Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
At first level, we could have replaced the fighter ...

It's not a discussion worth having, especially not in 5E where 300 XP is Level 2.

In your opinion it's not worth having you mean. The acquisition of more spells and spell slots will only excaberate the problem. If the fighter had the same equipment as the cleric, there would be no difference between the classes other than the cleric having spells-a clear advantage. In 3.5 at least the fighter had the advantage of extra feats- translating into disarm/sundering/tripping bonuses, or clear damage/attack bonuses such as power attack and/or weapon focus.

In all editions but 4th all classes are about the same at level 1: poor to hit, poor saves, and poor AC; it isn't so much opinion as basic math. You need to get a few levels before differences start really popping out.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
In your opinion it's not worth having you mean.

I posted exactly what I meant. At first level, 5E Fighters are better at fighting that 5E Clerics. More importantly, a class is more than a single level.

This just comes down to spell envy. As always, anyone who wants to play a PC that casts spells should play a caster.

I think that may be over simplifying things.
The difference between casters and non-casters in 3.5 was not 'spell envy'.
We'll have to see when the PHB and such comes out if it is much the same.

Unfortunately, 3E was a "game mastery" rule set. Good options and bad options were hidden throughout the books. A lot of people got loads of enjoyment by finagling optimized builds. I say "unfortunately" not because this is badwrongfun but rather because it made the game a lot less fun for people who just wanted to play a character. There was tremendous pressure to min/max and power game. Spell envy, what you might call "caster privilege" from the opposite perspective, was not new to 3E. But it is the most famous aspect of that pressure.

As I explained above, this is not the case with 5E as things stand. And, as I also explained above, I doubt this will change unless it is an issue of feats. But, and this is pure speculation, I think 5E feats will be pretty different from 3E/4E feats, which offered small bonuses to further "tune" your PC's niche, i.e., min/max fuel. I bet 5E feats will look more like backgrounds.

As a min/maxer DM of a group of min/maxers that sounds fairly boring.

I've run and played many games where no one ever reaches fifth level. Lower level games are my bread and butter, and every level matters to me.

I'm still holding judgement until the full rules drop, but based on the information I have so far I'm not interested in dropping money on this edition.

Yep, it sounds like PowerGamer, er, PathFinder is more your speed.

 Manchu wrote:
Yep, it sounds like PowerGamer, er, PathFinder is more your speed.

It seems so.

I do like to branch out with stuff like Golden Sky Stories, Engine Heart, and such every now and again. Back in high school we kept our own forum where we'd take turns telling a story through posts. No dice, just roleplaying.

I picked up the starter box tonight. I'll probably try to rustle up a game with some friends this week sometime.

Do you think you will be DMing or playing? I assume DMing given you purchased the Starter Set but if not, what kind of character do you want to play?

Apparently a pre-printing version of the PHB leaked onto the net. I have no interest in seeking it out or downloading it, but I have seen some comments on it. Apparently there are a lot more options for characters, as we sort of expected. It sounded like most thought the difference was great enough that they felt the free Basic rules were a bit of a disservice to the actual release.

Apparently one of the options for Warlocks pacts is with a "Great Old One". No euphemisms or dancing around it, it is actually called a "Great Old One".

Don't look if you don't want to

When did this happen?

 Manchu wrote:
When did this happen?

The leak? Very recent. If you want, I can tell you where to look for it. It's an alpha version of the PHB.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Spoiler:

Oooh, the Battle Master sounds fun. And fighters have access to spells now if they take the archetype. Something about that bothers me.

Spoiler:

Eldritch Knight, you mean? That's supposed to have spells, it's an arcane class

Isn't it a martial archetype for Fighters?

 Manchu wrote:

Spoiler:

Eldritch Knight, you mean? That's supposed to have spells, it's an arcane class

Isn't it a martial archetype for Fighters?

Right, a prestige class focused on making your fighter know spells. I imagine there's a bunch of split 'Archetypes' like that that dip into other classes bailiwicks.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Spoiler:

Probably too stuck in the best edition.

hehehe. Spoilers are fun, but let them be banished!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Spoiler:

Probably too stuck in the best edition.

Spoiler:

I'm not sure why that matters, as you could still multiclass Wizard with Fighter in 4th, not to mention Blade Singer and Swordsage. Besides I thought you were stuck in 3/PF? It seems odd to play PF all the time while still recognizing others as better, but it certainly speaks well of you to recognize that the other system was best. Other than the page image, I'm not sure why we are using spoiler tags for some of this.

I don't even know what edition we're talking about anymore.

Multiclassing was always an option, but now they appear to be printed in the fighter section it seems odd. Not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm all gung-ho to buy it now. I'm easily pleased.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Multiclassing was always an option, but now they appear to be printed in the fighter section it seems odd. Not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm all gung-ho to buy it now. I'm easily pleased.

It's a prestige class. It's just in the fighter section because it's a fighter prestige class. How many 3/3.5/pathfinder prestige classes for fighters have spells? Not a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My wife will be happy. She was never satisfied with the 4th ed Bard, but the 5th looks very 3rd. Ha, numbers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oooh Bards can steal spells from any class. that's going to only get better with more splat.

They're not traditional prestige classes. They're like choosing sword and board over a two handed fighter. They're different ways to play a fighter.

Oh, I was wrong about the archetype thing. It's basically a kit or sub-class of Fighter. You can either be a Battle Master or an Eldritch Knight. Well, I guess that's one way to avoid spell envy. Maneuvers or Spells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
They're not traditional prestige classes. They're like choosing sword and board over a two handed fighter. They're different ways to play a fighter.

Yep, I realised that while you were typing. Very interesting. (You ninja, you!)

It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.

Yeah, I like that one a lot better. Fighters should be the wizards of combat.

Also, keep in mind this is allegedly the alpha. Who knows what is still in.

 pretre wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.

Yeah, I like that one a lot better. Fighters should be the wizards of combat.

Also, keep in mind this is allegedly the alpha. Who knows what is still in.

True, or how it's implemented.

These are called "martial archetypes" in 5E.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't even know what edition we're talking about anymore.

Just being playfully silly, as I thought you were as well.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
They're not traditional prestige classes.

Prestige classes aren't really traditional anyway.