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

[FrogReaver]

Ah, but we don't have agreement on what complexity is useful and what is needless. That's the question.

Sure we do. You just aren’t accepting it. Your idea of different weapons affecting different monsters differently wasn’t well received.

more weapon properties though. That was well received and something I’d like to see somewhat expanded But not go overboard with. The devil is in the details I suppose.

 

[Asisreo]

barbarian does for sure.
paladin and Ranger at least have magic to fall back on. Not the best magic but it’s something.

The problem as I've been told isn't that fighter/barbarian cannot participate in the other pillars at all. It's that they can't participate equally. But the same can be said for paladin and rangers anyways. Because while they can do something extremely small once a day or in very specific circumstances, a wizard gets to do it practically all day in much more general scenarios.

In fact, I think there isn't any other class with such a well-rooted grasp in every situation as a wizard. Their possible spells are the largest list in the game, they have access to pretty much every useful OOC spell, they can regenerate spell slots on a short rest, and they're fairly well-competent in combat. A cleric won't have an answer to teleportation until level 13, the wizard gets an answer at level 7. The bard's spells known is extremely rigid, the wizard gets to specialize their spells on a day-by-day basis. The druid's spell list is overshadowed completely by the wizard's spell list.

 

[CleverNickName]

Morrus has said that it is a stand alone game that can be used by characters made with the 5e rules.

Again I have ask: what kind of changes to people actually want to make? I'm seeing a lot of pushback against complexity. Isn't this game going to be more complex by default? What do we think "crunchier 5e" actually is?

To me, "crunchier 5E" means:

• More options. The imagination is the limit; I'd like to see new features and abilities and combinations. Wizards who double-major in Abjuration and Evocation? Sorcerers with mixed bloodlines? Polytheistic clerics? Yes please.
• More meaningful options. Why add something if you are only adding it for the sake of having something to add? "But all the other classes got three new features and this one only got one; let's find a way to give this one more features too" is a bad approach.
• Narrative should matter. Paladins should be more than just "fighters who went to church once." Warlocks should be more than just "wizards with a weird friend." Bards should be more than just rogues who play the lute.

My two coppers, anyways.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem as I've been told isn't that fighter/barbarian cannot participate in the other pillars at all. It's that they can't participate equally. But the same can be said for paladin and rangers anyways. Because while they can do something extremely small once a day or in very specific circumstances, a wizard gets to do it practically all day in much more general scenarios.

In fact, I think there isn't any other class with such a well-rooted grasp in every situation as a wizard. Their possible spells are the largest list in the game, they have access to pretty much every useful OOC spell, they can regenerate spell slots on a short rest, and they're fairly well-competent in combat. A cleric won't have an answer to teleportation until level 13, the wizard gets an answer at level 7. The bard's spells known is extremely rigid, the wizard gets to specialize their spells on a day-by-day basis. The druid's spell list is overshadowed completely by the wizard's spell list.

I’m not against ranger or paladin getting more out of combat at high levels either If that’s what your saying. This thread is about the fighter though. So maybe don’t take lack of the discussion about other classes to mean they are perfectly acceptable?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

weapon properties is different than having them interact differently to different monsters IMO

Let's say its a nuance

To me having specific material for weapons to ignore B/S/P resistances from specific monster would count as ''weapon property'' but I get where you come from. Note: I'm also in favor of having properties like in 4e, like Brutal.

In the end you could just have magic weapons deal Force (which is the new name for the old Magic damage anyway) damage instead of their Physical damage and it will do the same thing: no one resist Force and Magical B/S/P ignores 99% of the game's monsters with resistance already. This would allow to remove the ''Resist B/S/P from non-magical weapons'' from the stat block. Just say ''Resist B/S/P'', magic weapons deal Force (or other elemental damage) anyway.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

So maybe don’t take lack of the discussion about other classes to mean they are perfectly acceptable

We will come to them, just you wait!

There's no way the ranger enters A5E the same way it did the PHB!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Quick point of order, if I may: what is the point of all the discussion about wizards and other spell casters in a thread about fighters?

The two classes are about as different as you can get. Yes, high level wizards are awesome, but sort of suck at lower levels compared to fighters in most of the pillars IME. We still have the linear fighter, but the "not-as-quadratic" wizard in 5E is better than before for balance. I think wizards are very powerful, but also very squishy and dragons find them tasty (after all, if the dragon digests the wizard, he learns the wizards prepared spells! ).

I will never expect a high-level fighter to do more than hold his own (if that) against a prepared high-level wizard. I'm fine with that. In the same way I don't expect a low-level wizard to hold his own against a low-level fighter most of the time.

If, for people who like it, you want to play high-level fighters are akin to demi-gods/superheroes, then sure a high-level fighter can beat the wizard. Not my thing, but you do you of course.

I mean, I am genuinely curious, is it just you feel it isn't fair that high-level casters are so much more powerful with the right spells? If so, is it the caster class, or just the spells that is really the issue?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure we do. You just aren’t accepting it. Your idea of different weapons affecting different monsters differently wasn’t well received.

more weapon properties though. That was well received and something I’d like to see somewhat expanded But not go overboard with. The devil is in the details I suppose.

As much as I like my idea, I can accept it not getting traction. Regarding complexity in general, however, what is useful and what is needless? What do people want out of Level Up? It's going to be a more complex game. @CleverNickName told me what they want. What do you want? What's useful complexity to you? Is it just player-facing options? I think there's stuff on the DM side that could use some nuance.

Also, @Morrus said they would likely be making a monster book, or at least a monster section. So if monsters are going to be rewritten anyway, why not make p/s/b matter?

 

[Neonchameleon]

A barbarian and arguably a paladin has much the same problem as a fighter OOC. A bard is a better substitute for wizard than either cleric or warlock and wizards certainly aren't a necessary class. You could easily not have a wizard and function well as an adventuring group as well. What a wizard contributes, any spellcaster could.

The 5e Bard is by itself a problem, being a caster with level 9 spells and being able to poach from any spell list. But most of the gamechanging 9th level spells are gated by class; Gate, Shapechange, True Polymorph, True Resurrection, and Wish are only on a few lists.

And a barbarian has a similar problem to the fighter - but it's not quite as bad. Danger Sense, Fast Movement, and not wearing heavy armour (and with it disadvantage on stealth checks) are pretty trivial but they aren't nothing,

 

[tetrasodium]

Why is having your weapon as a part of your character's identity sad? It's not my choice but I'm struggling to think of in fiction more than a couple of weapons associated with them, normally with one primary. In the real world it's similar because there isn't quite such an escalating accessible tech level. Continually replacing your sword for an extra +1 is pretty much a D&D and video game trope.

I said in fiction. And even in reality most of those weapons weren't alternatives for each other and you didn't keep upgrading your sword over time. Arthur had Excalibur (which he only ever upgraded when his sword broke) and his spear, Ron. Robin Hood had a bow and a sword. In play it's been mostly the same; I can't recall the last time I saw someone make a barbarian who didn't bring along javelins, throwing hammers, or something ranged - or a low level archer without a sword (although high level ones occasionally are able to Legolas-it-up, shooting in melee.

The D&D-specific problem isn't having multiple types of weapon for multiple jobs (which is something heirloom weapons don't do much about). It's the weapon upgrade treadmill where you start with an ordinary sword and throw it away or sell it on when you get a +1 sword. Let alone swap your sword for an axe just because it has an extra +1.

That is typically something that the main character of the story is tied to & it's great that you admitted it in a later post saving the need to argue over that. d&d is played as a group & main character syndrome actually causes problems with both the game for everyone else at the table.relegated to sidekick status in as well as the group of players themselves. Not only that but it exempts said character from possible story development that comes from finding/acquiring/getting crafted/etc new & better gear. But since you mention tropes, there's a different trope that fits the limitations such a character places upon the game everyone else at the table is playing.

This IME is largely mythmaking, houserules, and very rare games being pushed beyond the design goals.

5e magic is much weaker than 3.X magic. Compared to AD&D magic, the AD&D wizard had a soft-cap at level 10 and most of the spells they learned were treasure. Also they had to prepare each individual slot.



In short the fighter needs spell buffs, magic items, and most importantly a particularly stupid or arrogant dragon who lets them get into reach.

No it really is. Magic in past editions wasn't powerful because it could win the dpr race & suddenly be pretty helpless, you only need to look at how glass cannon is discussed in this 3.5 treantmonk wizard guide for evidence of that. Magic in 5e is so much weaker because it's not really possible to effectively play roles like a god wizard ( explained in same guide) & other such things like a controller of reality. Back in prior editions the difference between a party with those kind of things & without was night and day. That wizard might not look like they are doing much in any given fight, but take away what they brought to your character & the difference is gigantic. A lot of this is due to changes in specific spells to go from prepared to spontaneous casting & more often massive overuse of concentration.

As to your comment about a dragon letting the fighter into reach, the removal of tactical combat from 5e hurts the fighter there.