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

[CleverNickName]

OK, this is a solid example of what I mean.

If, somehow, the Fighter can prepare his arrows so that it enables him to fire three arrows at once and hit with them, why can't he do that all the time.

The wizard can only handle memorizing so many spells of certain spell levels as defined by his class level. But what stops the fighter for doing it every time he wants to? If all it takes is "placing his arrows in a special way in his quiver" or something, he could (at the very least) rearrange his quiver the moment he had a few seconds to prepare it.


But again, how can he "forget it"? If he knows how to ignore cover via Sharpshooter one day, but then isn't mentally prepared or decides not to set up his bow to do it the next day?

It is simple enough in the narrative to say "he does it", but what is the reason he can't keep doing it? Wizards memorize spells and casting them (I assume) is fatiguing in some way (otherwise you could cast Magic Missile every round all day long...). Sorcerer's might be limited because of a similar drain, Warlocks might only have so much magic granted by their patron, etc.

But what is it that stops the fighter from doing such things more at will, or at least every time they have a minute to prep their gear or whatever?

This argument is as old as D&D. "How does my wizard forget something so quickly? I still have all the components, and I just cast that spell ten seconds ago!" I don't want to get too far into the weeds here with this idea (and again, it's just an idea), but the short and succinct answer is:

Whatever means is used to manage this resource, whether it is a martial ability or spellcasting ability or whatever, will have to be supported by the narrative. This will not be a small task, because as you point out, a lot of people are going to stumble over how a fighter can only do something X times per day. Just like people have been stumbling over how a wizard can only do something X times per day, or a monk can only do something X times per day, etc.

I don't know what that narrative would look like; I'm not a game designer or professional writer. But I'm confident that if we can do it for the wizard, we can do it here as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This argument is as old as D&D. "How does my wizard forget something so quickly? I still have all the components, and I just cast that spell ten seconds ago!"

This I've never had an issue with narrating or understanding the "why the wizard forgot his spell", especially if you go back to AD&D.

But, as you say, there might be a narrative justification for it. I can't really think of any, that at the very least wouldn't allow the fighter to perform such tricks once per encounter if prepped. I guess it is because the source of the abilities are mundane, so finding a valid reason to limit their uses is more challenging.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion!

 

[Minigiant]

Here's a question?

In many modern media, fighters sometimes have special attacks so dangerous that they injure themselves.

Would this be a good representation of a high level fighter?

Spend 5 HP, roll your damage die twice?
Spend 10 HP, roll your damage dice 4 times?

Your level 17 fighter dealing 4d8+6 damage with 3 attacks at the cost of 30 HP.
"Master Forgive me..."

 

[Asisreo]

I’m not against ranger or paladin getting more out of combat at high levels either If that’s what your saying. This thread is about the fighter though. So maybe don’t take lack of the discussion about other classes to mean they are perfectly acceptable?

It has been discussed in this thread(unless I'm maybe misremembering) that the paladin "has their cake and eat it too." And the "cake" was referenced as a means to move the story socially in a caster-like way. The fighter doesn't have that, why does the paladin get to?

But the paladin's abilities are hardly even that. I've mentioned that there's very few actual spells and features directly seen as "social" in the way that charm person is.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here's a question?

In many modern media, fighters sometimes have special attacks so dangerous that they injure themselves.

Would this be a good representation of a high level fighter?

Spend 5 HP, roll your damage die twice?
Spend 10 HP, roll your damage dice 4 times?

Your level 17 fighter dealing 4d8+6 damage with 3 attacks at the cost of 30 HP.
"Master Forgive me..."

Not a bad idea at all. The idea being you push yourself further than normal, effectively harming yourself but dealing more damage to your target.

The only downside I see is with healing being so prevalent in 5E, making up for the lost HP would be easy.

Now, have it really strong maybe but reduce your MAXIMUM HP (harder to get back) and I think there is something to it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No it really is. Magic in past editions wasn't powerful because it could win the dpr race & suddenly be pretty helpless, you only need to look at how glass cannon is discussed in this 3.5 treantmonk wizard guide for evidence of that. Magic in 5e is so much weaker because it's not really possible to effectively play roles like a god wizard ( explained in same guide) & other such things like a controller of reality.

Magic in D&D 3.X was ridiculously OP. This is in large part because D&D 3.0 decided to take away almost all the restrictions on the wizard. But D&D 3.X is, depending how you count, between one and three editions of D&D (are 3.0 and 3.5 separate and is Pathfinder D&D?)

Magic in oD&D and AD&D had different restrictions - like the spells you knew being random. I have in front of me the 2e PHB

Chance to learn spell is the percentage probability that the wizard can learn a particular spell. A check is made as the wizard comes across new spells, not as he advances in level.

The reason most wizards played wizards who specialised in a school, despite all the penalties, is that they automatically gained one spell of the school they specialised in which could be selected by either the DM or the player. If they didn't they didn't get any spells that weren't treasure.

To repeat myself: Every single spell a 2e wizard knew was either given to them by the DM. Either directly as treasure or by direct approval in a single school. If the 2e wizard was strong it was because the DM had personally given them those spells.

Also you cite Treantmonk's guide. - which is 3.5 specific. The general principles apply to 3.0 - but beyond that it's more applicable to 4e wizards than it is to 2e or earlier.

This is the role this thread is based upon. Three kinds of wizards alter reality so that the Glass Cannon and the Big Stupid Fighter think they are better than they are. Those three wizards are Battlefield Controllers, Buffers, and Debuffers. Your best bet is to do a bit of all of them - but you can make wizards exclusive to each role as well without sucking.

This is really good advice for playing 3.5. It is bad advice for playing 2e.

Battlefield control wizards and debuffers were both given exactly the same massive and unintended buff when 3.0 came out - and that was the complete revamp of the saving throw system from an effects-based gamist model to a simulationist model. In 3.X your saving throws are Fort/Ref/Will and any well-prepared wizard should be able to pick a spell to hit the target's low save (and in 3.5 spell resistance wasn't really relevant because basically the entire conjuration school ignored it).

The pre-3.0 saving throws on the other hand were far more functional. The saving throws were in order of priority and in general in order of ease of passing:

1. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic
2. Rod, Staff, or Wand
3. Petrification or Polymorph
4. Breath Weapon
5. Spell

(Note: Breath Weapon vs Spell was very class-dependent, and Petrifications and Polymorphs were often easier to pass than staffs, doing some interesting things for powerful magical artifacts).

So a direct fire Fireball wasn't paralysation, poison, or death magic. It wasn't cast from an item. It didn't petrify or polymorph. And it wasn't a non-magical physical effect. Which made it use the Save vs Spell - i.e. the hardest category for the target to save and even if they managed to save they'd still take half damage - and 2e NPCs had far fewer hit points than 3.0 (which in turn have fewer than 5e)

Meanwhile Stinking Cloud in 3.0 is pretty universally considered superior to Fireball and for good reason. But in 2e it's a Poison effect. Which means that it's in the single easiest category for a target to save - and that applies to almost any target. Also if the target saved it was a waste of a spell and an action other than for the fog cloud. Even as a second level spell 2e Stinking Cloud was not that hot.

As for buff spells, these were often good (stoneskin was excellent) - but Haste was a particular stand-out. It aged the recipients by a year, and being magically aged by a year meant a System Shock roll; Haste was quite literally a save or die spell on the target you cast it on. So for that matter was Polymorph which also triggered system shock. And just trying to cast Wish. Teleport gave a chance of the wizard teleporting above or under the target. Under, of course, being an instant death if they teleported into something solid.

So please stop talking about "prior editions" when you mean 3.0 and 3.5. 3.0 basically removed almost all the balancing factors for the wizard such as not getting control over the spells you knew and not getting to pick the saving throws and accidentally killing your allies or even yourself through spellcasting when you were using the spells as intended (and not e.g. a ground zero fireball or a reflected lightning bolt - and those went too).

5e brought precisely none of these balancing factors back (or the level soft-cap). It did however bring other less-stringent balancing factors back and has as a result what I believe to be the third strongest wizards of any D&D edition (after 3.5 and 3.0).

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Here's a question?

In many modern media, fighters sometimes have special attacks so dangerous that they injure themselves.

Would this be a good representation of a high level fighter?

Spend 5 HP, roll your damage die twice?
Spend 10 HP, roll your damage dice 4 times?

Your level 17 fighter dealing 4d8+6 damage with 3 attacks at the cost of 30 HP.
"Master Forgive me..."

Probably not for everyone. But I like it.

I reminds me of the Persona games, where your character (or at least their bound Persona) can either use Magic point for spells or spend HP for powerful techniques, depending if he's more spellcaster or martial.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Anyone can make a deal with a devil. Anyone can serve the gods. Anyone can study arcane spells. Anyone could have dragon blood in their veins.

the premise for pretty much every class involves being guaranteed something anyone could potentially access via the fiction. Why should land and soldiers be different?

Because most classes represent your personal capabilities. It is your deal with a devil that gives you magic. Your connection to the divine which gives you magic, your arcane studies which give you magic.

And that magic is something that you can bring to bear personally, at any time. It is knowledge and power that is a part of you.


"I own land and can command 50 guards" isn't like that. Owning land is a responsibility that might come with political influence and money, but it does not change you who are. The capabilities of your servants are not your capabilities.

That is the biggest difference. If I study how to shoot a bow, I can shoot a bow. If I get a servant who can shoot a bow, that guy can shoot a bow, but I can't.

 

[Coroc]

The problem as I've been told isn't that fighter/barbarian cannot participate in the other pillars at all. It's that they can't participate equally. But the same can be said for paladin and rangers anyways. Because while they can do something extremely small once a day or in very specific circumstances, a wizard gets to do it practically all day in much more general scenarios.

In fact, I think there isn't any other class with such a well-rooted grasp in every situation as a wizard. Their possible spells are the largest list in the game, they have access to pretty much every useful OOC spell, they can regenerate spell slots on a short rest, and they're fairly well-competent in combat. A cleric won't have an answer to teleportation until level 13, the wizard gets an answer at level 7. The bard's spells known is extremely rigid, the wizard gets to specialize their spells on a day-by-day basis. The druid's spell list is overshadow

The problem as I've been told isn't that fighter/barbarian cannot participate in the other pillars at all. It's that they can't participate equally. But the same can be said for paladin and rangers anyways. Because while they can do something extremely small once a day or in very specific circumstances, a wizard gets to do it practically all day in much more general scenarios.

In fact, I think there isn't any other class with such a well-rooted grasp in every situation as a wizard. Their possible spells are the largest list in the game, they have access to pretty much every useful OOC spell, they can regenerate spell slots on a short rest, and they're fairly well-competent in combat. A cleric won't have an answer to teleportation until level 13, the wizard gets an answer at level 7. The bard's spells known is extremely rigid, the wizard gets to specialize their spells on a day-by-day basis. The druid's spell list is overshadowed completely by the wizard's spell list.

while basically correct taking all your assumptions into account, it is these very specific assumptions you make which give me a headache.

e.g. In some of my games the wizard has access to every spell he desires, if he got the dosh to buy himself a copy of it at the local wizards guild. In other games of mine this is not the case, and there is no free selection on level up. A spell might not even exist in some setting , and even if it would it would help you nothing, e.g. Teleportation to another plane of your choice in ravenloft or darksun.
i do not like the wizard learns new spells out of thin air on lvl up, so i always rp this by a mentor , treasure find, wizard guild etc.

 

[Garthanos]

"I own land and can command 50 guards" isn't like that. Owning land is a responsibility that might come with political influence and money, but it does not change you who are. The capabilities of your servants are not your capabilities.

marshalling troops is like a 4e ritual .. it takes some time to bring it to bear and it costs resources. (The upkeep costs of inactive troops are usually considered low out of scale for players).