FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Why would the other players find that unfun? Why would the fighter player find that unfun? Maybe the DM but the players, especially the other ones? I don't get it.
D&D (2024) Youre All Wrong. Its Not A Martial vs Caster Situation
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Yeah I mean, if you don't want to make saving throws all the time, you don't have to.
Corinnguard
Hero
What about a caster subclass that lets a spellcasting class lean toward the martial side of adventuring? 5e (and soon to be 5.5e) has the Bladesinger Wizard, a wizard subclass that gains some martial traits (extra weapon and armor proficiencies) in addition to being a full caster. Ditto for the College of Valor Bard. Both subclasses would be similar to the Artificer in that they are more caster than martial.
After decades of complaining here about “balance” across many editions (3, 3.5, 4, 5 2014, 5 2024, probably more), it’s clear the rules aren’t the problem.
Or if they are, doesn’t seem likely the issue will ever be “solved”.
Last edited:
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
My post was talking about base classes, not subclasses.
It was not very challenging and to be clear we talked about it after the campaign and everyone, including all 5 PCs and the DM agreed the Fighter specifically had problems. I related above what those were.
We also noted other problems as well, specifically the Command and Tasha's Hideous Laughter spells, the Mage Slayer Feat, changes to some of the magic items, but the fighter was the only class that everyone agreed was a problem in the game we played. The other classes played were Warlock/Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard/Warlock with additional 1-level dips in Paladin and Bard. So we did not play all of the classes and maybe would have had problems with other classes too, but Fighter was the only one we experienced problems with.
Also nuances matter, it was not because the Fighter was "too powerful" or "unbalanced". That is where most of these threads seem to go - the concept of "balance". I could not give a rip about balance, and I don't think the other players at that table do either. It was because the Fighter made a lot of things trivial to where it was not as fun for the players and was immersion breaking.
Last edited:
Well that was a problem. But Indomitable 3 times per day is essentially the same as Legendary resistance. There is no monster in the Monster manual that is going to make a 20th level fighter fail a save and many of those terrible save or suck are also either limited use or else once you make a save you are immune. A 20th level Fighter is never going to be effected by the Divine Beam of a Collosus or the Fear Aura of a Pit Fiend or the Fear spell that replaced Dargonfear on many Dragons and other 20+ monsters now have. Those monsters don't have enough uses, won't have enough rounds in combat or passing the first save makes you immune. This essentially makes the fighter immune to this stuff.
The encounters did get super easy, in part because Action Surge was doing over 200hps of damage and did near 300 on the final boss fight, in part because it was the first time playing 2024 and in part other things.
This does not change the problems I noted above. They would have still been problems.
Then why not just get rid of saves?
This may not be an issue in your game, but it definitely was in ours and in the games I DM I am simply going to housrule it so it is not an issue. That is an easier fix IMO.
Last edited:
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Now I've heard that part of the monster redesign was to have more monster abilities that don't even allow saves, like how the new Mind Flayer just automatically grapples and stuns you if it hits with it's Tentacles attack. Going from this, it seems like not much has changed from 2014. Sure, maybe the Fighter gets more ability make saves, but is that as impactful if less things allow for saving throws?
As for whether or not a Fighter being a saving throw machine matters, well, I'll admit, nobody is playing a Fighter in the 5e game I run, and in the one I'm playing in, one guy has 2 Fighter levels.
Classes that make saves often already exist, like Paladins, but the problem I see more is enemies not being able to make saving throws against PC casters. Many monsters aren't even proficient in saving throws (at least in 2014), and I've had encounters where I just had to throw up my hands and surrender because I keep failing saving throws turn after turn.
I find it more of a problem as a player that there are saving throws that most characters will never be able to make, no matter how hard they try. I find that a problem in design that gets worse as the game progresses. Even with Resilient, many classes have three terrible saving throws, and even if you throw all your ASI's into buffing your off stats, it's not going to help much.
In Storm King's Thunder, we ended up facing a powerful dragon when my Fighter could only make a save against it's Frightful Presence on a 18. I did not, as one might imagine, roll an 18, lol. This left me unable to approach the creature, and all my ranged attacks were made at disadvantage. The Cleric was far too busy healing the party to get a spell off to help me.
And ironically, the next time that came up, saving throws did, in fact, no longer matter, because we started using our massive amounts of gold to pay for the Cleric to cast Heroes' Feast each day, making me flat-out immune to being Frightened.
I'm sorry if you felt frustrated that the Fighter in your group never had to worry about making a clutch save. I'm sorry if that made the game less fun for him (assuming he felt like he had no weaknesses). But I wonder how he'd have felt if he'd been hit by a no-save stun from a Mind Flayer. Would he have enjoyed the game more knowing that sometimes, nothing you do matters, and you can be handed an L out of nowhere, through no fault of your own? I know some people like playing on the razor's edge, with that sort of risk. Rogue-likes exist, after all. People love them some Dark Souls or old school dungeon crawls where failing to poke everything with 11' poles and actually engaging in combats can lead to a pile of crumpled up character sheets.
I played that way for many years. Then I got bored of feeling like I should start naming my characters "Bob #'s 1-15" and not bothering to give them real personalities, because their existence was so fleeting. Which isn't an indictment against anyone's preferred play- it's just not what I enjoy anymore.
And until they tell me otherwise, I don't think anyone I play with enjoys that either. Though I could be wrong, and they secretly shake their fists at me every time I fail to grind their characters into tomato paste.
Warpiglet-7
Lord of the depths
The definition of balance is in flux. Strengths and weaknesses in 1e, experience table and limitations, level limits and more were are aimed at balance without balancing things on the same way. Worked as intended.
Fast forward to 4e…way different goal and definitions.
I just play. Had tons of fun with clerics thieves and assassins in 1e…no balance in sight.
Shifting definitions and goals still evolving
Similar Threads
