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

[Maxperson]

at first level a crit can kill anyone if it is a big die attack (this was the 3e orc issue, d12+x with a x3 crit would kill almost any pC) as you level it becomes less and less likely.

A d12 could put almost every PC down with just a max roll. That orc had a max normal hit of 15 damage with that d12. Only a barbarian with an 18 or higher con could survive that, and at 1st level that wasn't likely.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why do you assume that teleport can and will only be used to teleport to the last place you camped? And do you have any idea how many different dangerous creatures and situation can and do exist in a D&D world within a 40 mile radius when you are out in the middle of danger territory central? The vast majority of dungeons and ruins are not in the middle of civilized territory.

And this is just a load of flaming bull pucky. Nothing I said even hinted at punishment.

You've been very lucky and/or generous.

5e guarantees that you aren't going to be using it every day. It's a very dangerous spell.

I was limiting it to teleporting back to last night's camp site because that was what I've established I was discussing. Both in the lengtht conversation you and I had last night in this thread, as well as today with others.

If you want to discuss teleporting to a far away place that you've never been to (and don't have an associated object for) then sure, I agree, don't do it.

However, I still hold that teleporting back to last night's campsite in order to escape an encounter is an extremely reliable use of teleport, with little to no risk unless the GM abuses their power and inserts risk by fiat.

If your wilds were even 50% dangerous, the party wouldn't be able to go more than a few steps without running into danger. Basic logic dictates that the vast majority of most hostile areas are safe, or the PCs would never get anywhere. Unless they teleport, of course.

 

[Faolyn]

Faster = better. If I can punch you 1000 times with a 50% accuracy and you can punch me once with a 75% accuracy, you lose to the better fighter.

Faster does not mean better. It just means faster. And fighters aren't punching a thousand times. They're punching two or four times. I can flail around a lot, but I certainly wouldn't hit very often. More opportunities to hit isn't the same thing as being skilled at hitting, because it means they have more opportunities to miss as well.

As I said, fighters should both be better at attacks (such as by a weapon specialization ability, or by getting a nonmagical +1 to attack rolls at a certain level, or by extending the crit range at a certain level) and have multiple attacks per round. This isn't an either/or thing.

D&D also doesn't worry about being overly complicated and accurate about things. Not only that, but those extra attack can represent economy of motion and efficiency, which is skill. The poorly skilled take wide swings that are harder to recover from, while the high level fighter takes more economical, yet still powerful strokes that allow faster recovery and more attacks.

They "can," but they don't, because the attack bonus isn't any better. Rogues and monks both have Aim abilities--rogues can't move while Aiming, and monks have to spend ki--and that, I feel, does a much better job of representing skill than just being fast at it. Why not give fighters something similar? When they use their Extra Attack, if they make all attacks on a single target, then the last attack is made at advantage. This represents them studying how their foe is moving on that turn.

 

[Maxperson]

I was limiting it to teleporting back to last night's camp site because that was what I've established I was discussing. Both in the multiple conversation you and I had last night in this thread, as well as today with others.

Okay, but teleport as a rule is a very dangerous spell. Sometimes it can be used safely to go not very far, but...

If you want to discuss teleporting to a far away place that you've never been to (and don't have an associated object for) then sure, I agree, don't do it.

Why do you do that? Why would you toss in, "that you've never been to" as if that's the only way the spell is dangerous. Anything short of having an object makes the spell dangerous. Even to places you are very familiar with.

However, I still hold that teleporting back to last night's campsite in order to escape an encounter is an extremely reliable use of teleport, with little to no risk unless the GM abuses their power and inserts risk by fiat.

There's little risk from the teleport, but I hope you don't have to go back to the dungeon creature(s) that will be planning for your return and now know that you can teleport and can plan for that.

If your wilds were even 50% dangerous, the party wouldn't be able to go more than a few steps without running into danger. Basic logic dictates that the vast majority of most hostile areas are safe, or the PCs would never get anywhere. Unless they teleport, of course.

Again with blowing things way out of proportion. The chances of bad stuff doesn't have to be 50/50 in order for the spell to be dangerous. If there's even a 1 in 20 chance of landing somewhere bad, it's a very dangerous spell to be using.

 

[FrogReaver]

at first level a crit can kill anyone if it is a big die attack (this was the 3e orc issue, d12+x with a x3 crit would kill almost any pC) as you level it becomes less and less likely.

W

A d12 could put almost every PC down with just a max roll. That orc had a max normal hit of 15 damage with that d12. Only a barbarian with an 18 or higher con could survive that, and at 1st level that wasn't likely.

It’s not just about whether they can be 1 shot but their chance of being. A wizard vs orc has a 66% chance of being downed on a hit that’s not a crit. The fighter has a 33% chance.

 

[Aldarc]

There is only one Strength skill. A fighter is going to have to run at least one, but probably more of their skills off secondary/tertiary abilities. A caster can run all four base skills off their highest ability score, leading to being overall better at using skills.

I do not dispute any of this.

But my point is, if there is no Fighter who is removing these foes from play. The Wizard is soon dead.

Summon might offer a delay − but normally fails to resolve the threat.

It's not really a Fighter or nothing here. Paladins and Rangers exist as well as other gishes. Spells give Paladins and Rangers greater mechanical agency.

---------

What would potentially be nice for Fighters would be something akin to "Combat Foresight." Their prowess in combat gives them insight in their foes most probable next moves: i.e., the ability to predict/anticipate shenanigans. So Fighters could have an ability that allowed them to use a reaction to ask the GM what a given foe's next move would be, and the GM would have to answer truthfully.

 

[tetrasodium]

Even @Maxperson agreed that a branch from a tree would be valid. It was one of the examples he provided, which we ultimately agreed on. We simply disagreed as to whether a stone would be valid.

In any case, as @GMforPowergamers pointed out, the 25% chance of being off site isn't exactly a big deal. The only thing the object eliminates is a minor inconvenience.

Deny the GM? I AM a GM. I was literally describing how I would run it, and how I believe it should be run, based on RAW (as well as good GMing practices).

You are assuming that I would detail all if the possible reasons why a player needs to find an object with a more significant attachment like a tea kettle magically linked to their keep back elsewhere so they could play what if one by one until they think they find another loophole. It doesn't matter how you might gm for your own player, we are having this discussion because I gave an example of ways a gm could yank the noose handed to a player over an objection they seemed to let slide. Simply moving the tree into said cell changing the anchor point the tree that grew the branch provides, or or any number of other methods could be other examples.

Again it boils down to PCs & some NPCs & monsters having different rules & abilities. Death saves for example... You don't know how much gold & time on the part of an npc capable of plotting in geological timescales was involved in setting things in motion either.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s not just about whether they can be 1 shot but their chance of being. A wizard vs orc has a 66% chance of being downed on a hit that’s not a crit. The fighter has a 33% chance.

maybe I am missing something... lord knows I stopped playing 3e before 4e was announced, and I have not looked back so I may be rusty or miss remembering (and I know 3.5 gave them a 2d4 19+x2 sword instead of the d12 x3 axe)

a wizard has 1d4+con mod
fighter has 1d10+con mod

so 12hp fighter 5hp wizard sounds pretty reasonable.

I think it was +4 to hit 1d12+3 damage... so lets give both basic equipment (mage armor spell and desent armor okay dex on both) lets give the fighter a 16 and the wizard a 15 AC (no shields)

so against the fighter the orc needs to roll 12+ (40% hit 5% crit)
so against the wizard the orc needs to roll 11+ (45% hit 5% crit)
non crit is 1d12+3 (average 9 min 4 max 15) a crit is dead...I amean 3d12+9 (average 22 min 12 max a whopping 45)

to kill you out right you need to go to -10 but just going to 0 takes you down. so this gives 10 fake hp for life... so the fighter has 22 and the wizard 15.

in a non crit only max damage kills the mage 1 hit. In a non crit the fighter can not be killed 1 hit (max 15 damage brings him to -3)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay, but teleport as a rule is a very dangerous spell. Sometimes it can be used safely to go not very far, but...

Why do you do that? Why would you toss in, "that you've never been to" as if that's the only way the spell is dangerous. Anything short of having an object makes the spell dangerous. Even to places you are very familiar with.

There's little risk from the teleport, but I hope you don't have to go back to the dungeon creature(s) that will be planning for your return and now know that you can teleport and can plan for that.

Again with blowing things way out of proportion. The chances of bad stuff doesn't have to be 50/50 in order for the spell to be dangerous. If there's even a 1 in 20 chance of landing somewhere bad, it's a very dangerous spell to be using.

1 in 20 is still absurdly dangerous.

A mile is 5280 ft. The area of a square mile is a little under 28 million square feet. 5% of 28 million is 1,400,000 square feet. The standard 5 foot square is 25 square feet, so if we divide 1,400,000 by 25 we get a result of 56,000 standard 5 ft squares of danger in a single square mile of land (actually slightly less than that since I rounded up).

You can see how insane that would be, don't you? An old school killer-DM dungeon that makes no allusions towards verisimilitude contains less danger than a single square mile of wilderness? Even if you define it as hostile wilderness, it still doesn't make sense.

Short distance teleports to a very familiar place (preferably with an associated object) are all I've been discussing in this thread. Which I stand by being quite safe (or at least, they ought to be in any world with an ounce of verisimilitude).

 

[Yaarel]

I do not dispute any of this.


It's not really a Fighter or nothing here. Paladins and Rangers exist as well as other gishes. Spells give Paladins and Rangers greater mechanical agency.

---------

What would potentially be nice for Fighters would be something akin to "Combat Foresight." Their prowess in combat gives them insight in their foes most probable next moves: i.e., the ability to predict/anticipate shenanigans. So Fighters could have an ability that allowed them to use a reaction to ask the GM what a given foe's next move would be, and the GM would have to answer truthfully.

Foresight is a slot-9 Wizard spell. It could even qualify as a hypothetical slot-10 spell, alongside Wish. Foresight is powerful.

Despite the fact that Foresight boosts combat, and the Fighter is already effective in the combat pillar, Foresight is thematically appropriate for a legendary Fighter.

I want a four-level tier schedule for each proficiency bonus:
• level 1: Archetype features
• level 2: Base features
• level 3: Noncombat features
• level 4: Feat

Thus:
• level 17: Archetype
• level 18: Base
• level 19: Noncombat (method of immortality)
• level 20: Feat (or with DMs permission epic boon)

So, level 18 base features can grant both Extra Attack x3 and Foresight per long rest.