Why are Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters unconsidered in the debates?
The most common complaints is that Martials don't have versatility or utility out of combat, but they do in the form of these subclasses.
Sure, it isn't up the 9th-level spells but I believe that we can agree that a character isn't balanced when they
- Has Full Martial Proficiency
- Has 1d10 HD
- 4-extra attacks
- A fighting style
- 2 extra ASI's
- And the ability to cast Wish?!
Instead, they have a truncated portion of spellcasting to keep things balanced. But they still have some decent abilities like Dimension Door, Fabricate, Polymorph, and Fly.
While these spells aren't "better than what spellcasters can do at their level." Its still added versatility that increases their usefulness outside of combat, especially since a caster doesn't have to worry about doubling up on their spell or cantrips within their prepared classes.
Honestly, I still don't understand exactly
what the community wants. Is it purely because of the flavor of spells/magic? If so, I feel like that's an issue with semantics but doesn't necessarily mean that the classes are weak or underpowered.
I want this to be an open discussion. I may still press your reasonings if I'm still unclear about the logic. It isn't to tell you you're wrong, per say, but if it seems illogical I may pipe up.
The point is to be able to understand exactly what it is that's wrong, so we can be more precise and productive as a community about the game and what it should be.
An Aside:
I've seen many arguments in this debate about what a fantasy hero can do. Odysseus can do this, Heracles can do that. Beowulf was able to hold a fight against a powerful foe underwater. And none of these involved spells.
But I feel that the majority of these classes were imparted with "DM Fiat." Within their respective stories. Heracles is a demigod, not a human-born farmer. Beowulf, as well, was enhanced through what we would determine as from the DM.
These feats are perfectly codified as Blessings, Charms, or Boons in the DMG.
Edit: Whoops, didn't finish that.
It can be frustrating having those types of abilities dependent on the DM if that runs opposed to the type of game they'd like to play, but the DM had already restricted your power from the beginning. What this does is allows the DM to tailor the experience so that if you want to be Cú Chulainn but not Siegfried, the DM has the abilities to impart this within the campaign.
Challenge
I have two identical monsters a hypothetical party must fight. You are a wizard with the Ultimate spells known list of every single wizard spell in the PHB, so long as it doesn't have a costly component (if you cast Wish, its works the exact same so don't worry).
These creatures have a muscular, hairless humanoid shape with Opalescent green skin and white feathered wings. It carries a Greatsword and is of large size.
Without reading the Monster Manual or looking up a similar creature, which sequence of 6 spells would you cast as a Wizard? I will tell you what they cast if they can counter and I will tell you your percent chance of success given a DC 19 Spell Save.
The purpose of this Challenge is not to "GOTCHA!" the other side of the argument, its an opportunity for me to gauge the way the people in this forum actually handles the large number of options. Because, to me, this range of nearly infinite options is an illusion and more feels like a guess-and-check to eliminate non-options.
If this challenge (not deadly) isn't much of a challenge to some, I'll re-evaluate my position on how options in-combat isn't necessarily amazing.
