D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[FrogReaver]

Known and accepted problem? I don't agree that "wizards are way too strong." I think they are one of the stronger classes. So are fighters. Who are easily the most popular class in 5e, from everything we've seen. I think there are a few people on this forum who take every opportunity to argue for fighters and against wizards, but that isn't really evidence of anything, except that there are a few people with some strong opinions on the subject. Which, more power to 'em.

IME, low level fighters can be built stronger than low level wizards. VHuman with CBE + SS + Percision attack tends to be enough to really outperform casters early. I'd even hold that a build holds onto power over the wizard for most if not all of tier 2. But by level 13, i'm confident saying a wizard can outperform such a character in almost any situation (there's obvioulsy some where this won't be the case - anti magic zones, etc).

So for most people Fighters can feel extremely strong because play is limited to tier 1 and 2 as the D&D Beyond stats and anecdotal experiences back up. Even when moving to tier 3 - most Wizard players tend to avoid the extremely OP options for the sake of the game and so even in higher level play - the parties that see Wizards stepping far ahead of Fighters is rare.

In short, in actual play, the wizard being flat out better than the fighter comes up rarely for a variety of reasons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think this is true if you consider limited spells slots, subclass abilities and fighting style. Subclasses and fighting style for the most part boost damage or boost tankability or both while most wizard subclasses do not do that.

Wizards also can't do 95% of the tankability if they focus on damage. It really is either-or. They can do over 95% of the tankability if they focus on defense (probably over 100% on a bladesinger given equal constitution in tier 2), but their damage will suffer, because to keep the edge in tankability they need to use spells like blur instead of spells like shadowblade.

It is less of a loss than you might think, because shield is so strong, and a first-level spell, something you graduate out of quickly for damage-dealing potential, meaning you can start spending them on such one-off uses more casually in short order. It also gets horrifically worse at the highest levels, because at level 18, you can turn one each of your 1st- and 2nd-level spells into at-wills. Having shield at-will is ridiculously powerful, since you have effectively +5 AC all the time, and that's AC that stacks with all other sources. Your other spell can then be scorching ray (or Aganazzar's scorcher for wider AoE) if you want always-on offensive capability, or a more flexible defense-and-utility spell, such as invisibility or levitate. And you can change these spells with every long rest.

Known and accepted problem? I don't agree that "wizards are way too strong." I think they are one of the stronger classes. So are fighters. Who are easily the most popular class in 5e, from everything we've seen. I think there are a few people on this forum who take every opportunity to argue for fighters and against wizards, but that isn't really evidence of anything, except that there are a few people with some strong opinions on the subject. Which, more power to 'em.

Popularity doesn't make something good. Almost everyone who's done any degree of optimization of the Fighter in 3.X agrees it sucks. It's also one of the most popular 3.X classes. Because the Fighter is always one of the most popular classes. Fighter is always popular--often the MOST popular--regardless of edition. Every single time.

Likewise, the 5e dragonborn is agreed by almost everyone--even WotC at this point!--to be one of the weakest races in the PHB. Which is why we got straight-up replacements in the gem, chromatic, and metallic variations. Yet, even before any of these extra options arrived, dragonborn had done nothing but grow--eventually becoming the 3rd most popular non-human race, after half-elf and elf, managing to overtake even the sexy bad-boy/bad-girl tieflings. All of which are mechanically superior to the dragonborn by a pretty substantial margin.

Popularity is totally orthogonal to power. Some powerful things will be popular, especially true of feats, e.g. Lucky, PM, SS, Elven Accuracy. Some powerful things will be unpopular, e.g. Druid, esp. Land/Moon. Some inherently-popular things will be powerful e.g. half-elf. Already covered that some weak things can be popular. And then some weak things will be unpopular, e.g. spells are particularly prone to this--there are a lot of massively over-specialized spells that almost never get taken, let alone cast. Whether something is popular tells you nothing at all about whether it is well-made or not.

The Pinto was popular, and also badly designed.

 

[James Gasik]

It is less of a loss than you might think, because shield is so strong, and a first-level spell, something you graduate out of quickly for damage-dealing potential, meaning you can start spending them on such one-off uses more casually in short order. It also gets horrifically worse at the highest levels, because at level 18, you can turn one each of your 1st- and 2nd-level spells into at-wills. Having shield at-will is ridiculously powerful, since you have effectively +5 AC all the time, and that's AC that stacks with all other sources. Your other spell can then be scorching ray (or Aganazzar's scorcher for wider AoE) if you want always-on offensive capability, or a more flexible defense-and-utility spell, such as invisibility or levitate. And you can change these spells with every long rest.


Popularity doesn't make something good. Almost everyone who's done any degree of optimization of the Fighter in 3.X agrees it sucks. It's also one of the most popular 3.X classes. Because the Fighter is always one of the most popular classes. Fighter is always popular--often the MOST popular--regardless of edition. Every single time.

Likewise, the 5e dragonborn is agreed by almost everyone--even WotC at this point!--to be one of the weakest races in the PHB. Which is why we got straight-up replacements in the gem, chromatic, and metallic variations. Yet, even before any of these extra options arrived, dragonborn had done nothing but grow--eventually becoming the 3rd most popular non-human race, after half-elf and elf, managing to overtake even the sexy bad-boy/bad-girl tieflings. All of which are mechanically superior to the dragonborn by a pretty substantial margin.

Popularity is totally orthogonal to power. Some powerful things will be popular, especially true of feats, e.g. Lucky, PM, SS, Elven Accuracy. Some powerful things will be unpopular, e.g. Druid, esp. Land/Moon. Some inherently-popular things will be powerful e.g. half-elf. Already covered that some weak things can be popular. And then some weak things will be unpopular, e.g. spells are particularly prone to this--there are a lot of massively over-specialized spells that almost never get taken, let alone cast. Whether something is popular tells you nothing at all about whether it is well-made or not.

The Pinto was popular, and also badly designed.

A few months ago, any criticism against 5e usually had someone say "it's the most popular TTRPG ever, so how can anything be wrong?".

We even had a whole thread about popularity =/= good.

Then the OGL thing happened, and I haven't heard that argument in a spell...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A few months ago, any criticism against 5e usually had someone say "it's the most popular TTRPG ever, so how can anything be wrong?".

We even had a whole thread about popularity =/= good.

Then the OGL thing happened, and I haven't heard that argument in a spell...

Well, you see, argumentum ad populum is clearly a valid argument because so many people use it....

More seriously, yes, this. It is, generally, a good thing for a game to be popular. In a perfect world, all games would be popular solely based on their merits and design, and every new game would be evaluated fairly and promptly upon release. Sadly, this isn't a perfect world; games are frequently popular for reasons that have jack-all to do with their actual merits, many games are never even thought about because people prefer to stick to what they know and even when people do try a new game they very frequently do not give it a fair review.

One might say the popularity argument depends upon hypothetical snow-toned chambers....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think this is true if you consider limited spells slots, subclass abilities and fighting style. Subclasses and fighting style for the most part boost damage or boost tankability or both while most wizard subclasses do not do that.

the only argument anyone had with my builds was I took lucky and somehow that was seen as a bad ffeat for fighters...

Wizards also can't do 95% of the tankability if they focus on damage.

they have 2hp less per level and spells that can boost AC

It really is either-or. They can do over 95% of the tankability if they focus on defense (probably over 100% on a bladesinger given equal constitution in tier 2), but their damage will suffer, because to keep the edge in tankability they need to use spells like blur instead of spells like shadowblade.

I did do a bladesinger... but I didn't use blur just mage armor (or +1 light armor) and shield and the tasha spell I can't remember that makes someone reroll

But that is 3 fails and enemies with legendaries are not going to take a long time to fail 3 times. For example you are fighting an aboleth (the lowest CR I could find with LR) and you have a 20 casting stat at level 8 for a DC of 16:

Most of your SOS spells are Wisdom, Int or Con which are +6, +8 and +6 respectively in both. So he has a 55% chance of making his Wisdom or Con save.

I didn't use an aboleith (9I wish I saved it and had it again) but I think I used red dragon kobolds, orcs ect...

 

[NotAYakk]

It is less of a loss than you might think, because shield is so strong, and a first-level spell, something you graduate out of quickly for damage-dealing potential, meaning you can start spending them on such one-off uses more casually in short order. It also gets horrifically worse at the highest levels, because at level 18, you can turn one each of your 1st- and 2nd-level spells into at-wills. Having shield at-will is ridiculously powerful, since you have effectively +5 AC all the time, and that's AC that stacks with all other sources. Your other spell can then be scorching ray (or Aganazzar's scorcher for wider AoE) if you want always-on offensive capability, or a more flexible defense-and-utility spell, such as invisibility or levitate. And you can change these spells with every long rest.

Shield isn't bad as an at-will. But it costs a reaction. In my experience, all of Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Absorb Elements, Feather Fall compete for your reaction.

Scorching Ray is usually a bad plan? 6d6 (21) damage is less than Toll The Dead 4d12 (26). Even the baseline Fire Bolt cantrip does more damage (22). All it gives you is the ability to split your attacks on multiple targets; or in some cases, if you can get a per-hit damage bonus, it can be stronger.

Scorching Ray is great if you can add some per-tap damage to it, or you can find a way to use "at-will fire at a range" for non-direct-damage utility.

For at-will shield to be strong, you have to be subject to vs AC attacks a lot. And ideally you also want to optimize your AC. This is great on bladesingers who maximize int and dex; having 28 AC in bladesong is pretty good.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Shield isn't bad as an at-will. But it costs a reaction. In my experience, all of Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Absorb Elements, Feather Fall compete for your reaction.

and those are all 1st 2nd and 3rd level spells (only 1 is 3rd most are 1st)

Scorching Ray is usually a bad plan? 6d6 (21) damage is less than Toll The Dead 4d12 (26). Even the baseline Fire Bolt cantrip does more damage (22). All it gives you is the ability to split your attacks on multiple targets; or in some cases, if you can get a per-hit damage bonus, it can be stronger.

yup the low level slots going to defense and misc things while the two or 3 highest level and your cantrips are you big show stoppers.

For at-will shield to be strong, you have to be subject to vs AC attacks a lot. And ideally you also want to optimize your AC. This is great on bladesingers who maximize int and dex; having 28 AC in bladesong is pretty good.

Oh man 28 is bad... My artificer/blade singer with a 21 int and 14 dex is already a beast
(but the DM was dumb and put an item in to boost my AC not thinking so that made it worse before I put it aside for my +1 leather)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Eh, barbarian base damage is pretty strong, though fighter pulls ahead at high levels. 2-handed weapon+str+rage with the option to take attacks at advantage if they want to sacrifice defence is pretty good. Bear totem barbarians can just sit there using reckless attacks while still being damage sponges, for example.

Level is a huge issue talking about balance, and one that's not talked about enough. And the big problem is that fighters and barbarians do not scale with tier. Up until level 6 or so I don't have a problem with either fighters or barbarians. But both strength-fighters and especially non-bear barbarians scale backwards after that.

If I'm signing up to play an epic strength based fighter or barbarian I'm not signing up to play someone who moves at the same speed as a level 1 character and has the same reach as a level 1 character - but attacks slightly faster. (And I'm especially not signing up for a barbarian who has exactly the same bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage resistance as they did at level 1 but it's a whole lot less useful because everything's now elemental damage). I'm signing up to play Cuchulain who swims up waterfalls and cuts the tops off mountains. Or I'm signing up to play The Hulk. Epic fighters should be mythological heroes and demigods. I'm certainly not signing up to play someone whose strength becomes relatively less useful as they level up and who massively falls behind what they are facing and whose bonuses to climb and swim become more and more irrelevant.

And feats won't even make it to the starting line unless there's an entire new tranche of feats only available from level 12. Every single feat in the game right now says "you can do this thing that a level 1 human or level 4 character from any race can do if they focus" and unless there is tight synergy "You have to pick something that wasn't good enough for you the last time you got to pick a feat". The entire levels 12-20 for a fighter is made up of extras of things they already have just done a little more.

And the problem is not damage. Damage (while moving precisely as fast and often with no better balance than at first level) is the one thing fighters and barbarians can do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Level is a huge issue talking about balance, and one that's not talked about enough. And the big problem is that fighters and barbarians do not scale with tier. Up until level 6 or so I don't have a problem with either fighters or barbarians. But both strength-fighters and especially non-bear barbarians scale backwards after that.

yup I would go so far as to say a level 2 fighter in most games is more powerful (but still not more verstile) then a level 2 any other then barbarian class... Action surge and Cunning action (rogue) are both HUGE benfits and totally worth a level or two dip

If I'm signing up to play an epic strength based fighter or barbarian I'm not signing up to play someone who moves at the same speed as a level 1 character and has the same reach as a level 1 character - but attacks slightly faster. (And I'm especially not signing up for a barbarian who has exactly the same bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage resistance as they did at level 1 but it's a whole lot less useful because everything's now elemental damage).

TBH we house ruled the bear barbarian "resist all but psychic" to the base barbarian and it worked better... BUT then we found it still wasn't broken.

I'm signing up to play Cuchulain who swims up waterfalls and cuts the tops off mountains. Or I'm signing up to play The Hulk. Epic fighters should be mythological heroes and demigods. I'm certainly not signing up to play someone whose strength becomes relatively less useful as they level up and who massively falls behind what they are facing and whose bonuses to climb and swim become more and more irrelevant.

all heroes have origin stories... demi gods and weird blood lines happened to be why these wizards or warriors happened.

And the problem is not damage. Damage (while moving precisely as fast and often with no better balance than at first level) is the one thing fighters and barbarians can do.

yup

 

[ECMO3]

they have 2hp less per level and spells that can boost AC

Yes, but you said 95% of a fighter. 2 hps is 33% less than a fighter and they start with a much worse AC before those spells.

To be clear I said if they focus on doing 95% of the tankability they won't match the damage. For example throwing up blur or PEG and then mirror image while sporting precast mage armor and max dex will roughly equal a fighter in plate and shield without any fighting style or subclass abilities to boost AC. But you took 2 rounds to do that, are way behind the fighter before you even start damaging and your cantrips do less damage.

On the other hand you could cast shadowblade or flaming sphere on turn 1 and keep up with that fighter pretty well (as long as concentration holds) but you will be very fragile and not nearly as tankable.

Going with a bladesinger subclass mitigates a lot of this and makes you arguably the best tank in the game, being more survivable than a fighter when optimzed for it, but you will still be substantially behind a Fighter on damage. Again, using something like Shadoblade instead of Blur will even out the damage but then you are not as durable as a fighter

The key here is a Fighter does both of these well, and without using any spells. A Wizard has to choose which she wants to do.

I did do a bladesinger... but I didn't use blur just mage armor (or +1 light armor) and shield and the tasha spell I can't remember that makes someone reroll

I have a ton of experience playing bladesingers and they really can be a great tank, and I play them with a 10 constitution even and still go right into the thick of combat. But if you are not casting blur or PEG or dodging you will not survive long against tough foes. And if you are doing those things, you can't keep up with a fighter on melee damage. It is math - when when the enemy has a +15 with a multiattack he is going to hit your 27AC often if you are not making him roll with disadvantage.

You can mitigate this some with upcast false life, 5th level false life-contingency and Song of Defense, but Song of Defense is a reaction, so when you use it your effective AC drops by 5 and again you are burning the high level slots you would be using for a damage-enhancing spell.

I didn't use an aboleith (9I wish I saved it and had it again) but I think I used red dragon kobolds, orcs ect...

I was talking about using SOS spells to penetrate Legendaries, IME that is tough to do. Against Kobolds, Orcs or really anything without legendaries SOS is usually much better than damage.