D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[ECMO3]

It is less of a loss than you might think, because shield is so strong, and a first-level spell, something you graduate out of quickly for damage-dealing potential, meaning you can start spending them on such one-off uses more casually in short order. It also gets horrifically worse at the highest levels, because at level 18, you can turn one each of your 1st- and 2nd-level spells into at-wills. Having shield at-will is ridiculously powerful, since you have effectively +5 AC all the time, and that's AC that stacks with all other sources. Your other spell can then be scorching ray (or Aganazzar's scorcher for wider AoE) if you want always-on offensive capability, or a more flexible defense-and-utility spell, such as invisibility or levitate. And you can change these spells with every long rest.

It is poweful no doubt, but if we are talking about classes only - Shield gives a wizard 18 plus dex, where a fighter is at 20 in plate and shield (or more with magic items). So it is +5 to the Wizard AC, but it is not 5 better than a fighter and that is using every single reaction to get that, where a fighter really is "all the time" with a bunch more hps. Moreover at 20th level with a 23 AC (Mage Armor, Shield Spell, 20 Dex) you are going to be hit most of the time and you have a lot less hps unless you are burning slots on upcast false life.

Agonizer's scorcher is weak damage at 20th level. A fighter is getting 4 attacks a turn, that is over 38 damage if he is a sword and board with no bonuses from subclass or anything else.

AS is 13.5 damage damage on a failed save and while you can get more than one enemy, you are rarely going to get more than 2 and enemies save more often than the fighter is going to miss.

What I said was you are not doing 95% of the tankability of a fighter while doing as much damage and I think this is a good example, assuming max dex with shield spell you are about 80% of a fighter in terms of tankability (better AC, fewer hps), and doing about 40% of the damage.

 

[James Gasik]

It is poweful no doubt, but if we are talking about classes only - Shield gives a wizard 18 plus dex, where a fighter is at 20 in plate and shield (or more with magic items). So it is +5 to the Wizard AC, but it is not 5 better than a fighter and that is using every single reaction to get that, where a fighter really is "all the time" with a bunch more hps. Moreover at 20th level with a 23 AC (Mage Armor, Shield Spell, 20 Dex) you are going to be hit most of the time and you have a lot less hps unless you are burning slots on upcast false life.

Agonizer's scorcher is weak damage at 20th level. A fighter is getting 4 attacks a turn, that is over 38 damage if he is a sword and board with no bonuses from subclass or anything else.

AS is 13.5 damage damage on a failed save and while you can get more than one enemy, you are rarely going to get more than 2 and enemies save more often than the fighter is going to miss.

What I said was you are not doing 95% of the tankability of a fighter while doing as much damage and I think this is a good example, assuming max dex with shield spell you are about 80% of a fighter in terms of tankability (better AC, fewer hps), and doing about 40% of the damage.

Don't forget Mage Armor when calculating Wizard AC, so that's 13+Dex with another 5 for Shield without shenanigans like Bladesong or getting proficiency with real armor or actual shields.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Shield isn't bad as an at-will. But it costs a reaction. In my experience, all of Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Absorb Elements, Feather Fall compete for your reaction.

Not saying there aren't other useful things. Personally, the fact that these things could even be argued to be better than effectively constant +5 AC is proof positive of exactly how powerful the Wizard class is. Like if the argument is that the Wizard isn't terribly powerful, having several alternatives better than near-constant +5 AC seems an odd argument to make.

As for those alternatives: counterspell is largely irrelevant because you cannot take it with Spell Mastery (it's 3rd level), so the only concern is "if you use shield you can't counterspell," which is a good, decision-forcing limitation. Silvery barbs is decent but hardly game-breaking (it was massively overhyped when it was new.) I would certainly argue that feather fall is not something you should need to be able to use at-will all the time, much better as a one-off daily preparation or very rarely swapped in for a day or two when falling is especially likely/dangerous.

I don't think you'd be needing/wanting any of them nearly as often as shield though. Yes, avoiding taking hits in the fitst place is great. It's also not nearly as perfectly reliable a strategy as many Wizards would like, even if they aren't Bladesingers.

Scorching Ray is usually a bad plan? 6d6 (21) damage is less than Toll The Dead 4d12 (26). Even the baseline Fire Bolt cantrip does more damage (22).

Unlike toll the dead, the other two can crit. But yes, the point of it is target flexibility rather than raw damage output. I listed multiple other options as alternatives for a reason. You had made mention of damage output, so I included a damage output option.q

For at-will shield to be strong, you have to be subject to vs AC attacks a lot. And ideally you also want to optimize your AC. This is great on bladesingers who maximize int and dex; having 28 AC in bladesong is pretty good.

Effectively constant +5 AC is already strong, period. That's literally as good as the best medium armor (half plate) but with no Dex penalty. +5 bonuses to any value are strong. It's why Expertise is sought after.

If you also happen to be a 20 Int/20 Dex Bladesinger with mage armor active (so 13+5+5 = 23 base AC), then yes, it becomes extremely powerful and there are many creatures who simply don't have the hit bonus to land a hit on you that isn't a crit. Too bad you can't use a shield with bladesong; if you could, 30 AC at (effectively) all times would be perfectly achievable without magic items.

 

[ECMO3]

Don't forget Mage Armor when calculating Wizard AC, so that's 13+Dex with another 5 for Shield without shenanigans like Bladesong or getting proficiency with real armor or actual shields.

Yes, I said it was a "better AC, fewer hps". Assuming maximum dex on the Wizard (which is a big assumption) and mage armor it is 23 AC with the shield spell vs 20 for a fighter in plate and shield with no fighting style. At 20th level both of these guys are going to get hit most of the time, but the fighter has a lot more hit points to work with.

You can talk about real armor and actual shields, but now you are talking about a multiclass or 3 feats to wear heavy armor with a shield and use the shield spell effectively - (moderately armored, heavily armored and warcaster), and that assumes you play a Bladesinger or a race like Dwarf that has light armor proficiency to start with, otherwise it is 4 of your feats to get there.

The fighter can do that too, getting something like the shield spell, defensive duelist, gift of the Matallic Dragon, Second Chance etc, and he has more feats to work with. He also has a fighting style which is a class feature we are not considering.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is poweful no doubt, but if we are talking about classes only - Shield gives a wizard 18 plus dex, where a fighter is at 20 in plate and shield (or more with magic items). So it is +5 to the Wizard AC, but it is not 5 better than a fighter and that is using every single reaction to get that, where a fighter really is "all the time" with a bunch more hps. Moreover at 20th level with a 23 AC (Mage Armor, Shield Spell, 20 Dex) you are going to be hit most of the time and you have a lot less hps unless you are burning slots on upcast false life.

Agonizer's scorcher is weak damage at 20th level. A fighter is getting 4 attacks a turn, that is over 38 damage if he is a sword and board with no bonuses from subclass or anything else.

AS is 13.5 damage damage on a failed save and while you can get more than one enemy, you are rarely going to get more than 2 and enemies save more often than the fighter is going to miss.

What I said was you are not doing 95% of the tankability of a fighter while doing as much damage and I think this is a good example, assuming max dex with shield spell you are about 80% of a fighter in terms of tankability (better AC, fewer hps), and doing about 40% of the damage.

The problem is, you're ignoring all of the much higher level damage spells the Wizard can throw in if they wish, while counting the Fighter's resources like Action Surge.

Fire bolt already gives really reliable damage output, and you've pointed out toll the dead which gives 4d12 (especially tasty against the big meat sack type monsters which often have weak Wis saves.) The former 4d10 all the time at +5 hit bonus; the "tanky" Fighter (rapier/longsword and shield) can put out at most 4d8+20 all the time. That's 22 vs 18+20 = 38, or (22/38) ≈ 57.9% of the Fighter's output without counting crits, which would favor the Wizard (because crits don't affect static damage, only rolled damage.) If we instead count the 4d12 toll the dead, it becomes 26 vs 38, or ~68.4% of the Fighter's reliable damage output.

Throw in but a single fireball that hits multiple targets or a single harder-hitting single-target spell, and the gap narrows further.

Plus? You're comparing 20th level characters. Cantrips scale up to max at 17. Even before getting Spell Mastery, fire bolt is doing 4d10 on a hit vs. the Fighter's 3d8+15. 22 vs 13.5+15 =28.5. That's now almost 80% (77.2%) of the "tanky" Fighter's reliable damage output, which any Wizard can replicate, and which will get more favorable if crits are factored in. (E.g., assume both have a 55% chance to hit and a further 5% chance to crit. That's .55×22+.05×44=14.3 DPR vs .55×13.5+.05×27+.55×15=9.3265 DPR, meaning the Wizard actually does MORE damage reliably than the Fighter does on average!) The big difference is, the Wizard is chunkier. The Fighter is very unlikely to miss all three attacks (0.4^3 = 0.064, so missing all attacks is about as likely as any one attack critting), whereas the cantrip-user is all or nothing, either it's 22 average (44 if crit) or it's zero.

And if we bring in short-rest resources like Action Surge, the Wizard can easily deal an extra, comparable chunk of damage with a single 3rd-4th level spell. Something they can do several times a day...while still having their big guns in reserve.

Bladesingers are even worse, because they could at level 18 make shadow blade a Spell Mastery spell. Now they're dealing 2d8+5 psychic damage per attack and can make two attacks per round, one of which can be a cantrip.

2d8+5 + 4d12 = 9+5+26 = 40 damage if the attack lands and the save is failed. Even at level 20 and assuming a greatsword, the Fighter is only getting 4d12+20 = 46 damage. Switch to fire bolt and allow for crits, and the Bladesinger wins on reliable damage. Each Action Surge needs only a single spell slot to match for damage output, especially if the Wizard has AoE damage spells.

The Bladesinger gives you easily 80% of the Fighter's combat prowess...while still having at least half of the baseline Wizard's kit left over to do all the things Fighters have zero features to interact with.

Assuming maximum dex on the Wizard (which is a big assumption)

No, it's not. Not at level 17+. You have four ASIs at that level. Int would be maxed out by level 8. Dex by level 16. At max level, you even have a free feat to play with (or get more Con.) If you qualify, Elven Accuracy is even better.

 

[ECMO3]

Effectively constant +5 AC is already strong, period. That's literally as good as the best medium armor (half plate) but with no Dex penalty. +5 bonuses to any value are strong. It's why Expertise is sought after.

It is not very strong when an enemy needs an 8 to hit you ..... niether is plate or half plate or any non-magic armor at that level.

If you also happen to be a 20 Int/20 Dex Bladesinger with mage armor active (so 13+5+5 = 23 base AC), then yes, it becomes extremely powerful and there are many creatures who simply don't have the hit bonus to land a hit on you that isn't a crit. Too bad you can't use a shield with bladesong; if you could, 30 AC at (effectively) all times would be perfectly achievable without magic items.

Not at 20th level. An Ancient Red Dragon will hit AC 28 50% of the time and can do over 100hps of damage in a round without breathing. Most creatures will hit you pretty regularly at that level and almost none will need a crit.

Tier 2, yes it is awesome and is like you said - they often need a crit to hit and when backed up with blur or PEG it is possible to go entire levels without getting hit a single time. But at 20th level it is not that powerful.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, at end game, AC isn't really a big deal, I'll grant. What you really need is resistances and immunities, since even saving throw bonuses aren't going to help off-saves. The best way to get those reliably (outside of Rage or racial abilities) is magic, however.

Heroes' Feast can be the difference between victory and defeat when fighting a dragon by itself (stupid dragon fear), Wish can grant your entire team permanent resistance to a damage type (did this in AL with a Luck Blade), etc..

A large hp pool is nice, but it's not really enough when enemies start throwing effects that just nullify your character around, and sadly, 5e's design still basically makes spells the primary way to deal with such things.

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, the competition isn't for the unlimited cast spell. It is for the reaction.

+5 AC against a 60 total damage attack is worth a flat 15 HP. An absorb elements on a 80 damage dragon breath is worth 20-40.

You can't afford to give up your reaction. the fact that it doesn't cost a slot isn't the limiting factor.

Silvery Barbs makes you better at doing stuff instead of surviving. Silvery barbs can boost a wizard's abilities to get through LR up to near monk levels; unlike shield, it is optimal to want to use it nearly every turn. (Optinally, you stay away from vs AC attacks).

SB works on every save effect imposed on the foe, giving extra tries to force a LR without extra actions or slots (with SM). And if you run out of offensive use, you can use it defensively (or nullify crits).

But yes, Shield/SB/etc is more wizard power.

 

[Clint_L]

If I'm signing up to play an epic strength based fighter or barbarian I'm not signing up to play someone who moves at the same speed as a level 1 character and has the same reach as a level 1 character - but attacks slightly faster. (And I'm especially not signing up for a barbarian who has exactly the same bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage resistance as they did at level 1 but it's a whole lot less useful because everything's now elemental damage). I'm signing up to play Cuchulain who swims up waterfalls and cuts the tops off mountains. Or I'm signing up to play The Hulk. Epic fighters should be mythological heroes and demigods.

Okay. That's not D&D. I'm not going to argue the merits of that game with you; it doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but it's your game and more power to you.

I'm just confused as to what it has to do with more feats for martial classes in D&D5e.

Most of this conversation is about super high level characters, so not relevant to over 96% of campaigns, per WotC telling us that 96% of campaigns end by 10th level, and is also about class design that doesn't seem anything like D&D. So at this point, we've moved away from discussing how feats could maybe be better utilized for certain classes (poor monks and rogues, who could actually use a bit of help) and into arguing about the merits of god-tier class design for some other game.

 

[ECMO3]

The problem is, you're ignoring all of the much higher level damage spells the Wizard can throw in if they wish, while counting the Fighter's resources like Action Surge.

Yes I am ignoring it because the claim is the Wizard could do as much damage while being 95% of the tankability of the fighter.

Fire bolt already gives really reliable damage output, and you've pointed out toll the dead which gives 4d12 (especially tasty against the big meat sack type monsters which often have weak Wis saves.) The former 4d10 all the time at +5 hit bonus; the "tanky" Fighter (rapier/longsword and shield) can put out at most 4d8+20 all the time.

Not "at most". Using only class abilities and no feats "at most" the tanky fighter will put out 44 damage (4d8+28) average if all hit. The wizard with 4d10 is doing 22 or half of that.

How many creatures CR 15 or higher have weak wisdom saves?

That's 22 vs 18+20 = 38, or (22/38) ≈ 57.9% of the Fighter's output without counting crits, which would favor the Wizard (because crits don't affect static damage, only rolled damage.) If we instead count the 4d12 toll the dead, it becomes 26 vs 38, or ~68.4% of the Fighter's reliable damage output.

64%, even if it is true, is less than 100%

Throw in but a single fireball that hits multiple targets or a single harder-hitting single-target spell, and the gap narrows further.

Considering saves, A fireball would need to hit 4 enemies to reliably outdamage a fighter and you can do this 3 times a day at 20th level .... or essentially every round for most of ONE fight.

Now you do have a lot of other spells, but you are using a lot of them to be "95%" as tanky as a fighter. So you are up standing next to the ancient red dragon .... err blue dragon ..... as you cast fireball at him.

Plus? You're comparing 20th level characters.

People started talking about spell mastery, which is 18th level and you are splitting hairs here.

And if we bring in short-rest resources like Action Surge, the Wizard can easily deal an extra, comparable chunk of damage with a single 3rd-4th level spell. Something they can do several times a day...while still having their big guns in reserve.

No he can't. A 3rd level damaging spell will generally not do as much damage as a full attack action by a fighter. It some cases it will if the enemies are tightly packed, but not in most cases.

Also to keep up your 95% of the tankability you will need to use many of these slots on false life because a fighter has more hit points and can heal himself about 75 points a day (not counting hit dice)

Bladesingers are even worse, because they could at level 18 make shadow blade a Spell Mastery spell. Now they're dealing 2d8+5 psychic damage per attack and can make two attacks per round, one of which can be a cantrip.

A Bladesinger concentrating on Shadowblade with no temp hps will not last two rounds in melee against most difficult foes she will face and her shadowblade often won't last one round due to crappy concentration saves. Also Shadow Blade and Bladesong are both a Bonus Action.

2d8+5 + 4d12 = 9+5+26 = 40 damage if the attack lands and the save is failed.

Sure if the save fails he is almost up to what a fighter can do, but the save is going to be made a lot more than a fighter will miss.

The Bladesinger gives you easily 80% of the Fighter's combat prowess...while still having at least half of the baseline Wizard's kit left over to do all the things Fighters have zero features to interact with.

I agree completely, and 80% overall is less than 95% of tankability while maintaining the same damage like I said originally.

To reiterate the original claim I disagreed with was that a Wizard can be 95% of the tankability of a fighter while doing as much damage. That is not true. 80% overall I agree with. 130% of the tankability while doing substantially less damage I agree with. Doing as much damage while being much less tankable I also agree with.

No, it's not. Not at level 17+. You have four ASIs at that level. Int would be maxed out by level 8. Dex by level 16. At max level, you even have a free feat to play with (or get more Con.) If you qualify, Elven Accuracy is even better.

How easy it is depends entirely on how you roll. With great rolls it is easy to do, with poor rolls not easy to do. But regardles of how possible it is, we are assuming they are not maxing another stat first or taking a feat and that is actually the "big assumption" I was talking about.

When I am playing a bladesinger, absolutely I do that - max int and dex first. When I am playing a non-bladesinger not ususally. Usually things like Warcaster or multiple half feats on intelligence are more attractive to me than maxing dex.