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

[Gladius Legis]

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 100% inaccurate. The 2014 Monk lagged even further behind in tier 3 and 4. Why do you think the 2024 version of the class buffed Flurry of Blows to 3 attacks at level 10? Because it literally fell off a cliff in 2014 at around that point.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

So I see you have a very narrow definition of what is broken or not in this game. Just because something defies bounded accuracy doesn't mean that thing is broken. And conversely, some of the most broken things in the game are broken for reasons that have nothing to do with bounded accuracy.

Wish, Meteor Swarm, Mass Heal, etc. simply dominate an encounter in which it is used in ways that 2024 Indomitable never could.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is 100% inaccurate. The 2014 Monk lagged even further behind in tier 3 and 4. Why do you think the 2024 version of the class buffed Flurry of Blows to 3 attacks at level 10? Because it literally fell off a cliff in 2014 at around that point.

Not strictly true. They got proficiency in all saves at 14.

I piloted ne to level 10 or so its not as bad as Internet believes. I did have rolled stats though abd MAD is a big problem under point buy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2024 really is a clownshow, geez.

For sure, though not (strictly) for that reason.

The bigger issue is that 5e, regardless of .0 or .5, simply doesn't bother even thinking about math when you're talking about CR 27 creatures. Like, by CR's own self-description, no matter how inaccurate that description may be, a "CR 27" creature is meant to be a comparable threat to four level 27 characters. Meaning, characters that objectively don't exist and which are at least +2 proficiency bonus beyond the upper limit of existing characters (and, at least in theory, another 1-2 feats/ASIs as well).

So like...we're already talking about going off the rails on things that were inherently off-rails to begin with, given how sloppy and slapdash Challenge Rating has always been as a mechanic. CR 20 is already dodgy at best. There was never any hope that CR 27 would be any better.

But this gets into the thorny debate about stats and statblocks and what purpose they serve. I, personally, don't see the point of creating clearly combat-focused statblocks for creatures that aren't actually meant to be fought, but to be overcome in some other way that doesn't involve combat. Give them other descriptive numbers which are actually useful for how this creature is meant to affect the world and interact with the PCs. Trying to shoehorn that into the combat-focused typical statistics of D&D is at best a pointless exercise, and in a likelier (and worse) case, distorting game design and GM beliefs (and possibly player beliefs!) as a consequence of its existence.

 

[Zardnaar]

For sure, though not (strictly) for that reason.

The bigger issue is that 5e, regardless of .0 or .5, simply doesn't bother even thinking about math when you're talking about CR 27 creatures. Like, by CR's own self-description, no matter how inaccurate that description may be, a "CR 27" creature is meant to be a comparable threat to four level 27 characters. Meaning, characters that objectively don't exist and which are at least +2 proficiency bonus beyond the upper limit of existing characters (and, at least in theory, another 1-2 feats/ASIs as well).

So like...we're already talking about going off the rails on things that were inherently off-rails to begin with, given how sloppy and slapdash Challenge Rating has always been as a mechanic. CR 20 is already dodgy at best. There was never any hope that CR 27 would be any better.

But this gets into the thorny debate about stats and statblocks and what purpose they serve. I, personally, don't see the point of creating clearly combat-focused statblocks for creatures that aren't actually meant to be fought, but to be overcome in some other way that doesn't involve combat. Give them other descriptive numbers which are actually useful for how this creature is meant to affect the world and interact with the PCs. Trying to shoehorn that into the combat-focused typical statistics of D&D is at best a pointless exercise, and in a likelier (and worse) case, distorting game design and GM beliefs (and possibly player beliefs!) as a consequence of its existence.

Objectively wrong there that's 3E.

There's no assumption what CR27 is. Its basically XP budget which is level and size of party.

CR13 can turn up around lvl 7, at 9 I used CR17, 10 is CR 18 or so.

If you're using a solo.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Objectively wrong there that's 3E.

There's no assumption what CR27 is. Its basically XP budget which is level and size of party.

CR13 can turn up around lvl 7, at 9 I used CR17, 10 is CR 18 or so.

If you're using a solo.

You are objectively wrong. It's written in the 2014 Monster Manual. It is literally said on page 9:

Challenge​

A monster's challenge rating tells you how great a threat the monster is. An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with achallenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one.​

Monsters that are significantly weaker than 1st-level characters have a challenge rating lower than 1. Monsters with a challenge rating of 0 are insignificant except in large numbers; those with no effective attacks are worth no experience points, while those that have attacks are worth 10 XP each.​

Some monsters present a greater challenge than even a typical 20th-level party can handle. These monsters have a challenge rating of 21 or higher and are specifically designed to test player skill.​

So--you were saying?

 

[Zardnaar]

You are objectively wrong. It's written in the 2014 Monster Manual. It is literally said on page 9:

Challenge​

A monster's challenge rating tells you how great a threat the monster is. An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with achallenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one.​

Monsters that are significantly weaker than 1st-level characters have a challenge rating lower than 1. Monsters with a challenge rating of 0 are insignificant except in large numbers; those with no effective attacks are worth no experience points, while those that have attacks are worth 10 XP each.​

Some monsters present a greater challenge than even a typical 20th-level party can handle. These monsters have a challenge rating of 21 or higher and are specifically designed to test player skill.​

So--you were saying?

I was referring to 5.5 and you responded to a 5.5 comment.

5.0 encounter design is trash. I said that 2015.

5.5 is very similar to 4E. Xp budget fill it up. Budget varies by level and party size.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was referring to 5.5 and you responded to a 5.5 comment.

5.0 encounter design is trash.

Are you seriously asserting that CR, in 5.5e, completely abandoned any concept of the "4-person party"?

Is that seriously the argument you're making here? That this thing which was explicitly billed as "backwards compatible" and using essentially the same math etc., has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that a CR N monster is an intended threat for four characters of Nth level?

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you seriously asserting that CR, in 5.5e, completely abandoned any concept of the "4-person party"?

Is that seriously the argument you're making here? That this thing which was explicitly billed as "backwards compatible" and using essentially the same math etc., has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that a CR N monster is an intended threat for four characters of Nth level?

Encounter design in 5.5E is xp budget.

Set by party size and level.

Table pg 115 iirc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Encounter design in 5.5E is xp budget.

Set by party size and level.

Well then, you'll have to ask for errata to the 2024 PHB, p. 363:

Challenge Rating
Challenge Rating (CR) summarizes the threat a monster poses to a group of four player characters. Compare a monster's CR to the characters' level. If the CR is higher, the monster is likely a danger. If the CR is lower, the monster likely poses little threat. But circumstances and the number of player characters can significantly alter how threatening a monster is in actual play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance to the DM on using CR while planning potential combat encounters.

They'll also have to errata the Basic Rules, as this text is also printed there. Oh! And the Rules Glossary, and the SRD 5.2.1!

So. You were saying.