They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
Character X is better at killing monsters than character Y is still something players notice.
Only if they do nothing but kill monsters that are weak enough for a single PC to kill them without support.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
Character X is better at killing monsters than character Y is still something players notice.
Only if they do nothing but kill monsters that are weak enough for a single PC to kill them without support.
No, only if they can compare numbers. Even the most basic observations spots "my numbers are bigger than yours", which probably explains crit builds being popular way out of scale with their actual effectiveness.
As has already been stated previously in this thread, not everyone is a min/maxer that cares about building the best of the best character they possibly can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Agreed and even for those of us with years of experience that optimize pretty much as an auto activity it can be fun to play a plain old champion where you don’t have to think a lot just hack and slash your way thru what ever the DM puts in front of you. Other times I like sheer power of a high level mage cutting loose. But mostly I like the twisting tactical thinking of multiclass Gishes like a ranger/sorceror.
They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
Character X is better at killing monsters than character Y is still something players notice.
Only if they do nothing but kill monsters that are weak enough for a single PC to kill them without support.
No, only if they can compare numbers. Even the most basic observations spots "my numbers are bigger than yours", which probably explains crit builds being popular way out of scale with their actual effectiveness.
If your fighter truly can't outdamage EB+AB then the game is not the problem.
If your fighter truly can't outdamage EB+AB then the game is not the problem.
I have no idea how warlock crawled into this discussion in the first place. Talk about fireball, not EB.
The person I was originally speaking to before you jumped in was discussing/comparing resourceless damage. I agree that at-will fireball would be a problem.
I find it funny when people use the fact that martials (usually melee fighters or barbarians), have to be Meat Shields and suffer their job to receive all the damage (and say they are still bad at that) and most casters (arcane) can be away slinging spells or eldritch blasts and just be better (I'm not counting spellcasting and general utility spells do bring to casters). But never think or mention what would happen to the caster without the Meat Shield in front of them taking damage. You as the caster will have to take the damage and use your finite resources to avoid that (a reaction is a resource because is only once per round).
Then people use the existence of mirror image, shield, absorb elements and the like to be just better every time than the fighters usually higher HP and AC, but how many times, how many combats, how many slots do they have (at any given lvl) to cast those during a day, specially at early levels?
In the end, casters do have more utility and options, and can put bigger numbers if conditions are right (not everyone has the same spells every time, there is a reason theres a big list of options, and fireball is not the answer to every single combat), and are more powerfull at higher levels, but this is a team game, and everyone shines at their role.
"That's what zoning spells are for. Or just killing everything before it reaches you. The need for meat shields is greatly overrated. You do need martial characters in tier 1 and they're highly desirable in tier 2, but you don't need them to be meat shields or engage in melee."
I have to admit that this is true. But really, the martial-caster power gap is so bad that martials are not really needed in a party regardless of tier. More and more parties that I see have no martials at all. Pure spell caster parties are quite common now. A paladin, ranger, or a cleric is good enough to fill the role because the role isn't needed or valued very much anyway. Some parties don't have a melee based character at all. Just wizards, warlocks, druids, and sorcerers...sometimes a rogue, a bard, or an artificer, but often not even that. Not a fighter or barbarian or even a monk anywhere in sight. Again, if you think that you really need a martial (most parties don't) a paladin or cleric will do nicely and they can still cast spells. Who needs muggles?
As much as I hate to admit it, fighters have become so weak that they are no longer needed in a party. (Sigh). A far cry from the D&D of old when every party had at least one fighter, if not more.
Jkrentzian wrote, "Then people use the existence of mirror image, shield, absorb elements and the like to be just better every time than the fighters usually higher HP and AC, but how many times, how many combats, how many slots do they have (at any given lvl) to cast those during a day, specially at early levels?"
The answer to that question is "MORE than enough" because most tables have few encounters per day. Further, if EVERYBODY in the party is a caster, there are more than enough spell slots between them to manage even extended multiple encounters. Again, who needs muggles? Apparently nobody!
That's what zoning spells are for. Or just killing everything before it reaches you. The need for meat shields is greatly overrated.
You do need martial characters in tier 1 and they're highly desirable in tier 2, but you don't need them to be meat shields or engage in melee.
My experience - in actual play, and not paper theory craft - has always been that if the caster player can design his spells to suit a challenge that has been presented before hand, he's untouchable, but if it's just a random tuesday and he prepared for whatever, then once the barbarian explodes right in his face* without warning ....... the wizard dies. Rather pathetically, too.
And then he'll say something like, yea, but if I'd had Misty Step prepared, things would have gone entirely the other way.
Sure =)
* Surprise brand Barbarian-in-a-box (TM) available at any Ye Olden Magic Item Shoppe franchise near you
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
My experience - in actual play, and not paper theory craft - has always been that if the caster player can design his spells to suit a challenge that has been presented before hand, he's untouchable, but if it's just a random tuesday and he prepared for whatever, then once the barbarian explodes right in his face* without warning ....... the wizard dies. Rather pathetically, too.
And having a meat shield would matter to this... how? Surprise kills characters in 5e, but having a martial character isn't a defense against surprise.
But never think or mention what would happen to the caster without the Meat Shield in front of them taking damage.
That's what zoning spells are for. Or just killing everything before it reaches you. The need for meat shields is greatly overrated.
You do need martial characters in tier 1 and they're highly desirable in tier 2, but you don't need them to be meat shields or engage in melee.
You don't need *any* class to be *any* specific role. This isn't an MMO; you can clear any module or AP with 4 Fighters or 4 Rangers or 4 Wizards etc. That doesn't change the fact that being a martial is a role people enjoy; Not everyone wants to be a caster, no matter how much more raw power it might afford them.
Very true. Some people will just want to play a fighter. But nobody wants to feel that their character is under powered compared to all the other party members. So you really have to LOVE fighters to play one. Wouldn't it be more fun for the person playing the fighter if their character was even remotely equivalent in power to the other party members?
Very true. Some people will just want to play a fighter. But nobody wants to feel that their character is under powered compared to all the other party members. So you really have to LOVE fighters to play one. Wouldn't it be more fun for the person playing the fighter if their character was even remotely equivalent in power to the other party members?
I've never felt any fighter I ever played was underpowered. I guess I was just having fun the wrong way.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them. Maybe there is no problem. Maybe fighters are more-or-less good as is, but they're just not to your taste (not you personally, the generic you). I've not played a wizard since 2e. Pretty sure I've only played one druid ever. They don't appeal to me for a number of reasons. But I just figure they're not for me, rather than they need to be "fixed" until they appeal to me. Not every class has to appeal to every player. People who like playing fighters rarely say they wish they played differently or could do more things. It's mostly white-room theorycrafters who try to tell us we shouldn't enjoy them because they don't have the dpr of some other class, or the out of combat options of some other, other class. Those of us who like fighters know that. We like playing them anyway. Please stop fightersplaining why we shouldn't like them.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them.
People who don't like fighters don't care about fixing them. The people who care about fixing them are people who would like to play a fighter, but are discouraged from doing so by subpar mechanics.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them.
People who don't like fighters don't care about fixing them. The people who care about fixing them are people who would like to play a fighter, but are discouraged from doing so by subpar mechanics.
That's kind of my point. If you would only like it if its different, then by definition, you don't like it. as far as subpar mechanics, those of us who like them don't find the mechanics subpar. Subpar is an opinion. You find them subpar, I accept that. That doesn't mean others disagree. Why do those of us that do like it need to lose what we have so you can get something? I assume there are other classes you do like to play. Why not just play those? Again, I just understand not every class is for me. I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like. Not everything appeals to everyone; not everything needs to appeal to everyone.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them.
People who don't like fighters don't care about fixing them. The people who care about fixing them are people who would like to play a fighter, but are discouraged from doing so by subpar mechanics.
That's kind of my point. If you would only like it if its different, then by definition, you don't like it. as far as subpar mechanics, those of us who like them don't find the mechanics subpar. Subpar is an opinion. You find them subpar, I accept that. That doesn't mean others disagree. Why do those of us that do like it need to lose what we have so you can get something? I assume there are other classes you do like to play. Why not just play those? Again, I just understand not every class is for me. I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like. Not everything appeals to everyone; not everything needs to appeal to everyone.
If you are filling out the surveys, you are indeed saying that things need to be changed to be what you like and if you are not filling in the surveys, your voice won't be heard. I recommend filling out the surveys and hope for the best.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Only if they do nothing but kill monsters that are weak enough for a single PC to kill them without support.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, only if they can compare numbers. Even the most basic observations spots "my numbers are bigger than yours", which probably explains crit builds being popular way out of scale with their actual effectiveness.
As has already been stated previously in this thread, not everyone is a min/maxer that cares about building the best of the best character they possibly can.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Agreed and even for those of us with years of experience that optimize pretty much as an auto activity it can be fun to play a plain old champion where you don’t have to think a lot just hack and slash your way thru what ever the DM puts in front of you. Other times I like sheer power of a high level mage cutting loose. But mostly I like the twisting tactical thinking of multiclass Gishes like a ranger/sorceror.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
If your fighter truly can't outdamage EB+AB then the game is not the problem.
I have no idea how warlock crawled into this discussion in the first place. Talk about fireball, not EB.
The spell with a common save, common resistance, and an AoE big enough that half the time it's got too much collateral damage to be worth using.
The person I was originally speaking to before you jumped in was discussing/comparing resourceless damage. I agree that at-will fireball would be a problem.
Just a comment:
I find it funny when people use the fact that martials (usually melee fighters or barbarians), have to be Meat Shields and suffer their job to receive all the damage (and say they are still bad at that) and most casters (arcane) can be away slinging spells or eldritch blasts and just be better (I'm not counting spellcasting and general utility spells do bring to casters). But never think or mention what would happen to the caster without the Meat Shield in front of them taking damage. You as the caster will have to take the damage and use your finite resources to avoid that (a reaction is a resource because is only once per round).
Then people use the existence of mirror image, shield, absorb elements and the like to be just better every time than the fighters usually higher HP and AC, but how many times, how many combats, how many slots do they have (at any given lvl) to cast those during a day, specially at early levels?
In the end, casters do have more utility and options, and can put bigger numbers if conditions are right (not everyone has the same spells every time, there is a reason theres a big list of options, and fireball is not the answer to every single combat), and are more powerfull at higher levels, but this is a team game, and everyone shines at their role.
That's what zoning spells are for. Or just killing everything before it reaches you. The need for meat shields is greatly overrated.
You do need martial characters in tier 1 and they're highly desirable in tier 2, but you don't need them to be meat shields or engage in melee.
Pantagruel666 wrote:
"That's what zoning spells are for. Or just killing everything before it reaches you. The need for meat shields is greatly overrated. You do need martial characters in tier 1 and they're highly desirable in tier 2, but you don't need them to be meat shields or engage in melee."
I have to admit that this is true. But really, the martial-caster power gap is so bad that martials are not really needed in a party regardless of tier. More and more parties that I see have no martials at all. Pure spell caster parties are quite common now. A paladin, ranger, or a cleric is good enough to fill the role because the role isn't needed or valued very much anyway. Some parties don't have a melee based character at all. Just wizards, warlocks, druids, and sorcerers...sometimes a rogue, a bard, or an artificer, but often not even that. Not a fighter or barbarian or even a monk anywhere in sight. Again, if you think that you really need a martial (most parties don't) a paladin or cleric will do nicely and they can still cast spells. Who needs muggles?
As much as I hate to admit it, fighters have become so weak that they are no longer needed in a party. (Sigh). A far cry from the D&D of old when every party had at least one fighter, if not more.
Jkrentzian wrote, "Then people use the existence of mirror image, shield, absorb elements and the like to be just better every time than the fighters usually higher HP and AC, but how many times, how many combats, how many slots do they have (at any given lvl) to cast those during a day, specially at early levels?"
The answer to that question is "MORE than enough" because most tables have few encounters per day. Further, if EVERYBODY in the party is a caster, there are more than enough spell slots between them to manage even extended multiple encounters. Again, who needs muggles? Apparently nobody!
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
My experience - in actual play, and not paper theory craft - has always been that if the caster player can design his spells to suit a challenge that has been presented before hand, he's untouchable, but if it's just a random tuesday and he prepared for whatever, then once the barbarian explodes right in his face* without warning ....... the wizard dies. Rather pathetically, too.
And then he'll say something like, yea, but if I'd had Misty Step prepared, things would have gone entirely the other way.
Sure =)
* Surprise brand Barbarian-in-a-box (TM) available at any Ye Olden Magic Item Shoppe franchise near you
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
And having a meat shield would matter to this... how? Surprise kills characters in 5e, but having a martial character isn't a defense against surprise.
You don't need *any* class to be *any* specific role. This isn't an MMO; you can clear any module or AP with 4 Fighters or 4 Rangers or 4 Wizards etc. That doesn't change the fact that being a martial is a role people enjoy; Not everyone wants to be a caster, no matter how much more raw power it might afford them.
Very true. Some people will just want to play a fighter. But nobody wants to feel that their character is under powered compared to all the other party members. So you really have to LOVE fighters to play one. Wouldn't it be more fun for the person playing the fighter if their character was even remotely equivalent in power to the other party members?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Stop assuming what other players want.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've never felt any fighter I ever played was underpowered. I guess I was just having fun the wrong way.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them. Maybe there is no problem. Maybe fighters are more-or-less good as is, but they're just not to your taste (not you personally, the generic you). I've not played a wizard since 2e. Pretty sure I've only played one druid ever. They don't appeal to me for a number of reasons. But I just figure they're not for me, rather than they need to be "fixed" until they appeal to me. Not every class has to appeal to every player. People who like playing fighters rarely say they wish they played differently or could do more things. It's mostly white-room theorycrafters who try to tell us we shouldn't enjoy them because they don't have the dpr of some other class, or the out of combat options of some other, other class. Those of us who like fighters know that. We like playing them anyway. Please stop fightersplaining why we shouldn't like them.
People who don't like fighters don't care about fixing them. The people who care about fixing them are people who would like to play a fighter, but are discouraged from doing so by subpar mechanics.
That's kind of my point. If you would only like it if its different, then by definition, you don't like it. as far as subpar mechanics, those of us who like them don't find the mechanics subpar. Subpar is an opinion. You find them subpar, I accept that. That doesn't mean others disagree. Why do those of us that do like it need to lose what we have so you can get something? I assume there are other classes you do like to play. Why not just play those? Again, I just understand not every class is for me. I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like. Not everything appeals to everyone; not everything needs to appeal to everyone.
If you are filling out the surveys, you are indeed saying that things need to be changed to be what you like and if you are not filling in the surveys, your voice won't be heard. I recommend filling out the surveys and hope for the best.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)