D&D (2024) 2024 Class Rankings (from nat1gaming.com) for ppl who believe that stuff.

[James Gasik]

Immunity to conditions (Charmed can be quite annoying and is not terribly rare), resistance/immunity to damage, advantage on saving throws. Occasionally an enemy will have something that can disrupt spellcasting ala Counterspell or disable a spell effect like Dispel Magic. Oh and I guess not being able to provide components like Silence or something.

Non-magic characters usually only have to worry about resistance/immunity to weapon damage or something that can disrupt an attack (I've seen critters with a "defensive duelist" style Parry for example). With the addition of weapon masteries, immunity to conditions and advantage on saving throws can affect a non-magic character, but it's not as common.

This is in addition to the usual sort of conditions that prevent characters from acting at all, of course (stunned, incapacitated, frightened w/ forced movement, paralyzed, petrified, Confusion, Sleep, and so on).

I'm not, of course, counting "antimagic fields" or "wild magic zones" that some DM's favor. Or lighting spellbooks on fire or stealing material components- that's right up there with a Kender using Sovereign Glue to prevent someone from drawing their sword- a cruel and malicious prank.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

There is no wrong answer here Possibly situationally there might be, but not in general.

I would almost always go for the paralyzed opponent. They could make their eot save again Hold Person, or concentration could be lost at any time. Better to get them out of the fight permanently while it is extremely easy to do so.

 

[TheSword]

Then in this, you are simply, flatly wrong. Well, not wrong about the greater potential for waste, I certainly agree with that, simply because a wasted attack roll is almost a trivial non-cost. But you are wrong that they are that much less reliable, particularly for a player who puts even basic thought into spell selection*--they are by design approximately equally reliable, and more reliable if you know your enemies and can pick their weak saves.

If your game allows players to memorize the monster manual and act with full knowledge of every creature in the games vulnerabilities and weaknesses then this is advantage. If that isn’t how you play then it won’t be. Though worth noting at least one martial ability lets you gain this information.

Because Fighters don't get to pick a monster's weak defense. There's only one. AC. They're either lucky and fighting something with low AC, or they aren't, and fighting things with middling to high AC. Even the mere possibility that you can try targeting different saves, when essentially every monster has at least a couple weak saves, already puts casters in a superior position. They can actively seek out weak points. Fighters can't.

As I mentioned a martial’s ability to hit AC scales much faster than the AC does and advantage, class abilities, magic weapons, maneuvers, etc makes AC a pretty straightforward proposition. 5e monsters become tougher by having more hp by and large not more AC. A hill giant for instance has AC13. Hitting AC is rarely a challenge even for the most armoured critters.

*E.g., have spells that target different saves, preferably ones that are often weak like Int or Wis; have different elements that are rarely double resisted, like fire and lightning, or cold and acid, or just flexible spells like chromatic orb; have buff spells that are essentially never not useful, e.g. enhance ability, haste, fly, etc. It's really not that hard to pick 2-3 spells per spell level that are generically good...which still leaves room for more spells later.

Sure and the other that you pick that are circumstantially good are still only useful a fraction of the time.

I would need to know what you think "the core benefits of the game" to respond to that portion.

As I said in my post, Advantage and Inspiration. But I’ll add in your suggestion of critical hits.

Also, plenty of strong spells have attack rolls. Scorching ray is a great spell, and it uses spell attacks. 5.5e Wizards alone have 16 spells that either are just a spell attack, or enable you to make a spell attack (e.g. witch bolt allows you to repeat the attack against the target). Further...you don't benefit from Advantage...you instead benefit from your opponent suffering from disadvantage. Which isn't as hard to apply as you might think. Crits are the one thing that rolling attacks has but forcing enemies to roll saves doesn't.

Not many. Scorching Ray is one of the few. It deals commonly resisted fire damage and is spread out across multiple attack rolls limiting the benefit from advantage/inspiration etc. Good point about crits though. That takes my point even further.

Would you care to name them? Because I'm not familiar with that many. It would in fact please me greatly to know that the game actually provided teeth to a DM who wanted to place limits on spellcasting. I am entirely sincere on this--if you can in fact prove to me that there are a "plethora" of such things, I would be only too happy to agree!

Off the top of my head, legendary resistance, Magic resistance, energy resistance, immunities, evasion, uncanny dodge, globes of invulnerability, anti magic eyeballs, silence, mage slayer, indomitable, counterspell. Those are just the ones that spring out immediately.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would almost always go for the paralyzed opponent. They could make their eot save again Hold Person, or concentration could be lost at any time. Better to get them out of the fight permanently while it is extremely easy to do so.

I take it back. I just walked through a simple example and team enemy was consistently getting less actions when targeting the paralyzed opponent. Assumptions: 3 identical enemies, normally take party 2 turns each to kill, paralyzed shaves that to 1 round, 60% fail save rate, paralyze happens first then enemies then PC's go, for ease of initiative order).

Targeting the non-paralyzed enemy was only better <13% of the time.

*There could also be some variability with other initiative orders. This test needs repeated for other assumptions (such as killing an enemy in 1.5 rounds) to make it more universal.

 

[ECMO3]

Soooooo......

A bladesinger isn't in the 2024 rules. That has to be allowed from past splats by the DM. That option isn't indicative of all spellcasters and doesn't have all the abilities of all spellcasters either.

It is in the 2024 UA and is different than the PC you describe, biggest differences being no armor, intelligence instead of Strength/Dex on attacks, Bladesong uses tied to intelligence, not proficiency bonus, and a bonus action attack.

 

[Ashrym]

It is in the 2024 UA and is different than the PC you describe, biggest differences being no armor, intelligence instead of Strength/Dex on attacks, Bladesong uses tied to intelligence, not proficiency bonus, and a bonus action attack.

The UA isn't an official part of the rules either. GG.

 

[ECMO3]

I don’t think the bladesinger is even coming close to the damage that a barbarian can do unless it uses its higher level spell slots.

It is not as much, but I think it is incorrect to say it is not close, especially at high levels.

Without feats a 10th level Bladesinger in bladesong using Green Flame Blade is looking at 3d8+10 (23.5) to one target and 1d8+5 (9.5) to another, so nomimally 33 damage

A Raging Zealot 10th levle Barbarian using a 2d6 weapon is doing 5d6+23 or nominally 40.5 damage


At 18th level a Bladesinger is doing 6d8+15 (42) to one target and 3d8+5 (18.5) to another (starting round 2) and a Zealot is doing 5d6+31 (starting on Round 1). So here it is 60.5 for the Bladesinger and 48.5 for the Barbarian.

When it comes to Ranged attacks the Bladesinger throwing Javelins (with one Truestrike) is going to be close to the Barbarian throwing Javelins as well following the same trend as above.

I will say the Barbarian's damage is more reliable, mostly because he does not need another enemy within 5 feet to cash it all in, and he has weapon masteries but even so I would say the Bladesinger is "coming close"

Note this uses the newest UA Bladesinger.

I would als say though that damage does not tell the whole story and Bladesinger designed for melee and using spells specifically to facilitate that is going to be more durable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I said in my post, Advantage and Inspiration. But I’ll add in your suggestion of critical hits.

And I already said that it's unfair to credit Advantage to attack rolls, but not credit Disadvantage to saves.

Unless and until we actually start judging things fairly--crediting where credit is due--we're done here.

 

[TheSword]

And I already said that it's unfair to credit Advantage to attack rolls, but not credit Disadvantage to saves.

Unless and until we actually start judging things fairly--crediting where credit is due--we're done here.

How are you generating disadvantage on saves? That is a genuine question I’m not baiting you.

 

[Zardnaar]

And I already said that it's unfair to credit Advantage to attack rolls, but not credit Disadvantage to saves.

Unless and until we actually start judging things fairly--crediting where credit is due--we're done here.

Disadvantage on saves is a lot harder.

There's also more numerical bonuses to buff hitting not just advantage.