Because having a high con prevents the wizard from taking spells?
No because she does not enough spells prepared or enough spells automatically added to her book to be good at all 3 pillars.
As an example - tell me what abilities, proficiencies and spells you are prepare on your 3rd level Wizard to be good at all 3 pillars with a 16 Constitution.
The issue with using spells for non-combat pillars is they tend to be narrowly focused and high cost either in time or in resources.
So the Wizard above can have find familiar and detect magic and identify and Comprehend Languages and Friends without making a big cut into her combat spells (friends is a small cut but not a big one).
But these are all situational and do not equate to being good at an entire pillar in the same way a high Wisdom, Charisma or Dexterity do with associated proficiencies.
For example
Social Pillar:
A 12 Charisma (doable on a 16 Int, 14 Dex, 16 Con point buy Wizard with most races) with Freinds can make you very effective at Charisma ability rolls, better than a Paladin or Fighter with a 16 Charisma at 3rd level. But that is only on those checks where you have time to cast it ahead of time without the enemy knowing AND when it does not matter if the enemy knows they were influenced by magic. It is highly situational. Meanwhile a 16 Charisma with just a single proficiency in Persuasion or Deception is going to perform roughly just as good overall and better in a wider array of circumstances.
You can cast Comprehend Languages as a ritual, so you can read any text and understand any enemy. But it takes 10 minutes, and you can't talk to him. Again highly situational.
This example Wizard also has an 8 Wisdom and a poor insight.
Exploration Pillar:
Find Familiar is great at scouting within the relatively large range of telepathy, but that is all it is great at. Your familiar is not going to pass a survival check to find tracks, it is not going to pass a nature check to identify a plant (although your Wizard might). If you take the better familiars for combat they are going to fail a lot of stealth checks. And they can only be used while they are alive, which is going to be a very short time. Also if they are found and killed now the enemies you are scouting are on alert (because when they kill your cat or spider he disappears and returns to the Feywild or lower planes), so they immediately know someone is scouting them. Still a good option, but highly situational.
She also can't climb anything because her strength is an 8.
Detect Magic as a ritual lets you easily find magic traps as a ritual with a 10 minute casting. But someone with thieves tools or investigation proficiency is going to find it most of the time in 6 seconds and they can find the non-magical ones as well.
With your Wisdom and no proficiency you are flat awful at perception which means you can't really be even passable at the exploration pillar, although I wil give you the benefit of the doubt since your cat has a +1 and advantage if it involves a smell. I will say you are actually good at the exploration pillar, dispite this glaring shortfall.
Leveled spells to be good at non-combat:
Ok, so we haven't really started adding leveled spells here and we have a wizard that is useful in those two pillars in some narrowly defined situations. The Wizard has a 16 intelligence so she 6 spells she can prepare and has two 2nd level spells in her book.
Because of her awful Wisdom she probably needs detect thoughts to cover her dieficiencies in insight, although this conflicts with Friends because they are both concentration .... so we will take Charm Person too. With a failed save and followed up by detect thoughts that will make us actually good at the social pillar in a wade variety of sitatuoins, as long as it is a humanoid and we have time to cast them and it is not one of the fey creatures that is likely to pass the save. I would argue it is still a bit situational, but it is good.
She has 8 first level spells, 4 re going to be rituals she needs, 1 is Charm Person she needs to be good at the social pillar. That leaves 4 more in her book.
Now the Combat Pillar:
So to be good at the other two pillars we built our Wizard with: Friends, Charm Person, Detect Magic, Identify Comprehend Languages, Find Familiar and detect Thoughts. She is running around with a cat because without that she is flat awful at the exploration pillar, so the familiar is of limited use in combat.
She has 4 more spells in her book (3 1st, 1 2nd) and 2 more Cantrips to learn to spend on the combat pillar. One can be second level.
So sheild and mage armor are no brainers. That leaves one. I could argue most Wizards need Absorb Elements too to be good at the combat pillar, but at level 3 and with a 16 Constitution I will say she doesn't. I am going to go with Cause Fear.
She probably wants Misty Step as her other second level spell, like Absorb Elements, I wil[l say she can get by without it since she has a 16 Con. I am going to say she can take web.
Her last 2 cantrips are whatever, Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp, but pick any 2.
In terms of 6 prepared it is going to be: Charm Person, Mage Armor, Shield, Cause Fear, Web and Detect Thoughts.
We will just ignore the fact she has a 9 passive perception and pretend that does not matter for combat.
Finally the adventuring day:
We will say this character has 2 social interactions with a humanoid, one exploration attempt and 6 combats of 3 rounds each.
So this character is dependent on Charm Person and Detect Thoughts to be genuinely good at the social pillar, which is two slots on every interaction with every humanoid. But when the saving throw fails she is actually really good. She can be ok too when she can cast friends and she is not very good other than that. So to be good she is going to burn 2 first level and 2 second level spells a day.
We will say the ability to scout remotely and read all writing account for the other deficiencies in the exploration pillar and call that good. She is good at the exploration pillar without burning slots.
In terms of combat, we have 4 first and 3 second level slots a day and when we are not using them we are bad. We are going to say she has Mage Armor that uses a slot, Charm Person and Detect Thoughts twice a day. This leaves 1 first level and 1 second level slot per day to spend on 18 rounds of combat .... and this includes Arcane Recovers.
Swap the abilities around on this Wizard, Put ta 10 in Constitution and a 14 in Wisdom and Charisma and now you have a Wizard that can actually be good at all 3 pillars.
Alternatively, play a Fighter with good Wisdom and Charisma and you are just about as good in all three pillars. The reason why is you are better in combat without expending spell slots.
THe difference between a martial character and a spellcaster, is the access to spells. IF the only way you can be good at social and exploration is spells, then even if the martial character can figure out how to get spells, then we have a problem in the design, because it inidicates that the design is not equitable.
Right but spells are VERY limited, both in the number you have prepared and the number you use.
A 3rd level Wizard can cast knock 3 times a day (including Arcane Recovery) and she to not prepare something else to do it. A Rogue with thieves tools can try to pick a lock 14,400 times in one day while not losing a single use of sneak attack. If they are an Arcane Trickster or a Thief then can try ot over 28,000 times in a day.
Sure, those things are useful, but it isn't like the Wizard or the Cleric don't have other useful spells. This isn't about "how do I get suggestion on my fighter" (Which would take being level 13, when the other full casters got it at level 5) it is about how the answer is always "get the right spell"
How do I get Silence on my Wizard? How do I get Knock on my Cleric? What if those are the "right spells".
Getting Suggestion on a Fighter is actually a lot easier than either of these examples, and is doable at level 7 (not 13) by trading out the single non-evocation/abjuration spell you took at level 3.
Why not? The fighter has NOTHING that the other classes are can't get within their own design space.
This is not true. Rogues, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids can not get extra attack at all. Wizards, Bards and Warlocks can do it only by making specific subclass choices and forgoing other options and no class can get 3+ weapon attacks per turn.
Extra attack enables a fighter to divest in combat in a fashion that no other class can. I can start with a 16 in my attack stat and put nothing at all into the combat pillar for 20 levels, make choices to boost other pillars and still be good at the combat pillar at every level all the way to 20th level. The only other classes that can do that are Paladin and Ranger. Not even Barbarian or Rogue can do that. Casters MUST put resources into the combat pillar to be good at combat. At a minimum they need to select and prepare spells for combat instead of other spells.
But the Barbarian and the Paladin also don't get 3 attacks. And I thought that dropping Con was fine? A 12 Con is nothing. I pretty much never see ANY character with less than a 12 con.
Barbarians are weaker than fighters and unlike fighters, I would say Barbarians need feats to stay good at combat. Paladins don't get three attacks but they do get divine smite and without even shoosing combat oriented spells, subclasses or fighting styles this makes them good at combat at all levels.
In point buy I play characters with a 10 Con more often than characters with a 12 and I have only played 2 with a 14 in the last 2 years (have not played one at all with higher than a 14). I think that is why I am happier with my non-casters.
I don't think a bard needs a 12 Constitution, but they do need a 12 constitution to have almost as many hit points as a figthter with a 10 (still actually 1 point behind). The point I was making is yes a Bard can get extra attack (a 2nd attack only) and they can get a fighting style (very limited choices) and this gives them the ability to be on par with a basic fighter in terms of melee damage for 6 levels out of 20 (levels 3, 4 and 6-10). However compared they need a higher constitution to match that fighters hit points and be as good at melee overall.
And meanwhile, the Lore Bard or the Creation Bard... are still good in combat. Sure, they aren't stellar in melee combat, but they can alter the entire flow of a fight with a single spell. Just like all other casters.
A creation Bard is not good at combat at all between levels 3 and 5 and they are not great at combat above level 12 unless you have very few encouters a day.
A big weakness on this subclass is their very poor armor class and very limited protection options in terms of spells. You don't have PEG, Absorb Elements or Shield. You can shore this up a bit by taking Shield with magical secrets and medium armor proficiency as a feat but then you are giving up other options and hurting your spell DC.
When I play a single-class Bard into high level I am usually doing one or both of these two things or I am spamming Slivery Barbs for defense (and it is not that good at that).
Bards are the most fragile class in the game despite the D8 hit points.
Firebolt averages 5 damage. A commoner has 4 hp. Firebolt does not give you minor 1st degree burns that sting a little. You are looking at 3rd degree burns most of the time.
Yet a 10th level fighter with a 10 constitution can get hit by it 10 times and aside from not bruning to death can be totally cured of 10 3rd degree burns with an hour of rest?
The little 2nd degree burn I got on my finger last Saturday is still not healed - Again impossibilities if this is what you consider Firebolt to be.
IT is a problem if the best way to make a powerful character, is to be a spellcaster. That shows an issue in the design.
No it is ideal. The strongest characters should be casters. This is consistent with the thematics and the story in fantasy RPGs.
No one runs around saying Bromir or Frodo are as strong as Gandalf. They have their abilities an those carry the day at times, but it terms of raw power casters should be in a field of their own.
We need to talk about what viability looks like, because most of the time, I've found fighters and barbarians feeling like they are unable to contribute outside of combat, which gets worse for them, when the caster or the diplomacy character completely subverts the combat with a single action.
Sure, but I think that is because the PCs you play with prioritize Constitution and don't try to be good at other things. I mean if they take a feat at 4th level are they getting Actor or Pole Arm Master?
The last fighter I played to 20th level had a 16 Strength, 8 Dex, 12 con, 8 Int, 13 Wisdom and 20 Charisma at 20th level and she dominated the social pillar. She was the party face and was really good at it.
She was really good in combat too.
She was ok but not great at exploration. With a 13 a Spider familiar and perception proficiency she did "contribute" though.
Now I will say, she was a Drow Eldritch Knight with Drow High Magic, Fey touched, Magic Initiate (Warlock) and Telepathic, so she did have a lot of spells and was not a "non-caster". But she was good at combat and really good at the social pillar.
Not every fight features enemies that have legendary resistance. Not every enemy is immune to every effect. And casters can still do damage, on top of their other actions.
At high level it is very common and so are very high saves and so are condition immunities. To pull some stats I went to D&D beyond and filtered CR15 creatures. Out of the first 10 only 2 did not have either Legendary resistances and one of them was immune to frightened.
Casters can do damage, but at high level you often run into damage immunity or resistance and if they prepare the most poweful spells their damage is weak even when it is not resisted. If they pick high-damage spells then they are not picking "encounter enders"
My point was this, and I can say it confidently because I played in a lot of high-level campaigns recently: As casters get large numbers of slots to use very powerful control "encounter ending" options enemies als get resistances or saving throws that counter those "encounter ending" spells.
That is not to say those spells are not useful, but an 8th level Wizard with the ability to cast Fear and Psychic Lance 5 times a day is like a god. Fear is an encounter ender, Psychic Lance is extremely debilitating and generally difficult for enemies to resist. At higher levels though the gap closes because monsters do a better job resisting spells, even as the spells become more powerful.
Who would be happy to have built their entire character to excel at a specific type of challenge, to then hear the wizard say "Oh good, then I won't take X so you can your thing. I'll take Y instead".
I was happy last night with it.
An entire build, which the wizard could have invalidated, by taking a single spell. And didn't, just to be polite.
It would not "invalidate" the entire build. This is a team game.
If my character is better than yours at something then maybe you should try to be good at something else.
The Drow fighter I mentioned above was a good face in part because other PCs weren't.
In team game there is two ways to play and this is part of the session 0 contract.
1. One, and I would argue the better more fun one is for every player to build the PC they want and ignore party dynamics or make up. This leads to shortfalls at times. TOA for example we had no one who could find traps and got lost all the time. I actually took an unplanned Ranger level multiclass level just to get the ability to never be lost. 5E is forgiving enough though that you can play this way and still survive (we never got someone who could find or disarm traps worth a flip).
This is so easy because you worry about you.
2. The second way is to plan out group build to ensure you have all bases covered. This will make success more likely, although it will be less fun IMO. If you are doing this then by definition you need to be willing to alter your character idea to fit a specific role and you need to consider what the other PCs want to play. If one player wants to play the tank role as a Wizard and the other PCs want him to fill that role because he will be better than you, then in this sort of game you should build your character towards something else. Still pick your class, but you are driving the direction the team wants, not what you want. The Drow above is an example of this.
Uh huh. Not, what martial choices affect the choices made by other characters in the team game? What martial option is equivalent to these?
A crapload of Ranger options do this. Taking Fey Wanderer with a max wisdom and decent Charisma nullifies every other face build out there except maybe Bard that optmizes for social skills (and that is about equal not better at most levels).
Taking Natural explorer dominates the wilderness portion of the exploration pillar and then PWT nullifies any kind of effort other PCs put into stealth.
A Paladin't Aura largely nullifies efforts to be good on saves as it can make everyone good on all saves and it to a degree weakens spells like Calm emtions, Heroism and PEG.
Okay, yeah. Everyone can fall off a building.
Only spellcasters can fly back up up, or collapse the building with a word, or turn the building into a monster to fight for them.
So... the entire party jumped off the side of a building? Cool. How did that allow the fighter to solve a problem?
It allowed them to do the impossible and fall hundreds of feet without dying .... and in one of those examples the "Wizard cast dimension door and took no damage (along with the Rogue he took with him).
You completely missed the point though. The claim was that fighters can't do impossible things and they can! Casters just do them more or better.
No, they are an optional rule
They are RAW and if you are not using them that will be far more restrictive for PCs.
Your position is martials can't do anything except combat, but if you are not using feats, you aren't using the rules that exist which enable them to be better at things beside combat.
Unless it is a featless game. You won't see a wizard or a bard in a "spell-less" game, but you can see fighters in featless games all the time. There is a big difference here.
I have never played in a featless game in 5E and I play a minimum of 5 games a week. I can't say I remember every PC I played, but I don't think I have played a single PC to 8th level in a class without taking a feat.
I have played in a game with no casters allowed. I have also played in a game (only 1) with the gritty realism optional rules and in that game Wizards were pretty darn weak at most levels. Weaker than fighters and Monks.
But if they want to contribute without spells... they just need to hope no one else tried to build a character who tackles social or exploration problems in any way, shape, or form.
Not true. Plenty of my martials contribute in either the social or exploration pillars when other PCs can do this.
When I want to be really good at one of these pillars though I usually build a character that is dominant at it and will be a lot better than other characters. This happens most often when Paladins or to a lessor extent Sorcs or Warlocks get outdone by my Ranger in the Social Pillar. When I do that though, that Ranger is usually running a 14 Dex and is not as good in melee. It is a spell first Ranger build.
1) Feats are optional
2) The only feats that you keep mentioning give spells. We are looking for spell-less solutions.
Sure but if you are looking for options to make martials more viable they are there and if you want them to be more viable in your games you should logically allow them. If you don't you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
Also, Skill Expert, Actor, Prodigy, Linguist, Observant, Skilled and Skulker do actually give benefits to the non-combat pillars without spells.
There also are just not feats that give the sort of benefits we are trying to get here, and making them feats opens them up to everyone, meaning that the spellcasters are still going to be able to do everything the martials can do plus more.
IMO Spellcasters should be able to get all the basic weapons and options that martials get. I don't mind hiding those behind feats or subclasses, but they should be available.
Every PC, regardless of class, should have access to the full range of non-magic options. In addition casters should have unparalleled access to spells.
