D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Chaosmancer]

I think giving more uses to skills is a good idea, although bounded accuracy doesn't play too well with the epic uses. With higher numbers you can just go, "Yeah, you can walk through a stone wall with a DC 45 Athletics check, go nuts", while in 5e I think that'd be more on the realm of a specific ability or feat (that characters don't get too many of either).

A martial-type with as many maneuvers, stances, etc, as a Wizard has spells could be cool for 5e. Our Fighter in 3.5 took one level in Warblade and suddenly had a lot more buttons to push every fight, something like that.

Yeah, I was thinking about "skill focus" abilities for each skill. Then letting them pick some abilities at each level. I don't think going stupid high on the DCs is a good approach, because it is harder for Fighters and Barbarians to hit those high DC numbers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No it slows enemies down effectively.

You are comeing up with these strawman arguments but at the end of the day you are bad at combat.

It only slows down enemies who move through the obvious trap.

I never said casters were not the biggest threat in combat. I said the caster you built with a 10 dexterity, no defensive spells, who uses a bunch of spells to prop up his social pillar isn't and regardless even he still has some encounter enders.

Right. But that whole thing with "well build me a character" started because I pointed out that Casters are able to do so much in all three pillars of play, easily overshadowing the non-casters. You said that was a bad argument. You demanded to see proof.

Now, I have a character who supposedly is terrible, near worthless in combat, able to be out-matched by a level 1 fighter... and who is also the absolute biggest threat on the field, who must immediately be focused fired on, even at the cost of getting hit by a free AoO (which for a character with 7 hp is a death sentence usually). At level 3.

Now, I know this seems to be difficult, but try and remember, that casters get stronger than this, around levels 11 and higher, where they have access to even more spells.

So, since no martial character is treated like this, but any spellcaster is. And they can break the rules of skill checks for any of the other pillars of play, and they don't need to make themselves worse at combat to get better at those skills unlike the martials... it seems like it is a rather silly position to take, that there isn't an imbalance here.

Of course, you already know that. You know there is an imbalance, and you LIKE that there is an imbalance that makes casters superior. You have literally said so. So I'm struggling to see the point of continuing to discuss with you. You agree with the proposition I have, you just don't think it is a problem for one group of classes to so thoroughly outshine the others.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's actually pedantry... only one "n".

Yes, you can roll Strength to break thens. "Breaking bonds" is an example in the PHB, page 176, first column, second bullet point.


Well, ogres can try to do it. If you actually use the rules of AC/HP for objects, the chance of an Ogre doing it (in a single action) would be pretty low, around 0.85% or 1 in 117 attemps or so.

If you want to go the Strength check route, it still isn't great. I mean, again, it depends on the DC you want to give it. I'd go at least DC 17 (using the AC value), which means the DM would have to roll 13+, or just 40% chance of success. Like I said, not great, but decent.

Sure, you could use a DC 17 if you want to be as close to the rules as they currently stand as possible. I'd still make it a strength check with proficiency though, simply because breaking stuff is something most monsters and adventurers are well-versed in. It isn't like breaking down doors isn't common as dirt.

More importantly, it would be possible to do, which would open up things for PCs to attempt to do.

Perhaps you simply enjoy more violent entertainment than I do?

I don't know, DMs use it pretty often. Maybe they are just more graphic than yours.

Yeah, I can agree I would love to have better rules for it, myself. FWIW, personally I have no issue with a fantasy fighter doing such things, but it would be around tier 3 for me (if you are talking about breaking through stone walls, etc.).

Tier 3 seems pretty solid to me. That's starting around level 9 if memory serves.

Well, it sort of does. I mean, Ogres do 2d8 with their Greatclub instead of 1d8 because it is a "Large" greatclub suitable for a Large creature. Likewise, a Huge Fire Giant does 6d6 with its "Huge" greatsword, not 2d6.

Otherwise, mentioning the desire for rules above, I would grant advantage to creatures based on size, etc. compared to the size of the object they are trying to break, etc. I know it isn't currently a rule, but it would be cool if it was IMO.

Most of the time I've seen it, it wasn't with a weapon. More of a shoulder charge, than a batter's swing.

But, sure, I'd be fine with creatures that are large, or count as large due to powerful build, having advantage on the check.

For myself, breaking through a stone wall would require bludgeoning damage (i.e. the maul or unarmed strikes), piercing or slashing just wouldn't cut it.

And for me, I want it to be a check specifically to avoid this. If a PC wants to flavor it as a punch, a flying kick, or a strike with their axe, I'm fine with it. I've seen those sorts of stunts so many times I have no problem with it. Besides, as I've pointed out before, an Axe or a Sword works with 100% efficiency on monsters made out of solid stone or solid steel. Worse you tend to get is resistance, unless the weapon is magical. I think it would be a little silly to tell a player they can cut the head off of a stone gargoyle, but that that same sword cannot cut through a stone wall or a stone pillar, because swords can't cut through stone.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Tier 3 seems pretty solid to me. That's starting around level 9 if memory serves.

tier 3 is 11th to 16th, i'm pretty sure.

 

[ECMO3]

It only slows down enemies who move through the obvious trap.

Yeah but it slows them down a lot more and if they go around it they need to brun movement for tat right?

I am not saying slowing someone 10 feet per round is awful, but it is not something to brag about or something that is goint to save the day.

Right. But that whole thing with "well build me a character" started because I pointed out that Casters are able to do so much in all three pillars of play, easily overshadowing the non-casters. You said that was a bad argument. You demanded to see proo

That is not how it started. Go back and read my original post. "Overshadowing" was mentioned by me much, much later.

It started because I said the reason fighters were only good for bashing things is because they invest in Constitution instead of abilities that are useful in the other pillars. I also said the only classes that could put a 16 in Constitution and still be good at all 3 pillars are Rogue, Bard and Ranger.

That is how this started and is why your caster has a 16 Constitution. You wanted to demonstrate a caster good at all 3 pillars with a 16 Con and you failed.

Now, I have a character who supposedly is terrible, near worthless in combat, able to be out-matched by a level 1 fighter..

I never said he could be outmatched by a 1st level fighter. I said a first level fighter would survive longer in the first encounter in LMOP.

Pay attention to what I said.

He is outmatched by a 3rd level fighter though and is nearly useless in combat (less useless than a 10 charisma fighter is in the social pillar).

. and who is also the absolute biggest threat on the field, who must immediately be focused fired on, even

Not only fo rthat reason. If you are going to paraphrase me use what I said. Easy to hit/kill, casting spells and focusing fire.

I gave four criteria including 3 on why that Wizard would be trgeted, you are focusing on one.

at the cost of getting hit by a free AoO (which for a character with 7 hp is a death sentence usually). At level 3.

Sure but a Goblin can use Nimble escape and not suffer an AOO and an Orc has 15hps

Now, I know this seems to be difficult, but try and remember, that casters get stronger than this, around levels 11 and higher, where they have access to even more spells.

Everyone gets stronger and as I have said many, many times class power changes with level and the most powerful and least powerful classes at one level are not the most or least at another level.

Now I know this seems difficult but read what I post!

o, since no martial character is treated like this, but any spellcaster is. And they can break the rules of skill checks for any of the other pillars of play, and they don't need to make themselves worse at combat to get better at those skills unlike the martials... it seems like it is a rather silly position to take, that there isn't an imbalance here.

I play RAW for every class. I would not let a fighter who cast find familiar and was looking through a familiar's eyes make a skill check either.

Rules are rules, follow them or don't follow them at your table as you see fit, but don't use something that is clearly against the rules as an example of why a Wizard is so powerful.

Of course, you already know that. You know there is an imbalance, and you LIKE that there is an imbalance that makes casters superior.

I've said that many times. But to be clear this is over levels 1-20, not a statement that applies at any level. As an example it is quite easy to build a Ranger or Rogue that is level 3 and good at all 3 pillars.

You agree with the proposition I have, you just don't think it is a problem for one group of classes to so thoroughly outshine the others.

I don't agree at all with the specific examples you posted. I do agree over all levels 1-20 Wizard is the most powerful class in the game. I don't think that means they will automatically "overshadow" other players as dice have far more to do with that then class does.

I don't see Wizards "overshadowing" other players either both because of dice and because not ever player maximizes every build.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, you would be wrong.

I am not wrong. A Fighter will take down 3 skeletons a turn pretty reliably. For a Wizard they typically need to be grouped together in an AOE, which is not common, certainly not round after round.

I don't think I have ever seen a Wizard in play catch 8 skeletons in an AOE.

If it is common as you say, can you post some videos of streamed games online showing this? If you can't find skeletons other similar creaatures will do. I think this is a strawman that you've never actually seen in play.

Since it was a CR 16 vs a full Level 18 party, yeah. But then I'm just saving my better spells for an actual threat. Also, find it hilarous that you are going to lay draining the allies healing resources on the back-line wizard, and not the fighter charging into melee with the dragon, who is going to be taking in the neighborhood of 15 attacks

Your Wizard is going to be the one losing hit points because he is the one who is going to be targeted with lightning.

And let's reiterate, it is near impossible for your spell to work against a Blue Dragon. So you did nothing worthwhile except lose a spell slot.

Citation needed. I only found 4 creatures of CR 15 or higher in the Monster Manual with teleport. While the Androsphinx and Solar could teleport with legendaries, the MArilith and Balor could only do it as an action. None of them could bonus action teleport.

Well you missed some .... Solar for example. You also left out all the Dragons that can move off turn. There are only what 25 or so CR16+ in the monster manual? with half of them being Dragons.

In any case here is a list of CR 16+ that can teleport off turn or as a bonus action. This does not include creatures that can move off turn or that are immune to restrained. Add those in and you have more than half of the official published monsters of that level:


Acerack
Adult Amethyst Dragon
Adult Saphire Dragon
Amythyst Greatwyrm
Ancient Amethyst Dragon
Ancient Crystal Dragon
Ancient Emerald Dragon
Ancient Sapphire Dragon
Ancient Topaz Dragon
Androsphinx
Archaic
Zariel
Bael
Blue Abishai
Cosmic Horror
Demagoth titan
Drow Favored Consort
Drow Matron Mother
Drow Mother of Rebellion
Factal Skall
Githzeri Anarch
Iggwilv
Imix
Laeral Silverhand
Lessor Star Spawn Emmisary
Miirym
Moloch
Moledeus
Nightmare beast
Nintra Siotta
Planar INcarnate
Saphire Greatworm
Shadrix Silverquill
Solar
Titvilus
Topaz Great Worm
Trobriand
Vieled presence
Yan-C-Bin
Ygorl

Like I said that is just CR16+ monsters that can do some type of teleport or plane shift off turn.

Did you note that the burrowing speed does not close the hole behind it? Oh sure, the dragon can play mole man with the party, but between the guy tossing out ranged attacks, or the fighter with a sword, one of them is going to be more effective than the other at actually hitting him. And since the fighter needs to hit him in melee to grapple... isn't he kind of reliant on someone to lock the dragon in place first?

But the difference is the fighter can lock him in place ON HIS TURN. The Wizard can't (at least he can't with Web). All the Fighter needs is enough move to reach the Dragon.

My point on burrowing is not to "play mole man" it is to leave your web before it even takes effect. He can't do that if he is grappled .... becuase he is grappled.

You mean if he uses his two legendary actions to move, then after the next persons turn he can use them again?

It depends on the initiative order. If it is just the Wizard, Dragon, Fighter in the fight then absolutely he can do it every single round.

If there is a Rogue in there and you assume everyone has

No? Oh, so he can't move like that again if someone else is doing something to put him in a dangerous area, limiting his ability to respond to threats by fleeing again?

He can use 3 legendary actions between his turn and his next turn, the Wing buffet with movement counts as two. I don't understand why this is so hard.

Yeah, dragonfear, I wondered if you would bring up his ability to just no sell someone getting into range to grapple him.

Sure, if he goes before the fighter, and the fighter fails to save twice and is not otherwise immune to being frightened.

Even with this and even with a bad Wisdom and a low initiative it will always be more likely to work than Web.

And, um, no. His breath weapon is absolutely not the most effective, what are you talking about? Unless the target has no one to make the save and no way to resist lightning damage, which I'll buy the save, but if you know you are facing against a dragon, you prepare for the elemental damage.

I would prepare to counter Dragonfear before I prepared to counter lightning. But is 65 average damage on a failed save, 33 on a success (which is not easy for a Wizard or a Fighter) and 17 with both a success and resistance.

An attack sequence does 53 if all 3 hit, but some of that is lightning damage too, and none of it is magical.

Oh, wait... the fighter as a baseline can't do that, can they? Not without MAGIC items or MAGIC potions or MAGIC from their allies.



No, I am not banking on all of those things. If I use a measely 2nd level spell slot to make the dragon waste 2 legendary actions solely to move... that's a good trade.

No its not, because if he can;t damage anyone while moveing then all he could have used that for is moving anyway.

The dragon gets 3 legendary actions per turn. IF no one is within reach then there is nothing being wasted because he could not have damged anyone anyway.

Do you not understand this? If you do nothing at all and pick your nose, the only thing he can do with his legendary action is move because no one is close to him. Your Web changed nothing unless there is someone in reach .... in which case they take damage when he moves.

If I use a measely 2nd level spell slot, and he doesn't move and he uses his legendary resistance... that's a good trade.

It is actually a bad trade. Again if you do nothing except pick your nose the Dragon dies with Legendary resistances and you have one more spell slot when the fight ends.

Whether the Dragon has 2 Legendarys or 3 or 1 left whe he dies it is irrelevant. The only time it matters is if you actually get him to 0 and there is a spell cast after that which he fails the save on. There is almost no chance that will happen with a normal size party of this level before the fight is over. While you are "making a good trade" the rest of the party is going to kill the Dragon.

Moreover it is not going to get to that because the Dragon is not likely going to have to save at all.

What would be a good trade? A 2nd level magic missile three rounds in a row (assuming he is still alive on the 3rd round). That won't take any legendary resistances but it might actually kill him earlier, save a turn and the damage he would do.

And if I'm stupid enough to stand where I can get hit by the lightning breath, and didn't prepare to reduce lightning damage, and I'm the ONLY person who gets hit, allowing my allies to keep using their abilities... not a great trade, but I stood in the open like an idiot, so it must have been part of the plan.

You have to move into the open to cast web on him. It is possible you can move to full cover, but not assured, especially since web only has a 60 foot range.

I love how you can automatically target 8 skeletons every time you cast fireball, but at the same time you can always get to 100% cover after you cast web.

IS it the absolule most optimal thing I could have possibly done? No, but then again, I'm not the one who saw me talking about the web spell and was like "AHA! But against an Adult Blue Dragon that spell is worthless!"

It is worthless against most enemies of that CR you will face. Over half of them will avoid a save all together.

No. I said he was limited to one hand,

You said he could not attack and that is not true.

meaning that he could hold a shield (lower AC) and he couldn't be using a 2-handed weapon (lower damage). Maybe you need to stop responding to every individual sentence I write, so you can actually follow what I am saying.

Maybe if you posted what you meant.

Yeah, the spell that you insisted I use. Seriously, you set-up these scenarios, then act all smug that the scenario isn't perfectly optimal, while I just try and deal with the scenario you chose to present.

I did not insist that you use Web.

Please provide a quotation for that.

Because I really struggle with "just because you aren't the person making the checks or taking the actions, doesn't mean you aren't playing the game"... because... yeah, it kind of does mean that.

Again please focus on what I said. You put quotes up there and I NEVER said that.

I said - just because it is someone else's default action does not mean you are not playing.

I never said someone else is "making the checks or taking the actions". There is something called player agency YOU decide what YOUR PC does (or tries to do). Not another player, not the DM, not his ability scores or build. YOU make those decisions and that is "playing the game"

And again, this group is good, I'm having fun, I like and trust them all. But that doesn't make it sting any less when we decide to discuss tactics and the other characters are always the superior choice for any decision.

Then don't discuss tactics.

To start with discussing tactics during a battle or encounter is metagaming. Discussing them before a battle or encounter you know is coming is not meta, but it is also not fun. I know a lot of tables do it, but I find it immersion breaking, it typically fails to play out like expected anyway and we spend a bunch of time talking about what we are going to do instead of doing it.

If you play instead of talking other characters won't always be the superior choice because the dice will drive the results. The only reason they are the "superior choice" when discussing tactics is because you are making assumptions on what will and will not be successful.

 

[ezo]

Sure, you could use a DC 17 if you want to be as close to the rules as they currently stand as possible. I'd still make it a strength check with proficiency though, simply because breaking stuff is something most monsters and adventurers are well-versed in. It isn't like breaking down doors isn't common as dirt.

Actually, I agree proficiency should be applicable, but not through Athletics. Our games have a homebrew Strength skill called "Brawn" for such reasons, which involves most other Strength checks, such as excessive lifting, breaking, bending, etc.

More importantly, it would be possible to do, which would open up things for PCs to attempt to do.

Also, it is sort of sad that few monsters actually have the Athletics skill (if you want it to cover such things). Again, for our homebrew we simply treat creatures as proficient using the ability check proficiency option from the DMG. So, Ogres with Strength as their prime thing, are considered proficient in any Strength check.

I don't know, DMs use it pretty often. Maybe they are just more graphic than yours.

Like I said, I've see it with giants, but never with ogres or trolls as they are only large. Now, I imagine two ogres (each grabbing an arm and leg) would be able to "make a wish" and pull.

Tier 3 seems pretty solid to me. That's starting around level 9 if memory serves.

11th, but 9th is close enough. Anywhere around there, really, would probably be fine by me.

Most of the time I've seen it, it wasn't with a weapon. More of a shoulder charge, than a batter's swing.

I would imagine so, actually.

But, sure, I'd be fine with creatures that are large, or count as large due to powerful build, having advantage on the check.

They really should.

For me, giving Ogre proficiency in Strength checks would be +6, using the DC 17 and advantage grants a 75% of breaking through a wall of "Large" size (i.e. a 10x10 section). Also, giving more creatures the "Siege Monster" feature would help if you want to go the AC/HP route.

And for me, I want it to be a check specifically to avoid this. If a PC wants to flavor it as a punch, a flying kick, or a strike with their axe, I'm fine with it. I've seen those sorts of stunts so many times I have no problem with it. Besides, as I've pointed out before, an Axe or a Sword works with 100% efficiency on monsters made out of solid stone or solid steel. Worse you tend to get is resistance, unless the weapon is magical. I think it would be a little silly to tell a player they can cut the head off of a stone gargoyle, but that that same sword cannot cut through a stone wall or a stone pillar, because swords can't cut through stone.

It's funny you mention axe. In 5E axes are slashing weapons, but as chopping/cleaving weapons their force is more through the bludgeoning of the axe head into the body, not moving the edge along it (which is slashing).

And I agree the better rule woud be to grant such object resistance against slashing and piercing damage. I know IRL such weapons would be pretty useless (unless magical), but there are two reasons to not be so strict about it: 1) it is a game, and 2) it is a fantasy game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah, I was thinking about "skill focus" abilities for each skill. Then letting them pick some abilities at each level. I don't think going stupid high on the DCs is a good approach, because it is harder for Fighters and Barbarians to hit those high DC numbers.

this is why earlier i said that i think the martials need to be bumped up to the rogue's current skill capacity, spreading expertise more generously to the martials lets them break past the swingyness of the d20, BA is a good idea in theory but without expertise there's no significant mitigation of the influence of that lone d20 roll for most classes,


i say martials should get reliable talent on either all their trained skills or class skills, unsure which i'd go with in the long run, and minimum 2 expertise at 1st level, this makes them consistent, reliable and capable.

you know that your level 5 fighter (16 STR), cannot roll lower than a 19 on an athletics check (RT10+PB3+EX3+STR3) but by that same measure they're not going to roll higher than a 29, a range of 10,

this is in comparison to a wizard of the same level making an arcana check who's minimum potential check is 7 (NAT1+PB3+INT3) versus 26 max for a range of 19(20? the numbers say 19 but logic says a d20 should have a range of 20 right?),

so 30% of the time a Lvl5 caster is going to be able to reach the lower rungs of what a Lvl5 martial achieves 89% (i think?) of the time in their best skills. (provided my mental maths is correct, even if i'm wrong i think it should be in the right ballpark), and even if they do get expertise a caster isn't going to have the stabilising factor of reliable talent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Soooo... you don't buy the existence of Sorcerers, Tielfings, Aasimar, Genasi or Hexblood? Oh, or Shifters.

Ha ha. Supernatural blood in folks of human (not part human or descended from human) heritage, as defined in the book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So Vampires are not supernaturally strong? Weird, I've certainly consumed a lot of Vampire media and "super strong" and "super fast" tend to be really high up there. And, in fact, instead of a "vague assumption" let's stop and think of some facts. IF turning into a vampire gave someone super strength and inhuman reflexes, it would be reflected in the game rules... right?

Oh look, the game rules state that if you become a vampire, your STR DEX and CON become 18 if they are not already higher. So the rules, are following through on the myths.

And on the otherside we have you going... nuh uh, because humans are not explicitly stated to be supernaturally strong. Well.... neither are warforged, but you are going to have a really hard time convincing me that literal magical robots are not capable of being stronger than a flesh and blood human from earth. Considering we have NON-magical robots on this planet too.

According to 5e, becoming a vampire makes you as strong as a very strong human, so while the process is certainly supernatural, you don't actually get superhuman strength, since any human could also have an 18 right out of the gates without any aid, and the lifting power of an 18 does not exceed what an Earth human could potentially be able to lift. This was demonstrated above.