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

[DND_Reborn]

i do not like the wizard learns new spells out of thin air on lvl up, so i always rp this by a mentor , treasure find, wizard guild etc.

Out of curiosity, are you ok with Bards, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Warlocks just getting new known spells, or do you make them acquire them in some fashion as well?

 

[tetrasodium]

Magic in D&D 3.X was ridiculously OP. This is in large part because D&D 3.0 decided to take away almost all the restrictions on the wizard. But D&D 3.X is, depending how you count, between one and three editions of D&D (are 3.0 and 3.5 separate and is Pathfinder D&D?)

Magic in oD&D and AD&D had different restrictions - like the spells you knew being random. I have in front of me the 2e PHB

The reason most wizards played wizards who specialised in a school, despite all the penalties, is that they automatically gained one spell of the school they specialised in which could be selected by either the DM or the player. If they didn't they didn't get any spells that weren't treasure.

To repeat myself: Every single spell a 2e wizard knew was either given to them by the DM. Either directly as treasure or by direct approval in a single school. If the 2e wizard was strong it was because the DM had personally given them those spells.

Also you cite Treantmonk's guide. - which is 3.5 specific. The general principles apply to 3.0 - but beyond that it's more applicable to 4e wizards than it is to 2e or earlier.


This is really good advice for playing 3.5. It is bad advice for playing 2e.

Battlefield control wizards and debuffers were both given exactly the same massive and unintended buff when 3.0 came out - and that was the complete revamp of the saving throw system from an effects-based gamist model to a simulationist model. In 3.X your saving throws are Fort/Ref/Will and any well-prepared wizard should be able to pick a spell to hit the target's low save (and in 3.5 spell resistance wasn't really relevant because basically the entire conjuration school ignored it).

The pre-3.0 saving throws on the other hand were far more functional. The saving throws were in order of priority and in general in order of ease of passing:

1. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic
2. Rod, Staff, or Wand
3. Petrification or Polymorph
4. Breath Weapon
5. Spell

(Note: Breath Weapon vs Spell was very class-dependent, and Petrifications and Polymorphs were often easier to pass than staffs, doing some interesting things for powerful magical artifacts).

So a direct fire Fireball wasn't paralysation, poison, or death magic. It wasn't cast from an item. It didn't petrify or polymorph. And it wasn't a non-magical physical effect. Which made it use the Save vs Spell - i.e. the hardest category for the target to save and even if they managed to save they'd still take half damage - and 2e NPCs had far fewer hit points than 3.0 (which in turn have fewer than 5e)

Meanwhile Stinking Cloud in 3.0 is pretty universally considered superior to Fireball and for good reason. But in 2e it's a Poison effect. Which means that it's in the single easiest category for a target to save - and that applies to almost any target. Also if the target saved it was a waste of a spell and an action other than for the fog cloud. Even as a second level spell 2e Stinking Cloud was not that hot.

As for buff spells, these were often good (stoneskin was excellent) - but Haste was a particular stand-out. It aged the recipients by a year, and being magically aged by a year meant a System Shock roll; Haste was quite literally a save or die spell on the target you cast it on. So for that matter was Polymorph which also triggered system shock. And just trying to cast Wish. Teleport gave a chance of the wizard teleporting above or under the target. Under, of course, being an instant death if they teleported into something solid.

So please stop talking about "prior editions" when you mean 3.0 and 3.5. 3.0 basically removed almost all the balancing factors for the wizard such as not getting control over the spells you knew and not getting to pick the saving throws and accidentally killing your allies or even yourself through spellcasting when you were using the spells as intended (and not e.g. a ground zero fireball or a reflected lightning bolt - and those went too).

5e brought precisely none of these balancing factors back (or the level soft-cap). It did however bring other less-stringent balancing factors back and has as a result what I believe to be the third strongest wizards of any D&D edition (after 3.5 and 3.0).

That's a lot of words to say that I was on the mark calling bs on your claim that 5e magic is much weaker compared to other editions is "largely mythmaking "in this post... In addition to buff spells were pretty critical save or suck & save or lose spells, the overuse of concentration hamstrings all three so any concept that relies on them is going to have trouble in visceral "almost cool but rules don't let me".

 

[Garthanos]

that at the very least wouldn't allow the fighter to perform such tricks once per encounter if prepped.

a trick that can only be pulled on a target til they see it once. (fool me once) and afterwards takes a lot more effort ie is significantly more difficult (like disadvantage or costs a hd in extreme effort) makes more sense than the short rest mechanic currently in use by the game for me and will almost always be like the 5 minute short rest in practice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a lot of words to say that I was on the mark calling bs on your claim that 5e magic is much weaker compared to other editions is "largely mythmaking "in this post... In addition to buff spells were pretty critical save or suck & save or lose spells, the overuse of concentration hamstrings all three so any concept that relies on them is going to have trouble in visceral "almost cool but rules don't let me".

My specific claim was that

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.

I was entirely on the mark. Magic was ridiculously OP in 3.X - which I singled out. It wasn't compared to previous editions - and I also pointed out why and what held magic in check in previous editions. And yes a lot of it was "almost cool but rules don't let me".

Your claims about that magic was more powerful in 3.X were entirely in agreement with me - they were the exception I had pointed out. Editions prior to that on the other hand had things keeping the wizard in check - and 3.X is simply a single small group of editions.

As you have added nothing here except a strawman goodbye.

 

[Asisreo]

while basically correct taking all your assumptions into account, it is these very specific assumptions you make which give me a headache.

e.g. In some of my games the wizard has access to every spell he desires, if he got the dosh to buy himself a copy of it at the local wizards guild. In other games of mine this is not the case, and there is no free selection on level up. A spell might not even exist in some setting , and even if it would it would help you nothing, e.g. Teleportation to another plane of your choice in ravenloft or darksun.
i do not like the wizard learns new spells out of thin air on lvl up, so i always rp this by a mentor , treasure find, wizard guild etc.

I mean, these aren't assumptions. Any wizard would try to have access to these spells, especially at high levels.

And while it's true that spells can be banned or given by the DM, I believe we're all working under the assumption that the DM hasn't given or taken anything away.

 

[NotAYakk]

A lot of talk about wizards.

I think the 5e fighter has enough "rock'm sock'm" and we do not need to give the fighter more.

Tweaks, sure (like 4th attack at 17, TWFers, narrow builds being optimal). Or even golf club builds that use a myriad of weapin types for special effects. But they need not add more than a BM does.

The problem I see is the fighter lacks any identity of note in the social and exploration pillars. And a fix should focus on those pillars.

And because the fighter is a "big tent" class, any single narrow identity added will clash, and any broad identity will overlap with barbarians, rogyes, rangers, paladins and even monks.

Hence my argument to add a subclass like system that includes that identity.

At high levels, it could also compensate for the lack of mobility and control the fighter has. A BM 20 has the same status effects as a BM 3 does. Even the arcane archer, no change.

So at furst, exploration & social pillar support, then a basis for control, mobility, and exploration & social at T3/T4 so they are able to cobtribute mechanically at that point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

a trick that can only be pulled on a target til they see it once. (fool me once) and afterwards takes a lot more effort ie is significantly more difficult (like disadvantage or costs a hd in extreme effort) makes more sense than the short rest mechanic currently in use by the game for me and will almost always be like the 5 minute short rest in practice.

This is very similar to the argument for encounter powers for martial in 4th ed. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing (although I don't like it), but do we want to fight that battle again?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

And because the fighter is a "big tent" class, any single narrow identity added will clash, and any broad identity will overlap with barbarians, rogyes, rangers, paladins and even monks.

This makes me think: what if instead of trying to avoid said overlap, we embraced it? We have 1/3 wizard fighter already, we could have 1/3 rogue fighter, 1/3 bard, 1/3 barbarian etc

Make the fighter the ultimate ''built-in multiclass'' (they do is in Dungeon World, its really not bad).

Have a fighter subclass with minor sneak attack or dirty fighting feature and little more skill proficiency, call it the Knave subclass.
Have a fighter subclass with bardic inspiration on long rest, a few lore skill and maybe a few charm spell, call it a Skald
Have a fighter subclass with rage like ability (actually, a refluffed samurai is spot on for that), call it Berserker
Have a fighter with 1/3 cleric spell and group buff, call it Warpriest
Have a fighter exploration feature, maybe a pet, call it Scout (the UA scout with maneuvers was quite nice)

etc, etc

You know, how now bard are both jacks-of-all-trade while still mastering 9th level spells? Well the fighter can dabble in other roles while mastering weaponry.

 

[tetrasodium]

This makes me think: what if instead of trying to avoid said overlap, we embraced it? We have 1/3 wizard fighter already, we could have 1/3 rogue fighter, 1/3 bard, 1/3 barbarian etc

Make the fighter the ultimate ''built-in multiclass'' (they do is in Dungeon World, its really not bad).

Have a fighter subclass with minor sneak attack or dirty fighting feature and little more skill proficiency, call it the Knave subclass.
Have a fighter subclass with bardic inspiration on long rest, a few lore skill and maybe a few charm spell, call it a Skald
Have a fighter subclass with rage like ability (actually, a refluffed samurai is spot on for that), call it Berserker
Have a fighter with 1/3 cleric spell and group buff, call it Warpriest
Have a fighter exploration feature, maybe a pet, call it Scout (the UA scout with maneuvers was quite nice)

etc, etc

You know, how now bard are both jacks-of-all-trade while still mastering 9th level spells? Well the fighter can dabble in other roles while mastering weaponry.

Not a bad idea. People say fighter was a trap back in 3.5 when they were more a slingshot to pickup feats or quality for a prc, but it took a special kind of determination not to slide into a prc. Now in 5e fighter has do much devoted to either core OR archetype where the poor trapped pc doesn't even get archetype stuff till way too late to use like the cavalier at 7(?) Thsts wayy worse trap.

 

[Garthanos]

This is very similar to the argument for encounter powers for martial in 4th ed. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing (although I don't like it), but do we want to fight that battle again?

4e let you decide why things were limited to once per encounter it was fully abstract ALSO try and explain CS dice it ought to be hilarious.

I am sorry I am too tired to disarm but I can hit you 4 times in quick succession LOL.

Was it you who brought up worrying about why something was limited?

I mean shall we debate the bard using inspiration to heal and the fighter healing himself because he wants to?