Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8317605" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My experience with 5e reflects neither of these. Not even close, in fact. The only games I've been in that reached at least 4th level within the first 10 sessions were the ones that started above 4th level. I've never, ever, seen a game where you reach 2nd level within the first four sessions.People talk a lot about a lot of supposed "virtues" of 5e that I've literally never seen myself. But of course I'm supposed to be happy about this, since this is the DM being empowered, right? This is the DM deviating from the rules whenever and however they like, because that's axiomatically better for the game no matter what, right?I explicitly said 1st and 2nd level for a reason. You're saying subclass is supposed to fix this problem. Subclasses don't exist for Fighters or Rogues prior to 3rd level, meaning you're specifically giving (most) casters a benefit that Fighters and Rogues don't get. It doesn't matter if those levels are supposed to be fast, or skipped over, or whatever. It's still shortchanging the Fighter, yet again.But I have other reasons for absolutely hating the "1st level is actually 3rd level" problem, that would derail the thread if I discussed them here. Suffice it to say, I find this argument not just not compelling, but anti-compelling; it makes me oppose your position more than I did before.It's really really not, though, when you compare it to a Battle Master's 2-3 maneuvers per combat (6 combats; start of day plus two short rests gives 3*5=15 superiority dice, 15/6 = 2.5). Unless you're really, really bad at using combat spells, I just flat do not buy that a spell is worth less than 2.5 maneuvers. And if you're spending more spells on the combat, clearly you thought that was more worth you while than the non-combat stuff! It's not like the BM (or any Fighter) can just get to decide "hey, I need a little more combat oomph today, I'll just borrow from my non-combat pool this time." And if you aren't? Then your combat contributions were already good enough as-is, and you get 3 extra goodies to play with which the Fighter cannot even in principle compare to.Spells are, pretty much automatically, much more powerful than maneuvers. Consider: chromatic orb, a solid combat spell, does 3d8 damage (of a chosen energy) to a target, based on an attack roll exactly the same way a BM's maneuvers  are. 3d8 damage, so an average of 16.5 on a hit. A maneuver at max scaling does 1d12 bonus damage, average 6.5. That's 16.5/6.5 = 2.54ish. Even spells like thunderwave, which is only 2d8, compare quite favorably without any extra investment at all, especially since thunderwave is AoE and more widely available. And that's not even trying to compare things like how faerie fire is orders of magnitude better than the equivalent BM maneuver (spell applies to multiple targets and lasts for concentration duration, rather than only the single next attack roll. Even if your concentration is broken before you get to take actions again, it's still far more than twice as good as distracting strike, even despite faerie fire doing no damage.)(Note that I'm ignoring the Fighter's base weapon damage here, because that's what the Fighter would get regardless, even if they weren't a Battle Master at all. I am comparing the benefit of the maneuvers specifically the spells.)So...yeah. I'm not seeing "1 spell per combat" a tight budget. I'd argue two, even three maneuvers simply aren't as good as one spell, as long as we assume the spellcaster has even the tiniest bit of awareness of what they're doing. Not talking optimization here, just talking "you should cast fireball so it can hit at least two enemies because it's an AoE spell," that level of bare-minimum awareness of how one's spells work.Because caster fans, particularly Wizard fans, have a demonstrably outsized influence on the direction of the  hobby. It goes all the way up to the designers themselves. I linked an interview with Rob Heinsoo earlier--the lead designer of 4e--where he explicitly said he had to keep adjusting the Wizard back down again because members of the design team kept trying to make it the strongest class.Or, to put it a bit cynically: They don't call it Wizards of the Coast for nothing.Ehren isn't talking about other Fighter players. They're talking about caster fans who complain about the "realism" of Fighters. Most Fighter fans don't seem to be that picky about ultra-realism. Some are picky about flavor, demanding that the class bring exactly nothing to the table so it can't prevent their personal concept (an argument I still to this day do not understand whatsoever; that's what refluffing is for). But I don't think I've seen a single legit outright Fighter fan who says, "No, I need the Fighter to be weaker than a real-world Olympian athlete in order to enjoy the class."</blockquote>

Verification