D&D 5E What does it mean to you for a character/class to be "good in melee"?

[Tony Vargas]

Really? Wow, I don't understated that attitude at all.

Well, you see, the fighter is supposed to be better at fighting (with weapons), and the wizard's supposed to be good at casting oodles of reality-warping all-powerful spells. Even if the fighter has 20 BAB and the wizard 10, that's not really shaking out in the fighter's favor too dramatically. But when the fighter is +6 prof with his weapon, and the wizard is also +6 prof, he's gotta wonder about his career choices...

This is something that I especially LOVE about 5E; it eliminates "Phantom Proficiency" and means that being Proficient with a weapon actually really means something. Sure, in 3E Elven Wizards were technically Proficient with the longsword, but did that "Proficiency" mean your Wizard would ever be able to actually hit anything with his sword? Not really, no, it didn't. That "Proficiency" was a really nothing but a lie.

Meh, it was an exaggeration. At first level, the 12 STR wiz was +1 and the 16 STR fighter +4, and it only got worse from there, but he was in the running for a little while. Besides, he could just cast Tenser's Transformation or something when he gets high enough level.

In 5E having Proficiency with a weapon means your character will be able to use the weapon competently and actually hit with it.

It meant the same thing in 3e. That elven wizard could totally hit an orc or a peasant conscript or something with his competently-wielded longsword. Just not the Juggernaught of Doom with +64 natural armor. That he had to use Dominate Monster on.

Does that mean your Wizard will be as good at combat as a Fighter?

"In combat" using all kinds of spells, sure. 'Fighting with weapons but not magic,' no, not if the fighter has better STR or DEX (depending on the weapon), or they've reached at least 5th level.

I love this. It means that if I want to play a Wizard who is proud of the fact that he is a fully trained swordsman

He could have been as proud of his swordsmanship as any fully-trained 0-level man at arms...

...rather than just an arbitrary limit on the ability of "non-warriors" to be able to actually hit anything.

IDK, it was a nice symmetry to on-casters not being able to cast anything.... ;P

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Really? Wow, I don't understated that attitude at all. This is something that I especially LOVE about 5E; it eliminates "Phantom Proficiency" and means that being Proficient with a weapon actually really means something. Sure, in 3E Elven Wizards were technically Proficient with the longsword, but did that "Proficiency" mean your Wizard would ever be able to actually hit anything with his sword? No, it didn't. That "Proficiency" was really nothing but a lie.

In 5E having Proficiency with a weapon means your character will be able to use the weapon competently and actually hit with it. Now being Proficient with a weapon actually means a character can use it effectively in combat, instead of just equating to a lack of a penalty. Does that mean your Wizard will be as good at combat as a Fighter? No, of course not, but it does mean that your Wizard's "Proficiency" isn't just a lie, either.

I love this. It means that if I want to play a Wizard who is proud of the fact that he is a fully trained swordsman and wants to use his sword to whack something, he can actually do it, and not be crippled by the fact that, although he spent years training to use a sword, he will still never really be able to hit anything with it just because he is "merely a Wizard" and all that training essentially means nothing because his overall attack rating is too low.

In fact, this is actually one of my favorite elements of 5E, that all classes are equally skilled at landing attacks in combat, while overall effectiveness in physical combat is the measure of a mixture of factors (AC, Hit Points, number of attacks, damage capability, etc), rather than just an arbitrary limit on the ability of "non-warriors" to be able to actually hit anything.

That's reasonable. And I had thought about that as well. But I think there's a difference between a character who is proficient, vs somebody who specifically trains in nothing but fighting. The wizard might be proficient in the longsword, but he'll never be the specialist that a fighter is.

In the end, I went a different direction. I turned the Fighting Styles into feats, and fighter classes get a bonus to hit in addition to the other benefits. So other classes can also gain the benefits if they want, without the +2 to hit bonus. That might still rub you the wrong way, but I think it's reasonable to allow any class to learn some of the specialized functions of a given type of weapon or fighting style, but that fighters have a bit of an additional edge.

But I'll think about it, I could grant them more of the maneuvers of that fighting style instead.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

... typically, the guy you're swinging at.

Seriously, if you make 1 attack/round, even if you hit pretty well (60-80%, say) you'll likely have at least 1 round in each combat where you miss and it feels 'wasted.' DoaM (or other miss effects) are one way around that, but multiple attacks mostly take care of it (it's unlikely you'll miss with all three attacks in any given round at 11th, for instance).

Eliminating rounds helps a lot with that. Missed that swing? No problem, another one in a moment...

 

[Tony Vargas]

But I think there's a difference between a character who is proficient, vs somebody who specifically trains in nothing but fighting.

Cut to the chase: give the Fighter 'Weapon Expertise.'

Eliminating rounds helps a lot with that. Missed that swing? No problem, another one in a moment...

Can't say I see a big difference, there.

 

[Redthistle]

A high-level Armor of Agathys + spammed Blade Ward is pretty much invulnerable to the whims of the dice.

Ditto for a Mobile or mounted PC who is good in melee and excellent at ranged, against a typical MM foe.

A Diviner is also somewhat immune to the whims of the dice, in a different way.

Those will work for a PC.

But for a barefoot player stepping on a d4 ... not so much, as [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] pointed to.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Why is this a matter of discussion? Didn't we all agree that alignment questions are subjective? Why shouldn't I be able to be chaotic neutral in melee if I want?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why is this a matter of discussion? Didn't we all agree that alignment questions are subjective? Why shouldn't I be able to be chaotic neutral in melee if I want?

We all know that Chaotic Neutral is indistinguishable in practice from Chaotic Evil And Crazy.

;-)

 

[FrogReaver]

"good in melee" is relative.

 

[Miladoon]

If five adventurers go into my dungeon and six adventurers come out.

They were all good at melee.

 

[schnee]

That's reasonable. And I had thought about that as well. But I think there's a difference between a character who is proficient, vs somebody who specifically trains in nothing but fighting. The wizard might be proficient in the longsword, but he'll never be the specialist that a fighter is.

The thing is, I think that still holds true here.

If you take a 12th level Wizard who passed on ASI's and magic feats to be a better fighter, they'd still get absolutely destroyed in combat with a thing that the Fighter handles easily, while suffering lower save DCs, getting easily disrupted by Concentration checks, and using their action that could be slinging a high level spell in the process. And, it took this long for the feat combo to come together, so they've been less effective the whole time.

So, yeah, their single attack will hit. It'll do decent damage. But they did a single attack, when they could have been casting a spell that's worth three attacks or more.

So, I guess I'm not quite seeing the problem. 5E seems to work fine - when a spell caster resorts to a weapon, they're not missing all the time like before - they're hitting fairly often - but their hits don't have much oomph unless they create some freakishly narrow build that severely gimps their spell casting in the process.