Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[Tales and Chronicles]

yea I’m thinking they never learn teleport or wish or whatever. If they want to cast those spells they need an artifact that allows them to.

Even better. One thing I've always found weird with 5e, is that the designer said they did not take magic items/feats/multiclass in consideration when designing the encounter guidelines, but they did take in consideration things such as meteor shower, wish, foresight etc?

Like, a fighter should never take for granted that he would find a magic sword of X, but a caster should take for granted that he will, someday, cast game changing spells? I mean, in their mind, one of those would probably imbalance the game but not the other?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't support any system that restricts magic-users more than they already are. By all means, bring the mundanes up! The idea upthread about capping them at 10 and then supporting prestige classes sounds great to me.

 

[Wishbone]

Have wizards deal with weird and rare reagents, have warlock deal and do a favor for their patron, have the cleric sacrifice or quest for their god in order to gain access to the higher level of magic. If a fighter has to quest or spend a lot of money for access to better weapon/equipment, so should the casters.

The character taking the time to quest and gather the necessary components/artifact to learn the spell could be the in-game justification for a magic-user getting the new level in their class using milestone leveling rules. I can appreciate why the designers wouldn't want to have built-in sidequests as a core assumption in gameplay if the player's had no interest in doing those sorts of sidequests to begin with to continue to grow their characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't support any system that restricts magic-users more than they already are. By all means, bring the mundanes up! The idea upthread about capping them at 10 and then supporting prestige classes sounds great to me.

the problem is if the prestige class is still mundane then your mostly still in the same boat. IMO

 

[TwoSix]

The character taking the time to quest and gather the necessary components/artifact to learn the spell could be the in-game justification for a magic-user getting the new level in their class using milestone leveling rules. I can appreciate why the designers wouldn't want to have built-in sidequests as a core assumption in gameplay if the player's had no interest in doing those sorts of sidequests to begin with to continue to grow their characters.

I look at it this way. It's not that a sidequest is required, it's that powers that are equivalent to 6th level spells or greater move from being "player-assumed" to "DM decision". Basically make the player-side growth more shallow, and give the DM more power to increase the growth curve.

 

[Asisreo]

One thing I've always found weird with 5e, is that the designer said they did not take magic items/feats/multiclass in consideration when designing the encounter guidelines, but they did take in consideration things such as meteor shower, wish, foresight etc?

I find this weird that he said so, too, because it doesn't even seem to be correct.

The DMG explains how frequent a typical party rolls on the Random Treasure Table:

Tier 1: 7
Tier 2: 18
Tier 3: 17
Tier 4: 8

That means a typical adventuring party will have an approximate total of 100 magic items over the course of the game.

It may be difficult to specifically account for the randomness in each table, but he makes it sound like it's okay and equal if you never introduce magic items, which is plain untrue. The game does assume there will be an average number of magic items distributed.

 

[FrogReaver]

I look at it this way. It's not that a sidequest is required, it's that powers that are equivalent to 6th level spells or greater move from being "player-assumed" to "DM decision". Basically make the player-side growth more shallow, and give the DM more power to increase the growth curve.

And really... does anyone believe that a wizard limited to level 5 and below spells won’t contribute just as much in combats as a fighter of any level? And Much more out of combat than him?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A lot of the issues with the Fighter is the belief that anything effective that they can do out of combat should default to Ability/skill checks. Of which the casters get the same capabilities in addition to all their spells, and the rogues just plain do better at.

Fit in with the common folk? Wizards don't need to wear pointy hats or robes. Impress a noble to do you a favour? Wizards can make Charisma checks as well.
And so on.

So: What can you give Fighters out of combat that has the same narrative relevance as the utility spells of the equivalent level caster?

Is this something that would be determined by the subclass/specialisation a la Minigiant's excellent list?
Or is there anything that we can grant fighters baseline that doesn't strain the "mundane only" crowd and that other classes can't poach?

 

[glass]

I think a lot of thought should be given to what high-level martials get. I do not think that there should be a class called "Fighter" in level up. The PHB Fighter is right there if anyone wants it.

Things should be the same, or they should be different.

_
glass.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And really... does anyone believe that a wizard limited to level 5 and below spells won’t contribute just as much in combats as a fighter of any level? And Much more out of combat than him?

The point is that you're taking options the players used to have away from them, and moving them to the DM, who can dole them out again if he feels like it. That's not a good plan IMO, and I think I'm not alone there, especially in a salable product.