D&D 5E How to "fix" (or at least help) the fighter/wizard dynamic. (+)

[Minigiant]

We already have paladins, rangers, monks, warlock depending on the archetype, various fighter archetypes and multi-classing. I'm not sure what you would want that wouldn't just be straight up power creep.

That's seems like an imagination problem if you can't find the difference between a herculean strongman, a barbaric berserker, and a master swordsman.

I mean it's just benchmarks. There are more that one way to reach them. These are game design aspects that were figured out decades ago now. You can add a class without it being broken. It just requires discipline.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, speaking of fighting styles, I hate them, get rid of them! Sure give the fighters something to compensate, but get rid of the fighting styles. Seriously.

Fighting styles are the exactly wrong way to make the fighters feel like masters of weapons. Instead they pigeonhole them into limited type of weapon from the get go.

The problem isn't fighting styles.

The problem is the fighter only got one. Seriously WOTC. You gave the fighter one fighting style?

 

[DND_Reborn]

A demigod strongman and a barbaric berserker would each have strengths and weaknesses.

I fail to see what weaknesses a demigod strongman would have, do you care to elaborate on what you envision might be such a weakness?

I disagree with 2, that claims casters are more powerful than Fighters.

In 5e, hit points and the elimination of them, are a big deal. The Fighter and other heavy-hitters are way more powerful than other classes.

A dead opponent cant cast spells or do anything. In a combat encounter, heavy-hitters are more powerful than shenanigans-doers.

While you can certainly disagree, the claim stands. In a low-magic game*, wizards are more powerful than fighters.

*assuming you aren't nerfing casters in the process of making in low-magic.

Hit points help elevate the power differential, but it is there, which is why so many people are upset about it. We've had threads before about which class is the most powerful, and wizards win that battle 9 times out of 10.

I don't know what heavy-hitter builds you have, but a wizard can typically match them or beat them in RAW damage at higher levels, which is the issue.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Oh, speaking of fighting styles, I hate them, get rid of them! Sure give the fighters something to compensate, but get rid of the fighting styles. Seriously.

Fighting styles are the exactly wrong way to make the fighters feel like masters of weapons. Instead they pigeonhole them into limited type of weapon from the get go.

Or at least remove them from the other classes!

Rangers and Paladin already have their own fighting styles. Its called: Sacred Smite and Favored Enemy with a mix of martial abilities and spells.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem isn't fighting styles.

The problem is the fighter only got one. Seriously WOTC. You gave the fighter one fighting style?

I mean they're mostly just boring random bonuses, and some of them pretty incoherent. (Why is increased damage in one handled via a flat bonus and in another via a reroll? It's just weird.)

For similar effect, but more coherent, you could give them Combat Mastery: +1 to hit, damage and AC.

Then if some want to specialise, that should be done via feats.

 

[Oofta]

That's seems like an imagination problem if you can't find the difference between a herculean strongman, a barbaric berserker, and a master swordsman.

I mean it's just benchmarks. There are more that one way to reach them. These are game design aspects that were figured out decades ago now. You can add a class without it being broken. It just requires discipline.

I don't want to play wizards and demigods.

Feel free to make concrete suggestions of course, don't just call other people lazy because they don't share some nebulous vision of "just like a fighter but better while not like a paladin, ranger, barbarian, monk and so on".

 

[Yaarel]

In 5e:

"Quadratic Fighter" versus "Linear Wizard"

An Extra Attack is a Fighter damage multiplier, exponentially.

While the 5e Wizard spells are now additive progressions

Not only do Wizard spells now require the cost of higher slots to do more damage, but the Wizard has drastically fewer high slots.

 

[Minigiant]

I fail to see what weaknesses a demigod strongman would have, do you care to elaborate on what you envision might be such a weakness?

They'd be training their superpower and not their fighting ability.

The main thing in my design of it would be that the demigod would have zero burst ability. The Strongman, Speedster, and Tank would be able to do their thing all day but have no way to crank it up for bigger challenges until high level.

Also they wouldn't really be able to collect multiple major powers. The Strongman will have mortal flesh. The Tank would no stronger than any Fighter and weaker than Barbarians.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't want to play wizards and demigods.

Feel free to make concrete suggestions of course, don't just call other people lazy because they don't share some nebulous vision of "just like a fighter but better while not like a paladin, ranger, barbarian, monk and so on".

I didn't call anyone lazy.

I said you cant see it because your can imagine it. This is likely because we have consumed different media, forms of media, and genre of media have have different imaginations.

My point is that saying "I can't imagine it so it can't exist" is not a good argument against something that others says exists in other places and could be pointed too.

 

[FallenRX]

No.

The answer to help fighters shouldn't be too gimp casters.

Honestly... your wrong.

I feel like we are always weird about addressing the actual issue, where no matter how much fluff or things you give martials, casters innately are just more crazy no matter what you do. PF2E had it right, you need to do both nerf casters, and buff martials/give them more options, to balance it out, otherwise what are we really doing here