Erechel
Explorer
Have you played football (I'm talking about real football, not the American rugby
)? Grass is important because it allows the ball to slide easily. If you say something such as "it is plenty of rocks", I would buy it. But, as I've said prior, if you want to be an ass, I say "Then I stomp on it".That's the quid of the discussion. You ban every possibility of martial's ingenuity because you perceive the spellcasters as underpowered. Then, I don't agree with your conclussion: yes, fighters are better at damaging soloes, but they are limited too: monsters with high AC, weapon resistances (to which magic weapons are irrelevant, as they are too optional, even more so than improvising actions), flying creatures, attacks that inflict the prone condition (that grants disadvantage to melee) are way more common than magic resistances and high ST on them. There are 140 monsters in the Monster Manual with saving throws on them (in a combination of low and high scores), and no one with all of them. 117 of them have proficency in Wisdom save (funny enough, at least two of them have "Wis +0", like the zombies). 120 have better AC than 18, so there is actually more creatures with high AC than with Wisdom saves. Even then, the worried caster can change between saves to look for the optimal one, or rely on spells that do damage even with a save, a Spell Attack or without any possible save (such as Sleep or Magic Missile). The fighter, instead, can't. He isn't never allowed to prescind of an attack. And he doesn't do any damage if he fails. Furthermore, intelligent monsters are going to exploit the fighter weaknessess, like multiple oponents, not engaging on melee by flying or teleporting (forcing the melee character to use subpar tactics like throwing javelins). A blasty warlock combines the damage reliance of a fighter, distance and spell utility. I saw this every time I play in my table: the warlock puts great damage, surpassing my fighter even when he is a social interaction-focused character. Also, even if I want to, my fighter is always surpassed when numbers abound, whereas a wizard just flies and blast them, having the same or better AC than I do when necessary (Mage Armor+Dex+Shield Spell as a reaction+Blur for disadvantage on attacks). Combine this with Racial abilities, that tend to balance things on the wizards side (giving them proficiencies that belong to the fighter, like weapons and armor, and such). Not to mention the Cleric or the Paladin, who have heavy armor and spells. All that comes at a cost, of course: spell slots, magic focus, etc.
Then this is reduced to versatility. Magic is versatility to deal with every possible outcome. A strength melee fighter is reduced to melee fights. An archmage flies over it while blasting from far away. Or flies looking for cover, and summons monsters next to the archer types, without having to worry about disadvantage from long range in his spells. A wizard has nothing to do on melee, in the first place. Other spellcasters, instead, can: take the Druid or Cleric as a paradigm of what a fullcaster can do on melee. A druid, as I've said countless times, is practically immune to tactics like double-grapple to silence a caster. Even stretching the double grapple, if the choke works on an unarmored caster, it won't in a fullcaster in full armor, like the War cleric, and the Disarm won't be as efficient if the Spell Focus is a shield.
[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], you and I have radically different concepts of "plenty interesting" if you claim that the fighter has his sword and the wizard his spells. As I've said now countless times, if all I can do is "I attack" without anything else I could try having any chance of success, in a game of imagination, cunning and agency, you are reducing a PC to a DPR machine and nothing else. His actions in game have no true meaning, he has not true choice. The only important thing is "the build", that is his actions as a player outside the game: maximizing DPR, and pray that the DM throws a magic weapon, or that his wizard friend grants him the ability to fly on him if the enemies are far above the ground. Yes, when multiple conditions are met (like melee range with non resistant creatures) his melee damage is better than the wizard on a DPR only standpoint. Everywhere else, he is way more limited. It is the old "Quadratic wizard, linear fighter" issue all over again. Heck, someone even claimed that "is already bad enough" shoves and grapples per se, reducing even more the versatility in game.
When agency is reduced to 1 possible action, "I attack", it is not a roleplaying game anymore, reducing the spectre of what D&D is. It is not a surprise that a Disarm attack, even when it is on an official book, the DMG, it is at the DM's fiat, and critiziced even when it is an official rule, as a houseruling. Yes, everything in any book is at the DM's arbiter: even the Attack or the Spells. Ignoring the Spell components rules is part of the DM's fiat, but I don't believe that it is at the "5e spirit of rules". Not at all: every spell description has this feature included. It is among the Spellcasting rules in the PHB. But, if you impede to interact with it, you may as well claim that this limitation has no use at all. Keep in mind that spell components are a explicit limitation to spellcasting, not something I've came from nothing, so you can't claim that I'm against the 5e spirit. Spellcasting is not granted, it is also at DM's fiat, but more than that, it has clear limitations by itself.
And yes, as a player I may take advantage of that. And yes, the way of doing it can be denied or make it difficult by a DM. But don't forget that I'm a DM, as I've said countless times too. I'm mostly a DM. As I've said enough, my double grapple at disadvantage, is far from being perfect. It isn't. Also because it is ineffective (as I've said too, disarming a caster and then kick the arcane focus is way more effective, and require less actions, and if the DM is too unwieldly, at least you don't have disadvantage and make damage a lot of damage in the process). But it is an honest attempt to interact with the often ignored rules of the game, that even has more possibilities. To say no, although it is within the DM's privileges, is to reduce the possible actions in game. A yes, even if you put an arbitrarily high DC allows more options, and has many consequences in game. Will the fighter renounce to his possibility of making an attack to the mere possibility to shut down certain spells? It is more convenient to just DPR the enemies? Agency. Options. Also enables actions from the wizard: he knows that the fighter comes at him with his Action surge: will he fly away? will he attempt a hold person? will he cast freedom of movement and then Misty Step away? or just blast away his enemies, and then rely in his minions to shove the fighter and prevent him to shut him down? If there is no danger other than DPR, then a DPR war it is. Freedom of movement, preparing backup spells without verbal components, backup wands, etc. will have no meaning at all. Luck will determine what happens, not actions, because the only and best action possible is to make damage. And there will be bad blood between a pretty restrictive master and the players.
And that's it. That's the core of the discussion. That's why I'm saying that the opposition is on principle, instead of a mechanic one. I've given perfectly legal mechanics, and that raised the waters too. The "There will not be anymore Archmage enemies!" and "there will not be any more wizards"" complaints are fallacies. They are perfectly able to be there, and all their weaknesses and strenghts will be even more evident: they are not frontliners, they are controllers, masters of minions or blasters from safe distance, manipulating the battleground to their advantage, to avoid being at an disadvantageous position in melee. And the fighters and martials will be the ones dominating melee combat, protecting the squishies and the "Big Guns" that control the crowds, buff and protect them with spells.
