D&D 5E Mission Impossible?!

[Blue]

So, 6-8 encounters/2-3 short rest/day is obviously a ratio of encounters to uses of abilities.
For sort rest abilities, its 2 encounters per short-test ability. So, converting short rest to encounter is simple halving.
For dailies, I suppose, split the difference: divide by 7. So anything less than 4/day, you don't have, 4-10/day becomes 1/encounter.

So the wizard would get his first slot at 3rd, a second at 7th, and top out at 3/encounter at 15th - at others the level of a slot might increase.

Lots of ways to do it. A bit earlier I mentioned 13th Age, which divorces the narrative of sleeping from recovery management. They have at-will, per encounter, and per full heal-up. A full heal-up happens after 4 encounters, though if they are particularly tough a DM can knock it down to three. It doesn't matter if those 4 encounters happen in a single day, a single morning, or during a three week expedition through the tundra.

Players can take a full heal-up earlier, but at the expense of a campaign set-back, a currency used in just a couple of cases where the players want to overrule the system. So maybe the murderer strikes again, or another peasant is infected with lycanthropy, or the cultists complete the first stage of their fiendish ritual.

Actually, I like how 13th Age does casters within the system, it's something 6E might want to steal. All spells can be upcast (yes, it was out before 5e, but I think Wheel of Time RPG way back when first had that idea). As you gain levels you slowly gain slots but your slots migrate upwards. So a 2nd level character has 6 first level slots, but at 3rd level they have 3 first level and 4 slots of the next level. At 5th level you have 1/4/4. And 8th level you have 0/0/3/8. (It's only a 10 level system, so it only have 5 levels of spells instead of 9.) This means that spells are cast at viable levels, but the number of slots only slowly increase.

Also, the spells you learn are not only Vancian. Or rather, each spell is at-will, per-encounter, or per full-heal up. So you can take one of your highest level slots for a "cantrip" if it's an at-will spell and do lots of regular damage, while someone else has an amazing daily in that slot, or a great per-encounter.

 

[Vitor Bastos]

Just to clarify, Im not trying to diminish the melee classes. Matter of fact, most times I played as melee. I'm just trying to raise some questions and see what you guys have to say about it based on your gameplay experience.

 

[cmad1977]

IME: having had high level feat-using melee classes and high level non fear using melee classes at my tables I’ve found them to be just as useful as any of the classes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not everyone does sharp shooter crossbow expertise builds or whatever feat heavy build you're thinking of. Those that do focus on combat feats do so because they enjoy optimizing the combat side of things. If you want to contribute more out of combat there are several backgrounds and feats that will help.

Actually I was thinking that you can also use the fighter's additional feats to develop their out of combat abilities. That flexibility is an important feature of the class.

The point is, without feats the fighter is disadvantaged both in combat and out of combat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If true, the Fighter class should have appeared as an option in the Feats section.

It wouldn't be D&D if the fighter wasn't a core class.

IMO the "Optional" should be removed from the feats section.

Otherwise yes, if you play a "no feats" game you will need to buff fighters.