D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Minigiant]

So now a creature being in range of a bow is the DM playing dumb?

a 1s8+2 bow shot isn't doing much at level 11+

Unless you are assuming +X items but them you are requiring magic in math again.

 

[Maxperson]

a 1s8+2 bow shot isn't doing much at level 11+

Unless you are assuming +X items but them you are requiring magic again.

1d8+2+1d8(superiority). And it's doing more than the rest of the party.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Jackie Chan would just somehow grab a ladder and knock the dragon out of the sky while simultaneously entrapping it. If John McCain can have a 5 minute long fist fight on a passenger jet while it's taking off he can do anything.

I think you mean JohnMcClane...
JohnMcCain probably could not do this anymore...
Edit: I should read the thread completely. Someone else beat me to it.

 

[Minigiant]

1d8+2+1d8(superiority). And it's doing more than the rest of the party.

damage cantrips can deal equal or more damage if the target isn't resistant or immune.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

damage cantrips can deal equal or more damage if the target isn't resistant or immune.

And sometimes even if they are resistant; that's what Elemental Adept is for.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is the dragon smug about its inevitable victory?

The John McClain can.

I'm not familiar with everything John McCain was in. I've only seen him on that CSPAN show.

Feat
"Yippe Kay Ye!"
You add your expertise bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and skill checks made again a person (and their followers/minions) who has spend a round gloating within the past 24 hours.
A Fighter may select this as a bonus feat.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

[short rant]
Pfft. Always this whining from the martial classes that they wanna do the same damage as the casters. I have a solution: play a caster too, but then don't whine about the low AC or low HP. If you have a nice DM, you can flavor your staff to look like a sword, and have a number of spells as if they are coming out of the sword.

Did you know that each class supports all the other classes? Healers don't heal only themselves. And tanks don't only protect themselves. And casters don't only cause huge damage for themselves. But glass cannons don't survive all by themselves. They tend to need a tank and a healer.

Disclaimer: I did not read all 616 posts before this one. I'd be surprised if I say something new.
[/short rant]

 

[Lyxen]

Bow is a bit complicated, requires two hands so switching from melee to bow is time consuming, even more if you have a shield. Javelins or handaxes or daggers are good choices, also because it doesn't require you to be a Dex fighter. And it's mostly a backup, if you think that the fight is going to become long-range for a while, then yes, pull out your bow. But Javelins/handaxes/daggers also preserve your AC if you are using a shield. Admittedly, range is shorter, but on most battlefields, it's going to be OK, again if long range is foreseen, indeed use a bow.

I agree that it's not completely as versatile as casters, but they are glass cannons, especially in 5e where they can't enter the battle with 92+ buffs active to make themselves invulnerable. If the adversaries are played right, they should feel in danger in most fights, with low AC and relatively lower hit points (although I agree that 5e has normalised the HP a bit too much).

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I haven't played enough 5e to see how it pans out at higher levels, but the general complaint - that "shenanigans" from the magic users can effectively reframe situations - seems to be a pretty edition-neutral observation.

I'm sympathetic to the suggestions offered by @Lanefan to impose limits on spellcasters (via chance of backfiring, spell interruptions, bouncing lightning bolts etc.) if their tactical utility is deemed too high, but I think the original complaint - one of "shenanigans" - is more about casters being uniquely equipped to drive the strategic direction of play, as spells afford more narrative control than anything within the arsenal of the martial classes.

I think it's worth remembering that previous editions also emphasized - or at least allowed for - what might be called "operational" control: strongholds, henchmen, characters "embedded" within the campaign world, who can effect change on an even wider scale - I think this notion gels best with "mundane" types, assuming a society which operates along more-or-less humanly predictable (i.e. not magic-heavy) lines. Henchmen (for mundane types) also act as force multipliers within the action economy, maybe allowing a little more sharing of the spotlight with the casters. This sort of game might look to Birthright or Kingmaker for cues, rather than seeking to redress the strategic imbalance which higher level mundanes experience in relation to casters. Whether this emphasis is soft (RP-centric) or hard (rules-coded) is another question.

Also, in writing this, I think I've just convinced myself to play 1e again.

 

[Lyxen]

I haven't played enough 5e to see how it pans out at higher levels, but the general complaint - that "shenanigans" from the magic users can effectively reframe situations - seems to be a pretty edition-neutral observation.

Yes, despite the balancing act of powers in 4e, in the end, those who had the most impacting powers on strategic level play were still the same classes with access to arcane rituals (I know, this is is broad brush, but reflecting quite well what happened to us at high level).

I'm sympathetic to the suggestions offered by @Lanefan to impose limits on spellcasters (via chance of backfiring, spell interruptions, bouncing lightning bolts etc.) if their tactical utility is deemed too high, but I think the original complaint - one of "shenanigans" - is more about casters being uniquely equipped to drive the strategic direction of play, as spells afford more narrative control than anything within the arsenal of the martial classes.

I think it's worth remembering that previous editions also emphasized - or at least allowed for - what might be called "operational" control: strongholds, henchmen, characters "embedded" within the campaign world, who can effect change on an even wider scale - I think this notion gels best with "mundane" types, assuming a society which operates along more-or-less humanly predictable (i.e. not magic-heavy) lines. Henchmen (for mundane types) also act as force multipliers within the action economy, maybe allowing a little more sharing of the spotlight with the casters. This sort of game might look to Birthright or Kingmaker for cues, rather than seeking to redress the strategic imbalance which higher level mundanes experience in relation to casters. Whether this emphasis is soft (RP-centric) or hard (rules-coded) is another question.

Also, in writing this, I think I've just convinced myself to play 1e again.

Actually, BECMI gave a far better operational control than 1e, but I agree that what has guided me through all the editions to make sure that, at high level, martials have as much fun as casters, was my experience in 1e, which remained quite applicable in 2e (for the little that we played it before switching back to 1e), 3e and in particular 5e, where is is actually far easier because casters are inherently weaker (due to concentration in particular). Balancing relationships with NPCs, encounters, treasure found, situations, magic resistance, anti-magic, resistances, all of that comes quite naturally to us and martials don't complain at all.