no one actually enforces the limitations on the class very well
I do.
Whenever the narrative allows them to rest, same as every other class. The concept of rests per encounters (a la 4E) is not really narrative, so doesn't appeal to me as good design personally. I know some people like it, but it feels too forced IMO.
they don't pay attention to components (of any sort).
OMG I sure as hell do, and I make sure they have that hand available for holding said components. You want to see a wizard get screwed, disarm his spell focus!
Unfortunately, 5E devs screwed up with spell foci. I loved making casters track individual components and micro-manage if they have what is needed for spells.
Also, verbal components can't be whispered, but they don't have to be shouted, either.
They don't focus on or enforce the limited choice aspect of the wizard's versatility.
There is no limit. Each level a wizard gets to pick two spells, so if they want versatility it is right there waiting for them...
shrug
I miss the "Roll to learn a spell" from AD&D and wish they would bring it back. It was a limiting factor for magic-users at least.
They don't target them in combat with intelligent enemies (kill the cleric first, tho).
Killing the wizard should trump the cleric IME, but yeah a lot of DMs fail on that one... sadly.
Like ignoring encumbrance or rules for swapping held items?
There's no point in ignoring encumbrance when the default rule is insanely generous. I prefer the variant rules, then dumping STR can really be an issue for wizards and rogues IME.
Swapping items is a bit weird IMO. In my games, PCs drop items (no action or anything) and use their free interaction (in most cases) to get out a different item that they need.
But, to be fair, I also see a LOT of DMs allowing martials to equip shields as a free object interaction, which it ain't folks... it's an action. (I think it should be maybe a bonus action, though).
here is a question that I think is important in the discussion: is there something a high level character of ANY class but particularly a martial class that a high level wizard cannot replicate and/or do just as well or better?
It depends on how high a level wizard you are talking about. I mean, once you get
wish, all bets are off, even if casting it in a different way might cause you SERIOUS issues (like never being able to cast it again...)
Also, many things high level martials can do
at will or are "always on" a Wizard
might be able to do, but only temporarily. Look at a lot of capstone features (like Primal Champion), Wiz's can't do that, no way, no how.
I want a 15+ rogue to be able to teleport between shadows and steal someone's luck/memories/identity. I want a character with high intimidate to scare people to death or high athletics to be able to throw a cow over a hut. Gimme a dragoon leap, where you jump 50 feet in the air and take down a flyer or skewer three guys on your lance. High level non-casters feel almost exactly the same as low level ones. The "wahoo" factor never gets bigger.
See, and this is a big part of the the problem. A lot of people want but just as many don't.
Concerning placement of AoE Spells:
I agree this is a bit too easy for casters to pinpoint placement so the radius just gets a bad buy but not an ally. Now, I am not in favor of an Arcana check simply because it adds another roll to the game, but I wouldn't mind something...
Of course, when a martial shots a ranged weapon into a target fighting an ally, unless the DM uses the option of hitting cover, you never worry about hitting your ally, either.
So, "perfect" placement of AoE is the same as ranged attacks really and is done for simplicity and ease of play.
Back to responses....
Right, but by that reasoning if the rules read that you can lift/drag x lbs, you shouldn't need to make a check to lift/drag x lbs.
You don't need to make a check for lifting/dragging x lbs, either.
FWIW, I think the limits should be lower, but have checks to lift more, like checks to jump further. Checks to run faster would also be good IMO.
How often do you hear DMs complain that their players never retreat (when these kinds of checks could well be the reason why).
IME players never retreat because either:
1. they think PCs are invincible or
2. the rules don't support retreating because the enemy can pursue and make OAs and/or regular attacks.
#2 is the biggest complaint IME. Neither are because the player fears I'll ask them to make a check to lift a weight they can, RAW, lift without a check.
It's not even especially realistic. Both soldiers and firemen have heavy kits and are trained to rescue comrades wearing similarly heavy kits. So my level 20 fighter with 20 strength is inferior to a real world volunteer fireman? It's because the DM just decided, in the heat of the moment, to err on the side of caution, because martial.
Unfortunately, that is your DM's call. Under "normal" circumstances, no check is required. Under the stress of battle, a DM
might ask for a check due to the consequences of failure. I don't, but I can understand why other DMs might...
this is a perk... sometimes we would go WEEKSwithout the longrest.... 1sst level spell slots become a HUGE commodity.
now we did also change the short rest to 8hrs
My group does 8 hour short rests and a full 24 hours for a long rest, but that is because we want a rest to be, well, restful.
If we are willing to bring Wizards down then this is a different discussion.
I really wish more people were willing to, but in general I think there is more resistance to this idea than to buffing martials.
I think you're skipping a step with the "grab the corpse". It actually requires four object interactions: sheathe whatever you are holding, pick up corpse, drop corpse, shove corpse. And although the rules say you can pick up/shove/drag objects up to X pounds, it says nothing about whether that consumes actions/bonus actions/free actions/etc. Being able to grunt and slowly lift a 240 pound iron grating would still count as "lifting". I take this as a case of "we are leaving this a little vague for rulings not rules". (Kind of like the vague rule about jumping farther than your base distance.)
1. You can drop whatever (if anything) you're holding.
dimension door is V only, so nothing says anything was held anyway.
2. You can bring along an object. Nothing in the spell description says you have to actually be carrying it. Touching it would be sufficient and what we commonly see in movies when "teleports" are done. But I assumed the corpse would be carried and so this was the ONE (and only) use of free object interaction.
3. Drop corpse doesn't require an action of any kind. You can always drop something without using your free interaction. Picking something UP is what requires the action.
4. Moving is part of your speed, and then dropping the corpse costs no action. Now, if the corpse was actually shoved, than I could see that being part of another turn, which is why I started with "I would assume two turns."
I agree, however, too many rules (STR and lifting being one of them) is too vague. I know that was intentional, but IME it creates more issues than it solves. In many ways, too many actions are "instantaneous". It takes time to pick up a body that is dead weight
cautious:...
...
nothing to see here, folks!), but because of the mechanics in 5E, you can lift a corpse, cast a spell, arrive hundreds of feet away, move a few feat, and drop the corpse... all before anyone else can do
anything to interfere. This is why I developed Cinematic Initiative, so things like this don't happen, or at least not as easily.
Whew! That was a lot of posts to catch up on! I'm exhausted, LOL!
