D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[ECMO3]

How is that relevant to what I said?

Because you hypothesize that people are "annoyed" playing a weaker character. Yet many D&D players, from a very large sample, purposely choose a class that is objectively weak at many levels of play. This does not support your hypothesis.

 

[Clint_L]

How is that relevant to what I said?

If people are so frustrated playing martial classes, then why are they so popular? 5e is more than ten years old, more than enough time for folks to work out for themselves what is good and what is bad.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I assumed you were hypothesizing that playing martial classes could be annoying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fighter and rogue are surrounded by them.

The question is if you are surrounded by magic which enters your body regularly, does that affect you?

To me the question is, if everyone is surrounded by magic that enters their bodies regularly, why are fighters and rogues the only classes that don't mention it as an explanation for their abilities? Either they have "magic" and it is called out, or they don't and it isn't. Why are those two fuzzy exceptions?

 

[CreamCloud0]

To me the question is, if everyone is surrounded by magic that enters their bodies regularly, why are fighters and rogues the only classes that don't mention it as an explanation for their abilities? Either they have "magic" and it is called out, or they don't and it isn't. Why are those two fuzzy exceptions?

because all the other classes draw on a secondary source of magic in addition to the natural background magic that everyone, including fighters and rogues draw upon.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because you hypothesize that people are "annoyed" playing a weaker character. Yet many D&D players, from a very large sample, purposely choose a class that is objectively weak at many levels of play. This does not support your hypothesis.

yes, people still pick to play fighters, because it is a very popular concept, that doesn't mean it is mechanically implemented well, it also doesn't mean that they still aren't disgruntled that they get the short end of the stick in character effectiveness/diversity because of wanting to play a certain class.

 

[Minigiant]

To me the question is, if everyone is surrounded by magic that enters their bodies regularly, why are fighters and rogues the only classes that don't mention it as an explanation for their abilities? Either they have "magic" and it is called out, or they don't and it isn't. Why are those two fuzzy exceptions?

They don't actively use the magic. They are just one magic roids

 

[Chaosmancer]

I already told you a single explanation in the class description would suffice. You keep beating that straw man though.

And we GAVE you an explanation, 20 pages ago. And you said you were done.

And now here we are, with you demanding explanations again, like it is somehow the absolute most important part of this entire discussion. And it is ridiculous, because you are demanding explanations for things that you don't even understand what they are.

For example. One of the things I would like to see, is a fighter able to burst through a stone wall. You know what can already do that? TRolls and Ogres. These monsters are seen as immensely strong, able to rip men in half and uproot trees. They have the staggering strength of... 18 to 19. A mid-level human fighter is ALREADY stronger than an ogre and a troll.

Do I need an explanation for how a 10th level fighter can have a strength of 20? Do I need a magical explanation for why the existing facts of the game... exist? If I want fighters to break stone and bend steel with their barehands, I need to explain why they are as strong as... monsters with LOWER strength scores?

Myths and stories are not games.

And the games are trying to emulate myths and stories. OR did you think Chimeras, Sphinxes, Rocs, Trolls, Ogres, Goblins, Orcs, Medusa, Hydra, Dragons, Giants, zombies, ghouls, vampires, dryads, nymphs, mermaids, ect ect ect were all real creatures that we really studied to make the game happen?

 

[Clint_L]

yes, people still pick to play fighters, because it is a very popular concept, that doesn't mean it is mechanically implemented well, it also doesn't mean that they still aren't disgruntled that they get the short end of the stick in character effectiveness/diversity because of wanting to play a certain class.

But I'm not seeing my players be disgruntled with fighters. I'm not seeing players on actual play shows being disgruntled with fighters. When I look at tier ranking lists for 5e classes, fighters are generally in the middle to upper tiers. So we have the most popular class, that lots of players visibly enjoy, and is widely well ranked.

These do not seem like signs of a widely disgruntled player base. I'm certain that some players are disgruntled, because that is inevitable with a large sample, and you are clearly disgruntled. Looking on just this forum, you can find also plenty of examples of folks being disgruntled with how wizards are implemented, for example. But I am not seeing evidence of widespread disgruntlement with either wizards or fighters. Mostly, I think fighters are working effectively as advertised. There's room for improvement, and I like the 2024 changes.

So while it is, yes, possible, that fighters are widely popular despite poor implementation, to me the more likely hypothesis is that poor implementation is a minority opinion.

Edit: at this stage in 5e's life cycle, we know which classes and sub-classes are widely considered problematic. Monks, as a class. Four Elements monks in particular. Druids. Sorcerers. Rangers. Artificers, aside from battlesmith.

 

[Clint_L]

For example. One of the things I would like to see, is a fighter able to burst through a stone wall. You know what can already do that? TRolls and Ogres.

Wait, what? Where is that in the rules? How thick is the stone wall? This sounds like an RP decision by the DM, not anything to do with special rules for trolls or ogres that fighters are losing out on.

I would certainly rule that if a stone wall was thin enough for an ogre or troll to break through with an appropriate ability check, a PC could do the same. I love the idea of the PC bursting through a wall like Dee Snider. I think that would be fun!

 

[Chaosmancer]

4.5 damage is not good damage at 3rd. It is terrible, terrible damage, far below average, bordering on pathetic.

You have 7-8 slots and some of them you are using to prop up the social pillar. There are 20 rounds of combat in a normal day (although you will probably be unconscious some of them). You will not be using leveled spells a lot combat.

Remember the idea is to be GOOD at all 3 pillars. IF a 3rd level Wizard with a 10 dex, not shield, no mage armor who spends slots on non-combat encounters is "good" at the combat pillar, then a fighter with a 10 Charisma and no proficiencies is "good" at the social pilar, because that is about how effective you will be compared to other characters.

4.5 is perfectly fine for 3rd level. Especially at range, especially with an effect rider. Additionally, concentration is a thing you keep ignoring. IF I cast one spell, that shapes the battlefield for three turns, I don't need to cast two more spells.

Additionally, how many encounters in the city do you have while delving a dungeon? You say 7 to 8 slots like I need to charm the village head, interrogate the spy in the tavern, scout out the ruins, and fight five different encounters all in the same day.

I am figuring 6 combat encounters, lasting 3-4 rounds each, or about 20 rounds of combat total, and most PCs do have the health and resources to survive that. Further anyone who wants to contribute in combat usually can without using resources.

If your Wizard had a 16 Dex he would be helping every turn in combat with his crossbow. He would still be on the low side in terms of damage, but that low water mark is nearly 70% higher than you will be doing.

And you realize I could have built for that, if you DIDN'T insist that I absolutely needed to have a 16 Con, right? It is rather annoying that you keep harping on me for limitations you insisted on.

I stated any Character who took a 16 in Constitution on point would not be good at all 3 pillars and they aren't.

...

You do realize there is a difference between a frontline character like a fighter, and a ranged mage like a wizard, right? That since we were talking a strength fighter who is on the frontlines and taking the most damage, a high con makes a lot of sense for them. While a mage, who is in the back, shooting from range... doesn't need as many hitpoints.

And what makes Con so special that it is the ONLY score you can't have a 16 in and be good at all 3 pillars?

Four Goblins. They need a 6 to hit you, they will likely surprise the party, they have a higher dex and initiative than you do and most of the time they will be rolling with advantage because they are hidden from you most of the time. The second you shoot a spell they will all fire at you (or all that are remaining alive will).

Also keep in mind with nimble escape and a +6 stealth there will be some difficulty targeting them with some of your spells.

This is a fight designed for 1st level and you have a significant chance of going down in it. On average 6 shots at you will take you down. Figure one in the first round while you are surprised and the goblins fire is split, three in the second round (after you cast a spell and one of the Goblins is dead). Two more shots at you in the 3rd round and you probably die.

I don't think it is definite, but I do think you are at a high risk. Poor stealth rolls by them, good attack rolls by the party will go to your favor.

Really. The moment I take any action, every goblin will immediately stop all other actions and target me specifically.

But yeah, what a load this is. First off there is a VERY small chance of the goblins actually getting surprise on the party. We see a dead horse in the road with arrows sticking out of it, we are prepared for an ambush. That is just too obvious of a set-up. Secondly, somehow my entire party only kills a single 7hp goblin in the entire second round? Did everyone single person except for me sleep on the job? Because magic missile can kill one, so I have three allies who failed to kill a single goblin on their turn? And if I don't have a target to hit, I can use minor illusion to create cover. Goblins can't see me, might not even realize I didn't actually conjure a steel box around myself. So, even if they target me (trying to shoot through steel?) then they lose their advantage.

And because I was the only one to kill a single goblin, and all the goblins immediately recognized me as the biggest threat on the field... I'm ineffective at combat? Come on. I was the only one capable of doing ANYTHING for three rounds it seems.

Ok to start with Grease is not concentration. If it was concentration it would not likely stay around for long given how many concentration checks you will be making with a 10AC.

Grease lasts a minute, but it only affects a 10 foot area, enemies are not going to stay in it unless it gives them an advantage to do so or they have no choice.

I am not saying it is an awful spell, it is a good spell for 1st level only because it is a control that you do not need to concentrate on, but it is not as good as other concentration spells and typically does not give a lasting significant effect.

So not even concentration. And yeah, if they have no choice. Almost like if I cast it effectively, it is going to be... effective for multiple rounds.

You keep mentioning Phandelver as your example. Have you looked at any map that ISN'T the forest encounter? Like the cave system immediately afterwards, with every tunnel and entrance being 5 to 10 ft wide? Wonder what I could do with a grease spell that every single enemy would have to pass through to reach the party...

Because RAW it takes an action to look through your familiar's eyes and it only lasts until the start of your next turn. It takes another action to make the skill check.

Read find familiar -

" ..... While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar’s eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, ...."

You take an action to look through your familiar's eyes, that ability stops at the beginning of the next turn before you make your skill check.

So... I can't attempt to identify a flower I saw six seconds ago? That's even assuming the DM forces "do I know what this flower is" to be an action at all, which most don't. This is the pettiest rules lawyering I've encountered. And that is saying something.

That is what ability checks are for.
Athletics is the ability you use to make climbing checks. Not when climbing stairs, or climbing a ladder or climbing on to a horse, but any time you are going to make a check.

No character needs to roll to do something trivial.

I don't need to roll persuasion to buy a mug of ale or perception to find the sun on a clear sunny day either.

I would argue that the tree and rocky cliff are not so clear and I know ROFM calls for athletics checks for climbing a cliffs, and TOA requires it for climbing a tree. So it would seem that official WOTC 5E content does in fact require you to make such a check for trees and cliffs at times.

Wow. Not only rules lawyering, but specifically rules lawyering only in your favor. Because "climbing onto a horse" is clearly what they meant, it isn't like there is an entirely different section of the rules for MOUNTING and DISMOUNTING a MOUNT. And yeah, Rime of the Frost Maiden has athletics checks for climbing cliffs, wonder why that might be? Ice, snow, cold? Hmmm..

Now, I'll admit, Tomb of Annhilihation having a roll is more suspicious to me. But, looking through my copy I did see that on page 52 there is a 90 ft climb up a shaft that is DC 8... unless you have climber's tools. Which, again, climbers tools, pitons, rope, and even a Strength 8 character is going to be able to climb most things that need climbing. Might be slow, but this isn't a race. Couldn't find the tree you were talking about though,

If you are soling this encounter 1 vs 4 you are almost certainly dead, despite it being an "easy" encounter RAW. As I said earlier, it is 4 turns on average to kill a single goblin using ROF and it is 6 attacks on you before you are down.

You mathematically still have a decent chance of going down if you are at 3rd level supported by 3 other 1st level characters. I said you have a decent chance of dying, and that is not actually true considering death saves, but you do have a mathematically significant chance of going down to 0 hit points in that fight and that is what I actually meant to say.

ROFLOL, yeah, 4 to 1 odds at low levels is dangerous. You think a level 3 great weapon fighter is doing any better?

Or, I might be the only 3rd level character, in a group of 1st level characters, and if the enemy all focuses fire on me and my party can't deal 7 damage to a single enemy, then I might go down. Wow. Really? Who'd have thunk it.

Actually, why not, let's take that fighter and have the exact same number of attacks go against them. With a 12 Con the fighter has 25 hp. Six attacks with advantage, against AC 16. 70% chance to hit, 9.75% chance to crit. I'm roughing the math here, but it looks like the fighter might survive because 70% of 36 is... 25.2. Yeah, again, turns out 4 to 1 odds and being focus fired upon is... bad... for low level characters.

That is not what I am suggesting. As you qouted I said I would "dump" Strength or Dex, on point buy I would set one of those to 8 if I wanted to be good at all 3 pillars.

Oh, so you would do point buy. I was using the Standard Array. Funny how you either didn't notice or just decided to save that for your own build.

I don't think you know how maneuver dice work because you have the numbers wrong.

I assume you do realize that 8 number above includes the Wizard's short rest recharge through AR?

Maneuver dice all recharge on a short rest, which means from the fighting style alone he has 3 of them on a standard adventuring day with 2 short rests, not 1. That more slots than you are going to be able to spend on skill checks since you need to save most of your slots for combat.

Finally you can decide to spend the maneuver dice or not, whereas the spells you mention all need to be cast ahead of time.


No to have more maneuvers to spend on skill checks, while still being good at combat I just need the fighting style.

If I was building for this specifically at 3rd level I would have 4 more PER SHORT REST from subclass or 15 total per day.

Okay, so 7 vs 1. Because you are just assuming you will get a 1 hour rest between every attempt you will ever make on persuasion. Shockingly... it doesn't work like that. And yeah, if you start going to battlemaster, then you have more, but oddly you seem to never spend any of these dice on combat. I mean, you assumed I must spend at least three leveled spells, and an arbitrary number of cantrips (which are unlimited) so 3 of your dice per day is equivalent?

At 1st level melee characters are still pretty good throwing things at the ranges the Goblins are at on that map and they are doing substantially more damage doing that than your Wizard. A sword and board with superior technique loses 1 point of damage throwing weapons at 1st level, a heavy weapon build with superior technique loses no damage at all considering they can go hand axes and throw one with a bonus action (1 attack 2d6+3 or 2 attacks totaling 2d6+3).

The reason a 1st level fighter will last longer than your Wizard is their AC is much higher and they can heal themselves.

Versus the same number of attacks you had my wizard taking? A 1st level fighter is dead in round 2. They only need to be hit twice.

I mean, it is LITERALLY the same scenario, right? SO the first round is an attack with advantage, so 70 to 60% chance of being hit. They attack by throwing an axe. Unlike my auto-hit, they need to hit a 15, 17 with cover from the forest (the goblin WAS trying to hide, right? S0 they have cover) With a +5 to hit, they have between a 50 and 40% chance of killing the goblin, might even need to use that Second Wind to heal so they don't get two attacks. Then they get hit by three more attacks at advantage, which... kills them. And if it doesn't, then they still have two more attacks at advantage the next turn. And that is how long you gave the wizard.

I never said they needed 6 skills, nor that they needed to play a Battlemaster. Playing a Battlemaster is an option, and at this level it is the best one for this purpose, but I did not preface it with that assumption. My assumption is you need a good Wisdom and Charisma and some Wisdom and Charisma Skills with some exrtras to boost those checks.

And when I gave my wizard, you challenged that you would have that skill, then this skill. I literally counted them. Six proficient skills. You are also somehow using point buy to get 16 strength, 16 wisdom 16 charisma, 12 con... that just doesn't work.

And all of this at level 3! A level I never once claimed was a serious problem. I've been looking to levels 11 to 17 as where the problems are happening.