D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[KarinsDad]

So, again, we're considering the higher-damage melee types, not, say an archer or something. That's fine, just assume that they 'need' their armor & extra 2 hps/level to get in there and deal their damage.

Archers do more damage than cantrips. They also hide in the back behind cover (and other PCs) and wear their better than arcane caster armor and have their better than arcane caster hit points. It's a tradeoff. Damage for protection. You want the guy in back threatened less and hitting more, you get the wimpy damage. Pros and Cons.

And human variant fighter Sharpshooters are just plain nasty. They hit 50% of the time (8.98 DPR) instead of 75% of other fighter archers (65% against cover) of the time (5.85 DPR). The sword and board guy (+2 damage) is 6.4 DPR. The two weapon fighter is 8.8 DPR. The two handed greatsword fighter is 7.78 DPR. All of these at levels 1 to 3 with 65% normal chance to hit.

So, archers can have their cake and eat it too. As can other fighters who take variant human and a feat, but some of those feats only add a little DPR at low level.

Not so much. The Champion and Battlemaster have no dailies, and no one's taking an hour rest after each of 6-8 combats in a day.

That's why I said "Enccounter and/or Dailies".

But yeah, I call them Encounter abilities, but they are probably 3 times a day Dailies (4 if you count taking a short rest after a long day and you still have the ability in case of a bar fight or wandering monster that night).

 

[Morty]

I wanted to check something in the Fighter section of the Basic Set recently, and I actually managed to scroll past it. I think it sums up the quality of the class nicely.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Archers do more damage than cantrips. They also hide in the back behind cover (and other PCs) and wear their better than arcane caster armor and have their better than arcane caster hit points. It's a tradeoff. Damage for protection. You want the guy in back threatened less and hitting more, you get the wimpy damage. Pros and Cons.

The point is that they do less damage than the GWF. They'd better do more damage than cantrips, or they'd be strictly inferior to casters in terms of DPR - not a good thing for the 'best at combat' class to be.

But yeah, I call them Encounter abilities, but they are probably 3 times a day Dailies (4 if you count taking a short rest after a long day and you still have the ability in case of a bar fight or wandering monster that night).

One hr short rests are a new mechanic and its hard to guess how it'll shake out - probably, like with 'sleeping' in the olden days, it'll vary wildly from group to group - but, the encounter guidelines that explicitly say 6-8 medium-hard encounters do imply 2 short rests per day. So, yes, 3/day (which is classic, BTW), or less than half as available as 1/per encounter.

So a fighter's controversial 'encounter'/short-rest-recharge Second Wind, for instance, is something he'll do /less/ often (perhaps every other encounter) than a caster will cast a 'daily'/long-rest-recharge spell (1-2/encounter).

 

[Morty]

@Morty - Yep. They were actually okay until very late in the Playtest, too, because you used to be able to refresh them in combat, and would be guaranteed to start a combat with them. Then, after the playtest had finished, and with no public feedback to let them know it was a dumb idea, they suddenly made them short-rest only, which means that, unless we're using the (supposed) DMG option to make short rests actually short, instead of lunch breaks, they're unlikely to be able to be used much.

It's really sad and kind of odd how much they put the boot in on Martial characters after the Playtest finished.

I wasn't thrilled with them in the playtest either, to be honest - they tended to boil down to 'roll a die, add the resulting number to something'. But they had potential, and they sure were better than the pathetic Champion archetype. Unfortunately, like with a lot of the good ideas the playtest had, WotC gutted them because anything beyond attacking the same way every round is a complicated option that needs to be handled with extreme care if it applies to non-magical characters.

 

[Quickleaf]

I wasn't thrilled with them in the playtest either, to be honest - they tended to boil down to 'roll a die, add the resulting number to something'. But they had potential, and they sure were better than the pathetic Champion archetype. Unfortunately, like with a lot of the good ideas the playtest had, WotC gutted them because anything beyond attacking the same way every round is a complicated option that needs to be handled with extreme care if it applies to non-magical characters.

In that case you might like my alternate fighter class: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...re-free-form-play-style&p=6365418#post6365418

I encourage folks who want a fighter that feels like a fighter but can do lots of cool stuff in a more free form (and less "spell list") way to check it out.

It is a minimalist change focused on more versatile class features, and keeps numerical parity with the normal fighter. I stripped out Fighting Style, Action Surge, Indomitable, and the 2 extra Ability Score Improvements / Feats, and replaced them with: Improvised Attack, Battlefield Control, Warrior Stances, Endure, Fearless, Greater Improvised Attack, and Overkill. There's a mix of influences including the BD&D fighter, the AD&D fighter, the Pathfinder fighter, and the 4e fighter. I aimed for dynamism with minimal complexity.

 

[sithramir]

I don't have PHB yet unfortunately but Eldritch Knight gets the 3 attacks same as the fighter Champion at 11 and 4 at 20? Does he also get a cast a spell and attack feature like the Bard?

I only ask because I see a lot of complaint about Champion and I know EK's seem not great with only 4th level spells but do they keep all the attacks?

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't have PHB yet unfortunately but Eldritch Knight gets the 3 attacks same as the fighter Champion at 11 and 4 at 20? Does he also get a cast a spell and attack feature like the Bard?

I only ask because I see a lot of complaint about Champion and I know EK's seem not great with only 4th level spells but do they keep all the attacks?

Yup. EKs get everything that is not specific to Champion or BM.

EKs are, quite frankly, probably the most versatile fighter.

About to be hit for 30 points of damage, Shield spell.

Blur, Invisibiltiy, Fly, Dimenion Door. Fireball until we get close enough for melee.

Many of the tricks that a first tier and partial second tier wizard can do, the EK can do.

Sure, the EK is throwing a 8D6 Fireball at foes with 200 hit points and many of them will make their save, but it still helps. Technically, most EKs will probably take defensive and miscellaneous spells though.

 

[Juriel]

Eldritch Knights are still using 2nd-level spells by lv12, though...

And they cannot cast while having a shield + weapon in hand. Because it's not like a warrior would ever have those, huh.

You could pick up Warcaster, but then you're adding a feat tax to the class, just to get it functional...

 

[KarinsDad]

Eldritch Knights are still using 2nd-level spells by lv12, though...

And they cannot cast while having a shield + weapon in hand. Because it's not like a warrior would ever have those, huh.

You could pick up Warcaster, but then you're adding a feat tax to the class, just to get it functional...

You're sort of adding a feat tax for one specific type of fighter.

Sword and Board: Feat tax for reaction spells
Two Weapon: Feat tax for reaction spells
Two Handed: No feat required (or at least I would rule that such a fighter can let go of his weapon, cast a spell, and regrab the weapon, all as part of the cast a spell action, bonus action, or reaction).

The reason I say this is because a PC can do minor things like sheath or draw a weapon on his turn as part of other actions / move.

For example, I'm playing a two weapon fighter. I move 5 feet (which is usually, but not always possible) putting my main weapon away. I then cast my spell. I then move back 5 feet (or whatever), drawing out my weapon as I move.

Now, this is a bit cheesy and some DMs might not allow it. Another option might be to drop a weapon, even as a reaction spell (again, some DMs might rule that dropping a weapon isn't possible outside of one's turn or whatever). On your turn, pick the weapon back up as part of the attack or move.


One of the issues here is that this is not really clear in the rules. I would allow this type of thing in my game, some DMs might not. They might rule that spells with a somatic component require a free hand (as opposed to I use my hand for whatever I want to use it for and let go of anything else when I want to use it which to me makes sense). Plus, I dislike using the Warcaster feat to determine the rules. The rules should not be hidden in a feat.


As for the level, it's irrelevant. EKs get to cast 2nd level spells at level 12. Other fighters do not.

For example: *My friend the Rogue is about to get hit by that seriously damaged Wight. I am in melee, so my thrown weapons will be at disadvantage. If I try to rush over there, the wights on me wil get OAs. That would be bad. I know, I cast a second level autohit magic missile and roll (4D6) 13 damage this time. It kills the Wight and my friend is now safe. I hope he can return the favor and kill one of these two that are on me.*

The fact is that even low level spells can help both in and out of combat.

Hold Person works nearly as good at level 12 as it does at level 1.