D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[ECMO3]

D&D is a game that makes claims, both explicit and implicit, that characters of the same level should be roughly evenly balanced.

No it doesn't, as a matter of fact it does the opposite. The PHB says explicitly in the text that Wizards are the "supreme casters" and the text surrounding many of the class actually imply an imbalance.

Aside from the text description, there are the mechanics. The mechanics themselves, and the spells explicitly, show that there is not balance and those are the official rules, so anyone who studies them is reading the way the game works and should know that they are not balanced.

Certainly there are noobs that don't understand this, but anyone who has read the rules should understand the classes are not even close to being balanced based on explicit mechanics.

While this is a commonly held belief, I have never actually found anything either explicit or implicit in the official rules that indicate the classes are balanced.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No it doesn't, as a matter of fact it does the opposite. The PHB says explicitly in the text that Wizards are the "supreme casters" and the text surrounding many of the class actually imply an imbalance.

And the fighters aren't casters at all. The PHB doesn't say it's bad to not be a caster. And things like CR aren't based on party composition but make the implicit assumption that a level 13 character is a level 13 character and that in no place mentions handicapping the monsters based on party composition.

The idea that a wizard of level 17 should be more powerful than a fighter is not something that is made explicit or something that should happen.

Aside from the text description, there are the mechanics. The mechanics themselves, and the spells explicitly, explicitly show that there is not balance and those are the official rules, so anyone who studies them is reading the way the game works and should know that they are not balanced.

Yes. And the rules are in this specific way an abject failure that do not deliver on what is promised by either the rules or the fantasy of playing a fighter. This needs fixing.

While this is a commonly held belief, I have never anctually found anything either explicit or implicit in the official rules that indicate the classes are balanced.

So you think CR is not a thing? Because there is no adjustment to CR or to the level of an adventure based on party composition that I have ever read. Which there would be if it was intended that wizards were the best and fighters were meant to be bad.

 

[ECMO3]

And the fighters aren't casters at all. The PHB doesn't say it's bad to not be a caster.

Agree, but stating that the Wizard is the supreme caster means explicitly that all classes are not balanced. Specifically - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Artificer, Warlock and Paladin are all casters and the Wizard is superior to them.

Now you can argue that it does not say explicitly in the text descriptions that Wizards are superior to Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues, but your statement was "all" characters are balanced according to explicit and implicit claims and in actuality the explicit text in the Wizard class is that they are supreme among 8 of the classes and therefore it is explicit that not all characters are balanced.

At best your argument is Rogues, Barbarians and Fighters are implicitly balanced with Wizards, while the others aren't, but I don't know of any text that actually implies this anywhere in the PHB.

Finally playing a weak class does not mean that it is "bad" to be that class. You should play what is fun for you, whatever you want to play, with a group that is willing to accept that decision.

The reason the PHB does not say "it is bad to play a fighter" because it is not bad to play a fighter and I am not stating that it is bad to play one, or any class if you want to. You should play what you want to play with a group willing to accept that decision.

Personally, I don't play Barbarians or Druids at all and I very rarely play Bards. That doesn't make those classes "bad" to play and in fact Druid and Bard are both more powerful than Monks and Fighters which I play often.

The idea that a wizard of level 17 should be more powerful than a fighter is not something that is made explicit or something that should happen.

It absolutely is made explicit when you consider the spells and class abilities. These are explicit rules.

The Wizard class has mechanics written in the PHB that state he gets to learn 2 9th level spells at 17th level, those two spells can include Wish, and the spell table shows that he can cast a 9th level spell once a day .... in addition to all the other spells and the copy he can make of himself with a lower level spell!

The PHB explicity states that Wizards get those powers. The PHB does not offer anything remotely comparable for a fighter. That alone explicitly shows a Wizard is more powerful than a fighter.

It is right there in the PHB. It is the explicit and undeniable promise made by the rules themselves - Wizards are more powerful than fighters at 17th level.

How could you interpret the mechanics any other way?

..... that do not deliver on what is promised by either the rules or the fantasy of playing a fighter. This needs fixing.

Where is this promise? Provide a reference in the game rules please. I gave two explicit examples above where the opposite is actually stated or shown.

It does not need fixing at all, it needs to stay unbalanced. Balance sucks the life out of the game IME.

So you think CR is not a thing? Because there is no adjustment to CR or to the level of an adventure based on party composition that I have ever read. Which there would be if it was intended that wizards were the best and fighters were meant to be bad.

I think party composition is huge and to think it isn't is to suggest there is no value in diversity. The CR tables are an estimate based on an average party which includes a mix of both "strong" and "weak" classes as well as strong and weak builds among those classes. Regardless of individual class strength, a diverse party will generally fare better than a non-diverse party even when class strength is taken into account.

If this myth about CR indicating class balance were true any party of a certain level should fare the exact same against every monster of the same CR. So whether the party is a diverse mix or classes or it is a party made up only of Monks or a party made up only of Rogues or a party made up only of Wizards - if you believe what you CR implys equality then all four of these examples should do just as well if they are all of the same level.

Further, experienced players operating with good teamwork will generally destroy those CR tables beating deadly encounters with relative ease, even while playing "weak" classes or "weak" builds. Meanwhile inexperienced players or even experienced partys that are not coordinated and do not leverage the particular party strengths will get slaughtered in those same encounters. That is far more important than the builds or the classes themselves.

If there is an implicit promise that the game falls short on delivering it is that "deadly encounters" or "easy encounters" are actually deadly or easy at those levels.

Finally, if we are comparing fighters and wizards - a party made entirely of fighters will actually fare better in some encounters than a party made entirely of wizards against certain enemies. Not many but some.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Agree, but stating that the Wizard is the supreme caster means explicitly that all classes are not balanced. Specifically - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Artificer, Warlock and Paladin are all casters and the Wizard is superior to them.

No it doesn't. To quote Ali "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". The wizard is the supreme caster. The wizard also has the fewest hit points and the lowest ability to wear armour and the (joint) fewest skills. Actually let's quote the full sentence.

"Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast."​

The wizard is the supreme caster because they are so tightly focused on casting and they get basically nothing else other than casting in their kit. They are the class that is both easiest to punch in the mouth and least able to keep going when punched in the mouth. "This class focuses on spellcasting to the exclusion of all else" doesn't mean "This class is the best" - it means that "This class is the one to go for if you want to focus on casting". Literally the only class that focuses on casting the way the wizard does is the sorcerer (and there are balance issues there) and it doesn't breach balance to say "because this is all they do then they should be the best at this".

It does not say or imply that casting is the best specialty. If the high level fighter was literally superman, able to fly at light speed and able to pick up entire cities this would have precisely zero impact on whether wizards were supreme magic users, defined and united by the spells they cast because not everything is a spell. For that matter in a party containing Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, the Black Widow, Spider-Man, and a third level D&D wizard the wizard is the supreme magic user.

It's a statement of focus, not one of balance. (That said, as mentioned, it causes problems with the sorcerer).

The Wizard class has mechanics written in the PHB that state he gets to learn 2 9th level spells at 17th level, those two spells can include Wish, and the spell table shows that he can cast a 9th level spell once a day .... in addition to all the other spells and the copy he can make of himself with a lower level spell!

The PHB explicity states that Wizards get those powers. The PHB does not offer anything remotely comparable for a fighter. That alone explicitly shows a Wizard is more powerful than a fighter.

This is the problem. The thing is the fighter should get something awesome in tier 3 and be awesome in tier 4.

There is no good reason that tier 4 fighters shouldn't leap tall buildings in a single bound and be faster than a locomotive. They just don't - but if they did it would not do one single thing to interfere with wizards being supreme casters.

Where is this promise? Provide a reference in the game rules please. I gave two explicit examples above where the opposite is actually stated or shown.

One of which you are misinterpreting, as I have shown. And the other one of which is a result of the mechanics being bad and it's being suggested should be fixed.

I have already pointed out that CR is a thing - and works on character level but does not weight for class. And I have already pointed out that adventures are for set levels and do not weight for class. There is no guidance anywhere that says to the DM that you should balance for class.

I think party composition is huge and to think it isn't is to suggest there is no value in diversity.

This does not have much to do with balance. To suggest that magic users should be the most powerful is to suggest that there is no value in diversity. That the best party is one made up all of casters. Balance done well makes for a better game because it encourages diversity.

If this myth about CR indicating class balance were true any party of a certain level should fare the exact same against every monster of the same CR.

No - they should be within certain bounds. D&D has among other things a strong element of randomness so two identical parties won't fare "the exact same".

If there is an implicit promise that the game falls short on delivering it is that "deadly encounters" or "easy encounters" are actually deadly or easy at those levels.

I think we can agree here.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I don't have the D&D Next playtest documents to check if it's legit, but this post on Reddit goes over the design goals that WoTC had for the 5e Fighter. With those in mind, I doubt it was their intention to make them so much weaker than Wizards in the end.

Edit: Although they 100% didn't follow the no-magic and being the toughest one, so I guess it's possible.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No it doesn't, as a matter of fact it does the opposite. The PHB says explicitly in the text that Wizards are the "supreme casters" and the text surrounding many of the class actually imply an imbalance.

this is an interesting take... so you are saying caster supremacy is advertised to new players right in the PHB?

Aside from the text description, there are the mechanics. The mechanics themselves, and the spells explicitly, show that there is not balance and those are the official rules, so anyone who studies them is reading the way the game works and should know that they are not balanced.

this is why as the edition aged we (my group) have found it gets worse... becuase as system mastery increases the casters just get better and better

Certainly there are noobs that don't understand this, but anyone who has read the rules should understand the classes are not even close to being balanced based on explicit mechanics.

1 I hate that word
2 I have seen people come from other games, from previous editions, and as whole new players... and universally the only ones NOT shocked by caster supremacy is people who played 3e/3.5/pf

in my experience most new players want to play fighter rogues and monks at about equal amounts to rangers wizards and clerics... the more they play the less they want to be 'stuck' as a fighter ESPECIALLY after they see a even somewhat optimized Gish that can melee

While this is a commonly held belief, I have never actually found anything either explicit or implicit in the official rules that indicate the classes are balanced.

so you beleive that 5e still uses what someone once labled "ivory tower design"

 

[Krachek]

They are looking to make the fighter design that will satisfy the most people. With all the data they have from the survey and from DnD beyond usage, the designer are compelled to follow the taste and expectation of the crowd.

There is still room to anticipate what the crowd want without being able to express it. That is the purpose of a playtest. Try new thing, make people cheer or booo. The last playtest on Druid and paladin was a great success on this matter. The playtest generate a lot of dissatisfaction, which at this point of the design is a very good thing.

 

[Clint_L]

Not to be pedantic, but that phrase is "Wizards are supreme magic-users," and the lack of the definite article "the" is important and intentional. It indicates that other type of magic-users can be as powerful as it, perhaps in different ways.

Edit: to clarify, what I mean is that that phrase is consistent with "Wizards are supreme magic-users, like their bardic, sorcerous, clerical, and druidic brethren."

 

[Clint_L]

Getting back to the OP, this thread has largely become about debating top level fighters vs. wizards, rather than feats for all martial classes (barbarians, rogues, and monks exist too!).

What happens at 20th level is important. Especially to the tiny minority of players who run games at that level (per WotC, campaigns that go past 10th level are extremely rare). And there are some prominent voices in this discussion who seem to feel that fighters, specifically, need to basically become Goku in order to compete with wizards, specifically.

I don't think feats are the answer to that problem, if it is a problem. And for the tiers at which most games happen, most people seem to agree that classes are broadly comparable, at least in terms of broad measures like damage output, etc. I think most would agree that barbarians and fighters, in particular, are very strong at dealing and taking damage, which is really important in most games. So the real issue seems to be not about power but about players having more choices, the way that spell casters do. Feats could be a way to accomplish this, but they do tend to increase power levels at the same time. So at tiers 1-2, giving fighters and barbarians, specifically, extra feats would be unbalancing, just in my opinion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think feats are the answer to that problem, if it is a problem. And for the tiers at which most games happen, most people seem to agree that classes are broadly comparable, at least in terms of broad measures like damage output, etc. I think most would agree that barbarians and fighters, in particular, are very strong at dealing and taking damage, which is really important in most games. So the real issue seems to be not about power but about players having more choices, the way that spell casters do. Feats could be a way to accomplish this, but they do tend to increase power levels at the same time. So at tiers 1-2, giving fighters and barbarians, specifically, extra feats would be unbalancing, just in my opinion.

Okay. Let's dig into this then. To what degree are these martial/weapon-focused/etc. classes "broadly comparable" with these spellcaster/magic-focused/etc. classes? I won't bore you with the details, but I've crunched some numbers here. If we focus only on class and ignore subclass, at 5th level a Wizard's damage output (assuming all spells are spent on damage) is in fact nearly the same as a purely damage-focused greatsword+GWF Fighter (~88.80%), and better than the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist mixed-defensive Fighter (~106.35%.) While Battlemaster allows the Fighter to pull ahead relative to a subclass-agnostic Wizard, strong Wizard subclasses like Diviner and Bladesinger completely fill or even eclipse that gap. The superior spells (and larger amount of spells) by level 8 totally outshine the benefits of the bonus ASI unless it's very specifically spent on a strong feat, and even the extra Superiority dice can't keep up. I'll need to do a more thorough analysis for 11th level because there's a lot more math involved (more spells, more spell levels, more attacks, etc.), but...frankly it doesn't look good.

Wizards can choose to be as good as a baseline Fighter, across a meaningful span of commonly-played levels, while also having ritual magic and non-offense cantrips. If they end up not needing their full mojo spent on offense, they have a plethora of options for incredibly powerful non-combat problem solving too.

The extra power from a few extra feats would actually let martial characters be clearly, unequivocally better at combat, the thing they are hyperfocused on and cannot choose to do less of in order to do other things. The Wizard should pay for their flexibility with lower potency compared to someone who cannot choose to be more flexible.