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

[DND_Reborn]

Everyone saying "We don't want superhero stuff" is implying that its too far

To some, certainly, but not to many. Cap and Xena would be near the top end for me, definitely tier 3 and some tier 4 stuff, but certainly within the bounds of acceptable for what is "feasible" with skill, if not actually possible.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Unless the items are built into the class. And i think it should be noted that the imbalance you're seeing is spotlight related, not about the rules (since you said they're fine for combat as is).

I personally don't think they're fine a is. At 10th level the valor bard has one less ASI than a fighter, the same number of attacks, 1 less HP per level and FULL casting. On top of a bunch of other class abilities that are actually good. And that's the WEAK bard!

Fighters aren't even particularly good at fighting. It's just they suck so much at everything else.

 

[Cadence]

Everyone saying "We don't want superhero stuff" is implying that its too far

I'm guessing most of them are thinking of the 'non-street level" heroes when they use the term.

 

[Vaalingrade]

LOL you should play in my game then, because casters are not the beacons of awesomness they seem to be in yours. Even prior to the changes we've made, casters had to conserve spells and only use them when necessary. Meanwhile, martials are doing their thing most of the time without that fear.

You are missing the core problem. The Fighter's 'thing' is 'Attack for damage and nothing else' and 'Attack perhaps a second time for damage and nothing else'.

With a subclass, you get 'Advantage on checks that will be so low thanks to bounded accuracy that the results will be unimpressive' or 'know tactics once an encounter' or break down and accept spells are better than any other class feature they otherwise have access to.

 

[Scribe]

I personally don't think they're fine a is. At 10th level the valor bard has one less ASI than a fighter, the same number of attacks, 1 less HP per level and FULL casting. On top of a bunch of other class abilities that are actually good. And that's the WEAK bard!

Fighters aren't even particularly good at fighting. It's just they suck so much at everything else.

See now, nobody is going to convince me this is ok, and what it would take to put Fighters on par with this, is well beyond power/scope creep.

I give up, its 5e, its just flawed to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm guessing most of them are thinking of the 'non-street level" heroes when they use the term.

I mean they're rejecting stuff normal earthbound humans can do so...

 

[DND_Reborn]

You are missing the core problem. The Fighter's 'thing' is 'Attack for damage and nothing else' and 'Attack perhaps a second time for damage and nothing else'.

With a subclass, you get 'Advantage on checks that will be so low thanks to bounded accuracy that the results will be unimpressive' or 'know tactics once an encounter' or break down and accept spells are better than any other class feature they otherwise have access to.

I am certainly NOT missing that problem. In other threads I've posted time and again about changes we could make to the Fighter class to improve features and bring them up to a level of heroic, even if not super-heroic.

Fighter subclasses are subpar to be sure! How the heck Remarkable Athlete doesn't grant you double your proficiency bonus is beyond me!? That is such an easy thing to have as part of the feature. Others are just as meh for the most part.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually, if you look at the recent Spiderman movie, magic seems to run in bloodlines. Sorcerer is the right term for them. And again, some martial arts skill doesn't make them a monk. They weren't even fighting at Jackie Chan levels, and I wouldn't peg him as a monk, either.

For Wizard, I want them normally without weapon proficiencies. However, I think it is ok to swap out a cantrip for a weapon proficiency, even to use the casting stat for it as a magical weapon proficiency.

Meanwhile, I think it is ok for a background to grant a pertinent weapon proficiency, like a longbow for a Deer Hunter background.

And. Where an unarmed attack is like a simple weapon, a beefier unarmed attack is fine like a martial weapon. So a background or a cantrip swap could gain a martial-arts unarmed attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

See now, nobody is going to convince me this is ok, and what it would take to put Fighters on par with this, is well beyond power/scope creep.

I give up, its 5e, its just flawed to me.

Yep. That is why we made Bards half-casters again akin to Paladins and Rangers. It avoid power imbalance like this.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean they're rejecting stuff normal earthbound humans can do so...

Who? Who is doing that?