D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Minigiant]

I agree the immunity to nonmagical weapons is annoying.

Even a Monk unarmed attack counts as a magic weapon from level 6 up.



Maybe for all characters:

• level 1 is nonmagic
• level 5 counts as if a +1 weapon for purposes of overcoming immunity
• level 9 counts as if +2
• level 13 counts as if +3
• level 17 counts as if +4 (+4 weapons dont happen in my campaigns but is here for hypothetical epic adventures)
• level 21 counts as if +5

etcetera.




Of course.

No it doesn't. At least not in the monster math. That's how the random tables turn out if the DM decides to use them, but if the DM never gives out a single magic item over 20 levels, the party will be balanced for the fights the entire way. Magic items are 100% bonus goodness.

Again, this is wrong, per designer words. They said the game doesn't make the assumption that magic items are used.

It's not the math
It's not the math
It's not the math
It's not the math

It's for "wondrous items"

The 5th ed designers designed 5th fighters that by level 20 he or she would have split (unfairly) ~30 permanent magic items between their 3 allies and themselves.

So a level 20 fighter was designed to be wearing at least EIGHT permanent magic items at level 20 in a normal campaign of 5th edition. Four in a low magic campaign. Sixteen in a high magic campaign. And those are the minimums.

 

[Yaarel]

It's not the math
It's not the math
It's not the math
It's not the math

It's for "wondrous items"

The 5th ed designers designed 5th fighters that by level 20 he or she would have split (unfairly) ~30 permanent magic items between their 3 allies and themselves.

So a level 20 fighter was designed to be wearing at least EIGHT permanent magic items at level 20 in a normal campaign of 5th edition. Four in a low magic campaign. Sixteen in a high magic campaign. And those are the minimums.

What you are describing, is obviously true in your own campaign setting.

But it is untrue in my campaign setting.

And the 5e design assumes there will be different kinds of settings, including from zero magic items to "monty hall" magic items.

 

[Minigiant]

You'll need to quote that. I remember them saying that the game didn't assume the presence of items. Then I remember people here arguing that you could compensate for items by giving boons and stuff. I don't remember anything saying that the fighters needed to be given stuff for fights anyway.

No need to quote it.

That's what you get when you roll for Treasure in the DMG.
and page 38 tells you how many you get start at higher level from a NPC.

The designers said they don't assume the presence of magic items. However they clearly did not design for you to not have magic items and the DM not modifying the game. They design the DMG and MM under the assumption that the Fighter is a Christmas Tree or the DM will adjust the frrequency of supernatural monsters.

 

[Cadence]

What you are describing, is obviously true in your own campaign setting.

But it is untrue in my campaign setting.

And the 5e design assumes there will be different kinds of settings, with and without magic items.

It feels like it's impossible to have a game that automatically balances for any kind of setting. If it assumed lots of fighter help items but new spells are hard to get; or magic items are almost non-existent but spell books are in free libraries; or if monsters only hit by magic are common but magic items aren't; etc... then it feels like the classes that are helped or hurt should be easy to guess in advance.

 

[Yaarel]

@Cadence and @Minigiant

A setting where player characters can only be nonmagical class archetypes, and there are no magic items, probably has fewer supernatural monsters too.

Even if weapon-immune creatures exist in such a setting, not every encounter is winnable by combat. There should be encounters that players run away from, or must negotiate, or bypass.

 

[Minigiant]

What you are describing, is obviously true in your own campaign setting.

But it is untrue in my campaign setting.

And the 5e design assumes there will be different kinds of settings, including from zero magic items to "monty hall" magic items.

What I describe is true for 5e.

They designed the Fihter assuming he/she/xe/it has magic items.

What they did is design the monsters that if you don't have out as many magic items or none at all. you don't have to change the monsters. You instead change their frequency or use other forms of treasure.

The DM doesn't have to change the math to play other levels of magic. The DM 1000% does have to use other options.

 

[Cadence]

@Cadence and @Minigiant

A setting where player characters can only be nonmagical class archetypes, and there are no magic items, probably has fewer supernatural monsters too.

Even if weapon-immune creatures exist in such a setting, not every encounter is winnable by combat. There should be encounters that players run away from, or must negotiate, or bypass.

One of my favorite series, the Black Company, has lots of running away

It feels like if new spells and scrolls for casters, items for fighters, and magic-to-hit monsters are all rare then balance isn't a problem. It was just reading like some folks were only adjusting one of those three, which seems like it would be trouble.

 

[Minigiant]

@Cadence and @Minigiant

A setting where player characters can only be nonmagical class archetypes, and there are no magic items, probably has fewer supernatural monsters too.

Even if weapon-immune creatures exist in such a setting, not every encounter is winnable by combat. There should be encounters that players run away from, or must negotiate, or bypass.

That's the point.

Many people thought "No magic items assumed" meant "You can play a normal standard game of 5e with no magic items assumed and no other adjustments". That was and is false.

If you cut down the magic items, the 5th edition design team assumed you cut down the magic enemies and obstacles as well.

 

[Yaarel]

That's the point.

Many people thought "No magic items assumed" meant "You can play a normal standard game of 5e with no magic items assumed and no other adjustments". That was and is false.

If you cut down the magic items, the 5th edition design team assumed you cut down the magic enemies and obstacles as well.

Fair enough. At the same time. EVERY setting has its own built in design assumptions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So is taking enemy magical items. IMHO I think if you have one you should have another.

Sure, but magic items don't need to be part of the game, spellbooks are sort of essential if you run into an enemy wizard (especially on their home turf).

The other side seems to consist of:

• fighters are bad, no explanation given
• they should be able to long jump 200 feet or other supernatural feats such as being better than any real world athlete
• I want them to mythical heroes like Hercules
• they can't do the same things wizards do if wizards can cast as many spells as they want
• fighters are bad, no explanation given

Well, maybe a couple have used reasons 1 and 5 but I don't recall many posts where people just blurt out "Fighters are bad."

As for 2-4, sure those are some of the reasons. Others, however, are more mundane:

• I want them to be able to do things at least as well as real life (the WR jumps, etc.). Yeah, I know, 5E isn't a sim, but still the rules are over-simplified IMO.
• I want them to be the best at things they should be the best at. Such as the expert rogue out wrestling the fighter... I could see the rogue escaping, sure, but not actually winning.
• I want them to be able to do some things that go beyond real life, since this is fantasy, like Xena for example. (Not overboard, but beyond.) For me this is the "heroic" level, not "superheroic". 200-ft jumps? Not for me, but 40-60 feet.. sure, especially in tiers 3 and 4.

As for the other pillars, each class historically had a role, but WotC's design allows most classes to break those roles and step on others' toes. I don't need a fighter to be as good at climbing as a rogue, but I wouldn't mind a ranger being able to, or to stealth as well, either, especially in favored terrain. Other than the Prodigy feat (which feats are optional and that is a racial feat anyway), there is no way to do this without houserules. There are other similar issues as well.

Now, for the people who want more extreme things, I agree it would be simpler in many ways to play a different game, but they don't really want to do that either.

Now, I know you aren't for enhancing fighters for combat. Other than some tactical improvements, I think fighters are pretty good (and others need to be brought back so fighters really can be the Best at combat). But what about exploration and social. You've said you don't want to step on others' toes, but aren't they stepping on the fighters' toes when it comes to combat??