D&D 5E Considering "taking the 5th" (Edition); questions for those more experienced.

[FormerlyHemlock]

5e is actually the best MM since 2e for this. 3e barely touched on anything, and 4e didn't even try. 5e is actually a breath of fresh air when it comes to giving actual lore on monsters. That being said, neither beats the old Monstrous Compendiums, but I think when you actually get to the MM you'll be pleasantly surprised by the lore that is included.

Yeah, sometimes I call 5E Half-Advanced D&D. It's feeling its way back towards richness.

Incidentally, I'm playing some old Gold Box games, which reminds: 5E combats are incredibly short and deadly by comparison. In AD&D you don't get a second attack until 13th level, and hitting enemies is about twice as likely in 5E due to Bounded Accuracy, so all in all a 5E character is doing about 4x as much damage before you even factor in Sharpshooter/GWM.

So load up on those enemies! If AD&D characters can fight five hobgoblins and two evil clerics at third level, 5E guys should be able to tackle ten hobgoblins and four evil clerics. Right? Of course right!

Seriously though, 5E encounter guidelines are way too easy.

 

[aramis erak]

Actually, all wizards gained a new spell upon figuring out a new spell level (so one per two character levels). It's just that this was specifically called out as an advantage for specialists in the PHB, but in the DMG it said all wizards should get it (page 61 of the black-cover DMG).

Keep in mind, lots of rules got changed between printings of 1E. Earlier DMGs may not say the same.

 

[Staffan]

I was discussing 2nd ed. And I have access to both the original version and the black-bordered version of the DMG, and both have the rule about wizards getting a free spell per spell level.

 

[Blackbird71]

Well, I'm still working my way through the rules as time allows - almost done with the PHB. I still haven't had a chance to try them out in practice, and it looks like it will be a couple more weeks before I get that opportunity.

There was something that occurred to me, and I feel like I must be missing something or misunderstanding. As I read it, a standard melee attack role (to use an example) is 1d20 + proficiency bonus + STR modifier, regardless of class (and assuming proficiency with the weapon in question). As the proficiency bonus is the same for all characters of a given level, STR then becomes the only difference in characters' ability to hit a target. Doesn't this essentially mean that a fighter and a wizard with the same STR score have an equal chance to hit a target with a melee attack? Maybe this is how it is supposed to work, but it seems odd to me to base the ability to hit a target solely on a physical attribute without accounting for differences in training and experience - the fighter probably spent years learning how to hit things, while the wizard was probably sitting in a library pouring over dusty tomes. Maybe this particular wizard did his push-ups every morning, and on study breaks would bench-press stacks of spell books, but I'm not sure that should be enough to give him the same accuracy in hand-to-hand combat as the fighter. I've known plenty of physically strong people who did not know how to fight; training is always a factor.

Have I missed something? Am I completely wrong here? If not, how does it play out in practice? I realize that a strong wizard may be a rarity at most tables, but I've seen it a few times and it's not unheard of. I just think that relying on typical relative attribute levels to make one class better at combat than another is a bit short-sighted. I understand that the fighter does have other combat abilities on top of this, but the two fundamentals of combat are 1) being able to hit a target, and 2) inflicting damage on that target. Yes, generally speaking the fighter has access to weapons with better damage, but this only addresses half of the equation. If the two got in a fist fight, they'd be on even footing. The whole situation created by this mechanic just feels off to me.

 

[billd91]

Well, I'm still working my way through the rules as time allows - almost done with the PHB. I still haven't had a chance to try them out in practice, and it looks like it will be a couple more weeks before I get that opportunity.

There was something that occurred to me, and I feel like I must be missing something or misunderstanding. As I read it, a standard melee attack role (to use an example) is 1d20 + proficiency bonus + STR modifier, regardless of class (and assuming proficiency with the weapon in question). As the proficiency bonus is the same for all characters of a given level, STR then becomes the only difference in characters' ability to hit a target. Doesn't this essentially mean that a fighter and a wizard with the same STR score have an equal chance to hit a target with a melee attack? Maybe this is how it is supposed to work, but it seems odd to me to base the ability to hit a target solely on a physical attribute without accounting for differences in training and experience - the fighter probably spent years learning how to hit things, while the wizard was probably sitting in a library pouring over dusty tomes. Maybe this particular wizard did his push-ups every morning, and on study breaks would bench-press stacks of spell books, but I'm not sure that should be enough to give him the same accuracy in hand-to-hand combat as the fighter. I've known plenty of physically strong people who did not know how to fight; training is always a factor.

Have I missed something? Am I completely wrong here? If not, how does it play out in practice? I realize that a strong wizard may be a rarity at most tables, but I've seen it a few times and it's not unheard of. I just think that relying on typical relative attribute levels to make one class better at combat than another is a bit short-sighted. I understand that the fighter does have other combat abilities on top of this, but the two fundamentals of combat are 1) being able to hit a target, and 2) inflicting damage on that target. Yes, generally speaking the fighter has access to weapons with better damage, but this only addresses half of the equation. If the two got in a fist fight, they'd be on even footing. The whole situation created by this mechanic just feels off to me.

Keep in mind that the wizard has a much smaller pool of weapons he can apply his proficiency bonus to, the fighter types get bunches. That fighter also gets action surges and additional attacks for a single attack action as he levels up. The wizard doesn't.

But at low levels, yep, a strong wizard may be able to punch as well as a fighter. Just like they could back in 1e/2e. And even in 3e/PF, they're only a little worse since their BAB only starts 1 point lower. It was only as they leveled up for a while that the fighter really pulled away from the wizard in physical combat - assuming the wizard invested a lot in the physical stat department. That wizard may spend time reading over dusty tomes, but the typical fantasy environment is more physically active in general than today's world because there were many fewer labor-saving devices. So it's not that big a deal.

 

[kbrakke]

Well, I'm still working my way through the rules as time allows - almost done with the PHB. I still haven't had a chance to try them out in practice, and it looks like it will be a couple more weeks before I get that opportunity.

There was something that occurred to me, and I feel like I must be missing something or misunderstanding. As I read it, a standard melee attack role (to use an example) is 1d20 + proficiency bonus + STR modifier, regardless of class (and assuming proficiency with the weapon in question). As the proficiency bonus is the same for all characters of a given level, STR then becomes the only difference in characters' ability to hit a target. Doesn't this essentially mean that a fighter and a wizard with the same STR score have an equal chance to hit a target with a melee attack? Maybe this is how it is supposed to work, but it seems odd to me to base the ability to hit a target solely on a physical attribute without accounting for differences in training and experience - the fighter probably spent years learning how to hit things, while the wizard was probably sitting in a library pouring over dusty tomes. Maybe this particular wizard did his push-ups every morning, and on study breaks would bench-press stacks of spell books, but I'm not sure that should be enough to give him the same accuracy in hand-to-hand combat as the fighter. I've known plenty of physically strong people who did not know how to fight; training is always a factor.

Have I missed something? Am I completely wrong here? If not, how does it play out in practice? I realize that a strong wizard may be a rarity at most tables, but I've seen it a few times and it's not unheard of. I just think that relying on typical relative attribute levels to make one class better at combat than another is a bit short-sighted. I understand that the fighter does have other combat abilities on top of this, but the two fundamentals of combat are 1) being able to hit a target, and 2) inflicting damage on that target. Yes, generally speaking the fighter has access to weapons with better damage, but this only addresses half of the equation. If the two got in a fist fight, they'd be on even footing. The whole situation created by this mechanic just feels off to me.

This is correct, the key differentiation is the proficiency. If your wizard is proficient in the longsword then they are or have spent the time necessary to learn every little detail of how to use that weapon. How it feels in his hands, how to properly stand with it etc. etc. All the training you wonder about is wrapped in to proficiency.

But even with the same stat and the same proficiency, the fighter is still better at using the sword. Almost every martial class will get two or more attacks which already sets them apart. Additionally every fighter archetype has something extra to let them stand above the exact situation you described. A strong, proficient wizard will be as accurate and hit in a simple case, but a champion will hit harder more often and have mastery over different weapons. A battlemaster will know how to use their weapon as a tool to control the battlefield and the Eldritch knight will know how to weave spells and swords efficiently.

You could have a strong wizard that stats wise will be close to a fighter of the same level, but in play and in concept it's still different.

 

[Blackbird71]

Keep in mind that the wizard has a much smaller pool of weapons he can apply his proficiency bonus to, the fighter types get bunches. That fighter also gets action surges and additional attacks for a single attack action as he levels up. The wizard doesn't.

I did mention the fighter's access to more weapons. This and the extra attacks will increase the overall melee damage output of the fighter over the wizard, but only by the size of the weapon and sheer number of attacks, not by any greater skill. It still means that the wizard can land a hit just as well as the fighter; the fighter can just hit more often and with bigger stuff.

But at low levels, yep, a strong wizard may be able to punch as well as a fighter. Just like they could back in 1e/2e. And even in 3e/PF, they're only a little worse since their BAB only starts 1 point lower. It was only as they leveled up for a while that the fighter really pulled away from the wizard in physical combat - assuming the wizard invested a lot in the physical stat department.

Yes, 1st level characters in all editions tended to be similar in their ability to hit stuff. In 1e/2e, fighters had weapon specialization that could be used to improve that, and in 3.X fighters had access to feats which could also improve their chance to hit, but on a basic level starting characters were about the same. However, as you point out, this would change quickly as the characters began gaining levels. So how does the fighter pull away from the wizard in this regard in 5e?

I understand that an increased number of attacks will increase the fighter's overall chance to land a hit each round, but per individual attack the hit probability would be the same. Thematically that just feels wrong to me. Maybe the other advantages that the fighter gains are enough to offset this mechanically, but the idea of it still seems a bit off.

That wizard may spend time reading over dusty tomes, but the typical fantasy environment is more physically active in general than today's world because there were many fewer labor-saving devices. So it's not that big a deal.

Labor-saving devices in medieval times (and pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds) were usually called "servants".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So how does the fighter pull away from the wizard in this regard in 5e?

It depends on what fighting style the fighter picks at level one. If he picked an offensive style, he's immediately superior to his wizard twin brother. Otherwise the wizard can keep up until 3rd, 4th or 5th level, when extra attacks, battlemaster maneuvers, and ASI/feats start to pile up.

Differentiation via proficiency bonuses simply isn't part of the 5E design. Fighters aren't supposed to be more accurate in melee in this game, only more dangerous.

(Well, they're more accurate than wizards due to better physical stats, usually--but not more accurate than their identical twin wizards. Imagine a geek who also mountain bikes and works out. He can keep up with his twin brother in the army, at first, but eventually the soldier goes Special Forces and starts learning fancy techniques and combinations that the geek can't replicate reliably without quitting his day job and joining SF too.)

 

[Blackbird71]

It depends on what fighting style the fighter picks at level one. If he picked an offensive style, he's immediately superior to his wizard twin brother. Otherwise the wizard can keep up until 3rd, 4th or 5th level, when extra attacks, battlemaster maneuvers, and ASI/feats start to pile up.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my question was meant as to how the fighter pulled ahead specifically in terms of accuracy.

Differentiation via proficiency bonuses simply isn't part of the 5E design. Fighters aren't supposed to be more accurate in melee in this game, only more dangerous.

Which question you then essentially answered here, in that they don't pull away in this regard. It's that lack of differentiation that feels wrong to me; by virtue of their training, a fighter should be more accurate at melee than someone who has not had specific training or experience in hitting targets that fight back.

I guess that's just one more for the column of things I dislike about 5e. The nature of this one is so pervasive and built into the mechanics that I suppose it's going to have to go into the "things I'll have to live with" rather than the "things I can change" category.

It really seems like most of the issues I have with 5th are thematic rather than strictly mechanical in nature. Some of them can be fixed with mechanical changes, but mostly it's more about how the mechanics are being applied than the mechanics themselves. There is a lot about the mechanics of 5e that I like, but I'm not so comfortable with a lot of the tone and theme that has been built with those mechanics. This "to hit" probability issue is a perfect example - when all the mechanics are taken as a whole, the fighter is probably invariably better at melee combat than a wizard with comparable strength, but the idea that a wizard can land a single blow as easily as the fighter just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my question was meant as to how the fighter pulled ahead specifically in terms of accuracy.

The only fighting style that increases accuracy is Archery. +2 to hit with missile weapons.

If you want to fix the accuracy issue, you could offer a similar melee style. That wouldn't break the game, and it would model the theme you're looking for: fighters are more accurate/controlled in melee due to special training.