D&D 5E 02/08/13 New playtest packet to released today. [Udate: PACKAGE OUT!][

[Stalker0]

Okay, but realize the effects of this ripple across the whole game. A character with high AC, lots of hit points, and strong defenses against magic and everything else, is a very unattractive target for the DM.

I'll disagree for a moment. One of the reasons that defenders needed the tricks was because there damage and abilities tended to pale compared to strikers and controllers. When the striker is dealing twice your damage, then yes it is hard to make the dm focus on you.

But the 5e fighter is not built this way currently. He gets it all, a sturdy defense and a strong offense. A dm wants the fighter gone because he is ripping his monsters to pieces, not because of some game mechanic.

 

[Obryn]

I don't remember the exact math behind advantage, but I read on this board that it was roughly equal to a +4 bonus?

+4 to all saves seems powerful to me.

It is. And that's a good thing. Compare the spells casters are getting.

-O

 

[TheRustyOne]

And you seriously it wouldnt be a thing? If the players didn't assume Monster X had 3 autosaves and ran them out first? That was talked about the very first day WOTC talked about Legendary creatures.

 

[Wulfgar76]

But the 5e fighter is not built this way currently. He gets it all, a sturdy defense and a strong offense. A dm wants the fighter gone because he is ripping his monsters to pieces, not because of some game mechanic.

Actually, I think you're absolutely right - the Next fighter is such an imposing threat he must be dealt with first. The enemy must put him down at all costs, then deal with the rest of the party. If this was a design goal, it's working.

It is. And that's a good thing. Compare the spells casters are getting.

My first thought wasn't about powerful NPC spellcasters, but rather the monsters the Fighter is trying his best to kill.
Even the most powerful monsters (Red Dragon, Beholder, Lich) have save DCs around 14 or 15.

 

[Warbringer]

I don't remember the exact math behind advantage, but I read on this board that it was roughly equal to a +4 bonus?

+4 to all saves seems powerful to me.

When you compare just rolling 2d20 vs 1d20 the benefit is about +3.3, meaning that that the number of success is 13.8 vs 10.5, in other words average roll.

But where it is so powerful is when you already roll high, when i get an 18, the second die isn't worth +3.3, at best it's only worth +2, the only two results that are better are 19 and 20. In this case, I still only getting an 18, not a 21 (if I had a +3). Now, at the bottom end on the spectrum I less likely to fail than if i just had a +3, say I rolled a 3 (+3) for 6, I still have 65% chance of getting a score better than 6 on the second die.

Advantage is fun

 

[Warbringer]

My first thought wasn't about powerful NPC spellcasters, but rather the monsters the Fighter is trying his best to kill.
Even the most powerful monsters (Red Dragon, Beholder, Lich) have save DCs around 14 or 15.

Problem right now is monsters are cannon fodder (ghouls aside ) . Now PC math is finalizing, I'm sure they will turn their attention here soon

 

[Warbringer]

But the 5e fighter is not built this way currently. He gets it all, a sturdy defense and a strong offense. A dm wants the fighter gone because he is ripping his monsters to pieces, not because of some game mechanic.

And doesn't that feel right? Get the guy with the big frigging sword! Or, run away from the guy with the big frigging sword!!!!

 

[Libramarian]

I don't know how relevant this is to this argument mechanically, but it feels on-topic thematically.

I've always felt like at some point in D&D (possibly the very beginning), fighters started getting short shrift because they are baseline and every other class is a fighter plus something. Clerics are the most glaring example, but rogues do not suffer overmuch for their weapon and armor restrictions. Wizards are often described as "squishy," but there's no reason why a high-level wizard should ever be easier to hit than a high-level fighter. Even at first level, a wizard is not /necessarily/ doing less damage in melee than a fighter.

I've often thought that the biggest disservice D&D design does for fighters is not anything about the fighter's design at all, but rather about the other classes. For as long as I can remember, the fighter has gotten better bonuses in combat, but all the other classes still get /bonuses/. Even the wizard. Why is that the case? Why isn't "good at hand-to-hand and ranged combat" the fighter's "thieves' abilities," or "channel divinity," or "spells per day?"

Why do the other classes get to be fighters plus?

Because the frequency of occurrence and the price of failure for combat are higher than they are for other aspects of the game.

 

[DMZ2112]

Because the frequency of occurrence and the price of failure for combat are higher than they are for other aspects of the game.

Assuming that I accept that justification, it just suggests the reverse of my original question, which is,"If everyone has to be good at combat in D&D, why have a class that focuses only on being good at combat?"

Why doesn't every "fighter" have fireballs, a backstab, or healing prayer?

I suggest that D&D has been biased against the fighter from the very beginning -- that the fighter is and has always been doomed to fail, in terms of game balance.

And I further suggest that as players have been enjoying play as fighters for all of that time, without any sign of flagging: perhaps it is a problem that does not need solving.

In short, I think buffing the fighter to "balance" him with the other classes is a mistake. It only ends one way: he becomes so good at the core element of the game that it is impossible to challenge him without completely obliterating the other classes. Challenge the other classes, and he will obliterate the opposition.

You need a fighter to stand up front, make a good target, soak up damage, and land some hits. You don't need a fighter to AoE like a fireball, crit like a rogue, or buff like a cleric. I think there's a reason why they are often characterized (pre D&D4) as leaders -- they have tactical and strategic knowledge, sure, but they're also the glue that holds a good adventuring party together. They level out the spikes and fill the gaps.

 

[Iosue]

Basically, where I come down is that there is none of my regular playstyles are compatible with the 3e paradigm of fighter saves. If I'm playing an exploratory dungeon crawl, then folks generally have their roles spelled out. The rogue is scouting ahead, finding traps, opening locks. If there's a fight, he's going to harry from a distance, or attack the enemies' flank. The mage contributes with utility magic most of the time, and long range artillery if it comes to combat. The cleric is going provide support magic, healing, and some back-up melee combat ability. The fighter's job is to fight. He is the first and last line of defense. So I want him to be clearly superior to the others when combat breaks out. That's his niche. And that means he has to have high defenses across the board. And in this playstyle, combat is only a small part of the whole experience. Most of it is figuring out logistical puzzles, searching, things like that. Things where the other classes have opportunities to contribute more than the fighter.

Alternatively, I may be playing for a heroic fantasy game. In this case combat becomes a bigger part of the game, and everybody contributes. But at the higher levels, when the mage is calling down meteors, and the cleric is raising the dead, what is the fighter to do? Well, many things, but one of them is to be absolutely indomitable. His body and mind trained to such a level that he dodges dragon breath with ease, and throws off spell effects with sheer determination and willpower.

I don't have as negative an attitude to 3e as some, but I do think that their approach to the fighter, particularly as represented by saves, was a mistake. This post gives a good breakdown of the issues. Random Wizard's interview with Skip Williams suggests that it essentially came from setting strict "mundane" limits on fighters and thieves.

Given the abilities all kinds of casters get at higher levels, I don't think a +3.3 on all saving throws for fighters is especially out of line. Like I said, I'd like to be even stronger.