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

[Capricia]

I see 2 ways to make fighter options = caster options so everything is fair:
1) reduce the PHB spell section to 16 different spells total, so it roughly = # fighter maneuvers.
2) give fighters a list 100 maneuvers that can do all the stuff spells can.

And that's cool ... that game would not be my personal cup of tea, though

I agree. Your strawman solution to the problem does indeed sound unfun and terrible. However, I don't think that those are the only two solutions. Thanks for for trying though!

 

[Branduil]

If 5e was going to break, it was always going to be in the individual spells. Unfortunately, it looks like lots of players prefer it that way, hence some really bad spells making through all of the playtests. At least it should be easier to houserule than 3.x.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Also, I'm not quite sure why everyone is so excited by the Rogue. They do decidedly mediocre damage, and considerably less than the Fighter:

Because they have cool non-combat-related abilities? Because some people enjoy playing skill-monkeys? Because some people find the whole "maneuver and plan to get your damaging attacks to work" to be a part of the fun? Or how about just because someone has a cool idea for a rogue character?

I get that some people enjoy optimizing, but I don't get the sheer bafflement some--stress some--optimizers have at the idea that other people might not play that way, or for the same reasons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because they have cool non-combat-related abilities? Because some people enjoy playing skill-monkeys? Because some people find the whole "maneuver and plan to get your damaging attacks to work" to be a part of the fun? Or how about just because someone has a cool idea for a rogue character?

I get that some people enjoy optimizing, but I don't get the sheer bafflement some--stress some--optimizers have at the idea that other people might not play that way, or for the same reasons.

Well, I think he's going on the fact that people keep claiming Rogues are really powerful, when, obviously, they aren't. They're not as terrible as he suggests, I think, but they not, well, that scary. I totally get what you're saying, but I feel like you're missing who he's talking about, which isn't the guy going "Oh I want to be Locke Lamora so I will play a Rogue!" - pretty sure Jack gets that, and seems odd that you assume he doesn't (like do you think he's an alien or never played an RPG or something?) - pretty sure, too, that Jack is talking about the sort of semi-optimizer or "CONCERNED DM"-type figure who is going around saying "OMG GUYZ ROUGES CAN DO SO MANY DAMAGES!!!!!!" when actually they're not that spectacular.
[MENTION=6777377]Jack the Lad[/MENTION] - Ack, Forcecage, I hate that bloody spell. Greatest 2E group I ever played with got TPK'd by it because it's so goddamn cheesy and if the 5E version is just as cheesy... ugh.

 

[Aribar]

Because they have cool non-combat-related abilities? Because some people enjoy playing skill-monkeys? Because some people find the whole "maneuver and plan to get your damaging attacks to work" to be a part of the fun? Or how about just because someone has a cool idea for a rogue character?

I get that some people enjoy optimizing, but I don't get the sheer bafflement some--stress some--optimizers have at the idea that other people might not play that way, or for the same reasons.

It's not that we want every class to be optimized, so much as balanced and on equal footing. As an arbitrary example, it's not fair that the gal playing the high-level Wizard in a campaign has much more agency and impact on encounters than the guy playing an equal level Fighter (Champion subclass).

If you ignore the rules or their negative impact on bringing that cool idea for a rogue to life ("You want to be a lock-picking thief? Too bad, let me Knock on every door"), that's fine! Good for you and your group for having fun playing the game. Other people like Jack The Lad likely don't want their fun as a player to be left to the whims of 1) the caster outside of combat auto-solving skill stuff, 2) the fighter completley outshining them in combat, 3) the DM's skill in making sure everyone gets the limelight.

Think of it as the rules completely supporting the caster characters having fun and being awesome... But the rules also barely give a fraction of that support to the martial classes AND there is little to nothing actually there to enforce the limitations that magic has.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I get the "wanting a relatively equal footing." I want that, too.

It's "Why would anyone want to play X?" that bugs me. "Is X underpowered?" "How would you jazz up X?" Those are fine. Let's have that conversation, absolutely.

But the "Nobody should want to play this" implications bug the crap out of me. It's the same thing, but in reverse, as the comments some people make denigrating optimizers. Courtesy needs to go both ways.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I get the "wanting a relatively equal footing." I want that, too.

It's "Why would anyone want to play X?" that bugs me. "Is X underpowered?" "How would you jazz up X?" Those are fine. Let's have that conversation, absolutely.

But the "Nobody should want to play this" implications bug the crap out of me. It's the same thing, but in reverse, as the comments some people make denigrating optimizers. Courtesy needs to go both ways.

He didn't say that.

You said that.

Sorry, Mouse, I really like your posts, but this is not fair on other people. You cannot go around saying "Well I don't like this implication that I've decided is there!" and insisting people are discourteous because you've decided that they're insinuating something, that, frankly, they aren't.

If you read this thread you see people getting over-excited about Rogues, implying they're amazing/scary/etc. - they aren't - that's what Jack is saying. He's not saying "LOL NO-ONE SHUD PLAY THIS!". You're projecting that on to him. Don't do that, imo.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know what?

You're right.

Jack's phrasing doesn't imply what I said it did. It comes very close to matching a comment in a different thread, a few days ago, that did say that. I associated the two and jumped to conclusions.

Apologies to Jack specifically, and everyone else for the threadjack.

 

[Dausuul]

"You want to be a lock-picking thief? Too bad, let me Knock on every door..."

You do realize that this doesn't work any more? Even if the wizard could afford to waste spell slots on stunts like this (which she can't), 5E knock makes a booming noise that alerts everything within 300 feet. At that point you might as well just have the fighter bash the door down and save a spell slot. Its main value is getting yourself out of manacles, or getting a locked door open fast so the party can escape a losing battle. For sneaking around dungeons, it's useless.

 

[Aribar]

You do realize that this doesn't work any more? Even if the wizard could afford to waste spell slots on stunts like this (which she can't), 5E knock makes a booming noise that alerts everything within 300 feet. At that point you might as well just have the fighter bash the door down and save a spell slot. Its main value is getting yourself out of manacles, or getting a locked door open fast so the party can escape a losing battle. For sneaking around dungeons, it's useless.

There's no stores near me that broke the release date so I don't have the PHB for the latest rules, but isn't Knock a ritual spell (10 minutes spellcasting for no expended spell slot)? Also, how often does that drawback to knock actually come into play? Last night in a 3E campaign I'm in we broke into a prison, released some prisoners, and then escaped... And only once out of five lock pick attempts would we have had something negative happen to us. How do you balance unlimited, loud, lengthy lock picking with stealthy, unreliable lock picking?