Chaosmancer
Legend
I don't think I called anyone any names and if you want to put your points in copnstitution do that, but in a pB or SA game you are making a purposeful decision to be bad at the non-combat pillars when you do that. The only classes that can be good at all 3 pillars while investing heavily in Constitution are Bard, Rogue and Ranger (and only Ranger because of the Fey Wanderer), other casters can manage two at a time while having a high (16) con at start.
As a point of fact it is not necessary to invest in Constitution to survive in a game designed according to the counter balance guideling. That is fact. That doesn't mean you will always survive as a luck has something to do with it, but RAW 5E combat is EASY and statistically you are not likely to die because you chose a 10 constitution instead of a 14.
If you make a point buy Wizard with a 16 Constitution, and she is not going to be good at all 3 pillars at all 20 levels.
Because having a high con prevents the wizard from taking spells?
You claimed fighters can't do specific things and they can do all of them (although not necessarily at the same time)
THe difference between a martial character and a spellcaster, is the access to spells. IF the only way you can be good at social and exploration is spells, then even if the martial character can figure out how to get spells, then we have a problem in the design, because it inidicates that the design is not equitable.
Eldritch Knight. If you want to play another subclass the only way I know of is to take Arcana proficiency or smiths tools proficiency and make a helm of telepathy.
However, the same is true for casters. What if I want my Wizard to cast Silence or my Cleric to cast Vortex Warp?
Those two simple examples are actually more difficult than getting Suggestion on a fighter.
Sure, those things are useful, but it isn't like the Wizard or the Cleric don't have other useful spells. This isn't about "how do I get suggestion on my fighter" (Which would take being level 13, when the other full casters got it at level 5) it is about how the answer is always "get the right spell"
Build choices to get it!
You are complaining that other classes get to cast spells and do these things, you want your fighter to be able to do these things like those other classes do ..... but you don't want to cast spells.
If you want your fighter to cast suggesting build a fighter that has access to suggestion and 2nd level spells.
I don't think your complaint has any merit.
Why not? The fighter has NOTHING that the other classes are can't get within their own design space. Again and again, the solution proposed to any problem is to get the correct spell, but no wizard ever looks at the fighter and goes "how can I do that?" Because... they CAN do that. And doing so costs so little for them, that they can additionally do a bunch of other things.
Sure different classes have different core abilities.
A Bard who choses to do this gives up a spell known and nothing else. It is relatively low cost. A fighter gives up a feat or picks a specific subclass.
But a Bard needs to run a 12 Constitution to get 6hps per level and a Bard needs to pick a specific subclass to get extra attack, gets it later, and never gets 3 attacks.
But the Barbarian and the Paladin also don't get 3 attacks. And I thought that dropping Con was fine? A 12 Con is nothing. I pretty much never see ANY character with less than a 12 con.
And meanwhile, the Lore Bard or the Creation Bard... are still good in combat. Sure, they aren't stellar in melee combat, but they can alter the entire flow of a fight with a single spell. Just like all other casters.
Many, many more people (virtually the entire population) has survived being burned. I have been burned more times than I can count, most recently on Saturday. I have never been shot with an arrow and I can't imagine being even grazed with an arrow is going to be more damaging than a 1st degree burn and the vast majority of 2nd degree burns.
Firebolt averages 5 damage. A commoner has 4 hp. Firebolt does not give you minor 1st degree burns that sting a little. You are looking at 3rd degree burns most of the time.
The benefit is playing the character you want to play. If you want to play a character without any magic, then having an option to choose a character without any magic is a benefit.
As long as your character is viable, being better or worse is irrelevant if your goals are based on the character thematics.
Now if your goal is to be powerful then being weak is a problem, but it is one easily remedied by making a powerful character.
IT is a problem if the best way to make a powerful character, is to be a spellcaster. That shows an issue in the design.
We need to talk about what viability looks like, because most of the time, I've found fighters and barbarians feeling like they are unable to contribute outside of combat, which gets worse for them, when the caster or the diplomacy character completely subverts the combat with a single action.
There is no way to increase the chance of an enemy failing a save when they use legendary resistance or when they are immune to the condition your "instant combat ender" causes.
As someone who has played a lot at high level (15+) over the last 2 years, I can say confidently that damage is the best way to bring down many enemies. At high levels there are a lot of enemies fighters (even those with low constitution) excel at battling.
When those spells are effective, they are effective but when they are not they are near useless.
Not every fight features enemies that have legendary resistance. Not every enemy is immune to every effect. And casters can still do damage, on top of their other actions.
???? Then what is the problem?
That was sarcasm.
Who would be happy to have built their entire character to excel at a specific type of challenge, to then hear the wizard say "Oh good, then I won't take X so you can your thing. I'll take Y instead". An entire build, which the wizard could have invalidated, by taking a single spell. And didn't, just to be polite.
This happens all the time IME. Teleport, Fly, Calm emotions, various healing spells .....
There are all kinds of spell selections that affect the choices of other characters in a team game.
Uh huh. Not, what martial choices affect the choices made by other characters in the team game? What martial option is equivalent to these?
As a reminder, what I said was "every class can do impossible things by 11th level"
So yes you are agreeing with me and impossible things are not unique to spells, casters or magic. All classes can do impossible things, like I said!
Okay, yeah. Everyone can fall off a building.
Only spellcasters can fly back up up, or collapse the building with a word, or turn the building into a monster to fight for them.
Actually I have played 2 games in the last year where it explicitly solved a problem (Rise of the Drow and Rime of the Frostmaiden) .... or at least enabled survival.
So... the entire party jumped off the side of a building? Cool. How did that allow the fighter to solve a problem?
Feats are part of the base class.
No, they are an optional rule
I will also point out that casters do not have any specific spells or specific abilities that spells enable as part of the base class. They actually need to choose spells before they can do these "impossible" things. Non-casters have similar choices they can make to do additional "impossible" things. A smaller less diverse subset of choices, but choices just the same.
No Wizard has the ability to cast suggestion and no Bard has the ability to read minds as part of the "base class". They need to make choices to enable that. Similarly a Fighter could make choices to enable either of those two things.
Unless it is a featless game. You won't see a wizard or a bard in a "spell-less" game, but you can see fighters in featless games all the time. There is a big difference here.
Yes, if a fighter wants to cast spells they need to get spells. I think that is pretty obvious.
But if they want to contribute without spells... they just need to hope no one else tried to build a character who tackles social or exploration problems in any way, shape, or form.
We can already do that. Fighters get feats and feats do this. Why is that unacceptable?
Also I hate the weapon mastery system developed for ONE.
1) Feats are optional
2) The only feats that you keep mentioning give spells. We are looking for spell-less solutions.
There also are just not feats that give the sort of benefits we are trying to get here, and making them feats opens them up to everyone, meaning that the spellcasters are still going to be able to do everything the martials can do plus more.