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

[Zardnaar]

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.

Its not saying anything about 4 levels though that you claimed.

Its merely pointing out higher CR critters are more dangerous.

You're also cherry picking. There's a table laying out what you can do. Higher CR critters are more dangerous, be careful if PCs outnumbered 2-1 or more.

That's also the PHB, not the DMG where the actual rules are.

Since you've never run 5.5.......

The actual rules very similar to 4E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its not saying anything about 4 levels though that you claimed.

Its merely pointing out higher CR critters are more dangerous.

You're also cherry picking. There's a table laying out what you can do. Higher CR critters are more dangerous, be careful if PCs outnumbered 2-1 or more.

That's also the PHB, not the DMG where the actual rules are.

Since you've never run 5.5.......

The actual rules very similar to 4E.

.......

What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing about "4 levels". Ever.

Here is that post again. You will notice the complete absence of any such statement.

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]

.......

What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing about "4 levels". Ever.

Here is that post again. You will notice the complete absence of any such statement.

Well you did say 4 PCs vs CR27.

5.5 iencounter rules are an lot better. I'm running them vs half veterans half newbie.

Combat typically takes around 3 rounds. Sometimes 2. The powergamers know what they're doing.

For casuals probably add a round.

They've been working reasonably well so far. They may not scale to well into the upper levels though.

Lots better than 5.0, 4E and 3E. Probably still on the easy side vs veterans. I'll probably tweak them treat low as very easy, medium as easy, high as moderate and then do high+low, high + medium and high+high as more advanced encounters.

Old updated monsters probably need a bit more time, the new exclusive to 5.5 are a lot better.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Ok, to start with this assumes you make smart choices in play. Flurry of Blows using 2014 rules is rarely a smart choice after tier 2. It is situationally effective, usually if an enemy is near death and you can kill him with FOB, but unless that is the case, there are usually better ways to use your ki and usually better ways to use your bonus action. So if you are spamming FOB at 17th level, then yes your Monk is going to be weak, but you can't help stupid.

I've played a ton of 5E to level 20, well over 20 campaigns at this point. At high levels Monks can pretty much spend ki at will, this combined with proficiency in all saves, evasion and resistance to all damage makes them very effective compared to other non-caster 2014 classes in tier 4. A Long Death Monk is basically unkillable at high level as they can spend a single ki any time they go to 0 hit points, without using a reaction and that is after the enemy damaged them enough to bring them to 0 and they are usually fighting with resistance to all damage. Put a 20th level Long Death monk with all their ki up 1V1 against a 2014 Ancient Red Dragon and the Monk wins every time. Ascendant Dragon, Open Hand and Shadow Monk are usually/often going to win as well. No other 2014 non-caster is going to do that without either amazingly good ability rolls, heavy and specific magic items or cheese.

Other Monk subclasses are not as powerful as Long Death at that level, but all of them are generally more powerful than Fighters, Barbarians or Rogues at that level. Fighters and Barbarians get destroyed with a single high DC Wisdom, Charisma or Intelligence save (and some Dexterity saves). Rogues are a little bit better, but need help to be effective and are extremely squishy.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

You seem to be missing the underlined and bolded part.

While I agree the 4-person is the default, the DMG goes into quite a bit of detail on how to plan encounters and how to account for differing party size.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I think it does, actually that is what really makes it broken IMO.

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

Sure, I agree but they are not broken and more importantly a Fighter can't use any of them, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion on the Fighter.

If WOTC gave the Fighter an ability that let them make a Wish or heal the party 700hps I would be complaining about that as well (although it would not be broken in terms of bounded accuracy), but Fighters can't do that and can't cast those spells, so I don't see how those spells are relevant to the discussion of Fighter abilities.

 

[Gladius Legis]

At high levels Monks can pretty much spend ki at will, this combined with proficiency in all saves, evasion and resistance to all damage makes them very effective compared to other non-caster 2014 classes in tier 4. A Long Death Monk is basically unkillable at high level as they can spend a single ki any time they go to 0 hit points, without using a reaction and that is after the enemy damaged them enough to bring them to 0 and they are usually fighting with resistance to all damage. Put a 20th level Long Death monk with all their ki up 1V1 against a 2014 Ancient Red Dragon and the Monk wins every time. Ascendant Dragon, Open Hand and Shadow Monk are usually/often going to win as well. No other 2014 non-caster is going to do that without either amazingly good ability rolls, heavy and specific magic items or cheese.

I'm gonna say that's BS. It doesn't win there even in white room math, let alone actual gameplay.

The 2014 Monk sucked. It has been proven countless times to suck. This is not a battle you are going to win. It's settled. Been settled.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think it does, actually that is what really makes it broken IMO.

Well your opinion isn't practical. Nobody normal cares that an ability violates your sacred bounded accuracy. People do care that an ability is overly disruptive to gameplay, however and for whatever reason that ability ends up being that way. And in no way is an auto-save on some (not all) of the Fighter's potential saves 3/day more disruptive to gameplay than a lot of the more degenerate stuff the full casters could do (and can still do in 2024) at that level.

Sure, I agree but they are not broken and more importantly a Fighter can't use any of them, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion on the Fighter.

It's completely relevant because casters have been getting away with murder in 5e, especially at those levels, while martials got diddly poo.

Which goes back to what I've been observing about you. You just don't want martials getting nice things.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm gonna say that's BS. It doesn't win there even in white room math, let alone actual gameplay.

The 2014 Monk sucked. It has been proven countless times to suck. This is not a battle you are going to win. It's settled. Been settled.

My monk didn't. It was open hand.

Monks generally sucked at tier 2 and people not knowing how to run them.

There were 2 decent subclasses and yeah level 14 got better.

Much like fighter though equipment helps.

 

[Gladius Legis]

There were 2 decent subclasses and yeah level 14 got better.

Mercy was the only one I found decent. And proficiency in all saves was nice, but wasn't enough to make up for the rest of the class being as deficient as it was. 2014 Monks just did no damage at those higher levels, and Stunning Strike was less reliable because enemy CON saves scaled so high at that point.