Claims about casters having "strategic" capabilities are really mostly about wizards

[Waazraath]

Whilst I get where you're coming from, this is the pit trap these discussions always fall into: Nebulous Fighters lacking components the game doesn't assume you're missing out.

I will preface this with it's okay for characters to have weaknesses, this notion that it isn't is nonsense. If everyone had scaling saves like you want it would be a DC treadmill. It's okay that some characters suck at Wis saves, just the same as others suck at Str and Dex.

Now, I have no idea what Fighter was in your group, but Fighters in general don't need to suck at Wis saves. This isn't just take Res: Wis, it's much more than that:

- Fighters can afford to have higher tertiaries, whether they're Str or Dex focused they can afford to have a Wis (or whatever they want) that isn't a dump stat.

- Races are a thing, enrolling 1s? Sounds like a Halfling to me... V. Human offers the chance to grab said Res: Wis, Gnomes would have advantage on the save, as would several other races.

- Subclasses, also a thing! Samurai get's prof in Wis saves, Eldritch Knights have spell options, Rune Knight has runes that applies to saves

- I don't like assuming magic items, but sorry there is a stark difference between magicmart play and the possibility that some form of item that benefits saves is on the table by 14th level, there are even multiple items that do that at uncommon.

- It's a team game... Paladin aura, Bardic Inspiration, Dispel Magic etc. etc. this also highlights....

Two characters being locked down for three rounds isn't failure that rests solely on the Held PCs. That was 3 rounds that the party didn't free them of the spell or break the concentration of/kill the casters. To hang that around just the Fighter/Barbarian makes no sense in a cooperative game.

The issue would be if a Fighter wanted to be good at a certain save, or even multiple and couldn't do that but, hey! They can, it's not even difficult to do so.

Very much this. While I'm not per se against fighters getting their saves buffed or indomitable becoming stronger, I haven't seen 'fighters being bad at saves' at the table in 5e, exactly because of the reasons Dork_Forge mentiones here. Last party with a fighter had a melee buddy paladin (saves aura) and an artificer (flash of genius), together with the occasional reroll from indomitable and overall decent stats the fighter didn't miss a single save over 15 or something sessions.

[Tanarii]

One of the best fixes I've seen to Fighters having bad saves, or at least ones that don't improve well, was in 05R:Into the Unknown. Proficiency bonus to all saves.

Of course, it was specifically trying to be a retro mod of 5e.

[Waazraath]

One of the best fixes I've seen to Fighters having bad saves, or at least ones that don't improve well, was in 05R:Into the Unknown. Proficiency bonus to all saves.

Of course, it was specifically trying to be a retro mod of 5e.

Wasn't that too much, and/or a bit stepping on the monk's toes?

Thinking about it: it is maybe a bit too game dependent. The difference between a samurai fighter with the lucky feat in a game with a pally and an arteficer on the one hand and an eldritch archer in a featless game without any party members that boost saves might be a bit too big. I've never seen something as the latter in play but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course.

[Ignimortis]

Wasn't that too much, and/or a bit stepping on the monk's toes?

Thinking about it: it is maybe a bit too game dependent. The difference between a samurai fighter with the lucky feat in a game with a pally and an arteficer on the one hand and an eldritch archer in a featless game without any party members that boost saves might be a bit too big. I've never seen something as the latter in play but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course.

I've had several games without that kind of utility/party support being present. Even having Resilient (WIS) does not actually help the Fighter with starting 10 WIS much - they generally still need more than a 10 on a d20 to beat most WIS-dependent effects that haven't been outlevelled. I can easily believe that a Fighter got stunlocked by Hold Person for three rounds even if they had Resilient (WIS) - a 14th level Fighter would have +5 to beat the DC18 save, so they need a 13 or more to break out of it. Napkin math says that's a 60% chance of failure, three times repeated - a 21.6% chance of that occurring. And even then you make the save at the end of the turn, so if it works, it denies at least one turn to you.

I have already expounded on that, but every single time I've had a melee Fighter in the party or played one, they ended up being the martial that needed help most often and were by far the least self-sufficient. Every other martial but Ranger (who really, really doesn't want to be in melee despite everything Drizzt lied to you about) has some features that strengthen their defenses in a particular way (Rage+potential Bear Totem/Uncanny Dodge+Evasion/Diamond Soul+Evasion+Unarmored Defense/Lay on Hands+Aura of Protection+Shield of Faith).

Fighter...doesn't get anything, and unlike Ranger, most of their class fantasy is about being melee - but the 2H or TWF Fighter is probably one of the worst melee combatants, not because of damage (though it is a factor at least below 11), but because a dead/KO'd character does 0 DPR, and actually nailing a non-shield melee Fighter is extremely easy with either spell or sword. Feats do not help nearly as much as they are said to - especially for 2H Fighters, which quite literally do not get anything beyond "more damage". Second Wind is just...bad. At best, it's maybe +15 HP once per Short Rest, which stops mattering around the time when a normal on-CR enemy's attack does that much damage (so around level 4 or 5).

[Bobthewizard]

Wizard * however, their "core list" other than rituals is more narrowly focused and limited.

And then move metamagic and all the "complex" spellcasting into the wizard class.

My idea would be
a) wizards > sorcerers in number of spells ready at any one time.
b) wizards < sorcerers in size of list
c) wizards ~ sorcerers in "casting spells better" (wizards get rituals, sorcerers get metamagic or both gets different features to interact with things).

So who gets metamagic in your system?

I think wizards should be broad but light - rituals, larger spell list, more preparations, but just normal casting. Then sorcerers should be focused and deep - smaller spell list tailored to their subclass, fewer preparations, but better at casting those spells with metamagic. So wizards are the undergrads and sorcerers the PHDs.

I think rituals should go to the class with the larger spell list and more preparations, and metamagic should go to the class with the smaller spell list and fewer preparations. If you were to leave wizards with ritual casting but then give them a smaller spell list otherwise, it seems to muddy your wide and shallow versus narrow and deep idea. The rituals would make up for their smaller spell list and make sorcerers and wizards have about the same depth and breadth. If wizards were to get a smaller spell list but then added rituals, that seems to about equal the flexibility of the sorcerers now larger spell list.

For me, if you think there is a power divide between sorcerers and wizards, the answer would be to improve metamagic for the sorcerer. I think it's already pretty great. I love twin, subtle, careful and transmute. They're fun, so I don't see a problem between wizards and sorcerers until high levels, and even that is due to just a few spells.

When I play a sorcerer, I miss the wizard's rituals and larger spell list and preparations, and when I play a wizard, I miss the sorcerer's metamagic and better subclass features. I slightly prefer wizards due their easier customization. But if you gave sorcerers an extra metamagic, 2-3 extra sorcery points, a couple more spell slots in tier 3 and 4, I think they'd be more powerful than wizards, with the exception of your Shenanigans spells you listed, which I agree are problematic.

[Psyren]

You can drop the crusade against all editions not 5e and your other personal issues. Its pure numbers. 14th fighter AD&D vs hold spell is 5+ or 8+, not including stat bonuses or items, or 5e with +1 or +2 & reroll vs dc 18. You're assuming magic mart purchasing of your preferred items, and attuning your specific preferred items, and hadn't already used rerolls, and taking "suck less" feats over "can do something you couldn't do before" feats. A +6 & reroll 1s vs 18 is around 47% success (thats the calculator I had on hand). Math it. Fighter saves & ability checks are worse percentage-wise than they were in AD&D.

Having checked I will give that the feats of strength might be a wash. Str 16 bend bars being 10% and even str 19 hill giants having only 50%, but those are mapping to dc 21 checks anyways because we're talking ripping your way out of jail cells in one oomph or lifting a castle porticullis.

My "crusade," if you can even call it that, is against people shooting themselves in the foot and then demanding that the store where they bought the gun be demolished.

[Yakk]

So I had a Archer-Bard I leveled up to 20.

In the interminable caster/martial debates, a common benchmark for "how strong martials need to be" involves pointing out certain capabilities that "casters" have and saying that martials need a way of doing those things.

But let's consider a few of them in particular.

Flight: in 5e, that means either a flying mount (something anyone can in principle get, but paladins have it the easiest), a magic item granting flight (which is available to anyone), or the fly spell. Which is only on the following lists: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, Artificer. Clerics? out of luck. Druids? Can transform into something that can fly (3 levels later). Can maybe (Dm willing) summon something that can fly. But don't have native flight. And note that a large chunk of sorcerers and warlocks won't necessarily pick up fly, as their preps/slots are really really constrained. Artificers don't get it until much later if they even have room to pick it up. It's only wizards who can have a pretty good chance of having it right about level 5 (maybe level 7 or so).

Had a Find Greater Steed Griffon.

Teleportation: One of three-ish spells (ignoring magic items, because again, those are available to everyone): teleport, teleport circle, and maybe transport via plants (because that has substantial limits). Teleport is only on the bard, sorcerer, and wizard list. Again, clerics are out of luck, as are druids. Teleport circle is on the bard, wizard, sorcerer, and arcana cleric[1] list. Transport via plants can kinda work, and is the only druid access to such effects. A pattern seems to be forming here...

Planar Travel: Really only one good option here. Plane Shift. Which is a bit more convenient (post Tasha's[2])--clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. And you can sorta-kinda mimic teleport circle for the low low price of 2 7th level slots. Yay.

Could teleport, planeshift, and walk on the ethereal plane.

Long-duration minionmancy: You can create undead or you can planar bind. Planar ally isn't under your control, so it doesn't really count unless your DM is bending over backward for you. Clerics can create undead, but they're not great at it. And many DMs will look askance at a cleric of a good god engaging in creating armies of the undead. Wizards (the only other class with native access, although oathbreakers and circle of spores druids also have access) can specialize in it. And eventually get free castings of it. Planar binding is actually fairly freely available: bard, cleric, druid, wizard. But only the bard and wizard have the access to also be able to summon the really good targets for it. If you go instead to the more puppeting of existing creatures (domination, et al),
- suggestion is bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard
- geas is bard/cleric/druid/paladin/wizard
- mass suggestion is bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard
- charm person (which is a long way from mind control, but) is bard/druid/sorcerer/warlock/wizard + trickery domain
- dominate person is bard/sorcerer/wizard + trickery domain, archfey/GOO, and 3 paladin oaths

Didn't bother with this. PC was already really strong. I actually stopped using animate objects because it overshadowed everyone.

Knock (included not because it's a great spell but because it always comes up): You guessed it, bard/sorcerer/wizard

Had +infinity lockpicking, didn't need it.

Short-range teleportation (misty step, dimension door, arcane gate): Misty step is available to sorcerer/warlock/wizard, 1 land druid terrain, and 3 paladin oaths. Dimension door is bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard, trickery domain, oath of vengeance (who gets it real real late). Arcane gate is sorcerer/warlock/wizard (but mostly wizard and maybe sorcerer, because it's a 6th level spell so mystic arcanum for warlocks).

Had as much of this as I needed.

Find Familiar Either a feat or...wizard-list exclusive (so the 1/3 casters can get it).

I didn't want a 2nd pet.

Shenanigans: Wish, simulacrum, clone, magic jar. Of the 4, only wish is available to non-wizards (also sorcerers and genie warlocks). The other 3 are wizard exclusive.

Used Wish to produce Simulacrums. Could also Clone. Magic Jar was tempting, but was too much bother to pick up.

Took some different magical secrets instead.

And the list goes on. The only class that has native access to all these capabilities that supposedly define the supremacy of casters is the wizard. And even the others who share a lot of them (sorcerers and warlocks) are so limited in their choices that they either won't have some of them OR will have used up most of their picks on those, hampering their other capabilities.

I mean, I spent most of my magical secrets on being an archer bard. Overkill really; I liked having different ways to make my combat abilities ridiculous. So sometimes I'd haste, other times I'd use tensers, etc.

It meant I was able to match other pure-archers for damage output *while* having most of the above capabilities. Oh, and 30+ AC on some turns.

This was a concrete build in an actual game. And not a wizard. And doesn't include some spells I used to completely break encounters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wizards, Clerics & Druids have this weird thing where they effectively 'respec' overnight, creating a change in their playstyle which probably exceeds the difference between a ranger and a fighter (i.e., my problem #2).

That option is open, I rarely see it exercised in play. (And Rangers need to be prepared casters, arrggggghhhh! )

I think this comes down to the 'babying' ... having characters die (especially wizards) has been removed from the ethos.

Yes, though part of that was done in response to their gaming audience having been weaned on computer, console and video games where dying early and often was a great way to lose sales and get crap reviews. (Even though The Butcher in original Diablo was a great WTF moment for many of us the first time through).

Then spellcasting can't be too much of a hassle (i.e., pseudo-prepared casting). Specialisations don't actually give restrictions. But... we have to keep the 'icons of the game' (i.e., wizards, clerics and fighters... also rangers, barbarians, paladins and monks).

Yeah, spell casting came without a cost.

However, keeping some of the legacy stuff pushes the game into this weird niche position where wizards obviously can cast everything under the sun (because that is tradition) but fighters can't 'do' anything (because we want flexible DCs for DMs).

But Fighters used to have the best saves in the game (TSR, all editions).

I'd actually say that the lists, in that case, should be reversed. Sorcerers should pick a few spells from a huge list, wizards should pick a lot of spells from a small list. Because the set of "spells that can be encoded in the blood" is way bigger (it seems to me) than the set of "things we can write down and build from first principles."

The whole point of the wizard isn't that they are in the ivory tower: those are the NPC mages, etc. The wizard adventurer has to go out and find magic, magical things, and treasures to fund his own unique inquiry into magic. They are a lot more like a field engineer (well educated but going out there and putting theory into practice) or an archeologist finding old stuff and digging it up and maybe becoming famous, or maybe dying in the process.
Which is kind of their original premise in the post imperial dark ages/dying earth/post apocalypse world that D&D was built to emulate. (Which makes FR and Krynn poor imitations of D&D as a concept).

Your other points take me to "wizards get a limited spell list + meta magic, and are best at ritual casting" while sorcerer has a larger list, and domain list, and not meta magic. Am I following you there?

It makes more sense to me to be the other way. Give wizards broad access to a lot of spells, but let sorcerers cast the spells they have better. Wizards can study and learn a lot of different things, but they'd never be as good at what the sorcerer does as the sorcerer.

Indeed. the generalist who is out in the field putting theory into practice and discovering new stuff, or rediscovering very old stuff that has been forgotten. (Like how the Romans made the best mortar in the world to build their bridges from ...)

Metamagic is supposed to do this, but it falls just a bit short. Then some of the wizard subclass abilities step on the sorcerer's toes too.

I'll buy a share of this stock.

I agree. "Wizard as ritual master" is an identity. Lean into the "learning magic" angle--
* They can learn rituals more easily and have ways to do rituals better than anyone else, including converting some non-rituals into rituals.
* They can learn modifications to other spells through experiment, including seeing those other spells cast. Including some off-list access (Magical Secrets doesn't belong to bards in this model, really, but would depend on seeing those effects in play).
* however, their "core list" other than rituals is more narrowly focused and limited.

That's a neat idea at a restructuring, but convince WoTC of that.
Please.

You could also make sorcerers the "easy bake" caster--
* Each subclass gives a set of SLA-like "cast something like spell X Y number of times/day" abilities for the "core thematic spells". So a dragon sorcerer might get things like elemental blasting spells, fly, fear, and some armor/defensive stuff so he can "play dragon", etc. While an aberrant mind sorcerer might get "mess with their minds" spells this way.
* The base class would give much more limited spells and spell slots, but make them full-list casters (like druids/clerics) off of a narrow list.

And then move metamagic and all the "complex" spellcasting into the wizard class.

I'll buy shares in this stock.

---------

So Sorcerer with relatively small base list. But with ways to add to it via subclasses. So It would be a large list if you included all sorcerer subclasses.

I'll buy shares in that stock.

As a physicist, I think that characterization is exactly backward. Wizards are the PhDs. They're scholars, theoreticians. It's all over their class entry.

NPC wizards? Yes. High level ones retired from adventuring a crafting stuff? Yes. Adventuring wizards? No. See my point above. Your comments on Mech Eng (I've got a BSME, my two masters were in other disciplines) are kind of right, in that Engineering is very much applied physics in terms of "How do I make this work practically and affordably?"

Actually the fighter did get measurably worse...Best saves against everything at high levels. Best effects off several types of magic items like potions of heroism & magic swords.

Indomitable is a terrible implementation of that, unfortunately. Maybe initial indomitable is "proficiency in all spell saves" and the next iteration is "advantage on a given saving throw X times per day ..."

@Goobahfish
I don't like wizardry as a sorcerer subset, as that effectively removes int casting from the game.

Warlocks were supposed to be INT casters. Arrrrrrggggggggh! (OK, I'll calm down)

Then again I personally don't understand why we have 3 cha casters, and 1 int caster in the first place.

We could even get rid of sorcerers altogether.

But you're spot on regarding saves. WotC Fighters got nerfed into the ground in 3e, and 5e Fighters have only just begun to recover from that. And they still have a long way to go largely due to saves.

See my suggestion on indomitable above.

[Segev]

My "crusade," if you can even call it that, is against people shooting themselves in the foot and then demanding that the store where they bought the gun be demolished.

On this, I agree with you, I think, though my defense of 5e here is more in line with another poster's: It's okay for a fighter to have a bad Wisdom save. That's part of bounded accuracy, and how lower-level threats are kept relevant. And it is also meant that other PCs will do things to try to free him up if this is a problem.

[Dr.Samurai]

Whilst I get where you're coming from, this is the pit trap these discussions always fall into: Nebulous Fighters lacking components the game doesn't assume you're missing out.

I will preface this with it's okay for characters to have weaknesses, this notion that it isn't is nonsense. If everyone had scaling saves like you want it would be a DC treadmill. It's okay that some characters suck at Wis saves, just the same as others suck at Str and Dex.

Hard disagree. Some saves are different than others, and some classes/roles are different than others and impacted differently by their "weak" saves.

My personal preference is that the warrior classes have the steel will, as that's a trope, and it makes sense since they're actually fighting stuff up close and personal. Looking at a monster's slimy tentacles tipped with poisonous barbs while you cast spells from a distance is quite different to actually resisting it's slimy grasp while it tries to paralyze you with it's venom and pull you into its gaping maw. No reason the guy doing the former should have an iron will over the guy doing the latter.

Now, I have no idea what Fighter was in your group, but Fighters in general don't need to suck at Wis saves. This isn't just take Res: Wis, it's much more than that:

- Fighters can afford to have higher tertiaries, whether they're Str or Dex focused they can afford to have a Wis (or whatever they want) that isn't a dump stat.

- Races are a thing, enrolling 1s? Sounds like a Halfling to me... V. Human offers the chance to grab said Res: Wis, Gnomes would have advantage on the save, as would several other races.

- Subclasses, also a thing! Samurai get's prof in Wis saves, Eldritch Knights have spell options, Rune Knight has runes that applies to saves

- I don't like assuming magic items, but sorry there is a stark difference between magicmart play and the possibility that some form of item that benefits saves is on the table by 14th level, there are even multiple items that do that at uncommon.

- It's a team game... Paladin aura, Bardic Inspiration, Dispel Magic etc. etc. this also highlights....

My current fighter is a variant human Rune Knight using Standard Array. I did not take Resilient Wisdom with my bonus feat, but you said it's much more than doing that anyways. Let's see... I'm not a halfling or a gnome, and either of those would go against my two-handed weapon build so those are non-options. My v-human feat was used on Great Weapon Master. We used Standard Array and I dumped Dexterity. I think I have a +1 Wisdom modifier. Yay. We started at level 11 with no magic items. Team is my Rune Knight, a ranger, a monk, and a druid. Ooops, no paladin or artificer or bard, what were we thinking?!?!?!

Needless to say, I don't think the game assumes any of the things you've mentioned, and they certainly don't hold true for my current game.

Two characters being locked down for three rounds isn't failure that rests solely on the Held PCs. That was 3 rounds that the party didn't free them of the spell or break the concentration of/kill the casters. To hang that around just the Fighter/Barbarian makes no sense in a cooperative game.

In my current game, only the druid would be able to cast Dispel Magic, but he's a moon druid so tough to do from Wildshape.

The issue would be if a Fighter wanted to be good at a certain save, or even multiple and couldn't do that but, hey! They can, it's not even difficult to do so.

The issue is that Dex saves deal damage and Str saves move you or grab you or knock you prone, but Will saves are much more impactful, to classes that are pretty one-dimensional in their approach to combat. It's lop-sided.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Either wizards are undergraduates, with a broad base but no particular skill in anything OR they're PhDs, with deep specialization and claim to high power, but restrictions on their range.

Currently, people claim that they deserve or even require "all the spells" because they're masters of all magic and not being the absolute best spellcaster breaks their fiction. That doesn't sound much like someone who's just started their training. And in fact, if you're casting "the mightiest spell a mortal can cast" (wish, which says as much), you must be a master of magic. That doesn't smell like a dabbler to me. In fact, that sounds like an unobtainable--an omniglot who is simultaneously a deep specialist in every form of magic. Which just doesn't work (because it leaves little room for anyone else).

So choose. Either wizards get a wide range of spells...of 5th level or lower (undergraduate) OR they can specialize and learn those powerful spells...at the cost of a much narrower range.

Or (in the alternative), you could have a model where wizards start as generalists and then progressively specialize. Something like
T1: Wizards have a big broad list. While they may pick a focus[1], it's mostly just hey, you're slightly better at X.
T2: Wizards start focusing on one thing. Their 0-2 level spells stay wide open, but they pick one "theme" for their new 3-5 level spells. They can learn rituals from any theme in those levels, however.
T3: Wizards progress their main theme but branch out slightly--0-2 are still open choice, 3-5 can be from any two themes (plus rituals), and 7-8 are from their main theme.
T4: Ultimate specialization. Same as T3, but add 9th level spells from their main theme.

So a (making up themes, see note 1) diviner with a secondary in conjuration wouldn't get fireball at all. But someone who didn't specialize in transmutation would never get true polymorph. Effectively your (character, not class) spell list is a pyramid. Broad base of "undergraduate" spells, narrower layer of "masters level" spells, small layer of "PhD" spells, and a couple "postdoc" spells. But you wouldn't have the current model of being able to do simultaneous postdocs in every field.

And sorcerers don't understand anything at all. They have no concept of the deeper meaning behind the magic. For them, doing magic is about will (controlling the writhing power and shaping it into something useful by force of self) not understanding why it works. They're fundamentally jocks with superpowers. They didn't even go to college, or if they did, they majored in business, psychology, or something else equally useless. And were legacy admits. Bards went to college, but they majored in drama or music, with a second major in girls. Or boys. Or both, your pick.

----------

I'll note that I've been arguing "in the alternative", presenting a bunch of different (and mutually incompatible) possibilities for moving things forward.

[1] Personally, I think using schools of magic directly for this purpose is a horrible idea because they're not balanced against themselves at all, nor are they of equal thematic weight. Some are super broad (transmutation, evocation, conjuration) while others are super narrow (enchantment, necromancy). Which says that what D&Done is doing is a bad idea. Instead, there should be themes. Primary theme would be subclass, secondary theme would be something akin to a pact boon (a class feature you pick up at a higher level that grants access to another theme). Themes would have to blend the schools somewhat.

[Waazraath]

I've had several games without that kind of utility/party support being present. Even having Resilient (WIS) does not actually help the Fighter with starting 10 WIS much - they generally still need more than a 10 on a d20 to beat most WIS-dependent effects that haven't been outlevelled. I can easily believe that a Fighter got stunlocked by Hold Person for three rounds even if they had Resilient (WIS) - a 14th level Fighter would have +5 to beat the DC18 save, so they need a 13 or more to break out of it. Napkin math says that's a 60% chance of failure, three times repeated - a 21.6% chance of that occurring. And even then you make the save at the end of the turn, so if it works, it denies at least one turn to you.

I have already expounded on that, but every single time I've had a melee Fighter in the party or played one, they ended up being the martial that needed help most often and were by far the least self-sufficient. Every other martial but Ranger (who really, really doesn't want to be in melee despite everything Drizzt lied to you about) has some features that strengthen their defenses in a particular way (Rage+potential Bear Totem/Uncanny Dodge+Evasion/Diamond Soul+Evasion+Unarmored Defense/Lay on Hands+Aura of Protection+Shield of Faith).

Fighter...doesn't get anything, and unlike Ranger, most of their class fantasy is about being melee - but the 2H or TWF Fighter is probably one of the worst melee combatants, not because of damage (though it is a factor at least below 11), but because a dead/KO'd character does 0 DPR, and actually nailing a non-shield melee Fighter is extremely easy with either spell or sword. Feats do not help nearly as much as they are said to - especially for 2H Fighters, which quite literally do not get anything beyond "more damage". Second Wind is just...bad. At best, it's maybe +15 HP once per Short Rest, which stops mattering around the time when a normal on-CR enemy's attack does that much damage (so around level 4 or 5).

I understand what you're saying... and I can place your assessment of second wind, based on earlier comments where you said you usually play with few or non short rests (though I still disagree, and find that in a game with +/- 2 short rests a bonus action self heal is a wonderful tool).

But at the same time, I have the impression there are a bit double standards on the amount of optimization assumed for casters on the one hand and martials on the others. I mean, if I see something along the line of "fighters are not strong defensively" and I see a fighter not using a shield, not having protection fighting style, in a party without save boosts", I'm thinking about a wizard with a 12 con and dex, without a race that allows armor proficiency, who doesn't pick 'res con' but has lots of concentration spells, and who doesn't pick 'shield'. Or a lore bard that doesn't put any effort (either race or feats or spell picks) in defense and expects to manage with light armor only.

All of these are a bit squishy, though by margins still playable in 5e. But fighters have darn many options for increasing their duribility, be it race, fighting style, feats, weapon choice or subclass, and team optimization is a thing (if none of my party members buff saves, it's imo a no-brainer to invest more resources in it myself). You point at fighters that choose to ignore defenses and then consider them as an example of fighters being squishy.

[Pex]

Very much this. While I'm not per se against fighters getting their saves buffed or indomitable becoming stronger, I haven't seen 'fighters being bad at saves' at the table in 5e, exactly because of the reasons Dork_Forge mentiones here. Last party with a fighter had a melee buddy paladin (saves aura) and an artificer (flash of genius), together with the occasional reroll from indomitable and overall decent stats the fighter didn't miss a single save over 15 or something sessions.

People would object the fighter needed the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw. Buffs from party members are nice, but to some people they should be perks not necessities. They would resent the fighter needing the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw instead of making it by virtue of being a fighter.

[Ignimortis]

I understand what you're saying... and I can place your assessment of second wind, based on earlier comments where you said you usually play with few or non short rests (though I still disagree, and find that in a game with +/- 2 short rests a bonus action self heal is a wonderful tool).

But at the same time, I have the impression there are a bit double standards on the amount of optimization assumed for casters on the one hand and martials on the others. I mean, if I see something along the line of "fighters are not strong defensively" and I see a fighter not using a shield, not having protection fighting style, in a party without save boosts", I'm thinking about a wizard with a 12 con and dex, without a race that allows armor proficiency, who doesn't pick 'res con' but has lots of concentration spells, and who doesn't pick 'shield'. Or a lore bard that doesn't put any effort (either race or feats or spell picks) in defense and expects to manage with light armor only.

All of these are a bit squishy, though by margins still playable in 5e. But fighters have darn many options for increasing their duribility, be it race, fighting style, feats, weapon choice or subclass, and team optimization is a thing (if none of my party members buff saves, it's imo a no-brainer to invest more resources in it myself). You point at fighters that choose to ignore defenses and then consider them as an example of fighters being squishy.

The issue here is that being a shield fighter that invests into Defense FS is basically a playstyle choice - "I don't want to get hit, and I'm willing to sacrifice a major part of my damage potential and stylistic choice", while being, say, a defensively-geared wizard is a couple of prepared spells and a stat array that is already beneficial for a Wizard - something that might be very impactful for the first couple of levels (having most of your spell list be reactive/defensive spells is kinda bad), but doesn't translate to later all that much. In addition to that, Wizard generally doesn't need to hang in melee if they feel defensively challenged, while melee Fighter...doesn't do much out of it.

The major offenders here are Shield and Mage Armor. Mage Armor is essentially a +1 Studded Leather Armor with no proficiency required, while Shield is +5 for the rest of the turn (essentially a +3 shield as a spell). If they did not exist, or were noticeably worse (perhaps 12+DEX for MA, +2 AC against one attack for Shield), it would be much harder to reach even non-shield Fighter levels of durability.

In short: Fighter has to think about their defenses much more and has to commit far more things to defenses than most characters (yes, of most classes, not just martials). Especially due to how they're structured, compared, say, to a Paladin, who can easily work with Longsword and shield and still output good damage due to smites and later Improved Divine Smite, as well as ignore most stats that aren't STR/CHA/some CON, or a Monk, who can cover all their bases with high DEX, WIS and also some CON. Maybe Mobile or Bracers of Defense on top of that, if you can swing it, but even without either - at higher levels they only improve rather than fall off, while Fighter is mostly dependent on magic items and major playstyle/visual style choices not inherent to the class.

People would object the fighter needed the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw. Buffs from party members are nice, but to some people they should be perks not necessities. They would resent the fighter needing the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw instead of making it by virtue of being a fighter.

Indeed, I personally would. If a class does not function well outside of a specific setup, there is a problem. Theoretically, you should be able to play the game well enough with any setup of non-repeating classes (and perhaps even repeating ones). Otherwise you reach PF2's levels of party synergy importance, where, say, an Alchemist, Oracle, ranged Rogue and Sorcerer are noticeably worse than, say, Fighter, melee Rogue, Cleric and Bard in dealing with most encounters.

[Psyren]

In my current game, only the druid would be able to cast Dispel Magic, but he's a moon druid so tough to do from Wildshape.

Hold Person requires concentration. Punch the caster in the face! (Also Lesser Restoration, Freedom of Movement, boosting their saves etc.)

[Telok]

Now, I have no idea what Fighter was in your group, but Fighters in general don't need to suck at Wis saves. This isn't just take Res: Wis, it's much more than that:

Dwarf battlemaster. Thing is, he (and the barby) got hit with not just the hold person wis saves that fight. There was a banishment (cha save - failed but the sorc high roll disentegrated the npc for almost half its hp) and one of those not-a-spell spell replacements that was an int save vs some dice of psy damage and a rider effect (lucky he was immune to that rider from a magic item). The AD&D thing where all saves got better as you leveled would have made a massive difference. As it is he was rocking low single digits versus dc 18 on all of those.

I can't complain, the sorc & warlock both have multiple save types available because almost nothing has all good saves. But it's hard on the warriors. Even for us & clerics running +4 to +6 con saves doesn't save anyone when facing dc 20 cold damage with a paralysis rider. Save dcs go up as level increases, save bonuses generally don't, been a real issue since 3e now.

[sithlordnergal]

Either wizards are undergraduates, with a broad base but no particular skill in anything OR they're PhDs, with deep specialization and claim to high power, but restrictions on their range.

Currently, people claim that they deserve or even require "all the spells" because they're masters of all magic and not being the absolute best spellcaster breaks their fiction. That doesn't sound much like someone who's just started their training. And in fact, if you're casting "the mightiest spell a mortal can cast" (wish, which says as much), you must be a master of magic. That doesn't smell like a dabbler to me. In fact, that sounds like an unobtainable--an omniglot who is simultaneously a deep specialist in every form of magic. Which just doesn't work (because it leaves little room for anyone else).

So choose. Either wizards get a wide range of spells...of 5th level or lower (undergraduate) OR they can specialize and learn those powerful spells...at the cost of a much narrower range.

Or (in the alternative), you could have a model where wizards start as generalists and then progressively specialize. Something like
T1: Wizards have a big broad list. While they may pick a focus[1], it's mostly just hey, you're slightly better at X.
T2: Wizards start focusing on one thing. Their 0-2 level spells stay wide open, but they pick one "theme" for their new 3-5 level spells. They can learn rituals from any theme in those levels, however.
T3: Wizards progress their main theme but branch out slightly--0-2 are still open choice, 3-5 can be from any two themes (plus rituals), and 7-8 are from their main theme.
T4: Ultimate specialization. Same as T3, but add 9th level spells from their main theme.

So a (making up themes, see note 1) diviner with a secondary in conjuration wouldn't get fireball at all. But someone who didn't specialize in transmutation would never get true polymorph. Effectively your (character, not class) spell list is a pyramid. Broad base of "undergraduate" spells, narrower layer of "masters level" spells, small layer of "PhD" spells, and a couple "postdoc" spells. But you wouldn't have the current model of being able to do simultaneous postdocs in every field.

And sorcerers don't understand anything at all. They have no concept of the deeper meaning behind the magic. For them, doing magic is about will (controlling the writhing power and shaping it into something useful by force of self) not understanding why it works. They're fundamentally jocks with superpowers. They didn't even go to college, or if they did, they majored in business, psychology, or something else equally useless. And were legacy admits. Bards went to college, but they majored in drama or music, with a second major in girls. Or boys. Or both, your pick.

----------

I'll note that I've been arguing "in the alternative", presenting a bunch of different (and mutually incompatible) possibilities for moving things forward.

[1] Personally, I think using schools of magic directly for this purpose is a horrible idea because they're not balanced against themselves at all, nor are they of equal thematic weight. Some are super broad (transmutation, evocation, conjuration) while others are super narrow (enchantment, necromancy). Which says that what D&Done is doing is a bad idea. Instead, there should be themes. Primary theme would be subclass, secondary theme would be something akin to a pact boon (a class feature you pick up at a higher level that grants access to another theme). Themes would have to blend the schools somewhat.

I suspect that wouldn't really work well, simply because people who play Wizards DO want to be able to cast any wizard spell they want. And while I know you do love themes, not everyone cares about themes as much. Personally, when I see a specific theme for a specific character type, I like to go out of my way to break that theme into a million pieces because screw theming, I'll do what I want. Always have, always will. The little blurb at the start about the class description, do what you want. If you wanna follow it, follow it, if you wanna toss it in the trash, toss it in the trash. Its part of why I have some odd multiclass combos that make zero sense theme, or even statblock, wise. Your suggestion kind of reminds me of the old 3.5 Wizard, where you could choose a school specialization, but you were unable to cast spells from two schools. You ended up with two things happening:

1) There was a very clear cut good and bad choice for school specialization.

2) You had a lot of players just not specializing because they wanted to be able to cast any school.

I can only think of a handful of 3.5 Wizards I ran into that chose a school specialization. Most opted to just have access to everything. Now, I know you don't think it should be based off of a specific school, but I still suspect there would be a lot of pushback if Wizards were suddenly restricted in how many spells they had. If only because people like playing masters of general magic. Like it or not, DnD Wizards have been depicted as that kind of master generalist, where even the wizards that have a pretty clear specialization can still say "Nah, fireball" whenever they like. And heck, once you get into high fantasy, you tend to find Wizards, or the Wizard stand-in, are all master generalists. Capable of slinging just about any spell they want.

[Tanarii]

Wasn't that too much, and/or a bit stepping on the monk's toes?

05R: Into the Unknown is a retro mod. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard only. All modified.

But let's be clear here, 5e Monks are stepping on Fighter's toes.

Otoh prof to all saves for all classes would be appropriate. Saving is supposed to get easier as you level, even against tougher enemies. Not stay the same or get worse. (Says the grognard.)

[Dr.Samurai]

People would object the fighter needed the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw. Buffs from party members are nice, but to some people they should be perks not necessities. They would resent the fighter needing the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw instead of making it by virtue of being a fighter.

Yeah, I would be one of those people.

Designer: So wizards don't have high armor class, because they don't know how to use armor and they wear robes all the time like the stories.
Wizard Player: Makes sense...
Designer: But don't worry, because we're going to make a spell that everyone will chew off their left foot for. It's called Shield, and when you use it practically no one will be able to hit your AC.
Wizard Player: Awesome!!!
Designer: It's a 1st level spell so you have limited uses. It's for when you really want an attack to miss. Well, a bunch of attacks because it lasts a full round.
Wizard Player: Sweet!

Fighter Player: What about fighters?
Designer: Well, they have good AC (sort of lol) because they have heavy armor and can use shields. But their saves are not great, at least not anything other than Strength or Constitution.
Fighter Player: Weird, because warriors in stories are also quick on their feet and possess steel wills.
Designer: Yeah, it's more just how we handle ability scores and stuff, you just won't really be able to do it well is all.
Fighter Player: Ok so, what limited use feature do we have to make those really important saves when we need to?
Designer: Lol, no no. If you play the right race with the right subclass and grab the right feats and magic items, and play with the right party members, this won't be an issue. But no, you don't get any sort of Shield-like ability that takes your "weakness" and makes it better than other people's strengths for a turn. That's funny though. You should be a comedian.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I suspect that wouldn't really work well, simply because people who play Wizards DO want to be able to cast any wizard spell they want. And while I know you do love themes, not everyone cares about themes as much. Personally, when I see a specific theme for a specific character type, I like to go out of my way to break that theme into a million pieces because screw theming, I'll do what I want. Always have, always will. The little blurb at the start about the class description, do what you want. If you wanna follow it, follow it, if you wanna toss it in the trash, toss it in the trash. Its part of why I have some odd multiclass combos that make zero sense theme, or even statblock, wise. Your suggestion kind of reminds me of the old 3.5 Wizard, where you could choose a school specialization, but you were unable to cast spells from two schools. You ended up with two things happening:

1) There was a very clear cut good and bad choice for school specialization.

2) You had a lot of players just not specializing because they wanted to be able to cast any school.

I can only think of a handful of 3.5 Wizards I ran into that chose a school specialization. Most opted to just have access to everything. Now, I know you don't think it should be based off of a specific school, but I still suspect there would be a lot of pushback if Wizards were suddenly restricted in how many spells they had. If only because people like playing masters of general magic. Like it or not, DnD Wizards have been depicted as that kind of master generalist, where even the wizards that have a pretty clear specialization can still say "Nah, fireball" whenever they like. And heck, once you get into high fantasy, you tend to find Wizards, or the Wizard stand-in, are all master generalists. Capable of slinging just about any spell they want.

"I want all the power and you can't stop me" isn't exactly conducive to discussion. And it just reinforces my mentality that mostly, wizard players just want power. Specifically more power than anyone else. They want to break the game and lord it over everyone else that they're better. And frankly, that is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. That kind of player isn't welcome at any table I'm interested in playing at.

The current wizard design is broken. It cannot coexist with the rest of the game. Leaving it in because some people want to lord it over everyone else that they're the most powerful is, in my mind, doing the game a disservice.

[Segev]

"I want all the power and you can't stop me" isn't exactly conducive to discussion. And it just reinforces my mentality that mostly, wizard players just want power. Specifically more power than anyone else. They want to break the game and lord it over everyone else that they're better. And frankly, that is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. That kind of player isn't welcome at any table I'm interested in playing at.

The current wizard design is broken. It cannot coexist with the rest of the game. Leaving it in because some people want to lord it over everyone else that they're the most powerful is, in my mind, doing the game a disservice.

That's kind-of insulting, honestly, speaking as a wizard player. I am a power gamer, and I power game regardless of the class I'm playing, but I do not want "more power than anybody else." I am perfectly happy for everyone else to have world-shaping power. In fact, I'm happier that way.

[sithlordnergal]

"I want all the power and you can't stop me" isn't exactly conducive to discussion. And it just reinforces my mentality that mostly, wizard players just want power. Specifically more power than anyone else. They want to break the game and lord it over everyone else that they're better. And frankly, that is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. That kind of player isn't welcome at any table I'm interested in playing at.

The current wizard design is broken. It cannot coexist with the rest of the game. Leaving it in because some people want to lord it over everyone else that they're the most powerful is, in my mind, doing the game a disservice.

I mean, ask people who play wizards why they want to play wizards. Usually the answer is "Because I want to cast cool spells", and I wouldn't call it a bad thing. Its less "I want all the power" and more "I want to be able to do a bunch of cool things with magic". Most wizard players also don't lord it over others, they want others to be powerful too. As for the current Wizard design, I agree that Wizards have too many "Wizard only spells". Most of those spells, like Simulacrum and such, should be Bard and Wizard spells. That said, I don't think its broken, and it easily coexists with the rest of the game. In your first post you put down a bunch of things that were supposedly Wizard exclusive...but outside of teleportation, they really aren't. Clerics are the only ones without flight, minionmancy can be done by just about everyone in some way or another, shenanigans are done by every spell caster. Saying "Wizards can't coexist with the rest of the game" is similar to saying "Druids can't coexist" or "Clerics can't coexist" because they get a ton of spells and actual class features on top of it all.

As for breaking the game...I mean, that's a different topic entirely, and is a player type. You're always going to have min/maxers, power gamers, and optimizers. Personally, I have a ton of fun pushing a system to its absolute limits via optimization. Did it in 3.5, did it in Star Wars SAGA, would have done it in other systems once I had gotten enough system mastery, and you can be sure I'll do it again in One DnD. Its how I have fun with the system, by optimizing and power gaming the system to the breaking point and beyond. Not because I want to lord over others, or have more power than anyone else, but because its just a ton of fun to analyze the hell out of abilities to get the most I can for whatever concept I'm optimizing. And then applying it all in an actual game.

And it can be done with or without magic. Wanna max out movement speed on a single turn? Your base setup is going to be Tabaxi Monk/Fighter/Barbarian with Mobile. Wanna make an optimized archer? Goblin Battlemaster/Rogue with Handcrossbow is the route I like to go. Max HP? You sure as heck aren't a spell caster, you're gonna be a Dwarf Barbarian with with Tough.

[Bobthewizard]

Either wizards are undergraduates, with a broad base but no particular skill in anything OR they're PhDs, with deep specialization and claim to high power, but restrictions on their range.

Maybe this isn't the best analogy then. Now instead of just breadth vs. depth, you've added overall power into the equation. Limiting the breadth caster doesn't seem to fit into DND equal leveling. For the PhD/undergrad analogy, an undergrad can know any one specific piece of advanced knowledge (the wish spell) but wouldn't know how to use it as well (lack of metamagic).

But maybe a better analogy than undergrad/PhD, since that involves a stepped progression from one to the other, would be a general contractor versus the subcontractors. A general contractor can do some plumbing, electrical work, or carpentry, but wouldn't be as good at each one as a specialized plumber, electrician, or carpenter. General contractors don't usually go on to specialize, but they can learn a lot about different trades.

So no matter their subclass, maybe picture wizards as the general contractor, and sorcerers as the specialists. A wizard can know some spells from the areas that sorcerers specialize in, but likely wouldn't cast them as well, and would know more from other specialties, which the sorcerer might not. So in D&D, they'd have a larger spell list, more preparations, and rituals, while the sorcerers have smaller lists, less preparations, but can cast their spells better (metamagic). I think a generalist wizard could still learn a powerful spell, they just can only cast it at its basic level, while a sorcerer should be able to do more with that spell.

I picture all wizards as generalists, with their subclass giving a slight focus, while I picture sorcerers as super specialists, with their subclass defining what they do. I like having both options at character creation.

[KorvinStarmast]

@Dr Samurai:
Change shield to +3 instead of +5 and some of these complaints will be muted.

[Dork_Forge]

Hard disagree. Some saves are different than others, and some classes/roles are different than others and impacted differently by their "weak" saves.

My personal preference is that the warrior classes have the steel will, as that's a trope, and it makes sense since they're actually fighting stuff up close and personal. Looking at a monster's slimy tentacles tipped with poisonous barbs while you cast spells from a distance is quite different to actually resisting it's slimy grasp while it tries to paralyze you with it's venom and pull you into its gaping maw. No reason the guy doing the former should have an iron will over the guy doing the latter.

I understand where you're coming from, but not only does that not matter in most encounters (no general sanity rolls for seeing messed up stuff), 5E works on a two save system. So, make those martials good at Wis and they'd balance on being bad at something physical which is even weirder.

When you look at things narratively, then PCs should have profs in a lot of saves, because narratively they'd have those things. But this isn't a narrative, it's a game.

My current fighter is a variant human Rune Knight using Standard Array. I did not take Resilient Wisdom with my bonus feat, but you said it's much more than doing that anyways. Let's see... I'm not a halfling or a gnome, and either of those would go against my two-handed weapon build so those are non-options. My v-human feat was used on Great Weapon Master. We used Standard Array and I dumped Dexterity. I think I have a +1 Wisdom modifier. Yay. We started at level 11 with no magic items. Team is my Rune Knight, a ranger, a monk, and a druid. Ooops, no paladin or artificer or bard, what were we thinking?!?!?!

Needless to say, I don't think the game assumes any of the things you've mentioned, and they certainly don't hold true for my current game.

I have no idea what level you are, but you're pitching in to a scenario of 14th level, so I'll assume that. So...

Feats: out of 6 opportunities you've chosen to not shore up a weak defense with an ASI in any form. That was your build choice.

Subclass: You apparently didn't take the Storm Rune, your choice, but again you can't complain about a poor defense when you chose to not reinforce it.

Party: Ignoring the fact that there are multiple subclasses for those classes that would help, every single one can hit stuff. So.... not seeing your point here really, other apparently 'I play in a group with low support capability.'

Race: I didn't want to trawl through the many, many races to make an exhaustive list, I thought it was clear I wasn't making an exhaustive list, so I'm confused why you treated it as one. Want GWM compatible races that would help your defenses? Yuan-Ti, Satyr, Hobgoblin (either version), Kalashtar, Vedalken. And this list doesn't even take into consideration any features that help protect you from specific conditions that rely on Wis saves, like Charmed, Frightened etc. And doesn't include turning invisible so you aren't targeted to begin with.

Your Wis defense doesn't sound good, but again, it was well within your power to make it a lot better than it is. You didn't do that, you benefitted from what you chose instead, so why shouldn't you have a weak Wis? Feels like a cake and eat it complaint.

In my current game, only the druid would be able to cast Dispel Magic, but he's a moon druid so tough to do from Wildshape.

And everyone is capable of damaging/killing the casters, and the problems at hand are concentration effects. I'm just going to throw this out there, but your party is particularly bad at these scenarios, I mean Dispel Magic is available to 8 out of 13 classes, and there are features that can help or achieve the same thing. That is entirely your party's choice... but not really a game problem.

The issue is that Dex saves deal damage and Str saves move you or grab you or knock you prone, but Will saves are much more impactful, to classes that are pretty one-dimensional in their approach to combat. It's lop-sided.

Both of those things are very important, so I disagree with the premise of that argument.

People would object the fighter needed the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw. Buffs from party members are nice, but to some people they should be perks not necessities. They would resent the fighter needing the paladin and artificer to make the saving throw instead of making it by virtue of being a fighter.

Good thing that you don't need anyone else to make that save. It just makes it easier, especially if you chose to build in a way that gives you a weak save.

Dwarf battlemaster. Thing is, he (and the barby) got hit with not just the hold person wis saves that fight. There was a banishment (cha save - failed but the sorc high roll disentegrated the npc for almost half its hp) and one of those not-a-spell spell replacements that was an int save vs some dice of psy damage and a rider effect (lucky he was immune to that rider from a magic item). The AD&D thing where all saves got better as you leveled would have made a massive difference. As it is he was rocking low single digits versus dc 18 on all of those.

Okay this isn't about the game, this is about your DM. You're facing multiple casters with a DC of 18, targeting weak saves, at level 14? That's encounter design, and it doesn't matter what your defense were, that kind of encounter will always target where you fall short. I throw stuff like this at my 14th level party, because they're fat with boons and items, and have the features to deal with it and help each other.

This just sounds like a table issue.

I can't complain, the sorc & warlock both have multiple save types available because almost nothing has all good saves. But it's hard on the warriors. Even for us & clerics running +4 to +6 con saves doesn't save anyone when facing dc 20 cold damage with a paralysis rider. Save dcs go up as level increases, save bonuses generally don't, been a real issue since 3e now.

Doesn't save... what? a +0 can still leave, a +4-6 is decent chance at what should be the highest DC you face for the majority of the game.

You already said it, no one has all good saves, and as a Fighter you have plenty of levers to pull to fix whatever save defense you want.

It's okay for PCs to have weaknesses, if you had good Wisdom saves then the DM would have just targeted something else. If you have an issue with difficulty, it 100% sounds like the encounters you're in.

[Dr.Samurai]

I understand where you're coming from, but not only does that not matter in most encounters (no general sanity rolls for seeing messed up stuff)

I'm not referring to sanity rolls though. It does matter in a narrative sense. The person willing to engage in full contact fisticuffs with eldritch horrors and demons and devils and other monsters, over and over and over again as they level through the game, should not be weak willed.

5E works on a two save system. So, make those martials good at Wis and they'd balance on being bad at something physical which is even weirder.

It would still "work" if they had a native way to boost their save or shore it up.

When you look at things narratively, then PCs should have profs in a lot of saves, because narratively they'd have those things. But this isn't a narrative, it's a game.

The game design is not arbitrary, so this distinction is pointless. There's a reason that the mechanics are the way they are, they are in fact informed by myth and fantasy and story, etc.

I have no idea what level you are, but you're pitching in to a scenario of 14th level, so I'll assume that. So...

Level 11.

Feats: out of 6 opportunities you've chosen to not shore up a weak defense with an ASI in any form. That was your build choice.

4 feats. So when you said "it's so much more than resilient wisdom" what you really meant was "if you don't take resilient wisdom, that's on you". Got it.

Subclass: You apparently didn't take the Storm Rune, your choice, but again you can't complain about a poor defense when you chose to not reinforce it.

This is grasping. I do in fact have the Storm Rune. It requires a bonus action to activate, and a reaction to use, on a subclass that is bonus action and reaction heavy. But yes, I'll make sure to prioritize activating the Storm Rune before all other things and then saving my Reaction just in case a will save comes my way. Definitely the way to use my abilities.

Party: Ignoring the fact that there are multiple subclasses for those classes that would help, every single one can hit stuff. So.... not seeing your point here really, other apparently 'I play in a group with low support capability.'

And I see your point clearly: Low wisdom saves don't matter on the fighter because your party can play very specific classes to alleviate that. And if they don't, then they can play very specific subclasses on other classes instead.

Yes, still a really bad point.

Race: I didn't want to trawl through the many, many races to make an exhaustive list, I thought it was clear I wasn't making an exhaustive list, so I'm confused why you treated it as one. Want GWM compatible races that would help your defenses? Yuan-Ti, Satyr, Hobgoblin (either version), Kalashtar, Vedalken. And this list doesn't even take into consideration any features that help protect you from specific conditions that rely on Wis saves, like Charmed, Frightened etc. And doesn't include turning invisible so you aren't targeted to begin with.

Don't be confused, my remarks aren't exhaustive either. I thought it was clear that people might want to choose their race based on roleplaying considerations, not to shore up a weakness. Not everyone creates their character focused solely on mechanics. As an example, none of the races you just listed interest me. Sure, you can say "tough on you then, eat your bad will save", but you're the one assuming specific builds and parties to make your point, an assumption that simply can't be born out all the time.

Your Wis defense doesn't sound good, but again, it was well within your power to make it a lot better than it is. You didn't do that, you benefitted from what you chose instead, so why shouldn't you have a weak Wis? Feels like a cake and eat it complaint.

Yes, and your solution sounds a lot like "Play this specific build with these predetermined choices and there's no problem at all".

And everyone is capable of damaging/killing the casters, and the problems at hand are concentration effects. I'm just going to throw this out there, but your party is particularly bad at these scenarios, I mean Dispel Magic is available to 8 out of 13 classes, and there are features that can help or achieve the same thing. That is entirely your party's choice... but not really a game problem.

I think you've veered off topic a bit. It's not a game problem if only one member of my party has Dispel Magic. It IS a game problem that wisdom saves can pretty much shut down a fighter or barbarian with little chance of avoiding it. I don't quite care that the druid can spend their action dispelling the magic.

Both of those things are very important, so I disagree with the premise of that argument.

Oh noes... the wizard is grappled and restrained by a tentacle because they failed their Strength save! Whatever will they do? Oh, just cast a spell like normal? Teleport away as a bonus action? Uh oh, the wizard failed a Dex save against damage, oh no! Too bad they cast Absorb Elements to half the damage anyways as if they passed!

Oh no, the fighter failed their Wisdom save vs Fear. They just tossed their weapon on the ground and Dashed away from the battle! Total action denial and more actions spent to get back in the fight once they recover.

These things are not the same. There should be a feature that lets them at least have a better shot sometimes against these effects, as opposed to always having less than 50/50 odds of making it.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not referring to sanity rolls though. It does matter in a narrative sense. The person willing to engage in full contact fisticuffs with eldritch horrors and demons and devils and other monsters, over and over and over again as they level through the game, should not be weak willed.

Weak monsters are willing to fight the clearly more powerful demigod PCs to the death, should we give them strong Wis saves too? When you look at things this way, then it's very hard to not give everyone Wis saves.

And this just frames Wis saves as 'iron will' which is a narrative, you could also frame it as a trained defense of the mind, since it is a proficiency, not just gritting your teeth. Narratives can be framed many ways, trying to use it for this kind of argument doesn't really work.

It would still "work" if they had a native way to boost their save or shore it up.

Indomitable, 2 bonus ASIs, a subclass that straight gives you Wis save prof, other subclass abilities that can help... they do have ways to shore it up. Your issue is that those things often involve a choice, rather than being a default. I prefer having the choice to do those things, it's more flexible and fits more narratives.

The game design is not arbitrary, so this distinction is pointless. There's a reason that the mechanics are the way they are, they are in fact informed by myth and fantasy and story, etc.

Yes, the mechanics are meant to divy up classic tropes into different classes for us to play. Then you have to look at those classes and gamify them, your point of view is anyone that does melee should have Wis saves... that's not a way to design a game, and if most certainly an opinion.

Level 11.

Great, so you're even less likely to face what Telok did.

4 feats. So when you said "it's so much more than resilient wisdom" what you really meant was "if you don't take resilient wisdom, that's on you". Got it.

Nope, you could *gasp!* not have a low Wisdom, you could grab Shadow Touched to not be targetable, you could grab Lucky to get more chances to save, you could have done quite a few things with ASIs, but shoring up your Wisdom save clearly wasn't a priority of any kind.

This is grasping. I do in fact have the Storm Rune. It requires a bonus action to activate, and a reaction to use, on a subclass that is bonus action and reaction heavy. But yes, I'll make sure to prioritize activating the Storm Rune before all other things and then saving my Reaction just in case a will save comes my way. Definitely the way to use my abilities.

A bonus action to activate for an entire minute, for a flexible and powerful effect. This feels like complaining you have back problems because you have so much gold to carry around.

BUt come on, you're complaining about your chance to pass Wis saves, so this clearly matters to you, and then you complain about the notion of using one of your runes to help with that? Seriously?

And I see your point clearly: Low wisdom saves don't matter on the fighter because your party can play very specific classes to alleviate that. And if they don't, then they can play very specific subclasses on other classes instead.

Yes, still a really bad point.

...No. I know you've been reading my posts, because you've been replying to them, so please don't break them up into sections and then treat them in isolation.

Yes the party can help the Fighter and the Fighter can have solid Wis saves, that's the point. It's not impossible, it's rather easy and can be achieved through many different ways. This would only be a problem to me if they couldn't, or if they had few, incredibly niche ways of achieving it, but that isn't how the game is.

Don't be confused, my remarks aren't exhaustive either. I thought it was clear that people might want to choose their race based on roleplaying considerations, not to shore up a weakness. Not everyone creates their character focused solely on mechanics. As an example, none of the races you just listed interest me. Sure, you can say "tough on you then, eat your bad will save", but you're the one assuming specific builds and parties to make your point, an assumption that simply can't be born out all the time.

Yes, and your solution sounds a lot like "Play this specific build with these predetermined choices and there's no problem at all".

You're free to choose whatever race for whatever reasons you want. You seem to think, however, that you're entitled to build a character with weak Wis saves and then complain about that, despite all of the tools being available to do otherwise.

I don't. And before this gets tackled in isolation, I've already pointed to the numerous levers that can be pulled to resolve your issue, it isn't just race and/or Res: Wis.

Would you complain about not being able to cast spells if you built a Fighter with no access to them? It just doesn't make sense.

I think you've veered off topic a bit. It's not a game problem if only one member of my party has Dispel Magic. It IS a game problem that wisdom saves can pretty much shut down a fighter or barbarian with little chance of avoiding it. I don't quite care that the druid can spend their action dispelling the magic.

Then you have a problem with the affects of Wisdom saving throws, because that can happen to you regardless what your modifier is. And if that's your criticism, sure... but that's an entirely different problem.

If you don't want a party member to have to spend their turn helping you... then co-op play may not be for you?

Oh noes... the wizard is grappled and restrained by a tentacle because they failed their Strength save! Whatever will they do? Oh, just cast a spell like normal? Teleport away as a bonus action? Uh oh, the wizard failed a Dex save against damage, oh no! Too bad they cast Absorb Elements to half the damage anyways as if they passed!

Oh no, the fighter failed their Wisdom save vs Fear. They just tossed their weapon on the ground and Dashed away from the battle! Total action denial and more actions spent to get back in the fight once they recover.

These things are not the same. There should be a feature that lets them at least have a better shot sometimes against these effects, as opposed to always having less than 50/50 odds of making it.

Oh we're back to Shrodinger's Wizard again, wonderful.

So you just compared a Wizard that made spell choices to solve their problem, and had the resources and action economy available to use them, to a Fighter that neglected their Wis saves, rolled bad enough to fail, and for some reason had them drop their weapon when it's not part of the spell?

And if that Wizard didn't take Misty Step? Or was out of slots? Or had already used their reaction on Shield or something? Or that Absorb Elements-reduced damage didn't make them drop concentration or to 0HP?

You constructed a scenario and made choices for the involved PCs to highlight your point. That doesn't make it a good point, and you can easily just slide a Fighter with any degree of better defense... or just rolling well enough into that same circumstance.

Or heaven forbid this happens: they get grappled/restrained and then eaten! Where they are now blind and so significantly worse off for spellcasting.

Good thing no monsters are designed to restrain and then swallow you.

This is now touching on the fallacy that Strength saves don't matter, they're not as directly impactful, but if you fail a Strength save against a creature, it's likely put you in a position for things to go much worse, unlike other saves that typically directly affect you with the consequences on the save.

If you want Fighters to have Wis saves across the board so bad then ask your DM to swap your Con prof for it, or suck up the fact that you built a character with a weak defense.

[Frogreaver]

I'm not understanding this thread.

Playground: we all agree the wizard is quite a bit stronger than a fighter
Playground: i can't believe you would suggest the fighter gets better saves than the wizard. so unfair!

What am I missing?

[Segev]

I'm not understanding this thread.

Playground: we all agree the wizard is quite a bit stronger than a fighter
Playground: i can't believe you would suggest the fighter gets better saves than the wizard. so unfair!

What am I missing?

I haven't gotten the impression that the second blue line is actually what the consensus here is. Though I question whether that would be sufficient to solve the problem that people outline.

[Telok]

I'm not understanding this thread.

Playground: we all agree the wizard is quite a bit stronger than a fighter
Playground: i can't believe you would suggest the fighter gets better saves than the wizard. so unfair!

What am I missing?

Mostly there's a sentiment of "the game is perfrct except wizards are op and every issue is the dm/players being bad stupid babys". DM uses monsters out of the books that match the situation? Bad killer DM. Player didn't plan their level 1-20 build like the forum whiteroom theorists say would solve all problems? Bad stupid player. Table isn't totally overawed by 5es' perfection and havd issues with some mechanics? Bad people for not playing the one true way that makes everything perfect.