D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[UngeheuerLich]

I haven't got recent figures because EKs are so far behind they don't tend to get included in analyses, but here's some discussion:

Now you're proving my point. You're saying "If people don't like magic being dominant and want to play a strong non-magical class, they should pick magic!". It's just totally silly.

From our experience, the eldritch kinght was in no way underpowered compared to the battlemaster. At least before we changed our rest rules to make short rests happen more frequently.

I do agree however that chosing a wizardy subclass is no solution. Instead look at the rune knight to have a supernatural fighter that does not use spells and is very powerful.

For a seemingly mundane fighter there is no great option I fear. All attampts beside battlwmaster just look inferior to battlemaster...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Skills can do a tremendous amount, and that's on the DM, not the rules.

skills are VERY DM dependent... someone above posted all the things religion let you do in 4e, and I doubt many DMs would let it in 5e. I am pretty lenient with what you can or can not do (except with athletics/acrobatics... I will almost NEVER allow acrobatics in place of an athletics check just because Dex is SOOO much more useful then str) but I saw a DM at my FLGS tell a player they couldn't use insight to see if an NPC was lying or not, they had to figure it out themselves... and later in that campaign I heard (not myself but by story of others in store) the same DM would not allow a rogue with expertise in persuasion to use it to bluff someone... because "sorry I know it's not true my NPC an't falling for it"
I also argue even in my own group about making athletics checks to get a little more distance on a jump (I allow it but 2 out of 3 of the other regularity DMs don't)

One that came up not super long ago but in the last campaign was is it Investigation, Perception, or tool use Theives tools (or in theory tool use tinker tools) to look for a trap on a chest? (and if it is a tool what stat goes with it... can you do theives tools/dex?) of the 5 of us at the virtual table we ended up with 5 "I would say X" answers with 3 of us (including me) hedgeing with "But I would also maybe allow Y or Z if it made sense"

now in all these cases the DM gets the final call... but boy is it weird how open to interpretation it is.

 

[Imaro]

I haven't got recent figures because EKs are so far behind they don't tend to get included in analyses, but here's some discussion:

Here's a more recent analysis...that actually has the EK ahead.

https://mythcreants.com/blog/dd-5e-fighter-subclass-builds-battle-master-vs-eldritch-knight/

So which one do we believe?

Now you're proving my point. You're saying "If people don't like magic being dominant and want to play a strong non-magical class, they should pick magic!". It's just totally silly.

Ok again what is meant by "strong"?? You're not defining the criteria by which you're judging the characters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IME the answer to this always seems to be... give him magic but fictionally disguise it. IMO WotC solved this problem in the best way possible for their game in 5e... everyone has the option to choose magic.

yup... Hexblades and SwordBards refluffed as fighters get alot of use in our games...

my last 'I want to play a fighter' concept (A smart and Charismatic leader with a keen sword and a wit to match) was a multi class of the two above (hexblade/sword bard) where the DM let me make all the spells into "martial manuvers" with the restriction I had to make the narrative and the mechanics line up somewhat... but since we came from 4e we didn't mind healing word as inspiring word and such.

If you feel there is a giant discrepancy between magic wielders and non-magic wielders then good news... you can pick a subclass that uses magic for any class. If you don't (or don't care) it's a moot point and you can choose to forego it.

point of order (just being a pain really) I don't know if barbarian has one... I know I have a 3rd party subclass that gives them druid spells as 1/3 caster but I don't think the base game does... but not that it matters you cna make a great barbarian anyway.

in general this is the #1 fighter complaint I hear on tic tok and at Cons... "I want to be a fighter and do cool things, but so many cool things are hidden in the spell or magic ability subsystems... I want to do these thing and just be awesome not magic"

I think I prefer this method to the "magic as skills & abilities" method since I almost feel like that is it's own genre that isn't general D&D (though I'd have no problem with a campaign setting where it is the norm). That genre is exemplified by games like Exalted, Earthdawn, Godbound, Ninja Crusade, Legends of the Wulin and so on. Just my opinion though.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They came out in a wash, they do a similar range of DPR. Those extra things a spellcaster can do are not out of balance, they have specific DPR values.

there is NO DPR for 'can move us past encounters' or "I can end encounters' or "I can skip the skill checks you have to make"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Here's a more recent analysis...that actually has the EK ahead.

https://mythcreants.com/blog/dd-5e-fighter-subclass-builds-battle-master-vs-eldritch-knight/

So which one do we believe?



Ok again what is meant by "strong"?? You're not defining the criteria by which you're judging the characters.

It always depends on the assumptions you put in.
If you consider that level 5 spells allow you to do things no mundane character can ever do without help of magical items, than it is a default win for the EK.

If you however see it as a group effort to have the magical characters do those things, then the martials are left woth more ressources to fight (as the wizards just used spells to get you in a superior position).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From our experience, the eldritch kinght was in no way underpowered compared to the battlemaster.

I didn't say they were, did I?

"Choosing magic" isn't a solution, especially when Eldritch Knights, for example, aren't even performing as well as say, Battlemasters on the LFQW front.

They're not "underpowered compared to the Battlemaster", just less powerful. They're still one of the better Fighter subclasses.

So which one do we believe?

Not the Mythcreants one - scroll down and read the comments. He profoundly screwed up. His entire build relied on a misinterpretation of the rules which got clear up, and once it got clear up, he was wrong. Sadly he hasn't edited the article to admit this.

He also doesn't show any of the working, and some of his assumptions don't make any sense without detailed math to support them. When you're going against stuff that is well-supported by math, you need to bring math - and he intentionally hid all of his - as well as making the rules error which breaks his whole assertion.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They solved it with math: all Spells have a strict HP damage value,so a Champion is in balance with a Transmuter as far as game balance goes.

except the math doesn't work in practice...

it's like saying "This $5 bill is worth $5... and your ability to go to the bank and take any amount of money you want out is worth $50... so if I start with $5 and you start with $55 both in cash, but I have the ability to go to the bank and take any amount of money out of the bank that is equal"

the moment I take $60 out of the bank you can argue that extra $10 is for the trouble of going to the bank, and that the bank isn't open 24/7 and maybe have a point... if I take $100 out that point is MUCH less... if I take $10,000 out that point is dead and buried

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It always depends on the assumptions you put in.
If you consider that level 5 spells allow you to do things no mundane character can ever do without help of magical items, than it is a default win for the EK.

If you however see it as a group effort to have the magical characters do those things, then the martials are left woth more ressources to fight (as the wizards just used spells to get you in a superior position).

The article he's linking to makes a fundamental rules error - he should have scrolled down and read the comments rather than relying on it. And the article's assumptions are also bad on top of the rules error.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn't say they were, did I?

They're not "underpowered compared to the Battlemaster", just less powerful. They're still one of the better Fighter subclasses.

Underpowered or less powerful is just a gradual difference if any. I didn't mean way underpowered. Just not as powerful.
Sorry to have used the wrong key phrase...