Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8746399" data-attributes="member: 72555">The problem with "the most powerful" here is that the existence of power spells that use saving throws doesn't harm wizards.It just adds to their options.  "There are high level wizard spells that are extremely powerful that use saving throws" is true, but that statement makes wizards stronger, not weaker.So, a +0 modifier on your saving throw corresponds to an AC of 14.  But guessing which saving throws are weak isn't all that hard; so, compare a monster's weakest saving throw (+14) to their AC, as wizards get to pick which saving throw to attack.However, this requires that the wizard use a tactic reliant on saving throws.  Going back to point 1, this is an option -- making a spellcaster who rarely if ever cares if a foe makes a saving throw is very viable and strong.Yes.  Note that magic items that give bonuses to weapon attack rolls are the non-attunment variety.  Attunement items tend to give other benefits.There are magic items that modify saving throw DCs, but they are all attunement required.  There are now such items for every class.Strength is a rather sub-par stat otherwise.In fact, Strength sucks so much that a really good belt of giant strength is rather key to making it usable in an optimization setting.Note that often the best way to get advantage on attacks is spells.Yes, except 1 good concentration spell is crazy good.  Concentration is an extra resource that martials don't have -- it gives the spellcaster a long-term highly effficient use of a spell slot, but only 1 at a time.By T2/T3, a caster can get very robust concentration.Yes, that is why relying on save based spells only is a mistake.You can make builds good at breaking through legendary resists.  If you do so, you can short cut the entire HP budget of a foe.  And 2 spellcasters working at it can do it in a few rounds (a spellcaster with a bit of optimization is about as good as a monk is in T2/3).Again, a matter of choice.  It means spellcasters have to have a variety of damage types (if they are winning by damage).One of the damage types you can do is, well, BPS that isn't from a weapon, or through an ally.A twincast haste on T2 martials literally is 1 action, a few sorcery points, and concentration, in exchange for the damage output of a full martial.  If the martial is a rogue, you almost double their damage (with the readied action trick) and add 50% to the other one.Now your actions are just icing on top of the cake.Sure.  Or they polymorph a 8th level commoner into a giant ape.Or they hypnotic pattern and shut down the entire army of minions.Or they are 2 bladesingers.  One banishes the boss, the other hypnotic patterns 75% of the minions, then they ginsu the minions.  Next, they drop a force cage in the spot the boss comes back into together with some aoe that deals damage over time and drop concentration on the banishment.Or a myriad of other ways to make the entire fight work completely differently than it would against people whose main ability is "reduce HP meter".It is true that a martial + a spellcaster is stronger than a spellcaster.  The question is, would 2 spellcasters do better than the martial+spellcaster?Martials cannot, in 5e, meaningfully protect spellcasters in T2/T3.  While haste is an efficient spell, other options for concentration based damage (like animate objects) exist.So, here is an example of how it can work.Fighter 1/Swords bard X.  Uses a hand crossbow (SS/XBE feats).  Boosts its combat abilities with stuff like greater steed, holy weapon, haste, greater invisibility, etc, as well as a selection of debuffs.  The real problem is the lack of known spells -- every spell known is almost as good as a class feature.  Uses fighter 1 for cheap access to archery fighting style (the +2 is nice) and heavy armor prof (rides a griffon, doesn't need the mobility) and con saves, but could replace it with feats.Even without that, dropping polymorph on an ally boosts them up to being a decent meat-shield.  A T-Rex is stickier than most martials with its chomp attack.  The HP buffer fades eventually, but at 140 HP per spell slot it goes a long way.Summoning hordes of meat shields is another option, or having an escort of zombies.  Many of the summon subclasses make their horde attacks count as magical.  With 1 OA per horde member, they are again stickier than PCs are, let alone dogpile grapples.The real problem with an all-caster party is that the DM will be tempted to escalate.  Doing so against all-martials with foes that only a spellcaster has a chance against would be viewed as rude, but doing so against all-casters isn't; and the all-caster party still stands a chance, because they have options.  Options to flee and come back, options to cheat (create their own martials), huge piles of options in the form of spells.Each spell is a rules element that lets the player impose their will on the narrative.  This happens both inside and outside combat.  Spellcaster non-optimzied damage is not that far behind non-optimzied martial damage (if at all), and they have this huge library of "oh, and I can change the rules of the game" in their back pocket.  These spells get more and more gonzo as you gain levels.It isn't that a spellcaster dominates melee.It is that spellcasters have so much more room for optimization than melee do, and their starting point isn't far off each other.Spellcasters can change the game, in combat and out of it, with spells.  Martials lack those abilities.</blockquote>

Verification