Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[Chaosmancer]

Don't take fall damage jumping to those conclusions. Anyone that isn't a player character has their life completely in the hands of the DM anyways. They were sacrifices needed to make a good story regardless. They aren't real people, though. I don't feel real-life horrible choosing a path that ended up with a character dying in a videogame because they aren't actual real characters.

A character prays to their god when something happens. That's just how playing a pious character works. Maybe the god intervene. Maybe he doesn't. Regardless, the show goes on. What do the characters do next? Because the characters will do something next.

If the gods intervene though, then it wasn't the party solving the problem. It is literally a magical Dues Ex Machina.

Sure, Pious people pray, but if the gods can just solve the problem... why didn't they just do it before. And if you need a magical Dues Ex Machina doesn't that completely invalidate your assertion than "melee characters can accomplish anything magic can, without magic"?

Also, while you may not feel bad about fictional people dying, if it doesn't effect you at all, your DM has done a poor job of setting the stakes. If your failures are causing the end of the world, and the players just shrug, then they never cared enough about the world anyways.

And if they do care, then they are going to be upset that they could literally do nothing to save the people they care about.

Yeah, they're geniuses. They'd probably have minions to mop you up but I wasn't just going to surprise you with a beholder using common sense that I didn't establish.

The wizard would pretty much be in the same situation as a wall of force fighter. The beholder can still barricade the doors so long as they're outside his eye. And then the beholder can just continue doing what they need to do and leave.

So, either use minions or... I don't get what the barring the door even does. If the beholder leaves, the caster has their magic back, and no door is going to stop them

Paladins are half-casters that sit in the camp of kinda martials kinda spellcasters. Rangers are the same and the Hunter gets the option to take evasion.

Using that reaction really limits your spellcasting ability as a war wizard. In fact, it's probably the worst defense for saving throws entirely since it completely shunts off your best feature nearly entirely. Bless is a pre-emptive spell, just like I said.

Ah, I missed the pre-emptive spell point. But, Paladins and Rangers are just as much caster as they are martial.

And, it only shuts off you ability to cast a new spell, does nothing to concentration spells (which concentrating on gives you a bonus to saves) so calling it the "worst" is depending on the situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

the challengewas clearly set up for a no magic items example. Why insist on adding magic items unless he’s right and those are needed to have any chance in that encounter? And if so doesn’t they kind ofprove the point?

I know it's just an anecdote, but I have never played a game of D&D in any edition that didn't have magic items. I don't even know what that would look like.

 

[Flamestrike]

I really think that looking towards 3e's Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords would be a good idea.

Thats the game Im currently designing, using 5E as the base chassis.

Fighters have Martial Disciplines (Steel wind, Zweihander, Diamond Mind, White Raven etc), Casters have Spell Schools (Aburation, Evocation, Necromancy etc).

Manouvers/ Spells include 'Rapid strike' 'Parry' 'Devastating smash' 'Tiger leap' 'Intimidating glare' 'Magic missile' 'Sleep' 'Fireball' and so forth.

Everyone works off ToB style 'per encounter' manoeuvres (called spells for casters) that are designed like 5E Spells (each has a level of 1-9, and can be 'upcast' with a higher level slot to achieve a better result. They refresh at the end of each encounter.

'At will' Stances also exist, (for casters they're spells like Mirror image, Mage Armor, Blur, Bless, Shield of Faith etc).

'At will' Ritual magic exists for all classes. Effectively they're 'at-will' out of combat abilities tied to each Discipline/ School.

'At will' Cantrips (called Stunts for Martials) are also tied to school/ discipline.

 

[TheSword]

Sure, but then you have to give the wizard an equivalent number of high level items.

If the fighter has Three Very Rare Items then the wizard can have three items too, and the balance can shift back to the wizard.

There is no issue with this. In my experience wizards items generally let them do more of the same, rather than be much better at what they do. Unlike a fighters items that objective make them better at things they do all the time, like hit things and deflect attacks.

As I said earlier and made clear in my post GWM was an alternative to the sword and board fighter. Either take the damage and whittle the dragon down fairly quickly with sword and board, or Great weapon it and break concentration. Both are possible.

All this is looking at the wrong question though. 20th level fighters are not dueling 20th level wizards in isolation. They are both approaching the adventuring day at the same time, and the fighter will consistently out-fight the wizard in the foes they face across the day. D&D isn’t about single spells changing the adventure, if it is then the adventure writing is sloppy. It’s generally about a series of encounters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Until combat starts, where a caster is a useless bag of meat in their worst case scenario and the only worst-case scenario for the fighter is not having at least 1hp.


How's a high-level caster going to survive a single encounter against one of D&D's most iconic

enemy, the Beholder?

First, there's a bit of cherry picking going on there, picking one of the few monsters with anti-magic abilities. Second by using their abilities to evade the beholder; abilities the fighters simply don't have. Working from memory the Beholder has an excellent perception (+12) but has no ability to e.g. see invisible, merely darkvision. And it can't stop teleports past it.

Third this is a Beholder. The safest place when you have the misfortune to fight a beholder head on is always inside the anti-magic cone. Inside the anti-magic cone all the Beholder can do to you is bite. Inside the eye ray you are savagely nerfed - but you are safe from the Beholder's eye rays. It's just a big bag of hit points with a 20' move speed and with a mediocre melee attack (1 attack/ round at +5 to hit doing an average of 14 damage). Everyone can outrun it because of that 20' move speed.

The Beholder only becomes genuinely that dangerous when it's dealing with enemies outside its anti-magic cone. Of course its optimal play is and has always been to divide and conquer, catching almost everyone in the cone so nerfing them - and then zapping the one target who isn't because they've positioned themselves well. Counterplay has been for the fighter to work to stay in the anti-magic field to avoid having to take multiple save-or-lose effects in a turn with at least four of the rays (fear, slowing, telekinetic, petrification) being effectively fight enders for a fighter in a one-on-one because they stop the fighter moving while the caster can still sling spells. Disadvantage on attack rolls isn't something casters care about of course.

So even cherry-picking monsters doesn't exactly help the fighter's cause here. Beholders are nasty foes but the fighter lacks the evasion options of literally any other class (even the barbarian is better off and anyone the beholder is seriously trying to kill will be outside the anti-magic effect. For that matter if the beholder is silly enough to try an anti-magic and bite combination on the wizard (which is the only way it has of hurting an anti-magicked target) the wizard simply steps out of the cone and blasts the beholder with a save-or-lose spell.

Casters suck against saving throws, too. Force a save on them, any save, and their only means of defense is either having casted a spell prior to getting hit or their having proficiency in that save. The more common saves being least likely to have high ability scores with exception to the cleric and druid.

Fighters meanwhile suck only slightly less thanks to Indomitable as a per long rest ability.

And it doesn't stop the opposition from refusing your requests. A friendly guard still can't let anyone into the treasure vault without signed documentation.

Sucks to be a muggle. A mind controlled guard can and will let people in without signed documentation.

Not sure what windmills you are jousting here.

There's nothing remotely realistic about D&D combat. On the other hand, playability is much higher than "real life the game".

If you can't catch a dragon when you're level 20 you're doing something wrong.

Let's not derail the discussion.

In short "Playing a level 20 fighter" is doing something wrong. This in't derailing the discussion.

And yes there is nothing realistic about D&D combat. But the way it is unrealistic in specific means that the fighter is unable to match the lethality of a real world guy with a shaped sharpened piece of metal.

 

[TwoSix]

Thats the game Im currently designing, using 5E as the base chassis.

Fighters have Martial Disciplines (Steel wind, Zweihander, Diamond Mind, White Raven etc), Casters have Spell Schools (Aburation, Evocation, Necromancy etc).

Manouvers/ Spells include 'Rapid strike' 'Parry' 'Devastating smash' 'Tiger leap' 'Intimidating glare' 'Magic missile' 'Sleep' 'Fireball' and so forth.

Everyone works off ToB style 'per encounter' manoeuvres (called spells for casters) that are designed like 5E Spells (each has a level of 1-9, and can be 'upcast' with a higher level slot to achieve a better result. They refresh at the end of each encounter.

'At will' Stances also exist, (for casters they're spells like Mirror image, Mage Armor, Blur, Bless, Shield of Faith etc).

'At will' Ritual magic exists for all classes. Effectively they're 'at-will' out of combat abilities tied to each Discipline/ School.

'At will' Cantrips (called Stunts for Martials) are also tied to school/ discipline.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[TheSword]

First, there's a bit of cherry picking going on there, picking one of the few monsters with anti-magic abilities. Second by using their abilities to evade the beholder; abilities the fighters simply don't have. Working from memory the Beholder has an excellent perception (+12) but has no ability to e.g. see invisible, merely darkvision. And it can't stop teleports past it.

Third this is a Beholder. The safest place when you have the misfortune to fight a beholder head on is always inside the anti-magic cone. Inside the anti-magic cone all the Beholder can do to you is bite. Inside the eye ray you are savagely nerfed - but you are safe from the Beholder's eye rays. It's just a big bag of hit points with a 20' move speed and with a mediocre melee attack (1 attack/ round at +5 to hit doing an average of 14 damage). Everyone can outrun it because of that 20' move speed.

The Beholder only becomes genuinely that dangerous when it's dealing with enemies outside its anti-magic cone. Of course its optimal play is and has always been to divide and conquer, catching almost everyone in the cone so nerfing them - and then zapping the one target who isn't because they've positioned themselves well. Counterplay has been for the fighter to work to stay in the anti-magic field to avoid having to take multiple save-or-lose effects in a turn with at least four of the rays (fear, slowing, telekinetic, petrification) being effectively fight enders for a fighter in a one-on-one because they stop the fighter moving while the caster can still sling spells. Disadvantage on attack rolls isn't something casters care about of course.

So even cherry-picking monsters doesn't exactly help the fighter's cause here. Beholders are nasty foes but the fighter lacks the evasion options of literally any other class (even the barbarian is better off and anyone the beholder is seriously trying to kill will be outside the anti-magic effect. For that matter if the beholder is silly enough to try an anti-magic and bite combination on the wizard (which is the only way it has of hurting an anti-magicked target) the wizard simply steps out of the cone and blasts the beholder with a save-or-lose spell.



Fighters meanwhile suck only slightly less thanks to Indomitable as a per long rest ability.



Sucks to be a muggle. A mind controlled guard can and will let people in without signed documentation.



In short "Playing a level 20 fighter" is doing something wrong. This in't derailing the discussion.

And yes there is nothing realistic about D&D combat. But the way it is unrealistic in specific means that the fighter is unable to match the lethality of a real world guy with a shaped sharpened piece of metal.

Good beholder tactics but I don’t really see how it makes the fighter irrelevant. It’s a 120 ft cone so not quite as easy to dodge in and out of. The beholder shuts its eye and then sends as many eye rays as it likes. It’s a fun monster but not ridiculous for either to fight because as you say the beholders strongest anti magic nerfs it’s own threat. Now throw a few allied ogres into the same fight and now you really want to have a fighter standing between them and the wizard.

I guess the principal is there though. antimagic, counterspell, spell resistance, energy resistances, spell turning etc all make things really difficult for a magic user but barely scratch a fighters abilities.

I personally don’t believe fighters are better. But I don’t think they’re worse either. Just different. You’re comparing oranges and apples. Each excels in their own area.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Good beholder tactics but I don’t really see how it makes the fighter irrelevant. It’s a 120 ft cone so not quite as easy to dodge in and out of. The beholder shuts its eye and then sends as many eye rays as it likes.

In other words the beholder does absolutely nothing to the wizard they don't do to the fighter. But the wizard has better chances of getting round the Beholder.

I guess the principal is there though. anti
magic, counterspell, spell resistance, energy resistances, spell turning etc all make things really difficult for a magic user but barely scratch a fighters abilities.

Of course it would be nice if the fighter had abilities to scratch. A wizard in an anti-magic field has just as many skills as a fighter and just as many non-combat abilities as a fighter. A wizard who has merely cast all their spells for the day has cantrips like Minor Illusion on top of that.

Also you are mentioning specific anti-mage abilities when things that are anti-everything as well as things that are anti-sword hurt fighters more severely. If you're restricted to melee weapons then anything that restrains has a much bigger proportional impact - as for that matter does anything that slows as both mean they often can't reach combat. Restraining has a second negative effect on fighters in that it forces them to take disadvantage - at which point the casters shrug and replace their attack spells that roll to hit with spells that need savign against.

I personally don’t believe fighters are better. But I don’t think they’re worse either. Just different. You’re comparing oranges and apples. Each excels in their own area.

If D&D is based round the three pillars of exploration, social, and combat, the fighter has the worst social abilities in the game and arguably the worst exploration abilities, not having one single mechanical feature on their base class other than their base skills that are useful in either social or exploration situations although Str + Athletics can be useful at low level.

If they are objectively the worst at two out of three pillars of the game then they had better be the best at the third or they are just weak.

 

[TheSword]

In other words the beholder does absolutely nothing to the wizard they don't do to the fighter. But the wizard has better chances of getting round the Beholder.



Of course it would be nice if the fighter had abilities to scratch. A wizard in an anti-magic field has just as many skills as a fighter and just as many non-combat abilities as a fighter. A wizard who has merely cast all their spells for the day has cantrips like Minor Illusion on top of that.

Also you are mentioning specific anti-mage abilities when things that are anti-everything as well as things that are anti-sword hurt fighters more severely. If you're restricted to melee weapons then anything that restrains has a much bigger proportional impact - as for that matter does anything that slows as both mean they often can't reach combat. Restraining has a second negative effect on fighters in that it forces them to take disadvantage - at which point the casters shrug and replace their attack spells that roll to hit with spells that need savign against.



If D&D is based round the three pillars of exploration, social, and combat, the fighter has the worst social abilities in the game and arguably the worst exploration abilities, not having one single mechanical feature on their base class other than their base skills that are useful in either social or exploration situations although Str + Athletics can be useful at low level.

If they are objectively the worst at two out of three pillars of the game then they had better be the best at the third or they are just weak.

The days of casters having a spell for every occasion are long gone with limited spells known per day. This isn’t 5e where a caster has every utility spell tucked away in a wand. Neither do the changes to spell duration and number of subjects allow this.

Combat and exploration in 5e is dominated by role playing and skills. The casters make little dent in this, their spells are icing. As has been said earlier, they are convenient but hardly necessary.

One of my pet hates are class abilities that give people the ability to do things that reasonable role playing or a skill check can do anyway.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know it's just an anecdote, but I have never played a game of D&D in any edition that didn't have magic items. I don't even know what that would look like.

I agree magic items are part of the game.

can you tell me why you think my point hinges on magic items not being part oF the game?