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

[FrogReaver]

There is an opportunity cost.

The Wizard who spends the higher slot to Summon, to keep one or two foes busy, now can do nothing else with that slot. Those summonees wont last long, the Wizard deals even less damage, and the Wizard is in imminent danger. This is how all-Wizard parties TPK. Even if the Wizard survives this one encounter, there is likely an other one soon after, when there are even fewer slots available.

We are no longer playing 3e. The 5e spells fail to "replace" a Fighter.

It doesn't have to be as strong as the fighter. It just has to stand in melee long enough to take most of the attacks the fighter would have.

A level 5 GWF has 17 AC (maybe 18) and 44 hp (@ 14 con).
A Summon Fey using 1 level 3 slot has 15 AC and 30 hp.

Seems close enough to fulfill that purpose for me.

 

[Faolyn]

Attack rolls =/= fighting. They are simply one aspect of it. Nobody else gets 4 attacks a round, and that's a larger aspect of fighting than an attack roll. Maneuvers are another aspect of fighting. And there are others. Fighters are better at fighting, even if their attack rolls aren't better.

Unless their skill with a weapon is actually mechanically higher than others, then they're not better at fighting--just faster.

Which is also kinda weird, when you think about it, since most fighters are built around Strength, not Dex, and D&D traditionally associates Dex with speed, agility, and nimbleness.

Back in the THAC0 days, fighters were better at fighting, because their THAC0 improved faster than other classes did. And they would get more attacks, even if it was a weird number like three attacks every two rounds.

 

[Yaarel]

It doesn't have to be as strong as the fighter. It just has to stand in melee long enough to take most of the attacks the fighter would have.

A level 5 GWF has 17 AC (maybe 18) and 44 hp (@ 14 con).
A Summon Fey using 1 level 3 slot has 15 AC and 30 hp.

Seems close enough to fulfill that purpose for me.

But my point is, if there is no Fighter who is removing these foes from play. The Wizard is soon dead.

Summon might offer a delay − but normally fails to resolve the threat.

 

[Guest 7034872]

There is only one Strength skill. A fighter is going to have to run at least one, but probably more of their skills off secondary/tertiary abilities. A caster can run all four base skills off their highest ability score, leading to being overall better at using skills.

Good point. That has always annoyed me: why aren't more skills tied to STR?

 

[Maxperson]

In any case, as @GMforPowergamers pointed out, the 25% chance of being off site isn't exactly a big deal. The only thing the object eliminates is a minor inconvenience.

And that's just flat out wrong.

Similar locations, say to a castle to warn the king, can pop you into a castle anywhere in the universe that you didn't mean to enter, and whose inhabitants take a dim view of being invaded by a high level caster. Or it could pop you into a ruined castle in front a creature that you can't handle, and without a second teleport to get out again.

Off target can leave you in just about any situation from perfectly safe to in the middle of lava and dead.

Mishap can do any of the above, but you take damage on the way there.

Maybe @GMforPowergamers used kid gloves for teleports gone wrong and that's his right as DM, but I determine randomly whether the result is really good, really bad or anywhere in-between. Nothing in the spell says to use kid gloves.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unless their skill with a weapon is actually mechanically higher than others, then they're not better at fighting--just faster.

IMO. This is such a weird argument I don't even know how to respond. If you want to relegate better at fighting to simply being the attack bonus, more power to you I guess. But it shouldn't surprise you when others view being better at fighting more holistically. IMO, whether you are technically right or not I think it's safe to say you understand where everyone else is coming from. So, I really don't understand why this is becoming such a point of contention for you?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yea. For me crits are the big thing for the wizard. The Fighter is alot more protected from a crit due to having 'enough' hp and 2nd wind to recover after the fact. A wizard is much more likely to be 1 shot from a crit. Less of a concern as the game progresses but it's still a concern even in tier 2 - especially if the wizard isn't at 100% hp at the start of every encounter.

I agree that crits are no fun for wizards, but they're similarly no fun for front-liners. Crits can easily take you from "I got this until the cleric can toss me a heal" to "oh s**t oh s**t oh s**t oh s**t".

One of the DMs I play with has an uncanny knack for rolling crits on paladins. The first character death I had in 5e was playing a paladin in his game. And it keeps happening even in our current game. My barbarian rarely gets Crit despite fighting recklessly, whereas the paladin gets Crit constantly (it's a miracle she's still alive). Which is kind of ironic since barbarian resistance is probably the best crit mitigation currently in the game, apart maybe from mechanics that can force rerolls or adamantine armor.

I've been thinking that front liners should perhaps have some built-in crit mitigation. They tend to take the most attacks, after all, and therefore suffer the most crits. Maybe Indomitable could also negate a crit (downgrading it to a regular hit) or something along those lines.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless their skill with a weapon is actually mechanically higher than others, then they're not better at fighting--just faster.

Faster = better. If I can punch you 1000 times with a 50% accuracy and you can punch me once with a 75% accuracy, you lose to the better fighter.

Which is also kinda weird, when you think about it, since most fighters are built around Strength, not Dex, and D&D traditionally associates Dex with speed, agility, and nimbleness.

D&D also doesn't worry about being overly complicated and accurate about things. Not only that, but those extra attack can represent economy of motion and efficiency, which is skill. The poorly skilled take wide swings that are harder to recover from, while the high level fighter takes more economical, yet still powerful strokes that allow faster recovery and more attacks.

Back in the THAC0 days, fighters were better at fighting, because their THAC0 improved faster than other classes did. And they would get more attacks, even if it was a weird number like three attacks every two rounds.

The extra attacks were far more important than the increased THAC0, though. It was the rounds when I was getting 2 attacks a round that I was happiest, because you had two chances to hit and could potentially do twice the damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree that crits are no fun for wizards, but they're similarly no fun for front-liners. Crits can easily take you from "I got this until the cleric can toss me a heal" to "oh s**t oh s**t oh s**t oh s**t".

One of the DMs I play with has an uncanny knack for rolling crits on paladins. The first character death I had in 5e was playing a paladin in his game. And it keeps happening even in our current game. My barbarian rarely gets Crit despite fighting recklessly, whereas the paladin gets Crit constantly (it's a miracle she's still alive). Which is kind of ironic since barbarian resistance is probably the best crit mitigation currently in the game, apart maybe from mechanics that can force rerolls or adamantine armor.

I've been thinking that front liners should perhaps have some built-in crit mitigation. They tend to take the most attacks, after all, and therefore suffer the most crits. Maybe Indomitable could also negate a crit (downgrading it to a regular hit) or something along those lines.

Yea. Crits aren't fun for front liners either. But if they are near max hp they are almost certainly going to still be standing from one. Wizards, that's often more of a coin flip.

 

[FrogReaver]

And that's just flat out wrong.

Similar locations, say to a castle to warn the king, can pop you into a castle anywhere in the universe that you didn't mean to enter, and whose inhabitants take a dim view of being invaded by a high level caster. Or it could pop you into a ruined castle in front a creature that you can't handle, and without a second teleport to get out again.

Off target can leave you in just about any situation from perfectly safe to in the middle of lava and dead.

Mishap can do any of the above, but you take damage on the way there.

Maybe @GMforPowergamers used kid gloves for teleports gone wrong and that's his right as DM, but I determine randomly whether the result is really good, really bad or anywhere in-between. Nothing in the spell says to use kid gloves.

Well in the discussion about using it to avoid a TPK - if your situation is that dire then a 25% chance of being off direction followed by whatever chance that there is something equally bad where you end up.... I'd gladly take those odds.

If we are just talking about using it to travel, i'd never teleport without 100% certainty.