D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

I'm guessing it's similar to why some folks want a dedicated non-spell psionic class, non-magic Warlord, something new Witch, etc...

The psion and witch are a different issue from the non-magic warlord and non-magic fighter.

With the warlord and fighter, the issue is that they want abilities that cannot exist except with a supernatural origin, but don't want them to be supernatural. That would create a disconnect where the fluff and crunch do not match.

With the non-spell psion people aren't asking for a disconnect. They are asking for a different kind of supernatural power that isn't spells. It's akin to a bunch of people wanting a non-magical fighter class that just does other within reason non-magical things than is currently written.

 

[Mort]

I feel like you are ignoring the main component of the fighter's versatility: feats.

1. Unless you take valerient human you don't get a feat until 4th level. That's a long time to wait for supposed versatility. This is changing, with more ways to get a feat at first. But since EVERYONE is going to get this, it doesn't really help the fighter stand out.

2. You get feats at the expense of ASIs, it is rarely worth it to go forego an ASI. Especially for the fighter, who's whole schtick requires that he actually hit stuff. There are some feats that are clearly "worth it." But most would make the fighter sacrifice combat efficacy for little gain.

3. By 11th level, the fighter gets exactly 1 more feat than the wizard. That one feat comes nowhere close to providing the utility full spellcasting provides, it's not even worth a comparison. Now if more feats had some teeth, maybe then there's a conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

Probably none. I mostly brought it up to illustrate a point. That while a wizard could beat the Champion at it's own game, but it's considered a subpar option for the wizard to do so. Which means that the Champion's jumping ability isn't strong, it's just the only option they have.

Subpar for the wizard =/= jumping is not a good ability. Wizards have lots of criteria for what spells they pick. Invisibility is great and has nothing to do with transporting. Scorching ray is a good low level combat spell and has nothing to do with transporting. And there's the fact that it's just plain smart not to double up abilities. Let the fighter jump and the rogue pick the locks. No reason to get jump and knock.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Subpar for the wizard =/= jumping is not a good ability. Wizards have lots of criteria for what spells they pick. Invisibility is great and has nothing to do with transporting. Scorching ray is a good low level combat spell and has nothing to do with transporting. And there's the fact that it's just plain smart not to double up abilities. Let the fighter jump and the rogue pick the locks. No reason to get jump and knock.

There are some abilities that are useful to double up on. Damage is a good example. But sure, I would agree that certain abilities don't need to be doubled up on. I'm not sure movement is one I would personally agree with. Jump may not be prime wizard real estate, but Misty Step is a nice one, and can do what jumping can in most situations, while having some upsides like getting away from adjacent enemies.

 

[Yaarel]

I actually think there are two reasons they went to saving throws:
1. Spell versatility - to show how different spells affect different creatures. For example, acid splash on trolls. This allowed the player to become more tactical in combat. Which, if I remember correctly, is something Crawford said they were going for.
2. To speed up combat. Spells are already all over the place with damage; whereas, other classes almost always utilize the same one or two damage rolls. This removed newer players becoming confused, and shifted the responsibility to the DM. In my opinion, it was a good move.

Heh, I think reverting to saving throws has more to do with anti-4e. To be fair, Fighter players fear monster spellcasters, and want to feel agency in resisting the spell effect.

Unfortunately, that removal of agency impedes players who are spellcasters.

1. When the caster makes a spell "attack", each of the ability scores becomes a kind of AC, so the caster attacks against Constitution or Wisdom, or whichever ability score. The tactical combat remains.

2. Whether the DM rolls the d20, or the players roll the d20, takes the same amount of time in gameplay. In my campaigns, players cast spells more often than monsters do. So, letting the players roll for spell attack reduces the burden on the DM.

 

[Reynard]

1. Unless you take valerient human you don't get a feat until 4th level. That's a long time to wait for supposed versatility. This is changing, with more ways to get a feat at first. But since EVERYONE is going to get this, it doesn't really help the fighter stand out.

I though we were talking about high level fighters.

3. By 11th level, the fighter gets exactly 1 more feat than the wizard. That one feat comes nowhere close to providing the utility full spellcasting provides, it's not even worth a comparison. Now if more feats had some teeth, maybe then there's a conversation.

I still don't understand why someone is playing a fighter if they want the breadth of versatility the wizard allows, or even what that would look like.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I though we were talking about high level fighters.

I still don't understand why someone is playing a fighter if they want the breadth of versatility the wizard allows, or even what that would look like.

I outright stated in my post that my examples were a starting point for T1 and T2. It would be kind of weird if the fighter were barren of utility in T1-2 and then suddenly exploded with options in T3. The natural way to design it is to build from the ground up.

I still don't understand how you don't understand when I've stated this multiple times throughout this thread. I'll rephrase it once more in the hope that you grok it.

Because they want to play an archetype like Beowulf, not Merlin.

Could Beowulf do magic like Merlin? No. Was he superhuman? He ripped a giant monster's arm off with his bare hands, so I'd say that's an emphatic yes. Was he competent outside of combat? Given his various deeds in the poem, I'd say that, yes, he was highly competent even outside the scope of slaying things.

Killing things shouldn't be the only thing that fighters are good at. Like Beowulf, it ought to be the thing that they're exceptional at. In 5e, that's simply not true. Best case scenario, they're slightly better than other classes at killing things, and largely vestigial outside combat.

 

[Reynard]

I outright stated in my post that my examples were a starting point for T1 and T2. It would be kind of weird if the fighter were barren of utility in T1-2 and then suddenly exploded with options in T3. The natural way to design it is to build from the ground up.

I still don't understand how you don't understand when I've stated this multiple times throughout this thread. I'll rephrase it once more in the hope that you grok it.

Because they want to play an archetype like Beowulf, not Merlin.

Could Beowulf do magic like Merlin? No. Was he superhuman? He ripped a giant monster's arm off with his bare hands, so I'd say that's an emphatic yes. Was he competent outside of combat? Given his various deeds in the poem, I'd say that, yes, he was highly competent even outside the scope of slaying things.

Killing things shouldn't be the only thing that fighters are good at. Like Beowulf, it ought to be the thing that they're exceptional at. In 5e, that's simply not true. Best case scenario, they're slightly better than other classes at killing things, and largely vestigial outside combat.

First of all, I was responding to @Mort regarding wizard versatility -- they brought that up.

Beowulf was good at killing, at swimming and at getting killed by a dragon. The fighter can do all of those things (except maybe the last one, it being 5E). Achilles was good at killing, running and sulking. Gilgamesh was good at murder and wrestling. Your mythic fighter archetypes are literally just killers who are good at sports. I get that at very high levels fighters should probably be able to perform superhuman feats, but the scope of their abilities remain fairly focused on murdering things.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And then the party wakes up from the dream they all had where everything misses all of their saves and prepare for their adventuring day.

I mean, this hypothetical party is 11th level, so the enemies are trying to hit DC 17, in most cases while not being proficient in the save, in some cases having a +0 to the save.

 

[Maxperson]

There are some abilities that are useful to double up on. Damage is a good example. But sure, I would agree that certain abilities don't need to be doubled up on. I'm not sure movement is one I would personally agree with. Jump may not be prime wizard real estate, but Misty Step is a nice one, and can do what jumping can in most situations, while having some upsides like getting away from adjacent enemies.

Misty Step is a nice one, but prior to 18th level it relies on limited spell slots and so the vast majority of the time it is used to get away from enemies. At 18th-20th level, sure if the wizard has picked that spell, he can use it for getting across a chasm instead of jumping, but I don't think that something that is only achievable at 18th+ level is really something that causes a wizard to overshadow the fighter.