D&D 5E Fighters are amazing!

[sidonunspa]

(I'm not saying there is not an opportunity cost for those utility spells - there absolutely is. Just that casters can prep both combat and utility and use the slots how they are needed starting at low levels, plus customize those per day, and the fighter need to lock in feat choices that usually have a narrow use.)

Except last time I checked a wizard can cast ritual spells from their spellbook, which opens up all kinds of options... while keeping spell slots free

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except last time I checked a wizard can cast ritual spells from their spellbook, which opens up all kinds of options... while keeping spell slots free

It's really not that many spells, and typically spells you wouldn't ever cast in an encounter anyway. So in actual play context, you're not really gaining or losing anything than previous editions where most of the 5e ritual spells were done with magic items and scrolls in earlier editions, saving the slots for combat casting anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I wasn't one of the earlier posters that you are responding to, but I have a bit of a twist on this.

I'd like fighter to be able to focus to be useful out of combat as spellcasters can be. Things like "good AC" don't have an effect on points from other pillars of the game.

Yes, but the question is are you willing to give up some of that in-combat spot-light in order to get those out of combat abilities? Also isn't this (at least somewhat) what skills and backgrounds are for, which for the first time in any edition I've played the fighter is finally on equal ground with every other class.

That said, the increased feat availability for the fighter can fit this niche well. There are a lot of useful out-of-combat feats that will get much less exposure then others because of the opportunity cost. Woefully, these usually come after abilities and combat feats so for most of the lifespan of the fighter they aren't around while the casters still have their utility spells.

I'm not sure how this is an issue with the game though... it gives you the choice you ask for above but... people would rather take combat abilities. that seems like an issue where the person playing the fighter doesn't want to give up some of that combat spotlight in order to shine a little more in the other pillars and is exactly what [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] was saying... there has to be a trade off somewhere, and personally I'm glad it's in the hands of the player on whether they choose to or not...

(I'm not saying there is not an opportunity cost for those utility spells - there absolutely is. Just that casters can prep both combat and utility and use the slots how they are needed starting at low levels, plus customize those per day, and the fighter need to lock in feat choices that usually have a narrow use.)

Yes and that same caster can loose his spellbook (and only the spells he has prepared can be replaced from memory)... has to contend with things like counterspell, anti-magic, etc... has a limited number of uses... needs components or focuses and so on. Feats suffer none of these drawbacks... I don't think the entire picture is being looked at here.

 

[Imaro]

Except last time I checked a wizard can cast ritual spells from their spellbook, which opens up all kinds of options... while keeping spell slots free

Of course if that spellbook is stolen, destroyed or lost in some other way, well the Wizard can fallback on... what exactly again??

 

[Uchawi]

I think what you are describing is called a Paladin or a Ranger in 5E: a fighter with a fairly reasonable number of spells. But to gain the extra spells, he has to give up his 4 attacks per round at higher level. Pros and Cons. Giving too many maneuvers (or more spells) to a fighter would make him like a Paladin or a Ranger versatility-wise, but he would still be dishing out nearly twice the damage at high level.

One also should consider that making Fighters too good (and as per this thread, a lot of people think that they are great), would really minimize the use of Rangers and Paladins in games as the "subpar" fighter types.

Actually, it does not have anything to do with spell equivalency, so the paladin, ranger can still remain hybrids. But it does involve the fighter or similar martial classes like the rogue having a choice selection mechanism similar to a spell, but not spell power per se. I have no problems with spells being more powerful. It is magic.

 

[sidonunspa]

Of course if that spellbook is stolen, destroyed or lost in some other way, well the Wizard can fallback on... what exactly again??

Any wizard without a back-up (or two) placed in safe places is not worth their salt

 

[Imaro]

Any wizard without a back-up (or two) placed in safe places is not worth their salt

You're still totally neutralized until you reach that backup...

EDIT: Can that be done to a fighter's maneuvers? His bonus feats?

 

[mcintma]

You're still totally neutralized until you reach that backup...

EDIT: Can that be done to a fighter's maneuvers? His bonus feats?

Not to mention the expense of copying spells ... haven't done the math but could be huge

 

[sidonunspa]

You're still totally neutralized until you reach that backup...

EDIT: Can that be done to a fighter's maneuvers? His bonus feats?

except the wizard is not.. any spells he has in his head prepared stay prepared until they swap them out...

so if they have the right spells set up, getting their copy of the spell book is not all that hard.

never mind the fact they still have cantrips (which = basic attacks)

lets also look at bards they have "spells known", Warlocks, Sorcs, and Clerics... no need of a spellbook and they can cast ritual spells.

heck the warlock can just "summon" their spellbook if they are warlocks of the tome

want to see a useful spell in combat everyone underestimates? unseen servant, 1hr duration, ritual spell.... find familiar tons of in and out of combat utility, again ritual

like I said play a champion with 3 feats and play it without them... night and day.

not saying the fighter sucks without feats, but they are just not as good as all the other classes, even the ranger (who is almost as good in combat and has tons of out of combat utility) until they become a storm of arrows, while the barbarian suddenly is a better tank to mitigate damage and hold back the bad guys.

fighter has 4 attacks a round, very limited ways to use reactions and bonus actions (unless using 2 weapons) while every other class has a way to use those basic mechanics to do things cooked into the class.

like I said, don't like feats.. let only fighters take some from a small list you approve.. compromise

 

[SirAntoine]

Actually, it does not have anything to do with spell equivalency, so the paladin, ranger can still remain hybrids. But it does involve the fighter or similar martial classes like the rogue having a choice selection mechanism similar to a spell, but not spell power per se. I have no problems with spells being more powerful. It is magic.

The rogue is not a martial class. I think you have a good idea for a third-party book if you want to make a go of it, though.