• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Saving Throws and non-proficiency

Flamestrike

Registered User
Just alluding to a fact. Whether LFQW means the fighter is broken, the wizard is broken, or the game is broken may be up for debate (and not the topic of this thread, really) but that it's a mathematical fact of D&D class designs since '74 (the odd blip like Bo9S notwithstanding) is not. It's just a D&D Thang.

It /also/ used to be a D&D Thang that all 6 saves scaled dramatically with level.
Again, I can tell you it's really not an issue.

In my high level party the Swashbuckler 14 + BM Fighter 6 had Resilient [Wis] as a feat (and would have had Slippery Mind if he took one less level of Fighter) giving him Dex (+14), Int (+7), and Wis (+8) saves. As for other saves he had a high Charisma (+4) and Con (+6) as well (bonuses include his cloak).

He also had Evasion and a few immunities (Poison from a periapt).

He was often Buffed in Saves by the Dwarven Cleric 14/ Paladin 6 (proving +5 to saves when he was near her, or via her Bless) and from the Lore Bard in the party (+1d12 to a clutch save). He also occasionally had inspiration. He also had the Lucky feat.

Any save he missed, would be dispelled or negated with Dispel magic, restoration, calm emotions or similar (we had a Mood Druid 18/ Paladin 2 and FeyTome Warlock 20 in addition to the Cleric/ Paladin, Lore Bard 20 and Swash/ Fighter).

Most casters took Resilient Con for saves. The Paladin had insane saves (particularly with Bless active) and Resilient Con - her only 'bad' saves were Dex which was only +3 (Dex 6, but +5 Charisma) and Int (+5).

She wore a ring of evasion at later levels to counter the Dex saves after a few Disintegrates got tossed her way.

I get the Swashbuckler Fighter wasnt a straight 'Fighter' by any means, but you cant tell me that he didnt get better at saves (along with the rest of the party) along the way.

The only save he sucked at was Strength (+0, including his cloak).

When you look at most classes (and subclasses); they feature a number of immunities, save buffs and defensive buffs to deal with stuff.

Single classed Fighter doesnt have that much (aside from 2 extra ASI for say... Lucky and Resilient - or simple stat buffs and Indomitable) as opposed to (say) a Monk (all saves, re-rolls and a ton of immunities) but on the flip side the Fighter deals considerably more damage than a Monk.

Strengths and weaknesses in each class, encouraging teamwork and a diverse party to survive.

It's a feature, not a bug.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Again; the Fighter is not worse. He's the same (even a bit better).

It's the Wizard that got better. Not the Fighter getting worse.



Why do I get the feeling this is turning into a 'High level Wizards are broken' argument more than a 'Fighters need better saves' argument?
Yeah another round of the old saw without really even imaginative packaging while fighters remain one of or the most played classes.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
Really?

20th level wizard with 8 con and no investment in hp has on average what - using fixed HP option 5+19x3 or 62 hp. What's the single turn output of say a 20th level battle master or EK or Elven Archer with maxed stats and expected gear?
What 20th-level Wizard is going to have an 8 CON when for most Wizards CON is either 2nd or 3rd in importance?
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
If you're curious, that High level party would also run around with Heroes feast active, Death wards, Mind Blanks, the mental communication ritual spell, and water breathing active, plus an upcast Aid spell (I think it was).

Both the Lore Bard AND the Warlock had counterspell. They could counterspell my enemy spellcasters couterspells even if someone else trued to counter that spell!

The Druid was immune to a ton of effects being effectively in Elemental form all the darn time, and most PCs came with Charm immunity or advantage to saves vs the Charmed condition, immunity to Fear, and other random resistances and immunities from magic items and Epic boons.

Anything that did get through all of that, then got Dispelled or Calm Emotions or Restoration-ed pretty quick, and rarely would the effect last more than a round or two before they made the follow up save.

I could literally toss out DC 27 saves at the BBEG fight as legendary actions (multiple times per round) from a CR 30 Kyuss (himself immune to spells of 6th level or lower) and it didnt break a thing with many of the saves made (or otherwise immune to the effects).
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Really?

20th level wizard with 8 con and no investment in hp has on average what - using fixed HP option 5+19x3 or 62 hp. What's the single turn output of say a 20th level battle master or EK or Elven Archer with maxed stats and expected gear?
At least create a reasonable character. I mean have you even seen a 5e wizard played with 8 con?
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Again; the Fighter is not worse. He's the same (even a bit better).

It's the Wizard that got better. Not the Fighter getting worse.
You apparently don't understand comparing by relation. A level 1 fighter can withstand a level 1 wizards 1st level spells much easier than a level 20 fighter can withstand a level 20 wizards first level spells.

Why do I get the feeling this is turning into a 'High level Wizards are broken' argument more than a 'Fighters need better saves' argument?
That's a weird thing to say. No one has complained wizards are broken. I have complained that fighter's, even in a featless game, should be able to make saves more often than on a 15+.

The wizard example simply illustrates that.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
If you're curious, that High level party would also run around with Heroes feast active, Death wards, Mind Blanks, the mental communication ritual spell, and water breathing active, plus an upcast Aid spell (I think it was).

Both the Lore Bard AND the Warlock had counterspell. They could counterspell my enemy spellcasters couterspells even if someone else trued to counter that spell!

The Druid was immune to a ton of effects being effectively in Elemental form all the darn time, and most PCs came with Charm immunity or advantage to saves vs the Charmed condition, immunity to Fear, and other random resistances and immunities from magic items and Epic boons.

Anything that did get through all of that, then got Dispelled or Calm Emotions or Restoration-ed pretty quick, and rarely would the effect last more than a round or two before they made the follow up save.

I could literally toss out DC 27 saves at the BBEG fight as legendary actions (multiple times per round) from a CR 30 Kyuss (himself immune to spells of 6th level or lower) and it didnt break a thing with many of the saves made (or otherwise immune to the effects).
That wizards and paladins and clerics and bards can protect the fighters from save or suck spells isn't a good argument that fighters should have the abysmal saves they do.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Again, I can tell you it's really not an issue.

In my high level party the Swashbuckler 14 + BM Fighter 6 had Resilient [Wis] as a feat (and would have had Slippery Mind if he took one less level of Fighter) giving him Dex (+14), Int (+7), and Wis (+8) saves. As for other saves he had a high Charisma (+4) and Con (+6) as well (bonuses include his cloak).

He also had Evasion and a few immunities (Poison from a periapt).

He was often Buffed in Saves by the Dwarven Cleric 14/ Paladin 6 (proving +5 to saves when he was near her, or via her Bless) and from the Lore Bard in the party (+1d12 to a clutch save). He also occasionally had inspiration. He also had the Lucky feat.

Any save he missed, would be dispelled or negated with Dispel magic, restoration, calm emotions or similar (we had a Mood Druid 18/ Paladin 2 and FeyTome Warlock 20 in addition to the Cleric/ Paladin, Lore Bard 20 and Swash/ Fighter).

Most casters took Resilient Con for saves. The Paladin had insane saves (particularly with Bless active) and Resilient Con - her only 'bad' saves were Dex which was only +3 (Dex 6, but +5 Charisma) and Int (+5).

She wore a ring of evasion at later levels to counter the Dex saves after a few Disintegrates got tossed her way.

I get the Swashbuckler Fighter wasnt a straight 'Fighter' by any means, but you cant tell me that he didnt get better at saves (along with the rest of the party) along the way.

The only save he sucked at was Strength (+0, including his cloak).

When you look at most classes (and subclasses); they feature a number of immunities, save buffs and defensive buffs to deal with stuff.

Single classed Fighter doesnt have that much (aside from 2 extra ASI for say... Lucky and Resilient - or simple stat buffs and Indomitable) as opposed to (say) a Monk (all saves, re-rolls and a ton of immunities) but on the flip side the Fighter deals considerably more damage than a Monk.

Strengths and weaknesses in each class, encouraging teamwork and a diverse party to survive.

It's a feature, not a bug.
1. you are playing in a feat based game and took feats to boost saves
2. your allies are constantly boosting your saves
3. you multiclassed in such a way that you got abilities that helped mitigate many of the effects of bad wisdom saves


None of those elements are guaranteed in any game. So why would fighters suck at saving throws?
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
That wizards and paladins and clerics and bards can protect the fighters from save or suck spells isn't a good argument that fighters should have the abysmal saves they do.
No, the argument is they get boosts elsewhere to compensate for poor saves.

More feats or ASI if you dont use feats, and a huge amount of DPR.

Compare them to a Monk, that gets all saves (plus a re-roll) and a ton of immunities and maneuverability.

Fighters deal considerably more damage than Monks in every game I have ever seen barring 1-2 level when the Fighter has the better defences most often.

It's a trade off.

You apparently don't understand comparing by relation. A level 1 fighter can withstand a level 1 wizards 1st level spells much easier than a level 20 fighter can withstand a level 20 wizards first level spells.
So it's not the same effect any more than a 1st level Rogues sneak attack is the same thing as a 20th level rogues sneak attack!


That's a weird thing to say. No one has complained wizards are broken. I have complained that fighter's, even in a featless game, should be able to make saves more often than on a 15+.
Drop their damage per round, and feel free to give them immunities and save boosts. You're probably left with a Monk if you go far enough.

1. you are playing in a feat based game and took feats to boost saves
Most did. The Casters took Resilient Con, the Fighter/Rogue Resilient Wisdom (and Lucky). The Druid didnt bother and went with Warcaster instead.

Still that only adds +1 save (at the cost of an ASI). Most save buffs came from Bless, the Paladin, and the Lore Bard.

2. your allies are constantly boosting your saves
3. you multiclassed in such a way that you got abilities that helped mitigate many of the effects of bad wisdom saves
Weird that hey? It's almost as if DnD is a collaborative, teamwork orientated game, featuring a party with diverse skills and...

Oh wait!

Seriously though mate, Wizards Warlocks and Sorcerers can dispell or counter incoming magical attacks (or remove them once they hit the party via other means), or mind blank the party or ehatever. Clerics have bless and protection from good and evil and heroes feast and warding bond and a ton of other save buffs or immunity granting spells, and status effect ending spells (dispel, restoration, remove curse etc). Ditto Bards (who can also toss out Bardic inspiration as a bonus action X times per short rest from 5th. Paladins are surrounded by an aura that buffs nearby PCs with immunities and save boosts, and can also strip negative status effects with LoH and spells.

I guess you might find yourself in a party of all Fighters, without any friendly Paladins, Clerics, Casters, or Bards, in a featless game where the DM hits you with a lot of Wisdom, Int and Charisma based saves all the time.

In every other situation, it literally doesnt matter.

None of those elements are guaranteed in any game.
Feats, and especially teamwork are not outliers in any game. If you're not at least getting the latter at your table, find a new table. You have bigger problems than fighters having 4 poor saves.

And if you still have mechanical issues with Fighters and Saves for some reason (you're playing a party of only Fighters, and they get hit with Wisdom saves all the time), let them (and only them) take Resilient, Lucky or Both, or allow them to swap an ASI
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
I've figured out the problem, you only consider games with feats whereas I enjoy games without feats.

No, the argument is they get boosts elsewhere to compensate for poor saves.

More feats or ASI if you dont use feats, and a huge amount of DPR.

Compare them to a Monk, that gets all saves (plus a re-roll) and a ton of immunities and maneuverability.
Monks are one of the best single target controllers for most of the game and get pretty good DPR as well. Thus they already compete with and due to their potent offensive ability combination they likely outdo the fighter whose sole contribution is DPR.

Fighters deal considerably more damage than Monks in every game I have ever seen barring 1-2 level when the Fighter has the better defences most often.
They are only slightly ahead in DPR in featless games.

So it's not the same effect any more than a 1st level Rogues sneak attack is the same thing as a 20th level rogues sneak attack!
If you look at the damage numbers of course not. If you look at how everythings hp scales as it levels, it's arguable that the rogues sneak attack actually gets weaker as the game goes on.

Drop their damage per round, and feel free to give them immunities and save boosts. You're probably left with a Monk if you go far enough.
Then Monks are flat out better than them as they get the damage and control aspects.

Most did. The Casters took Resilient Con, the Fighter/Rogue Resilient Wisdom (and Lucky). The Druid didnt bother and went with Warcaster instead.
I enjoy playing with no feats.

Still that only adds +1 save (at the cost of an ASI). Most save buffs came from Bless, the Paladin, and the Lore Bard.
Which are not guaranteed classes, abilities or ability uses from any of those

I guess you might find yourself in a party of all Fighters, without any friendly Paladins, Clerics, Casters, or Bards, in a featless game where the DM hits you with a lot of Wisdom, Int and Charisma based saves all the time.
All it takes is not being in a party with a bard/cleric or paladin. Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Druid and your out of luck on saves.
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
I've figured out the problem, you only consider games with feats whereas I enjoy games without feats.
DMing or playing, and why?

Monks are one of the best single target controllers for most of the game and get pretty good DPR as well. Thus they already compete with and due to their potent offensive ability combination they likely outdo the fighter whose sole contribution is DPR.
Monks are great, but they dont come close to Fighters in sustained DPR, and shockingly good spike damage with Action surge. Fighters bring the pain better than anyone (barring a Barbarian with really good dice!).

There is a reason they're the number 1 played class man.

They are only slightly ahead in DPR in featless games.
Featless games not featuring magic items (which benefit fighters the most), and with few short rests (or few encounters).

Then Monks are flat out better than them as they get the damage and control aspects.
Yet you dont see many Monks at tables compared to Fighters. Why is that?


All it takes is not being in a party with a bard/cleric or paladin. Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Druid and your out of luck on saves.
No feats, no cleric, no Bard and no Paladin. Check.

Any reason why the Wizard isnt using Counterspell to negate the incoming spell, polymorph to turn you into something immune to the effect you just wore, dispel magic or calm emotions to strip it off you, or the Druid isnt doing the same with restoration, and similar spells?

And in that party composition you also have the Wizard and Druid who are great with Wisdom saves (and later on the Rogue), the Wizard and Rogue that are great with Int saves and soforth so when a mass target save or suck hitting Wisdom or Int hits the party, several should still be up (i.e. the casters) to remove the effect from you.

Also, in this party featuring you (the Fighter) and a Rogue, Wizard and Druid, what happens when the party is hit with a mass target save or suck targeting... Con saves?
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
DMing or playing, and why?
playing



Monks are great, but they dont come close to Fighters in sustained DPR, and shockingly good spike damage with Action surge. Fighters bring the pain better than anyone (barring a Barbarian with really good dice!).
Actually run the numbers for a featless game. You'll be surprised how close things are.

There is a reason they're the number 1 played class man.
Yes. They are the most open class to various player concepts. Power has relatively little to do with it.

Featless games not featuring magic items (which benefit fighters the most), and with few short rests (or few encounters).
No one said anything about magic items not being present.

Yet you dont see many Monks at tables compared to Fighters. Why is that?
Because a lot of people don't like unarmored - non weapon wielding warriors in their medieval fantasy rpg - or at least don't like them as much as the armored warrior with a sword.

No feats, no cleric, no Bard and no Paladin. Check.
No feats right. Whether there is a bard or paladin or cleric present doesn't matter. The fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to have a halfway decent saving throw.

Any reason why the Wizard isnt using Counterspell to negate the incoming spell, polymorph to turn you into something immune to the effect you just wore, dispel magic or calm emotions to strip it off you, or the Druid isnt doing the same with restoration, and similar spells?
Because he decided not to learn either of those spells? Again, the fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to make get him out of having to make saves.

And in that party composition you also have the Wizard and Druid who are great with Wisdom saves (and later on the Rogue), the Wizard and Rogue that are great with Int saves and soforth so when a mass target save or suck hitting Wisdom or Int hits the party, several should still be up (i.e. the casters) to remove the effect from you.
They can do that too even if he isn't so sucktastic at saves. Takes nothing away from them other characters for characters to have better saves.

Also, in this party featuring you (the Fighter) and a Rogue, Wizard and Druid, what happens when the party is hit with a mass target save or suck targeting... Con saves?
Is there actually such an ability even in the game?
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
Why do you prefer playing without feats?

Ignore everyone else at the table. Why do you personally not like having those options?

Actually run the numbers for a featless game. You'll be surprised how close things are.
I have. Are magic items also excluded as well, because again, Fighters get the most out of them than any other class.

No one said anything about magic items not being present.
Great, because Fighters generally get the best use out of magic items.

Because a lot of people don't like unarmored - non weapon wielding warriors in their medieval fantasy rpg - or at least don't like them as much as the armored warrior with a sword.
I doubt Monks are played less because they're banned more.

Athough I cant back that up with any hard facts.

And anyone that bans Monks as being 'out of place' with the genre, yet has no problems with Bronze age Britain and Ireland Druids and Bards being present with late Middle ages and Renaissance full plate wearing Paladins (and enlightenment period rapier using Swashbucklers) hanging out together in a world with teleportation magic, flying ships, and wizards that shoot lasers out of thier eyes, is probably not really getting it!

No feats right. Whether there is a bard or paladin or cleric present doesn't matter. The fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to have a halfway decent saving throw.
The Wizard should need to depend on the Fighter and other meatshields to stop the monsters getting to him, but there you have it.

The game revolves around teamwork. That's the whole point. The Fighter depends on the Wizard for AoE effects and magic stuff. The Wizard God Modes by making encounters easier to end for the Fighter. The Cleric buffs people and acts as the Healing gimp. The Bard is the 5th wheel. The Rogue is the yo-yoing striker and skill guy. The Meatshields get in the monsters face and take the brunt of the attacks and wallop it back as hard as they can.

That's just how the game is generally played man. Its the same as it ever was.

Is there actually such an ability even in the game?
Sickening radiance and Stinking Cloud spring to mind. Also nothing like trolling the Rogues in the party with a Con based Green dragon breath. That's save or Suck for nothing more than the insane amounts of damage it can do on a failed save (and Wizards, Rogues and to a lesser extent Druids dont exactly have good HP)

Clouds of Poison are the most frequent Con based Area effects, and they usually come with a Poisoned condition along with them. Pretty sure most Cold based effects, paralysis, and so forth also target Con.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Why do you prefer playing without feats?

Ignore everyone else at the table. Why do you personally not like having those options?
1. I think the game is more balanced without feats

2. I like to optimize and there's a small handful of feat and class combinations that flat out make that combination better than anything else in a similar category. Thus, removing the means of optimizing to that degree I tend to find most classes are relatively on par with the others and everything becomes available to me as an option - whereas with those feats my optimizing self would not allow me to pick options that inferior.

3. The game plays better for me without feats

I have. Are magic items also excluded as well, because again, Fighters get the most out of them than any other class.
I didn't include them in the numbers I ran. I encourage you to take a fresh look at a featless game. There's a lot more freedom in fewer options. IMO not everything needs mechanically differentiated.

Great, because Fighters generally get the best use out of magic items.
I never look at the magic item lists so I couldn't say. I will take your word on it.

I doubt Monks are played less because they're banned more.

Athough I cant back that up with any hard facts.

And anyone that bans Monks as being 'out of place' with the genre, yet has no problems with Bronze age Britain and Ireland Druids and Bards being present with late Middle ages and Renaissance full plate wearing Paladins (and enlightenment period rapier using Swashbucklers) hanging out together in a world with teleportation magic, flying ships, and wizards that shoot lasers out of thier eyes, is probably not really getting it!
Huh? Are you actually reading what i'm saying. I never suggested that monks were banned. I suggested disliked.

The Wizard should need to depend on the Fighter and other meatshields to stop the monsters getting to him, but there you have it.
The wizard doesn't depend on the fighter to keep monsters from here. In most situations it's laughable how little a fighter can do to prevent anything from attacking the wizard that wants to. When that happens wizards have a spell for that ;)

The game revolves around teamwork. That's the whole point. The Fighter depends on the Wizard for AoE effects and magic stuff.
Sure. It's a matter of degree. I'm not suggesting we remove the wizards ability to help the fighter. I'm suggesting the fighter should be individually better at saves than he is. The wizard can still help him even if he's a bit better at them than he is now.

The Wizard God Modes by making encounters easier to end for the Fighter.
That's an odd way to put it "God Modes". That already suggests an inherent fighter inferiority is present in your mind. No wonder you are opposed to letting the fighter make saves on his own.

The Cleric buffs people and acts as the Healing gimp. The Bard is the 5th wheel. The Rogue is the yo-yoing striker and skill guy. The Meatshields get in the monsters face and take the brunt of the attacks and wallop it back as hard as they can.
Ironically, Besides DM fiat the only classes that can keep a monster from approaching casters with any real degree of success are the spell caster types.

Sickening radiance and Stinking Cloud spring to mind. Also nothing like trolling the Rogues in the party with a Con based Green dragon breath. That's save or Suck for nothing more than the insane amounts of damage it can do on a failed save (and Wizards, Rogues and to a lesser extent Druids dont exactly have good HP)
I don't know what those do right off. Do you want to share?

As to damage based effects, healing of any kind resolves save or suck due to that issue. So it's really no where close to the same.

Clouds of Poison are the most frequent Con based Area effects, and they usually come with a Poisoned condition along with them. Pretty sure most Cold based effects, paralysis, and so forth also target Con.
Okay. So suppose there are ample con based save or suck effects. That simply means that fighters have something they suck at and wizards have something they suck at. That's fine. My argument is that neither should suck at those effects as much as they do. Not that they should be good at them, not that other characters shouldn't be able to help them, but that they should be a little better than they currently are. Why are you so against that?
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
1. I think the game is more balanced without feats
It's not.

Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise.

I ran a balanced game featuring a bonus feat at 1st for everyone, artifacts and legendary items galore, every PC with at least 1 stat above 20, multiple epic boons and so forth.

3. The game plays better for me without feats
Personal preference I guess.

If your personal preference extends to requesting the other players dont use feats, then its a problem.

I didn't include them in the numbers I ran. I encourage you to take a fresh look at a featless game. There's a lot more freedom in fewer options. IMO not everything needs mechanically differentiated.
Ive got them, I'll use them. Intrestingly feats (as already shown) are the Fighters greatest strength, and actually shore up the very problems your claiming exists.

If feats are allowed, Resilient (and Lucky) are allowed. They're common feats and go directly towards the issue we're talking about.

I never look at the magic item lists so I couldn't say. I will take your word on it.
The only stat boosting Item over 20 is Strength (benefiting Fighters, Paladins and Barbs). It benefits them doubly by also letting them spend ASI elsewhere.

Magic weapons help all melee PCs, but Fighters the most (more attacks = more chances to steal life/ deal fire damage/ cold damage/ hack off a limb or head etc). Even a + X to damage helps Fighters the most because they make the most attacks.

Magic armor and shields are generally non attunement items.

Misc items (boots of flying etc) allow Fighters to do stuff they couldnt normally do. They just save the Wizard from preparing fly that day.

Potions buff everyone more or less equally, but Str boost potions (see above) healing (obviously) heroism, speed, invulnerability etc all give the greatest boosts to fighters. The other potions give them additional abilities they dont already have (see boots).

Of course, with magic items comes Warlocks with +3 rods, +2 robes and a save or suck spell, so it also compounds the problem you're talking about as well.

Huh? Are you actually reading what i'm saying. I never suggested that monks were banned. I suggested disliked.
I find that hard to believe with the pro anime/ ninja wanna-be's and katana fan-boys out there.

The wizard doesn't depend on the fighter to keep monsters from here. In most situations it's laughable how little a fighter can do to prevent anything from attacking the wizard that wants to. When that happens wizards have a spell for that ;)
Schroedingers wizard rides!

Sorry, but that doesnt meet my experiences in the game since BECMI. You need the meat shields as a Wizard, and the meatshield need the Wizard. The Rogue has his uses, and the Cleric his.

Now maybe you're running a game featuring 5 archery fighters or what ever, or a whole party of Bards (A boy Band!). While that could happen (and the DM should modifiy his encounters accordinly) it's disengenous to say that parties dont generally fall into the mixed bag of different classes, with each class having its own strengths and weaknesses and areas of speciality.

Ironically, Besides DM fiat the only classes that can keep a monster from approaching casters with any real degree of success are the spell caster types.
Your experiences differ from mine.

Okay. So suppose there are ample con based save or suck effects. That simply means that fighters have something they suck at and wizards have something they suck at. That's fine. My argument is that neither should suck at those effects as much as they do. Not that they should be good at them, not that other characters shouldn't be able to help them, but that they should be a little better than they currently are. Why are you so against that?
I really get the feeling you're complaining about a problem at a level of play (12th+) that you dont play in that often, if indeed at all.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
It's not.

Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise.
It's quite rude to ask someone why they prefer something and then try to argue with them that the reasons they give for preferring it.
Personal preference I guess.

If your personal preference extends to requesting the other players dont use feats, then its a problem.
I prefer to have my character start with all 20's in all my stats. It's a problem if you request other players not have their characters start with 20 in all their stats. See how absurd that is?

If feats are allowed, Resilient (and Lucky) are allowed. They're common feats and go directly towards the issue we're talking about.
feats aren't allowed

I find that hard to believe with the pro anime/ ninja wanna-be's and katana fan-boys out there.
I didn't say everyone disliked them. Heck I didn't say they were flat out disliked either, simply their aesthetics are less appealing to many in D&D fantasy than a fighters.

Schroedingers wizard rides!

Sorry, but that doesnt meet my experiences in the game since BECMI. You need the meat shields as a Wizard, and the meatshield need the Wizard. The Rogue has his uses, and the Cleric his.
If you think the meatsheild is useful it's because the DM makes him so by focusing more enemies on him instead of the squishier party members. Mine does the same thing. It's a common way to play. But DM fiat doesn't override the mechanics, and the mechanics suggest that most enemies don't care one bit about running past the fighter's puny OA if they want to attack something else.

Now maybe you're running a game featuring 5 archery fighters or what ever, or a whole party of Bards (A boy Band!). While that could happen (and the DM should modifiy his encounters accordinly) it's disengenous to say that parties dont generally fall into the mixed bag of different classes, with each class having its own strengths and weaknesses and areas of speciality.
There's 11 classes. Parties are typically 4-5 members. There's hundreds maybe even thousands of party compositions.

Your experiences differ from mine.
So please tell me how a featless fighter or barbarian keeps any enemy focused on attacking him instead of the wizard?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The thing is that when characters have excessive divergence of frequently used abilities my experience is that it makes the DMs job much much more problematic you end up pampering somebody and playing enemies in bad tactics ways ... it is a lot more work instead of fun.

This happens even with beginning characters in old Stormbringer in spite of its interesting elements... The random character design could result in one persons weapon skill being 40 percentiles better than the character next to him.
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
It's quite rude to ask someone why they prefer something and then try to argue with them that the reasons they give for preferring it.
Ive just never known a game where balance rests in the hands of the players.

Barring a Pathfinder or 3.5 type game, where the difference between optimisation and non optimised PCs is so vast that those games require a gentlemans agreement at the campaigns start.

I prefer to have my character start with all 20's in all my stats. It's a problem if you request other players not have their characters start with 20 in all their stats. See how absurd that is?
No, that's a false analogy.

You preferring not to use a game mechanic (even an optional one) is fine. Demanding other players do so as well due to your own preferences, probably isnt. Demanding to be given 20's in all your stats isnt even the same ball park. There is a difference there, surely you can see it?

feats aren't allowed
I thought you said, you personally dont like feats as a player.

Any reason another player cant take feats?

If you think the meatsheild is useful it's because the DM makes him so by focusing more enemies on him instead of the squishier party members. Mine does the same thing. It's a common way to play. But DM fiat doesn't override the mechanics, and the mechanics suggest that most enemies don't care one bit about running past the fighter's puny OA if they want to attack something else.
That's not 'mechanics' man, nor is it 'DM fiat'. Its down to many Monsters wanting to deal with the Great Weapon Master action surging 6 foot tall superiority dice spamming dood in Full plate trying to carve his face in with a Greatsword thats on fire.


There's 11 classes. Parties are typically 4-5 members. There's hundreds maybe even thousands of party compositions.
Generally a meatshield, a cleric, a spellcaster, a trap guy/ skill monkey and a 5th wheel or backup.

It's literally the first thing every new player has asked me when they join for like 35 years of playing this game. 'What's in the party?' They want to know so they can create something to mesh with the party.

Not all players do this, despite my own anecdotal experience. But its common, and a default assumption of the game (heck; last edition they tried to codify it with different 'roles').

So please tell me how a featless fighter or barbarian keeps any enemy focused on attacking him instead of the wizard?
Standing in the doorway or hallway a of a dungeon while the Wizard stands 40' back is the best way.

But barbarians using reckless attack and posing a tempting target. Cavaliers by using their own protection abilities. The Protection fighting style. Tripping attack or menacing attack or pushing attack with a Battlemaster to keep the monster at bay. Booming blade on an Eldritch knight. Spirit guardians on an Ancestor Barbarian. Wolf totem making you a tempting target. Compelled duel for a Paladin, Crown oath for a Crown Paladin. Grabbing the creature on your turn. Knocking it prone on your turn. Not wanting to risk a free attack of opportinity from a raging greatsword monster that just clobbered it for 40 damamge.

And just being a big angry scary dude.

Again, I love how you're opposed to feats, when you identify that feats (namely Sentinel) is one other way to lock down a monster, which is something you seem to desire in your games.
 

Advertisement

Top