opinion on this clear, and the last several pages of posts in this thread have been you tearing into anybody who voices disagreement.
Wrong again. I don't mind disagreement. In fact, it's expected. I mind people engaging in a conversation while ignoring the points people are making, and misrepresenting them over and over again despite being corrected.

If you don't like my reaction to that, maybe don't do it :smallwink:.

If you really want to keep airing this topic out, please make another thread where people who want to discuss this can more easily find it. Continuing the discussion here keeps the conversation circulating among the same 4-5 people who's opinions have been made clear time and time again already and drowns out anything actually relating to the query I posted. For the love of Io, I am literally begging you to make your own thread to discuss this so this one can die and I can actually get the information I've needed for 2 months.
The only reason this thread is alive is because of the conversation we're having. A conversation that you yourself can't seem to refrain from engaging in (see below).

My argument is that there are plenty of ways to gain the defenses you're complained that Fighters and Barbarians don't have, and after 5 minutes of cursory research, I've found that Fighters already have plenty of them built-in to plenty of subclasses. Samurai gets Wisdom Save Proficiency at level 6, Psi Warrior can end Charm or Frightened with no action at the cost of a psionic die, Rune Knight can use Storm Giant's Prophetic Visions to gain advantage starting at level 7 (Which also stacks with Indomitable), and Indomitable on the base class.

Barbarians have the built-in flavor of the "Reckless Berserker" trope, but even they have the Berserker that makes them straight up immune.
If you are okay with all of these options (complete immunity, proficiency in saving throw, advantage on the save, reroll, etc), it seems strange to have such a complete allergic reaction to any other suggestions about how to tackle these issues.

As an example, instead of having to take a crappy subclass, you could have a saving throw feature on the base class (Indomitable is not good for what we're discussing).

But you being okay with these various features is incongruent with the visceral way you've reacted to this conversation.

If you don't want to take these options (or Resilient: Wis, or be an Elf of any variety, or any of the other options present here), you're welcome to make your own and implement it in your own games. Problem solved.
How does being an elf help me against being Stunned?

And thank you once again for the faux permission granting :smallamused:

Can we please move on now?
Can you? No one forced you to reply.

Honestly, this is the solution imo. That's exactly the kind of thing I would very much like to do, and why I came here to ask the question that has been all but ignored for this spiraling cesspit of a conversation.
This was suggested on the very first page of this thread. Then people moved on to other stuff. Maybe you missed it. Check Stoutstein's post.

[Zuras]

I’m under no illusion that anyone will change their minds at this point in the discussion, but I will point out that “the DM ignores the Barbarian and melee Fighters and focuses on casters every combat” argument already concedes caster superiority, regardless of whether the “martials have worse mental defenses than casters have physical defenses” is accurate.