D&D 5E (2014) Party optimisation vs Character optimisation

[FormerlyHemlock]

Doesn't the paladin smite ability only allow smiting with paladin spells?

I wouldn't read it that way. I would say, "there's no such thing as paladin-specific spell slots, they're just spell slots, so you can smite with anything except maybe Warlock slots, because those are separate." It turns out that Jeremy Crawford would go even farther than that:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/paladin/

@JeremyECrawford
@jaa0109 "Can Paladins use Warlock spell slots as a way to utilize Smite?"
Yes.

 

[Celtavian]

I wouldn't read it that way. I would say, "there's no such thing as paladin-specific spell slots, they're just spell slots, so you can smite with anything except maybe Warlock slots, because those are separate." It turns out that Jeremy Crawford would go even farther than that:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/paladin/

Interesting. Paladin multiclass could be interesting.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've rolled some sets of stats that tempt me to make a Fighter 12/Necromancer 6/Warlock 2, which would probably be more fun than a Wizard 20, not just at the end but all through the lifecycle. You're extremely MAD which is why you have to roll good stats for it, but if I were going to make a solo character that's the one I would want to play.

I would probably never go half spellcaster half martial fighter unless the campaign had a restriction preventing single classed spellcasters.

Which is why I'm only discussing and suggesting one in that particular context

 

[CapnZapp]

It still wouldn't be Anomander Rake. I'd have to do like the old days and make some stuff up after heavily researching his capabilities. Then I'd have to allow all the other players to make a crazy character. The worst part is I would have to run it because of the amount of work necessary to challenge characters that powerful. I don't have the desire as a DM to put that much work in.

Probably not - I know nothing about this character.

I just wanted to dispel any possible notion the game doesn't handle characters as good at swordfighting as spellcasting: it is, only you probably want to disallow single classed characters in that particular campaign

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would probably never go half spellcaster half martial fighter unless the campaign had a restriction preventing single classed spellcasters.

Which is why I'm only discussing and suggesting one in that particular context

Sure, and that's great for you. I would do it and enjoy it, though, and as long as there are some people who will do it, the game is in decent shape. It's only a problem if one of the class options is so bad that no one will ever take it, which means it might as well not even exist.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, and that's great for you. I would do it and enjoy it, though, and as long as there are some people who will do it, the game is in decent shape. It's only a problem if one of the class options is so bad that no one will ever take it, which means it might as well not even exist.

I think we are in agreement, but just to make sure:

My point is that "bad class options" are only bad compared to other class options.

If you feel a "half caster" isn't good enough, perhaps a better solution than to say "D&D doesn't do them well" is to outlaw single-classed characters. That's just a suggestion, by the way.

If everybody splits their levels evenly between two classes, there is no Wizard 20 to steal anyone's thunder and the game works just as well as always.

So - in case somebody's still unclear on that - I wasn't posting because I wanted to say any particular combo was good, or bad, or useless. I was posting to say "D&D handles Fighter 10/Wizard 10 just fine" but I also wanted to qualify that with "...only you might want to disallow singleclassed characters if you feel they steal too much of the spotlight"

Cheers

 

[Tony Vargas]

Only 3E pumped up spell casters. They were nerfed from 1E to 2E (spells capped, magic resistance changed) and BECMI had weaker wizards than AD&D. Druids, Paladins and Ranegr were also nerfed from 1E although all classes except the Thief were nerfed.

The big screw up was changing the way some spells worked in AD&D and letting wizards advance at the same rate and nerfing the marital classes relative to AD&D. Haste and Wish could kill you and in effect had a maximum amount of times they could be used before they did kill you via aging.

Wizards also did not have an easy time of it in terms of getting spells. Oh they also buffed and added buff spells to the game. Sod all AD&D spells gave a higher bonus than +1 to hit and saves- bbless, prayer and aid for example. There was no divine power in 2E.

I thought I tried to make it clear that, while each edition removed restrictions and limitations from casters, they varied in how much they pulled back their power to compensate. BECMI I can't claim to have made a detailed analysis of, nor am I used to thinking of it as 'following' AD&D, but rather as a contemporary of the same, in parallel. 2e wasn't so bad in this regard, it didn't soften restrictions much, and did reign in power a little. Neither was 4e, which rolled back both restrictions/limitations /and/ power, almost to parity with non-casters.

3e was probably the most dramatic offender.

5e deserves a chance before it's judged, but there's no doubt it's curbed some infamous spells, as well as taken casters to an unprecedented level versatility.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's lot of benefits to being a martial. That's why they're as popular to play as they are. Some of it is a choice of style.

And, we've circled back to the questionable assertion that started this tangent. :sigh:

No, martial archetypes are popular to play because they are popularly heroes in the fantasy genre. LoTR? Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli - technically even Legolas and the hobbits - all martial. One wizard, and he was a warrior in his youth and would draw steel to deal with enemies as often as cast spells.

That popularity carries through to D&D /in spite of/ how badly the game treats those archetypes.

I don't let a single caster player dominate everything because I'm such a poor DM I can't come up with ways to make non-casters shine. Whenever I hear the complaints, I think some players don't have DMs doing the same. That's too bad.

And, true to form, close with an ad-hominem suggesting that anyone who isn't willfully blind to the problem is incompetent.

The fact that you need to exercise DM fiat to block caster dominance is just further proof of the disparity.

Sure, we could all play 3.5 'E6' and freeze casters at 6th level while letting martials continue to accumulate feats - it would be nice, though, if we could just get all the archetypes on a more or less even keel, so they'd all be equally accessible and players could just play what they wanted, without having to count on DM interventions for relevance.

 

[Zardnaar]

And, we've circled back to the questionable assertion that started this tangent. :sigh:

No, martial archetypes are popular to play because they are popularly heroes in the fantasy genre. LoTR? Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli - technically even Legolas and the hobbits - all martial. One wizard, and he was a warrior in his youth and would draw steel to deal with enemies as often as cast spells.

That popularity carries through to D&D /in spite of/ how badly the game treats those archetypes.

And, true to form, close with an ad-hominem suggesting that anyone who isn't willfully blind to the problem is incompetent.

The fact that you need to exercise DM fiat to block caster dominance is just further proof of the disparity.

Sure, we could all play 3.5 'E6' and freeze casters at 6th level while letting martials continue to accumulate feats - it would be nice, though, if we could just get all the archetypes on a more or less even keel, so they'd all be equally accessible and players could just play what they wanted, without having to count on DM interventions for relevance.

Due to 3E though people have been over stating the martial vs caster disparity. It was not nearly as bad in AD&D and they also had various restrictions. To be fair AD&D did have god wizards at higher level but they were glass cannons and most people did not play high level games in any event and it also took a long time to get there. Clerics and Druids lacked level 8 and 9 spells as well.

The disparity did exist but most people probably did not see it due to not actually getting to those levels. And even if you did a wizard could be level 16 the thief would be level 20 and the cleric would be level 18 along with the fighter IIRC. A level 20 thief can one shot a level 16 wizard. I had a 5th level party beat a level 18 wizard in 2E. They were not supposed to fight the NPC but they did and they got lucky with a dispel magic (rolled a 20) and he was flying. I had a level 18 wizard get killed by a pack of trolls as they had a shamen with dispel magic. That was that PCs 1st death via clone spells.

Due tot he way initiative worked the wizard would need to be prepped for combat and even with spells like stone skin up they would get pelted with darts from 6 PCs (bigger parties in AD&D). A single point of damage in the round before their turn interrupted their spell as well. Haste and wish could also kill you in 2 ways via the ageing and via a system shock roll. You could not spam buff spells as most of them did not exist or only granted a +1 bonus. BECMI lacked a lot of the problem spell combos as they did not have that many spells and the broken ones were more like things such as uncapped fireballs so a 24th level BECMI wizard got to deal 24d6 damage with a fireball spell. You could not cast wish at all in BECMI until you got to level 36 and had an 18 int and an 18 wisdom. Druids did not exist in BECMI until they were added as an optional class later in the line and the mystic class (monk basically) was also in a similar boat.

BECMI started to go off the rails after level 14 or so or if you let in AD&D spells. Stoneskin and Greater Invisibility did not exist. You also did not get level 9 spells until level 21 and BECMI xp tables were better than AD&D as the wizard was always behind in xp unlike AD&D which had weird xp tables.

Level 7 Cleric spells in the Rules Cyclopedia
Earthquake
Holy Word
Raise Dead Fully*
Restore*
Survival
Travel
Wish
Wizardry

Most of which are non combat.

Level 7 Druid Spells (Druids also shared the Cleric Spells)

Creeping Doom
Metal to Wood
Summon Elemental
Weather Control


Level 9 Wizard Spells.

Contingency
Create Any Monster
Gate*
Heal
Immunity
Maze
Meteor Swarm
Power Word Kill
Prismatic Wall
Shapechange
Survival
Timestop
Wish

In addition there were limits as to how many spells you could know. TSR Era Druids were also not that good at what became wildshaping. The 5E land Druid is more faithful to the original Druids as opposed to 3E or the Moon Druid. Wildshaping was for scouting not combat as a wolf was about the best form you could take- at level 7.

2E is probably my favourite D&D edition, BECMI is probably the best designed D&D they ever made. It actually works up to around level 15 or so before massive problems start to kick in. 5E gets around 2-4 levels over 3.5 before problems start to crop up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Due to 3E though people have been over stating the martial vs caster disparity. It was not nearly as bad in AD&D and they also had various restrictions.

Restrictions on casters were greater in AD&D, no question. Martial classes, though, got even /less/ than in any later editions, so the disparity was already very real. Same goes for 0D&D and Basic/B/X/BECMI/RC.

3e was perhaps the worst offender, but that doesn't excuse the other editions.