D&D 5E (2024) 5.5 Fighter Best Eince 2E

[Gladius Legis]

Not like this one. No other ability in the game is so out of bounds as the 2024 indomitable. No other ability is even close.

War Cleric got +10 to hit with an attack at level 2. And at level 6 could give that +10 to any other ally instead. That's more out of bounds much earlier in the game.

I don't think it is appropriate for a feature to allow a 17th level fighter to reroll a failed save with a +17 three times a day.

Really? At the same level Wizards are casting Wish and Meteor Swarm or turning into adult dragons, and Clerics are healing the whole party hundreds of hit points? But the Fighter auto-succeeding on some of its saves 3/day is the issue?

(And not even auto-succeeding on all saves, there's plenty of monsters you could fight at level 17 that have DCs for abilities in the 20s, and even 2024 Indomitable at that level won't guarantee success if it's on a save in which the Fighter has an 8 stat and no save proficiency.)

Looks to me like you just hate Fighters getting nice things at all.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Fighters (and Monks) not so much.

Well now we see the problem. Your sense of what is strong and what is not is rather off base. Monks were almost universally regarded as the weakest class in 2014.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

+5 from a Paladin and +2.5 from bless is not in the same universe as up to +20 from Indomitable.



Yes it is. This uses a high level spell slot that maxes out at twice a day at 19th level and makes the party immune to two things. The advantage on the saves at the level you can get the spell (11th level) is far weaker than Indomitable already is at that level.

I've played with all of these things (Bless, Paladins, Heroes Feast and Indomitable) and at high level they are not comparable, Indomitable is far worse.

There are other problem spells that are bigger issues than this one, but those too are not as big a problem as Indomitable is.




There are lots of enemies over 19AC and I don't think this is a problem for a couple reasons. A bonus to hit is not nearly as impactful as a bonus to a save and +10 is not as impactful as +20.

I don't think the Epic boons, including boon of Combat Prowess which makes your attacks automatically hit, are as broken as Indomitable.



A 20th level Rogue with a 20 in the stat AND expertise AND a tool proficiency has a +17 and advantage on a skill check in tier 4 and will succeed on a DC 30 check 64% of the time, failing the other 36% of the time (reliable talent does not help with this at all and is not relevant to it). A 20th level Fighter using Indomitable, a 20 stat and proficiency in the save has a +31 and makes a DC 32 or lower save automatically.

The DC would need to be 39 before the Fighter would have a 36% chance of failing it. A 39 DC skill check for the Rogue is impossible, even with a +17 and advantage.



They didn't appear until Indomitable.



Exactly, people wanted to play fighters already so this was not needed and should not have been added IMO.

What really worries me is that you think that having a get out of jail free card is a bad thing for players.

Yes, it sucks for the monsters... but that is the point. PCs are the protagonists. They should be winning in the end.

A fighter that just gets dominated at the beginning of the fight etc will make that way harder.

Maybe such abilities that give automatic saves should have some delay built in if it is to prevent a condition.
Maybe, instead of straight out negating a spell, the fighter (or Legendary Monster) might end any condition at the start of their next turn... maybe I will try that at some point.

 

[ECMO3]

War Cleric got +10 to hit with an attack at level 2. And at level 6 could give that +10 to any other ally instead. That's more out of bounds much earlier in the game.

I don't think that is nearly as out of bounds, mostly because it is capped at +10.

Indomitable at level 9 or 10 is not the problem, Indomitable at higher levels is.

Also the whole concept of bounded accuracy is that your bonus does not linearly increase in level. a +10 at 2nd level is not that much different than a +10 at 20th level, but a +20 at 20th level is way better than a +10 at 2nd level.

Really? At the same level Wizards are casting Wish and Meteor Swarm or turning into adult dragons, and Clerics are healing the whole party hundreds of hit points? But the Fighter auto-succeeding on some of its saves 3/day is the issue?

None of that affects bounded accuracy. Now if Meteor Swarm gave a -20 on saves it would be, but to answer your question, yes IMO Indomitable 3/day at +17 or more is a problem.

I've played a lot of high level 5E and I've seen all of the things you talk about in play often, including all the spells you talk about and IMO there is no comparison and Indominable is a much bigger issue.

 

[ECMO3]

Well now we see the problem. Your sense of what is strong and what is not is rather off base. Monks were almost universally regarded as the weakest class in 2014.

I never said Monks were not weak, I said they did not need to be improved, mostly because they fit the trope well.

2014 Monks were VERY weak at low level. In tier 1 and tier 2 they were the weakest class by a substantial margin. However in tier 4 they were easily the strongest non-caster class in the 2014 rules.

If you look at levels 1-20 as a race between 2014 Fighter, Rogue, Monk and Barbarian (the non casters) they start off with the Barbarian in the lead, the Fighter in 2nd, the Rogue in 3rd and the Monk stuck at the starting line and hardly moving. As the first three go around the first turn the Fighter passes the Barbarian and the Monk finally gets moving. Going into the midway point the Rogue passes the Barbaran and the Fighter is still in the lead and the Monk is still last. Heading into turn 3 the Monk passes the Barbarian and catches up to the Rogue and as they come into the finish line (tier 4) the Monk pulls ahead of the Fighter.

This is exactly what a Monk is supposed to be - weaker than everyone else at low levels and growing into the most powerful non-caster. It is exactly what the fantasy trope and stereotype from the original 1E monk is and that is why I don't think it "needed fixin"

I played multiple Monks in 2014 and loved it. The only Monk I have done so far in 2024 is a 1-level dip on a PC that was mostly a Ranger (I wanted unarmed defense and the ability to do 1d6 with daggers), but I have seen other players play Monks to 20 in 2024 and it does not seem as fun to me as the old Monk was.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never said Monks were not weak, I said they did not need to be improved, mostly because they fit the trope well.

2014 Monks were VERY weak at low level. In tier 1 and tier 2 they were the weakest class by far. However in tier 4 they were easily the strongest non-caster class in the 2014 rules.

If you look at levels 1-20 as a race between Fighter, Rogue, Monk and Barbarian (the non casters) they start off with the Barbarian in the lead, the Fighter in 2nd, the Rogue in 3rd and the Monk stuck at the starting line and hardly moving. As they go around the first turn the Fighter catches up and passes the Barbarian and the Monk finally gets moving. Going into the midway point the Rogue passes the Barbaran and the Fighter is still in the lead. Heading into turn 3 the Monk passes the Barbarian and catches up to the Rogue and as they come into the finish line in tier 4 the Monk pulls substantially ahead of the Fighter.

This is exactly what a Monk is supposed to be - weaker than everyone else at low levels and growing into the most powerful non-caster. It is exactly what the fantasy trope and stereotype from the original 1E monk is and that is why I don't think it "needed fixin"

Problem being its to long to wait. And I think the 2014 monk is fine lvl 1-4.

I thought the artificer was bad because ot didn't switch on until level 9 or 10.

 

[ECMO3]

What really worries me is that you think that having a get out of jail free card is a bad thing for players.

Yes, it sucks for the monsters... but that is the point. PCs are the protagonists. They should be winning in the end.

I don't think it works well with the Fighter class.

A fighter that just gets dominated at the beginning of the fight etc will make that way harder.

I've played a lot of 5E to 20th level and that is not common, often because other PCs have ways of canceling this if it happens.

Maybe such abilities that give automatic saves should have some delay built in if it is to prevent a condition.
Maybe, instead of straight out negating a spell, the fighter (or Legendary Monster) might end any condition at the start of their next turn... maybe I will try that at some point.

I just think it is not something that is needed or for that matter somethng that fits with the fighter class.

As Gasik said - this is not something that is going to make players want to play a fighter, so why give it to them?

 

[ECMO3]

...why are you using 8 10th level pcs as your baseline? are you insane?

Because you can't make an encounter according to the guidelines with a 27DC unless you use 8 players. The thread I responded to said players would be facing a 27DC save and I believe the only monster that has that is a 155k xp Terrasque, which requires 8 20th level PCs to fit into the XP cap for a high difficulty encounter.

We can go with fewer PCs, but then the enemy DC the party is facing is not 27 if you are following the encounter creation guidelines.

4 is the number of PCs I normally use for hypothetical encounters, but then you are probably looking at a 24DC or so (and around an 18 for the 10th level party of 4)

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Because you can't make an encounter according to the guidelines with a 27DC unless you use 8 players. The thread I responded to said players would be facing a 27DC and I believe the only monster that has that is a 155k xp Terrasque, which requires 8 20th level PCs to fit into the XP cap for a high difficulty encounter.

2024 really is a clownshow, geez.

 

[Zardnaar]

2024 really is a clownshow, geez.

Its somewhere around CR 19 or 20 the table gets funky.