D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Fanaelialae]

So what are you willing to give up for your "fighter nova" ability?

I'm not convinced that high level fighters are so powerful that this would put them over the top, so nothing. And I think I've presented a considerable amount of evidence in this thread to support my stance.

 

[Reynard]

If you're looking for the specifics to be detailed in the rules, I think you are playing the wrong game. And if D&D tried to do that, it would not be the juggernaut that it is.

And combat would be an interminable slog. On screen it is a fast a furious cascade of maneuvers. In play it is 90 minutes of looking up rules and making 1000 rolls.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not convinced that high level fighters are so powerful that this would put them over the top, so nothing. And I think I've presented a considerable amount of evidence in this thread to support my stance.

If we are exclusively talking about high (17th+) level fighters I would be inclined to agree with you, but usually when people say "high level" they mean 11th+ and I don't think there is evidence to support the disparity at that level.

 

[Giant Octopodes]

But...but...you're not describing D&D. D&D doesn't have damage or incapacitation to specific body parts, or really most of the specificity you're describing. (Some of the things, such as unarmed strikes when somebody comes within reach, don't happen to exist but could easily be a maneuver or feat.)

It's like you are asking for Fireball to specify whether the damage is caused by hair catching on fire vs. searing from hot armor vs. smoke inhalation vs. being flung against the wall, and to do more damage when it's in a confined space (which, admittedly, would be really cool). It's just...fire damage. The rest is left to your imagination.

The same is true of martial attacks. All of the things you are describing are the kinds of things that happen in my group. We narrate that stuff all the time.

If you're looking for the specifics to be detailed in the rules, I think you are playing the wrong game. And if D&D tried to do that, it would not be the juggernaut that it is.

I don't get this argument at all. In the main rulebook, there are 4.5 pages covering options for "actions in combat". Two of which are half pictures. There are 90 pages covering spells. Since the PHB came out, we've had tons more pages covering additional options for spells, and zero additional pages covering options for baseline actions in combat. Why is the incredible level of specificity associated with spellcasting "D&D" but specificity in options you can do within combat is "Not D&D". There are LOTS of quite specific, detailed rules... for spells. I strongly disagree that a lack of options or specificity for non-spell actions in combat is what makes D&D the juggernaut that it is. You asked what's missing. That's just from this combat. Pick a cool fight scene which doesn't involve magic and watch it, and look for what can and can't be done in the rules of D&D as it stands. You'll spot it soon enough.

I'm glad by the way that your group narrates that stuff and do that stuff all the time. I Often see the Flavor of stuff like that. I Rarely see the Mechanics of stuff like that enter play, and far more often than not instead see "I attack 3 times with my longsword". Just saying.

 

[Reynard]

I don't get this argument at all. In the main rulebook, there are 4.5 pages covering options for "actions in combat". Two of which are half pictures. There are 90 pages covering spells. Since the PHB came out, we've had tons more pages covering additional options for spells, and zero additional pages covering options for baseline actions in combat. Why is the incredible level of specificity associated with spellcasting "D&D" but specificity in options you can do within combat is "Not D&D". There are LOTS of quite specific, detailed rules... for spells. I strongly disagree that a lack of options or specificity for non-spell actions in combat is what makes D&D the juggernaut that it is. You asked what's missing. That's just from this combat. Pick a cool fight scene which doesn't involve magic and watch it, and look for what can and can't be done in the rules of D&D as it stands. You'll spot it soon enough.

I'm glad by the way that your group narrates that stuff and do that stuff all the time. I Often see the Flavor of stuff like that. I Rarely see the Mechanics of stuff like that enter play, and far more often than not instead see "I attack 3 times with my longsword". Just saying.

Again, play LevelUp. It adds all kinds of maneuvers to the game and is 1000% compatible with 5E out of the box. If you are wondering why we can't have it in the official PHB, I would say it is for the same reason we can't get kingdom management and mass combat in the DMG: "no one" wants it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If we are exclusively talking about high (17th+) level fighters I would be inclined to agree with you, but usually when people say "high level" they mean 11th+ and I don't think there is evidence to support the disparity at that level.

I certainly do. None of the spells I gave as examples are 9th level. By 11th level you have access to every one except Reverse Gravity and Forecage (both of which are available at 13th level). And my list was far from comprehensive.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

IMO, looking only at combat effectiveness lowers the bar considerably for the Wizard considering their abilities out of combat. I would expect them to be considerably weaker than Fighters to compensate for this extra utility but I haven't seen anyone arguing that.

I have. The swiss army knife should never be the best tool. Versatility needs to have a bigger price. As is prepared casters have too much of an edge on spontaneous ones IMO.

We need to go back to true vancian casting if nothing else. One spell, one slot, with the ability to leave some empty to fill with a specific spell during a short rest.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't get this argument at all. In the main rulebook, there are 4.5 pages covering options for "actions in combat". Two of which are half pictures. There are 90 pages covering spells. Since the PHB came out, we've had tons more pages covering additional options for spells, and zero additional pages covering options for baseline actions in combat. Why is the incredible level of specificity associated with spellcasting "D&D" but specificity in options you can do within combat is "Not D&D". There are LOTS of quite specific, detailed rules... for spells. I strongly disagree that a lack of options or specificity for non-spell actions in combat is what makes D&D the juggernaut that it is. You asked what's missing. That's just from this combat. Pick a cool fight scene which doesn't involve magic and watch it, and look for what can and can't be done in the rules of D&D as it stands. You'll spot it soon enough.

I'm glad by the way that your group narrates that stuff and do that stuff all the time. I Often see the Flavor of stuff like that. I Rarely see the Mechanics of stuff like that enter play, and far more often than not instead see "I attack 3 times with my longsword". Just saying.

I don’t think page count is relevant here at all. In part because spells just consume more space. Look at how many Battlemaster maneuvers fit onto a page.

However, I do agree that martials should have a larger quiver of tools. And the way I personally think martial and magic should differ is that martial maneuvers shouldn’t consume rest-based resources, but instead should be gated by situational requirements, opportunity cost, or risk.

Shove is a great example of this, especially when it’s a bonus action. (Shield Master barbarians rock.). I once shoved an earth elemental to…well I don’t know if it was to its demise but certainly out of the picture.

I think a couple examples you gave, such as the unarmed opportunity attack when an opponent comes within reach, fall into that category.

Now, a lot of these things already exist in the form of feats, even if I don’t love how some of them are designed, which is why elsewhere I proposed a Fighter subclass that just gets oodles of feats. But I could
be a big supporter of more martial options.

Not because they need them to compete with Wizards but because it would be fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again, play LevelUp. It adds all kinds of maneuvers to the game and is 1000% compatible with 5E out of the box. If you are wondering why we can't have it in the official PHB, I would say it is for the same reason we can't get kingdom management and mass combat in the DMG: "no one" wants it.

'No one' being the playtesters who decided we can't have nice things.

 

[Bill Zebub]

'No one' being the playtesters who decided we can't have nice things.

That sort of melodramatic hyperbole causes me to dismiss all associated arguments, which means I may miss some interesting points.