D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[FrogReaver]

Well, all I have is the results of my poll:

D&D 5E - How to "fix" (or at least help) the fighter/wizard dynamic. (+)

From the other thread, can we get to work and actually do something to help the issue? So, first, this is how I see it (you might see it differently) and I am more than willing to update/append the issues if I have something wrong. :) ISSUE #1: Fighters fall behind Wizards in features which...

www.enworld.org

Where over 40% think it is fine and nothing needs to be done. Now, this mostly addresses the issue between fighter/wizard, and not just the utility of the fighter, itself, but several of the "other" responses were about utility.

Your poll specifically asked how to fix 5e. "Fix" carries alot of baggage. If you had instead asked would it be an improvement if Fighters got a a few additional out of combat capabilties you could have had very different results. Polls are fickle. Fun, but fickle.

Yes, it IS a big step, but that step doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere fast... which personally I find a bit frustrating since you still have people saying "Meh, no issue, and I don't want your stuff in my game." (Thankfully, most of those responses are falling by the way side, finally.)

You seem to expect immediate and overwhelming agreement. That's not how this is ever going to work.

We all want a little different things and think the problem is a bit bigger or smaller than others. We discuss and negotiate to find what compromises work and what solutions can get broad agreement. Part of the problem is everyone wants everything fixed just how they want it right now, instead of accepting that some more minor improvements can happen now due to broad agreement while other things they'd like to see just aren't going to get that broad level of agreement right now.

Sure, we do the best with the information we can get. Of course not everyone has to think there is an issue, but some have voiced that certain changes in the direction many are clamoring for would discourage them from D&D (or at least any new products/ editions).

It's the internet. Not everyone is going to ever agree on anything.

I fight fire with fire. If the person says I am wrong, I am going to show them they are incorrect and if they do continue to ignore the facts, I can't help them.

Escalation isn't helpful to discussion. Usually the reason you get fire in the first place is because something you said was perceived as fire to someone else.

Really? I haven't seen much of that TBH. Perhaps very recently there as been more heading in that direction, but considering some of the responses we are still getting, I am not as certain. Thankfully, as I noted above, many naysayers have been dropping out of the conversations at this point.

Just change your perspective. The goal isn't to achieve broad agreement but instead to understand the various levels of differences so you can pinpoint areas where there is broad agreement - even if that's not fully all the changes some would like. While doing that raise some strong points for your preferences and solutions and hope that over time those ideas eventually persuade others.

YMMV, of course, and perhaps you are more optimistic than I am at this point? But I still don't see much improvement, personally.

Maybe it's because I don't fight fire with fire

 

[DND_Reborn]

Your poll specifically asked how to fix 5e. "Fix" carries alot of baggage. If you had instead asked would it be an improvement if Fighters got a a few additional out of combat capabilties you could have had very different results. Polls are fickle. Fun, but fickle.

Until someone does one of their own, it is all I've got.

(And yes, fun but fickle.)

You seem to expect immediate and overwhelming agreement. That's not how this is ever going to work.

Two weeks isn't immediate and overwhelming IMO. Not only is this how it does work (if it was immediate, etc.) I doubt this will ever work--I just see too much disparity.

 

[FrogReaver]

Until someone does one of their own, it is all I've got.

(And yes, fun but fickle.)

Poll fatigue is also a thing. Asking a poll with a similar but slightly different question to the same group of people in a short amount of time is going to give outright junk results because participation is going to be lower.

In short, there's no real way to get other results at this point from enworld.

Two weeks isn't immediate and overwhelming IMO. Not only is this how it does work (if it was immediate, etc.) I doubt this will ever work--I just see too much disparity.

For a forum where we are discussing how far to change things, IMO expecting opinions to converge withing a 2 week span might as well be expecting instantaneous change. Nit pick at the word choice of instant if you want, but IMO the message is pretty clear... this isn't the kind of timeframe that allows for views to be substantially altered.

But really the goal shouldn't be to change views, it should be to pinpoint what extent of changes that people are comfortable with and start there.

 

[DND_Reborn]

well I guess if you all can't agree on exact specifics for what you want, I guess you must not want anything..

LOL where did that come from? I never said anything of the sort, neither explicitly nor implied.

 

[SkidAce]

Give the fighter Limited Wish at 13th level, and Wish at 17th level.

Not as "spellcasting" but as mythic abilities that they must describe in the fiction.

"I change the course of the river by using a shovel made from a bullette claw over the course of the afternoon."

"My intimidation is so mighty, that all of my foes in this army must flee or have disadvantage on attacks during this combat as I brandish the head of their leader"

You laugh, but there is potential here based on recharge, and plot, etc.

 

[Asisreo]

I agree a separate class where campaigns are then either going to feature the regular fighter or the mythic fighter class but not both due to power level discrepancies doesn't make much design sense.

Unlike you I have no problem with additional classes, but not classes whose goal is to represent similar concepts at radically different power levels.

I'm in support of that as well. I'm with Crimson in that I don't like Class Bloat but I don't consider a class with a unique playstyles as bloating the system.

Which is where I'm at. I'm against playstyle-wizard but no-magic. I'm for no-magic martial with unique utility. I'm against changing all of the fighter, a class me and my peers enjoy. I'm for adding a new class that grants what the other side wants.

I'm against classes that play identically and class bloat because that's more rules, more edge-cases, more pages in the book, and more resources put into something that functionally already exists.

I'm for nonmagic martials with unique utility because I don't see any reason not to. Maybe that class chooses between Heroic and mythic and gains a random debuff based on how much they try to push themselves further. Like the mythic hero can punch sections of walls out, with a con save to avoid the incapacitated condition, and the DC scales based on how big that section of wall you'd like to destroy. Or the hero might fall prone if they try to jump farther than their normal jump distance, with a strength save to avoid that. That's unique and interesting, maybe even pretty fun. Though I'd have to actually see it on-paper and in-action.

I'm against changing the fighter because I have a blast playing it. Sometimes, I like to play the character that only has to focus on combat and don't have to buff, pre-buff, read pages of descriptions, etc. I'm okay saying "I attack with my weapon" and not have to worry about targeting the correct save, avoiding resistances, worrying about being counterspelled, or making sure an edge-case isn't affecting the spell.

 

[Minigiant]

Glad we agree on that! So let's go for the best solution instead!

It ain't happening.

I strongly disagree. It doesn't solve the problem, and disagree that it is a good idea at all.

It solves the problem.
It's a solution. Not the best solution.

But we won't get the best solution until 6e.

I agree a separate class where campaigns are then either going to feature the regular fighter or the mythic fighter class but not both due to power level discrepancies doesn't make much design sense.

Unlike you I have no problem with additional classes, but not classes whose goal is to represent similar concepts at radically different power levels.

It's really only a problem if the regular fighter and mystic fighter are only the same in scope and on the same campaign.

Personally I'd make the mythical fighter not as offensive and more focus on defense and utility.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds good.

Some additional proposals (I'm open to alternate suggestions):

• I propose chance to hit with 20 stat and proficiency bonus be 60%. Additions like archery style or magic weapons or GWM would modify that base.
• I propose enemies have a 60% chance of failing saving throws.
• Party Advantage Generation normally greatly favors melee characters over ranged ones and even more so over granting disadvantage to spell saves. I propose for this comparison we don't assume advantage for anything the character itself isn't generating for himself. If you plan to use find familiar to grant advantage, I propose we discuss a reasonable percent that this occurs (since the familiar is so easy to kill).
• I propose an AOE like shatter count as hitting 2 enemies. I propose an AOE like fireball count as hitting on average 3.5 enemies.
• Evoker Wizard subclass has 2 abilities we need to discuss if you plan to use it. Avoiding Friendly fire should reasonable increase the average number of enemies hit per AOE. How his level 10 damage bonus interactions with magic missile is also a very important discussion to have. If you aren't using that subclass we can ignore.
• If the wizard is planning to boost damage with concentration spells then we really need to talk about concentration and the chance he loses said spells.

I'm sure there's some more but those are the biggest things on my mind. Nailing down an agreement on the chance to hit and advantage considerations will let me start calculating the Fighters.

Hit succes/save fail base chance at 60%: agreed. I may be using the Custom Lineage so that I can have both 20 Int and a feat at this level, though honestly in terms of feature optimization there aren't many races with stronger benefits to Wizards anyway.
I have no intent to make use of a familiar this way, so I'm cool with that. As stated: sources provided by the character personally count, all others do not.
Will need to look over the example spells in AoE terms, but in principle I have no issue with the proposed numbers.
Evoker was one I was considering, so we should probably talk that out regardless. (I may end up following your lead and doing a couple different examples.)
Probably should have that conversation at some point regardless, though as it stands I did not have any specific intent to use such spells.

Given magic items can be of significant impact to each of us, what limits do you think are appropriate? For a level 11 character, I figure at least a +1 item (weapon or focus) is a reasonable expectation, while a +2 is possibly on the high end and +3 is right out. If we are also factoring in defenses, the question of magical armor remains open.

Also, on the subject of defenses etc.: Movement. Will you be trying to do well at both ranged and melee combat (so enemies being spread out isn't an issue), or will you only be focusing on one of the two (so the possibility of overkill becomes relevant)? I know 5e is very permissive about movement so it's less of a concern, but it seems a reasonable thing to ask about if we've concern for "is the Wizard getting hit" and "are the enemies in fireball formation or avoiding clustering."

 

[Mecheon]

Warlock and sorcerer being separate classes was a mistake, them being one class would have resulted mechanically more flexible and thematically stronger class.

And I'm still gonna argue against that point. Warlock and Sorcerer being mechanically similar was the mistake, the thematic ideas of what they represent are so far-flung from each other they shouldn't even be vaguely recognisable as one another.

Merging them into one just erodes away a case for future expression and flavour, because your concept for "I am born of celestials and can call on my bloodline, sprouting forth wings and going full on DO NOT FEAR" also has to fit "I made a deal with a celestial and can fire a few thematic spells as a consequence" so you lose the impact in needing to make it generic. But, of course, this drags us back to "Dropping Playtest Sorcerer was a mistake"

Abandoning fighter and designing a parallel mythic fighter class so that one can play the illogical concept of level one Heracles however is niche.

I dunno, I did find a pretty popular 13th Age homebrew class that pretty much went with the mythic warrior idea as its own seperate thing

A'course, 13th Age classes are a far thing from 5E classes

 

[FrogReaver]

Hit succes/save fail base chance at 60%: agreed. I may be using the Custom Lineage so that I can have both 20 Int and a feat at this level, though honestly in terms of feature optimization there aren't many races with stronger benefits to Wizards anyway.

I thought earlier that you were against including racial feats. Unless I'm mistaken that's how a Tasha's custom lineage race wizard would achieve a 20 int and a feat by level 11? So just want to make sure we are on the same page.

*In principle I'm open to whatever racial options you want to go with.

I have no intent to make use of a familiar this way, so I'm cool with that. As stated: sources provided by the character personally count, all others do not.

On this note, I ask what you think is fair in regards to trip attack since it has a requirement the enemy be Large or smaller.

Will need to look over the example spells in AoE terms, but in principle I have no issue with the proposed numbers.

Sounds good. If you have any differently sized AOE's we need to bring up feel free. But if we can set the bounds on a small AOE and big one then hopefully the rest can be easily extrapolated from there.

Evoker was one I was considering, so we should probably talk that out regardless. (I may end up following your lead and doing a couple different examples.)
Probably should have that conversation at some point regardless, though as it stands I did not have any specific intent to use such spells.

Sure. My initial thoughts would be to increase number of targets for an AOE by 0.5 due to the evokers level 2 ability. I could see it going a bit higher.

Some people play that magic missile gets the evokers damage bonus to every dart and some play that it only applies to one dart. I can see the ability either way from RAW but i always play it applies to one dart.

Given magic items can be of significant impact to each of us, what limits do you think are appropriate? For a level 11 character, I figure at least a +1 item (weapon or focus) is a reasonable expectation, while a +2 is possibly on the high end and +3 is right out. If we are also factoring in defenses, the question of magical armor remains open.

I wasn't super concerned with defenses beyond basic armor/shield for the fighter and mage armor and a few shield spells for the wizard. So personally I think it's safe to ignore defensive items. For magic weapons I think a +1 weapon should be default but I was going to run various scenarios with them for the Fighter. A +1 focus seems reasonable there as well.

Also, on the subject of defenses etc.: Movement. Will you be trying to do well at both ranged and melee combat (so enemies being spread out isn't an issue), or will you only be focusing on one of the two (so the possibility of overkill becomes relevant)? I know 5e is very permissive about movement so it's less of a concern, but it seems a reasonable thing to ask about if we've concern for "is the Wizard getting hit" and "are the enemies in fireball formation or avoiding clustering."

I was going to do a ranged fighter, a melee fighter and possibly a hybrid range/melee fighter.

I follow that. If we are talking movement though I think we need to think about enemy movement and OA's. There's quite a bit to explicitly account for there. Or we can just make a general statement like the amount of OA's a melee fighter gets to make will roughly make up for the attacks he doesn't get to make due to needing to get in range some rounds. Not perfect, but maybe reasonable enough while greatly simplifying calculations.

Since you mentioned above you were not planning on using concentration spells for damage i don't think we really need to focus on concentration checks and the possibility of losing concentration on one of those spells early. There's alot to consider if we were, from NPC targeting, to defenses, mobility/kiting, conentration save bonus, etc. If you change your mind and want to use a concentration spell for damage or self buffing let's iron something reasonable out for this at that time?

Also, are assuming 24 combat rounds and 2 short rests spread over 8 encounters?