D&D (2024) Youre All Wrong. Its Not A Martial vs Caster Situation

[Zardnaar]

IRL I have not come across anyone who complains about the imbalance. I come across players who mention it, but they all are either ok with it or in some cases actually prefer the imbalance.

In the games I play I've actually heard more complaints about the new buffed fighter in 5 months of 2024 than I heard about full casters in 10 years of 5E.

With rerolls fighters won't flunk saves often?

 

[ECMO3]

With rerolls fighters won't flunk saves often?

That is one of the complaints, another is the extremely high damage and a third is the skill system that lets them outshine dedicated skill classes at times.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

That is one of the complaints, another is the extremely high damage and a third is the skill system that lets them outshine dedicated skill classes at times.

You mean because of the flat modifiers?

Because I can't think of anything else about the skill system that lets them outshine anything.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is one of the complaints, another is the extremely high damage and a third is the skill system that lets them outshine dedicated skill classes at times.

Fighter saves seem a good thing for me.

 

[ECMO3]

You mean because of the flat modifiers?

No it is the +1d10 they can get from Tactical Mind. There are several issues with it, first off it is +5.5 on average which is more than proficiency until 17th level. Second you only use the resource if you succeed.

What this means in play is Fighters without proficiency are better at important skill checks than characters with proficiency and at low level even better than characters with expertise even if they have no proficiency. With proficiency they blow away other PCs in tier 1 and tier 2 and are competitive with Rogues and Bards in tier 3 and tier 4.

Tier 3 and 4 Fighters with proficiency are not as good at the easy checks as Rogues with expertise because of reliable talent, but they are better then Rogues at the difficult ones because their median is about the same and their ceiling is higher.

It is tamped down if you are doing a lot of combat, but if it is not a VERY combat-heavy day you are usually going to have plenty of uses of it.

 

[ECMO3]

Fighter saves seem a good thing for me.

I find it immersion breaking and so did the other players at our table. If saving throws just don't matter than what is the point.

 

[James Gasik]

Once upon a time, Fighters ended up with some of the best saving throws in the game. I don't recall anyone thinking that was a problem (except maybe Wizards, since any spell that said "save (neg.)" started to feel pretty useless after awhile).

 

[ECMO3]

Once upon a time, Fighters ended up with some of the best saving throws in the game. I don't recall anyone thinking that was a problem (except maybe Wizards, since any spell that said "save (neg.)" started to feel pretty useless after awhile).

In 1E, fighters were generally the best at 15th to 20th level, although Magic-Users were better at level 21+ and better at low levels.

Even so though they were not as good as high level fighters now. For example a fighter at 20th level in 1E saved against spells was a 6. This means they will fail 25% of spell saves (and spell saves were devastating fight enders). Now a 20th level Fighter can reroll a failed save with a +20, which means they will almost never fail, even against the highest DC enemies and this stacks with Mage Slayer and Heroic Warrior too.

 

[cbwjm]

Given that 1e fighters likely had plenty of magic bonuses to their saves (from magic armour or rings), that 20th level fighter was probably only failing on a roll of 1.

 

[ECMO3]

double post