Belt of Giant Strength and bounded accuracy.

[Eslin]

For those who don't have the DMG, belts of giant strength set the wearer's strength to between 21 and 29 strength, depending on the item. So, since some people here seem to have some insight into the design process...

What were they thinking? Such items devalue the hell out of the barbarian capstone and play merry havoc with the bounded accuracy system - +weapons are stupid in this edition and were bad enough, now strength (and only strength) is allowed to break the rules very (heh) strongly?

And is it just me, or is it only strength? Why should strength fighters have such a massive boost to their power while dexterity fighters get stuck at 20 at most?

Side note: Please note I don't want any 'if you don't like it don't use it' or 'just houserule it' responses, this is about the game as-is, the game in which there's a +2 ioun stone for every stat but only one stat has magic items that bring it close to 30.

[silveralen]

It is by far one of the weirdest throwbacks to 2nd edition. The fact that these practically invalidate the barbarian capstone is even weirder, as magic items may discourage you from taking 20 barbarian if you got lucky at some point in your career.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Side note: Please note I don't want any 'if you don't like it don't use it' or 'just houserule it' responses, this is about the game as-is, the game in which there's a +2 ioun stone for every stat but only one stat has magic items that bring it close to 30.

A strange comment to make, considering the DM's complete control of magical loot is part of the game as is.

[Eslin]

It is by far one of the weirdest throwbacks to 2nd edition. The fact that these practically invalidate the barbarian capstone is even weirder, as magic items may discourage you from taking 20 barbarian if you got lucky at some point in your career.

Ah, that explains some of it. Half of the time when I point out something that doesn't make any sense it turns out they decided to include it because of this semi-mythical '2nd edition' (I say semi-mythical because I've only ever skimmed through it myself and have never played a game with anyone who has played it) having had a similar feature.

Rereading it, the fact that it is strength only is getting more and more confusing. If you're going to break your own design rules, why only do it with strength? Why give one attribute that massive advantage and not others?

[Gwendol]

The manual of Quickness of Action increases the DEX score, and the max dex by +2, as does the other manuals (STR, CON). The manuals are very rare, while the belts are varying depending on the strength. There is also a combo of magic items involving the belts of strength with a dwarven theme.

The belt is magical while the barbarian capstone is natural, so there's that.

Dex is the king of abilities, it seems, and so for the most part strength based fighting has taken a back-seat.

I don't really have an issue with this design, but sure, the lack of gloves of dexterity is somewhat surprising. Instead they have added the gloves of thievery which gives a bonus to certain dexterity checks.

[Todasmile]

It's definitely incredibly weird. It actually makes taking Strength increases completely unoptimal - heck, it means that maybe you actually want to dump it and just run with a dex-based build until you pick one up, ending up with a ton more stat points in everything, and a few more feats. If you get one you're going to wear it regardless of if you're at 20 or 8 Strength, so why waste your effort getting to the former?

I actually don't really like any of the "instant 19" items, but at least they were worse than someone who had max stats. Aside from maybe a misguided attempt at buffing martials, I don't really see why the belts are allowed. Given that it invalidates the capstone of an entire class, especially.

I couldn't tell you why they added them. I can only guess that the designers were trying to buff martials to compensate for the disparities between them and casters, but without realizing that it was a versatility / combat options disparity, not a power disparity.

[Eslin]

The manual of Quickness of Action increases the DEX score, and the max dex by +2, as does the other manuals (STR, CON). The manuals are very rare, while the belts are varying depending on the strength. There is also a combo of magic items involving the belts of strength with a dwarven theme.

The belt is magical while the barbarian capstone is natural, so there's that.

Dex is the king of abilities, it seems, and so for the most part strength based fighting has taken a back-seat.

I don't really have an issue with this design, but sure, the lack of gloves of dexterity is somewhat surprising. Instead they have added the gloves of thievery which gives a bonus to certain dexterity checks.
Dex isn't the king of abilities - barbarians need strength, and polearm master (which pretty much any fighter or paladin wants) requires strength too. Dexterity builds have their place, but for maximum damage strength is better, and it also aids grappling which is one of the only unique things martials can do.

[Gwendol]

I don't know about that. Not all melee combatants will be barbarians. Not all barbarians will be reaching the capstone.

[Gwendol]

Dex isn't the king of abilities - barbarians need strength, and polearm master (which pretty much any fighter or paladin wants) requires strength too. Dexterity builds have their place, but for maximum damage strength is better, and it also aids grappling which is one of the only unique things martials can do.

STR saves are far and few between. DEX applies to both hit and damage, duelist is a thing, rapiers do 1d8 damage, and DEX applies also to both AC and (very importantly) initiative. Even barbarians want high DEX (and CON).

[Eslin]

STR saves are far and few between. DEX applies to both hit and damage, duelist is a thing, rapiers do 1d8 damage, and DEX applies also to both AC and (very importantly) initiative. Even barbarians want high DEX (and CON).

Strength saves aren't as uncommon as you imply, though dex saves are still better. Strength applies to both hit and damage as well, defensive duelist is not worth the feat, quarterstaves do an extra hit, and dexterity applying to initiative is one of the main reason it's appealing.

I didn't say dexterity was useless - a dexterity build will have lower damage and unless you're a barbarian, lower armour, but they make up for it with initiative and a more useful save.

Dexterity is more useful for monks, rogues and ranged fighters. Strength is more useful for paladins, barbarians and melee fighters.

[Gwendol]

Correct, but on the other hand, only a few classes can afford to dump dex, and barbarian isn't necessarily one of them.
I must say that I find the lack of dex increasing items surprising, and I have no real explanation for it. I can only point out that the physical abilities are not equal. It seems the designers don't want to see DEX above 20, but accept higher Strength values. Presumably this has to do with "balance" in some way. Find that and you may uncover the thinking about this, unless the designers are willing to simply answer the question.

[burninatortrog]

What were they thinking?

"Belt of Giant Strength is a cool item, what's a good mechanic for it?"

"Have the belt give them the Strength of a giant."

...

"Should we include a dozen other items that provide similar benefits for the other five stats?"

"Nah, that would be redundant. If DM's want that, it will be easy to make their own ability boosters based on the rules for the Belt of Giant Strength."

"But then why did we make all those different Ioun Stones?"

"There are supposed to be a bunch of different Ioun Stones with different effects, that's their thematic flavor."


Such items devalue the hell out of the barbarian capstone

I don't really agree with this sentiment. If one of my players were playing a Barbarian, and I gave them a Belt of Giant Strength, they'd probably say "Wow cool more strength!" They wouldn't say "Dammit you devalued that ability that I wasn't going to have for most of the game and might never have reached anyway."


I don't want any 'if you don't like it don't use it'

It's fair to say this, but I really and truly think that "If you don't like it don't use it" is exactly what the designers were thinking.

[mister__joshua]

Well don't forget that the Barb capstone also gives +4 CON, which is a key ability for their defense. Rather than invalidate it, it possibly means maxing Con first is better, assuming you couldn't max both.

[Eslin]

Correct, but on the other hand, only a few classes can afford to dump dex, and barbarian isn't necessarily one of them.
I must say that I find the lack of dex increasing items surprising, and I have no real explanation for it. I can only point out that the physical abilities are not equal. It seems the designers don't want to see DEX above 20, but accept higher Strength values. Presumably this has to do with "balance" in some way. Find that and you may uncover the thinking about this, unless the designers are willing to simply answer the question.

Regarding answer, anyone know of a way to ask them?

Regarding dex and strength - why only those two? Why no 29 charisma item for the sorcerer or 29 wisdom item for the cleric?

And all physical abilities are kind of equal. A strength fighter wants about as much strength as a dexterity fighter does, and everyone likes constitution. Each has its own perks - how strong grappling is against some foes cannot be overstated, and dexterity's initiative boost is a great little bonus. But again, it's not just physical - I can't figure out why there's no 29 int item.

[Gwendol]

Or CON. Who would not want a 29 CON?

As I said, it could be that STR was deemed to be the least valuable ability, and thus the one that can be afforded to reach higher numbers. Or something completely different.

[Eslin]

I guess that's a viable theory, though with a belt of storm giant strength and a strength ioun stone a character with a level in rogue can get +22 to athletics checks and hold pretty much any monster in the game prone. Seriously, don't underestimate how useful strength is.

[Giant2005]

The only two fighting styles that don't benefit from the belt is spellslinging and archery.
It is quite possible that the developers thought that both of those styles already had enough going for them.

[Eslin]

The only two fighting styles that don't benefit from the belt is spellslinging and archery.
It is quite possible that the developers thought that both of those styles already had enough going for them.

And pure power was the way to fix that?

Really hoping that one's not true, it means they somehow missed what made casters better than martials back in 3.5. It's not power, it's utility and versatility.

[Giant2005]

And pure power was the way to fix that?

Really hoping that one's not true, it means they somehow missed what made casters better than martials back in 3.5. It's not power, it's utility and versatility.

It isn't the big deal you want it to be.
It is a legendary artifact - going by pure value, you could have it or 10 manuals/tomes of whatever stat you want to increase by +2. While those melee/throwing Fighters are running around with a Str of 29, everyone else would be running around with a base stat of 40.

[Eslin]

It isn't the big deal you want it to be.
It is a legendary artifact - going by pure value, you could have it or 10 manuals/tomes of whatever stat you want to increase by +2. While those melee/throwing Fighters are running around with a Str of 29, everyone else would be running around with a base stat of 40.

It's not a huge deal, it's just stupid. Where's the item of dexterity 29? Or the item of dexterity 19 come to think of it?

[burninatortrog]

It seems the devs decided to sacrifice symmetry and instead use the space for more unique and interesting items.

[Talderas]

Regarding answer, anyone know of a way to ask them?

Regarding dex and strength - why only those two? Why no 29 charisma item for the sorcerer or 29 wisdom item for the cleric?

And all physical abilities are kind of equal. A strength fighter wants about as much strength as a dexterity fighter does, and everyone likes constitution. Each has its own perks - how strong grappling is against some foes cannot be overstated, and dexterity's initiative boost is a great little bonus. But again, it's not just physical - I can't figure out why there's no 29 int item.

Why does Enhance Ability only grant advantage on Int/Wis/Cha checks while it grants a cool little trick in addition to advantage for Str/Dex/Con?

[Eslin]

Why does Enhance Ability only grant advantage on Int/Wis/Cha checks while it grants a cool little trick in addition to advantage for Str/Dex/Con?

Because the mental stats have far more skills associated with them - out of the eighteen skills, only four are based on the physical stats. In order to even it out, the physical stats get an extra bonus.

[Talderas]

Because the mental stats have far more skills associated with them - out of the eighteen skills, only four are based on the physical stats. In order to even it out, the physical stats get an extra bonus.

Yet the most potent ability score enhancement via that spell is goign to be strength or dexterity and that's without a little bonus.

[Person_Man]

Its the reintroduction of rules as nuclear weapons into D&D. David Noonan wrote a sage advice article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060519a) about the issue way back in 2006.

The basic gist of the article is that game designers do their best to write a fun and interesting game. But sometimes things write things that are too annoying or too powerful. D&D groups and DMs work around these rules, often unconsciously by just avoiding them, or through trial and error. For example, you try using the 3.5 Grapple rules and decide that they're painfully difficult, so you just avoid Grapples or come up with a house rule. Or you try using 3.5 Polymorph and your character is amazingly awesome, but then everyone in your group realizes that its too awesome and stop using it. D&D groups do this naturally, because they're friends, want a fair game, want everyone to have fun, don't want to overshadow each other too much, etc. And at the end of the day, the DM can always act as an arbitrator between players and/or find more powerful monsters or change the game as needed.


One of the big complaints about 4E was that players could not import their characters and campaigns from previous editions, because the 4E rules were just way too different. (For example, the Order of the Stick never made the jump into 4E because so many story and character elements depended on specific 3.X-ish mechanics).

Also, there is clearly a sub-population of players who clearly like and want numbers based character optimization, and want characters with the highest possible to-hit, damage, AC, etc., that's gained through a matrix of different mechanics (class + Feat + magic item + spell + etc). Rules mastery = stronger character. Also known as power gamers, Timmy (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b), or more derisively, munchkins.

So I think that the designers took these lessons to heart, and are doing their best to recreate the elements from 1E/2E/3.X/PF in 5E in a reasonably equivalent way, and to cater to as many different sub-populations of players as possible.


Having said all of the above, I think its a fracking terrible design choice, for the reasons discussed above and about a dozen other reasons I don't have the time to take the time to write at the moment. But the short version is that Balance, Tradition, and Complexity are not mutually exclusive things if you take the time to think them through and do them well from the start.

[Eslin]

Yet the most potent ability score enhancement via that spell is goign to be strength or dexterity and that's without a little bonus.

Why is that? It only gives advantage on ability checks. What's so potent about strength or dexterity checks?

[Demonic Spoon]

Powerful magic items are powerful magic items. There are magic items that let you fly. Permanently. Isn't there also an item that lets you turn invisible at will?

Magic-items, especially the higher-tier ones, are really strong and are going to change the way the game plays. There are tons of magic items that offer major power boosts to all types of characters.


And is it just me, or is it only strength? Why should strength fighters have such a massive boost to their power while dexterity fighters get stuck at 20 at most?


Why are you under the impression that every strength fighter is going to get a belt of giant strength? Have you seen the magic item tables? Even at high levels it's pretty staggeringly unlikely that any particular party will randomly get one. If we're assuming that the strength fighter gets a belt of giant strength, then we should also assume the dex fighter can turn invisible at will or do some other high-powered thing.


3.x had this problem because:

-Magic items were assumed and necessary; the DM would break the game if he didn't hand them out
-Players, not the DM, generally were in charge of which magic items their characters had
-These stat bonuses were available much, much more cheaply than similar bonuses are in 5e.
-Bonuses are not additive, so when a DM hands you a legendary magic item that sets your strength to an absurdly-high value, he knows that you aren't going to be able to stack it with a bunch of other things to end up with 40 strength.

[Eslin]

Powerful magic items are powerful magic items. There are magic items that let you fly. Permanently. Isn't there also an item that lets you turn invisible at will?

Magic-items, especially the higher-tier ones, are really strong and are going to change the way the game plays. There are tons of magic items that offer major power boosts to all types of characters.

Why are you under the impression that every strength fighter is going to get a belt of giant strength? Have you seen the magic item tables? Even at high levels it's pretty staggeringly unlikely that any particular party will randomly get one. If we're assuming that the strength fighter gets a belt of giant strength, then we should also assume the dex fighter can turn invisible at will or do some other absurdly high-powered thing.

3.x had this problem because:

-Magic items were assumed and necessary; the DM would break the game if he didn't hand them out
-Players, not the DM, generally were in charge of which magic items their characters had
-These stat bonuses were available much, much more cheaply than similar bonuses are in 5e.
I'm under the impression that the fighter has an item to get strength 29 at will, breaking bounded accuracy, and that that exists but no item for 29 intelligence for the wizard.

There is indeed a cloak of invisibility, it lets you become invisible for up to two hours per day. So basically, a fourth level spell that can be used for up to two hours per day. As compared to 29 strength, forever.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the invisibility cloak. It should exist, a 29 strength item should not and it should especially not when there are no equivalents.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Why is that? It only gives advantage on ability checks. What's so potent about strength or dexterity checks?
the phb helpfully provides a list of helpful things you can do with ability checks.

also grapples, shoves, stealthiness, Legolas bull****.

[Demonic Spoon]

There existing a 29 strength item but not a 29 intelligence item does not mean that the fighter will have 29 strength and the wizard will have nothing. If the DM is generous enough with magic items to hand out legendary magic items, then the fighter might have 29 strength, and the wizard will have some other legendary magic item that is equivalent in power. Jacking up your ability score is not the only way to increase power.

Furthermore, the designers absolutely expect you to make and modify your own magic items. Every page of redundant magic items that they add ("here's another item that is the exact same thing as the belt of giant strength, but for intelligence") is another page that isn't being dedicated to something actually innovative or useful. No DM is going to say "Man, I'd love to give my wizard something like the belt of giant strength, but no such item exists, therefore I cannot give him one. After all, DnD is a rigid and immutable game that I cannot alter in the slightest".


I'm under the impression that the fighter has an item to get strength 29 at will, breaking bounded accuracy, and that that exists but no item for 29 intelligence for the wizard.


Crux of the problem - you should not presuppose that the fighter has that item, and that the wizard has nothing. Why does one party member having one specific magic item have to be balanced by another party member having basically the same thing? Even if just for variety's sake, shouldn't the wizard get another legendary item anyway?

[Longcat]

How else do you expect adventurers to take on monsters with a CR of up to group level +10? The answer is strong magical gear that compensates for such a gap.

[Eslin]

There existing a 29 strength item but not a 29 intelligence item does not mean that the fighter will have 29 strength and the wizard will have nothing. If the DM is generous enough with magic items to hand out legendary magic items, then the fighter might have 29 strength, and the wizard will have some other legendary magic item that is equivalent in power. Jacking up your ability score is not the only way to increase power.

Furthermore, the designers absolutely expect you to make and modify your own magic items. Every page of redundant magic items that they add ("here's another item that is the exact same thing as the belt of giant strength, but for intelligence") is another page that isn't being dedicated to something actually innovative or useful. No DM is going to say "Man, I'd love to give my wizard something like the belt of giant strength, but no such item exists, therefore I cannot give him one. After all, DnD is a rigid and immutable game that I cannot alter in the slightest".

Crux of the problem - you should not presuppose that the fighter has that item, and that the wizard has nothing. Why does one party member having one specific magic item have to be balanced by another party member having basically the same thing? Even if just for variety's sake, shouldn't the wizard get another legendary item anyway?

He should. But why can't the wizard have an equivalent item? There are plenty of other redundant items, there's a tome and ioun stone for every stat. Including only a strength 29 item will mean that there are a large number of tables where the only 29 items are belts of giant strength. Just because it can be changed doesn't make it good game design.

[Demonic Spoon]

He should. But why can't the wizard have an equivalent item? There are plenty of other redundant items, there's a tome and ioun stone for every stat. Including only a strength 29 item will mean that there are a large number of tables where the only 29 items are belts of giant strength. Just because it can be changed doesn't make it good game design.


Every stat having symmetrical options is not necessarily good game design. And even if the only 29 item at the table is Strength, so what? Is the fighter with 29 strength worse off than the wizard with 20 int but some other crazy-powerful magic item that synergizes with his abilities well?

also, some other attributes cause wider balance implications if set to 29. 29 Dex, for example, gives you +4 AC, +4 on a more common save, and +4 on initiative, and +4 to a bunch more skill checks.

[mr_odd]

The two sides of this argument do not understand each other.

Group 1: This doesn't make sense since object a is in book and objects b, c, d, e, and f are not. Therefore, b, c, d, e, and f don't exist.

Group 2: The designers intended for you to make your own items, especially off of redundant ones. The only objects that do or do not exist are what the DM says.

[Eslin]

The two sides of this argument do not understand each other.

Group 1: This doesn't make sense since object a is in book and objects b, c, d, e, and f are not. Therefore, b, c, d, e, and f don't exist.

Group 2: The designers intended for you to make your own items, especially off of redundant ones. The only objects that do or do not exist are what the DM says.

B-F can be created. They won't be on the random item tables that a lot of DMs use to give treasure and they won't be an inherent part of the game so many DMs won't use them.

The main problem is the complete disregard of their own bounded accuracy system, the fact that they made redundant items for all other stat items but this (tomes, ioun stones, 19 stat items) is smaller in comparison.

[Demonic Spoon]

The main problem is the complete disregard of their own bounded accuracy system, the fact that they made redundant items for all other stat items but this (tomes, ioun stones, 19 stat items) is smaller in comparison.

no they didn't.

The bounded accuracy problem is dealt with by the fact that the belt of giant strength sets your strength and it cannot be increased beyond that. A 29 strength item increases the bounds of bounded accuracy, but that's the absolute limit as it cannot be stacked with anything else. That seems appropriate for a legendary magic item

[Thrudd]

It's not a good idea to design a character based on the assumption that they will get any particular magic item. Magic items are not for sale, except for maybe very common/weak ones. The chances that in any particular campaign a belt of giant strength will be found is pretty low. As a player, if you expect/insist that your DM hand out particular items to your character so that they can be optimized, you are wrong. That's not how the game works.

[Eslin]

no they didn't.

The bounded accuracy problem is dealt with by the fact that the belt of giant strength sets your strength and it cannot be increased beyond that. A 29 strength item increases the bounds of bounded accuracy, but that's the absolute limit as it cannot be stacked with anything else. That seems appropriate for a legendary magic item

Add a +3 weapon to it and you've got +7 beyond the normal limit, add it to the usual stats and the only reason the fighter misses a pit fiend on a 1 is because it's an auto fail, the other 19 possibilities will all hit. Wasn't bounded accuracy supposed to mean we didn't have 3.5's only hitting on 20s or only missing on 1s problem at high levels any more?

[Demonic Spoon]

Add a +3 weapon to it and you've got +7 beyond the normal limit, add it to the usual stats and the only reason the fighter misses a pit fiend on a 1 is because it's an auto fail, the other 19 possibilities will all hit. Wasn't bounded accuracy supposed to mean we didn't have 3.5's only hitting on 20s or only missing on 1s problem at high levels any more?


Why are you still fighting pit fiends if your party is at the stage where it has multiple of the most powerful items in the game, so many in fact that one party member has two very specific ones that maximize his attack bonus?

At that point you should be fighting Tiamat.

[Eslin]

Why are you still fighting pit fiends if your party is at the stage where it has multiple of the most powerful items in the game, so many in fact that one party member has two very specific ones that maximize his attack bonus?

At that point you should be fighting Tiamat.

A +3 sword isn't really out of place at that point. Besides, true polymorph lets you create anything you want - doesn't have the no magic item limitation all the other spells that create or alter items do.

[Demonic Spoon]

A +3 sword isn't really out of place at that point. Besides, true polymorph lets you create anything you want - doesn't have the no magic item limitation all the other spells that create or alter items do.


A +3 sword AND a belt of giant strength is absolutely out of place at that point; have you looked at the random treasure tables?


Besides, true polymorph lets you create anything you want - doesn't have the no magic item limitation all the other spells that create or alter items do.

There's nothing quite like invoking true polymorph cheese to convince people that the problem you're imagining is totally going to happen in a real game.

Anyway, you don't have that problem, ever, even if you're fighting pit fiends, by virtue of being at high level. You have that problem at the point that your DM gives you multiple of the most powerful magic items in the game, which is different than merely being at high level.

[Jlooney]

If the fighters main way of damage is str and a wizards is spells which aren't bumped by int anymore, what's the problem. A fly spell negates a fighter with a 30 str.

As far as the belt goes there are usefulness equivalents just not directly. Who says a wizard doesn't want that belt? Or a monk or even a bladelock?

How powerful an item is to a character is subjective and doesn't need to be fair across the board. If everything were to be fair the only class that would exist would be bard because he can do everything

[Eslin]

A +3 sword AND a belt of giant strength is absolutely out of place at that point; have you looked at the random treasure tables?


There's nothing quite like invoking true polymorph cheese to convince people that the problem you're imagining is totally going to happen in a real game.

Anyway, you don't have that problem, ever, even if you're fighting pit fiends, by virtue of being at high level. You have that problem at the point that your DM gives you multiple of the most powerful magic items in the game, which is different than merely being at high level.

The true polymorph part is unnecessary. With enough 1d4 rolls on table I you're going to get the belt in some games, and then what happens?

The dex fighter and the strength fighter both might like it, but the dex fighter's going to get more of a boost from it. He'll actively be rewarded for not investing in any strength by being given massive strength.

The fighter (who'll certainly have a good weapon by that point, they're not too rare of a roll and can be tracked down or traded for) now hits a lot of his foes on a 1.

The barbarian has the best part of his capstone completely invalidated.

It's just bad game design, and once more why is there no wisdom version? There's a wisdom version of every other stat item, the belt being both in the book and on the tables will mean even if some games create other stat equivalents you're going to see the belt a lot more often on average.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Non-Strength classes have legendary items that are just as good - just not directly equivalent. When the fighter's getting a belt of giant strength, the wizard should be getting a staff of the magi, the rogue a ring of invisibility, and the cleric a talisman of pure good. I wouldn't say a wizard who can absorb spells and throw around the staff's magic like cotton candy is getting particularly short-changed here. He's just getting something very different from the fighter.

Furthermore, the belt has both the grandfather clause and the source material on it's side: There's been a belt of giant strength in every edition of D&D, and it's a very common item in myth - much more so than it's other-attribute equivalents. These might be no good reasons in balance terms, but they shouldn't be ignored either.

[Eslin]

Furthermore, the belt has both the grandfather clause and the source material on it's side: There's been a belt of giant strength in every edition of D&D, and it's a very common item in myth - much more so than it's other-attribute equivalents. These might be no good reasons in balance terms, but they shouldn't be ignored either.

They really, really, really should. The rest of the character I'm quoting this from is edgy as hell, but the quote's a good one: tradition is the corpse of wisdom.

D&D takes from its own tradition so we don't have to relearn the background concepts each game and because we know certain things work. Reusing something just because it was used, not because it works, is pointless.

[Oscredwin]

I'm under the impression that the fighter has an item to get strength 29 at will, breaking bounded accuracy,

/sigh

+9 STR BONUS + 6 PROFICIENCY +3 MAGIC SWORD +4 Bless = +22 TO HIT

You're still missing the hardest enemies (Tiamat with her 25 AC) on a roll of a 2, and on a roll of 7 if you're taking the to hit penalty for GWM. You haven't fallen off the d20, you haven't left bounded accuracy. Hell, with the GWF penalty, you only have a +17 to hit and you're still (barely) on the d20 for a human fighter in plate and a shield. This is assuming you have a to-hit buff and are getting the maximum (rolled) value for it on that specific round. This might be too powerful for the game, but it doesn't take us to "I always hit, you never hit" territory.

[Giant2005]

/sigh

+9 STR BONUS + 6 PROFICIENCY +3 MAGIC SWORD +4 Bless = +22 TO HIT

You're still missing the hardest enemies (Tiamat with her 25 AC) on a roll of a 2, and on a roll of 7 if you're taking the to hit penalty for GWM. You haven't fallen off the d20, you haven't left bounded accuracy. Hell, with the GWF penalty, you only have a +17 to hit and you're still (barely) on the d20 for a human fighter in plate and a shield. This is assuming you have a to-hit buff and are getting the maximum (rolled) value for it on that specific round. This might be too powerful for the game, but it doesn't take us to "I always hit, you never hit" territory.

It also doesn't consider enemies using magic items and spells to boost their AC either.
It is much easier to boost your AC up with such methods than it is your to-hit.
If you are using multiple items of legend to fight, you really should have a significant advantage over those mooks without any advantages to counter with on their own.

[JoeJ]

It goes back to 1st edition. A character with a Hammer of Thunderbolts had to have both a Girdle of Giant Strength and Gauntlets of Ogre Power to gain the full powers of the weapon. And if they had all that, they could pretend to be Thor.

Thematically, strength is favored simply because heroes in classical mythology are much more often noted for having super strength than super dexterity, intelligence, or some other attribute.

[Jamesps]

According to the "Starting at Higher Level" table in the DMG legendary magic items don't really exist in anything but "High Magic" campaigns anyways.

That said, the real problem is the more common belts. The reason they're a problem is because they allow characters with no investment in Strength as a schtick to completely overshadow characters who's strength is their schtick.

Give a belt of hill giant strength to a dex-based character and now they're stronger than the 7 foot tall half-orc barbarian. I can definitely see the barbarian getting jealous at that point since that was his thing.

[Xetheral]

It's not a good idea to design a character based on the assumption that they will get any particular magic item. Magic items are not for sale, except for maybe very common/weak ones. The chances that in any particular campaign a belt of giant strength will be found is pretty low. As a player, if you expect/insist that your DM hand out particular items to your character so that they can be optimized, you are wrong. That's not how the game works.

It works like that at some tables. Specific magic items being part of a character concept is perfectly reasonable, and replete throughout literature. In the past, those character concepts could be dealt with by permitting the character to buy the item in question. Now, such concepts do indeed depend more on DMG cooperation.

[Gnomes2169]

The problem with the "I always hit, you never hit" trend that happened in 3.5 was the "you never hit" part. You can hit things all day, every day, but if it is able to hit back then you are still mortal, and are thus not quite invincible. Sure you can hit a lot. No, you don't have the AC nor the HP necessary to become immortal.

I will also say that, imo, the two best parts of the barbarian's capstone are actually the +4 con and infinite rage. +2 hit and damage and +30 lbs of carrying stuff are nice and all, but let's be frank here (no, you can't be steve), if you are reckless attacking you will likely be hitting anyway, and a +2 damage 3-4 times/ round (maximum) just really isn't going to be felt all that much. The 40 HP, +2 to con saves, +4 damage and infinite getting mad and only taking 1/2 damage are a bit more impactful as far as the capstone goes.

[Giant2005]

The problem with the "I always hit, you never hit" trend that happened in 3.5 was the "you never hit" part. You can hit things all day, every day, but if it is able to hit back then you are still mortal, and are thus not quite invincible. Sure you can hit a lot. No, you don't have the AC nor the HP necessary to become immortal.

I will also say that, imo, the two best parts of the barbarian's capstone are actually the +4 con and infinite rage. +2 hit and damage and +30 lbs of carrying stuff are nice and all, but let's be frank here (no, you can't be steve), if you are reckless attacking you will likely be hitting anyway, and a +2 damage 3-4 times/ round (maximum) just really isn't going to be felt all that much. The 40 HP, +2 to con saves, +4 damage and infinite getting mad and only taking 1/2 damage are a bit more impactful as far as the capstone goes.

He is also more likely so succeed in strength checks than the person wearing the belt due to the Barbarian's advantage counting for a lot more than an extra +2 to the ability check. Not to mention that the Barbarian only needs to get his hands on two very rare magic items to equal the ability bonus of the person wearing the legendary item.

[Starsinger]

The problem with the "I always hit, you never hit" trend that happened in 3.5 was the "you never hit" part. You can hit things all day, every day, but if it is able to hit back then you are still mortal, and are thus not quite invincible. Sure you can hit a lot. No, you don't have the AC nor the HP necessary to become immortal.

I will also say that, imo, the two best parts of the barbarian's capstone are actually the +4 con and infinite rage. +2 hit and damage and +30 lbs of carrying stuff are nice and all, but let's be frank here (no, you can't be steve), if you are reckless attacking you will likely be hitting anyway, and a +2 damage 3-4 times/ round (maximum) just really isn't going to be felt all that much. The 40 HP, +2 to con saves, +4 damage and infinite getting mad and only taking 1/2 damage are a bit more impactful as far as the capstone goes.

Aww, I was all set to point out that the best part of Barbarian 20 is infinite rage... :smallfrown:

[thepsyker]

Give a belt of hill giant strength to a dex-based character and now they're stronger than the 7 foot tall half-orc barbarian. I can definitely see the barbarian getting jealous at that point since that was his thing.
Seems to me the easy solution there would to be to not give the strength boosting item to the character that has dumped strength, but to give it to the character who made strength a focus of their character. After all why is the 7 foot tall half-orc barbarian just sitting by and letting the puny rapier wielding fencer snap up the magic belt of super-strength?

[Demonic Spoon]

It's just bad game design, and once more why is there no wisdom version? There's a wisdom version of every other stat item, the belt being both in the book and on the tables will mean even if some games create other stat equivalents you're going to see the belt a lot more often on average.


Because +4 on attack/damage in melee and +4 on STR saves and athletics checks is less powerful than +4 on save DCs, spell attacks, wisdom saves, perception checks, insight checks, animal handling checks, medicine checks, and one more I'm forgetting.


The true polymorph part is unnecessary. With enough 1d4 rolls on table I you're going to get the belt in some games, and then what happens?

The dex fighter and the strength fighter both might like it, but the dex fighter's going to get more of a boost from it. He'll actively be rewarded for not investing in any strength by being given massive strength.

The fighter (who'll certainly have a good weapon by that point, they're not too rare of a roll and can be tracked down or traded for) now hits a lot of his foes on a 1.

The barbarian has the best part of his capstone completely invalidated.


"tracked down and traded for" is entirely at DM discretion. RAW (and you insisted on using RAW for this thread, right?), the fighter gets a +3 weapon if it shows up on a treasure table, which is certainly not that likely, especially since other party members will also be competing for the same stuff.

If the barbarian gets little benefit from the item, give it to someone else in the party who benefits from strength.

Instead, the barbarian and the dex fighter can get some other awesome legendary item.

[Person_Man]

As an aside, can anyone with the DMG tell me what maximum Armor Class is now for players, including the best possible combination of ability scores, class, magic items, and spells? Because that's an equally big concern.

[Jeraa]

As an aside, can anyone with the DMG tell me what maximum Armor Class is now for players, including the best possible combination of ability scores, class, magic items, and spells? Because that's an equally big concern.

The various tomes can get scores up to 30 (if not higher), so that is +10 there. Armor can enchanted up to +3, as can shields.

A barbarian's base unarmored AC is 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. With the tomes boosting those scores to 30 each (+10 modifier), that right there is a base of 30. Add in a +3 shield (+5 AC), Ring of Protection (+1 AC, and requires attunement), and the ioun stone that adds to AC (+1 AC, also requires attunement), that is 37. A Defender sword can add any of its +3 bonus to AC (And must be attuned), so that can boost it up to 40.

That is not including any spells. And you can effectively be naked, furry loincloth is optional - all that is requires is the Defender sword, a shield,a magic floaty stone, and a ring.

A defender-style fighter would be lower. Base AC of 21 (from +3 full plate), Defense fighting style (+1), +3 shield (+5 AC), Ring of Protection (+1), Defender sword (up to +3), Ioun Stone (+1), for a total of 32.

[Gnomes2169]

The various tomes can get scores up to 30 (if not higher), so that is +10 there.
Armor can enchanted up to +3.
Shields can be up to +3.

A barbarian's base unarmored AC is 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. With the tomes boosting those scores to 30 each (+10 modifier), that right there is a base of 30. Add in a +3 shield (+5 AC), Ring of Protection (+1 AC, and requires attunement), and the ioun stone that adds to AC (+1 AC, also requires attunement), that is 37. A Defender sword can add any of its +3 bonus to AC (And must be attuned), so that can boost it up to 40. This is not including any spells.

This is also assuming you get 5 books of dex and at least 3 books of con on top of each of those other things. So it's never going to happen... and there also don't seem to be that many +3 shields, really. Or rather, shields sometimes give +3 AC with the magic added in, none of them seem to have the +3 enhancement.

Realistically, your barbarian might get one +2 con book (+1 AC) (the rogue, ranger, monk or dex fighter will be taking that +2 dex book), an animated shield (+3 AC), a ring of protection (+1 AC) and the bracers of defense (+2 AC). So the highest realistic score (if you don't add anything to your str from ABI's or start with 18 in str, 16 in dex and 16 in con) will be 10 (base)+5 (dex)+8 (con with book)+3 (animated shield)+1 (ring)+2 (Bracers) for a grand total of 29 AC. So Tiamat and the Terrasque both only have a 50/ 50 chance to hit you.

[Jeraa]

This is also assuming you get 5 books of dex and at least 3 books of con on top of each of those other things. So it's never going to happen... and there also don't seem to be that many +3 shields, really. Or rather, shields sometimes give +3 AC with the magic added in, none of them seem to have the +3 enhancement.

Oh, I agree it is not likely to happen. He just wanted the maximum AC you can possibly get.

And +3 shields are a possibility, as shown on page 200. +3 shields are actually more common than +3 armor.

[metaridley18]

Oh, I agree it is not likely to happen. He just wanted the maximum AC you can possibly get.

And +3 shields are a possibility, as shown on page 200. +3 shields are actually more common than +3 armor.

If you're saying max possible, they can wield infinity books and have an infinite AC. Why stop it at 10? There isn't a cap with the legendary books, except each one only functions 1/century. (I understand that max ability score is stated to be 30 for monsters, but it clearly isn't 20 for PCs, so why should we even think about that 'soft' cap?)

I think max realistic is a better measure. In my campaigns, only one of each of those books will exist, period.

[Jeraa]

If you're saying max possible, they can wield infinity books and have an infinite AC. Why stop it at 10? There isn't a cap with the legendary books, except each one only functions 1/century. (I understand that max ability score is stated to be 30 for monsters, but it clearly isn't 20 for PCs, so why should we even think about that 'soft' cap?)

I think max realistic is a better measure. In my campaigns, only one of each of those books will exist, period.

Without magic or other circumstances, the cap is 20 for PCs. Even the gods have a cap of 30 (according to the book) - Tiamats highest score is 30. Which cap does the book increase? The cap for PCs, or the overall maximum cap? The books are also just Very Rare, not even Legendary.

I simply assumed that the cap that was raised was the one that limited PC score to 20, and that 30 was an absolute, unchanging cap. (If even the gods are limited to a 30, why would mortal magic be able to raise scores higher than that? Surely the gods would be able to raise their own scores higher if that was the case.)

[Naanomi]

Mechanically an extra +7 to hit/damage from a melee type is much less terrifying than +5 save DCs for a caster.

Also, in a more esoteric level, accurately RPing 30 Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma is a lot more challenging than being 'really strong guy'

[Tehnar]

While the PC's won't probably have 29 STR belts, they could easily have STR 21 belts as they are only rare. 5000 gp and 200 days crafting is it not? That is very doable.


Fighter 1/Wizard X probably still has the biggest AC thanks to the shield spell, or 37 on demand. With foresight up.

[Demonicattorney]

If you don't like the item, don't use it. Such a belt is beyond rare, you cannot build your character around getting one. I think the bigger deal is that they compensated for Pole-Arm master being too good by putting few good Pole-Arms in the book. Hammers and Swords have the most common and best magic items. Holy Avenger is still the best legendary weapon in the game (mb Hammer+Belt+Gauntlets competes). The most common belts will provide a +2 or +3 over the typical attack of a high level warrior, which is really good but not game-breaking. It also costs an attunement slot, which is a big deal, considering Armor, Shield, and Weapon (for the best ones) will cost you 3, so running with a belt is actually a big sacrifice. It means no Rings, probably no unique shield, no wonderous helms etc. The question that should be asked is if that +2 or +3 is worth being able to turn invisible at will, having advantage against all spells etc.

What I think is pretty nifty is that it might be worth keeping certain weapons for particular encounters, you might want to drop your Holy Avenger for a Sword of Dragonslaying, or Frost Brand when fighting a dragon, because the extra damage and abilites might be worth more than the bonus to hit.

[MaxWilson]

While the PC's won't probably have 29 STR belts, they could easily have STR 21 belts as they are only rare. 5000 gp and 200 days crafting is it not? That is very doable.

The formula for rare items is very rare. Good luck finding one. It's not even on the treasure table so it takes special circumstances.

(One of my less-favorite bits of 5E is the absence of spell research as a downtime option. Formula research likewise.)

[Jeraa]

The formula for rare items is very rare. Good luck finding one. It's not even on the treasure table so it takes special circumstances.

(One of my less-favorite bits of 5E is the absence of spell research as a downtime option. Formula research likewise.)

Um... even Legendary items appear on the random treasure tables. All magic items seem to appear somewhere on the charts. Belt of Storm Giant Strength (Str 29) appears on Magic Item Table I, page 149. Its number 79.

When using the random treasure generator, you can be directed to Magic Item Table I with a challenge as low as 11th level (page 138). So starting at 11th level, you can randomly start finding Legendary quality magic items.

[thepsyker]

Um... even Legendary items appear on the random treasure tables. All magic items seem to appear somewhere on the charts. Belt of Storm Giant Strength (Str 29) appears on Magic Item Table I, page 149. Its number 79.

When using the random treasure generator, you can be directed to Magic Item Table I with a challenge as low as 11th level (page 138). So starting at 11th level, you can randomly start finding Legendary quality magic items.

I believe he meant that the formula required to make rare magic items aren't on the random treasure tables so the only way a player will be making them is if the DM decides they find/develop/whatever one, meaning that we are back to the players ability to access the item being at the DM's discretion and thus not a guarantee. That is not to get into the fact the being able to craft magic items is an optional downtime rule...

[Jeraa]

I believe he meant that the formula required to make rare magic items aren't on the random treasure tables so the only way a player will be making them is if the DM decides they find/develop/whatever one, meaning that we are back to the players ability to access the item being at the DM's discretion and thus not a guarantee. That is not to get into the fact the being able to craft magic items is an optional downtime rule...

I see that now. I missed that particular sidebar about formula rarity. Probably because it is no where near where it should be in the book.

[Demonic Spoon]

I see that now. I missed that particular sidebar about formula rarity. Probably because it is no where near where it should be in the book.


It's in the place where they describe crafting magic items, which is fitting, since formulas only exist if you're using that variant rule.

[Jeraa]

It's in the place where they describe crafting magic items, which is fitting, since formulas only exist if you're using that variant rule.

Not in my book. It appears 7 pages after they describe magic item rarity, and 14 pages after the section on creating magic items during downtime. Just randomly stuck in there in the section describing the categories of magic items and how to activate them. There is absolutely nothing at all about the rarity of the formulas in the Crafting a Magic Item section, other than that you need a formula.

[Baptor]

A few observations....

- Rarity schmarity. Saying something game breaking isn't broken just because it's rare is silly. I will never accept that argument. One reason rarity is bunk to me is that I don't roll treasure. I place it. I haven't rolled treasure in over a decade. To each his own, but rolling treasure has never been satisfying for me or my players.

- I've finally been persuaded to believe +x weapons are OK with BA (thanks MaxWilson!) That being said, I was crunching the numbers in my head on the way home from work. The belts are just too much for normal play. At any given level where'd you have a decent chance at getting one (I am just using the starter table as a base) they are not healthy and result in "auto-hitting."

- One good use of them, as someone has already stated, is endgame super encounters. Ancient wyrms, gods, and the Tarrassque would be appropriate challenges for a warrior with the belt and other good gear. I could see handing out the belt when the chars are 20 and ready for the big finale. Against such juggernauts the belts seem balanced and normal, and may have been intended for such a purpose.

- A fix for the issue of the belt "invalidating" certain builds or being more useful to wizards than fighters is this simple caveat: you can't attune to a Belt of Giant Strength unless you have a Strength score of 20 or higher. Boom.

- As a personal pet peeve (which may or may not have merit) the whole idea of this item irks me. They set a limit of 20 per character then threw these wrenches into the works. That may make sense to some folks but it just irritates me. If you make a cap, don't exceed it. (It's why Epic levels in 3.5 irritated me.)

[MaxWilson]

I believe he meant that the formula required to make rare magic items aren't on the random treasure tables so the only way a player will be making them is if the DM decides they find/develop/whatever one, meaning that we are back to the players ability to access the item being at the DM's discretion and thus not a guarantee. That is not to get into the fact the being able to craft magic items is an optional downtime rule...

Confirmed. You understood me correctly.


Not in my book. It appears 7 pages after they describe magic item rarity, and 14 pages after the section on creating magic items during downtime. Just randomly stuck in there in the section describing the categories of magic items and how to activate them. There is absolutely nothing at all about the rarity of the formulas in the Crafting a Magic Item section, other than that you need a formula.

I know, the placement is terrible. I noticed the blurb in question only by accident.


- I've finally been persuaded to believe +x weapons are OK with BA (thanks MaxWilson!) That being said, I was crunching the numbers in my head on the way home from work. The belts are just too much for normal play. At any given level where'd you have a decent chance at getting one (I am just using the starter table as a base) they are not healthy and result in "auto-hitting."

I agree that the belts are unfun--I prefer low-magic. Gnomes2169 is going to run me through a Tiamat encounter next week with nothing but a handful of magic longbows, and that's a CR 30+ encounter that you're never supposed to actually have unless you mess up big-time (as I understand it, you're supposed to fight the heads individually and/or prevent her from being summoned in the first place). I look at the Belt of Storm Giant Strength and I think, "Ugh."

That being said, I would certainly consider including something of that power level in one of my games if it were related to the plot. It would not necessarily belong to the PCs but if it wound up somehow (legally!) belonging to them at some point so be it. However, it would probably be the only artifact of that power level in the campaign. And it would be referred to by name and pedigree, the same way that Excalibur is in our own myths.

[Freelance GM]

Sorry, guys, joining the conversation late...


It's not a huge deal, it's just stupid. Where's the item of dexterity 29? Or the item of dexterity 19 come to think of it?

I believe it was strategic omission.
On P284 of the DMG, in the brief "Creating A Magic Item" paragraph, it says, "The easiest way to invent a new magic item is to tweak an existing one."

If you want Gloves of Serpent's Dexterity and a Cap of Sphinx's Intelligence to complement your Belt of Giant Strength, houserule it in. Making a different version of a Belt of Giant Strength for each ability score would mean 6 different versions of the same 5 Magic items. There's no point wasting real estate that could be filled with different magic items when items like that are so easy to homebrew.

[Gnomes2169]

If you're saying max possible, they can wield infinity books and have an infinite AC. Why stop it at 10? There isn't a cap with the legendary books, except each one only functions 1/century. (I understand that max ability score is stated to be 30 for monsters, but it clearly isn't 20 for PCs, so why should we even think about that 'soft' cap?)

I think max realistic is a better measure. In my campaigns, only one of each of those books will exist, period.

Actually, between the DMG exerpt for epic boons and the monster manual stating that 30 is the maximum score in a stat something can have, period, I think that infinite books still won't (or at least aren't intended to) take an attribute above 30.

[SharkForce]

you can break bounded accuracy on a fighter or barbarian without breaking the game.

oh, sure, they're dealing crazy DPR now, but ultimately, that won't break anything.

you can't break bounded accuracy on a lot of other things without breaking the game. you could probably get away with constitution to some extent (though making it easier for casters to make concentration checks could potentially be a problem, hard to say), but dex is already starting to get scary (stealth, initiative, AC, dex saves - scary territory if all of those get too high), never mind if you start making spells more likely to land.

bounded accuracy is nice and all, but it's not needed to keep fighters or barbarians in line. it's needed to keep casters from having an almost guaranteed chance of automatically winning the fight as soon as they get to take an action.

[Mechaviking]

I am given to understand that magic items are completely optional and in the hands of the DM.

Using GWF and getting +10 damage on each hit lowers your attack bonus and increases your damage resulting in not probably not autohitting.

There have been discussions about how woefully impotent martial characters are at higher levels on this forum and even in my own group(everybody can cast spells).

You can give it to the Monk or Rogue.

When monsters have flight, teleports and innate spell abilities 29 strength becomes pretty ****ty if you cant make some of the saves.

Can be stolen.

Can be used by a goblin innkeeper for added hilarity

Last but not least, definitely a throwback to the 1st and 2nd editions(I did play it quite a bit, I may have gotten a stone giant one but I´m not sure).


p.s. What the hell is Portlets(spell checker suggestion for teleport)?

[MaxWilson]

you can't break bounded accuracy on a lot of other things without breaking the game. you could probably get away with constitution to some extent (though making it easier for casters to make concentration checks could potentially be a problem, hard to say), but dex is already starting to get scary (stealth, initiative, AC, dex saves - scary territory if all of those get too high), never mind if you start making spells more likely to land.

When it comes to Stealth, it's already pretty easy to get brokenly-good Stealth rolls, due mainly to the Pass Without Trace spell. The tough part is figuring out what those brokenly-good Stealth rolls mean.

BTW, Shadow Monks are crazy awesome fun. At-will invisibility (that doesn't take Concentration!) and Pass Without Trace = Batman.

[SharkForce]

When it comes to Stealth, it's already pretty easy to get brokenly-good Stealth rolls, due mainly to the Pass Without Trace spell. The tough part is figuring out what those brokenly-good Stealth rolls mean.

BTW, Shadow Monks are crazy awesome fun. At-will invisibility (that doesn't take Concentration!) and Pass Without Trace = Batman.

yes, but every barrier you remove to entry makes it worse, because that's one less component required to get a sufficiently good stealth. also, i didn't mean that any individual one of those things creates a horrible problem (although AC comes semi-close to doing so in my opinion, it's still not nearly as bad as an almost 100% success rate on something like mass suggestion or hold person with 8 targets, and even initiative isn't that scary as long as you're not auto-winning initiative and then throwing an almost impossible-to-resist encounter-ending spell - yeah, with the right build one or more things are going to die, but that just means you need a thicker meat shield), i meant that all of them combined starts to get pretty scary. dex does a lot of stuff, and i didn't even list all of it.

[Sudokori]

Belt of giant's strength can give a character a strength of 29 by giving the character the strength of a giant, not changing anything else about the character besides giving him/her super muscles. The reason there isn't a belt of ______'s intelligence 29 is because that would be giving the character the knowledge of said creature. Probably with the side effect of erasing any other intelligence your character has and replacing their personality and thought processes with the appropriate creature's thoughts and stuff. Same goes for wisdom. The dex thing is a possibility and could easily be house ruled in as "Belt of Serpent's speed" but less than a boost to 29 because of all the stuff Dex does (been said multiple times in the thread so don't need to repeat them all). Belt of ______'s Con is pretty cool. But still, these things will come up about 1% of the time after searching through the loot of high level encounters. You probably won't ever see one in any game, unless the Gm rolled lucky or put it there for a purpose (like giving the gnome barbarian a Strength score of 25).

(Hope you get the jist of it because I'm still pretty new to forums in general)

[Eslin]

Seems to me the easy solution there would to be to not give the strength boosting item to the character that has dumped strength, but to give it to the character who made strength a focus of their character. After all why is the 7 foot tall half-orc barbarian just sitting by and letting the puny rapier wielding fencer snap up the magic belt of super-strength?

Because it'll increase the barbarian's strength by 5, and the rapier wielder's strength by 20? This kind of item actively discourages building strength, since it replaces rather than builds on your capabilities.


Mechanically an extra +7 to hit/damage from a melee type is much less terrifying than +5 save DCs for a caster.

Also, in a more esoteric level, accurately RPing 30 Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma is a lot more challenging than being 'really strong guy'

Why? Stat wise one is better than the other - if +5 for a caster is better than +7 for a martial, something's gotten screwed up in the balance department.


Belt of giant's strength can give a character a strength of 29 by giving the character the strength of a giant, not changing anything else about the character besides giving him/her super muscles. The reason there isn't a belt of ______'s intelligence 29 is because that would be giving the character the knowledge of said creature. Probably with the side effect of erasing any other intelligence your character has and replacing their personality and thought processes with the appropriate creature's thoughts and stuff. Same goes for wisdom. The dex thing is a possibility and could easily be house ruled in as "Belt of Serpent's speed" but less than a boost to 29 because of all the stuff Dex does (been said multiple times in the thread so don't need to repeat them all). Belt of ______'s Con is pretty cool. But still, these things will come up about 1% of the time after searching through the loot of high level encounters. You probably won't ever see one in any game, unless the Gm rolled lucky or put it there for a purpose (like giving the gnome barbarian a Strength score of 25).

(Hope you get the jist of it because I'm still pretty new to forums in general)
Then they need to change the nature of the item to let similar items exist. And int replacing items already exist, there's a headband of int 19.

Side note - guys, all stats are supposed to be equal. 'Strength 29 is ok but charisma 29 would be too strong' isn't an argument because they are supposed to be equally good.

[Naanomi]

Side note - guys, all stats are supposed to be equal. 'Strength 29 is ok but charisma 29 would be too strong' isn't an argument because they are supposed to be equally good.
Maybe 'supposed to be' but at least in my opinion they are not, at least in terms of the potential abuse. A fighter type with 30 strength can very reliably hit people they can reach (not always easy) for a good deal of damage (but not 'guaranteed lethal' against many monsters).

A wizard with 30 intelligence can target your weakest save (probably smart enough to figure that out ;) ) to put you out of the fight on anything but a 20 if their spell selection is good enough; the massive increase in save difficulties is just inherently more lethal than almost any amount of extra damage when pushed to the limit and beyond of bound accuracy.

[Eslin]

Maybe 'supposed to be' but at least in my opinion they are not, at least in terms of the potential abuse. A fighter type with 30 strength can very reliably hit people they can reach (not always easy) for a good deal of damage (but not 'guaranteed lethal' against many monsters).

A wizard with 30 intelligence can target your weakest save (probably smart enough to figure that out ;) ) to put you out of the fight on anything but a 20 if their spell selection is good enough; the massive increase in save difficulties is just inherently more lethal than almost any amount of extra damage when pushed to the limit and beyond of bound accuracy.

Which is tantamount to saying that casters are better than martials at that point. Which is absolutely true, it's just weird to see them balancing things around it - why not just have them be equal in the first place?

[Naanomi]

Which is tantamount to saying that casters are better than martials at that point. Which is absolutely true, it's just weird to see them balancing things around it - why not just have them be equal in the first place?
Whether or not casters are 'better' in normal play (I would say they are, but not to a degree that both are not useful; though I know opinions vary), more the point I am trying to make is that pushing stats higher makes that disparity even more noticeable; and that martial characters with enormous stats just don't have the 'game breaking' capacity a caster with similar stats would have.

Whether or not they are intentionally balancing around this issue questionable, I think it is at least as likely that a combination of tradition and strength just being the 'safest' stat to push to huge numbers in general had the most to do with it. After all, there is no way to turn Strength into AC (like you can with Dex, Con, Wis); which I'd guess is at least part of the issue with other stat boosting items.

[archaeo]

Side note - guys, all stats are supposed to be equal. 'Strength 29 is ok but charisma 29 would be too strong' isn't an argument because they are supposed to be equally good.

Where have the designers said, inside or outside the text of 5e, that each stat is supposed to be equally good as the others? You might argue that they're presented as equally important, but nowhere does the game even imply that the "balance" of the game rests on the six attributes.


Which is tantamount to saying that casters are better than martials at that point. Which is absolutely true, it's just weird to see them balancing things around it - why not just have them be equal in the first place?

It seems clear that the designers balanced around class instead of around attributes, and while interclass balance is hotly debated, I think it would be difficult to conclude that the game is entirely unbalanced in this regard.

This is all beside the point of the thread anyway, which is more or less answered by "Don't hand out belts if it wrecks the game you want to play." The inclusion of a magic item on the huge list of magic items doesn't wreck the system with its mere existence.

[Sartharina]

Add a +3 weapon to it and you've got +7 beyond the normal limit.... and yet, it doesn't get to a point where you auto-succeed.

[Oscredwin]

Add a +3 weapon to it and you've got +7 beyond the normal limit.... and yet, it doesn't get to a point where you auto-succeed.

It's almost like they knew these magic items were coming out when they made the math for the game.

[Eslin]

Where have the designers said, inside or outside the text of 5e, that each stat is supposed to be equally good as the others? You might argue that they're presented as equally important, but nowhere does the game even imply that the "balance" of the game rests on the six attributes.
The part where each stat costs the same amount to have and to increase. Starting with 15 strength costs the same amount it does to start with 15 dexterity, and increasing either stat costs the same amount. In game design, equal value implies parity - it's the same reason 20 levels of wizard are supposed to be as useful as 20 levels of fighter, they're supposed to be equally good purchases.


It seems clear that the designers balanced around class instead of around attributes, and while interclass balance is hotly debated, I think it would be difficult to conclude that the game is entirely unbalanced in this regard.

This is all beside the point of the thread anyway, which is more or less answered by "Don't hand out belts if it wrecks the game you want to play." The inclusion of a magic item on the huge list of magic items doesn't wreck the system with its mere existence.
Of course it doesn't. But the manner of its existence introduces a lot of confusion and problems - it's the same as the intellect devourer, just because I can choose not to include them in my game doesn't make them not be stupid design.

[SharkForce]

i can't really say that you can blame the attributes for inequality... at least, not in terms of int vs strength (i will say that you can blame dex for that, though... dex is definitely a more powerful attribute than strength in the majority of situations)

you could make a fighter path that uses intelligence to attack and deal damage, and it would be no problem whatsoever from a balance perspective. weird, kind of immersion-breaking, but not really unbalanced.

it's not that int 29 is unbalanced as compared to strength 29, it's that casting spells of up to level 9 as a class feature blows the strength-based class features of the fighter out of the water completely and utterly. the attribute? it's fine. make an item that gives you 29 intelligence for the purpose of hitting with spell attacks, intelligence saving throws, and intelligence skill checks - no problem. *maybe* even just intelligence ability checks in general, though that might break dispel magic and counterspell a bit.

let it be applied to spell DCs? well, there goes the neighbourhood. it's especially devastating for spells that are supposed to be balanced by a chance to break free every round. when your chance to break free is 5% or less (for example if you can inflict disadvantage, making it 0.25%), the balance pretty much vanishes entirely. at the high end, a +1 to DC is not a 5% increase in your spell's effectiveness... a monster that goes from saving against a hold spell on a 19 now saves on a 20, and you just essentially doubled the expected duration of the spell from that (better if you can give them disadvantage, which isn't always as hard as you might think).

meanwhile, strength-based CC generally takes (at least part of) the fighter's action to maintain, and frequently allows at least some sort of action (albeit with a penalty to it).

+4 spell DC can break the game very easily (i'm shocked to hear they've included DC-increasing items in the DMG for that reason, even if they don't go up to +4). +4 to hit and damage doesn't really break anything, it just leads to more reliable damage.

[Eslin]

i can't really say that you can blame the attributes for inequality... at least, not in terms of int vs strength (i will say that you can blame dex for that, though... dex is definitely a more powerful attribute than strength in the majority of situations)

you could make a fighter path that uses intelligence to attack and deal damage, and it would be no problem whatsoever from a balance perspective. weird, kind of immersion-breaking, but not really unbalanced.

it's not that int 29 is unbalanced as compared to strength 29, it's that casting spells of up to level 9 as a class feature blows the strength-based class features of the fighter out of the water completely and utterly. the attribute? it's fine. make an item that gives you 29 intelligence for the purpose of hitting with spell attacks, intelligence saving throws, and intelligence skill checks - no problem. *maybe* even just intelligence ability checks in general, though that might break dispel magic and counterspell a bit.

let it be applied to spell DCs? well, there goes the neighbourhood. it's especially devastating for spells that are supposed to be balanced by a chance to break free every round. when your chance to break free is 5% or less (for example if you can inflict disadvantage, making it 0.25%), the balance pretty much vanishes entirely. at the high end, a +1 to DC is not a 5% increase in your spell's effectiveness... a monster that goes from saving against a hold spell on a 19 now saves on a 20, and you just essentially doubled the expected duration of the spell from that (better if you can give them disadvantage, which isn't always as hard as you might think).

meanwhile, strength-based CC generally takes (at least part of) the fighter's action to maintain, and frequently allows at least some sort of action (albeit with a penalty to it).

+4 spell DC can break the game very easily (i'm shocked to hear they've included DC-increasing items in the DMG for that reason, even if they don't go up to +4). +4 to hit and damage doesn't really break anything, it just leads to more reliable damage.

Then spells are flat out better than attacks. I mean, I knew that, pretty much everyone knows that, it's just the designers don't seem to, otherwise they would have given martials more tools.

[Giant2005]

Casters can use two Wands of the Warmage and a Robe of the Archmagi for a total of +8 to their spellcasting (+3 +3 +2).
Fighters can use a Belt of Giant Strength and a +3 weapon for a total of +7 to their attacks (4 +3).
If there is a balance issue (And there isn't) it isn't the one you think it is.

[archaeo]

The part where each stat costs the same amount to have and to increase. Starting with 15 strength costs the same amount it does to start with 15 dexterity, and increasing either stat costs the same amount. In game design, equal value implies parity - it's the same reason 20 levels of wizard are supposed to be as useful as 20 levels of fighter, they're supposed to be equally good purchases.

Equality of price does not mean equality of value, if "price" is even the way you'd want to contextualize gaining stats in this game. Each class makes some stats more useful than others, and that's the dynamic the game thrives on.

Making each attribute perfectly balanced with the other attributes would be incredibly difficult while still maintaining classes at all. This is a pretty good argument for using one system or the other! But given that 5e's most purposeful design decision is "just be D&D," it's hardly surprising that we have both attributes and classes. And, in play, 5e gracefully allows you to specialize in any attribute and be a positive contributor to all three pillars or spread your points around for a generalized, but still effective, build.


Of course it doesn't. But the manner of its existence introduces a lot of confusion and problems - it's the same as the intellect devourer, just because I can choose not to include them in my game doesn't make them not be stupid design.

Yes, it is the same as the intellect devourer, insofar as it makes perfect sense in some campaigns and settings and no sense in others. 5e has enough faith in DMs to expect that they will be the best arbiters of what fits in their game and doesn't try to get in the way of that beyond providing a wide variety of material that will apply to a wide variety of playstyles.

I fail to see how this is "stupid design." It's design you don't like, but stupid?

[eastmabl]

The way I view this is over a breakdown of physical v. mental attributes, and then a utility analysis of the physical stats.

I. PHYSICAL V. MENTAL STATS

Items which boost physical attributes benefit all classes, but most importantly the classes which don't cast. The way which non-casters prove their "cool" is through skills and attacks. By turning their cool up to 11 (or +9, I guess) with magic items, they become super-cool.

Items which boost mental items clearly benefit casters, turning them into kings of magic. Casters have spells which prove their cool, as they break the rules of the game on the regular. As spell levels get higher, their cool turns up to super-cool without the help of magic items.

Certainly, magic items help casters achieve super-cool, but they don't need as much help getting there. Consequently, fewer supercool items are needed for caster classes.

II. PHYSICAL STATS: WHY ONLY STRENGTH?

Dex and Con are helpful for all classes, while Str is limited to a small subset of martial classes (Pally, Fighter, Barbarian) which primarily use Str-based weapons. As above, these three classes probably need help getting to super-cool, so the DMG focuses on the item which helps these classes.

Admittedly, some other classes which can cast will benefit from the Belt of Giant Strength, such as War/Tempest Cleric and Eldritch Knights.

Belt of Giant Strength bumps up your Str, but Str is a seldom used stat - combat, Athletics, a saving throw, grapple/pushing. Dex and Con are used for many more things.

Dex is used for more skills, limited attack rolls and damage, Dexterity saves (far more common than Strength), armor class and initiative. Dex saves, AC and initiative are things which matter to everybody. Gloves of Super-Dexterity (29) become Gloves of "No, You Can't Hit Me" (+9 to AC), Gloves of Dodging (+15 to Dex saves at 20th level) and Gloves of Just-Go-First (+9 initiative, plus any feat you've taken).

Con, while having fewer uses than Str, has more meaningful use for all characters. Con saving throws (+15) would become cakewalks for any character, and the Amulet of Super-Health becomes a huge boon for any character hurting for HP, getting base HD + 180 Hp at 20th level.

For a wizard, this means 82 hp (6 [at first] + 76 [19*4] + 0 [10 Con]) becomes 262 hp - a 220% increase.

Even should we assume that the wizard has 19 Con, it's still another 100 hp, which takes him from 162 HP (82 [as above] + 80 [+4 Con*20]) to 262 HP, which is still at 62% increase in HP.

III. HOMEBREW

If you disagree with me that it's good game design, just make your own item. It's easy enough.

[Baptor]

Casters can use two Wands of the Warmage and a Robe of the Archmagi for a total of +8 to their spellcasting (+3 +3 +2).
Fighters can use a Belt of Giant Strength and a +3 weapon for a total of +7 to their attacks (4 +3).
If there is a balance issue (And there isn't) it isn't the one you think it is.

They kept the +2 DC robe from the playtest and introduced +3 DC wands?

I say we stop this pointless debate on silly belts of giant strength right now and start a very necessary discussion on these terrible items! :smallfurious:

I mean +3 to spell attacks would be OK, but DC? Most monsters have no proficency bonus to any saves and usually a +2 -+5 at best on their good stats. A fully equipped wizard would have a DC 27....even a 24 stat would still have to roll a natural 20 to save.

No way these things are making it into my game. Maybe I'll rule they give + spell attack, but DC? Holy smokes! :smalleek:

[Todasmile]

They kept the +2 DC robe from the playtest and introduced +3 DC wands?

No, thank god. Only the Robe is +2 DC, the wands are attack rolls.

[Baptor]

No, thank god. Only the Robe is +2 DC, the wands are attack rolls.
Thanks. I almost had a stroke there. You may return to your regularly scheduled belt of giant strength debate.

[GiantOctopodes]

Two things, for me:

1) It is worth noting that even finesse weapons *can* be used with Str. If I got such an item, I would most likely be the party member who gets it (the barbarian would get *way* less benefit out of it, so indirectly the item would support me completely overshadowing him on something he has always dominated and which he has invested in through the course of his career, so definitely a sign of bad design and a likely point of resentment). Despite it not fitting my character *at all* (I'm a 3' tall Halfling that passes himself off as an 8 year old human child through fastidious grooming of body hair and his slight build), I would simply use Str instead of Dex for my attacks and damage. Mechanical benefits over flavor for the win. So, the only people who have *no* use for such an item are those for whom Str cannot be applied to their weapon attacks- that is to say, ranged combatants. I believe this is directly as a result of Archery giving a +2 to hit as its benefit. Essentially, this tips this +2 in the other direction- the +2 to hit, with a 20 Dex, is the same as a 24 Dex from a raw stat perspective. If we believe the +2 to hit beyond that from the Belt is unbalanced, then inherently we must also disagree with Archery as a fighting style to begin with, as it's the same difference. So from a balance standpoint, I can see where such a decision would arise. It's also worth noting that a 29 Con item would be completely flavorless. Every class would want one because of how overly useful a stat Con is, and it would provide nothing other than mechanical advantage. So if you are going to provide 29 stat items in the first place, it is potentially justifiable to have it limited to Str, even if I disagree with it.

2) I completely disagree with it. I think it's terrible design. I not only agree with, but actively support and love, the concept of Stat 19 items. It's lower in benefit than if you had done the work yourself, but provides a great benefit to those who haven't, and conceptually is custom built to reduce MAD. I'd love more such items listed in the rules, but it's very easy to extrapolate, apply with the body slot from 3.5, and go from there. The situation changes Completely the moment you go above that which someone can achieve when it's been their entire focus all along. To say to that Rogue "Yeah, that 23 stat item is nice for you, but you already have a 20, it's only a +1 for you, but it's +5 AC for our mage over here" is one thing, it's another thing when the Rogue realizes the mage is now better than him at something he's spent his entire career perfecting. The same goes w/ Str and Barbarians, as indicated, of course. My personal opinion is that you should Reward those who devote themselves to something, not invalidate their choices with magical items or effects.

[Giant2005]

Thanks. I almost had a stroke there. You may return to your regularly scheduled belt of giant strength debate.

Yeah my bad, only the Warlock ones seem to get up to DC +3.

[SharkForce]

Then spells are flat out better than attacks. I mean, I knew that, pretty much everyone knows that, it's just the designers don't seem to, otherwise they would have given martials more tools.

yeah, for some reason they seem to have a major aversion to giving martial characters cool stuff. it's like they tried plan A (nerf caster's toys into the ground until they're only *slightly* better than melee - AKA 4th edition), and then gave up entirely immediately after that.

i'm not necessarily convinced there's a ton you could do to make martial characters have remotely near the same amount of utility to a caster without breaking plausibility (though it could certainly be above where it is now without going too far beyond what i could accept as a sort of legendary warrior), but i do feel it's a bit odd that there's a focus on casters being so close in combat power to characters who have almost the entirety of their class focused around combat.

i mean, if damage cantrips started crappy and stayed crappy, people who play casters would moan and groan and put up a terrible fuss, but at least you could point to *something* that martials are the undisputed lords of.

(to be fair, as far as i know martial characters actually are the pinnacle of damage dealing... just not by nearly the margin that full casters are the pinnacle of basically everything else).

[Eslin]

yeah, for some reason they seem to have a major aversion to giving martial characters cool stuff. it's like they tried plan A (nerf caster's toys into the ground until they're only *slightly* better than melee - AKA 4th edition), and then gave up entirely immediately after that.

i'm not necessarily convinced there's a ton you could do to make martial characters have remotely near the same amount of utility to a caster without breaking plausibility (though it could certainly be above where it is now without going too far beyond what i could accept as a sort of legendary warrior), but i do feel it's a bit odd that there's a focus on casters being so close in combat power to characters who have almost the entirety of their class focused around combat.

i mean, if damage cantrips started crappy and stayed crappy, people who play casters would moan and groan and put up a terrible fuss, but at least you could point to *something* that martials are the undisputed lords of.

(to be fair, as far as i know martial characters actually are the pinnacle of damage dealing... just not by nearly the margin that full casters are the pinnacle of basically everything else).

Damage wise, the average warsorcerer does probably the best sustained damage on top of being a full caster. And there are plenty of cases like animating dead or object where casters can easily out damage martials - damage is not a difficult niche to fill as a caster, but useful things that aren't damage are often impossible niches for a martial to fill.

[JoeJ]

Then spells are flat out better than attacks. I mean, I knew that, pretty much everyone knows that, it's just the designers don't seem to, otherwise they would have given martials more tools.

Yeah, or else they could have limited spells in some way. Like, maybe they could have come up with some mechanism where casters only get a certain number of spells per day, with the number getting smaller as the spell level goes up.

[Eslin]

Yeah, or else they could have limited spells in some way. Like, maybe they could have come up with some mechanism where casters only get a certain number of spells per day, with the number getting smaller as the spell level goes up.

Other way around, sorry. Spells are powerful because they're a set of discrete options that have a well thought out system of costs, which allows for greater versatility and power - martials can't keep pace because they only have access to attacks and the same system of non discrete ability checks spellcasters have.

[Mr.Moron]

Side note: Please note I don't want any 'if you don't like it don't use it' or 'just houserule it' responses, this is about the game as-is, the game in which there's a +2 ioun stone for every stat but only one stat has magic items that bring it close to 30.

Then what's the point of starting this thread? The game as-is, is the game as-is. The belt is there and that's that. It clearly messes with the baseline math assumptions. Like or dislike it, it's there. Literally the only thing that fits into your definition of what the conversation should be is either a:

A) Pointless whining.
B) Baseless speculation on the designers intentions - which is unknowable barring a statement from them.

The only productive discussion with regards to rules like these are ones about how to handle them: If and when you should include them. Alternative limitations to or implementations of the mechanics. When and why to use them, change them or leave them alone.

Seriously there is no meat on the bones of "Here is this thing and it is wrong and there will be no discussion of how to get around or fix it, only of how wrong it is!".

[Eslin]

Then what's the point of starting this thread? The game as-is, is the game as-is. The belt is there and that's that. It clearly messes with the baseline math assumptions. Like or dislike it, it's there. Literally the only thing that fits into your definition of what the conversation should be is either a:

A) Pointless whining.
B) Baseless speculation on the designers intentions - which is unknowable barring a statement from them.

The only productive discussion with regards to rules like these are ones about how to handle them: If and when you should include them. Alternative limitations to or implementations of the mechanics. When and why to use them, change them or leave them alone.

Seriously there is no meat on the bones of "Here is this thing and it is wrong and there will be no discussion of how to get around or fix it, only of how wrong it is!".

No, I wanted to know why such a thing existed in the first place. I got an answer pretty quickly - like a goodly percentage of nonsensical design, it's an import from second edition.

I already know how to fix it - if I want stats to go over 20, I'll have belts of strength +5 or similar. A belt of giant strength that provides less benefit to the barbarian than anyone else is stupid design.

[Giant2005]

No, I wanted to know why such a thing existed in the first place. I got an answer pretty quickly - like a goodly percentage of nonsensical design, it's an import from second edition.

I already know how to fix it - if I want stats to go over 20, I'll have belts of strength +5 or similar. A belt of giant strength that provides less benefit to the barbarian than anyone else is stupid design.

You could consider it stupid design but I think it is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather items with static abilities like those Belts than ones that offer bonuses. Wearing three Belts of Giant Strength doesn't do anything beyond the intention, wearing three Belts of +5 Strength stacks to the point of lunacy.

[Eslin]

You could consider it stupid design but I think it is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather items with static abilities like those Belts than ones that offer bonuses. Wearing three Belts of Giant Strength doesn't do anything beyond the intention, wearing three Belts of +5 Strength stacks to the point of lunacy.

Then why would you have them stack? The last real edition of D&D had belts of strength 1 through 6 and no-one stacked them.

It's the 'lesser of two evils' when the other evil takes about three seconds to figure out doesn't exist, so I'm assuming the other evil is thinking in this scenario.

[Giant2005]

Then why would you have them stack? The last real edition of D&D had belts of strength 1 through 6 and no-one stacked them.

It's the 'lesser of two evils' when the other evil takes about three seconds to figure out doesn't exist, so I'm assuming the other evil is thinking in this scenario.

That is because in previous editions you couldn't wear two of the same type of item. In this edition the magic items are limited by the attunement mechanic - as long as you have a maximum of 3 items attuned to you at any given time, you can wear as many of the same item as you like if you are physically capable of doing so. The example the book gives is wearing two cloaks at the same time, I'm sure three belts would be easy enough.

[Eslin]

That is because in previous editions you couldn't wear two of the same type of item. In this edition the magic items are limited by the attunement mechanic - as long as you have a maximum of 3 items attuned to you at any given time, you can wear as many of the same item as you like if you are physically capable of doing so. The example the book gives is wearing two cloaks at the same time, I'm sure three belts would be easy enough.

So, and I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept, introduce a mechanic stopping the same type of thing stacking. I mean that kind of thing should exist anyway to stop warlocks dual wielding rods of the pact keeper and such.

[Giant2005]

So, and I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept, introduce a mechanic stopping the same type of thing stacking. I mean that kind of thing should exist anyway to stop warlocks dual wielding rods of the pact keeper and such.

My bad, I hadn't realized we had entered the house rules section of the thread explicitly stated to condemn all talks of house rules. To answer the question and also get this back on topic, it isn't a difficult concept but it is a little bit more difficult in concept than simply adding belts to the game with the same values but different abilities as the Giant Strength ones.

[Eslin]

My bad, I hadn't realized we had entered the house rules section of the thread explicitly stated to condemn all talks of house rules. To answer the question and also get this back on topic, it isn't a difficult concept but it is a little bit more difficult in concept than simply adding belts to the game with the same values but different abilities as the Giant Strength ones.

This isn't a house rules section. You're saying the really bad design of making a character's strength irrelevant is worse than having belts that could stack, and I'm saying that could be solved easily by having them not stack.

[GiantOctopodes]

This isn't a house rules section. You're saying the really bad design of making a character's strength irrelevant is worse than having belts that could stack, and I'm saying that could be solved easily by having them not stack.

It is also worth noting that the default behavior of magic is that it does not stack with itself- only the highest bonus or most potent effect applies. As such it is not much of a stretch at all to have the same be true for magic items. In fact, I'm not convinced that's not already in the rules, but I don't have a DMG to search for such a clause.

[Doug Lampert]

My bad, I hadn't realized we had entered the house rules section of the thread explicitly stated to condemn all talks of house rules. To answer the question and also get this back on topic, it isn't a difficult concept but it is a little bit more difficult in concept than simply adding belts to the game with the same values but different abilities as the Giant Strength ones.
A houseruled belt that solves at least some problems with the current belt and that also avoids your stacking problem is no more houseruled than one that avoids the problem with the current belt and does stack.

You entered the house rules section of the thread when you responded to an "I already know how to fix it - if I want stats to go over 20, I'll have belts of strength +5 or similar" with a claim that this wouldn't work because the items would stack too high.

"I already know how to fix it" also tells you WHY he wanted to avoid houserules discussions, because he knows how to houserule this one.

[CrusaderJoe]

And pure power was the way to fix that?

Really hoping that one's not true, it means they somehow missed what made casters better than martials back in 3.5. It's not power, it's utility and versatility.

Yeah do you really think they learned that lesson?

This is the 3rd edition since 3.0 was launched (3.5, 4e, Essentials) hell 4th edition if you count copycat pathfinder (i would be a lot nicer if they actually did anything on their own that actually built upon the system...) where designers still used the idea of power > utility and versatility.

[JoeJ]

Other way around, sorry. Spells are powerful because they're a set of discrete options that have a well thought out system of costs, which allows for greater versatility and power - martials can't keep pace because they only have access to attacks and the same system of non discrete ability checks spellcasters have.

Spells are more powerful than ordinary attacks because they do more damage, impose more conditions, and/or create more options. I was responding to your claim that the developers didn't seem aware of this fact by pointing out that they gave spells a significant limitation that attacks don't have - uses per day - which makes it seem rather unlikely that they don't know spells are more powerful.

[Eslin]

Spells are more powerful than ordinary attacks because they do more damage, impose more conditions, and/or create more options. I was responding to your claim that the developers didn't seem aware of this fact by pointing out that they gave spells a significant limitation that attacks don't have - uses per day - which makes it seem rather unlikely that they don't know spells are more powerful.

No, spells are more powerful because the way they're costed allows them to be. The designers don't seem to be aware that not giving martials their own set of specifically costed abilities means they can't keep up.

They tried - we have examples that almost work, like the monk. The monk just needs better ki restoration and a bunch more it can do with it and it'd actually be versatile.

[CrusaderJoe]

Spells are more powerful than ordinary attacks because they do more damage, impose more conditions, and/or create more options. I was responding to your claim that the developers didn't seem aware of this fact by pointing out that they gave spells a significant limitation that attacks don't have - uses per day - which makes it seem rather unlikely that they don't know spells are more powerful.

The casting system was placed in not because they knew spells were powerful and needed a resource management, but because it is a sacred cow.

If 3.5 have taught players anything, anything at all, it would be that straight up damage is vastly inferior to spell effects even when the spell effects are managed on a per day basis.

We need a system where skills can do X and spells can do Y and verybrarely do we get Z which is what both spells and skills can do. Give skills defined abilities so the DM doesn't have to be persuaded in real life that your character can do N.

[JoeJ]

No, spells are more powerful because the way they're costed allows them to be. The designers don't seem to be aware that not giving martials their own set of specifically costed abilities means they can't keep up.

They tried - we have examples that almost work, like the monk. The monk just needs better ki restoration and a bunch more it can do with it and it'd actually be versatile.

Backwards. Spells were limited because they're more powerful than attacks; something that's been true since Chainmail. I haven't seen any examples of "martials" (however you want to define that) not being able to keep up, so apparently they can, even if perhaps they haven't been in games you've been in.

[Segev]

In the end, this is the same problem as 3e Polymorph: the character who thematically should have it is also the one who winds up having wasted the most character-building resources once he gets it. As others have noted, the barbarian who is a scrawny but agile weakling is better than the barbarian who is a hulking Hercules when both are given this item. It creates a counter-intuitively optimal build that actively flies in the face of existing flavor.


For something like the "set your stat" items to work, it would need to still reference, at the least, your normal stat. Perhaps... "when you have Advantage or Disadvantage, the extra die is rolled as if your stat were X." Or, make that a "lesser" version. The "greater" version has you usually roll at the set value, but the extra die when you have Advantage or Disadvantage rolls as if it were your normal one.

This would at least make sure that, in situations where Advantage or Disadvantage arise, the character who invested in a high stat natively still benefits over the one who didn't.

[Demonic Spoon]

In the end, this is the same problem as 3e Polymorph: the character who thematically should have it is also the one who winds up having wasted the most character-building resources once he gets it. As others have noted, the barbarian who is a scrawny but agile weakling is better than the barbarian who is a hulking Hercules when both are given this item. It creates a counter-intuitively optimal build that actively flies in the face of existing flavor.


How is the hulking barbarian the one that "should have" a magic item that sets your strength to that of a really strong thing?

The only "existing flavor" is the preconceived notions that all magic items related to a stat go to the person for whom that stat is primary. I'd argue that it's good for the game that strength belts more benefit people who don't primarily use strength. Getting +2 strength on an already-strong character is far less cool and interesting than a weakling becoming very strong.

[Eslin]

Backwards. Spells were limited because they're more powerful than attacks; something that's been true since Chainmail. I haven't seen any examples of "martials" (however you want to define that) not being able to keep up, so apparently they can, even if perhaps they haven't been in games you've been in.

Of course you have. Say you have a party of level 12s, and they're in southern Westeros, but it turns out Saruman has taken the Sword of Truth and apparated to Alagaesia to kill the Amyrlin with it. You need to get there fast, how do you do it? Hint, the casters will be the ones to solve the problem.

One of your party members died in the fight, and to prevent you bringing him back Saruman shoved his body into the plane of water. How are you going to get there, survive underwater and resurrect him? If hitting things with a pointy stick will help, the martials will be super useful, otherwise I hope you have casters.

In combat martial characters have less options than casters, but they can still at least contribute - they won't be be able to do much casters can't do, and will be far outstripped when it comes to battlefield control, healing, debuffing, status removal and area of effect damage, but at least they can do something. Out of combat, they're just plain useless compared to what a caster can do.

To illustrate my point: Unlike in 3.5, a ranger and a fighter can be at least useful when in a party with a druid and a wizard. However in pretty much every situation having another wizard and druid instead of two martials would be better.

[Segev]

How is the hulking barbarian the one that "should have" a magic item that sets your strength to that of a really strong thing?

The only "existing flavor" is the preconceived notions that all magic items related to a stat go to the person for whom that stat is primary. I'd argue that it's good for the game that strength belts more benefit people who don't primarily use strength. Getting +2 strength on an already-strong character is far less cool and interesting than a weakling becoming very strong.

"So, your character concept is that you're the big, strong guy in the party who punches things and can move just about anything. You expect to be the go-to PC for removing obstacles by main force.

"Sorry, since you invested all your resources into being this big and strong, you're actually not the most optimal candidate for this belt which makes whoever wears it a third again as strong as you are. So we're giving it to the rogue fencer, who will get a lot more benefit out of it.

"Sure, now he's also wasted resources on his finesse-based skills, since he's better off now just using his massive strength, but overall, the party's stronger than if we just gave you the belt.

"Surely, you can't be upset that he also is now the go-to guy for any strength-related needs we might have? Who would object to the light and fast guy outshining the guy who spent all his resources on being strong when it comes to matters of strength?"


I hope that illustrates the problem: it basicaly punishes people who tried to build towards a concept, because this one item outshines the efforts to build towards it on whomever gets the item. Either wasting the resources spent by giving less benefit, or overshadowing the guy who tried to spend them by making the guy who gets it better at his schtick.

Why have a fighter when the mage can polymorph into one? Why have a strong guy when you can just give the agile guy a belt to make him better at it than the strong guy, AND have the agile guy still be more agile than the strong guy?



Another way to look at it: Let's say you have Strong Guy and Agile Guy invest everything they can into their schticks. Now, give Strong Guy a belt of Dex 29, and Agile Guy a belt fo Strength 29. They've switched roles and schticks!

[CrusaderJoe]

Of course you have. Say you have a party of level 12s, and they're in southern Westeros, but it turns out Saruman has taken the Sword of Truth and apparated to Alagaesia to kill the Amyrlin with it. You need to get there fast, how do you do it? Hint, the casters will be the ones to solve the problem.

One of your party members died in the fight, and to prevent you bringing him back Saruman shoved his body into the plane of water. How are you going to get there, survive underwater and resurrect him? If hitting things with a pointy stick will help, the martials will be super useful, otherwise I hope you have casters.

In combat martial characters have less options than casters, but they can still at least contribute - they won't be be able to do much casters can't do, and will be far outstripped when it comes to battlefield control, healing, debuffing, status removal and area of effect damage, but at least they can do something. Out of combat, they're just plain useless compared to what a caster can do.

To illustrate my point: Unlike in 3.5, a ranger and a fighter can be at least useful when in a party with a druid and a wizard. However in pretty much every situation having another wizard and druid instead of two martials would be better.

So how many spell slots does it take to equal a fighter?

The game is based around having X encounters per day and that you will use Y resources.

All I know is that with martials you can determine how many undead minions a wizard needs to create to get the same effectiveness out of them as said martial. However no number of undead minions will ever be able to duplicate the wizard or druid or cleric or...

[Demonic Spoon]

"So, your character concept is that you're the big, strong guy in the party who punches things and can move just about anything. You expect to be the go-to PC for removing obstacles by main force.

"Sorry, since you invested all your resources into being this big and strong, you're actually not the most optimal candidate for this belt which makes whoever wears it a third again as strong as you are. So we're giving it to the rogue fencer, who will get a lot more benefit out of it.

"Sure, now he's also wasted resources on his finesse-based skills, since he's better off now just using his massive strength, but overall, the party's stronger than if we just gave you the belt.

"Surely, you can't be upset that he also is now the go-to guy for any strength-related needs we might have? Who would object to the light and fast guy outshining the guy who spent all his resources on being strong when it comes to matters of strength?"


I hope that illustrates the problem: it basicaly punishes people who tried to build towards a concept, because this one item outshines the efforts to build towards it on whomever gets the item. Either wasting the resources spent by giving less benefit, or overshadowing the guy who tried to spend them by making the guy who gets it better at his schtick.

Why have a fighter when the mage can polymorph into one? Why have a strong guy when you can just give the agile guy a belt to make him better at it than the strong guy, AND have the agile guy still be more agile than the strong guy?



Another way to look at it: Let's say you have Strong Guy and Agile Guy invest everything they can into their schticks. Now, give Strong Guy a belt of Dex 29, and Agile Guy a belt fo Strength 29. They've switched roles and schticks!



I was mostly referring to the 'normal' belts, which set strength to 19 (I suppose that wasn't clear). The belts that set strength to 23-25+ are still best for strength-based characters because abilities are capped at 20, and a character who has been built to use strength gets more benefit out of the additional strength than, say, a rogue who already has 20 DEX. The barbarian getting bonus strength as his capstone is a niche case.

[Segev]

I was mostly referring to the 'normal' belts, which set strength to 19 (I suppose that wasn't clear). The belts that set strength to 23-25+ are still best for strength-based characters because abilities are capped at 20, and a character who has been built to use strength gets more benefit out of the additional strength than, say, a rogue who already has 20 DEX. The barbarian getting bonus strength as his capstone is a niche case.

Yeah, but give the Dex 20 Rogue a belt of Str 23 and the Dex 20 Fighter a belt of Dex 19, and the Dex 20 Rogue still comes off better.

Setting stats is just bad design, because it punishes players for building towards optimizing a stat that will "eventually" be set by a magic item. Why push to get your fighter up to 20 Str when you know that a 23 belt is coming? There are other stats which you can raise which are also useful.

[Demonic Spoon]

Setting stats is just bad design, because it punishes players for building towards optimizing a stat that will "eventually" be set by a magic item. Why push to get your fighter up to 20 Str when you know that a 23 belt is coming? There are other stats which you can raise which are also useful.

It would be bad design if you knew that your stat is eventually going to be set by a magic item. That is in no way guaranteed. There are a great variety of magic items in the DMG, and in any particular game you won't get the vast majority of them. That's like a wizard saying "why should I bother learning invisibility if I'm eventually going to get a ring of invisibility anyway". Besides, it's only the much more rare 23+ attribute items that are actually an improvement to a 20-attribute character.

[Segev]

It would be bad design if you knew that your stat is eventually going to be set by a magic item. That is in no way guaranteed. There are a great variety of magic items in the DMG, and in any particular game you won't get the vast majority of them. That's like a wizard saying "why should I bother learning invisibility if I'm eventually going to get a ring of invisibility anyway". Besides, it's only the much more rare 23+ attribute items that are actually an improvement to a 20-attribute character.

I have seen groups with similar effects decide that the 23 str belt needs to go to the dex fighter, "because it benefits him more."

I have experienced being a little frustrated that I'd just put another point into my stat when it got SET to a higher value; I could have used that on my secondary stat and been better overall.

Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth? Perhaps, but it's still frustrating to know you basically wasted resources that could have been, in the end, better spent elsewhere.

Cool magic items should NEVER make you feel like you made poor choices based on you now having them.

[Fwiffo86]

But again, it's not just physical - I can't figure out why there's no 29 int item.

Because INT/WIS/CHA increases to 29 cover more than just hitting something, or dealing damage. They cover ALL of spellcasting. At a level of 29, saves would be nearly impossible to make. This is ideal for the caster using, but not remotely balanced against the non-casters.

[SharkForce]

Damage wise, the average warsorcerer does probably the best sustained damage on top of being a full caster. And there are plenty of cases like animating dead or object where casters can easily out damage martials - damage is not a difficult niche to fill as a caster, but useful things that aren't damage are often impossible niches for a martial to fill.

the sorcerer probably does better damage-wise against enemies with no resistances or immunities, you mean.

martial damage may not reach quite the same heights, but all you need is a single magic weapon and it gets much much more reliable, and isn't that far off the absolute peak.

so sure, a sorcerer throwing out a quickened spell and adding in a sunbeam is high damage. at least, that is, until you meet an opponent that's resistant to magic damage (which elemental adept won't do squat against), or flat-out immunity to your preferred element (which, once again, elemental adept won't do squat against) and you're forced to rely on sub-optimal options.

animated dead or animated ojects can certainly turn the tide for other casters, but are also relatively vulnerable to AOE damage, and suffer from reliability issues (it's incredibly unlikely for them to have magic weapons, not so much for the fighter or barbarian to at least have access to a temporarily boosted one). animated dead in particular tend to have other (mostly RP-related) drawbacks... for example, people don't typically react well to the army of darkness that's just passing through :P

if you really want to talk about leveraging spells into consistent damage, i'd probably look more towards spells like planar binding (though the material component cost is non-trivial). maybe mass suggestion, if you can find (or create) the right critters to send after your enemy.

[Jakinbandw]

What if you could retrain ASIs? It would even make sense because the big strong character is now using magic as a crutch, rather than his own strength. Also since he no longer has to work out every day to keep in peak physical form, he can pick up a few other things as well.

[Demonic Spoon]

I have seen groups with similar effects decide that the 23 str belt needs to go to the dex fighter, "because it benefits him more."

I have experienced being a little frustrated that I'd just put another point into my stat when it got SET to a higher value; I could have used that on my secondary stat and been better overall.

Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth? Perhaps, but it's still frustrating to know you basically wasted resources that could have been, in the end, better spent elsewhere.

Cool magic items should NEVER make you feel like you made poor choices based on you now having them.

Does that mean rings of invisibility shouldn't exist?

Is it paladins that get an ability that lets them treat all weapons as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance? Does that mean magic weapons are poorly-designed because they mean that a character's character-building features were wasted?

[Segev]

Maybe if they gave bonus feats based on your underlying stat, at 1 feat per 2-3 stat points over 8?

So a 20-str character would get 4-6 bonus feats on top of having his str set to whatever, while an 8-str character would only get the str.

[Demonic Spoon]

Maybe if they gave bonus feats based on your underlying stat, at 1 feat per 2-3 stat points over 8?

So a 20-str character would get 4-6 bonus feats on top of having his str set to whatever, while an 8-str character would only get the str.

Probably not full-on feats. However, if there were some strength-based special abilities that the belt gave based on initial strength, that might be interesting...but only for the 23+ strength belts. Prior to that a character with a stat item will still be worse than someone who focused in it.

[SharkForce]

ok, maybe it's just me being completely bonkers, but how do you figure the guy with 20 dex and 10 strength is getting more out of the belt of str 23 than the guy with 20 strength?

the guy with 20 dex has +5 to hit and damage with attacks. so does the guy with 20 strength. the belt will add the same thing to both of them; +1 to hit and damage.

yes, the dex 20 guy *can* use the belt, but it's not actually adding more than it would be adding to the strength fighter for most purposes (at least, not in key areas... if you want to argue athletics checks and strength saves, maybe, but i bet the guy with 20 strength has more other resources invested into benefitting from strength, while the dex 20 guy probably took acrobatics and ignored athletics and doesn't have strength save proficiency, and as such still won't be terribly likely to make those strength saves or athletics checks anyways).

i mean, you *could* just hand it off to the dex-based character. but the strength-based guy is fairly likely to have specialized in strength in ways that the dex-based character did not, and i'd much rather have one person who's amazing at making checks than two guys who are sorta good at it.

[Demonic Spoon]

i mean, you *could* just hand it off to the dex-based character. but the strength-based guy is fairly likely to have specialized in strength in ways that the dex-based character did not, and i'd much rather have one person who's amazing at making checks than two guys who are sorta good at it.


There's some legitimacy to the complaint purely on the basis of raw ability checks. Damage and such aside, if you need something lifted, it does shift that burden from the strength guy to the dex guy.

That said, I'm not sure how that's different than giving any other special ability to someone via a magic item, so I'm not convinced it's a huge deal

[Segev]

Presumably, the guy with 20 str doesn't ALSO have 20 dex. Therefore, if you give the guy with 20 dex the str 23 belt, he may only add the same amount to hit...but his damage jumps considerably and he also has an AC and Dexterity save that is higher than the 20 Str guy's (because 20 str guy has a Dex of, say, 10).

Give 20 Str guy the str 23 belt, and he ONLY gets the improved to hit and damage (and possibly not as great an improvement on his damage). His AC and dexterity saves are still low.

Looking at it from a stat standpoint, give it to Str 20 guy and you now have a character with Str 23 and Dex 10. Give it to Dex 20 guy, and you now have a character with Str 23 and Dex 20. Clearly, the latter character is better than the former.

[MukkTB]

I ask myself; "If the DM was using the random chart and I knew there was a chance of this item coming up, how would this change my character builds?"

A. This only matters if I want to stick weapon things into fleshy things.

B. I probably wouldn't bail on the strength based whatever when rolling up a level 1 character. Level 11 is a far way away and the item may never roll. I'm more concerned with surviving to level 4 or so.

C. I wouldn't roll a strength based anything for a character starting at level 11+. I'd hope for an item and otherwise settle for being good at Dex.

D. If I had run a strength char from level 1 and one of these things dropped somewhere. I would be angry.

[thepsyker]

Because it'll increase the barbarian's strength by 5, and the rapier wielder's strength by 20? This kind of item actively discourages building strength, since it replaces rather than builds on your capabilities.
Except the rapier wielder isn't going to have built his character around strength so a 29 strength is nice, but it isn't as useful to him as it is for the Barbarian's character who is built around maximizing strength.

As for discouraging building strength that is nonsense. First there is no guarantee you will ever get this item, so dumping strength in the hope that you will land this item to make your strengthless strength based character functional is foolish. Second even if you do eventually get a Belt, that previous investment in strength was still useful in game up to the point that you found the Belt so it can't be said to retroactively have been a waste, unless one is going to say all the things one has done previously with those investments were irrelevant and a waste.

[Segev]

THe discouragement is still there, if only in the form of regret later on if you do get lucky. Seriously, should you feel like you made a poor choice because you got lucky? Sure, there's always some disappointment that you didn't hedge against something unfortunate if you hit a stroke of bad luck, but that's fitting.

"I just put my level-up bonus into Str! Sure, it's not a bonus right now, as it was an odd number to which I raised it, and I could have gotten another point of bonus out of Dex, but it'll be worth it as I will hit my cap of 20! ...except now I got a belt that puts me at 23 Str. WEll, that's definitely nice...but I really wish I hadn't wasted that level-up point on str, now."

[Beleriphon]

Why push to get your fighter up to 20 Str when you know that a 23 belt is coming?

Because you don't, and the 20 strength is still pretty good, even without a magic item.

[SharkForce]

Presumably, the guy with 20 str doesn't ALSO have 20 dex. Therefore, if you give the guy with 20 dex the str 23 belt, he may only add the same amount to hit...but his damage jumps considerably and he also has an AC and Dexterity save that is higher than the 20 Str guy's (because 20 str guy has a Dex of, say, 10).

Give 20 Str guy the str 23 belt, and he ONLY gets the improved to hit and damage (and possibly not as great an improvement on his damage). His AC and dexterity saves are still low.

Looking at it from a stat standpoint, give it to Str 20 guy and you now have a character with Str 23 and Dex 10. Give it to Dex 20 guy, and you now have a character with Str 23 and Dex 20. Clearly, the latter character is better than the former.

ok, let's explore this a bit. we have two characters. one is, oh, for the sake of argument, a grapple bard, strength based. the other is a dex-based rogue.

our grapple bard has expertise and proficiency in athletics (because it would be stupid not to), shield master, and 20 strength. he'd probably *like* to have 14+ dexterity, but may very well not (charisma is also quite handy for him, after all).

our rogue has 20 dexterity, 8 strength, and completely ignored athletics because screw that, he'd rather be really good at acrobatics (which is just as useful for defensive purposes and he never wants to grapple anyways), stealth, thieve's tools, and perception.

you find a belt of 23 strength. which one do you want leading the athletics checks: the bard, or the rogue?

does that actually change, *at all*, if you give the rogue the belt? no. not even close. the belt is basically worth +1 to hit and damage to either character, but the bard has other abilities that synergise with the higher strength. the rogue, in the meanwhile, will suck slightly less at athletics checks comparatively. he'll have +6 instead of -1, but you still don't want him to be the lead guy on athletics checks because the bard is throwing around 5 + double the proficiency bonus, and can shove people down with a bonus action in combat, something the rogue does not have.

so then, who benefits more from the belt? the guy who basically gains +1 to hit and damage and +7 to a few checks that he'll probably still fail, or the guy who gains +1 to hit and damage and also +1 to a bunch of checks that he's specialized in having a high chance to succeed in and who will be asked to make those checks anyways?

superficially, it may look like the rogue is a better choice. practically speaking though, the rogue *still* sucks at strength-based actions, because he's spent the last X levels optimizing for dexterity-based actions.

you can't give the belt to a rogue and expect him to shove an enemy out of the way so that your party can escape certain death behind them. it will, on the other hand, help a strength-based character do that.

[Eslin]

ok, let's explore this a bit. we have two characters. one is, oh, for the sake of argument, a grapple bard, strength based. the other is a dex-based rogue.

our grapple bard has expertise and proficiency in athletics (because it would be stupid not to), shield master, and 20 strength. he'd probably *like* to have 14+ dexterity, but may very well not (charisma is also quite handy for him, after all).

our rogue has 20 dexterity, 8 strength, and completely ignored athletics because screw that, he'd rather be really good at acrobatics (which is just as useful for defensive purposes and he never wants to grapple anyways), stealth, thieve's tools, and perception.

you find a belt of 23 strength. which one do you want leading the athletics checks: the bard, or the rogue?

does that actually change, *at all*, if you give the rogue the belt? no. not even close. the belt is basically worth +1 to hit and damage to either character, but the bard has other abilities that synergise with the higher strength. the rogue, in the meanwhile, will suck slightly less at athletics checks comparatively. he'll have +6 instead of -1, but you still don't want him to be the lead guy on athletics checks because the bard is throwing around 5 + double the proficiency bonus, and can shove people down with a bonus action in combat, something the rogue does not have.

so then, who benefits more from the belt? the guy who basically gains +1 to hit and damage and +7 to a few checks that he'll probably still fail, or the guy who gains +1 to hit and damage and also +1 to a bunch of checks that he's specialized in having a high chance to succeed in and who will be asked to make those checks anyways?

superficially, it may look like the rogue is a better choice. practically speaking though, the rogue *still* sucks at strength-based actions, because he's spent the last X levels optimizing for dexterity-based actions.

you can't give the belt to a rogue and expect him to shove an enemy out of the way so that your party can escape certain death behind them. it will, on the other hand, help a strength-based character do that.

So why not just have a belt of strength +3? The bard ends up at 23 strength anyway, the level 20 barbarian actually gets some use out of it, nothing really changes except people don't have to wonder if they'll regret pumping a stat only to have an item drop later to make that irrelevant.

[thepsyker]

THe discouragement is still there, if only in the form of regret later on if you do get lucky. Seriously, should you feel like you made a poor choice because you got lucky? Sure, there's always some disappointment that you didn't hedge against something unfortunate if you hit a stroke of bad luck, but that's fitting.

"I just put my level-up bonus into Str! Sure, it's not a bonus right now, as it was an odd number to which I raised it, and I could have gotten another point of bonus out of Dex, but it'll be worth it as I will hit my cap of 20! ...except now I got a belt that puts me at 23 Str. WEll, that's definitely nice...but I really wish I hadn't wasted that level-up point on str, now."

Frankly, I think getting the item right after increasing your strength stat and before you have gotten any chance to benefit from that increase in game, sounds like a rather nitch scenario versus all the times where you'll have found the item after having all ready gotten some mileage out of your current stat. And personally, at least, I think the boost from the belt would be more than enough to tamper any disappointment and, again personally, that I would much rather feel mildly disappointed about the investment of a single point of ability advancement then sacrifice any chance for my character to be able to run about being as strong as a Giant by removing the items from the game.

Besides that high natural strength will still be useful when the DM decides that a PC having 29st breaks the game and has you all thrown in a prison minus your loot. ;)

[JoeJ]

Of course you have. Say you have a party of level 12s, and they're in southern Westeros, but it turns out Saruman has taken the Sword of Truth and apparated to Alagaesia to kill the Amyrlin with it. You need to get there fast, how do you do it? Hint, the casters will be the ones to solve the problem.

One of your party members died in the fight, and to prevent you bringing him back Saruman shoved his body into the plane of water. How are you going to get there, survive underwater and resurrect him? If hitting things with a pointy stick will help, the martials will be super useful, otherwise I hope you have casters.

In combat martial characters have less options than casters, but they can still at least contribute - they won't be be able to do much casters can't do, and will be far outstripped when it comes to battlefield control, healing, debuffing, status removal and area of effect damage, but at least they can do something. Out of combat, they're just plain useless compared to what a caster can do.

So your argument is that a character can't keep up if there's anything that another team member can do that they can't? Okay. Then if a party of 3rd level characters is short on cash and needs to cross the ocean, everybody who doesn't have the sailor background is not keeping up. If they have to pick a lock quietly at any level then everybody who doesn't have proficiency in thieves' tools is not keeping up. Except that D&D is a team game, and the DM should be creating challenges that let all the players shine, not trying to exclude anyone who didn't choose to play a caster.

In the games that I've played, skills, backgrounds, and general roleplay see a lot more out of combat use than spells, because they're not as limited. Athletics, acrobatics, and stealth are all based on abilities that martial characters are very likely to be the best at. And no class has any inherent advantage in backgrounds or role playing.

In combat, casters are pretty useful but the ones that aren't also martials themselves are pretty squishy, and it's very often the case that the most useful thing they can do is buff another character. Those that are also martials trade raw fighting or magical ability for greater flexibility, so they also don't overshadow the other characters either.


To illustrate my point: Unlike in 3.5, a ranger and a fighter can be at least useful when in a party with a druid and a wizard. However in pretty much every situation having another wizard and druid instead of two martials would be better.

I've never seen a game where that's the case. In my experience, having a combination of spellcasters, warriors, and sneaky characters in the party is better than having only wizards and druids.

[Segev]

The thing is, the "niche" case is not, really. It's just an extreme.

"I could have been raising my dex all this time; instead, I was raising my str. If I'd been raising my dex, I'd be better off now than I am."

As for the bard who specializes in grappling, he's getting +1 maybe +2 to grapple out of that str 23 belt. Since his double proficiency is kicking in, that's negligible. Especially if the +7 swing for the rogue is nothing to be impressed by. You're STILL better off giving it to the rogue, who now can RESIST grapples all the better, and can ASSIST in the tactic. In the end, it's taken everything Mr. Grapplbard can do to stay just a little bit ahead of the rogue...who presumably also has his own schticks he's good at.

There's a reason good design along these lines tends to focus on modifying something from the underlying baseline.

[SharkForce]

So why not just have a belt of strength +3? The bard ends up at 23 strength anyway, the level 20 barbarian actually gets some use out of it, nothing really changes except people don't have to wonder if they'll regret pumping a stat only to have an item drop later to make that irrelevant.

oh, i have no problem with the +3 strength item. just saying that you'd still want to give the 23 strength item to the guy who's built for strength, not the guy who's built for dex.

that said, the smaller house rule would probably still be to require that you have a natural strength of a certain value (probably 20) to benefit from it.


So your argument is that a character can't keep up if there's anything that another team member can do that they can't? Okay. Then if a party of 3rd level characters is short on cash and needs to cross the ocean, everybody who doesn't have the sailor background is not keeping up. If they have to pick a lock quietly at any level then everybody who doesn't have proficiency in thieves' tools is not keeping up. Except that D&D is a team game, and the DM should be creating challenges that let all the players shine, not trying to exclude anyone who didn't choose to play a caster.

In the games that I've played, skills, backgrounds, and general roleplay see a lot more out of combat use than spells, because they're not as limited. Athletics, acrobatics, and stealth are all based on abilities that martial characters are very likely to be the best at. And no class has any inherent advantage in backgrounds or role playing.

In combat, casters are pretty useful but the ones that aren't also martials themselves are pretty squishy, and it's very often the case that the most useful thing they can do is buff another character. Those that are also martials trade raw fighting or magical ability for greater flexibility, so they also don't overshadow the other characters either.

[there was another quote here, now there's not]

I've never seen a game where that's the case. In my experience, having a combination of spellcasters, warriors, and sneaky characters in the party is better than having only wizards and druids.

you sound like you've either never been in a game where a caster found out how to really leverage their abilities to the full extent, or you've never been in a game where the caster chose to never really leverage their abilities to the full extent.

in 5th edition, it's not nearly as bad as it was in earlier editions (people point to 3rd edition specifically when talking about this, but in my experience it's fairly true even in 2nd, and not that far off even in 4th). but it's still there. in fact, if your spellcasters almost never use their spells outside of combat, and spend most of their actions in combat buffing (and then presumably casting cantrips, because you can pretty much only cast one buff period before you run into a problem with concentration), i have to ask: what exactly *do* people do with spells in the games you've played in? because if they aren't using them in combat, and they aren't using them out of combat, i think we probably just figured out why you don't think casters are dramatically stronger than non-casters.

[Eslin]

So your argument is that a character can't keep up if there's anything that another team member can do that they can't? Okay. Then if a party of 3rd level characters is short on cash and needs to cross the ocean, everybody who doesn't have the sailor background is not keeping up. If they have to pick a lock quietly at any level then everybody who doesn't have proficiency in thieves' tools is not keeping up. Except that D&D is a team game, and the DM should be creating challenges that let all the players shine, not trying to exclude anyone who didn't choose to play a caster.

In the games that I've played, skills, backgrounds, and general roleplay see a lot more out of combat use than spells, because they're not as limited. Athletics, acrobatics, and stealth are all based on abilities that martial characters are very likely to be the best at. And no class has any inherent advantage in backgrounds or role playing.

In combat, casters are pretty useful but the ones that aren't also martials themselves are pretty squishy, and it's very often the case that the most useful thing they can do is buff another character. Those that are also martials trade raw fighting or magical ability for greater flexibility, so they also don't overshadow the other characters either.
Casters are not any squishier than martials, they just have different defenses. Aside from just healing yourself or applying ablative hit points, a caster has a much easier time making sure they're not getting hit in the first place. All characters have equal access to backgrounds and roleplay, and skill access is even between casters and martials (though obviously characters like bards and thieves have better skills). And the sailor thing is a flawed analogy - each character's background and skills have approximately equal chance to be useful, it's just casters get a huge amount of unique utility on top of that and martials do not. Casters can solve a massive amount of problems that a martial can either only solve with much greater cost or difficulty or not at all, while the list of problems a martial can solve that a caster can't is vanishingly small. The DM should not be creating challenges that let all characters shine, the DM should be creating a game world full of problems and letting the characters try to figure out solutions - and, backgrounds and skills being equal, there is almost never a situation in which a caster would not be preferable to a martial.


I've never seen a game where that's the case. In my experience, having a combination of spellcasters, warriors, and sneaky characters in the party is better than having only wizards and druids.
Fun fact: A druid is a spellcaster, a warrior and a sneaky character.

[SharkForce]

The thing is, the "niche" case is not, really. It's just an extreme.

"I could have been raising my dex all this time; instead, I was raising my str. If I'd been raising my dex, I'd be better off now than I am."

As for the bard who specializes in grappling, he's getting +1 maybe +2 to grapple out of that str 23 belt. Since his double proficiency is kicking in, that's negligible. Especially if the +7 swing for the rogue is nothing to be impressed by. You're STILL better off giving it to the rogue, who now can RESIST grapples all the better, and can ASSIST in the tactic. In the end, it's taken everything Mr. Grapplbard can do to stay just a little bit ahead of the rogue...who presumably also has his own schticks he's good at.

There's a reason good design along these lines tends to focus on modifying something from the underlying baseline.

the rogue already has high dex. and, for the rogue in particular, probably at least proficiency and often (in this case the rogue explicitly *does*) expertise in acrobatics. you resist with your choice of athletics or acrobatics, so in fact, the rogue is not any better at resisting grapples, and since help doesn't require any sort of ability check, the rogue is also not any more capable of assisting than before either.

as to the +1 on the bard's checks not mattering, that couldn't be more wrong. it's an opposed check for grappling, which means there's up to 38 points difference in possible rolls. until the bard is throwing a bonus 38 points higher, every point counts. furthermore, even if we simplify things down to a standard check against a DC, the closer you are to the high end the more powerful every +1 is worth. it may sound crazy, but something that happens twice in every 20 rolls is happening twice as often as something that happens once in every 20 rolls, and the difference over a period of time is *very* noticeable (if you want to see how different it is, try looking up DDO some time and see what a difference it makes when your caster has a DC where enemies make their saves on a 19, and one where your enemies make their saves on a 20... it's actually amazing how much of a difference that one point of bonus makes).

it may *look* like the rogue just got a lot better, but really, for him it's just +1 to hit and damage, practically speaking. the person who uses strength checks all the time benefits from the same +1 to hit and damage, but also benefits from the +1 to all their other strength checks. unless it is something where success is completely individual (such as perception vs an ambush, but not perception vs a trap), having your specialist be at +1 to their roll is almost always better than having the guy who shouldn't be making the checks anyways be less bad at it.

[JoeJ]

you sound like you've either never been in a game where a caster found out how to really leverage their abilities to the full extent, or you've never been in a game where the caster chose to never really leverage their abilities to the full extent.

in 5th edition, it's not nearly as bad as it was in earlier editions (people point to 3rd edition specifically when talking about this, but in my experience it's fairly true even in 2nd, and not that far off even in 4th). but it's still there. in fact, if your spellcasters almost never use their spells outside of combat, and spend most of their actions in combat buffing (and then presumably casting cantrips, because you can pretty much only cast one buff period before you run into a problem with concentration), i have to ask: what exactly *do* people do with spells in the games you've played in? because if they aren't using them in combat, and they aren't using them out of combat, i think we probably just figured out why you don't think casters are dramatically stronger than non-casters.

I didn't say they don't cast spells out of combat, or that they only ever buff in combat. But out of combat, nobody has enough spells to handle the bulk of situations that way. If the wizard spends all their spells during exploration and interaction, they won't have anything left for combat. (Fly can get a party up or down one cliff; Athletics and some rope can get the party over a whole mountain range of cliffs.) And much of the time a spell is less optimal than having the right skill (Charm Person, Knock), or works best in combination with a high skill level (Invisibility + Stealth).

In combat I've seen more blasting than buffing, but buffing is still an important thing.

[Demonicattorney]

Casters are not any squishier than martials, they just have different defenses. Aside from just healing yourself or applying ablative hit points, a caster has a much easier time making sure they're not getting hit in the first place. All characters have equal access to backgrounds and roleplay, and skill access is even between casters and martials (though obviously characters like bards and thieves have better skills). And the sailor thing is a flawed analogy - each character's background and skills have approximately equal chance to be useful, it's just casters get a huge amount of unique utility on top of that and martials do not. Casters can solve a massive amount of problems that a martial can either only solve with much greater cost or difficulty or not at all, while the list of problems a martial can solve that a caster can't is vanishingly small. The DM should not be creating challenges that let all characters shine, the DM should be creating a game world full of problems and letting the characters try to figure out solutions - and, backgrounds and skills being equal, there is almost never a situation in which a caster would not be preferable to a martial.


Fun fact: A druid is a spellcaster, a warrior and a sneaky character.

Casters do not have equal defenses. That is such a load of crap. Barbarians take half damage from everything. Paladins are +4 or +5 vs saves against everything. Warriors have higher armor class, more HP, a self-heal, and save rerolls. Monks have every save, rerolls, evasion etc. There are some casters that can get close, like an abjurer, or a dragon sorcerer, or a level 20 moon druid, but on the balance they are not close. When you actually play a campaign 1-20, and not just theory craft at level 20, you will realize the gap. My level 7 Wizard was killed in one hit hit by a Wyvern. That result is not uncommon. Sometimes you don't just get to hide in the back of a combat, and rain death. Range isn't always a defense, concentration based defenses fail, fairly often, especially at low levels. Casters don't have the same defenses, and telling people they do will piss them off when they realize from actual play that it isn't true.

[Xetheral]

The DM should not be creating challenges that let all characters shine, the DM should be creating a game world full of problems and letting the characters try to figure out solutions...

Wait, isn't the DM's ability to tailor challenges (and indeed, the entire campaign) to the players and their characters one of the key strengths of the tabletop RPG medium?

True, one doesn't want to be heavy-handed about it, because it isn't good for the players' sense of immersion if the world obviously revolves around them. But, in actually, the game itself does revolve around the players, and designing plots and encounters and challenges for the specific party at hand (including paying attention to time in the spotlight) is a very potent tool for making sure everyone has as much fun as possible.

[MadBear]

Damage wise, the average warsorcerer does probably the best sustained damage on top of being a full caster. And there are plenty of cases like animating dead or object where casters can easily out damage martials - damage is not a difficult niche to fill as a caster, but useful things that aren't damage are often impossible niches for a martial to fill.

He has the best sustained damage? I ask because I genuinely thought fighters had inherently better sustained damage.

Out of curiousity how does he stack up against a full fighter with the 29 strength belt and a +3 sword? At this point wouldn't the 4 attacks every round from the fighter hit better, and deal more damage then the sorcerer could hope to achieve?

Keep in mind I'm not questioning you on the fact that casters can fill the damage niche (they obviously can), but it seems to me martials fill the niche better, and are inherently better at it. Martials have the best burst damage, and when it comes to sustain, I don't see what the war/sor is bringing to the table that a full martial isn't doing better at (in terms of sustained damage, not outside utility).

[Demonic Spoon]

Out of curiousity how does he stack up against a full fighter with the 29 strength belt and a +3 sword? At this point wouldn't the 4 attacks every round from the fighter hit better, and deal more damage then the sorcerer could hope to achieve?


How about we keep things realistic, shall we?

[pwykersotz]

Of course you have. Say you have a party of level 12s, and they're in southern Westeros, but it turns out Saruman has taken the Sword of Truth and apparated to Alagaesia to kill the Amyrlin with it. You need to get there fast, how do you do it? Hint, the casters will be the ones to solve the problem.

One of your party members died in the fight, and to prevent you bringing him back Saruman shoved his body into the plane of water. How are you going to get there, survive underwater and resurrect him? If hitting things with a pointy stick will help, the martials will be super useful, otherwise I hope you have casters.

In combat martial characters have less options than casters, but they can still at least contribute - they won't be be able to do much casters can't do, and will be far outstripped when it comes to battlefield control, healing, debuffing, status removal and area of effect damage, but at least they can do something. Out of combat, they're just plain useless compared to what a caster can do.

To illustrate my point: Unlike in 3.5, a ranger and a fighter can be at least useful when in a party with a druid and a wizard. However in pretty much every situation having another wizard and druid instead of two martials would be better.

Just a tangential point, everything that magic can do can be replicated by planar effects. EVERYTHING. So while the caveat of 'in combat' means martials can't do it, they can certainly travel the world, the planes, the oceans, the sky, and everything else, even raising the dead. That is all.

[thepsyker]

The thing is, the "niche" case is not, really. It's just an extreme.

"I could have been raising my dex all this time; instead, I was raising my str. If I'd been raising my dex, I'd be better off now than I am."


You could have been raising your dex that whole time, but then you would have been worse at strength stuff that whole time. You reaped the benefit of raising your strength in having a higher strength the entire time you were playing leading up to the point where you find this item, assuming of course that you ever do find this item, at which point you start reaping the benefits of having this item which lets you break the cap you would otherwise face investing in this ability.

[SharkForce]

I didn't say they don't cast spells out of combat, or that they only ever buff in combat. But out of combat, nobody has enough spells to handle the bulk of situations that way. If the wizard spends all their spells during exploration and interaction, they won't have anything left for combat. (Fly can get a party up or down one cliff; Athletics and some rope can get the party over a whole mountain range of cliffs.) And much of the time a spell is less optimal than having the right skill (Charm Person, Knock), or works best in combination with a high skill level (Invisibility + Stealth).

In combat I've seen more blasting than buffing, but buffing is still an important thing.

funny story: casters get skills too.

and really, some of those spells work as well or better, even with the supposed drawbacks... you just need the right build.

for example, a high level enchanter keeps you from knowing you were ever charmed. a suggestion spell never lets the person know they were controlled (though someone else may certainly figure it out). some casters who can cast knock can also cast silence (and if they can't, perhaps someone else in the group can). for those who can't, knock is hardly the only way to get past an obstacle. athletics and some rope can get you over a mountain range? that's nice. a wizard can do it in less time with teleportation, a druid can just call up a group of pixies to polymorph everyone into something that flies (and get a whole days' worth of travel compressed into an hour), etc.

casters are *less* dominant in this edition than they were in 3.x and earlier. they're still quite dominant, because anything that isn't class-based you bring up is equally available to non-casters and casters alike, with the difference being that casters can generally back that up with superior class-based abilities over their non-caster counterparts. you want to show me how a fighter or a rogue or a barbarian are stronger, you're going to need to come up with something a bard or a wizard or a druid can't do as well or better.

now, martial damage is in general much more reliable in my opinion. they have that going for them. what they don't have going for them is just about anything else, and that's where the problem lies.

edit:


Just a tangential point, everything that magic can do can be replicated by planar effects. EVERYTHING. So while the caveat of 'in combat' means martials can't do it, they can certainly travel the world, the planes, the oceans, the sky, and everything else, even raising the dead. That is all.

I have to say I'm a bit curious...

how, pray tell, are the martial classes *getting* to the various planes to do all these things? (also, it's rather frequently not just a matter of being able to do those things, but rather being able to do those things in a certain place at a certain time. I don't care if you can fly on the demiplane of flight. I care if you can fly to the top of the cliff that we're standing at the bottom of.

[Segev]

since help doesn't require any sort of ability check, the rogue is also not any more capable of assisting than before either.I was not referring to "help" in the "I give you a bonus to your roll" sense. I was referring to "helping by grapping that secong guy." Which really is just another way of demonstrating that Mr. Rogue is now, with one item, doing what it took much of the Bard's investment to achieve.


as to the +1 on the bard's checks not mattering, that couldn't be more wrong. it's an opposed check for grappling, which means there's up to 38 points difference in possible rolls. until the bard is throwing a bonus 38 points higher, every point counts.Counts, yes, but far less than the +7 swing - which you dismissed as nearly meaningless - for the rogue does.




it may *look* like the rogue just got a lot better, but really, for him it's just +1 to hit and damage, practically speaking. the person who uses strength checks all the time benefits from the same +1 to hit and damage, but also benefits from the +1 to all their other strength checks. unless it is something where success is completely individual (such as perception vs an ambush, but not perception vs a trap), having your specialist be at +1 to their roll is almost always better than having the guy who shouldn't be making the checks anyways be less bad at it.The rogue gets the same +1 to hit and damage as the bard. The rogue also gets a +7 swing to his grapple. The rogue also, as noted, already has a high dex, so he now has flat-out more things at high bonuses than does the Bard, who has a low dex with or without this item.

The bard, with this item, has +1 to a few things. He retains the low dex and all that comes with that. The rogue, with this item, has +1 to +7 with a number of things, and retains his high dex and all that comes with that.

The rogue flat-out gets more out of it and is the better character overall if you give them both the 23 str belt.

[Segev]

You could have been raising your dex that whole time, but then you would have been worse at strength stuff that whole time. You reaped the benefit of raising your strength in having a higher strength the entire time you were playing leading up to the point where you find this item, assuming of course that you ever do find this item, at which point you start reaping the benefits of having this item which lets you break the cap you would otherwise face investing in this ability.

Granted, but that makes it feel like, somehow, the low-str person who gets the 23-str belt instead "earned" it more, on the grounds of, "well, I suffered through not having high strength this whole time." It also makes any design built post-belt feel silly for wasting stat points (and yes, people build characters at higher levels; should DMs never, ever let you have magic items as higher-level starting characters?).

I just really dislike anything that lets you say, "I'm going to dump this stat because doing otherwise will be wasting points when I set it to something by another means."

Your arguments are valid, but insufficient, is what I'm saying. Sure, I reaped the benefit up until now. But if this belt is handed to that gnome rogue instead, he now has MORE benefit from it than do I. To me, it would improve my schtick by a fair bit and would otherwise leave my stats low in other areas. To him, it lets him almost catch up to my schtick (surpassing it in other ways) and have other stats HIGH on top of this now-high Str.

[MaxWilson]

I was not referring to "help" in the "I give you a bonus to your roll" sense. I was referring to "helping by grapping that secong guy." Which really is just another way of demonstrating that Mr. Rogue is now, with one item, doing what it took much of the Bard's investment to achieve.

And doing it relatively poorly. He's non-proficient, so the only bonus he's getting is his +5 to +9 from Strength. He only gets one attack (unlike the Valor Bard) so he only gets one grapple per turn. He's a DX-optimized Rogue who is spending his one action per turn grappling half as effectively as a mid-level fighter.

"No thanks, but I'll pass, and just sneak attack people in the back of the head using dual crossbows, and then use my Cunning Action to re-hide afterward. That's what I'm good at."

You might as well give the belt to someone who's set up to actually exploit the benefits, which means "extra attacks, Expertise, and the Grappler feat."

[Xetheral]

It also makes any design built post-belt feel silly for wasting stat points (and yes, people build characters at higher levels; should DMs never, ever let you have magic items as higher-level starting characters?).

What's the most powerful belt a character can start with under the starting-equipment guidelines?

[Segev]

And doing it relatively poorly. He's non-proficient, so the only bonus he's getting is his +5 to +9 from Strength. He only gets one attack (unlike the Valor Bard) so he only gets one grapple per turn. He's a DX-optimized Rogue who is spending his one action per turn grappling half as effectively as a mid-level fighter.

"No thanks, but I'll pass, and just sneak attack people in the back of the head using dual crossbows, and then use my Cunning Action to re-hide afterward. That's what I'm good at."

You might as well give the belt to someone who's set up to actually exploit the benefits, which means "extra attacks, Expertise, and the Grappler feat."

You're very fixated on the grappling. Str does more than that. And a +1 is not as impressive as a +7.

[Jeraa]

What's the most powerful belt a character can start with under the starting-equipment guidelines?

At what character level and level of magic in the campaign?

With the High Magic values, a 17th level or higher character starts with one Very Rare item, which could be a Belt of Fire Giant Strength (Strength 25). In the Standard Campaign (one Rare item), the same character could start with a Belt of Hill Giant Strength (Strength 21).

[MaxWilson]

You're very fixated on the grappling. Str does more than that. And a +1 is not as impressive as a +7.

Not a whole lot more than that actually. It helps you escape Webs, it lets you Grapple/Prone people (scales up with number of attacks), and it boosts your damage with melee and thrown weapons (scales up with number of attacks). If it's a ST 24 belt as you suggest, the Rogue will now have the option of sneak-attacking in melee with a halberd at Prof +7 instead of with a dagger at Prof +5, and his damage on a hit will go up from 1d4 + 5 + 5d6 (or more, depending on level) to 1d10 + 7 + 5d6.

In what way would it not be better to give it to the grapple bard, or to the STR 20 fighter with 4 attacks (counting Polearm Master) and GWM? Sure, the fighter may now be thinking, "I wish I had Sentinel instead of ST 20", but that's water under the bridge[1] when it's time to allocate items, and doesn't change the fact that the melee-oriented ST guy benefits more from high ST than the DX guy does because he is set up to do so.

[1] I do agree that the game is more fun when Belts of Giant Strength are rare and surprising though. If you were somehow guaranteed to get a Girdle of Titan Strength (ST 30) as soon as you hit 18th level, you'd have a lot of painful choices to make about wasting ASIs on ST or playing through levels 1-17 with the absolute minimal possible investment in ST and a total focus on other abilities. That's really no fun. But if you have only a 0.1% chance of getting one of these girdles before level 20--which is, I believe, approximately the frequency the DMG with which the DM gives it out--then that dilemma goes away and you optimize for the common case, which means relying on your native stats.

[Xetheral]

At what character level and level of magic in the campaign?

With the High Magic values, a 17th level or higher character starts with one Very Rare item, which could be a Belt of Fire Giant Strength (Strength 25). In the Standard Campaign (one Rare item), the same character could start with a Belt of Hill Giant Strength (Strength 21).

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks!

[Demonicattorney]

A +25 belt confers a +2 bonus over actually having a 20 strength. On the other hand, a +2 sword (same rarity) confers the same bonus. So that seems pretty fair to me.

[SharkForce]

for rogues in particular, you can't sneak attack with a halberd. well, unless you find some way to make it finesse or ranged, that is.

but in general, yes, the rogue with +6 to their grapple check kinda sucks. congratulations, you're in the neighbourhood where a level 1 fighter would be; one attack per melee, at a +6 bonus.

somehow, I don't feel like that's terribly valuable in comparison to, say, giving the battlemaster a better chance to disarm a powerful staff from an archmage, or letting the valour bard knock their opponent prone with their shield more reliably, etc.

simply put, all the stuff the rogue is getting +7 to is stuff that the rogue *still sucks at* in relative terms (bearing in mind we're talking level 11+ at this point). you didn't get *good* at grappling, you got *less bad* at grappling. there's an important difference there. you didn't get *good* at making strength saves, you got *less bad* at it.

I don't care if my rogue is less bad at grappling, I care if the battlemaster fighter is able to more reliably land his 3+ attacks per round and leave that raging barbarian enemy fighting with his bare hands.

if the rogue wants to be good enough at grappling to pin down a regular kobold semi-reliably, he can kindly find a way to do so that *doesn't* screw over another character. it is better to have one person who is slightly better at something they're awesome at than it is to make someone who is absolutely worthless at a given task be less bad at it. I don't want my party to be less incompetent in their off-areas, I want to be able to rely on them in their area of specialization.

[LuthielValkire]

It seems the devs decided to sacrifice symmetry and instead use the space for more unique and interesting items.

It makes sense to me.

First, there may be one belt of storm giant strength in four campaigns. I've designed two through to 20th level using the random item generation rules. The first had lots of potions of giant strength, but no permanent strength items (it did have a headband of intellect). The second had a set of gauntlets of ogre power.

Second, if it does come up, then it probably goes to the big strong guy in the party (GWF or Barbarian).

The randomness of items of this kind breaks the game out of character creation straight jacketing and provides for random events that can radically alter a character's trajectory. I actually like that about this game. These magic items are all rather significant and this gives each player the opportunity to break limits without wrecking the game.

[MadBear]

How about we keep things realistic, shall we?

why?

If you look at what I wrote in full context you can clearly see I'm asking how a war/sorcerer has better sustained damage then a fighter. I then ask how about when we add in the magic items. It seems like a fair question to me.

[Baptor]

Out of curiousity how does he stack up against a full fighter with the 29 strength belt and a +3 sword? At this point wouldn't the 4 attacks every round from the fighter hit better, and deal more damage then the sorcerer could hope to achieve?

Since someone dismissed your question, I'll tell you that I ran the numbers yesterday on this one. I don't know how it stacks up exactly, but expect a fighter like this to do well in a battle versus things like the Ancient Red Dragon. Since the level cap is 20, part of me suspects that's what these items were made for.

As far as this ongoing debate about the Belt taking away from fighters because you can give it to the rogue or whatever, do yourself a favor and implement my houserule on it. You can only attune to a BoGS if you have a strength score of 20 or better (so basically 20).

Alternatively if you want it to be best for fighters but still useable for others, make the requirement Str 19. Then a rogue wearing the Gauntlets of Ogre Power could put on the Belt and get the 29 str, but it would cost him 2 attunements whereas the warrior would only need 1.

Either rule would work well, methinks.

[Demonic Spoon]

why?

If you look at what I wrote in full context you can clearly see I'm asking how a war/sorcerer has better sustained damage then a fighter. I then ask how about when we add in the magic items. It seems like a fair question to me.

Fair. Sorry; uses to people assuming silly things to make an argument.

[Gwendol]

Casters do not have equal defenses. That is such a load of crap. Barbarians take half damage from everything. Paladins are +4 or +5 vs saves against everything. Warriors have higher armor class, more HP, a self-heal, and save rerolls. Monks have every save, rerolls, evasion etc. There are some casters that can get close, like an abjurer, or a dragon sorcerer, or a level 20 moon druid, but on the balance they are not close. When you actually play a campaign 1-20, and not just theory craft at level 20, you will realize the gap. My level 7 Wizard was killed in one hit hit by a Wyvern. That result is not uncommon. Sometimes you don't just get to hide in the back of a combat, and rain death. Range isn't always a defense, concentration based defenses fail, fairly often, especially at low levels. Casters don't have the same defenses, and telling people they do will piss them off when they realize from actual play that it isn't true.

This. Funny how similar messages keep coming up in other threads, and never gets replies. Instead we keep hearing the same mantra: casters make all other classes obsolete, cantrips are better than a rogue, and so on.

[Todasmile]

This. Funny how similar messages keep coming up in other threads, and never gets replies. Instead we keep hearing the same mantra: casters make all other classes obsolete, cantrips are better than a rogue, and so on.

I never said that casters weren't squishy, personally, but, fine, here's a short list of things I found casters can obsolete by skimming through the spell list. Note "can", not "always does". They will not always be the best solution, but they will be the best solution in enough situations where it is worrying:

-Find Familiar obsoletes Rangers. Who cares about favored terrain and tracking when you have an owl which can simply see everything for miles around? Rangers do have other bonuses, but the Familiar is utility martials simply are unable to get, in terms of scouting.
-Knock obsoletes picking locks. This isn't so bad, considering you don't have to invest anything in the lockpicking skill.
-Alter Form obsoletes Disguise. You can't change your size or anything, but then neither can a master disguiser. This one's disgusting, to me. My Charlatan with proficiency in disguise can't make himself look as good as some two-bit Wizard?
-Charm Person, Suggestion, all those spells. They don't always obsolete diplomancers, but they sure do step on their toes a lot.

Those are just a few examples. I downplay their effectiveness, because they truly aren't a perfect replacement for a specialist, but considering that the Wizard for example doesn't have to actually invest his build into any of them, and can switch around his prepared spell as he chooses, it really makes you wonder.

That's without even TOUCHING on all the things casters can do that martials simply have no means to do. Martials have the potential to do more damage than the majority of casters, yes, and they're more survivable, but that doesn't matter when the caster is teleporting you around the map, plane shifting you into the Plane of Incredibly Cool Stuff to get the MacGuffin, reviving your dead party members, healing them, using Invisibility to make your entire party stealthy, Alarming your camp so that you're not ambushed in the night, identifying your items, detecting magic, summoning a ton of creatures to swarm the battlefield and keep you safe, all while dealing decent damage, being THE best at Crowd Control, bar none, and a million other bloody things besides.

And no, they can't damn well do all of that all of the time, but they CAN do it. Some of their throw away options are things that any other class would KILL for. Casters get 70 pages of options and martials get NOTHING.

So no, casters don't always obsolete every other class. Other classes are more survivable and more reliable in their fields of expertise. They did a decent job of balancing for power. Casters can, however, do more things that no other classes can do than martials can, and they can fairly easily do anything they actually want to do, by giving up a few spells prepared and spell slots for them. Do they have to use spell slots for them, a limited resource? Yes, but at that point you're just complaining that casters can't do absolutely anything ever always forever with no investment or opportunity cost.

[Eslin]

Casters do not have equal defenses. That is such a load of crap. Barbarians take half damage from everything. Paladins are +4 or +5 vs saves against everything. Warriors have higher armor class, more HP, a self-heal, and save rerolls. Monks have every save, rerolls, evasion etc. There are some casters that can get close, like an abjurer, or a dragon sorcerer, or a level 20 moon druid, but on the balance they are not close. When you actually play a campaign 1-20, and not just theory craft at level 20, you will realize the gap. My level 7 Wizard was killed in one hit hit by a Wyvern. That result is not uncommon. Sometimes you don't just get to hide in the back of a combat, and rain death. Range isn't always a defense, concentration based defenses fail, fairly often, especially at low levels. Casters don't have the same defenses, and telling people they do will piss them off when they realize from actual play that it isn't true.

I never said they have the same defenses, I said they have different defenses. Which is true, and in the case of the wizard you just mentioned the defenses vary by type. Now, personally my favourite wizard strategy is starting with a level of fighter for a potential 21 AC and constitution save proficiency then grabbing a second level for action surge along the way, but not everyone does that one. In any case, a wizard's defenses are things like shield, misty step and mirror image instead, low level spells that let you avoid taking the hit in the first place, with additional defenses are determined by type of wizard - an abjurer's arcane ward, a conjurer's meatshieldy summons, a diviner's portent etc. This isn't theorycrafting at level 20 - to be sure, spells like contingency make it easier at higher levels, but everything I mentioned there is available early.


Wait, isn't the DM's ability to tailor challenges (and indeed, the entire campaign) to the players and their characters one of the key strengths of the tabletop RPG medium?

True, one doesn't want to be heavy-handed about it, because it isn't good for the players' sense of immersion if the world obviously revolves around them. But, in actually, the game itself does revolve around the players, and designing plots and encounters and challenges for the specific party at hand (including paying attention to time in the spotlight) is a very potent tool for making sure everyone has as much fun as possible.
What? No. The DM's ability to have the world react to players and give them the ability to do anything, as opposed to staying on the rails in a video game. Tailoring things to specific party member's strengths to make them feel like they aren't use-impaired for picking a ranger is going to break their immersion faster than the villain having a convenient underwater passage in his lair for Aquaman to feel like he contributes. I'm not going to pay attention to time in the spotlight - if someone has been consistently performing better then everyone else then the rest need to step up their game, 5e made everyone a lot closer in ability than 3.5 did.

The game world doesn't revolve around the players, merely specific goings on do. At any one point there will be many goings on, and unless the party is exceptionally mobile they're unlikely to participate in more than a small amount of the overall effort unless they're very high level or manage to be in the right place at the right time - which they sometimes do, what with it being their choice of where they go and what they do. Sometimes they get smart and save a kingdom that I was expecting to be overrun by the undead, sometimes they screw up and they all get killed by mind flayers who go on to steal town after town, the only way the world is tailored to them is I make sure I create a story that can be participated in.


He has the best sustained damage? I ask because I genuinely thought fighters had inherently better sustained damage.

Out of curiousity how does he stack up against a full fighter with the 29 strength belt and a +3 sword? At this point wouldn't the 4 attacks every round from the fighter hit better, and deal more damage then the sorcerer could hope to achieve?

Keep in mind I'm not questioning you on the fact that casters can fill the damage niche (they obviously can), but it seems to me martials fill the niche better, and are inherently better at it. Martials have the best burst damage, and when it comes to sustain, I don't see what the war/sor is bringing to the table that a full martial isn't doing better at (in terms of sustained damage, not outside utility).

A fighter with a greatsword, a 29 strength item and a +3 sword will be doing 4 hits of 19 damage a hit at +16 or 29 damage a hit at +11, and twice per short rest can do 8 hits per round. A warcerer with a 29 charisma item and a +3 rod will be doing 8 hits of 18 damage at +16 for as many rounds as his sorcery points last, with which the ability to convert spells is basically every combat round of the day, and can amp it up by doing things like adding spells into the mix.

In general, doing damage with cantrips is kind of pointless though - aside from exceptions like overchanneling them or eldritch blast, cantrip damage is not amazing. If you actually want to deal a lot of damage, armies of skeleton archers or summoned creatures or true polymorphing the party into pit fiends and other such things work a lot better.

[JoeJ]

funny story: casters get skills too.

Yes, and it's a good thing they do. Otherwise, they'd be spending way too much time standing around feeling useless. And if the players are clever, each of the characters will focus on developing different abilities, because that makes the party as a whole able to handle a much wider range of challenges.


and really, some of those spells work as well or better, even with the supposed drawbacks... you just need the right build.

for example, a high level enchanter keeps you from knowing you were ever charmed. a suggestion spell never lets the person know they were controlled (though someone else may certainly figure it out). some casters who can cast knock can also cast silence (and if they can't, perhaps someone else in the group can). for those who can't, knock is hardly the only way to get past an obstacle. athletics and some rope can get you over a mountain range? that's nice. a wizard can do it in less time with teleportation, a druid can just call up a group of pixies to polymorph everyone into something that flies (and get a whole days' worth of travel compressed into an hour), etc.

An enchanter can't make the target forget until they reach 14th level, and for most purposes it's still inferior to actually making friends with somebody. Charm and Suggestion wear off; Persuasion doesn't.

Knock + Silence? Great. That's two 2nd level spells to get past one lock. My front door has two locks on it, so that would require all three 2nd level slots. Anybody with proficiency in thieves' tools can do it without expending any resources at all, and can also disable traps or other devices. In combat, a 3rd level thief can do those things as a bonus action.

Teleport is a very nice spell, assuming that terrain obstacles conveniently don't exist until you're at least 13th level, and that you're pretty sure there won't be anything else you'd want a 7th level slot for, and that you are really familiar with the place you're going, and that you don't need to find or do anything along the way.

Conjuring pixies at least only requires a 7th level caster. And if you encounter any opposition you'd better hope that either whatever you were Polymorphed into can fight, or you can reach the ground before you get knocked down to 0 hp. Also, how does your high level enchanter cast Conjure Woodland Beings in the first place? (Alternatively, how does a druid get Silence, Knock, Teleport, or the ability to make people forget who charmed them?)


casters are *less* dominant in this edition than they were in 3.x and earlier. they're still quite dominant, because anything that isn't class-based you bring up is equally available to non-casters and casters alike, with the difference being that casters can generally back that up with superior class-based abilities over their non-caster counterparts. you want to show me how a fighter or a rogue or a barbarian are stronger, you're going to need to come up with something a bard or a wizard or a druid can't do as well or better.

Several casters working together and using up a whole bunch of spell slots can kind do a lot of things that can be done as well or better just by having the right proficiencies. That's hardly an impressive display of how useless non-casters are. Especially because the real test in a game is whether or not one particular caster can make the other characters that are specifically in the same party obsolete. A barbarian with proficiency in Athletics is not likely to feel overshadowed just because the party sorcerer could have used ASIs to get a 20 Str (but didn't), and could have taken the same proficiency (but didn't). On the contrary, both players are likely to enjoy the fact that the sorcerer can cast Bull's Strength on the barbarian to accomplish more than either of them could alone.

[Eslin]

Yes, and it's a good thing they do. Otherwise, they'd be spending way too much time standing around feeling useless. And if the players are clever, each of the characters will focus on developing different abilities, because that makes the party as a whole able to handle a much wider range of challenges.

An enchanter can't make the target forget until they reach 14th level, and for most purposes it's still inferior to actually making friends with somebody. Charm and Suggestion wear off; Persuasion doesn't.

Knock + Silence? Great. That's two 2nd level spells to get past one lock. My front door has two locks on it, so that would require all three 2nd level slots. Anybody with proficiency in thieves' tools can do it without expending any resources at all, and can also disable traps or other devices. In combat, a 3rd level thief can do those things as a bonus action.

Teleport is a very nice spell, assuming that terrain obstacles conveniently don't exist until you're at least 13th level, and that you're pretty sure there won't be anything else you'd want a 7th level slot for, and that you are really familiar with the place you're going, and that you don't need to find or do anything along the way.

Conjuring pixies at least only requires a 7th level caster. And if you encounter any opposition you'd better hope that either whatever you were Polymorphed into can fight, or you can reach the ground before you get knocked down to 0 hp. Also, how does your high level enchanter cast Conjure Woodland Beings in the first place? (Alternatively, how does a druid get Silence, Knock, Teleport, or the ability to make people forget who charmed them?)
He doesn't. You bring a warlock, a wizard, a druid and a cleric or bard to the party - they can do everything the martials can do and a whole lot more besides. And why would you encounter opposition? You just summoned a whole bunch of invisible pixies to scout for you. And yes, teleport assumes those things aren't the case. It can be used to travel literally anywhere, it alone can solve massive amounts of problems that a martial could never hope to - if it's inappropriate for the situation, have the druid wind walk you all or something.


Several casters working together and using up a whole bunch of spell slots can kind do a lot of things that can be done as well or better just by having the right proficiencies. That's hardly an impressive display of how useless non-casters are. Especially because the real test in a game is whether or not one particular caster can make the other characters that are specifically in the same party obsolete. A barbarian with proficiency in Athletics is not likely to feel overshadowed just because the party sorcerer could have used ASIs to get a 20 Str (but didn't), and could have taken the same proficiency (but didn't). On the contrary, both players are likely to enjoy the fact that the sorcerer can cast Bull's Strength on the barbarian to accomplish more than either of them could alone.
Several casters working together and using up a bunch of spell slots can do pretty much anything a martial can do, and can do a massive number of things a martial could never do.

[JoeJ]

Whereas in 3.PF you needed Schrodinger's Wizard to prove that "martials" (whatever that means) can't compete, in 5e you need Schrodinger's Party.

Somehow, I don't feel compelled to start tearing up the character sheet for my elf fighter quite yet. (Does she even count as a martial? She can cast Prestidigitation, after all, so shouldn't she be considered a caster?)

[Xetheral]

The DM's ability to have the world react to players and give them the ability to do anything, as opposed to staying on the rails in a video game... I'm not going to pay attention to time in the spotlight - if someone has been consistently performing better then everyone else then the rest need to step up their game, 5e made everyone a lot closer in ability than 3.5 did.

Fascinating. We have a fundamentally different approach to DMing, and it goes a long way towards explaining our differences in opinion on balance matters. If the DM isn't working to ensure that everyone gets a chance in the spotlight, then of course class balance becomes a much greater concern. Whereas from my perspective, I only need the classes to be close enough that the players don't notice my deliberate effort to let everyone shine. Very, very interesting, and possibly worth discussing in its own thread.


...Tailoring things to specific party member's strengths to make them feel like they aren't use-impaired for picking a ranger is going to break their immersion faster than the villain having a convenient underwater passage in his lair for Aquaman to feel like he contributes...

Only if you're observed doing so in a heavy-handed fashion (such as the Aquaman example). Little things are almost impossible for the players to spot, but go a long way towards compensating for individual character's strengths and weaknesses. For example: selecting number of encounters per day, choosing the prevalence of enemy flight capability, slightly changing the ratio of enemy AC to HP, fiddling with knowledge skill DCs, or picking enemies who are more or less likely to use poisons or traps are all almost invisible, but each has a considerable effect on the players' sense of their characters' utility.


I feel I have a deeper insight into where you're coming from now. It had never even occurred to me that some DMs wouldn't tailor the challenges to the characters. I'm very curious how much this difference in style underlies some of the other recurring debates that crop up.

[Eslin]

Whereas in 3.PF you needed Schrodinger's Wizard to prove that "martials" (whatever that means) can't compete, in 5e you need Schrodinger's Party.

Somehow, I don't feel compelled to start tearing up the character sheet for my elf fighter quite yet. (Does she even count as a martial? She can cast Prestidigitation, after all, so shouldn't she be considered a caster?)
No, you just need a regular caster with the usual assortment of generally useful spells available. The party analogy is a direct party to party sort of thing - namely that a party full of casters will always be more useful than a party that isn't, unless you have something artificially reducing their abilities.


Fascinating. We have a fundamentally different approach to DMing, and it goes a long way towards explaining our differences in opinion on balance matters. If the DM isn't working to ensure that everyone gets a chance in the spotlight, then of course class balance becomes a much greater concern. Whereas from my perspective, I only need the classes to be close enough that the players don't notice my deliberate effort to let everyone shine. Very, very interesting, and possibly worth discussing in its own thread.

Only if you're observed doing so in a heavy-handed fashion (such as the Aquaman example). Little things are almost impossible for the players to spot, but go a long way towards compensating for individual character's strengths and weaknesses. For example: selecting number of encounters per day, choosing the prevalence of enemy flight capability, slightly changing the ratio of enemy AC to HP, fiddling with knowledge skill DCs, or picking enemies who are more or less likely to use poisons or traps are all almost invisible, but each has a considerable effect on the players' sense of their characters' utility.

I feel I have a deeper insight into where you're coming from now. It had never even occurred to me that some DMs wouldn't tailor the challenges to the characters. I'm very curious how much this difference in style underlies some of the other recurring debates that crop up.
Happy to create a thread discussing it, DMing styles are always an interesting discussion and they have the upside of no-one ever really being wrong, but your examples are all things I definitely wouldn't do. I'm running a game where they're level four, and they're approaching a spot with a manticore at present. The party has no flight and very limited ranged capability (only a warlock who didn't take agonising blast, he wanted other things instead and is waiting 'til 5), but I'm not going to change how I set things up just because they oriented their party a certain way - they'll need to figure out a way to deal with it when the comparative capabilities means it has the upper hand, and whichever player figures out how will be the one in the spotlight.

Similarly, the players have almost no AoE capabilities except for the druid using spike growth, but I attacked them with an army anyway last session. Their setup (druid, monk, warlock, paladin) means they can tear through brutes but have trouble with large groups, and the amount of brutes and large groups is going to remain consistent (being hunted through a jungle by an army of humans) regardless, and they'd be well advised to either get more AoE abilities or try to pick off single foes.


They can't kill Tiamat.

Or at least, I don't know of a way to do it using casters[1]. The closest I can think of is to cast Demiplane, then climb in your Demiplane and cast Gate to summon her into your demiplane. Unfortunately I don't think she fits through the gate.

Make sure you cast Clone before you even attempt this, because you're going to die.

[1] Also, "casters vs. non-casters" is a misleading dichotomy. As has been pointed out, there are many different kinds of casters, and referring to them all as a monolithic block just encourages people to believe in Schrodinger's Wizard who always has whatever spell from whatever class will help him overcome the challenge. Teleport? Yeah, a caster can do that. Resurrection? Yeah, a caster can do that. Water-breathing? Yeah, a caster can do that. But not the same caster, unless it's a bard (who has his own issues with limited spell selection).

You might as well claim that "PCs are broken because they can do anything" and have a Schrodinger's PC with all the abilities of every class whenever it's convenient.
The definition is easy - just divide it into full, part and minor to non casters.

[SharkForce]

"casters don't completely invalidate non-casters in every way until they've gained a few levels" is not a compelling argument, and neither is this crazy assumption that casters can't use all the same utility effects the non-casters can, plus add casting into the mix.

a party full of casters generally speaking will have more ability to do more things better and faster than a party of mixed casters and non-casters. yes, different casters will have different solutions to the same problem (and in some cases, a given caster may not have the easy solution to a problem yet; fortunately, as i mentioned, they also get basically as much or more access to skill and tool proficiencies as non-casters, so they're just as likely to have the non-spell solution to a problem as the mixed party, while also having several useful spell options to solve a problem).

a sorcerer may not have the actual strength attribute of the barbarian (although a valor bard or a bladelock very well could, and in the case of the valor bard most likely has a better ability to leverage that strength stat for utility since bards get expertise and barbarians don't), but will most likely be able to do as well or better in all areas of utility a barbarian could offer, after a few levels have been gained.

and that's the problem. start with a "balanced" party, and replace all the classes with limited or no casting with equivalent primary spellcaster replacements, and the former party is likely to struggle in comparison to the latter. oh, they can get by alright... but the caster party will probably do better.

i'm not suggesting that any given caster can render an entire party obsolete. i'm simply suggesting that for almost any role you care to propose filling with a non-caster, there is a caster option that likely does it better (though in some cases, the caster may wish to splash in a level or two of a non-casting class to pick up the vast majority of the resourceless effectiveness you're so proud of).

[Giant2005]

People that claim Casters obsolete everyone else are doing it on the basis of ignorance - the game simply doesn't work that way in practice.
In my last session my party (A Wizard, am Eldritch Knight, an Assassin and a Ranger) got ourselves into a fight against a Horned Devil that could have easily destroyed us (We were all level 5s). We had no magic items to bypass his resistances with and as the Wizard, I was more useless than most due to my only damage abilities being of the poison and fire varieties. Instead I used Alter Self to give myself claws and managed to do a massive 12 damage before the Devil was slain. If it wasn't for my party, I couldn't even dream of surviving that battle. For every situation where you claim Martials are useless, there is at least one such as the one I just described where spellcasters are useless too.

[Eslin]

People that claim Casters obsolete everyone else are doing it on the basis of ignorance - the game simply doesn't work that way in practice.
In my last session my party (A Wizard, am Eldritch Knight, an Assassin and a Ranger) got ourselves into a fight against a Horned Devil that could have easily destroyed us (We were all level 5s). We had no magic items to bypass his resistances with and as the Wizard, I was more useless than most due to my only damage abilities being of the poison and fire varieties. Instead I used Alter Self to give myself claws and managed to do a massive 12 damage before the Devil was slain. If it wasn't for my party, I couldn't even dream of surviving that battle. For every situation where you claim Martials are useless, there is at least one such as the one I just described where spellcasters are useless too.

I'm curious, how did you win? The average hp for a character of that level is around 40-50, and a horned devil can do that in a single round. They have 180 or so hit points, 60 feet flight and resistance to non-magic/silver weapons - how did a party of that composition manage to kill it?

[JoeJ]

So the claim now is not that a martial character can't contribute to an adventuring party, but that they are subpar compared to some hypothetical group of casters that isn't in the party but in principle might have been? And that for some reason this matters?

edit: I find it very amusing that this argument is taking place here, while on another board I frequent somebody is ranting about how martial characters are so OP in 5e that there's no reason anybody would want to play a caster ever.

[Eslin]

So the claim now is not that a martial character can't contribute to an adventuring party, but that they are subpar compared to some hypothetical group of casters that isn't in the party but in principle might have been? And that for some reason this matters?

Please stop deliberately misinterpreting what has been said. One of 5e's advantages is martials can contribute nowadays, the claim is that bringing a martial will be overall subpar in comparison to bringing a caster to fill the same role. There are a few unique abilities like quivering palm and stunning blow that do things a caster cannot easily replicate, but overall a caster in the same role can bring pretty much everything a martial could and a lot more besides.

[Giant2005]

I'm curious, how did you win? The average hp for a character of that level is around 40-50, and a horned devil can do that in a single round. They have 180 or so hit points, 60 feet flight and resistance to non-magic/silver weapons - how did a party of that composition manage to kill it?

The fight was initially between the Devil and a Couatl. We came along and helped the Couatl out and the Devil stayed pretty focused on his desire to murder the Couatl - he never actually attacked any of our party members.

[archaeo]

There are a few unique abilities like quivering palm and stunning blow that do things a caster cannot easily replicate, but overall a caster in the same role can bring pretty much everything a martial could and a lot more besides.

This is an absurd conclusion. Swapping out any given martial with any given caster isn't a sure bet; a caster, in order to fill the niche a martial would fill, would need to be able to find a spell solution for any check that martial would've been making. I'm willing to bet that, at some point in that campaign, a full caster will run out of spells trying to do everything and end up being hamstrung for the rest of the day.

It also just doesn't really matter. Sure, I can build a wizard that accomplishes all the same goals as the ranger. So what? Maybe that means I'm playing what I want to play but still filling the role the party wanted filled. It's certainly not hamstringing the party to play ranger instead -- I'd contribute to battles meaningfully, my abilities would be useful any time we left town, and I'm likely to be a good scout and wise guy. Etc.

[Eslin]

The fight was initially between the Devil and a Couatl. We came along and helped the Couatl out and the Devil stayed pretty focused on his desire to murder the Couatl - he never actually attacked any of our party members.
Oh. Well, that makes it easy - couatls are immune to nonmagical weapon attacks, so the horned devil is stuck tossing flame - slap protection from energy on the couatl and have it stick on the devil, get it to turn into a big grappling animal to make it easier. Now you have the devil locked down and unable to deal any real damage to the couatl's 100 hit point pool, you can kill it at leisure. If I had casters with me, I'd instead enlarge the couatl to improve its grappling, or if I could cause disadvantage just shrink the horn devil (it has +5 on constitution saves, which isn't amazing) and have them protect/heal the couatl.

Bam, solved.


This is an absurd conclusion. Swapping out any given martial with any given caster isn't a sure bet; a caster, in order to fill the niche a martial would fill, would need to be able to find a spell solution for any check that martial would've been making. I'm willing to bet that, at some point in that campaign, a full caster will run out of spells trying to do everything and end up being hamstrung for the rest of the day.

It also just doesn't really matter. Sure, I can build a wizard that accomplishes all the same goals as the ranger. So what? Maybe that means I'm playing what I want to play but still filling the role the party wanted filled. It's certainly not hamstringing the party to play ranger instead -- I'd contribute to battles meaningfully, my abilities would be useful any time we left town, and I'm likely to be a good scout and wise guy. Etc.
The caster doesn't need to do everything, just fill a role better than a martial can.

And yes, while you could build a caster to do a better job at the ranger's role than the ranger (though considering how shafted the ranger got this edition, really not much of a boast), you could still play a ranger instead and contribute, even if you're on the whole less useful than the wizard would be.

That's not really the point - we're all thankful that unlike 3.5, martials can still contribute. The point was just that casters can contribute more - there are a dozen casting niches martials can't imitate, while the only real niches martials have are taking and dealing damage which any given caster can also fill with varying amounts of effort (a druid doesn't even have to try in order to be an amazing tank, while a bard needs to specifically take spells to do any real damage for instance).

Now, whether that matters is up to the individual player and group. In some groups, by the sound of things, it would matter little. You'd still participate, the wizard would go off and do something else rather than needing to fill your niche, everyone would have fun. In others, it'd be something of a problem - if you played say a trickster rogue instead of a cunning bard, you'd be less overall useful than you otherwise would have been and that could mean the difference between success and your party dying.

[Todasmile]

The fight was initially between the Devil and a Couatl. We came along and helped the Couatl out and the Devil stayed pretty focused on his desire to murder the Couatl - he never actually attacked any of our party members.

That encounter was rated at 7200 XP, or 1800 XP per character. A Deadly encounter of that level is 1100 XP per character, and that is supposed to be "a serious risk of character injury and probable death."

The difference in XP level between a medium "should have to expend some resources and might be a tough fight but probably come out on top" fight and the above Deadly fight is LESS than the difference between the Deadly fight and the fight you had. Forget "probable death", that encounter should by all rights have been a TPK. It's only because of your Coatl ally that the fight was even winnable.

The issue wasn't that you were a spellcaster, the issue was that the monster was, quite simply, way out of your depth.

[SharkForce]

So the claim now is not that a martial character can't contribute to an adventuring party, but that they are subpar compared to some hypothetical group of casters that isn't in the party but in principle might have been? And that for some reason this matters?

edit: I find it very amusing that this argument is taking place here, while on another board I frequent somebody is ranting about how martial characters are so OP in 5e that there's no reason anybody would want to play a caster ever.

when a person playing what they want has a negative impact on their ability to contribute to the same level as other people...

yes, it matters.

(and on a side note, i've already pointed out at least 2 caster builds that incorporate weapon damage without difficulty, so it's not like that isn't an option for a caster party to cover. not that it would have been strictly necessary in this case; that horned devil has resistance to cold, immunity to fire and poison. that's annoying, certainly, but not impossible to get around by any means. a sorcerer with no warlock multiclass might struggle, a warlock will have a field day whether blade pact or not, a valour bard will do fine, a wizard would most likely struggle a bit (but can also most likely pitch in magic missiles at the very least, though acid splash would be more desirable). cleric, depending on type, can very easily be a melee build (or inflicts radiant damage, which gets through just fine), and a druid has shillelagh to fall back on as needed if nothing else. plus of course the druid can conjure a pack of wolves or something like that by this point (possibly twice per day, though i haven't seen too many people excited about playing land druids), which will generally speaking outperform most fighters in terms of tanking capability and total damage inflicted.

so, damage-wise a full caster party could do just fine (depending on class and/or spell selection) in that horned devil fight (or at least, not particularly worse than a party with a couple of melee characters), which leaves only the question of how they could perform defensively. their AC can generally be pretty comparable if they want (clerics can easily have heavy armour if you have one, and medium armour isn't out of reach by any means; a single level splash can provide armour to even a full wizard if desired, and various debuffs for enemies or buffs for the party can help substantially in resisting attacks.

in fact, i suspect that considering your level 5 party survived a fight with a CR 11 creature, you owe more for your survival to the devil's poor strategy and the couatl taking the beating administered by the devil than anything else, including your other party members.

by the time the party is expected to reasonably fight and not be killed by a CR 11 creature, the caster party will have considerably more resources available to throw into the fight.

so really, i don't think it's fair at all to suggest that for every fight where casters contribute normally will be a fight where the melees will perform better against a creature you shouldn't be fighting for several more levels.

still, i'll agree that martial classes are better at sustained reliable damage than casters, with the caveat that some casters are perfectly capable of causing respectable amounts of weapon damage.

[Eslin]

That encounter was rated at 7200 XP, or 1800 XP per character. A Deadly encounter of that level is 1100 XP per character, and that is supposed to be "a serious risk of character injury and probable death."

The difference in XP level between a medium "should have to expend some resources and might be a tough fight but probably come out on top" fight and the above Deadly fight is LESS than the difference between the Deadly fight and the fight you had. Forget "probable death", that encounter should by all rights have been a TPK. It's only because of your Coatl ally that the fight was even winnable.

The issue wasn't that you were a spellcaster, the issue was that the monster was, quite simply, way out of your depth.

But being a spellcaster isn't a problem there. With four spellcasters and a couatl that fight could have been won without worry, just keep everyone except for the druid and the couatl out of reach of the horned devil and stack spells on the couatl/devil to buff and debuff them respectively and the devil will spend the entire fight locked down and doing negligible damage, plink it to death at your leisure.

[JoeJ]

That's not really the point - we're all thankful that unlike 3.5, martials can still contribute. The point was just that casters can contribute more - there are a dozen casting niches martials can't imitate, while the only real niches martials have are taking and dealing damage which any given caster can also fill with varying amounts of effort (a druid doesn't even have to try in order to be an amazing tank, while a bard needs to specifically take spells to do any real damage for instance).

Except that there really aren't a bunch of niches martials can't fill. "Martial" characters can heal, control the battlefield, blast AoE attacks, buff, debuff, fly, teleport, communicate with any creature that has a language - the whole range of "caster" abilities. After all, if valor bards and life or war clerics with proficiency are counted as "casters", then paladins, rangers, monks, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters count as "martials".

Or is your argument that there are five specific sub-classes which, when combined with any race other than high elf, drow elf, forest gnome, or tiefling, and when the character has not multiclassed out of those five or picked either of the feats that grant spellcasting, produce a sub-optimal character? Because even if that were true, it describes a very small subset of D&D characters.


Now, whether that matters is up to the individual player and group. In some groups, by the sound of things, it would matter little. You'd still participate, the wizard would go off and do something else rather than needing to fill your niche, everyone would have fun. In others, it'd be something of a problem - if you played say a trickster rogue instead of a cunning bard, you'd be less overall useful than you otherwise would have been and that could mean the difference between success and your party dying.

The rogue and the bard will be experts at different things, so usefulness to the party is situational.

And anytime a player's choice of character makes the difference between party success and dying, then the DM has definitely violated Wheaton's Law. If you don't want a character in the game, just say no. It's not cool to let the character into the game and then punish the player.

[Eslin]

Except that there really aren't a bunch of niches martials can't fill. "Martial" characters can heal, control the battlefield, blast AoE attacks, buff, debuff, fly, teleport, communicate with any creature that has a language - the whole range of "caster" abilities. After all, if valor bards and life or war clerics with proficiency are counted as "casters", then paladins, rangers, monks, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters count as "martials".

Or is your argument that there are five specific sub-classes which, when combined with any race other than high elf, drow elf, forest gnome, or tiefling, and when the character has not multiclassed out of those five or picked either of the feats that grant spellcasting, produce a sub-optimal character? Because even if that were true, it describes a very small subset of D&D characters.
You're seriously claiming that martial characters can heal, control the battlefield, blast AoE attacks, buff, debuff, fly, and teleport with anything like the variety and power which casters can do it? This is really happening?

We've been over the distinctions before - casters, partial caster and non caster sum it up pretty well. Bards and clerics still get the vast majority of their power from their spells and are thus full casters, while partial casters rely on both martial and caster abilities to varying degrees. As we've seen, casters are pretty much just more useful overall, so once casting is in full swing then a partial caster will usually be better at their job than a non caster, though not as good as a full caster would be,


The rogue and the bard will be experts at different things, so usefulness to the party is situational.

And anytime a player's choice of character makes the difference between party success and dying, then the DM has definitely violated Wheaton's Law. If you don't want a character in the game, just say no. It's not cool to let the character into the game and then punish the player.
They won't be experts at different things though. The entire point of the whole casters being more useful than martials thing is that pretty much any niche you could pick a rogue to fill, the bard can fill better. Hell, conjure woodland beings and animate dead alone can usually replace entire classes.

And I don't let characters into the game and punish the player. I'm the DM, I invent a world, I have things happen in it. I try to balance it to be deadly, but not arbitrarily so - sometimes parties will succeed overall, sometimes they'll fail overall, usually they'll take casualties along the way. If the player brings a ranger where he could have brought a wizard, the amount of deaths and failures will on average go up, since he's less useful than he could have been.

The players choose the game they're playing. If decide to go buy a ship and become pirates, then that's what happens, and it may be more or less difficult than what I thought they'd be doing. If they need to get a ring into a volcano, they'd better hope they have a caster with them - they could trudge the entire way on foot, but the chances of that working are very low. It'll be a fantastic campaign if they make it, but choosing to do so is acknowledging the high risk of failure. And that's what a ranger is - it's bringing Aragorn when you could have brought Gandalf, it's Hagrid when you could have been Hermione or Perrin when you could have had Rand instead. It'll make things harder for you, but if that's what you're into then enjoy yourself, just don't complain when the dragon flies away with the princess and you really wish you'd brought a wizard to track them down and teleport you there.

[SharkForce]

they can do various things. they certainly can't do *everything* in a caster's repertoire. and the things they can do, frequently they can't do as well as a caster could do.

basically, if you play a caster, you're pretty much going to be doing the same job you could've done as a non-caster (provided you make appropriate choices; i'm certainly not suggesting that a wizard is an equally good tank as a barbarian with bear totem, for example, but i am saying that there are casters who with their class features, including spells, can do an equally good job... just not the wizard), only you'll probably do it better and be able to do a bunch of other things as well.

and yes, you can count paladins, rangers, monks, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters as martials. some of those, as i've noted, are better off than a typical martial, but none of them compare to what you can do with a caster.

and, as i said, that matters, because you ideally want everyone to be able to contribute equally so that nobody feels completely overshadowed. and odds are good that unless you come up with a really really weird build, a caster (possibly with 1-3 levels splashed in that aren't caster levels) can do pretty much everything just as well or better, while being able to do other things in addition.

[Demonicattorney]

I never said they have the same defenses, I said they have different defenses. Which is true, and in the case of the wizard you just mentioned the defenses vary by type. Now, personally my favourite wizard strategy is starting with a level of fighter for a potential 21 AC and constitution save proficiency then grabbing a second level for action surge along the way, but not everyone does that one. In any case, a wizard's defenses are things like shield, misty step and mirror image instead, low level spells that let you avoid taking the hit in the first place, with additional defenses are determined by type of wizard - an abjurer's arcane ward, a conjurer's meatshieldy summons, a diviner's portent etc. This isn't theorycrafting at level 20 - to be sure, spells like contingency make it easier at higher levels, but everything I mentioned there is available early.
.

So, in order to improve your defenses you opted to start the game as a martial, and continuing in the class for more than one level, for the abilities and hitpoints. . . using an optional multi-classing rule, and in such a variation that most DMs would give you the death stare as it looks like your just trying to cherry-pick abilities. What you are doing is theory-crafting, why don't we compare an actual wizard vs an actual martial class, and not some multi-classed hybrid. Because they are terrible in comparison, which you would know if you played from level 1-10. Wizards have some defensive spells that are good, but every defensive spell they cast is one they cannot use offensively, nor are they a perfect defense, one Crit and your still taking a dirtnap. Martial defenses are always good, HP are always good, AC is always good. Casters get to do cool things, but rarely all at once, and rarely more than once. Playing a wizard/sorc or bard is an awesome experience, but don't be fooled, you will die faster than the Paladin, the Fighter, the Monk or the Barbarian, in virtually every encounter. People get confused because those classes often take hits for them. At level 14 my Wizard was OHK by a Goristro, at level 6 or 7 it was a Wyvern, an NPC Rogue got me at level 9. On a couple of these encounters I didnt even get to act, where a Fighter or Paladin or a Barb would have.

[LuthielValkire]

I find the whole casters make martials useless argument to be tedious. When you look at all the casters' powers on paper, they look great. But in practice, the solid chassis of the martial classes provides benefits that are not always obvious.

Some years back, I played the Wrath of Ashardalon series in 3.0. I played a fighter as a member of a party composed of an elf rogue, a dwarf cleric and an elf wizard. The wizard set himself up great as a self and party buffer. He could even fight a bit if need be. He didn't neglect his versatility either -- pure batman wizard.

But day in, day out, my fighter was there doing the heavy damage, taking the heat with high hit points and armor class. Usually, the casters had to support me while I saved their bacon. And yeah, they saved mine too with all sorts of great tricks from polymorphing into dragons to putting force cages around nasties, to diving encounters with walls and blade barriers.

But the wizard had to be resurrected twice due to the fact that he couldn't keep up with durability and when treasure came along, I got the badass magic swords and armor. Including an amazing Greatsword that I critted once with for something like 200+ hp of damage. I didn't feel useless at all. And this was the version that included so called CODZILLA and a wizard that was supposedly able to solo whole modules by himself. I felt essential and I can remember about a dozen other times when the wizard would have been waxed if I wasn't around.

Now back then, on paper, it was possible to stat out a cleric that could have out fought a fighter, toe to toe, in one encounter. A wizard too. But with actual adventures, in actual play, I didn't see it happen.

Now, I can't even figure out how, even in a white room, a caster can out melee dpr a great weapon fighter. Nor can I figure out how a caster can out archer the best archer martials. A bard might get close, but the best of the best is still a martial. A Druid might have access to nearly as much defenses as the Barbarian. But can a pure Druid fight like a barabarian?

Yes. Casters have spells and that does mean a load of options. And those options are needed to help support fighters, barbarians, and rogues and monks. And to do that they do things the martials can't. But if you're telling me the wizard can replace the serious tempest of harm that is the great weapon fighter, the monstrosity even dragons fly out of range to avoid, then you've got to be kidding me.

I'll be playing a 5e campaign in one group where a 4e game is running out. Of five players, we have one great weapon fighter and two rogues (one melee, one ranged so far). These guys called dibs and the players play these types because that's what they love to play. For my part, I'd like to play a fighter as well. But given party composition, looks like I'll end up as cleric or wizard -- the other guy is looking at a Druid. Will I feel short changed? No. 5e has a lot to offer. But I am under no illusions that I'll be replacing the fighter or the rogue. More likely, I'll be gap filling and using my versatility to help maximize the party's strengths. And if there's one thing casters are good at, it's just that -- glossing over the rough edges and helping make sure everyone comes out smelling like a rose.

[Gwendol]

So Eslin, your claim for wizard defence rests on the fact that you start the game as a fighter? Losing two caster levels?

Also, the spell defences are good, but require an action and a spell slot to cast, which you might not have.

[MaxWilson]

And anytime a player's choice of character makes the difference between party success and dying, then the DM has definitely violated Wheaton's Law. If you don't want a character in the game, just say no. It's not cool to let the character into the game and then punish the player.

I disagree with this. Players are allowed to make whatever characters they want. If my player really wants to make a wizard with Str 14, Int 3 and Con 8 who focuses on fighting things with his quarterstaff, I'll let him do so. I won't coddle him though, and if he survives I will be shocked. That's not punishing the player, that's just running the game. Running the game is my job, playing the game is his job, and nothing says he can't deliberately handicap himself.


At level 14 my Wizard was OHK by a Goristro, at level 6 or 7 it was a Wyvern, an NPC Rogue got me at level 9. On a couple of these encounters I didnt even get to act, where a Fighter or Paladin or a Barb would have.

Even with zero Con bonus, a 14th level wizard can expect to have 58 HP, so a one-hit kill requires 116 HP of damage in single blow. How did the Goristro manage that? Did you have a negative Con bonus or something, or roll HP and do really poorly?

[Giant2005]

Oh. Well, that makes it easy - couatls are immune to nonmagical weapon attacks, so the horned devil is stuck tossing flame - slap protection from energy on the couatl and have it stick on the devil, get it to turn into a big grappling animal to make it easier. Now you have the devil locked down and unable to deal any real damage to the couatl's 100 hit point pool, you can kill it at leisure. If I had casters with me, I'd instead enlarge the couatl to improve its grappling, or if I could cause disadvantage just shrink the horn devil (it has +5 on constitution saves, which isn't amazing) and have them protect/heal the couatl.

Bam, solved.
Yeah I didn't have any of those spells. I did have a viable strategy that I was going to implement towards the end but by the time I figured it out, the Rogue landed the final blow and I didn't get to implement it.
That is interesting about the Couatle being immune to non-magical damage. That is something I was unaware of (I'm not even sure the DM was aware of it) the Horned Devil wasn't even using his fire attack, he was using his multi-attack and doing what looked like some serious damage to that Couatl. I was a little worried that the Couatl was going to die before we downed the Devil but it turns out that fear was completely unfounded. It does make more sense to me now that the Devil actually asked for our help prior to us joining the fray - the entire time the fight was going on and it looked like the Couatl was completely outmatched had me wondering why the Devil bothered seeking aid.


That encounter was rated at 7200 XP, or 1800 XP per character. A Deadly encounter of that level is 1100 XP per character, and that is supposed to be "a serious risk of character injury and probable death."

The difference in XP level between a medium "should have to expend some resources and might be a tough fight but probably come out on top" fight and the above Deadly fight is LESS than the difference between the Deadly fight and the fight you had. Forget "probable death", that encounter should by all rights have been a TPK. It's only because of your Coatl ally that the fight was even winnable.

The issue wasn't that you were a spellcaster, the issue was that the monster was, quite simply, way out of your depth.

Yeah we certainly chose the wrong side in that fight (It would have been much easier on us if we sided with the Devil) but that doesn't change the fact that we got ourselves in a Fight where I as the Wizard was almost entirely useless and had to rely on my martial friends to bring on those victory conditions.

[Eslin]

So, in order to improve your defenses you opted to start the game as a martial, and continuing in the class for more than one level, for the abilities and hitpoints. . . using an optional multi-classing rule,
It's only technically optional. They wanted a game a complete newcomer could pick up, so they included things like the champion subclass and made stuff like feats and multiclassing technically optional to reduce complexity. In pretty much any group, you'll be able to use them - after all, what good reason is there not to include them after players are able to use them?


and in such a variation that most DMs would give you the death stare as it looks like your just trying to cherry-pick abilities.
I am trying to cherry-pick abilities. For a caster that wants better defenses, getting trained as a fighter is a very logical thing to do, especially on a wizard who will never need the last two levels of the class (the capstone is worthless)


What you are doing is theory-crafting, why don't we compare an actual wizard vs an actual martial class, and not some multi-classed hybrid. Because they are terrible in comparison, which you would know if you played from level 1-10. Wizards have some defensive spells that are good, but every defensive spell they cast is one they cannot use offensively, nor are they a perfect defense, one Crit and your still taking a dirtnap. Martial defenses are always good, HP are always good, AC is always good. Casters get to do cool things, but rarely all at once, and rarely more than once. Playing a wizard/sorc or bard is an awesome experience, but don't be fooled, you will die faster than the Paladin, the Fighter, the Monk or the Barbarian, in virtually every encounter. People get confused because those classes often take hits for them. At level 14 my Wizard was OHK by a Goristro, at level 6 or 7 it was a Wyvern, an NPC Rogue got me at level 9. On a couple of these encounters I didnt even get to act, where a Fighter or Paladin or a Barb would have.
So start preparing better defenses, and stop pretending I haven't run games of 5E. Seriously, stop it. You will not die faster than any of those classes - they have to get into melee to do anything, you don't, and you have a large variety of tools to avoid taking too much damage, including offensive ones that shut enemies down before they can reach you. The wizard I'm DMing (fighter 2/abjurer 14 at present) tends to make sure she's mirror imaged and surrounded by skeletons unless she has a good reason not to be, and she's consistently the hardest person to hit.


So Eslin, your claim for wizard defence rests on the fact that you start the game as a fighter? Losing two caster levels?

What? No. Quote me earlier: 'In any case, a wizard's defenses are things like shield, misty step and mirror image instead'. Taking the first level in fighter gives 21AC once plate is obtained and proficiency on constitution saves, so is often worth delaying your wizard levels by one, but it is by no means the required way to build a wizard. Just what I like to do, I love getting an extra action once I take the second level and I like the way high AC stacks with wizard defenses.

Please read my posts before you respond.


I find the whole casters make martials useless argument to be tedious. When you look at all the casters' powers on paper, they look great. But in practice, the solid chassis of the martial classes provides benefits that are not always obvious.

Some years back, I played the Wrath of Ashardalon series in 3.0. I played a fighter as a member of a party composed of an elf rogue, a dwarf cleric and an elf wizard. The wizard set himself up great as a self and party buffer. He could even fight a bit if need be. He didn't neglect his versatility either -- pure batman wizard.

But day in, day out, my fighter was there doing the heavy damage, taking the heat with high hit points and armor class. Usually, the casters had to support me while I saved their bacon. And yeah, they saved mine too with all sorts of great tricks from polymorphing into dragons to putting force cages around nasties, to diving encounters with walls and blade barriers.

But the wizard had to be resurrected twice due to the fact that he couldn't keep up with durability and when treasure came along, I got the badass magic swords and armor. Including an amazing Greatsword that I critted once with for something like 200+ hp of damage. I didn't feel useless at all. And this was the version that included so called CODZILLA and a wizard that was supposedly able to solo whole modules by himself. I felt essential and I can remember about a dozen other times when the wizard would have been waxed if I wasn't around.
Then your wizard was playing badly. Anecdotal evidence was fun, but casters had a massive leg up on martials in pretty much every situation past the first few levels in 3.X.


Now back then, on paper, it was possible to stat out a cleric that could have out fought a fighter, toe to toe, in one encounter. A wizard too. But with actual adventures, in actual play, I didn't see it happen.
Then you weren't playing with a very competent cleric. Especially with DMM, a cleric can easily buff himself to be a far superior melee combatant than a fighter.


Now, I can't even figure out how, even in a white room, a caster can out melee dpr a great weapon fighter. Nor can I figure out how a caster can out archer the best archer martials. A bard might get close, but the best of the best is still a martial. A Druid might have access to nearly as much defenses as the Barbarian. But can a pure Druid fight like a barabarian?
Are we back to 5e now? From the top of my head: the caster out DPRs a great weapon fighter by just turning into a pit fiend. Though it should be noted DPR isn't the point - taking damage and receiving damage is the only thing martials are good at, the fact that with varying degrees of effort a caster can compete in the same niche is just sad. And archery wise, we've already determined in the bard vs ranger front that a bard can outshoot the hell out of the ranger, though honestly if you want ranged damage per round just be a warlock or animate a bunch of skeletons. And yes, a pure druid can fight like a barbarian - summon some bears and dire wolves, turn into an earth elemental, take and receive damage. Although again, we need to measure this in terms of effects - what is taking and dealing a bunch of damage achieving for the barbarian? Because whatever it is, I guarantee you a druid can achieve that same goal better and still be able to contribute out of combat in ways the barbarian can never hope to achieve.


Yes. Casters have spells and that does mean a load of options. And those options are needed to help support fighters, barbarians, and rogues and monks. And to do that they do things the martials can't. But if you're telling me the wizard can replace the serious tempest of harm that is the great weapon fighter, the monstrosity even dragons fly out of range to avoid, then you've got to be kidding me.
Yes, a wizard can absolutely replace the fighter. The dragon doesn't fly out of range to avoid the fighter, the dragon flies out of range because it's an intelligent flying spellcaster with a powerful breath weapon that needs a pretty good reason to waste those attributes by getting into melee range. So, instead of 'help supporting fighters, barbarians, and rogues and monks' consider next time just having a bunch of casters instead and watch them find much better solutions to pretty much every problem.


I'll be playing a 5e campaign in one group where a 4e game is running out. Of five players, we have one great weapon fighter and two rogues (one melee, one ranged so far). These guys called dibs and the players play these types because that's what they love to play. For my part, I'd like to play a fighter as well. But given party composition, looks like I'll end up as cleric or wizard -- the other guy is looking at a Druid. Will I feel short changed? No. 5e has a lot to offer. But I am under no illusions that I'll be replacing the fighter or the rogue. More likely, I'll be gap filling and using my versatility to help maximize the party's strengths. And if there's one thing casters are good at, it's just that -- glossing over the rough edges and helping make sure everyone comes out smelling like a rose.
Again, you don't need to replace anyone exactly. Roles and niches often exist within the framework of the party itself - in a party made entirely of moon druids, for instance, no-one needs to be a healer because no-one really needs any healing. Try replacing those three martials with moon druid, a cunning bard and a death cleric, play carefully and intelligently and notice how much more you're capable of now.


Yeah I didn't have any of those spells. I did have a viable strategy that I was going to implement towards the end but by the time I figured it out, the Rogue landed the final blow and I didn't get to implement it.
That is interesting about the Couatle being immune to non-magical damage. That is something I was unaware of (I'm not even sure the DM was aware of it) the Horned Devil wasn't even using his fire attack, he was using his multi-attack and doing what looked like some serious damage to that Couatl. I was a little worried that the Couatl was going to die before we downed the Devil but it turns out that fear was completely unfounded. It does make more sense to me now that the Devil actually asked for our help prior to us joining the fray - the entire time the fight was going on and it looked like the Couatl was completely outmatched had me wondering why the Devil bothered seeking aid.
Yep. If you'd just stayed out of the devil's range, you'd have been fine, couatls are immune to its attacks - one of the reasons a group of casters would be better, you could just buff the hell out of the couatl and have it wreck the devil. If the devil somehow had immunity ignoring attacks it would be what, CR 12 or 13 or so and thus even further out of your league, but the couatl being a high hp high AC target would have been an ideal creature to lock down the devil, especially if someone enlarged it or shrunk the devil to let it use its restraining grapple on the devil and other casters could easily keep it alive anyway.


Yeah we certainly chose the wrong side in that fight (It would have been much easier on us if we sided with the Devil) but that doesn't change the fact that we got ourselves in a Fight where I as the Wizard was almost entirely useless and had to rely on my martial friends to bring on those victory conditions.
You were useless because you made yourself useless. Unless they'd gotten killed earlier, you should have had an honour guard of 4-8 skeletons, which would have protected you and damaged the devil, and from that margin of safety you can use spells like ray of enfeeblement or just made yourself hard to hit. If you'd had a group of casters, you could have had them debuff the devil/buff the couatl to prevent it from getting anywhere. Even a single druid could have summoned say a couple of dire wolves and then bear formed to help the couatl keep it down, which would have enabled you to, for example, concentrate on witch bolt (not my favourite spell overall, but great for getting a single target down) until the combined damage killed it.

[Giant2005]

Eslin, as best I can tell none of your arguments have any merit and seem to come from a position of theory rather than reality.
The things you describe are technically possible but not for any serious length of time. A caster that is trying to emulate another class does so with significant investment and a whole lot of spell slots to achieve a mundane effect that the Martial can do infinitely. Playing a caster isn't about blowing all of your spells immediately, it is about conservation and trying to keep yourself sustainable for as long as possible - a Druid would have to be mad to think that he could replace the Barbarian. Sure he could Wildshape and take a few hits for a fight, effectively replacing him. Unless it was a particularly difficult fight or the fates went against him, he could even do it for a second fight. When the third fight arrives however, he is little more than a scared kitten (figurative - no longer literal) that can no longer replace that Barbarian and hopes to hell that he has someone else that can take that role. The Wizard that is trying to replace the Fighter would blow all of his spells in a single fight in order to keep up that level of damage and defense, in the next fight he will be in the same boat as the Druid - worse actually because all of that wonderful utility you keep talking about no longer exists. That Wizard's utility is now on the same level as your common commoner.
All of these amazing feats you keep attributing to casters are all possible but none of them are sustainable and none of them can occur simultaneously yet you seem to constantly ignore that fact. In fact the only way to simultaneously and sustainably achieve the things you keep attributing to casters is by being a martial class.

[Eslin]

Eslin, as best I can tell none of your arguments have any merit and seem to come from a position of theory rather than reality.
One more time of this and I'm stopping responding. I DM rather than play, but I've seen a lot of classes at a lot of levels in 5e and know their capabilities.


The things you describe are technically possible but not for any serious length of time. A caster that is trying to emulate another class does so with significant investment and a whole lot of spell slots to achieve a mundane effect that the Martial can do infinitely.
Completely incorrect. Please note that I'm talking in terms of ends, not means - if a martial could spontaneously explode and then reassemble himself to deal 5 damage to all adjacent creatures, the caster wouldn't have be able to detonate himself to be able to fill the same niche, just have an ability that has the same or better affect than 5 damage to all adjacent creatures has.

The significance of the investment is directly related to the effects you achieve. Unless your foes are nonmagical damage immune, simply animating a bunch of skeletons costs a few slots, lasts all day and can equal the damage dealt and received of any martial. A caster doesn't need to emulate another class, just achieve the same things.


Playing a caster isn't about blowing all of your spells immediately, it is about conservation and trying to keep yourself sustainable for as long as possible - a Druid would have to be mad to think that he could replace the Barbarian. Sure he could Wildshape and take a few hits for a fight, effectively replacing him. Unless it was a particularly difficult fight or the fates went against him, he could even do it for a second fight. When the third fight arrives however, he is little more than a scared kitten (figurative - no longer literal) that can no longer replace that Barbarian and hopes to hell that he has someone else that can take that role.
And at the end of the first two fights, the druid would be on full hit points with no resources expended while the barbarian would be nearly dead. After that, if the druid hasn't found time to have a short rest, he could summon a bunch of pixies to polymorph him into a mammoth, polymorph all his enemies into sloths and still have spells like dispel magic and confusion to stop anyone getting hit. With one spell slot.


The Wizard that is trying to replace the Fighter would blow all of his spells in a single fight in order to keep up that level of damage and defense, in the next fight he will be in the same boat as the Druid - worse actually because all of that wonderful utility you keep talking about no longer exists. That Wizard's utility is now on the same level as your common commoner.
All of these amazing feats you keep attributing to casters are all possible but none of them are sustainable and none of them can occur simultaneously yet you seem to constantly ignore that fact. In fact the only way to simultaneously and sustainably achieve the things you keep attributing to casters is by being a martial class.
Only if the wizard tries to replace the fighter by directly throwing out a spell every round and directly taking hits, which he doesn't need to do. Plenty of these feats are sustainable - if a druid was in the devil fight from before he could have summoned eight wolves to take the hits and constantly keep the devil prone (8 attacks readied for whenever he tries to stand up works wonders), and that would have lasted an hour. When used correctly, casters have enough spell slots to both last the day and pull out much bigger guns than a martial can when the time is right. And hell, if you need to get some of those spells back, just bring a wizard - rope trick and tiny hut are a small part of their repertoire that allow them to rest with impunity.

[Gwendol]

A bunch of mindless skeletons do not equal a PC. This is the kind of pointless generalizations that weaken your arguments.

[Eslin]

A bunch of mindless skeletons do not equal a PC. This is the kind of pointless generalizations that weaken your arguments.
No, but a bunch of int 6 skeletons under the command of a wizard approximate the damage output and receiving ability of a martial character and only cost you a few slots at the beginning of the day.

[Naanomi]

How do your casters respond to surprise/rushed situations where preparation time is scarce and rests are not an option. Rounds of buffing are not always available, and perfectly tailored spell lists are not prepared. Not that every encounter is that way, but this is a situation where a bucket full of HP and damage you can grab on the move is important.

For example, a recent adventure in my game had the adventurers camping on the outskirts of a village they were sent to protect from potential raiders. In the night, the village (full of cultists) attacked them, disrupting their long rest. After being driven off, there was obvious magical stuff happening at the village and without time to rest the party had to rush off and stop a ritual that was going on in the basement mini-dungeon of the chapel; fighting cultists, their dogs, and a summoned host of 'pseudonatural' animals at the end (refluffed monsters mostly, the main being a pair of 'pseudonatural bears' using troll stats). The martials (especially the rogue, who didn't suffer as much from not grabbing his armor) really shined here; and I am just curious how a party of tired and surprised spellcasters would have handled it.

[Eslin]

How do your casters respond to surprise/rushed situations where preparation time is scarce and rests are not an option. Rounds of buffing are not always available, and perfectly tailored spell lists are not prepared. Not that every encounter is that way, but this is a situation where a bucket full of HP and damage you can grab on the move is important.
Either use long lasting stuff or use the fact that you're a spellcaster to not get ambushed - divinations and familiars work great in making sure you don't get taken by surprise, for example.


For example, a recent adventure in my game had the adventurers camping on the outskirts of a village they were sent to protect from potential raiders. In the night, the village (full of cultists) attacked them, disrupting their long rest.
Why weren't you resting in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Again, casters have all the tools.


After being driven off, there was obvious magical stuff happening at the village and without time to rest the party had to rush off and stop a ritual that was going on in the basement mini-dungeon of the chapel; fighting cultists, their dogs, and a summoned host of 'pseudonatural' animals at the end (refluffed monsters mostly, the main being a pair of 'pseudonatural bears' using troll stats). The martials (especially the rogue, who didn't suffer as much from not grabbing his armor) really shined here; and I am just curious how a party of tired and surprised spellcasters would have handled it.
By not being tired and surprised in the first case, that's one of the upsides to being a spellcaster.

[pwykersotz]

Either use long lasting stuff or use the fact that you're a spellcaster to not get ambushed - divinations and familiars work great in making sure you don't get taken by surprise, for example.


Why weren't you resting in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Again, casters have all the tools.


By not being tired and surprised in the first case, that's one of the upsides to being a spellcaster.

That's pretty flippant. I for one am trying to see things through your eyes, but these responses don't add any understanding on my part. You've made some pretty big claims, it would be nice to see them in action in specific circumstances.

Leomunds's Tiny Hut is viable for resting all the time at high levels, but at low levels that's a 3rd level slot for every rest. Assuming you have a both a Bard and a Wizard and both decided to grab the spell and 2 short rests a day with one long rest, that's three 3rd level slots. Under level 8, that's a VERY hefty amount of the party's versatility and power that's being used.

[bloodshed343]

That's pretty flippant. I for one am trying to see things through your eyes, but these responses don't add any understanding on my part. You've made some pretty big claims, it would be nice to see them in action in specific circumstances.

Leomunds's Tiny Hut is viable for resting all the time at high levels, but at low levels that's a 3rd level slot for every rest. Assuming you have a both a Bard and a Wizard and both decided to grab the spell and 2 short rests a day with one long rest, that's three 3rd level slots. Under level 8, that's a VERY hefty amount of the party's versatility and power that's being used.

You only need Leomund's Tiny Hut for long rests. Short rests can be handled by everyone being awake. And Leomund's tiny hut is only one of many ways that casters can avoid surprise. Divination can tell you if something dangerous is coming so you can prepare for it.

All in all, the role of the martial is to cover the caster's ass when they forget to use their toys. Martials are balanced by player error on the part of casters, not any feature of the system. Martials are not necessary.

[SharkForce]

That's pretty flippant. I for one am trying to see things through your eyes, but these responses don't add any understanding on my part. You've made some pretty big claims, it would be nice to see them in action in specific circumstances.

Leomunds's Tiny Hut is viable for resting all the time at high levels, but at low levels that's a 3rd level slot for every rest. Assuming you have a both a Bard and a Wizard and both decided to grab the spell and 2 short rests a day with one long rest, that's three 3rd level slots. Under level 8, that's a VERY hefty amount of the party's versatility and power that's being used.

leomund's tiny hut is a ritual. it costs 0 spell slots to use it for as many rests as you care to take, so long as the person who has it also has the ritual caster ability.

edit: and as to the moon druid tank running out of tankiness, hey look: it refreshes every short rest. well, isn't that convenient. i wonder who's gonna run out first, the barbarian who has no method of recovering hit points, or the moon druid who just gets a gigantic pile of hit points that he doesn't care about losing. starting at level 2, that's ~70 HP available per short rest (and really, not bad damage either for that level if they go bear, or knocking prone if they go dire wolf). and it does scale quite nicely with levels, too, so that's just going to keep getting better. and that's all before using even *one* spell.

a caster may or may not do things the same way a fighter or a barbarian or a rogue does. but they can still do the job.

[Eslin]

That's pretty flippant. I for one am trying to see things through your eyes, but these responses don't add any understanding on my part. You've made some pretty big claims, it would be nice to see them in action in specific circumstances.

Leomunds's Tiny Hut is viable for resting all the time at high levels, but at low levels that's a 3rd level slot for every rest. Assuming you have a both a Bard and a Wizard and both decided to grab the spell and 2 short rests a day with one long rest, that's three 3rd level slots. Under level 8, that's a VERY hefty amount of the party's versatility and power that's being used.

It's not flippant, it's the obvious response. It's like asking a fighter who ran into battle naked why he didn't have armour on.

Why on earth would you spend a spell slot to cast it? You're resting for eight hours, is a few minutes of casting it really going to kill you? I've seen tiny hut used many times but I've never seen a regular spell slot used to cast it.

[pwykersotz]

It's not flippant, it's the obvious response. It's like asking a fighter who ran into battle naked why he didn't have armour on.

Why on earth would you spend a spell slot to cast it? You're resting for eight hours, is a few minutes of casting it really going to kill you? I've seen tiny hut used many times but I've never seen a regular spell slot used to cast it.

Missed the ritual tag. :smallredface:

It may be obvious to you, but you have a different playstyle/set of rules interpretations than I have. I like to have details to see if any of these conflicts are in play. You are, of course, under no obligation to do so, but it is nice. :smallsmile:

[Eslin]

Missed the ritual tag. :smallredface:

It may be obvious to you, but you have a different playstyle/set of rules interpretations than I have. I like to have details to see if any of these conflicts are in play. You are, of course, under no obligation to do so, but it is nice. :smallsmile:

Ah, ok. Playstyle, certainly, but how do we interpret rules differently?

And surprise wise, things like always having the hut available to rest, having the familiars constantly scouting and access to divination spells when you suspect something might be awry (or want to find out if something might be) mean that if a caster is caught by surprise and without spells past level 5 or so he kind of deserves to die.

[Xetheral]

After being driven off, there was obvious magical stuff happening at the village and without time to rest the party had to rush off and stop a ritual that was going on in the basement mini-dungeon of the chapel; fighting cultists, their dogs, and a summoned host of 'pseudonatural' animals at the end (refluffed monsters mostly, the main being a pair of 'pseudonatural bears' using troll stats). The martials (especially the rogue, who didn't suffer as much from not grabbing his armor) really shined here; and I am just curious how a party of tired and surprised spellcasters would have handled it.


By not being tired and surprised in the first case, that's one of the upsides to being a spellcaster.

It sounds like even if they'd managed to be perfectly prepared for the ambush, the plot gave them reasons to choose to voluntarily interrupt their long rest. Accordingly... wouldn't the martials have still shined here even if the casters had taken the precautions you'd suggested?



Either use long lasting stuff or use the fact that you're a spellcaster to not get ambushed - divinations and familiars work great in making sure you don't get taken by surprise, for example.


And surprise wise, things like always having the hut available to rest, having the familiars constantly scouting and access to divination spells when you suspect something might be awry (or want to find out if something might be) mean that if a caster is caught by surprise and without spells past level 5 or so he kind of deserves to die.

Looking beyond tactical ambushes and moving to the realm of strategic surprise, what divination spells are you thinking of that can remove the danger of an extended run of encounters that drain the casters of their spells?

[MaxWilson]

Either use long lasting stuff or use the fact that you're a spellcaster to not get ambushed - divinations and familiars work great in making sure you don't get taken by surprise, for example.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking a lot recently about adventure pacing in 5E: i.e. are you okay with players short or long resting whenever/wherever they want, and if not, what constraints are there?

I've come to the conclusion that random encounters, as entertaining as they are, aren't really a solution to the pacing problem for a simple reason:

1.) Random encounters can be mitigated with tools like Rope Trick/Leomund's Tiny Hut/Alarm or even just regular sentries. More importantly,
2.) Random encounters are a reward in disguise. Kill the monsters, take their XP (and possibly treasure), raise their dead bodies as zombies if humanoid, resume resting. Repeat as necessary.

No, the real reason you wouldn't want to long rest in real life has to do with the fact that by resting, you are giving up 1 or 8 hours' worth of actions while the world spins on. In a straight-up dungeon crawl where nothing important is happening except that you're trying to kill off all the goblins in the cave complex, the absolute worst when you take a break for 8 hours that can happen is that all the goblins in the whole cave complex (5 or 6 encounters' worth, so let's say 20 goblins) get together and try to sneak up on you all at once. That's a reasonable consequence and should happen sometimes, but there are plenty of scenarios where the worst possible outcome from a delay is a lot worse than that:

1.) The captives get murdered.
2.) The slavers get away.
3.) The king gets annoyed and you get demoted or executed, depending.
4.) The enemy strengthens his fortifications, adding some pit traps and tripwires or even giant boiling cauldrons.
5.) Enemy reinforcements (finally!) arrive.
6.) The diversion fails, and the other prong of the attack gets slaughtered.
7.) The Magic Candle melts, freeing the archdemon Dreax and destroying the world.

My basic conclusion is that adventures which occur under time constraints operate differently than adventures where the players get to set their own pace. And, to bring it back on topic, a spellcaster who chooses to adventure at his own pace, always with full spell slots and a bodyguard of skeletons, is choosing to accept all of those negative consequences in scenarios where they are relevant. So it depends to a large extent on what kind of adventures the DM creates. Perhaps this is one source of variation in opinions on the relative fun of "martials" vs. "casters" (which is a false dichotomy anyway).

[Jakinbandw]

How does the balance between Casters and Martials change if you use the alternate rest rules where a long rest is one week, and a short rest is one day?

[SharkForce]

It sounds like even if they'd managed to be perfectly prepared for the ambush, the plot gave them reasons to choose to voluntarily interrupt their long rest. Accordingly... wouldn't the martials have still shined here even if the casters had taken the precautions you'd suggested?

well, for starters, it turns the ambush from an emergency where you need to spend everything you've got, to being "oh hey look, they're giving us some free potshots". so there goes a huge resource drain right there, since you can pretty much bet any available spells were used to fight off the ambush.

secondly, what makes you think the martials were going to do so amazingly well there? no rest and no caster resources means that they're not getting healed in between fights, for example. no rest and no caster resources means they're not getting any buffs.

so both groups are basically reduced to what comes available after a short rest. for a party with casters, that means that druids will have their wild shape, bards will have full use of inspiration, warlocks will have their spell slots, clerics will have their channel divinity, and only wizards and sorcerers aren't likely to gain much (i'm operating under the assumption that by the time you get to a long rest, the wizard has already blown arcane recovery).

plus of course, any spell slots they haven't blown yet (from the sound of it, they were taking a rest because it was the end of the day, not so much because every last character had burned every last resource).

so the moon druid will still be able to wild shape into a bear, dire wolf, giant snake, or whatever (based on level; bear/wolf at 2, giant snake or toad at 4, giant octopus at 6th if so desired, etc). and may in fact already be in said form, having not changed back before resting (afaict, nothing prevents you from staying in beast form for as long as you feel like).

meanwhile, of the martials: rangers and paladins would not have regained spell slots (or paladin lay on hands), barbarians would not have regained rage uses (or removed a level of fatigue if berserker), arcane tricksters and eldritch knights wouldn't have gained their spells back... so really, of the martials, the only ones that are particularly likely to shine would be battlemaster fighters and monks (regular fighters would likely still be reasonably effective, at least they gain back more from a short rest than paladins, rangers, barbarians, and rogues iirc).

so ummm... unless you think charging into battle with virtually no ability to recover hit points is a situation that favours martial classes, i'm gonna have to say that the martials probably wouldn't do so great under the scenario in question either.

as to long rests being a week and short rests being 8 hours, that's not a matter of casters vs martials... that's a matter of warlocks, monks, and (battlemaster especially) fighters vs everyone else. with moon druids being fairly close (land druids would still be pretty miserable). 2 of those happen to be martial characters, i suppose, but recovering fully on a short rest really is not something that either martials or casters do better than the other... it's very much a question of which specific classes you have.

(that said, i'd much rather have the moon druid tank in that situation, since heals are only available after a week's rest at that point, whereas the moon druid's wild shape HP comes back after "only" 8 hours).

[Eslin]

It sounds like even if they'd managed to be perfectly prepared for the ambush, the plot gave them reasons to choose to voluntarily interrupt their long rest. Accordingly... wouldn't the martials have still shined here even if the casters had taken the precautions you'd suggested?

Looking beyond tactical ambushes and moving to the realm of strategic surprise, what divination spells are you thinking of that can remove the danger of an extended run of encounters that drain the casters of their spells?
I'll answer these together, since they're basically the same thing - if they're burning through spell slots, the first person to become useless will be the frontline martial character. From experience in an extended run of encounters the first classes to become crap are short rest classes like the monk and warlock and very soon the martial characters will run out of HP since the casters are saving their spells to use on the fights. It is also possible to adjust your style to an endurance run, using summons or fight lasting spells in order to reduce the amount of slots you're spending, but this works better for some classes than others - a druid can keep going for a very long time by wildshaping and summoning elementals/animals/fey, while a cleric has to basically use a spell every time they want to do anything.

DMing a party of monk/warlock/paladin/druid at the moment, and that's the order in which they fall. The monk goes first - ki points run out fast, and in an extended series of encounters the monk runs out of ki and then HP once the paladin decides his healing is not efficiently spent on the monk. The warlock goes next - assuming he manages to keep hex up he does decent damage, but once the slots go his lack of defensive capabilities means he goes down fast. Not true of all warlocks, a fiend pact build for sustained combat can last for an extremely long time if he plays well, but this one doesn't last. The druid and paladin keep going for much longer - the paladin's tough and tops himself up between fights, and when wildshaping the druid can spend all her spell slots on healing without worry.

The thing you have to remember is that we still have the 3.5 style day wherein the day lasts until the casters are low on spells - you can't really have a party without casters after a certain point, and if you had nothing but martials they'd have run out of HP well before the half or full caster party casters ran out of spells. So either way, the day ends when the caster is out of spells - it's a weakness of casting, but because they tend to be so caster dependent it's a weakness that martials get to share.


This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking a lot recently about adventure pacing in 5E: i.e. are you okay with players short or long resting whenever/wherever they want, and if not, what constraints are there?

I've come to the conclusion that random encounters, as entertaining as they are, aren't really a solution to the pacing problem for a simple reason:

1.) Random encounters can be mitigated with tools like Rope Trick/Leomund's Tiny Hut/Alarm or even just regular sentries. More importantly,
2.) Random encounters are a reward in disguise. Kill the monsters, take their XP (and possibly treasure), raise their dead bodies as zombies if humanoid, resume resting. Repeat as necessary.

No, the real reason you wouldn't want to long rest in real life has to do with the fact that by resting, you are giving up 1 or 8 hours' worth of actions while the world spins on. In a straight-up dungeon crawl where nothing important is happening except that you're trying to kill off all the goblins in the cave complex, the absolute worst when you take a break for 8 hours that can happen is that all the goblins in the whole cave complex (5 or 6 encounters' worth, so let's say 20 goblins) get together and try to sneak up on you all at once. That's a reasonable consequence and should happen sometimes, but there are plenty of scenarios where the worst possible outcome from a delay is a lot worse than that:

1.) The captives get murdered.
2.) The slavers get away.
3.) The king gets annoyed and you get demoted or executed, depending.
4.) The enemy strengthens his fortifications, adding some pit traps and tripwires or even giant boiling cauldrons.
5.) Enemy reinforcements (finally!) arrive.
6.) The diversion fails, and the other prong of the attack gets slaughtered.
7.) The Magic Candle melts, freeing the archdemon Dreax and destroying the world.

My basic conclusion is that adventures which occur under time constraints operate differently than adventures where the players get to set their own pace. And, to bring it back on topic, a spellcaster who chooses to adventure at his own pace, always with full spell slots and a bodyguard of skeletons, is choosing to accept all of those negative consequences in scenarios where they are relevant. So it depends to a large extent on what kind of adventures the DM creates. Perhaps this is one source of variation in opinions on the relative fun of "martials" vs. "casters" (which is a false dichotomy anyway).

You're absolutely correct there. This isn't a video game, the world doesn't go on hold just because you've decided to rest. But as above, that's still not an advantage to martials - if the casters are running out of juice, the party has too. Especially later on, part of going into melee is being aware you have casters to fix things if stuff goes wrong. High level spells are the game's oh **** button, without those and with no prospect of healing or battlefield control going into melee suddenly turns into a far deadlier prospect. Once the cleric no longer has any third level spells to revivify you if the enemy gets too many hits in it's probably rest time. And if the party keeps going anyway, everyone's equally useless - the spellcasters are now using cantrips and saving their remaining slots for themselves, and the martials have until their current pool of HP lasts to live. And again, this isn't a problem you could solve by making an entirely martial party, as you'd A) find yourselves completely without the usual utility (raising fallen members, removing curses, teleportation, divinations etc) and B) would not have reached the point spellcasters run out of spells in the first place, since you'd have all long since run out of HP. Note that though this is the way things are at present, it won't be so forever - once they release a warlord style class (call it warlord, marshal, white raven dudebro, whatever) I could see a group of martial characters lasting through the day without casters.

Martials vs casters isn't a false dichotomy, exactly, you just measure things by overall use at various points in the game. Measuring at around level 10-11 seems pretty logical since it's the halfway point, so I'll assume that if no other information is given. And in general a full caster will be more all around useful than a partial caster, who will be more all around useful than a non caster.

[pwykersotz]

snip for space

If FF1 taught me anything, it's that four fighters are the strongest team. :smalltongue:

[Eslin]

If FF1 taught me anything, it's that four fighters are the strongest team. :smalltongue:

If 8-Bit Theatre taught me anything, it's that fighter/black mage/rogue/red mage is the best team ever.

And FF1 wise, wasn't the best class combo something like ninja/red mage/fighter/fighter? You wanted a couple of casters with fast/haste and you needed some white magic to keep people alive.

[pwykersotz]

If 8-Bit Theatre taught me anything, it's that fighter/black mage/rogue/red mage is the best team ever.

And FF1 wise, wasn't the best class combo something like ninja/red mage/fighter/fighter? You wanted a couple of casters with fast/haste and you needed some white magic to keep people alive.

Nah, Ninja/Red Mage/Fighter/Fighter was a classic, but 4 fighters took no damage and ate through everything. Magic-casting items took care of the few bad guys that took to long with weapons due to resistance, and also any healing needed, which was minimal because Fighters take very little damage. And status ailments were all curable by items. The one downside is grinding money for gear took a little bit of time.

Besides, once you classed into Knight you got supplemental white magic.

Edit: These are my shiny, rose-colored nostalgia goggles. I take no responsibility for being technically incorrect. My 12 year old self is the authority on this. :smallbiggrin:

[MadBear]

This may belong better in a seperate thread, but the one thing that always bothered me with the "wizards make fighters irrelevant" is that the wizard doesn't have access to every spell, and even more likely doesn't always have it prepared. It's be like a fighter claiming the best damage (great weapon fighting style), with the best armor (+1 armor style), and a mild control ability (protection style) all at once. Instead we know that they don't get all at once, but for some reason for wizards they seem to always have access to every spell on demand.

Maybe for a more fair analysis that actually shows how the wizard does in fact solve all the problems, we have a level break down (lvls 3/7/11/15/20) showing what spells they have and what ones they're likely to prepare. That way we don't have the wizard who arbitrarily has every single spell somehow available (of course they should have some available depending on the situation as appropriate).

All in all I feel like this would be better as a separate thread, but one in which we might more fairly control what we're talking about.

(as a side note, clerics and other spell casters who don't have to learn spells don't have quite this limitation, but a more narrowed spell list).

[Eslin]

Nah, Ninja/Red Mage/Fighter/Fighter was a classic, but 4 fighters took no damage and ate through everything. Magic-casting items took care of the few bad guys that took to long with weapons due to resistance, and also any healing needed, which was minimal because Fighters take very little damage. And status ailments were all curable by items. The one downside is grinding money for gear took a little bit of time.

Besides, once you classed into Knight you got supplemental white magic.

Edit: These are my shiny, rose-colored nostalgia goggles. I take no responsibility for being technically incorrect. My 12 year old self is the authority on this. :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure that's the case, I remember attack boosting spells like haste as being pretty important in party damage.

[Baptor]

I'm not sure that's the case, I remember attack boosting spells like haste as being pretty important in party damage.

I played through it several times. The best party I ever made was fighter/monk/bmage/wmage. You can sub a bmage with a rmage but I liked the spell sabre (can't remember original name) that buffed the fighter into the stratosphere. The monk was made of paper but he hit like 1,000 times at high level.

[SharkForce]

This may belong better in a seperate thread, but the one thing that always bothered me with the "wizards make fighters irrelevant" is that the wizard doesn't have access to every spell, and even more likely doesn't always have it prepared. It's be like a fighter claiming the best damage (great weapon fighting style), with the best armor (+1 armor style), and a mild control ability (protection style) all at once. Instead we know that they don't get all at once, but for some reason for wizards they seem to always have access to every spell on demand.

Maybe for a more fair analysis that actually shows how the wizard does in fact solve all the problems, we have a level break down (lvls 3/7/11/15/20) showing what spells they have and what ones they're likely to prepare. That way we don't have the wizard who arbitrarily has every single spell somehow available (of course they should have some available depending on the situation as appropriate).

All in all I feel like this would be better as a separate thread, but one in which we might more fairly control what we're talking about.

(as a side note, clerics and other spell casters who don't have to learn spells don't have quite this limitation, but a more narrowed spell list).

- learning spells isn't that expensive for a wizard. i mean, for starters they get a bunch free just from leveling, and lower level ones don't cost that much to begin with.

- it's not just a wizards vs fighter question (though wizards generally possess much greater potential than a fighter), it's casters in general vs non-casters.

also, it really isn't like claiming a fighter with every style. we're not generally talking about class abilities, we're talking about spells. the wizard *can* in fact learn every spell. more practically speaking, the wizard can learn most of the spells they want for free, and can pick up a few on the side for a relatively low cost, but mostly it's just that you're comparing the wizard knowing lots of spells (which is very possible) to the fighter having every combat style (which isn't possible, although with multiclassing you can get 3 at a time i think?)

furthermore, the fighter's combat styles are not generally that significant. oh, they're nice (especially archery, hitting more often is probably the best ability you can get), but simply put, no fighting style can really compare to, say, mass suggestion, in terms of turning a fight in your favour. heck, most of them won't even really compare to a sleep spell or a fireball use to good effect.

[Eslin]

This may belong better in a seperate thread, but the one thing that always bothered me with the "wizards make fighters irrelevant" is that the wizard doesn't have access to every spell, and even more likely doesn't always have it prepared. It's be like a fighter claiming the best damage (great weapon fighting style), with the best armor (+1 armor style), and a mild control ability (protection style) all at once. Instead we know that they don't get all at once, but for some reason for wizards they seem to always have access to every spell on demand.

Maybe for a more fair analysis that actually shows how the wizard does in fact solve all the problems, we have a level break down (lvls 3/7/11/15/20) showing what spells they have and what ones they're likely to prepare. That way we don't have the wizard who arbitrarily has every single spell somehow available (of course they should have some available depending on the situation as appropriate).

All in all I feel like this would be better as a separate thread, but one in which we might more fairly control what we're talking about.

(as a side note, clerics and other spell casters who don't have to learn spells don't have quite this limitation, but a more narrowed spell list).

Wizards don't need to have every spell or solve all problems to be a better investment than a fighter, they just have to be able to achieve the same ends and be able to do a bunch of other stuff besides. I'm not sure where you're getting 'solve all problems' from - if a wizard could do that, the best party would just be 5 wizards. That's why you have a party and have different characters with different focuses, like a druid for all your tanking and control needs.

[Sartharina]

This may belong better in a seperate thread, but the one thing that always bothered me with the "wizards make fighters irrelevant" is that the wizard doesn't have access to every spell, and even more likely doesn't always have it prepared. It's be like a fighter claiming the best damage (great weapon fighting style), with the best armor (+1 armor style), and a mild control ability (protection style) all at once. Instead we know that they don't get all at once, but for some reason for wizards they seem to always have access to every spell on demand. Fighters can't change their combat style on 1 day's notice.

[Naanomi]

Our party (in the example I gave) was...
~halfling rogue, stealth focused with a range preference; tends to play very cautious, had most of his HP
~dragonborn vengeance pally; had good HP after short-rest time but nothing stellar spell-wise left
~Human battlemaster fighter; sentinal/polearm; at about half HP I think
~Human Dragon Sorcerer, lightning focused, had a lightning bolt left at least, probably some minor defensive buffs as well
~Human Life Cleric, almost completely out of spells (maybe totally out)

All survived for what it was worth but some close calls on the last encounter. I will say the Lightning Bolt really was the lynchpin of the final fight hitting both trolls, the cultist warlock, and his pseudo dragon familiar (downing a troll and killing the familiar). They had to keep the infant sacrifice alive so took a while for the line of fire to be clear.

[Sartharina]

The drawback of not boosting STR covered 'under' a magic belt is that you've tied your performance to a magic item. Guess what any serious enemy is gonna be gunning for when they want to take you out.

[Eslin]

The drawback of not boosting STR covered 'under' a magic belt is that you've tied your performance to a magic item. Guess what any serious enemy is gonna be gunning for when they want to take you out.

You? Seriously, if you're wearing magic plate armour with a belt under it someone could much more easily kill you than disrobe you mid-fight.

[Sartharina]

You? Seriously, if you're wearing magic plate armour with a belt under it someone could much more easily kill you than disrobe you mid-fight.Fear the mighty sleight-of-hand check!

[Vogonjeltz]

"casters don't completely invalidate non-casters in every way until they've gained a few levels" is not a compelling argument, and neither is this crazy assumption that casters can't use all the same utility effects the non-casters can, plus add casting into the mix.

a party full of casters generally speaking will have more ability to do more things better and faster than a party of mixed casters and non-casters. yes, different casters will have different solutions to the same problem (and in some cases, a given caster may not have the easy solution to a problem yet; fortunately, as i mentioned, they also get basically as much or more access to skill and tool proficiencies as non-casters, so they're just as likely to have the non-spell solution to a problem as the mixed party, while also having several useful spell options to solve a problem).

a sorcerer may not have the actual strength attribute of the barbarian (although a valor bard or a bladelock very well could, and in the case of the valor bard most likely has a better ability to leverage that strength stat for utility since bards get expertise and barbarians don't), but will most likely be able to do as well or better in all areas of utility a barbarian could offer, after a few levels have been gained.

and that's the problem. start with a "balanced" party, and replace all the classes with limited or no casting with equivalent primary spellcaster replacements, and the former party is likely to struggle in comparison to the latter. oh, they can get by alright... but the caster party will probably do better.

i'm not suggesting that any given caster can render an entire party obsolete. i'm simply suggesting that for almost any role you care to propose filling with a non-caster, there is a caster option that likely does it better (though in some cases, the caster may wish to splash in a level or two of a non-casting class to pick up the vast majority of the resourceless effectiveness you're so proud of).

The skill proficiency point is flat out false, a wizard has fewer skill options than a fighter, though they receive the same number. The wizard is outright less versatile on this front.

The limited spell slots invalidates any claim of obsolescence outright.

[Eslin]

The skill proficiency point is flat out false, a wizard has fewer skill options than a fighter, though they receive the same number. The wizard is outright less versatile on this front.

The limited spell slots invalidates any claim of obsolescence outright.
You can take any two skills you want from your background and are likely getting a fifth skill from race - the class skill selection only matters if your class doesn't have two skills you want to take, and since no-one except a wizard wants intelligence the wizard is the natural person to take the knowledge skills.

Obsolescence wise, you think other classes don't have resources? Even hp itself is a resource, and it's one a frontliner often uses up rapidly.

[Gwendol]

The wizard has fewer of them and can't recover any on his own.

[MadBear]

- learning spells isn't that expensive for a wizard. i mean, for starters they get a bunch free just from leveling, and lower level ones don't cost that much to begin with.

- it's not just a wizards vs fighter question (though wizards generally possess much greater potential than a fighter), it's casters in general vs non-casters.

also, it really isn't like claiming a fighter with every style. we're not generally talking about class abilities, we're talking about spells. the wizard *can* in fact learn every spell. more practically speaking, the wizard can learn most of the spells they want for free, and can pick up a few on the side for a relatively low cost, but mostly it's just that you're comparing the wizard knowing lots of spells (which is very possible) to the fighter having every combat style (which isn't possible, although with multiclassing you can get 3 at a time i think?)

furthermore, the fighter's combat styles are not generally that significant. oh, they're nice (especially archery, hitting more often is probably the best ability you can get), but simply put, no fighting style can really compare to, say, mass suggestion, in terms of turning a fight in your favour. heck, most of them won't even really compare to a sleep spell or a fireball use to good effect.

Hold up. I thought you just couldn't walk into town and buy any spell you wanted anymore. Is there info for that being the norm now in this edition? I could be wrong, but I thought higher level magic spells would be more restricted. I could honestly be in error here, and am curious if you have some info that I don't (don't have the DM manual yet).



Wizards don't need to have every spell or solve all problems to be a better investment than a fighter, they just have to be able to achieve the same ends and be able to do a bunch of other stuff besides. I'm not sure where you're getting 'solve all problems' from - if a wizard could do that, the best party would just be 5 wizards. That's why you have a party and have different characters with different focuses, like a druid for all your tanking and control needs.

My main point Eslin, is that without a baseline control here, you can just point to any/every spell in the wizards arsenal, which isn't a fair assessment of what the wizard starts with and has the majority of his/her career. Now the "solves all problems" was a bit of hyperbole on my part. Still, the overall idea that the wizard starts with all spells known does indeed create a miss match.


Fighters can't change their combat style on 1 day's notice.

That is a fair point, and one thing that makes wizards excessively powerful. There's the saying in my group that "a wizard is always 24 hours away from solving any problem".








Anyway, my overall point is that when one class has access to a large spell pool, but isn't likely to know all those spells, it isn't a fair critique to compare the classes with that wizard having hypothetically any of those spells on the list.

[Strill]

defensive duelist is not worth the feat
You're crazy. It blocks one attack per round. It's a great feat.

[bloodshed343]

You're crazy. It blocks one attack per round. It's a great feat.

Most monsters have multi-attacks. It only blocks one of them. +1 ac from an ASI is better.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can take any two skills you want from your background and are likely getting a fifth skill from race - the class skill selection only matters if your class doesn't have two skills you want to take, and since no-one except a wizard wants intelligence the wizard is the natural person to take the knowledge skills.

Obsolescence wise, you think other classes don't have resources? Even hp itself is a resource, and it's one a frontliner often uses up rapidly.

Background skills aren't some kind of mix and match, and there are many skills that are only available with a single background choice. If the wizard is a soldier they are incapable of picking up face skills or survival skills. They're also seeing the opportunity cost of not being able to choose any other background.

Hp isn't a unique resource, nor is it the equivalent of spells. That being said, frontliners have better hit points and better hit dice (meaning they are best equipped to be resilient in the face of hit point drain).

*good point Gwendol, wizards have nothing but the small hit dice for restoring hp.

I'm not arguing that spellcasters are inferior (in the way you seem to be arguing melee are) but that they really are equally valuable.

[pwykersotz]

Background skills aren't some kind of mix and match, and there are many skills that are only available with a single background choice. If the wizard is a soldier they are incapable of picking up face skills or survival skills. They're also seeing the opportunity cost of not being able to choose any other background.

Minor nitpick, custom backgrounds are encouraged in the PHB. It's not even labeled as a variant option. I agree with the rest of your statement though.

[SharkForce]

Most monsters have multi-attacks. It only blocks one of them. +1 ac from an ASI is better.

and if you already have good AC, those monsters will probably not hit with all of them. but let's suppose that they do. for the sake of argument, we'll posit a situation where a monster that has 3 attacks, dealing roughly equal average damage, hits with all 3. defensive duelist very likely prevents one of those (under the assumption you wouldn't bother with the feat if you had terrible AC). how many of those do you think +1 AC was likely to prevent, on average? if the answer is not at *least* one, then I'm going to have to ask you to explain why it is that blocking less than one attack is better than blocking one attack, because where I come from blocking more attacks (which it sounds suspiciously like the defensive duelist feat is going to accomplish) is better than blocking less attacks.

if we presume a situation where someone is already maxed on AC-granting attributes (for example, medium armour with 14+ dex or any heavy armour), defensive duelist can help. +2 dex will not.

if we presume that you have reasonably good AC to begin with (for the sake of argument, plate mail and a shield for 20 AC), and therefore the monster is only likely to hit with one of those 3 attacks, defensive duelist has an excellent chance to prevent *all* of the damage that was going to be applied to you. bonus marks if you use it to block something particularly nasty, like a poisonous snake bite or a wyvern's tail or a contagion spell.


Background skills aren't some kind of mix and match, and there are many skills that are only available with a single background choice. If the wizard is a soldier they are incapable of picking up face skills or survival skills. They're also seeing the opportunity cost of not being able to choose any other background.

Hp isn't a unique resource, nor is it the equivalent of spells. That being said, frontliners have better hit points and better hit dice (meaning they are best equipped to be resilient in the face of hit point drain).

*good point Gwendol, wizards have nothing but the small hit dice for restoring hp.

I'm not arguing that spellcasters are inferior (in the way you seem to be arguing melee are) but that they really are equally valuable.

background skills are very much a mix and match. don't see the ones you want? guess what: if you pick one that gives skills you already have, you can pick any skills at all. throw in a fairly good shot at having a skill from race that you can also add in to the mix, and really, access to skills isn't a big deal. if I want social skills on my wizard, I can probably get them.

as for HP, frontliners go through them faster than spellcasters go through spell slots in my experience. probably because casters can choose when to spend their spells, whereas hit point loss usually comes down to someone else's decision. and better hit points and hit point recovery is debatable... as we've already noted, druids have amazing bonuses in both of those areas, and once they gain a few levels their summons can make it even more ridiculous... as can the summons that most other caster classes can access at some point. now that summoning hasn't been nerfed into the ground and then piledriven deeper as it was in 4e, it's just a matter of time before your superior HP become a joke in the event that some caster wants to tell one. you're better off at level 1, sure. then again, so is a guard dog.

[JoeJ]

Most monsters have multi-attacks. It only blocks one of them. +1 ac from an ASI is better.

What most monsters have isn't relevant; only the monsters that the PC actually has to fight matter, and those vary hugely from one campaign to the next. For some games, being able to add proficiency bonus to AC for one attack per round is a better choice than +1 AC against every attack.

Plus, taking the ASI might not give you that +1 AC. It depends on what your Dex already is and what kind of armor you usually wear.

edit: ninja'd

[Eslin]

Hold up. I thought you just couldn't walk into town and buy any spell you wanted anymore. Is there info for that being the norm now in this edition? I could be wrong, but I thought higher level magic spells would be more restricted. I could honestly be in error here, and am curious if you have some info that I don't (don't have the DM manual yet).

My main point Eslin, is that without a baseline control here, you can just point to any/every spell in the wizards arsenal, which isn't a fair assessment of what the wizard starts with and has the

Anyway, my overall point is that when one class has access to a large spell pool, but isn't likely to know all those spells, it isn't a fair critique to compare the classes with that wizard having hypothetically any of those spells on the list.
But no-one's been claiming that. When these threads are discussed I tend to assume commonly prepared spells, I've never argued a wizard with access to any spell unless he has prep time. And restriction wise, scrolls are pretty much the only thing that won't be - wizards naturally tend towards mutually beneficial organisations because, well, they're mutually beneficial. A world without wizards setting up colleges and libraries to share and research spells is a world which doesn't have wizards in it.


What most monsters have isn't relevant; only the monsters that the PC actually has to fight matter, and those vary hugely from one campaign to the next. For some games, being able to add proficiency bonus to AC for one attack per round is a better choice than +1 AC against every attack.

Plus, taking the ASI might not give you that +1 AC. It depends on what your Dex already is and what kind of armor you usually wear.

edit: ninja'd

Uses up your reaction, takes a feat, and you get 2-6 vs one attack. It's not terrible, exactly, but most martials already have good uses for their reactions and a lot of feats do strong things without burning your reaction to do so. It's situationally useful, but it also synergises badly with common melee feats like polearm master and sentinel that already use your reaction.


Background skills aren't some kind of mix and match, and there are many skills that are only available with a single background choice. If the wizard is a soldier they are incapable of picking up face skills or survival skills. They're also seeing the opportunity cost of not being able to choose any other background.
Background skills are mix and match, it specifically tells you you can customise a background by replacing any feature with any other feature and any two skills or tools/languages of your choice. It's not even an optional rule, it's right there on the first page of backgrounds. The skills each background come with are suggestions, just as the personality traits are. There's no opportunity cost, it specifically tells you you can mix and match.


Hp isn't a unique resource, nor is it the equivalent of spells. That being said, frontliners have better hit points and better hit dice (meaning they are best equipped to be resilient in the face of hit point drain).

*good point Gwendol, wizards have nothing but the small hit dice for restoring hp.

I'm not arguing that spellcasters are inferior (in the way you seem to be arguing melee are) but that they really are equally valuable.
Yes, and this is negated by the fact that the wizard takes far less damage in the first place. Spells like mirror image and shield (low level, non concentration requiring) make you harder to actually hit and spells like misty step and invisibility (still both low level) can get you out of there if getting hit's looking likely. This on top of being difficult to attack in the first place, what with excellent battlefield control and animated/conjured creatures to block them.

They really, really aren't equally valuable. On the whole, a full caster will turn out to be more valuable than a martial. Martials can still contribute at later levels, unlike the 3.5 days, but they still can do far less out of combat and in combat can mostly only take and receive damage, roles most casters can fill if they feel like it - but usually they don't feel like it, since why not let the martial do the only thing he's good at and go fill one of the half dozen niches the martial can never fill.

[Demonicattorney]

Well, the martial can survive the dragon's breath, you can't. He can survive a rogue getting a surprise round, you can't. Over the course of an adventuring day, he has more than double your HP without even resorting to healing. . . Moreover, Shield only gets the Wizard to the AC that most Martials have all the time. Most Wizards will have a 14 or 15 AC at level 4-6. 13 for Mage Armor, 2 for Dex (or less), and maybe you get a magic item that adds another +1. Shield brings that to a 20. Paladin with Plate and a Shield has 20. If he chose a fighting style it would be 21, if he chose to use shield of faith it would be 23, virtually all of the time. You see, its not close. Add a magic shield, and magic plate and its 25. That also ignores that he has about 1.6x Caster HP. Same thing with a Fighter, AC is gonna be in the low 20s, all of the time. Most Martials get better saves as well. Its nice to look at a level 20 Wizard, and add that +5 AC because he can cast shield every round, but that is not the case through 99% of the game.

[Eslin]

Well, the martial can survive the dragon's breath, you can't. He can survive a rogue getting a surprise round, you can't. Over the course of an adventuring day, he has more than double your HP without even resorting to healing. . . Moreover, Shield only gets the Wizard to the AC that most Martials have all the time. Most Wizards will have a 14 or 15 AC at level 4-6. 13 for Mage Armor, 2 for Dex (or less), and maybe you get a magic item that adds another +1. Shield brings that to a 20. Paladin with Plate and a Shield has 20. If he chose a fighting style it would be 21, if he chose to use shield of faith it would be 23, virtually all of the time. You see, its not close. Add a magic shield, and magic plate and its 25. That also ignores that he has about 1.6x Caster HP. Same thing with a Fighter, AC is gonna be in the low 20s, all of the time. Most Martials get better saves as well. Its nice to look at a level 20 Wizard, and add that +5 AC because he can cast shield every round, but that is not the case through 99% of the game.

Who said anything about every round? You're a backliner with a great deal of ways to not get hit, you only need to use a spell like shield if you're actually getting hit. Personally, AC and saves wise I like to grab a couple of levels of fighter somewhere along the line because an extra action is excellent for a spellcaster, but in general we can assume fairly low AC and HP.

[SharkForce]

Well, the martial can survive the dragon's breath, you can't. He can survive a rogue getting a surprise round, you can't. Over the course of an adventuring day, he has more than double your HP without even resorting to healing. . . Moreover, Shield only gets the Wizard to the AC that most Martials have all the time. Most Wizards will have a 14 or 15 AC at level 4-6. 13 for Mage Armor, 2 for Dex (or less), and maybe you get a magic item that adds another +1. Shield brings that to a 20. Paladin with Plate and a Shield has 20. If he chose a fighting style it would be 21, if he chose to use shield of faith it would be 23, virtually all of the time. You see, its not close. Add a magic shield, and magic plate and its 25. That also ignores that he has about 1.6x Caster HP. Same thing with a Fighter, AC is gonna be in the low 20s, all of the time. Most Martials get better saves as well. Its nice to look at a level 20 Wizard, and add that +5 AC because he can cast shield every round, but that is not the case through 99% of the game.

wizards get d6 + con mod. fighters get d10 + con mod. average 2 HP more per level than the wizard, assuming identical con mod.

wizards basically need one attribute to be fully effective in everything they do. fighters need 2-3. wizards don't need feats to be effective. fighters do. wizards use constitution for an important check that they expect to make often. fighters don't.

hold on a second, let me think this through... hmmm... i'm getting this feeling that wizards *just might* be closer in HP on average than you might like to imagine.

as to avoiding danger like breath weapons... spells like shield, mirror image, and blink help a lot here.

as to bad AC: they could have bad base AC. they could also wear that same armour your fighter or paladin is wearing (possibly even using a shield when your fighter or paladin can't because you're dependant on two weapons or two-handed weapons for damage), depending on their build choices. they could spend most of their fights flying, and their AC against melee attacks is "i'm not in range, sucks to be you". they could have an AC "i'm not even on that plane right now" or "i'm one of these 5 targets, you don't even get to roll against AC until you pick the right one", and they could have an AC of "your will save sucks, so you don't get to attack me today, period, go home", or "first you're going to have to get through my wall of minions. careful, they explode!"

furthermore, what's this BS about the fighter getting plate mail falling from the sky and +1 armour and +1 shield, while apparently the wizard can't even find a single person on the face of the planet to learn a spell from? you got a piece of mundane equipment worth 1500 gp in your argument, and/or two magical items. you've got 30 spell levels worth of mundane gear right there. you get to buy 1500 gp of basic fighter equipment, i get to buy 1500 gp of basic wizard equipment, and for a wizard that means spell knowledge (and sometimes expensive components i suppose).

you get two magic items? why do we assume the wizard can't have any defensively useful items too?

also, i'm curious how you figure martials get "better saves". *some* martials get better saves *eventually* i suppose. on the other hand, some spellcasters like to splash classes that give useful saving throws. some spellcasters like to take feats that give them good saving throws.

you also act like there's no such thing as a fighter or paladin who uses a bow, or two-handed weapons, or dual-wields. you know, those things you do so that your damage is big enough that anything might even bother taking a swipe at you instead of walking right past you to hit someone who has more offense and less defense.

having a strong defense is a choice. you can build for it, or not. a wizard can build to have it, and a fighter can build to not have it. it's certainly *easier* for a fighter to build to have it on most of the time, but it doesn't take much for the wizard or bard or cleric to pick up just as much defense.

[Gwendol]

No, but a bunch of int 6 skeletons under the command of a wizard approximate the damage output and receiving ability of a martial character and only cost you a few slots at the beginning of the day.

This one made me chuckle. Let's look at this claim in some more detail shall we?

Animate dead is a third level spell, and so is gained earliest at fifth level, at which level we shall see the obsolesence of the fighter kick in. However, Eslin has indicated that a handful of skeletons is needed to fully replace a martial character so let's say two level 4 slots are used instead creating 6 skeletons. All things being equal we thus compare with a 8th level fighter.

Skeleton: AC 13, attack +5, Damage 1d6+2, HP 13
Generic fighter: attack +8 (2x), Damage (longsword) 1d8+5, AC 20 (plate+shield), HP 76 (if CON 16)

AC of CR8 monsters is on average 15, which means the skeleton must roll 10 or better to hit, while the fighter hits on a 7. However, the monster AC fluctuates quite a bit (+/- 5 or so) which means the skeleton can go from competent to useless, while the fighter stays relevant. The real problem for the skeletons is when the monsters fight back since they have no defences to speak of, no sense of self preservation, and thus will be destroyed by any level appropriate enemy able to make contact. There is no way the skeletons will last a full day of adventure, and may very well be obliterated during the first encounter. An orc war chief + warband would wade through the skeletons like a hot knife through butter (which in no way represents a particularly dangerous encounter at that level).

This means that at best, the skeletons can emulate the hacking power of a martial on the first encounter, but will certainly be less effective (if at all) later in the day. Furthermore, the fighter/barbarian/rogue will likely have more tactics to employ be that through feats, class features, or items, which makes them more adaptable to the situation. The skeletons need to be ordered around (costs bonus actions) and are susceptible to even the simplest illusions and tricks.

Naturally, this comparison only gets worse from here (as the fighter and wizard gains levels).

[Gwendol]

wizards get d6 + con mod. fighters get d10 + con mod. average 2 HP more per level than the wizard, assuming identical con mod.

as to bad AC: they could have bad base AC. they could also wear that same armour your fighter or paladin is wearing (possibly even using a shield when your fighter or paladin can't because you're dependant on two weapons or two-handed weapons for damage), depending on their build choices. they could spend most of their fights flying, and their AC against melee attacks is "i'm not in range, sucks to be you". they could have an AC "i'm not even on that plane right now" or "i'm one of these 5 targets, you don't even get to roll against AC until you pick the right one", and they could have an AC of "your will save sucks, so you don't get to attack me today, period, go home", or "first you're going to have to get through my wall of minions. careful, they explode!"

furthermore, what's this BS about the fighter getting plate mail falling from the sky and +1 armour and +1 shield, while apparently the wizard can't even find a single person on the face of the planet to learn a spell from? you got a piece of mundane equipment worth 1500 gp in your argument, and/or two magical items. you've got 30 spell levels worth of mundane gear right there. you get to buy 1500 gp of basic fighter equipment, i get to buy 1500 gp of basic wizard equipment, and for a wizard that means spell knowledge (and sometimes expensive components i suppose).



Bad AC: the wizard can wear armor, and use shields, but it comes with a cost (proficiency, and minimum strength for heavy armor, dex 14 for medium). The martial characters are usually built with AC in mind and so get the use of armor "for free".

Why would wizards share their spells? A higher level spell is a source of power and advantage for the wizard. If magic items are not a traded commodity anymore, nor will spells be. It's DM decided, or the wizard needs to research spells himself (or find scrolls and spellbooks as loot, which seems to be the norm once again).

[Tehnar]

This one made me chuckle. Let's look at this claim in some more detail shall we?

Animate dead is a third level spell, and so is gained earliest at fifth level, at which level we shall see the obsolesence of the fighter kick in. However, Eslin has indicated that a handful of skeletons is needed to fully replace a martial character so let's say two level 4 slots are used instead creating 6 skeletons. All things being equal we thus compare with a 8th level fighter.

Skeleton: AC 13, attack +5, Damage 1d6+2, HP 13
Generic fighter: attack +8 (2x), Damage (longsword) 1d8+5, AC 20 (plate+shield), HP 76 (if CON 16)

AC of CR8 monsters is on average 15, which means the skeleton must roll 10 or better to hit, while the fighter hits on a 7. However, the monster AC fluctuates quite a bit (+/- 5 or so) which means the skeleton can go from competent to useless, while the fighter stays relevant. The real problem for the skeletons is when the monsters fight back since they have no defences to speak of, no sense of self preservation, and thus will be destroyed by any level appropriate enemy able to make contact. There is no way the skeletons will last a full day of adventure, and may very well be obliterated during the first encounter. An orc war chief + warband would wade through the skeletons like a hot knife through butter (which in no way represents a particularly dangerous encounter at that level).

This means that at best, the skeletons can emulate the hacking power of a martial on the first encounter, but will certainly be less effective (if at all) later in the day. Furthermore, the fighter/barbarian/rogue will likely have more tactics to employ be that through feats, class features, or items, which makes them more adaptable to the situation. The skeletons need to be ordered around (costs bonus actions) and are susceptible to even the simplest illusions and tricks.

Naturally, this comparison only gets worse from here (as the fighter and wizard gains levels).

Its not skeletons vs fighter. Its skeletons + wizard (with all his spell slots) vs fighter. Skeletons are not a resource drain on the wizard unless he wants to keep them later, and if things get tough he just sacrifices them and raises them back some other time.

[Gwendol]

No, it's not. No-one is talking about replacing the wizard (unless I'm mistaken) but rather that the wizard doesn't need the martial since he has access to animate dead.

[Eslin]

Bad AC: the wizard can wear armor, and use shields, but it comes with a cost (proficiency, and minimum strength for heavy armor, dex 14 for medium). The martial characters are usually built with AC in mind and so get the use of armor "for free".

Why would wizards share their spells? A higher level spell is a source of power and advantage for the wizard. If magic items are not a traded commodity anymore, nor will spells be. It's DM decided, or the wizard needs to research spells himself (or find scrolls and spellbooks as loot, which seems to be the norm once again).

Of course they will be. Magic item trading has the cost of that item - if you give someone a +2 sword, they now have a +2 sword and you don't and the price will need to be commensurate with that.

If one wizard gives another access to his spellbook or scrolls, the other wizard gains a spell and the first wizard does not lose that spell. Therefore it makes huge amounts of sense for wizards to share knowledge with each other, and given their intelligence/lore/research/education based casting they are in a natural position to do so.

If 5 wizards know ten spells each and share them, they now all know 50 spells. They'll each have gotten a bunch more capable and while they won't have gained power relative to each other, they will have gained power relative to everything else in the world.

Imagine if it worked like that for martials. If Alice had a magic halberd, Bob had a magic longsword and Carl had a magic longbow, it's not in anyone's best interest to just swap items - they'll come out even, at most. But if they worked like wizards, if letting Carl have a look at her halberd and Carl giving her his longbow meant that past that point on Alice and Carl would both be able to turn their weapons from a halberd to a longbow from that point on for a minor cost in gold then they would absolutely do it, and they'd invite Daniel and Ellen and whoever else to the party and ten years later there'd be weapon swapping guilds all over the place.

[Gwendol]

That's not from the PHB, is it? In that case you rely on DM fiat for access to spells outside of those gained from level up, or found in loot.

[Eslin]

But that doesn't make any sense. The PHB makes it clear that you can learn spells from other wizards (specifically those words), wizards would naturally have spell sharing organisations. They might vary based on the society - anything from a book sharing club to an arcane library to a guild to a system of universities makes sense, but considering that it specifically says that 'everything else is secondary to finding new spells' the idea that wizards wouldn't automatically share spells with out wizards for mutual gain is absurd.

[Giant2005]

But that doesn't make any sense. The PHB makes it clear that you can learn spells from other wizards (specifically those words), wizards would naturally have spell sharing organisations. They might vary based on the society - anything from a book sharing club to an arcane library to a guild to a system of universities makes sense, but considering that it specifically says that 'everything else is secondary to finding new spells' the idea that wizards wouldn't automatically share spells with out wizards for mutual gain is absurd.

I have no idea who is right in this instance but I don't think there is any need to belittle Gwendol's thoughts on this with words with negative connotations like "absurd", not when his belief holds as much merit as your own.
Spells are power - handing out power of that magnitude on a whim could very well be inadvisable, even if you have plenty to gain yourself. That is like being an arms dealer and selling guns to anyone that has the cash regardless of the consequences. That fact that in this case you are giving them their guns, getting cash and not losing guns of your own doesn't really change the fact that you just handed some stranger the power to kill.
Then again, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of relatively harmless spells that couldn't be used to harm anyone or commit any form of crime. You really could hand those out like candy without losing anything other than your own superiority, uniqueness and rare and potentially exclusive knowledge.

[Gwendol]

But that doesn't make any sense. The PHB makes it clear that you can learn spells from other wizards (specifically those words), wizards would naturally have spell sharing organisations. They might vary based on the society - anything from a book sharing club to an arcane library to a guild to a system of universities makes sense, but considering that it specifically says that 'everything else is secondary to finding new spells' the idea that wizards wouldn't automatically share spells with out wizards for mutual gain is absurd.

To learn from other wizards does in no way automatically imply this learning is voluntary. This could as well be learnt from studying tomes in an abandoned library or study, or by reading the spell-book of a dead adversary.

[Malifice]

Love how this thread started with Eslin compaining about belts of giant strength (your Fighters best friend since 1st edition) and then proceeded to devote the remaining 9 pages to complaining about how underpowered base Fighters are compared to full casters.

Funny.