Martials vs. Casters- Is it really still a problem?

[Freelance GM]

I have to say, I am REALLY hesitant about even asking this, because it kind of feels like prodding a raging bonfire with a stick of dynamite coated in gasoline, and expecting to walk away unscathed.

But I'm really curious here, so I'm asking anyways. To quote one of my college professors, "You're welcome, and I'm sorry, as applicable."

It seems like every other 5E threat inevitably disintegrates into the great Martials vs Casters debate. I don't see the problem.

I have seen the problem before in other games- Shadowrun and 3.5 are the first examples that come to mind. However, I've been DMing 5E since the second month of the playtest, and I've stopped seeing the issue.

Yes, Casters can do anything any martial character can do, better than that martial character can do it, but especially with the new, lower limits on Spells Per Day, that hasn't been a problem. A Wizard can cast Knock and "totally invalidate the Rogue's role in the party," but a Level 20 Wizard has a whopping 3 Level 2 Spell slots, while the Level 20 Rogue can pick a hundred locks in a day, and keep going, with a consistent record of success. In every game of 5E I've DM'ed, the caster will cast something, and get 5 seconds of fame, and then the game goes back to the regularly scheduled programming of the Martial characters being consistently awesome.

I've never had a martial player feel "useless" because the party caster can do a better job. In fact, if any of my players have felt useless, it's probably the casters! Chapter 1 of Horde of the Dragon Queen lasted for almost 2 months at my FLGS. The first chapter of that adventure, however, takes place in one long night, so the players using Casters didn't get any of their spell slots back for two months of play. The Martial characters were practically carrying the team, because the Casters burned through their spell slots in the first two or three weeks. And everyone at the table was okay with it, because Cantrips like Mending and Prestidigitation kept them contributing to the party, and combat cantrips didn't suck anymore, so they could still be relevant in combat. However, without their hard-hitting spells, they never came close to outshining the Martials- not even the Warlock with Agonizing Blast.

So, the dangerous, potentially explosive question I'm asking is "Is this really a problem?"
Is there some facet of this argument I'm missing, or some detail I'm not seeing? Because I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. I want to understand, but I'm just not seeing anything wrong here.

[Freelance GM]

This is in the wrong forum- there was originally going to be a "How do you actually fix this problem?" challenge attached before I realized I didn't see the problem.

Can someone move it to the 5E discussion forum?

Thanks, sorry.

[bloodshed343]

I used to think it was a problem, but now I don't. Anything a caster can do with utility spells can be accomplished with clever skill use and the proper tools.

[CrusaderJoe]

I used to think it was a problem, but now I don't. Anything a caster can do with utility spells can be accomplished with clever skill use and the proper tools.

Please bring back the dead, plane shift, fly, shaoebchange into a dragon, do AoE, and... Let's see... Throw a creature literally through hell.

Yeah not happening.

Not that martials should be able to do those specific things but it would be nice to have classes that can do awesome things comparable.

And by clever skill checks you mean beg the DM to consider your idea and hope he or she doesn't set the DC at 25+? Cause that is the flaw with the skill system versus spells. Spells tell you what you can soecifically do, skills allow the DM to tell you what you might be able to do.

[shade1986]

I'm sorry but i feel exactly the opposite right now. I'm playing 3.P as an enchanter. I have my DC maxed (as far as I can tell) but NOTHING ever fails its will save. The only way I can accomplish anything is if they roll a nat 1. Granted those nat 1s have caused some amazing things to happen but I shouldn't have a 1 in 20 chance of accomplishing anything that matters. It might just be my DM trying to force the game along the path he has set but my character has put all of her feats and skills towards being able to obtain minions, but the only minion I have so far is my cohort (and even that I only got as a reward not because of anything my character did). Any spell that I cast that can be negated by a saving throw WILL NOT WORK because everything that is a CR worth having as a minion is too strong to be susceptible to my spells.

[bloodshed343]

I should have said that any problem that magic can solve can be solved with skills, just not as quickly. Bringing back the dead might require epic-level investigation to find the right alchemical formula followed by a check with alchemists tools. As for fly, it depends on where you're flying to. Crossing a chasm can be done with ropes, hooks, and harnesses. Walls can be climbed over. Flying mounts exist. Anything that turning into a dragon can accomplish, other than being a dragon, can be done by a party of martials working together. Martials can kill things just as dead as ninth level spells can. Really, this is a game of imagination, and if you can't imagine doing something that the rules don't explicitly point out, that's an imagination problem.

[Ziegander]

I'm sorry but i feel exactly the opposite right now. I'm playing 3.P as an enchanter. I have my DC maxed (as far as I can tell) but NOTHING ever fails its will save. The only way I can accomplish anything is if they roll a nat 1. Granted those nat 1s have caused some amazing things to happen but I shouldn't have a 1 in 20 chance of accomplishing anything that matters. It might just be my DM trying to force the game along the path he has set but my character has put all of her feats and skills towards being able to obtain minions, but the only minion I have so far is my cohort (and even that I only got as a reward not because of anything my character did). Any spell that I cast that can be negated by a saving throw WILL NOT WORK because everything that is a CR worth having as a minion is too strong to be susceptible to my spells.

1) Either your DM is incredibly lucky or an incredible jerk, because there is no way you should be only effecting relevant CR enemies with a rolled 1 on a Will save.

2) Even if the enemies Will saves ARE all +30, you can still cast other spells that don't target any saves at all and you will consistently be able to produce effects that blow non-casters out of the water.

[CrusaderJoe]

I should have said that any problem that magic can solve can be solved with skills, just not as quickly. Bringing back the dead might require epic-level investigation to find the right alchemical formula followed by a check with alchemists tools. As for fly, it depends on where you're flying to. Crossing a chasm can be done with ropes, hooks, and harnesses. Walls can be climbed over. Flying mounts exist. Anything that turning into a dragon can accomplish, other than being a dragon, can be done by a party of martials working together. Martials can kill things just as dead as ninth level spells can. Really, this is a game of imagination, and if you can't imagine doing something that the rules don't explicitly point out, that's an imagination problem.

Your argument boils down to "if DM fiat allows it you can do it", I like to play a game where my choices matter and not the DM's whims. By base rules magic works the same no matter what table you sit down at but skills don't. Skills are at the mercy of the DM, by base rules. One DM may allow you to or form CPR but another DM may laugh at you.

Which means you don't really get to decide what your character can do, your DM is deciding. A spell however, if it says X, will do X.

I want to use my acrobatics check to walk on clouds (3.5 epic skill) versus the fly spell. Which one can be used more times in more games? The third level spell. A lot of DMs, even if you can hit a DC of 1000, will straight up nope cloud walking.

Now if you had a skill that said " you can walk on clouds by meeting DC 25 Acrobatics check" then DMs at each table (if using base rules) wouldn't have to resort to personal judgment to see if the game should allow such a feat of ability since it is in the game.

Also...

Shade, I think your DM is screwing you over. In 3.P if you have the max DC not to many things will pass that easily without DM fiat. I'm not sure why the DM allowed casters if they are just going to punish players for playing casters.

[bloodshed343]

What martials need more than anything is a set of skill powers. Walking on clouds with an acrobatics check would be a bit op, but maybe you could jump really high/far.

[CrusaderJoe]

What martials need more than anything is a set of skill powers. Walking on clouds with an acrobatics check would be a bit op, but maybe you could jump really high/far.

By the time casters get fly, teleporting, plane shifting, and "Rawr I'm a dragon" walking on clouds won't be OP.

You can still fall after all.


Hmmm skill uses that use concentration?

[Freelance GM]

Caution: Multiple walls of text ahead. You have been warned.



Your argument boils down to "if DM fiat allows it you can do it", I like to play a game where my choices matter and not the DM's whims. By base rules magic works the same no matter what table you sit down at but skills don't. Skills are at the mercy of the DM, by base rules. One DM may allow you to or form CPR but another DM may laugh at you.

Which means you don't really get to decide what your character can do, your DM is deciding. A spell however, if it says X, will do X.

I want to use my acrobatics check to walk on clouds (3.5 epic skill) versus the fly spell. Which one can be used more times in more games? The third level spell. A lot of DMs, even if you can hit a DC of 1000, will straight up nope cloud walking.

Now if you had a skill that said " you can walk on clouds by meeting DC 25 Acrobatics check" then DMs at each table (if using base rules) wouldn't have to resort to personal judgment to see if the game should allow such a feat of ability since it is in the game.



Please bring back the dead, plane shift, fly, shaoebchange into a dragon, do AoE, and... Let's see... Throw a creature literally through hell.

Yeah not happening.

Not that martials should be able to do those specific things but it would be nice to have classes that can do awesome things comparable.

And by clever skill checks you mean beg the DM to consider your idea and hope he or she doesn't set the DC at 25+? Cause that is the flaw with the skill system versus spells. Spells tell you what you can specifically do, skills allow the DM to tell you what you might be able to do.

First, quick reminder, this is 5E. I know there was a problem in 3.5- I've experienced both ends of that crap. (One 3.5 DM who hated casters, and wouldn't let you use anything better than Level 2 spells, and one Pathfinder party where I was the munchkin Sorcerer vaporizing all of the enemies before the tanks could even see them. Neither is really fun, IMO.)

What I'm understanding here is that I don't have this problem in my games because I am apparently a pretty chill DM. CrusaderJoe, I see where you're coming from- I absolutely would straight-up nope walking on a cloud, unless you had a specific ability that said you could do that, like the Epic ability you referenced. However, I typically allow things within the scope of what a mundane character would be able to do- even if the rules don't cover it. Cloud-walking may be out, but if you want to wrap yourself around the Black Dragon's head to prevent it from using its Bite or Breath Weapon, go ahead and make a Strength check.

Part of the reason it's an Intelligence (Nature) check in 5E instead of a Knowledge: Nature Skill check is because the skills on your character sheet are not an ultimate indicator of what your character does and does not know. The "Yes and..." mentality of improv acting was worked into 5E's core design- DM's are supposed to let players swing on chandeliers because the player wants to swing on a chandelier. As the game's referee, a DM is supposed to arbitrate that as fairly as possible. Swinging on a chandelier may be challenging (DC15 Dexterity (Acrobatics)?) but it is not very hard (DC25.)

If a DM isn't going to let you do anything that isn't explicitly allowed in the rules, they should re-read the Player's Handbook, because there's a blurb on page 192 about improvising actions, and then a table of typical DC's on page 174. This isn't a new thing, either.

There are 6 paragraphs in a section called "Saying Yes" on pages 28 and 29 of the 4E Dungeon Master's Guide. Apparently, this actually wasn't in the rules for 3.5 and Pathfinder- the closest I found was the GM Fiat blurb on Page 403 of the PF Core Rulebook, and nothing particularly relevant in the PF Gamemastery Guide. FFG's Edge of the Empire, however, mentions "saying yes" repeatedly.

So that begs the question of "What if this is a DM problem, instead of a mechanics problem?"


But then there's this:

What martials need more than anything is a set of skill powers. Walking on clouds with an acrobatics check would be a bit op, but maybe you could jump really high/far.

I can immediately see the lack of appeal some players see here: how do you balance Martial powers, without going back to 4E? 4E was actually the first RPG I owned, so I don't have an aversion to it like other people, but I can understand the perspective that it makes classes feel too similar. How can you design abilities like 4E's, without upsetting the pre-4E fans?
Additionally, it's a matter of flavor. Some people (myself included) who prefer the mundane characters being mundane are okay with a Fighter slashing through hordes of foes, but not okay with slamming a maul into the ground to create an earth-breaking tremor. Suddenly, the martial character is doing something supernatural, even if it's not explicitly magic.

That being said, I'm pretty on-board with the idea behind the Battle Master- it's abilities are mundane enough to fit the flavor I'm looking for, but it seems the general opinion is that its abilities lack the utility it would need to "compete" with casters.

That being said, I don't know why people keep trying to make the Fighter the anti-Wizard. If the problem is Utility > Power, then shouldn't the rogue be a better candidate?

The problem, though, with specific abilities is that then you're actually limiting what the player can do. If being incredibly good at tumbling in combat requires an ability, then the player has less freedom to improvise with the Acrobatics skill, which brings us back to my other question: What if this is a DM problem, instead of a mechanics problem?

[Freelance GM]

Sorry for the double-post, but it's a totally different train of thought.

If the main problem with casters is the high-level, reality-bending stuff, why not go with the video game solution? Instead of making new things for martials, dial back what casters can do.

Casters in video games are pretty gutted by D&D standards, but they're balanced with their martial counterparts. You can't fly or Plane Shift in Skyrim, but you can still do cool stuff like breath underwater and hurl fireballs.


The quick-and-dirty fix to make Casters more manageable is to forbid learning spells of 7th level or higher. Instead, those spell slots could only be used to cast heightened versions of weaker spells.
This option removes the obvious game breakers like Plane Shift, Gate, Teleport, and stuff, but keeps enough of the fun stuff for Casters to not kill the DM over it. To be honest, I typically play a caster, and there aren't a lot of spells above 6th level that I really like that much anyways, at least not in 5E.



One option is, perhaps, modular and customizable spells. For example, a Caster could start with the Fire Bolt cantrip. By spending a Level 1 spell slot, they could maybe do a 5-foot blast radius version with a Dex Save instead of a Spell Attack. As the caster levels up, they customize that spell, by expanding the damage, range, area of effect, number of targets, or other qualities. For example, that spell could be modified into Scorching Ray, Fireball, or Wall of Fire over time. By Level 18, it could be similar to Meteor Storm.
This particularly fits the idea of a Wizard researching a custom spell, or a Sorcerer unlocking new potential. The character could still cast weaker versions of the spell, but their Spell list would basically become a histogram of that spell's evolution and growth.

Wizards would ideally divide their attention between many spells customized to a lesser degree, while Sorcerers would have 2 or 3 spells heavily customized into versatile weapons the caster can custom-tailor to the situation.

The reason this works is because, well, I'm actually not really sure at this point if it does. It WOULD limit every spell in the game to being an improved derivative of a lower-level spell, though. You can go from Mage Hand to Levitation to Fly, but I don't see you working Plane Shift into there at any point, unless your DM allows it. But then, why bother with the system?

I don't know- it's an idea pitch, not a full-fledged homebrew. For now.

[Sindeloke]

Your argument boils down to "if DM fiat allows it you can do it", I like to play a game where my choices matter and not the DM's whims. By base rules magic works the same no matter what table you sit down at but skills don't. Skills are at the mercy of the DM, by base rules. One DM may allow you to or form CPR but another DM may laugh at you.

Which means you don't really get to decide what your character can do, your DM is deciding. A spell however, if it says X, will do X.

I want to use my acrobatics check to walk on clouds (3.5 epic skill) versus the fly spell. Which one can be used more times in more games? The third level spell. A lot of DMs, even if you can hit a DC of 1000, will straight up nope cloud walking.

This is 50% of it, right here. Making half the players rely on DM fiat while the other half get to dictate their actions freely is not ok.

The other 50% is that, as Ziegander just mentioned in the other currently broiling thread about this, skills are universal. Bards, in fact, a powerful full caster with lots of good utility spells, are neck and neck with rogues for being the best skill users in the game (slightly worse with favored skills, slightly better with the rest). They are certainly much, much better than barbarians, fighters, paladins, or open hand monks. If you give the ability to walk on clouds to anyone with sufficient Acrobatics, wizards and druids and sorcerers just go Entertainer background and spend that spell slot on some other form of versatility. A high tide lifts every boat.

If you only give those skill feats to martials, on the other hand (however you choose to define that), you're basically just giving them new abilities and you might as well just give them new abilities independent of skills, which gives you more design room to play in.

[Freelance GM]

This is 50% of it, right here. Making half the players rely on DM fiat while the other half get to dictate their actions freely is not ok.

The other 50% is that, as Ziegander just mentioned in the other currently broiling thread about this, skills are universal. Bards, in fact, a powerful full caster with lots of good utility spells, are neck and neck with rogues for being the best skill users in the game (slightly worse with favored skills, slightly better with the rest). They are certainly much, much better than barbarians, fighters, paladins, or open hand monks. If you give the ability to walk on clouds to anyone with sufficient Acrobatics, wizards and druids and sorcerers just go Entertainer background and spend that spell slot on some other form of versatility. A high tide lifts every boat.

If you only give those skill feats to martials, on the other hand (however you choose to define that), you're basically just giving them new abilities and you might as well just give them new abilities independent of skills, which gives you more design room to play in.


But casters aren't freely dictating their actions- what you can and can't do with a spell is left to DM fiat as well. For example, Arcane Lock is one that comes up a lot in my games- one of my players asked if he could cast the spell on his weapon's sheath.

RAW says Arcane Lock only works on "containers," but DM fiat could rule that a weapon's sheath counts as a container, since it holds the weapon.
The difference is that spells are specific and situational, while skills are more general. Even a spell like Fly is only any good if your campaign has a lot of open spaces- in a pure dungeon-crawling campaign, the spell's practically useless unless you happen to find a large chamber. Acrobatics, on the other hand, is useful in either situation.

The more specific nature of spells means that there is more you can get away with through spellcasting- you can hit your DM in the face with RAW, while skills literally run on the player and DM interpreting what that skill should reasonably allow you to do.

If your character needs a specific ability to do backflips in combat, then the Acrobatics skill loses some of its value, because it becomes assumed that you cannot do backflips at all unless you have that ability. From there, it gets into the same messiness of Pathfinder. To imitate a pretty common fantasy gimmick for a Gish- teleporting between attacks- you need 2 classes, a whole tree of feats, and to wait until around level 15. And even then, since your build doesn't become optimal until a certain level, you spend the majority of the game miserable, because you're working towards an eventual payoff of being able to do a certain little thing, instead of making an optimized and effective character.

The reason skills exist is so that your character can do backflips without needing 4 prerequisite feats and RAW explicitly stating, "You can do backflips in combat." They are designed with creative interpretation in mind. If the DM doesn't allow you to do anything with skills other than what the RAW says that skill does, then that is a major DM problem, and spells immediately become better because they have RAW saying exactly what they do, with less room for DM fiat.

At the end of the day, 100% of the players rely on DM fiat. If your DM is an ass with no imagination, who only lets you do what the RAW says you can, then spellcasters will always be more versatile than martials. Also, find a better DM. If your DM actually lets you use Skills the way the game intends players to use skills, then the game actually works, and casters and martials remain close enough to balanced for everyone at the table to have fun.

[CrusaderJoe]

snip

No, by going by base rules a wizard can fly, shapechange, or whatever else. The rules are concrete with what you can do. If you use the rules as written then the player can decide what they can do.

Most of the spells in the PHB aren't all that vague. DMs can even ask Sage Advice on anything that may be vague. The answer to "should I allow a skill to do X" is "up to how you as a DM wants the skill to work".

Skills, as a base rule, is left up to DM interpretation right out of the box. Can a character balance on a rope during a hurricane? Can the character use athletics to double jump? Or are these things specifically impossible and won't even get a roll? Can you use athletics to use a whip to swing from rafter to another rafter in order to sneak up on a creature (say like batman with his grappling hook).

Who knows, you have to ask each specific DM.

What it leads to is Spells are facts while Skills are opinions. Spells do X while skills might be able to do Y.

And this is without any Houserules or homebrewing involved.

[Ziegander]

The reason skills exist is so that your character can do backflips without needing 4 prerequisite feats and RAW explicitly stating, "You can do backflips in combat." They are designed with creative interpretation in mind. If the DM doesn't allow you to do anything with skills other than what the RAW says that skill does, then that is a major DM problem, and spells immediately become better because they have RAW saying exactly what they do, with less room for DM fiat.

And, even if your DM does allow the non-casters to do creative, imaginative things using their skills, it bares repeating that casters get skills too. And if the Barbarian can do backflips in combat, then so can the Wizard. So the Wizard is still more versatile than the Barbarian, because now both can do backflips, but the Wizard can still cast a plethora of spells.

[redfeline]

I think part of the problem is the number of DM's that embrace the 5 minutes adventuring day.

[CrusaderJoe]

I think part of the problem is the number of DM's that embrace the 5 minutes adventuring day.

The game was made with the idea of casters having x/day abilities and balanced around that.

DMs don't cause the 5 minute workday, the game does.

If all casters worked more like the warlock (x/short rest) and had balanced spells then the 5minute work day would be gotten rid of.

I was part of a party that had a Warlock, Battlemaster Fighter, and Monk.. 5 minute work day didn't exist.

[LairdMaon]

Would somebody please point me to more information on this '5 minute workday' concept? I'd like to learn more.

[Sindeloke]

Would somebody please point me to more information on this '5 minute workday' concept? I'd like to learn more.

It's an artifact of 3rd edition. Magic users had limited spell slots per day and no way to get any of them back. As a consequence, the party would simply progress through an encounter using all their most powerful spells until they ran out, trivializing most challenges, and then stop to rest (typically in an impenetrable space like a rope trick or demiplane to protect them from wandering monsters). The next day they would have all their spells again, so they'd take on another five-minute encounter, blow all their spells, and go to bed again.

The intended purpose of 1/day effects, to force players to spread them out across multiple encounter and make them more equal in potency with characters who have no strong daily abilities but reliable, mediocre unlimited abilities, is in fact not at all the practical effect in most cases, because casters have too many tools to force them to keep going on a regular basis. (Also, four combats per day can be a serious drain on suspension of disbelief in many situations.)

The problem continued in 4e and persists to 5e now that *everybody* has daily abilities, though it's not as severe with the presence of short rests to encourage casters to keep going.

[LairdMaon]

Ah, gotcha. That makes a sad sort of sense. I can't imagine playing a game like that.

[NichG]

The stuff about DM fiat has a grain of important truth to it, but I think it's getting clouded over by a lot of resentment against DMs and things like that.

Lets say you want to ask 'can we as the party accomplish X?'. The answer isn't binary 'yes' or 'no'. The actual answer is varieties of: 'yes, absolutely', 'yes but it will cost resources', 'yes but it will take time', 'yes but it may fail', 'maybe but it probably will fail', 'maybe not, but there's no harm in trying', 'no, and trying will get us killed', etc.

The most important difference between a spellcaster raising the dead with a spell and a party of martials going on a quest to Baator to recover the soul and use a ritual at the Nexus of Life and Death to put it back into the body is not 'well, the DM is forced to let the first one succeed', it's that the first one can be thought of as a sort of atomic move in the overall game - cast the spell, the result happens, move on with things. Whereas the second one is a complex sequence of moves with branching, possible difficulties, costs, etc.

The abilities of casters can be problematic when they take what would be an interesting complex sequence of moves to design and playthrough and replace that with an atomic action. The abilities of casters are not a problem when they take what would be a boring or repetitive complex sequence of moves and replace that with an atomic action. The trick is identifying which is which, and at what point in the game that is true. A journey across the ocean fraught with peril might be interesting once or twice, but by the tenth time you probably should replace it with an atomic action. That's sort of what 'gaining abilities as you go up in level' achieves - it gives you access to things that allow you to handwave over repeated tasks that you already know how to solve because you did it at lower levels.

It is a problem when a player doesn't want to do anything but atomic actions, because then there's no game. It's also a problem when a DM wants to make things involved that aren't interesting to the players, or have been repeated a dozen times (e.g. 'okay guys, if you want to sell your loot you have to RP bartering with the merchant again - for the 15th time').

The observation that a team of martials can basically do anything a caster can given enough questing is just a consequence that the core function of many abilities in the system is to perform this sort of condensation of complex tasks into 'atomic actions'. Any ability which does that can always be replaced with sufficient questing. An important thing to realize is that spells are not the only way one could design a game that abstracts away some complex sequence into an atomic action. 'I use my Merchant King class feature to guarantee access to an airship and safe, quick passage to our destination' is really the same thing as 'I use my Wizard class feature to teleport us'. So you don't have to give these only to 'casters' in designing a game.

There is some issue of fairness if these abstraction abilities are distributed oddly. Imagine that in one party, a warrior wants to make his way across a chasm to see what's up with a cave on the opposing cliff face, whereas in another party it's a wizard with access to flight who wants that. In the former case, the warrior has to convince the other PCs to spend time figuring out a way across and maybe even helping him implement it, whereas in the latter case the wizard can just go and check it out of his own will. So it feels as though the wizard has more leverage than the warrior does in exploring the parts of the game that interest him. This tension can be lessened with meta-game consideration - e.g. if the players recognize that one person is getting their way all the time and someone else is being shot down, they can make adjustments to their in-character decisions to make the overall party dynamic feel more even. Not all groups will be good at recognizing or adapting to that situation however.

On the side of things, there have been abilities which really are just non-replicable - they don't correspond to condensing a complex task, or maybe they condense a complex task that is nearly impossible to accomplish for adventurers of lower level than when the ability appears. Raising the dead is likely an example of that - if the spell shows up at Lv9, but a Lv9 party can't reasonably raid Baator to get someone's soul back, then its not useful to think of the spell as replacing the quest, because the quest was never really an option. By the time the quest could be done, the spell is easily available.

Abilities like that are either going to be lynchpins that strongly define the feel of the game, or they're going to be places where game design problems tend to crop up - because they really do fundamentally change what is possible when they appear. The distribution of such lynchpins across party members is a much more severe source of potential unfairness than just the abstraction abilities, because now the person possessing the lynchpin really can act as a gatekeeper to that ability if they want to. It can still be solved by meta-game consideration, but now it depends a lot more on the player with the lynchpin abilities being reasonable (e.g. everyone else can't just go over his head and help each-other out if he's being stubborn or dense about the situation)

[Freelance GM]

I think part of the problem is the number of DM's that embrace the 5 minutes adventuring day.
...I figured it out. This is actually the root of the problem. Bear with me, here. There's another wall of text ahead.


And, even if your DM does allow the non-casters to do creative, imaginative things using their skills, it bares repeating that casters get skills too. And if the Barbarian can do backflips in combat, then so can the Wizard. So the Wizard is still more versatile than the Barbarian, because now both can do backflips, but the Wizard can still cast a plethora of spells.

You're absolutely right. However, that "plethora of spells" is limited. Now, you've heard this before, and responded, "limited does not mean balanced," and you're still right, but it's not balanced because of the the 5-minute work day.

If the adventuring day lasts longer than the Wizard's spell slots, then the problem fixes itself: even though the Caster is more versatile than anyone else some of the time, non-casters can do their jobs well all of the time. A Rogue never runs out of sneak attacks, and outside of combat, thieves' tools don't have a limited number of uses.

Even if the metagame encourages a 5-minute workday for optimal party effectiveness, the actual game does not. Turns out there's a system already in the game that spoils the 5-minute work day: Random Encounters.

By RAW, DM's are supposed to check for Random encounters every single hour PC's spend in the wilderness, or a dungeon, or even a particularly dangerous part of a city. Most DM's don't, because random encounters are inconvenient, and throw off the pacing of the DM's narrative. The 5E DMG actually dedicated most of a page (page 85) to explaining why DM's should use Random Encounters.

The first point on their list: "Create urgency."
The third point: "Drain character resources."

All it takes is 1 random encounter to ruin the 5-minute work day. Since they're supposed to be hourly, there are 8 chances for something do go wrong during a Long Rest. If an encounter happens, then the party Casters will still be low on spells, or out completely, so it's up to the Martials to save the day. Oh, and the 8-hour timer on the long rest restarts, because combat definitely counts as "strenuous activity."

For the 5-minute work day to work in a game with Random Encounters, the PC's would have to go all the way back to town, in order to rest safely. Even if they barricaded themselves in a room in the dungeon, a monster has plenty of time to try breaking the door down. It gets to the point where the cost of multiple trips to and from the dungeon to the town outweighs the benefits of replenishing the caster's spell slots, and so the 5-minute work day dies.

I've played a caster in a campaign like this, before. In this type of game, Rope Trick is the caster's ace in the hole, but even then, the caster has to 1) be a Wizard, Sorcerer, or a sufficiently high-level Bard. 2) Have the spell prepared, unless the caster is a Bard or Sorcerer, and 3) conserve a Level 2 spell slot for the entire 16 hours not spent in the spell's pocket dimension. 5-minute work days are still possible, but you have to earn it by conserving spell slots. Also, what if some creature that can see invisibility spots the window into your Pocket dimension? What if some Worgs track your scent to the spot just below your window, and camp out there? However, if even the possibility of a 5-minute workday is too much for you, just cut Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, and maybe even Demiplane from the game.

So, it seems that just from including random encounters, the 5-minute workday is mostly cured, and the game becomes balanced again. Those x/day abilities become pretty precious when the players have the potential to face a new threat every hour outside of town.

So it looks like I've found one possible answer to my own question. Yes, the Martials vs Casters thing is indeed still a problem, but it's a DM problem. The game works fine if the DM plays it with hourly random encounters eating away at the PC's resources, as the RAW recommends. However, a random encounter for every hour of adventuring causes the game's pacing to drag to a halt, and taxes the DM's creativity. It's hard to find ways to describe "four Orcs kicking down the door to your hideaway" for the seventh time that adventure.

Random encounters aren't the only option, though. In a fast-paced adventure, players may not have enough time to take a long rest, like in the Horde of the Dragon Queen game I mentioned in an earlier post. Either way, it prevents the 5-minute work day, which prevents casters from constantly refreshing their spell slots, which means they'll eventually start conserving, or they'll outlive their usefulness. Once either of those things happens, the Martial characters take over.

Yes, it's true, the Barbarian will still never be able to fly, but chances are the Caster won't be flying either, if one extra Haste or Fireball may be more useful later.

Still, the fact that it is THAT easy to upset the balance of the game suggests that more could be done. What do you all think?

[Chronologist]

Here are my thoughts on why the martial / caster disparity is still a problem in 5E.

1) Area of Effect spells are still broken as hell. A Fireball that hits one target does decent damage, but it can easily hit seven or eight enemies at once, and a Wizard who does so massively outpaces the damage potential of a martial character. The design goal of 5E, and this is coming from Mearls himself, was to make the Fighter have high, consistent damage output and for the Wizard to have less frequent but extremely high amounts of damage output. With Cantrips as powerful as they are, this goal is basically unsalvageable without a significant redux, and thus makes martial character feel less impactful on the battle than casters.

2) Martial damage scales incredibly slowly per-hit, and getting multiple attacks is not very satisfying. Sure, getting to make two or three attacks per turn can be fun, but when you're dealing roughly as much damage as you were back at level 1 you don't feel like your blows have any real 'weight' behind them. Case and point, a Thug is a CR 2 enemy with 49 hit points. It's literally just a moderately tough human who's a decent challenge for four 2nd level (i.e. apprentice) characters. A level 20 fighter - all but a demigod in power, one of the most skilled and deadly people on the planet - cannot kill a Thug in one hit. Not even with a CRITICAL HIT. Not without some SERIOUS magic items to give him a damage boost. That, to me, totally undermines the feeling of 'awesomeness' that D&D tries to give the player. On the other hand, a Wizard can totally instantly fry a Thug with one of his stronger spells.

3) No matter what you argue, there are things that casters can do that martial characters simply cannot do without GM intervention. Casters have the ability to break the rules (that's basically what spells are) and warriors cannot. While a martial character might be able to achieve the same result with significantly more effort, it's not necessary the RESULT that's important. Sometimes the method, or the process, is more important. Even then, there are many things that are just plain impossible to replicate without magic, such as resurrection, planar travel, magic detection, animating the dead, telepathy, and antimagic.

4) Mages get lots of 'toys', interesting options and abilities for them to choose from, while martial characters generally don't. Most of their options are extensions of skill checks, which literally anyone can perform. Once again, while you might argue that a fighter can think outside the box and attempt awesome maneuvers on his/her enemies, a wizard with proficiency with that weapon and the same STR / DEX score can literally do the same thing as them. Furthermore, these lateral thinking maneuvers are entirely dependent upon GM Fiat. To paraphrase someone I know, "Wizards are awesome because their spells say so. Fighters are only awesome if the GM says so."

5) Many enemies in D&D require magical attacks to injure them properly, or are very tough but vulnerable to a specific 'silver bullet' spell or spells. This means Wizards have many more opportunities to exploit enemy weaknesses than Fighters, who are essentially screwed when fighting an enemy with Damage Resistance vs. Non-Magic Weapons, unless they have a magic sword lying around, and note that magic weapons are NOT expected to be a component of the game, they are only an optional component if the GM decides to include them. Once again, GM Fiat.

[Amnoriath]

Here are my thoughts on why the martial / caster disparity is still a problem in 5E.

1) Area of Effect spells are still broken as hell. A Fireball that hits one target does decent damage, but it can easily hit seven or eight enemies at once, and a Wizard who does so massively outpaces the damage potential of a martial character. The design goal of 5E, and this is coming from Mearls himself, was to make the Fighter have high, consistent damage output and for the Wizard to have less frequent but extremely high amounts of damage output. With Cantrips as powerful as they are, this goal is basically unsalvageable without a significant redux, and thus makes martial character feel less impactful on the battle than casters.

2) Martial damage scales incredibly slowly per-hit, and getting multiple attacks is not very satisfying. Sure, getting to make two or three attacks per turn can be fun, but when you're dealing roughly as much damage as you were back at level 1 you don't feel like your blows have any real 'weight' behind them. Case and point, a Thug is a CR 2 enemy with 49 hit points. It's literally just a moderately tough human who's a decent challenge for four 2nd level (i.e. apprentice) characters. A level 20 fighter - all but a demigod in power, one of the most skilled and deadly people on the planet - cannot kill a Thug in one hit. Not even with a CRITICAL HIT. Not without some SERIOUS magic items to give him a damage boost. That, to me, totally undermines the feeling of 'awesomeness' that D&D tries to give the player. On the other hand, a Wizard can totally instantly fry a Thug with one of his stronger spells.

3) No matter what you argue, there are things that casters can do that martial characters simply cannot do without GM intervention. Casters have the ability to break the rules (that's basically what spells are) and warriors cannot. While a martial character might be able to achieve the same result with significantly more effort, it's not necessary the RESULT that's important. Sometimes the method, or the process, is more important. Even then, there are many things that are just plain impossible to replicate without magic, such as resurrection, planar travel, magic detection, animating the dead, telepathy, and antimagic.

4) Mages get lots of 'toys', interesting options and abilities for them to choose from, while martial characters generally don't. Most of their options are extensions of skill checks, which literally anyone can perform. Once again, while you might argue that a fighter can think outside the box and attempt awesome maneuvers on his/her enemies, a wizard with proficiency with that weapon and the same STR / DEX score can literally do the same thing as them. Furthermore, these lateral thinking maneuvers are entirely dependent upon GM Fiat. To paraphrase someone I know, "Wizards are awesome because their spells say so. Fighters are only awesome if the GM says so."

5) Many enemies in D&D require magical attacks to injure them properly, or are very tough but vulnerable to a specific 'silver bullet' spell or spells. This means Wizards have many more opportunities to exploit enemy weaknesses than Fighters, who are essentially screwed when fighting an enemy with Damage Resistance vs. Non-Magic Weapons, unless they have a magic sword lying around, and note that magic weapons are NOT expected to be a component of the game, they are only an optional component if the GM decides to include them. Once again, GM Fiat.

1. Base saves in 5e are designed so that those proficient in them are more than likely to succeed against them. Besides is a Wizard really going to use a 5th level slot for 10d6? Also that is completely false the most optimal scenario, the Warlock with 4 1d10+5 rays actually still comes under a Archer fighter in damage because of weapon bonuses Archery style, and Sharpshooter. Of course only a couple subclasses in classes add an attribute to spell damage.
2. Well, when only looking at a base Fighter. Battlemaster adds more, it should have more dice but it can bring a nasty hit. Barbarian of course adds a little with Rage and breaking the Strength cap as well as having Brutal critical. If they dip into a Champion they easily have a 20% chance of making 5d10+10 using Reckless Attack just with a +1 reach weapon not including Great Weapon Master or a Half-Orc which can add another 10 and d10 respectively.
3. So what is the assumption here? That because a martial can't do some things others can't? I am not going to deny there is a spell that could replicate everything and some other things but the real question is it in a caster's interest and incentive to do so? With only 1 caster proficient in Constitution saves, the concentration mechanic, lowered DC's and lose 1 component fail the answer is no. No spell comes close to Expertise or Fast Hands. Advantage/Disadvantage can be found in many places..etc. Except the method isn't always successful as I said and spells with open ended uses are designed for DM's to exploit and throw back in the caster's faces.
4. Casters need a max casting stat more than Martials need a to-hit attribute because not only is it required in spells but as I said DC's are designed to be saved more often against someone proficient and moderately maxed at equivalent level. So where is it going to take it from? Constitution when waltzing into melee, close to, or occupying both hands with a bow? It simply isn't a safe tactic especially considering when they have 1 when melee guys will likely have 3 if not more. While spells may "say so" it not only isn't always so it simply isn't worth the risk sometimes or precluding something else.
5. So when the DMG gives a +1 weapon, as well as possible loot, and there is monsters that need magic to bypass that is GM fiat? I say that is obvious intention and anyone ignoring that is using fiat to spite Martials more. By math of attack vs. defense it doesn't need the +1 but the intention is blatant. If we followed that logic Wizards, casters need to find texts, stories of spells, contact their patrons/Gods/spirits, and need to make the appropriate checks as well as defined resources to be able to prepare them because magic is so connected to whatever set of flavor each caster has. Spells known or prepared is just simply the max you can have at anyone time. It doesn't say anything about you automatically get them technically. Also by that definition because skills don't really have defined DC's it must mean they are useless and are otherwise fluff. I could go on but the point is that this edition is designed to say "Well, we aren't going to detail everything because we aren't doing your campaign to know all of them, but to only go by the letter is inherently ridiculous going against everything we have detailed as well as hinted at,"

[Rogue Shadows]

In every game of 5E I've DM'ed, the caster will cast something, and get 5 seconds of fame, and then the game goes back to the regularly scheduled programming of the Martial characters being consistently awesome.

What is the most common point at which your players' characters decide to stop adventuring for the day and rest?

[Freelance GM]

I'm wondering if someone more math savvy than myself has already gone and done this math...

Let's assume the party is composed of four characters: a Rogue, a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Warlock who used the default Adventurer's League array of 15/14/13/12/10/8, and 150 GP to spend on equipment.


Variant Human Fighter:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 8.
12 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +5 to Hit, 2d6+3 Damage (Greatsword) on a hit.
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue:
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, deals up to 4d6+3 damage (Dual Scimitars + Sneak Attack)

Half-Elf Warlock
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, deals 1d10 damage. (No Agonizing Blast yet.)
Spell Slots: 1 (1st level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys

High Elf Wizard
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 16 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
8 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +5 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 1d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Chromatic Orb (spent starting GP for the material component), Mage Armor, Sleep, Shield.
Spells Known: All of the above, plus Alarm and Identify (both are Rituals).
Spell Slots: 2 + Arcane Recovery 1

Coming out of the gate, the Martials have higher AC's and damage outputs with their main attacks. The only exception is the Rogue- if the Rogue is not sneak attacking, and misses with one attack, the Rogue deals the least damage, while the fighter deals the most. The casters are tied in the middle.

According to the 5E DMG, the recommended XP/Adventuring Day is 300 per character at Level 1. (DMG 84) The per character part is important- this means that for a party of 4, there should be 1,200 XP's worth of encounters. For a party of four, this means encounter difficulty looks like this:

Easy: 100 XP (1 Worg)
Medium: 200 (4 Kobolds)
Hard: 300 (3 Wolves)
Deadly: 400 (2 Bandits and 1 Thug)

The party would have to do 3 deadly encounters, 4 hard encounters, 6 medium encounters, or 12 easy encounters to get the amount of XP they are supposed to earn in that single day. Or, obviously, they could do a combination. Say, 1 of each, with an extra medium encounter thrown in. The casters have their awesome spells, sure, but they have 5 spell slots between the two of them, which they need to divide between at least 3 encounters. Otherwise, they're relying on cantrips, which makes them tied for the worst damage dealers in the party, unless the Rogue is having really bad rolls and not sneak-attacking.

Outside of combat, the Rogue is supreme- a Half-Elf Rogue has a whopping 8 Skills, and Expertise in 2 of them (lets' assume Stealth and Acrobatics). The Warlock is the next best with 6 skills, but that's because the Warlock's a Half-elf, not because of caster shenanigans. Variant Human Fighter and Elf Wizard both have 5.

Now, the valid argument of "it's not about damage, it's about versatility!" is still valid for the casters, but consider this: Encounters aren't always combat. I used combat examples, but in 4E, you'd get XP for skill challenges, and 3.5 gave you XP for disarming traps. You can still do those with spells, but unless you're the trap monkey, it's usually pretty hard to die outside of combat. Every spell slot you use enchanting a noble, or bypassing a hazard is one less you have in combat- when things are actively trying to kill your character.



Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 14 Cha: 8.
44 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +6 to Hit, potential 4d6+6 Damage (Greatsword, 2 attacks)
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin):
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, dual-wields scimitars for 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage. Adds +3d6 damage on a sneak attack. Also, Assassinate makes attacks vs. Surprised enemies automatically crit.
Feat: Alert

Half-Elf Fiendlock (Tome Pact)
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, gets 2 shots and deals 1d10+3 damage.
Spell Slots: 2 (3rd level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt
Invocations: Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, Repelling Blast
Feat: Spell Sniper

High Elf Wizard (Diviner)
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 18 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
32 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +7 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 2d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Witch Bolt, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Fly, Fireball
Spells Known: All of the above, plus 5 more.
Spell Slots: 1st: 4, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 2 + Arcane Recovery 5

Now things start getting interesting, with everyone getting their subclass. The Fighter continues to have the most damage per swing, and a boost to Wisdom and the Battle Master spec make the character a tad more well-rounded- the Fighter can learn about enemies outside of combat, and the Battle Master maneuvers are starting to give the character some flexibility in combat beyond "hit it again."

The Rogue takes the assassin route, because instant crits! Combined with the Alert feat, this is pretty likely to happen. Also, the rogue gets extra proficiencies, becoming even more of an asset outside of combat. The rogue's damage is still very dynamic- it's either bad, a little worse than the fighter, or the best in the party, depending on circumstance.

The Warlock goes for long-range damage. Eldritch Blast is now two-for-the-price-of-one, with Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast giving the Warlock more damage and battlefield control, while the Tome Pact and Invocation let the Warlock learn some more cantrips and cast rituals- also becoming more valuable outside of combat. However, within combat, the character's damage still lags behind the Fighter. Unlike the Wizard, the Warlock can liberally use all two of the character's spell slots in combat- Short rests are easier to come by than long rests, after all.

The Wizard went the Diviner route (Portents are great), boosted INT, and got a ton more spells- including a weak teleport, some more offense, some more defense, good old Fireball, Fly, and the notorious Rope Trick. Arcane Recovery only gets better with time. This is where you could start arguing the Wizard gets OP. It certainly looks OP, right? But let's see what they're up against.

Recommended XP/Adventuring Day: 3,500 per character (15,000 total)
Easy: 1,000 XP (5 Hobgoblins)
Medium: 2,000 XP (A Bulette, with 200 XP left over)
Hard: 3,000 XP (4 Bugbears and a Bugbear Chief)
Deadly: 4,400 XP (3 Basilisks, but with 200 XP left over)

At Level 5, the minimum number of encounters has gone up. 3 Deadly Encounters leaves you 1800 XP shy of your daily allotment- you'd need an extra Medium encounter to get your recommended value of XP. Or, you could grind through 5 hard encounters. Or 15 easy ones. In a case like this, it becomes easy to understand how casters actually are balanced by their daily limit. I've already made the characters for you- grab them and play through what the book calls "one adventuring day" and see how the casters perform.

Again, these don't have to be combat, but I'm using combat as examples for what gives that amount of XP. Disarming traps and defusing social situations could still get you XP, as well as bonuses like Quest XP, but let's be honest- at this point, most of the XP will come from combat.


Now, I don't think I've ever seen a DM cram that many encounters in one day. That's the problem.

We can't complain that the game is broken if we're all playing the game wrong, guys.

[Rogue Shadows]

You're still going about the Martial VS. Caster problem from the wrong angle, however.

The way I had the Tier system - which is, essentially, just a codifying of the martial/caster problem - explained to me is thus. Think of, say, a dozen situations that you might encounter in a low-to medium level adventure:

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

The imbalance stems from the fact that noncasters can do some of these things, and half-casters can do more of these things, but full casters tend to be able to do all of these things, especially with preparation time. Even worse, most of the ways that the noncasters have to deal with these issues - skills - can be replicated by full casters, and full casters often have more efficient means of accomplishing a task via spell.

[Chronologist]

1. Base saves in 5e are designed so that those proficient in them are more than likely to succeed against them. Besides is a Wizard really going to use a 5th level slot for 10d6? Also that is completely false the most optimal scenario, the Warlock with 4 1d10+5 rays actually still comes under a Archer fighter in damage because of weapon bonuses Archery style, and Sharpshooter. Of course only a couple subclasses in classes add an attribute to spell damage.

You're not actually addressing my point here. Area of effect damage spells deal massive damage to groups of enemies, so much damage in fact that one or two well-placed fireballs can and will do more damage than twenty or more rounds of combat from a martial character. The fact that martials do marginally more damage per round with their at-will attack abiliites isn't enough to bridge this noticeable gap, and thus it supports the ongoing notion of caster supremacy.


2. Well, when only looking at a base Fighter. Battlemaster adds more, it should have more dice but it can bring a nasty hit. Barbarian of course adds a little with Rage and breaking the Strength cap as well as having Brutal critical. If they dip into a Champion they easily have a 20% chance of making 5d10+10 using Reckless Attack just with a +1 reach weapon not including Great Weapon Master or a Half-Orc which can add another 10 and d10 respectively.

If you have to multiclass, take specific race and feat options, and use a magic weapon to kill an enemy that was a threat 18 LEVELS AGO then you have failed to make high-level martial characters feel awesome or powerful.


3. So what is the assumption here? That because a martial can't do some things others can't? I am not going to deny there is a spell that could replicate everything and some other things but the real question is it in a caster's interest and incentive to do so? With only 1 caster proficient in Constitution saves, the concentration mechanic, lowered DC's and lose 1 component fail the answer is no. No spell comes close to Expertise or Fast Hands. Advantage/Disadvantage can be found in many places..etc. Except the method isn't always successful as I said and spells with open ended uses are designed for DM's to exploit and throw back in the caster's faces.

Just because an individual spellcaster might not want to spend the resources to perform a miraculous, otherwise impossible act does not mean that said miracle is any less out of reach of martial characters. You can't argue that Wizards are balanced by making a Wizard that chooses all the worst spells. the class is still incredibly powerful despite your individual choices.


4. Casters need a max casting stat more than Martials need a to-hit attribute because not only is it required in spells but as I said DC's are designed to be saved more often against someone proficient and moderately maxed at equivalent level. So where is it going to take it from? Constitution when waltzing into melee, close to, or occupying both hands with a bow? It simply isn't a safe tactic especially considering when they have 1 when melee guys will likely have 3 if not more. While spells may "say so" it not only isn't always so it simply isn't worth the risk sometimes or precluding something else.

The current attribute spread that starting characters receive is more than enough for a wizard or sorcerer to have physical stats nearly equalling that of a martial character while also having a 15+ in their main casting stat. I know, I've done so on more than one occasion. Also, your argument does nothing to disprove how spellcasters still get vastly more options than martial characters.


5. So when the DMG gives a +1 weapon, as well as possible loot, and there is monsters that need magic to bypass that is GM fiat? I say that is obvious intention and anyone ignoring that is using fiat to spite Martials more. By math of attack vs. defense it doesn't need the +1 but the intention is blatant. If we followed that logic Wizards, casters need to find texts, stories of spells, contact their patrons/Gods/spirits, and need to make the appropriate checks as well as defined resources to be able to prepare them because magic is so connected to whatever set of flavor each caster has. Spells known or prepared is just simply the max you can have at anyone time. It doesn't say anything about you automatically get them technically. Also by that definition because skills don't really have defined DC's it must mean they are useless and are otherwise fluff. I could go on but the point is that this edition is designed to say "Well, we aren't going to detail everything because we aren't doing your campaign to know all of them, but to only go by the letter is inherently ridiculous going against everything we have detailed as well as hinted at,"

Clerics get their spells from prayer explicitly in their class description. Wizards automatically add more spells to their spellbook at every level. Sorcerers learn more spells over time automatically as well. Literally none of those require GM Fiat, and if the GM changes how casters learn or prepare their spells then that is him or her intervening in the game mechanics, and thus not a part of the core system. Skills, skill checks, and attribute checks are absolutely based on the whims of the GM, which is what makes them so fragile as character options in comparison. If you make a Skill check and the GM tell you that you failed, you the player are not entitled to really ask why. If you cast a spell like Mage Armour and the GM tells you that it doesn't work, he's pretty much obligated to tell you why if you ask.

[Freelance GM]

You're still going about the Martial VS. Caster problem from the wrong angle, however.

The way I had the Tier system - which is, essentially, just a codifying of the martial/caster problem - explained to me is thus. Think of, say, a dozen situations that you might encounter in a low-to medium level adventure:

1. Talking to a noble about your reward
2. Hunting for clues in a busy city
3. A hostage negotiation
4. Evading an enemy that is too strong to kill
5. Getting past an environmental obstacle
6. Reaching a destination faster than an opponent
7. Finding a hidden enemy base
8. Killing a horde of enemies
9. Disabling someone without killing him
10. Taking out a monster with one specific weakness, say, fire, silver, magical weapons, sunlight
11. Earning a lot of money, quickly.
12. Stealing an item, undetected.

The imbalance stems from the fact that noncasters can do some of these things, and half-casters can do more of these things, but full casters tend to be able to do all of these things, especially with preparation time. Even worse, most of the ways that the noncasters have to deal with these issues - skills - can be replicated by full casters, and full casters often have more efficient means of accomplishing a task via spell.

Oh, so that's how they judge tiers. Always wondered how they calculated that.

The way I see it, Noncasters can do some of these things all the time, casters can do all of these things some of the time.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the DM's game taxes the party's resources to the extent the designers intended it to, casters will not have enough spell slots to be able to do everything all of the time.

Yes, they are still the most versatile characters, but their usefulness only lasts as long as their spell slots. Once those are out, the noncasters get their turn to shine.

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh, so that's how they judge tiers. Always wondered how they calculated that.

Well, I don't think that's the official way (I'm not sure if there is an "official" way), but that is how I had it explained to me, and I've kept those twelve scenarios saved as a general guideline when creating or modifying classes. The Tier system has never been about raw power; raw power is simply a side-benefit of being in a high Tier. The tier system is about versatility and options, or more specifically game-mandated versatility and options, as opposed to simply GM Fiat.


The way I see it, Noncasters can do some of these things all the time, casters can do all of these things some of the time.

This is true. However, the problem is that it is extraordinarily rare that anyone would have to do all of these things, all the time. However the fact remains that over, say, a twelve-day period, each of these situations may come up once, and each time they come up the caster either has a method of handling the situation, or can go off and prepare a way to handle the situation; while a noncaster either has an answer or doesn't. Using the fighter as an example, he has no option for "get somewhere fast" that isn't open to a wizard (buying a really fast horse, mostly), and the wizard either has teleport prepared or could get access to it very quickly (as compared to the fighter, who can't access it at all, except by asking his wizard friend to teleport him).

You're right that having teleport prepared eats up a spell slot; however I'd argue that teleport is a useful enough spell that many wizards would happily have it prepared as part of their "default" list anyway, and that the wizard has options open to him to quickly replace expended spell slots as early as 1st level, thanks to Arcane Recovery.

[Amnoriath]

You're not actually addressing my point here. Area of effect damage spells deal massive damage to groups of enemies, so much damage in fact that one or two well-placed fireballs can and will do more damage than twenty or more rounds of combat from a martial character. The fact that martials do marginally more damage per round with their at-will attack abiliites isn't enough to bridge this noticeable gap, and thus it supports the ongoing notion of caster supremacy.



If you have to multiclass, take specific race and feat options, and use a magic weapon to kill an enemy that was a threat 18 LEVELS AGO then you have failed to make high-level martial characters feel awesome or powerful.



Just because an individual spellcaster might not want to spend the resources to perform a miraculous, otherwise impossible act does not mean that said miracle is any less out of reach of martial characters. You can't argue that Wizards are balanced by making a Wizard that chooses all the worst spells. the class is still incredibly powerful despite your individual choices.



The current attribute spread that starting characters receive is more than enough for a wizard or sorcerer to have physical stats nearly equalling that of a martial character while also having a 15+ in their main casting stat. I know, I've done so on more than one occasion. Also, your argument does nothing to disprove how spellcasters still get vastly more options than martial characters.



Clerics get their spells from prayer explicitly in their class description. Wizards automatically add more spells to their spellbook at every level. Sorcerers learn more spells over time automatically as well. Literally none of those require GM Fiat, and if the GM changes how casters learn or prepare their spells then that is him or her intervening in the game mechanics, and thus not a part of the core system. Skills, skill checks, and attribute checks are absolutely based on the whims of the GM, which is what makes them so fragile as character options in comparison. If you make a Skill check and the GM tell you that you failed, you the player are not entitled to really ask why. If you cast a spell like Mage Armour and the GM tells you that it doesn't work, he's pretty much obligated to tell you why if you ask.
1. Which means what? A 3rd level Fireball on average will be 28 damage assuming no resistance or saving. You are trying to say it is unbalanced simply because an Area of Effect has affect advantage on crowds of little enemies? At what point will there be a battle where you have several enemies in a 20 ft spread without someone to hem them in? My point it is mostly pointless to spam these because against decent opponents that damage goes down drasticly.
2. I said, "not including Half Orc or Great Weapon Master" So there is a lot of choice. Sure the wizard could choose a spell to kill a CR 2 enemy, but again to ensure that it will be a high level spell slot which again wastes the caster's resources.
3. Yes, but that save DC with that at best is 16 a proficient guy with a 10 stat will make this 55% of the time. Also your spell attack modifier is 8. You are missing a +1 full plate Defense Fighter 60% of the time of not even a high level necessarily, not to mention a shield. Theory is guaranteed, but reality is fickle.
4. I was using your logic in effectively banning a magic weapon just because it doesn't have a gp price when there was clearly a lot of suggestions and clues to bring them in. So because it doesn't say immediately or automatically the GM could technically make it absolutely impossible for a low level caster to have any spells or cantrips do to your lack of RAW reasoning to not have a magic weapon. So, giving a magical weapon or making skill DC's isn't DM fiat because the designers gave them a direction, intention, and blueprints on what to do. As such if a DM doesn't sit down and say these are the checks in the game where there isn't a reference or follow what I said before, they are being a bad DM.
I don't say this to say Martials can't have nice things. I say this to bring reality in what a wise caster would do and as such they limit their choices because it is not worth to use some spells in all situations Martials do. Also other good spells could be overrided by other spells, lost outright, or even come back to bite them later on.

[Amnoriath]

You're right that having teleport prepared eats up a spell slot; however I'd argue that teleport is a useful enough spell that many wizards would happily have it prepared as part of their "default" list anyway, and that the wizard has options open to him to quickly replace expended spell slots as early as 1st level, thanks to Arcane Recovery.

I agree with most of what you had to say but a Wizard can't replenish a 7th level spells as the Arcane Recovery only goes up to 5th.

[Rogue Shadows]

I agree with most of what you had to say but a Wizard can't replenish a 7th level spells as the Arcane Recovery only goes up to 5th.

Truth. But this simply means that the wizard's high-level spell slots are reserved for general utility spells while the lower-level ones can be rotated as need be.


1. Which means what? A 3rd level Fireball on average will be 28 damage assuming no resistance or saving. You are trying to say it is unbalanced simply because an Area of Effect has affect advantage on crowds of little enemies? At what point will there be a battle where you have several enemies in a 20 ft spread without someone to hem them in? My point it is mostly pointless to spam these because against decent opponents that damage goes down drasticly.

So then the wizard prepares other spells if he finds he doesn't need to keep fireball prepared. Meanwhile, how is that fighter's search for frost-resistant armor coming along?


2. I said, "not including Half Orc or Great Weapon Master" So there is a lot of choice. Sure the wizard could choose a spell to kill a CR 2 enemy, but again to ensure that it will be a high level spell slot which again wastes the caster's resources.

So then the wizard doesn't prepare fireball and goes back to his true love of using illusions to put on magic shows for little children. Meanwhile the Half Orc Great Weapon Master is still stuck as a Half Orc Great Weapon Master.


3. Yes, but that save DC with that at best is 16 a proficient guy with a 10 stat will make this 55% of the time. Also your spell attack modifier is 8. You are missing a +1 full plate Defense Fighter 60% of the time of not even a high level necessarily, not to mention a shield. Theory is guaranteed, but reality is fickle.

I missed the larger conversation, but are we assuming 20th level? Because then the save DC can reliable be assumed to be an 19 (8 + 6 [proficiency] + 5 [caster stat]), while a caster's attack with a spell can be assumed to be +11 (6 (proficiency) + 5 [caster stat]).


4. I was using your logic in effectively banning a magic weapon just because it doesn't have a gp price when there was clearly a lot of suggestions and clues to bring them in. So because it doesn't say immediately or automatically the GM could technically make it absolutely impossible for a low level caster to have any spells or cantrips do to your lack of RAW reasoning to not have a magic weapon. So, giving a magical weapon or making skill DC's isn't DM fiat because the designers gave them a direction, intention, and blueprints on what to do. As such if a DM doesn't sit down and say these are the checks in the game where there isn't a reference or follow what I said before, they are being a bad DM.

The thing is that magic items tend to cancel each other out. If the fighter is getting a +3 weapon then there's no reason to assume that the caster won't be getting something that gives him +3 to his AC or saves. And that's leaving aside the fact that the caster could instead invest in a broom of flying and hover outside of the fighter's reach, dropping beads from her necklace of fireballs. The fighter might have his own flying carpet but then the wizard just opens up a portal to the Astral by plopping his portable hole into a bag of holding and sucks himself and the fighter into another plane, then uses his teleport to teleport away from the fighter and then settles down to ready gate to go home, while the fighter is left hoping that a githyanki ship will come by and be in a friendly mood.

Magic items don't level the playing field. They don't affect the playing field at all, most of the time, and when they do, it tends to be in the caster's favor.

[Amnoriath]

Truth. But this simply means that the wizard's high-level spell slots are reserved for general utility spells while the lower-level ones can be rotated as need be.



So then the wizard prepares other spells if he finds he doesn't need to keep fireball prepared. Meanwhile, how is that fighter's search for frost-resistant armor coming along?



So then the wizard doesn't prepare fireball and goes back to his true love of using illusions to put on magic shows for little children. Meanwhile the Half Orc Great Weapon Master is still stuck as a Half Orc Great Weapon Master.



I missed the larger conversation, but are we assuming 20th level? Because then the save DC can reliable be assumed to be an 19 (8 + 6 [proficiency] + 5 [caster stat]), while a caster's attack with a spell can be assumed to be +11 (6 (proficiency) + 5 [caster stat]).



The thing is that magic items tend to cancel each other out. If the fighter is getting a +3 weapon then there's no reason to assume that the caster won't be getting something that gives him +3 to his AC or saves. And that's leaving aside the fact that the caster could instead invest in a broom of flying and hover outside of the fighter's reach, dropping beads from her necklace of fireballs. The fighter might have his own flying carpet but then the wizard just opens up a portal to the Astral by plopping his portable hole into a bag of holding and sucks himself and the fighter into another plane, then uses his teleport to teleport away from the fighter and then settles down to ready gate to go home, while the fighter is left hoping that a githyanki ship will come by and be in a friendly mood.

Magic items don't level the playing field. They don't affect the playing field at all, most of the time, and when they do, it tends to be in the caster's favor.

Please read the conversation before.
1. Once per day.
2 and 3. You not denying what I said. You saying that just derails what I was countering before. He was trying to say that the AoE or cantrips somehow outclass attacks in most respects. I simply gave math that isn't the case.
4. He tried to say that a caster with a 15 in casting stat is still somehow vastly superior. I was giving math on how the numbers against an equivalent or lower level character is failing more often than not.
5. He was trying to say because magic weapons don't have a gp cost, making them more part of finding them, that a scenario to where they still won't have one where creatures are immune or most resistant is somehow very likely. He was also saying that skills are useless without DM fiat because it doesn't give specific numbers. I was using that logic against him and disproving it is absolute DM fiat on these things because if they don't follow the hints, intentions, blueprints..etc and not bringing the players in they are being a bad DM.

[Chronologist]

In advance, I don't mean to sound like a jerk but I would really appreciate it if you spaced out your paragraphs / points better.


1. Which means what? A 3rd level Fireball on average will be 28 damage assuming no resistance or saving. You are trying to say it is unbalanced simply because an Area of Effect has affect advantage on crowds of little enemies? At what point will there be a battle where you have several enemies in a 20 ft spread without someone to hem them in? My point it is mostly pointless to spam these because against decent opponents that damage goes down drasticly.

I have played many games wherein groups of enemies within 20 feet of each other attacked the players. I have also seen several modules published for 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E that use mobs of enemies in this fashion. Many of these mobs include four or more such enemies. Assuming that enemies make their save roughly half of the time, that's 84 damage on average that a Wizard is dealing with a level 3 Fireball. I've seen many mobs of enemies than include six or more enemies as well, which only further exacerbates the issue.


2. I said, "not including Half Orc or Great Weapon Master" So there is a lot of choice. Sure the wizard could choose a spell to kill a CR 2 enemy, but again to ensure that it will be a high level spell slot which again wastes the caster's resources.

A level 20 Champion Fighter with 20 Strength who lands a critical hit can't kill a CR 2 human in one hit. That's a pretty optimal situation in my opinion. Martial characters should not have to optimize themselves just so that they can feel powerful in the later stages of the game, especially not the Fighter, given that it's the class pretty much specifically designed to be a powerful combat specialist. Furthermore, the fact remains that a Wizard has the OPTION of spending resources to instantly kill that low-level enemy, whereas the Fighter does not. Options in a role-playing game are very important, after all the higher Tier classes are those who excel at multiple tasks as opposed to just one.


3. Yes, but that save DC with that at best is 16 a proficient guy with a 10 stat will make this 55% of the time. Also your spell attack modifier is 8. You are missing a +1 full plate Defense Fighter 60% of the time of not even a high level necessarily, not to mention a shield. Theory is guaranteed, but reality is fickle.

The vast majority of enemies have an Armour Class below that of your example, which I would like to remind you is a defensive fighting specialist in armour with the highest protective value that is also magical (which is an optional component of the game). The fact that you, a wizard, can still hit that character 40% of the time is rather impressive if you think about it.


4. I was using your logic in effectively banning a magic weapon just because it doesn't have a gp price when there was clearly a lot of suggestions and clues to bring them in. So because it doesn't say immediately or automatically the GM could technically make it absolutely impossible for a low level caster to have any spells or cantrips do to your lack of RAW reasoning to not have a magic weapon. So, giving a magical weapon or making skill DC's isn't DM fiat because the designers gave them a direction, intention, and blueprints on what to do. As such if a DM doesn't sit down and say these are the checks in the game where there isn't a reference or follow what I said before, they are being a bad DM.
I don't say this to say Martials can't have nice things. I say this to bring reality in what a wise caster would do and as such they limit their choices because it is not worth to use some spells in all situations Martials do. Also other good spells could be overrided by other spells, lost outright, or even come back to bite them later on.

No, the GM cannot tell a Wizard that they do not know any spells because KNOWING SPELLS IS A CLASS FEATURE OF THE WIZARD. Magic items are EXCLUSIVELY an optional component of the game. When a GM chooses not to include an optional mechanic, that is their choice. When a GM removes a character's class features they are tampering with the core, non-optional rules of the game. If you do not understand how these are different then we have nothing more to say to each other.

[Rogue Shadows]

I have played many games wherein groups of enemies within 20 feet of each other attacked the players. I have also seen several modules published for 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E that use mobs of enemies in this fashion. Many of these mobs include four or more such enemies. Assuming that enemies make their save roughly half of the time, that's 84 damage on average that a Wizard is dealing with a level 3 Fireball. I've seen many mobs of enemies than include six or more enemies as well, which only further exacerbates the issue.

But then, the wizard only has a limited supply of spells, while the fighter can keep swinging all day long. But then again, most parties don't want to adventure when their heaviest-hitter isn't able to contribute, so that's what gives us the 5-minute adventuring day*. Then again again, this is what random encounters are for: to prevent the 5-minute adventuring day. Then again again again, random encounters cut down on the effectiveness of a party with regards to whatever their "main" goal is (and also people who roll up spellcasters understandably want to be able to cast spells), and so as such most parties will quite sensibly try to take steps to cut down on random encounters, via rope trick or the like. But then again again again again...

Around and around and around we go...

(The intention of Wealth by Level here is that this is where things like wands and scrolls enter play, extending the useful life of a wizard. And indeed they do that. The problem is that the spells they are casting are just so damn useful, and of course a class balanced around the idea of "everything some of the time" isn't going to be very balanced when wands and scrolls let it instead go "everything all of the time.")

----------
*Interestingly when I first was told of the phenomenon it was called the 15-minute adventuring day. Over time the day seems to have gotten shorter. Now is the winter of our discontent.

[Freelance GM]

Around and around and around we go...

(The intention of Wealth by Level here is that this is where things like wands and scrolls enter play, extending the useful life of a wizard. And indeed they do that. The problem is that the spells they are casting are just so damn useful, and of course a class balanced around the idea of "everything some of the time" isn't going to be very balanced when wands and scrolls let it instead go "everything all of the time.")


At the same time, though, the martial characters are getting better. I'm pretty sure there's another massive thread raving about how much a Belt of Giant Strength breaks the game, and items like Winged Boots and Helms of Telepathy let non-casters do things the casters can do.

Also, the Wands of Every Spell 4th Level or Lower are out, in favor of a select few more tame wands. However, these wands have recharging batteries.

However, unlike 3.P where magic items were an assumed and integral part of game balance, you can throw them out the window in 5E without breaking the game in the caster's favor.

Instead, you can throw them in, breaking the game in the caster's favor. Wait.... Dammit.

[Amnoriath]

In advance, I don't mean to sound like a jerk but I would really appreciate it if you spaced out your paragraphs / points better.



I have played many games wherein groups of enemies within 20 feet of each other attacked the players. I have also seen several modules published for 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E that use mobs of enemies in this fashion. Many of these mobs include four or more such enemies. Assuming that enemies make their save roughly half of the time, that's 84 damage on average that a Wizard is dealing with a level 3 Fireball. I've seen many mobs of enemies than include six or more enemies as well, which only further exacerbates the issue.



A level 20 Champion Fighter with 20 Strength who lands a critical hit can't kill a CR 2 human in one hit. That's a pretty optimal situation in my opinion. Martial characters should not have to optimize themselves just so that they can feel powerful in the later stages of the game, especially not the Fighter, given that it's the class pretty much specifically designed to be a powerful combat specialist. Furthermore, the fact remains that a Wizard has the OPTION of spending resources to instantly kill that low-level enemy, whereas the Fighter does not. Options in a role-playing game are very important, after all the higher Tier classes are those who excel at multiple tasks as opposed to just one.



The vast majority of enemies have an Armour Class below that of your example, which I would like to remind you is a defensive fighting specialist in armour with the highest protective value that is also magical (which is an optional component of the game). The fact that you, a wizard, can still hit that character 40% of the time is rather impressive if you think about it.



No, the GM cannot tell a Wizard that they do not know any spells because KNOWING SPELLS IS A CLASS FEATURE OF THE WIZARD. Magic items are EXCLUSIVELY an optional component of the game. When a GM chooses not to include an optional mechanic, that is their choice. When a GM removes a character's class features they are tampering with the core, non-optional rules of the game. If you do not understand how these are different then we have nothing more to say to each other.

1. This assumes 50/50 when equivalent level classes proficient with are making them more often than failing. Equivalent encounters on the other hand will save even more, not to mention resistance to fire is common. Besides, how many times did your front liners hem them in?
2. In an action where the fighter has 4 at base. Yes, the Champion has its problems but I wasn't really optimizing as I didn't using any feats or even the best race.
3. Yes, but a few are higher and if your primary forms of damage/affliction are failing more 50 percent of time with likely only 1 shot a round there is something seriously wrong with the character.
4. You know I am glad you put up the Wizard because it is the best example in how a DM(albeit a bad one) could do so. A wizard even when scribing its specialized school pays 25 gold per spell level and a significant amount of time. This cost is significant if not insurmountable at level 1. It isn't taking away features as the DM here is just trying to make sense in how a Wizard does this rather than being lazy. Spells known just details a maximum not the method as it says nothing about automatically knowing them. A wizard does this through academic research and logic so this obviously means some kind of teacher or outside text to practice as well as copy from. Ah but what if they don't have them well hey there is the Arcana skill detailing knowledge of spells. Obviously making a check from there will represent, but wait there is no DC for identifying/finding spells so that means it doesn't exist by your reasoning. So, the low level Wizard is completely dependent off of loot or DM fiat to gain the texts or other casters to learn the spells. Just as this is technical and ludicrous so is yours when the party is facing all of these resistant and immune monsters when 5e has dropped all sorts of ways to introduce them and what they look like basically.

[Amnoriath]

But then, the wizard only has a limited supply of spells, while the fighter can keep swinging all day long. But then again, most parties don't want to adventure when their heaviest-hitter isn't able to contribute, so that's what gives us the 5-minute adventuring day*. Then again again, this is what random encounters are for: to prevent the 5-minute adventuring day. Then again again again, random encounters cut down on the effectiveness of a party with regards to whatever their "main" goal is (and also people who roll up spellcasters understandably want to be able to cast spells), and so as such most parties will quite sensibly try to take steps to cut down on random encounters, via rope trick or the like. But then again again again again...



----------
*Interestingly when I first was told of the phenomenon it was called the 15-minute adventuring day. Over time the day seems to have gotten shorter. Now is the winter of our discontent.

A good illustration of the issues but I should mention short rests often provide half their hit points in healing in this edition.

[Chronologist]

4. You know I am glad you put up the Wizard because it is the best example in how a DM(albeit a bad one) could do so. A wizard even when scribing its specialized school pays 25 gold per spell level and a significant amount of time. This cost is significant if not insurmountable at level 1. It isn't taking away features as the DM here is just trying to make sense in how a Wizard does this rather than being lazy. Spells known just details a maximum not the method as it says nothing about automatically knowing them. A wizard does this through academic research and logic so this obviously means some kind of teacher or outside text to practice as well as copy from. Ah but what if they don't have them well hey there is the Arcana skill detailing knowledge of spells. Obviously making a check from there will represent, but wait there is no DC for identifying/finding spells so that means it doesn't exist by your reasoning. So, the low level Wizard is completely dependent off of loot or DM fiat to gain the texts or other casters to learn the spells. Just as this is technical and ludicrous so is yours when the party is facing all of these resistant and immune monsters when 5e has dropped all sorts of ways to introduce them and what they look like basically.

Wizards start with 3 cantrips, 6 1st-level spells known, and they gain two more spells per wizard level thereafter. I'll quote from the Player's Handbook here, on page 114 if you'd like to check yourself. It's under "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher"

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spells slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar).

So, when you say that Wizards are completely dependent upon loot or DM fiat in order to gain new spells, you are 100% incorrect.


A good illustration of the issues but I should mention short rests often provide half their hit points in healing in this edition.

Not exactly. Page 186, the rules for a Short Rest:

A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character's maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to their character's level. For each Hit Die spent this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.

[Amnoriath]

Wizards start with 3 cantrips, 6 1st-level spells known, and they gain two more spells per wizard level thereafter. I'll quote from the Player's Handbook here, on page 114 if you'd like to check yourself. It's under "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher"

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spells slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar).

So, when you say that Wizards are completely dependent upon loot or DM fiat in order to gain new spells, you are 100% incorrect.



Not exactly. Page 186, the rules for a Short Rest:

A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character's maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to their character's level. For each Hit Die spent this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.

1. And that is the lazy way as if somehow the Wizard had it magically pop in his when he knew no such spell. The interpretation isn't changing the feature, it is just giving it a way of selection. Again the point here being that while it would make sense technically it goes against the intention just as you saying no magical weapons for martials at all because they suggest other ways giving them out, don't have gp costs, and are "rare" even though moderate to high level loot work them in. If one really wants to say it DM fiat is everywhere simply by letting it happen because the intention of the designers and play testers were far different when all those suggestions were riddled through out the book while being ignored.
2. I didn't say exactly and/or always. I just took the scenario as being pretty high levels and that it was a couple of significant encounters in which rolling at least half your hit die would be acceptable.

[Yenek]

1. And that is the lazy way as if somehow the Wizard had it magically pop in his when he knew no such spell.

It's also explicitly the RAW way. Just because a rule is bad doesn't make it not a rule.

[Chronologist]

1. And that is the lazy way as if somehow the Wizard had it magically pop in his when he knew no such spell. The interpretation isn't changing the feature, it is just giving it a way of selection. Again the point here being that while it would make sense technically it goes against the intention just as you saying no magical weapons for martials at all because they suggest other ways giving them out, don't have gp costs, and are "rare" even though moderate to high level loot work them in. If one really wants to say it DM fiat is everywhere simply by letting it happen because the intention of the designers and play testers were far different when all those suggestions were riddled through out the book while being ignored.

It's still Rules As Written, and your previous statement that wizards don't get spells automatically is still completely incorrect.

Now, let me explain something to you, because it's clear that you don't understand. When a GM hands out treasure, it is their choice what to hand out. Magic items are not an expected reward from adventuring, characters are not entitled to receiving them. When the GM gives the players a magic item, it is because he has decided to include that magical item in the game world. It is completely acceptable for a GM to give out zero magical items over the course of a campaign.

Wizards, on the other hand, get additional spells known as they level up. If the GM is handing out experience points in his game (which is the explicit intent of the system), then eventually a wizard will gain a level. When this happens, they learn two additional spells not because the GM has decided to give them those spells, but because their class entitles them to those spells. If you the GM decide to deprive a character of one of their class features, you are taking away abilities the game entitles them to, and thus breaking the social contract of the game.

[Amnoriath]

It's still Rules As Written, and your previous statement that wizards don't get spells automatically is still completely incorrect.

Now, let me explain something to you, because it's clear that you don't understand. When a GM hands out treasure, it is their choice what to hand out. Magic items are not an expected reward from adventuring, characters are not entitled to receiving them. When the GM gives the players a magic item, it is because he has decided to include that magical item in the game world. It is completely acceptable for a GM to give out zero magical items over the course of a campaign.

Wizards, on the other hand, get additional spells known as they level up. If the GM is handing out experience points in his game (which is the explicit intent of the system), then eventually a wizard will gain a level. When this happens, they learn two additional spells not because the GM has decided to give them those spells, but because their class entitles them to those spells. If you the GM decide to deprive a character of one of their class features, you are taking away abilities the game entitles them to, and thus breaking the social contract of the game.
Do you not understand that I am simply using the logic of the technicality here? I am not making a statement of fact that the wizards must do that. Of course its RAW but you want to effectively say magic weapons aren't RAW because they aren't readily brought so that martials are inept against such resistant creatures. My point it isn't DM fiat if it is clearly intended and guided by the designers in which all of the ways they suggested clearly means if they DM isn't there are going against RAI. RAI in this edition is far more important than because they even used the letter to basically state that it is.

[Amnoriath]

It's also explicitly the RAW way. Just because a rule is bad doesn't make it not a rule.

Please read what this was responding to.

[Rogue Shadows]

Do you not understand that I am simply using the logic of the technicality here? I am not making a statement of fact that the wizards must do that. Of course its RAW but you want to effectively say magic weapons aren't RAW because they aren't readily brought so that martials are inept against such resistant creatures. My point it isn't DM fiat if it is clearly intended and guided by the designers in which all of the ways they suggested clearly means if they DM isn't there are going against RAI. RAI in this edition is far more important than because they even used the letter to basically state that it is.

The point, however, is that it denies the martial types agency in their own character creation. A fighter gets whatever magic items the DM decides to hand out, if any; the wizard gets whatever spells he decides he wants, and he's guaranteed at least two per level. The fighter is dependent on DM fiat in a way that the wizard is not, and regardless of whether or not the DM is obligated to balance the two classes (he is not), it still leaves martial-types dependent on someone else, while the caster-types are dependent only on themselves.

And, even once the DM hands out a magic item, the martial type is still extremely limited in his options. Here's a thought experiment for you - make a 20th level wizard with the absolute minimum number of spells known (that is, the wizard has never been able to copy spells from scrolls into his spellbook, he just gets his starting spells and his two per level). Now, figure out how many magic items the fighter would need to have in order to be able to duplicate what the wizard can do with his spells. Something tells me that WBL will be badly overrun at some point.

[Amnoriath]

The point, however, is that it denies the martial types agency in their own character creation. A fighter gets whatever magic items the DM decides to hand out, if any; the wizard gets whatever spells he decides he wants, and he's guaranteed at least two per level. The fighter is dependent on DM fiat in a way that the wizard is not, and regardless of whether or not the DM is obligated to balance the two classes (he is not), it still leaves martial-types dependent on someone else, while the caster-types are dependent only on themselves.

And, even once the DM hands out a magic item, the martial type is still extremely limited in his options. Here's a thought experiment for you - make a 20th level wizard with the absolute minimum number of spells known (that is, the wizard has never been able to copy spells from scrolls into his spellbook, he just gets his starting spells and his two per level). Now, figure out how many magic items the fighter would need to have in order to be able to duplicate what the wizard can do with his spells. Something tells me that WBL will be badly overrun at some point.

Again this is saying that outside of the discussion and derailing it. My point is it isn't DM fiat to follow the guidelines. DM fiat is doing something outside of the design of the same by personal observation or judgment. Besides the issue of dependency is a whole other ball game.

[boomwolf]

I'm wondering if someone more math savvy than myself has already gone and done this math...

Let's assume the party is composed of four characters: a Rogue, a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Warlock who used the default Adventurer's League array of 15/14/13/12/10/8, and 150 GP to spend on equipment.


Variant Human Fighter:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 8.
12 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +5 to Hit, 2d6+3 Damage (Greatsword) on a hit.
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue:
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, deals up to 4d6+3 damage (Dual Scimitars + Sneak Attack)

Half-Elf Warlock
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, deals 1d10 damage. (No Agonizing Blast yet.)
Spell Slots: 1 (1st level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys

High Elf Wizard
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 16 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
8 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +5 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 1d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Chromatic Orb (spent starting GP for the material component), Mage Armor, Sleep, Shield.
Spells Known: All of the above, plus Alarm and Identify (both are Rituals).
Spell Slots: 2 + Arcane Recovery 1

Coming out of the gate, the Martials have higher AC's and damage outputs with their main attacks. The only exception is the Rogue- if the Rogue is not sneak attacking, and misses with one attack, the Rogue deals the least damage, while the fighter deals the most. The casters are tied in the middle.

According to the 5E DMG, the recommended XP/Adventuring Day is 300 per character at Level 1. (DMG 84) The per character part is important- this means that for a party of 4, there should be 1,200 XP's worth of encounters. For a party of four, this means encounter difficulty looks like this:

Easy: 100 XP (1 Worg)
Medium: 200 (4 Kobolds)
Hard: 300 (3 Wolves)
Deadly: 400 (2 Bandits and 1 Thug)

The party would have to do 3 deadly encounters, 4 hard encounters, 6 medium encounters, or 12 easy encounters to get the amount of XP they are supposed to earn in that single day. Or, obviously, they could do a combination. Say, 1 of each, with an extra medium encounter thrown in. The casters have their awesome spells, sure, but they have 5 spell slots between the two of them, which they need to divide between at least 3 encounters. Otherwise, they're relying on cantrips, which makes them tied for the worst damage dealers in the party, unless the Rogue is having really bad rolls and not sneak-attacking.

Outside of combat, the Rogue is supreme- a Half-Elf Rogue has a whopping 8 Skills, and Expertise in 2 of them (lets' assume Stealth and Acrobatics). The Warlock is the next best with 6 skills, but that's because the Warlock's a Half-elf, not because of caster shenanigans. Variant Human Fighter and Elf Wizard both have 5.

Now, the valid argument of "it's not about damage, it's about versatility!" is still valid for the casters, but consider this: Encounters aren't always combat. I used combat examples, but in 4E, you'd get XP for skill challenges, and 3.5 gave you XP for disarming traps. You can still do those with spells, but unless you're the trap monkey, it's usually pretty hard to die outside of combat. Every spell slot you use enchanting a noble, or bypassing a hazard is one less you have in combat- when things are actively trying to kill your character.



Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 14 Cha: 8.
44 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +6 to Hit, potential 4d6+6 Damage (Greatsword, 2 attacks)
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin):
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, dual-wields scimitars for 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage. Adds +3d6 damage on a sneak attack. Also, Assassinate makes attacks vs. Surprised enemies automatically crit.
Feat: Alert

Half-Elf Fiendlock (Tome Pact)
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, gets 2 shots and deals 1d10+3 damage.
Spell Slots: 2 (3rd level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt
Invocations: Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, Repelling Blast
Feat: Spell Sniper

High Elf Wizard (Diviner)
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 18 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
32 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +7 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 2d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Witch Bolt, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Fly, Fireball
Spells Known: All of the above, plus 5 more.
Spell Slots: 1st: 4, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 2 + Arcane Recovery 5

Now things start getting interesting, with everyone getting their subclass. The Fighter continues to have the most damage per swing, and a boost to Wisdom and the Battle Master spec make the character a tad more well-rounded- the Fighter can learn about enemies outside of combat, and the Battle Master maneuvers are starting to give the character some flexibility in combat beyond "hit it again."

The Rogue takes the assassin route, because instant crits! Combined with the Alert feat, this is pretty likely to happen. Also, the rogue gets extra proficiencies, becoming even more of an asset outside of combat. The rogue's damage is still very dynamic- it's either bad, a little worse than the fighter, or the best in the party, depending on circumstance.

The Warlock goes for long-range damage. Eldritch Blast is now two-for-the-price-of-one, with Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast giving the Warlock more damage and battlefield control, while the Tome Pact and Invocation let the Warlock learn some more cantrips and cast rituals- also becoming more valuable outside of combat. However, within combat, the character's damage still lags behind the Fighter. Unlike the Wizard, the Warlock can liberally use all two of the character's spell slots in combat- Short rests are easier to come by than long rests, after all.

The Wizard went the Diviner route (Portents are great), boosted INT, and got a ton more spells- including a weak teleport, some more offense, some more defense, good old Fireball, Fly, and the notorious Rope Trick. Arcane Recovery only gets better with time. This is where you could start arguing the Wizard gets OP. It certainly looks OP, right? But let's see what they're up against.

Recommended XP/Adventuring Day: 3,500 per character (15,000 total)
Easy: 1,000 XP (5 Hobgoblins)
Medium: 2,000 XP (A Bulette, with 200 XP left over)
Hard: 3,000 XP (4 Bugbears and a Bugbear Chief)
Deadly: 4,400 XP (3 Basilisks, but with 200 XP left over)

At Level 5, the minimum number of encounters has gone up. 3 Deadly Encounters leaves you 1800 XP shy of your daily allotment- you'd need an extra Medium encounter to get your recommended value of XP. Or, you could grind through 5 hard encounters. Or 15 easy ones. In a case like this, it becomes easy to understand how casters actually are balanced by their daily limit. I've already made the characters for you- grab them and play through what the book calls "one adventuring day" and see how the casters perform.

Again, these don't have to be combat, but I'm using combat as examples for what gives that amount of XP. Disarming traps and defusing social situations could still get you XP, as well as bonuses like Quest XP, but let's be honest- at this point, most of the XP will come from combat.


Now, I don't think I've ever seen a DM cram that many encounters in one day. That's the problem.

We can't complain that the game is broken if we're all playing the game wrong, guys.


Is this even a serious attempt?
Levels 1 and 5? even in 3.5 these point levels were a nonissue.

Try it again at levels 10 and 15 and see where you land. I assure you the wizard and warlock will make the fighter and rouge look like jokes. they will hit harder, from further away AND have a pletora of tricks up their sleeves for both combat and non-combat scenarios.

[mythmonster2]

Incidentally, is there a reason this thread is in the Homebrew section as opposed to the 5e section? It seems like it would be better there.

[Freelance GM]

Incidentally, is there a reason this thread is in the Homebrew section as opposed to the 5e section? It seems like it would be better there.

You're right- I posted it in the wrong spot.


Is this even a serious attempt?
Levels 1 and 5? even in 3.5 these point levels were a nonissue.

Try it again at levels 10 and 15 and see where you land. I assure you the wizard and warlock will make the fighter and rouge look like jokes. they will hit harder, from further away AND have a pletora of tricks up their sleeves for both combat and non-combat scenarios.

Ok, sure. I had plans to do 10, 15, and 20 but had errands to run and didn't have time to finish the post. But let's go.


Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster):
Str: 18 Dex: 14 Con: 16 Int: 10 Wis: 14 Cha: 8.
86 HP, AC 18 (Plate Mail), +8 to Hit, potential 4d6+8 Damage (Greatsword, 2 attacks)
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack, Parry, Maneuvering Attack, Sweeping Attack, Riposte
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin):
Str: 8 Dex: 18 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
76 HP, AC17 (Studded Leather + Feat), +8 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, dual-wields rapiers for 1d8+4 and 1d8 damage. Adds +5d6 damage on a sneak attack. Assassinate.
Feat: Alert, Dual-Wielder

Half-Elf Fiendlock (Tome Pact)
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 18
76 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +8 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, gets 2 shots and deals 1d10+4 damage.
Spell Slots: 2 (5th level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt, Suggestion, Fly, Dimension Door, Wall of Fire, Flame Strike
Invocations: Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, Repelling Blast, Beguiling Influence, Ascending Step
Feat: Spell Sniper

High Elf Wizard (Diviner)
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 20 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
64 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +9 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 2d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Witch Bolt, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Fly, Fireball, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Cloudkill
Spells Known: All of the above, plus 10 more.
Spell Slots: 1st: 4, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 3, 4th: 3, 5: 2 + Arcane Recovery 10 + Divination Expert

At a glance, this would seem like it is where the Casters start stealing the spotlight. While the Fighter got a measly damage increase, some more maneuvers, plate mail (if he didn't have it already), the Wizard gets some pretty fantastic spells. Evard's Black Tentacles still lives up to its Pathfinder nickname, "Win the Fight," but it's a 4th-level Spell. At most, the Wizard can have 4 of these. Remember that magic number.

The Warlock and the Rogue get closer, too. Beguiling Influence gives the Warlock the same number of skills as the Rogue, but the Rogue gets 2 more skills to add Expertise to. So, the warlock can do anything the Rogue can do, but nowhere near as good as the Rogue can do it. Additionally, the Assassin Rogue gets abilities that are much better outside of combat, while the Warlock is built for blasting in combat. That being said, the Warlock can only deal a ton of damage twice- by casting spells.
Look at this, though:
Fighter's damage: 4d6+8 (or 24) damage on average, not factoring Power Attacks or bonuses from Expertise Dice.
Rogue's Sneak Attack damage: 5d6+1d8+4 (or 29) damage, not factoring in the off-hand attack.
Warlock's Eldritch Blast damage: 2d10+8 (or 20 damage), plus Knockback.
Wizard's Fire Bolt damage: 2d10 (or 12 damage), and nothing else.

So, the Casters are still worse at skills, have lower AC's, less HP, and are worse at dealing damage, unless they use spell slots to augment their abilities.

Now what can they expect in 1 day?

Recommended XP/Adventuring Day at Level 10: 9000/player (36,000 total)
Easy: 2,400 (4 Minotaur Skeletons)
Medium: 4,800 (3 Succubi)
Hard: 7,600 (2 Hobgoblin Warlords, with effectively limitless of Hobgoblin minions)
Deadly: 12,200 (Adult Black Dragon)

Designing encounters for this level is tricky because a lot of the XP values don't quite add up. Still, the examples above give you a basic idea. To meet their daily XP allotment, the least they can do is kill 3 dragons. 3 Legendary adult dragons. In one day. Think of how many spell slots casters typically burn in one dragon fight, and imagine them surviving three.

Or, if they feel like doing something a bit more reasonable, they can fight 5 armies of Hobgoblins. Those encounters depend on killing the leader- the normal hobgoblins are such a low CR that they do not influence the encounter's difficulty, as per the RAW. Still, the casters will definitely need to spend Spell Slots to hold off infinite waves of Hobgoblins while the Martials tango with the two leaders. Think they'll have enough for 5 of those fights?

Or they are feeling boring but careful, the party could take on 4 Minotaur skeletons. 15 times.

Remember how I said Black Tentacles was effectively a "Win the Fight" button that could only be used 4 times? The Dragons could ignore it with flight or legendary resistances. However, in the Hobgoblin fights, that spell would be invaluable. Now, remember how I said the caster couldn't get more than 4? Look at how many Hobgoblin fights there would have to be. See the problem?
Suppose the DM did the mixed approach to deal with the redundancy- the party would need to do one of each encounter, and then a second Hard encounter and a second Easy encounter. 2 sets of Skeletaurs, 1 round of Succubi, 2 Hobgoblin armies, and a Black Dragon to top things off. How long do you see those "overpowered" spell slots lasting in that gauntlet of adventure?



If you made it through the last wall of text, and came back for more, I salute your interest in my work and your patience.

Now, back to the grind.

Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster):
Str: 20 Dex: 14 Con: 16 Int: 10 Wis: 16 Cha: 8.
131 HP, AC 18 (Plate Mail), +10 to Hit, potential 6d6+15 Damage (Greatsword, 3 attacks)
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack, Parry, Maneuvering Attack, Sweeping Attack, Riposte, Distracting Strike, Disarming Strike
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin):
Str: 8 Dex: 20 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
111 HP, AC17 (Studded Leather + Feat), +10 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, dual-wields rapiers for 1d8+5 and 1d8 damage. Adds +8d6 damage on a sneak attack. Assassinate.
Feat: Alert, Dual-Wielder

Half-Elf Fiendlock (Tome Pact)
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 20
111 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +10 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, gets 3 shots and deals 1d10+5 damage.
Spell Slots: 3 (5th level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt, Suggestion, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fly, Dimension Door, Wall of Fire, Flame Strike, Hold Monster
Invocations: Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, Repelling Blast, Beguiling Influence, Ascending Step, Witch Sight, Otherworldly Leap
Mystic Arcanum: Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Dominate Monster
Feat: Spell Sniper

High Elf Wizard (Diviner)
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 20 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
94 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +9 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 2d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Witch Bolt, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Fly, Fireball, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Cloudkill, Wall of Stone, Disintegrate, Mass Suggestion, Forcecage, Teleport, Demiplane.
Spells Known: All of the above, plus 20 more.
Spell Slots: 1st: 4, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 3, 4th: 3, 5: 2 6: 1 7: 1 8:1 + Arcane Recovery 15 + Divination Expert
Feat: Lucky

I know you just got done reading the Wizard's cheese-caked spell list, but bear with me: the Martials make a triumphant comeback at this level.
The Fighter has maxed out Strength, and boosted Wisdom, increasing the save DC of his maneuvers, and increasing his damage output. Also, he gets a third attack now. Boring, yes, but awesome, because the Fighter's Maneuvers give the Fighter a degree of control over the battlefield- such as using Maneuvering Attack to let the Rogue shift into position for a Sneak Attack.

Speaking of the Rogue, when the Warlock caught up in the "volume of skills" department, the Rogue decided that won't do. Reliable Talent immediately blows the Warlock out of the water, and makes the Rogue the absolute best at using skills- because she can effectively take 10 on any skill check the Rogue has proficiency in. If this is used with an Expertise Skill, like Acrobatics, the Rogue cannot get worse than a 25, which means the Rogue automatically passes any check short of balancing on a cloud.

Now, the Warlock seems to putter out a bit. There aren't many "useful" invocations left, so the Warlock settles for at-will Jump spells and a trump card for any shapechangers/illusions the party encounters. As far as spells go, the Warlock has similarly hit the limit on damage-dealing spells, so she's basically limited to increasing out-of-combat utility from here on out.

The Wizard laughs maniacally as Disintegrate, Teleport, and Demiplane fall into his bag of tricks. To add insult to injury, the Wizard takes the Lucky feat, because his INT was maxed out levels ago. However, the Wizard isn't gaining any more spell slots- Disintegrate lets him fry an enemy, Teleport is awesome, and Mass Suggestion is handy, but other than those one-time-use tricks, the Wizard hasn't really gotten any better since Level 10.

The Damage per Round Potentials:
Fighter: 6d6+15 (or 39), still ignoring GWF stuff and Maneuvers.
Rogue: 1d8+5 + 1d8 + 7d6 (43) on a Sneak attack, not co
Warlock: 3d10+15 (33) with Eldritch Blasts
Wizard: 3d10 (18) with Fire Bolt.


The opposition, on the other hand...

Recommended XP/Adventuring Day: 18,000 per character (72,000 total)
Easy: 5600 (Two Wraiths)
Medium: 11,200 (2 Assassins)
Hard: 17,200 (At least a dozen Orc Eyes of Gruumsh, leading an army worthy of Mordor.)
Deadly: 25,600 (An Ancient White Dragon)

So yeah, to earn their XP for the day, the party has to take on each of these once, and then go through a second wave of assassins, or kill three Ancient White Dragons.
Since the Casters haven't really gotten significantly better than they were at Level 10, I think the Martials will be pulling most of the weight here. They may have a lot of neat tricks, but even if they magically foresee the day's encounter schedule (hey, there IS a Diviner in the party) the casters would have to conserve their spells for the horde battle- and they would be on crowd control duty while the Martials are dealing with the real problems.

So, nope, sorry. It looks like casters sort of plateau after Level 10- their best spells are one-a-day things, while the most useful low-level spells are limited to even fewer uses than in 3.5. Even though they are still supremely versatile, those limits are crippling.
To survive a day of RAW adventuring, the Casters would have to have to conserve their Spell slots for when they are absolutely necessary, or run out before the day's halfway over.

The Warlock is a bit of an exception here- Pact Magic effectively shrinks the time scale to "conserving spells, or run out before the encounter's halfway over." However, the Warlock only gets 2 or 3 spell slots- which is probably as many as the Wizard would be willing to contribute to any single encounter in a game like this.

I can't imagine the Casters making the Martials look like jokes in this edition- they may have more tricks, but the Martials are just too good at their jobs for the Casters to consistently outshine them.

If you still think I'm wrong, ask your DM to test one of these "Adventuring Day" scenarios with your group.

[bloodshed343]

The problem with martials versus caster is that you're trying to compare single characters in a team game. It's not fair to say that a single wizard is better at everything than a fighter, but a party of full casters will be better equipped to handle the game's challenges than a party with fewer casters. A single wizard can't be awesome all day because he runs out of spell slots, but a full party of casters will always have enough spell slots for the standard adventuring day, and the spells used in these slots are more powerful than the options available to martial characters.

Edit: Basically what I'm trying to say is that your assumptions about the fighter and wizard are based on the idea that the wizard is the only caster present. In that case, the wizard will run out of spells and the fighter will "seem" to shine as he picks up the slack. But the fact is, another caster would pick up the slack better than the Fighter by adding more spell slots. Because of this, you're better off just bringing enough casters to have enough spell slots to last the day rather than bring a fighter.

[Freelance GM]

The problem with martials versus caster is that you're trying to compare single characters in a team game. It's not fair to say that a single wizard is better at everything than a fighter, but a party of full casters will be better equipped to handle the game's challenges than a party with fewer casters. A single wizard can't be awesome all day because he runs out of spell slots, but a full party of casters will always have enough spell slots for the standard adventuring day, and the spells used in these slots are more powerful than the options available to martial characters.

Edit: Basically what I'm trying to say is that your assumptions about the fighter and wizard are based on the idea that the wizard is the only caster present. In that case, the wizard will run out of spells and the fighter will "seem" to shine as he picks up the slack. But the fact is, another caster would pick up the slack better than the Fighter by adding more spell slots. Because of this, you're better off just bringing enough casters to have enough spell slots to last the day rather than bring a fighter.

Not sure if this was directed at myself, or the Amnoriath vs Chronologist debate. It's my thread and I'm a narcissist, so I'll assume me.

You have a good point. An all-caster party would have the spell slots to survive a RAW Adventuring Day if they're careful. However, an all-caster party is a gamble that you have the right spells prepared and enough spell slots to deal with any threat you encounter, while members of an all-martial party can consistently perform whatever jobs they're expected to fill.

If the all-caster party manages to run out of spell slots before the day is over, then they don't have any martials who can pick up the slack. So, in theory, that's going to hurt. However, the only way to really test that would be to playtest it.

[bloodshed343]

Not sure if this was directed at myself, or the Amnoriath vs Chronologist debate. It's my thread and I'm a narcissist, so I'll assume me.

You have a good point. An all-caster party would have the spell slots to survive a RAW Adventuring Day if they're careful. However, an all-caster party is a gamble that you have the right spells prepared and enough spell slots to deal with any threat you encounter, while members of an all-martial party can consistently perform whatever jobs they're expected to fill.

If the all-caster party manages to run out of spell slots before the day is over, then they don't have any martials who can pick up the slack. So, in theory, that's going to hurt. However, the only way to really test that would be to playtest it.

You have 4-5 encounters in the average day. You have 4-5 casters. That means one of your casters can blow their mid-level spell slots to solve the encounter every encounter. The rest can just use cantrips. You'd probably want 2 warlocks for damage and sustainability. Worst case scenario, you cast Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual and rest whenever you want. Plus, you could always have a slew of minions to take the hits, so you wouldn't need to spend as many slots on healing and defense. Plus, any caster can pick up some really nice armor with a 2 point dip in cleric. A heavily armored bladelock with a shield is a good tank, with a cleric and druid as backup, plus wolves and skeletons.

In an all martial party, you would need everyone to be a bear totem barbarian and take lots of short rests to survive. Maybe take 2 points fighter for action surge and second wind.

[Freelance GM]

You have 4-5 encounters in the average day. You have 4-5 casters. That means one of your casters can blow their mid-level spell slots to solve the encounter every encounter. The rest can just use cantrips. You'd probably want 2 warlocks for damage and sustainability. Worst case scenario, you cast Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual and rest whenever you want. Plus, you could always have a slew of minions to take the hits, so you wouldn't need to spend as many slots on healing and defense. Plus, any caster can pick up some really nice armor with a 2 point dip in cleric. A heavily armored bladelock with a shield is a good tank, with a cleric and druid as backup, plus wolves and skeletons.

In an all martial party, you would need everyone to be a bear totem barbarian and take lots of short rests to survive. Maybe take 2 points fighter for action surge and second wind.

That could work at lower levels, and for the easy to medium encounters, but I don't see any caster defeating an army or a dragon with just their Level 4 and Level 5 spells, and without help from the other casters.

The minions would definitely help, especially if there's a Necromancer and a Druid with the Inspiring Leader feat in the party, that could provide a pretty good meat shield. However, going back to the "Magic vs Mundane" thing, a level 5+ Martial could hire some low-level NPC's to help, as well, DM fiat permitting (which is a different problem we already argued about...)

As for the martial party, yeah, there would be a lot of short rests. These encounters wouldn't be run back to back- that would make them "Multipart Encounters," which have totally different rules for calculating XP.

Also, I would hope you wouldn't need parties that optimized to run through a "normal" day of adventuring by the RAW.
I'd like to hope that the "Recommended XP/day" table was constructed based on information from playtesting what a "standard" party could handle, so in theory, a "standard" Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard party should be able to survive. If the game designers actually tested it.

In retrospect, I should have put a Cleric in the sample party, but someone mentioned the Warlock as being a good example of how to make casters balanced, so I wanted to see how it would compare.

[Freelance GM]

What is the most common point at which your players' characters decide to stop adventuring for the day and rest?

Wow, I managed to completely miss this post.

My regular 5E group right now is this:

Houseruled Catfolk Forest Druid
Half-Orc Eldritch Knight
High Elf Sorcerer
Half-Elf Trickster Cleric
Wood Elf Monk
Human Hunter Ranger
Human Totem Barbarian

THere's another Barbarian, a Fighter and a Rogue, but they had to drop out for a few months. Yes, this group is huge. New players really like bringing their friends, who inevitably ask to join the group. Everyone is Level 10 right now.

This is a group of new players who are incredibly paranoid about being at less-than-full strength. They take Short Rests at every opportunity. However, the threats I throw at them take this into account, so they wind up actually needing the rest more often than not. This is also a very RP/story-oriented home game; combat isn't as common as skill-based encounters. However, when combat shows up, it is intense enough to still be challenging, even while the party is at full strength.

My D&D Encounters group varies wildly, but the most consistent players are...

Human Trickster Cleric
Halfling Paladin
Wood Elf Ranger
Wood Elf Ranger
High Elf Sorcerer
Wood Elf Fighter/Rogue
Dwarf Battlemaster

5 of the players in this group are from the party that went 6 or 7 full 3-hour sessions without a Long rest in Episode 1. This isn't the full party, just the most consistent players. There are 2 other Clerics (Tempest and Life), and a Warlock that show up inconsistently. The characters listed above are Levels 3 and 4- the less consistent ones are level 2 or 3.

They are all veteran players from every previous edition, with a couple first-time players dropping in and out every month. They typically take rests when the Dwarf is in single-digit HP, and the entire party is out of healing spells. If the Dwarf still has double-digit HP, or anyone capable of healing still has a few spell slots, they will keep going. Right now, we're on Chapter 4, so Long Rests are readily available during the 30-day caravan trip. However, back in Chapter 3, they tackled the entire Dragon Hatchery dungeon in one go, only stopping for a single short rest. Even then, it was because the only 3 players who showed up the previous week got TPKO'd by Langdedrosa and started the session at 0 HP.

Yeah, there are a lot of casters in both groups. As rare as combat is with the first group, they might as well be operating on 5-minute workdays. Still, somehow, the full casters tend to get overshadowed by the martial characters most of the time, even though the martial characters are a minority in the group.

The one Battlemaster in the Encounters group practically carries the team- wherever he goes, combat shifts into the party's favor. The Rangers are half-casters, but they manage to perform better than any of the full casters.

Now that you have some insight into the games I'm DMing, do you see why I'm having such a hard time with this? If Casters are so much better than Martials, how is it possible that the full casters are the ones who are getting outdone all the time?

[Rogue Shadows]

Now that you have some insight into the games I'm DMing, do you see why I'm having such a hard time with this? If Casters are so much better than Martials, how is it possible that the full casters are the ones who are getting outdone all the time?

Again, the Tier system, and thereby the martial/caster split that it simply codified, was organized around the idea that casters simply have more options, not more power. Power was just a side-effect. People talk about the power of casters not in regards to sheer damage/kill potential, but rather because no matter the situation the caster can say "I have a spell for that." Even if he has to take time to prepare it, he will always be able to give that response; whereas a noncaster such as the fighter will not have that option in many situations.

I don't know enough about 5th Edition yet to be able to tell you why things are the way they are in your group; I'm still waiting on my PHB/DMG/MM set from Amazon, in fact. However, from what I can glean from the Basic Rules, that fundamental situation doesn't seem to have changed: a wizard can replace a fighter without necessarily altering the options available to a party, but a fighter cannot replace a wizard and do likewise. A party that consists of four wizards might not be able to charge headfirst into combat and slug it out in a physical brawl with the evil warlord, but there's no doubt that said party can still find some way to win the combat easily enough; a party consisting of nothing but fighters, conversely, is going to be of limited use at anything except combat.

I refer you again to the twelve scenarios I posted upthread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18535573&postcount=28)

[bloodshed343]

That could work at lower levels, and for the easy to medium encounters, but I don't see any caster defeating an army or a dragon with just their Level 4 and Level 5 spells, and without help from the other casters.

The minions would definitely help, especially if there's a Necromancer and a Druid with the Inspiring Leader feat in the party, that could provide a pretty good meat shield. However, going back to the "Magic vs Mundane" thing, a level 5+ Martial could hire some low-level NPC's to help, as well, DM fiat permitting (which is a different problem we already argued about...)

.

Dragons have terrible dex saves, so casting web a few times can shut them down. An army can be dealt with using a combination of walls, evards black tentacles, and some 1st or 2nd Level evocation along with the aforementioned minions. Use the walls to seperate the encounter into two half fights. Use your minions to win one and your spells to win the other.

Either way, a party of casters is more likely to survive a deadly encounter than a party with fewer casters. A party of martials will have a truly deadly fight.

[Amnoriath]

Dragons have terrible dex saves, so casting web a few times can shut them down. An army can be dealt with using a combination of walls, evards black tentacles, and some 1st or 2nd Level evocation along with the aforementioned minions. Use the walls to seperate the encounter into two half fights. Use your minions to win one and your spells to win the other.


Okay lets put these hypothesis' in prospective at what we are generally looking at. Most things that requires a dex. save is blasting and the few that aren't are cast on the ground. Any blasting no matter the level a Dragon of equivalent CR can take it very easily if not choose to automatically save or be immune outright. Evard's Black Tentacles not only require concentration but do allow a choice of checks to break free from them. You really don't get effective AoE evocation until 3rd level. Burning Hands and Thunderwave are too close in this mobile combat for comfort. Flaming Sphere is just generally too weak as well as concentration. All walls require concentration can actually be easily jumped on unless you want a weak wall or one that uses a base high slot.

Do casters have more tools, yes, but not only can it be limited it very easily can be one at a time and attack spells become non existent in high levels. This means they are saves which don't scale as well in numbers vs. attack.

[Freelance GM]

Dragons have terrible dex saves, so casting web a few times can shut them down. An army can be dealt with using a combination of walls, evards black tentacles, and some 1st or 2nd Level evocation along with the aforementioned minions. Use the walls to seperate the encounter into two half fights. Use your minions to win one and your spells to win the other.

Either way, a party of casters is more likely to survive a deadly encounter than a party with fewer casters. A party of martials will have a truly deadly fight.

The immediate problem with that is that Web requires at least two anchor points- and dragons can fly. Also, they have high strength, so escaping the web would be easy. Still, the scenario has way too many variables (environment? Level? Type of dragon? Type of army?) to accurately make any assumptions about what would happen- one of us would have to actually play it out several times under specific, controlled conditions, and share the results IMO.


Again, the Tier system, and thereby the martial/caster split that it simply codified, was organized around the idea that casters simply have more options, not more power. Power was just a side-effect. People talk about the power of casters not in regards to sheer damage/kill potential, but rather because no matter the situation the caster can say "I have a spell for that." Even if he has to take time to prepare it, he will always be able to give that response; whereas a noncaster such as the fighter will not have that option in many situations.

I don't know enough about 5th Edition yet to be able to tell you why things are the way they are in your group; I'm still waiting on my PHB/DMG/MM set from Amazon, in fact. However, from what I can glean from the Basic Rules, that fundamental situation doesn't seem to have changed: a wizard can replace a fighter without necessarily altering the options available to a party, but a fighter cannot replace a wizard and do likewise. A party that consists of four wizards might not be able to charge headfirst into combat and slug it out in a physical brawl with the evil warlord, but there's no doubt that said party can still find some way to win the combat easily enough; a party consisting of nothing but fighters, conversely, is going to be of limited use at anything except combat.

I refer you again to the twelve scenarios I posted upthread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18535573&postcount=28)

But casters are going to be of limited use too- limited by the number of spell slots at their disposal. At the end of the day, it's just a choice of which limits the player wants to be restricted by: limits on when they can be useful, or how many times they can be useful.

Consider this: if you gutted the caster's spell lists, and got rid of the options that make them so "overpowered," then the game would immediately become unbalanced in the Martial's favor. Casters would finally be tied down to specific roles in the party, just like Martials, but the Casters would still be limited by spells per day, while Martials could perform their jobs constantly and consistently.

[bloodshed343]

Your still talking as if there's only one caster. You could have each caster in the 5 person party each use 1-2 slots per encounter. That's 5-10 spells. That's about the same as a single caster blowing all their slots, which has already been established is enough to trivialize the encounter. In fact, the discussion so far has been that casters are balanced because they can only trivialize one encounter per day, and rely on martials to pick up the slack. However, if you replace every martial in a party with a caster, you have enough spell slots to trivialize every encounter, and you can stack the concentration spells if you need to.

Ways to trivialize a dragon encounter: Polymorph + Web. Steal the treasure and leave. By the time it gets out of the web you'll be long gone.

Or, you could just have everyone wish up a Simulacrum of themselves. Even without abuse, that would give you a party of 8-10 casters. Have all the Simulacrum summon minions. You now have your own army.

[Shimeran]

As for the martial party, yeah, there would be a lot of short rests. These encounters wouldn't be run back to back- that would make them "Multipart Encounters," which have totally different rules for calculating XP.

I'm not sure if there's a rule for this, I vaguely recall the intended number of short rests per day being 2 to 3 per day. Correct me if I'm off on that. I think it might be a DMG guideline, but I'm working off memory.

If that is the case, using the level 10 guidelines the party can afford short rests once per fight in the 3 hard scenario, but they'll have to do at mediums back to back once or twice and for the easy scenario they're averaging 4-5 fights between rests.

[silveralen]

First off, if you define the issue as "casters vs martials" you need to realize it implies rogue struggles vs eldritch knight or paladin. That's not really true. Honestly, and I've done a break down of this before, sorcerer vs rogue probably gives advantage rogue. But wizard vs fighter? Yeah, massive gap in versatility.

The second point is that alot of people seem to think skills are useless without DM fiat. Yes, but if he is a bad DM you can't blame the system for that. He is supposed to set difficulties based on the chart while rarely shutting down ideas. If he constantly says no or makes such checks impossible, he is denying basic abilities the same as if he denied magic users spell casting.

Third point, everyone has access to magic. In 3.X a fighter had no way to get access to spells without multiclassing, no longer is that true. If he feels he needs to expand his versatility he can.

What is lacking is that rogue and monk are the only somewhat versatile classes without spells, and monk has a fair dosage of his tied into abilities that are based on spells, which yes is problematic to some. So I wouldn't mind seeing variations on fighter and barbarian that expanded on their skills and non combat ability somewhat.

[GiantOctopodes]

Hrmm, I kinda want to take a different approach to this. In terms of my party, I as the Rogue am the undisputed king of DPR, and I also handle more than my fair share of out of combat utility, running scout services, picking locks and pockets, forging documents, negotiating, etc. To be honest, I do a little *too* much for my taste, and actively look for opportunities to let the other characters shine, *especially* our Wizard, who is incredibly whiny, and constantly does things like say "I'm not going to take any damaging spells" and then complain in combat "I have nothing to do, I'm totally useless" (which is entirely caused by his lack of imagination, but I digress).

What I would like to examine, is this: What is *impossible* for a self sufficient party to do, without a full caster? Not harder, outright impossible?

Here is what I have:
Planar Travel
Teleportation

What is *impossible* to do without magic of any kind?
Conjuration of minions (though this is a bit debatable- a fighter *could* bring along 8 mooks to fight alongside him. But even if the DM is cool with that, there are the issues of the expense, the difficulty replacing downed members, etc, whereas conjuration magic just works)
Elemental Adaptation (once again in theory it is possible for gnomish ingenuity to develop a sort of scuba gear system, or fireproof suit, or what have you, but it's not in the rules, and magic just works)
Impenetrable resting defenses

Is there anything else I am missing? Any other abilities that casters provide which are otherwise impossible to obtain? Personally I'm not fond of PCs having unlimited teleportation and planar travel abilities anyway, its just not my style of game, so I'd be 100% ok with not having a full caster in the party, but certainly flooding the field with mooks, being able to survive underwater etc, and being able to rest undisturbed are valuable enough to where I will say that a party with no casters whatsoever is weaker than one in which a caster is present.

[JoeJ]

Hrmm, I kinda want to take a different approach to this. In terms of my party, I as the Rogue am the undisputed king of DPR, and I also handle more than my fair share of out of combat utility, running scout services, picking locks and pockets, forging documents, negotiating, etc. To be honest, I do a little *too* much for my taste, and actively look for opportunities to let the other characters shine, *especially* our Wizard, who is incredibly whiny, and constantly does things like say "I'm not going to take any damaging spells" and then complain in combat "I have nothing to do, I'm totally useless" (which is entirely caused by his lack of imagination, but I digress).

What I would like to examine, is this: What is *impossible* for a self sufficient party to do, without a full caster? Not harder, outright impossible?

Here is what I have:
Planar Travel
Teleportation

What is *impossible* to do without magic of any kind?
Conjuration of minions (though this is a bit debatable- a fighter *could* bring along 8 mooks to fight alongside him. But even if the DM is cool with that, there are the issues of the expense, the difficulty replacing downed members, etc, whereas conjuration magic just works)
Elemental Adaptation (once again in theory it is possible for gnomish ingenuity to develop a sort of scuba gear system, or fireproof suit, or what have you, but it's not in the rules, and magic just works)
Impenetrable resting defenses

Is there anything else I am missing? Any other abilities that casters provide which are otherwise impossible to obtain? Personally I'm not fond of PCs having unlimited teleportation and planar travel abilities anyway, its just not my style of game, so I'd be 100% ok with not having a full caster in the party, but certainly flooding the field with mooks, being able to survive underwater etc, and being able to rest undisturbed are valuable enough to where I will say that a party with no casters whatsoever is weaker than one in which a caster is present.

Shadow Step Monks can teleport up to 60 feet, and anybody can travel to another plane by finding a portal. Not nearly as easy as casting a spell, obviously, but doable.

[Shining Wrath]

Your argument boils down to "if DM fiat allows it you can do it", I like to play a game where my choices matter and not the DM's whims. By base rules magic works the same no matter what table you sit down at but skills don't. Skills are at the mercy of the DM, by base rules. One DM may allow you to or form CPR but another DM may laugh at you.

Which means you don't really get to decide what your character can do, your DM is deciding. A spell however, if it says X, will do X.

I want to use my acrobatics check to walk on clouds (3.5 epic skill) versus the fly spell. Which one can be used more times in more games? The third level spell. A lot of DMs, even if you can hit a DC of 1000, will straight up nope cloud walking.

Now if you had a skill that said " you can walk on clouds by meeting DC 25 Acrobatics check" then DMs at each table (if using base rules) wouldn't have to resort to personal judgment to see if the game should allow such a feat of ability since it is in the game.

Also...

Shade, I think your DM is screwing you over. In 3.P if you have the max DC not to many things will pass that easily without DM fiat. I'm not sure why the DM allowed casters if they are just going to punish players for playing casters.

If you think DM fiat never affects spell casters I can't help you.

[Xetheral]

The abilities of casters can be problematic when they take what would be an interesting complex sequence of moves to design and playthrough and replace that with an atomic action. The abilities of casters are not a problem when they take what would be a boring or repetitive complex sequence of moves and replace that with an atomic action. The trick is identifying which is which, and at what point in the game that is true. A journey across the ocean fraught with peril might be interesting once or twice, but by the tenth time you probably should replace it with an atomic action. That's sort of what 'gaining abilities as you go up in level' achieves - it gives you access to things that allow you to handwave over repeated tasks that you already know how to solve because you did it at lower levels.

Very insightful. Thank you.

[Selkirk]

could go back to the old ways - d4 for hp's for wizards :smallsmile:

[Baptor]

Please bring back the dead, plane shift, fly, shaoebchange into a dragon, do AoE, and... Let's see... Throw a creature literally through hell.

Yeah not happening.

Not that martials should be able to do those specific things but it would be nice to have classes that can do awesome things comparable.

And by clever skill checks you mean beg the DM to consider your idea and hope he or she doesn't set the DC at 25+? Cause that is the flaw with the skill system versus spells. Spells tell you what you can soecifically do, skills allow the DM to tell you what you might be able to do.

I get that, I really do, but they tried that. It was called 4e. Personally I thought it was a pretty slick game even though I never got a chance to play it. But the overwhelming response was against martials getting stuff like that or approximations.

In my games, I have only two players. Sometimes we have no casters. What I do (and arguably what I'd do even in a large game) is that I allow the players to accomplish anything a caster their level could but with additional costs/risks.

For example, say player 1 has died. Player 2 is a fighter and wants to bring him back to life. We assume that, for whatever reason, he can't go to a church to get him raised. In my game he could seek out special knowledge in whatever fashion would be best for him. If his social skills are good, he might try asking around about rumors/legends of people coming back to life or extraordinary healing. If he's got History, Arcana or Religion, he might go to a library and hit the books looking for the same. Either way, he eventually learns of a super rare flower that grows atop a dangerous mountain and only blooms when pure dragon's blood touches it. The fighter has to go slay a dragon, take its blood up the perilous mountain (athletics checks, possible encounters) packing his friends corpse. Finally, beaten and battered he reaches the summit, finds the flower and pours out the dragon's blood. The flower opens, he takes some of the magical nectar and pours it down his dead friends mouth. Suddenly his color returns, his wounds close up and he gaps for breath, alive once again. The flower withers away.

Now I know, that's DM fiat, but:


What if this is a DM problem, instead of a mechanics problem?

I think that is the answer, honestly. That's what 5e is all about. If you want a game where everyone can use magic or something like magic, then honestly 4e is the better choice there. That's what it was all about (and it did that really well).

[silveralen]

Also, something that has been bothering me: why are martials defined by a lack of access to magic? Wouldn't you define a martial class one who excels at fighting and using mundane abilities?

By that definition, the most versatile classes in the game are martial/caster hybrids, like bard. Classes that focus primarily on one aspect typically come up second, like wizard, druid, or rogue.

In this way, a low versatility pure martial class (fighter, barbarian) can become more versatile by MCing into a high versatility martial, or by taking a smattering of magical abilities via an archetype. Neither prevents them from being a primarily martial class, as their first response to situations will be skills and combat, they just have some alternate choices as well.

Stop defining martial by what they lack, and look at as a term to describe what a class is. In that case you'd have

Pure Caster: Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Cleric, Warlock.

Hybrid: Bard, Paladin, Ranger.

Pure Martial: Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk.

People seem to think the only way to be a martial character is to have no magic. Really? Learning one spell invalidates the fact 95% of my playstyle is based on melee combat and skills? That makes no sense. I wouldn't even consider an open handed monk a hybrid, he has sanctuary as a spell like ability? That's nothing.

[Ashrym]

First off, if you define the issue as "casters vs martials" you need to realize it implies rogue struggles vs eldritch knight or paladin. That's not really true. Honestly, and I've done a break down of this before, sorcerer vs rogue probably gives advantage rogue. But wizard vs fighter? Yeah, massive gap in versatility.

The second point is that alot of people seem to think skills are useless without DM fiat. Yes, but if he is a bad DM you can't blame the system for that. He is supposed to set difficulties based on the chart while rarely shutting down ideas. If he constantly says no or makes such checks impossible, he is denying basic abilities the same as if he denied magic users spell casting.

Third point, everyone has access to magic. In 3.X a fighter had no way to get access to spells without multiclassing, no longer is that true. If he feels he needs to expand his versatility he can.

What is lacking is that rogue and monk are the only somewhat versatile classes without spells, and monk has a fair dosage of his tied into abilities that are based on spells, which yes is problematic to some. So I wouldn't mind seeing variations on fighter and barbarian that expanded on their skills and non combat ability somewhat.

Some totem abilities and STR benefits give barbarians quite a bit of utility. A DEX based archer champion fighter who spends a bonus feat on skilled and a bonus feat on ritual caster, obtains a flying mount, and uses mundane utility equipment plus naturally athletic as a class feature and a few politicians in his back pocket doesn't really struggle with some versatility.

I could see additional subclass options for either that are more non-combat in future supplements or home-brew but I see options available for every class via background, ability checks, equipment, non-combat feats, and additional class abilities; obviously some more than others. Rogues are a c@rp-ton of fun this edition.

At various other posters: the standard is 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests per dm guidelines.

[Demonicattorney]

The I have a spell for that, I just need to prepare it, isn't much different than the Fighter going, I have a sword for that, or a ring of resistance or what not. Their gear is also just well... better. There is no caster gear that alters combats as much as a Holy Avenger, Vorpal, or a belt of Storm Giant Strength. Watch your Paladin with HA, watch him save against literally every status effect the game can throw at him, watch him crush CR20 undead and demons all day. Watch your high-level Fighter be basically even money with action surge to insta kill someone via Vorpal. Which may not seem like a big deal until you realize that it was a Marileth, Death Knight or Goristro, which have hundreds of hit points and would take your party rounds to chew through. Casters vs Martials needs to account for gear, Martials get more benefit.

For many of these "utility" challenges, a Fighter might need a subquest to find some ingredient, portal, scroll, item etc, it might be faster and more convenient for the caster, but does little to alter game balance. Teleport is nice, but what percentage of the time is it truly better than having a fast horse? What percentage of the time do I absolutely need to be on another plane right now.

[Deathtongue]

Personally, I'm glad that casters are muscling out martials again. Now if only D&D had the stones to admit that non-Gilgameshy martials narratively fail to keep up at around the level 7 mark and ban PCs from playing non-magical martials rather than trying to keep coming up with inane solutions to keep them relevant. The fact of the matter is that, when not being babied by a writer and having to obey impartial rules and probability like everyone else, Green Arrow and Batman and Sokka can't keep up with The Engineer and Superman and Dr. Strange and Green Lantern -- heck, it's pretty clear that they can't even keep up with Iron Man, Thor, Wonder Woman, and Saber unless they're the author/DM's sweetheart. Every time any game has tried to make martials keep up with casters they've either had to Captain Hobo it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16267834&postcount=14) or neuter the casters. And I personally hated that crap in 4E D&D where casters had to stop conjuring castles with wall of stone or ordering around their bound skeletons and demons into operating airships because that would make the martials feel bad. After a certain point the rules should force them become magic in some way or you should kick them out of the game. I guess you could just cap the power level of the game, too, but there are already a ton of low-powered fantasy games where the special effects crap out at 1st-book Harry Potter level.

[SharkForce]

Personally, I'm glad that casters are muscling out martials again. Now if only D&D had the stones to admit that non-Gilgameshy martials narratively fail to keep up at around the level 7 mark and ban PCs from playing non-magical martials rather than trying to keep coming up with inane solutions to keep them relevant. The fact of the matter is that, when not being babied by a writer and having to obey impartial rules and probability like everyone else, Green Arrow and Batman and Sokka can't keep up with The Engineer and Superman and Dr. Strange and Green Lantern -- heck, it's pretty clear that they can't even keep up with Iron Man, Thor, Wonder Woman, and Saber unless they're the author/DM's sweetheart. Every time any game has tried to make martials keep up with casters they've either had to Captain Hobo it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16267834&postcount=14) or neuter the casters. And I personally hated that crap in 4E D&D where casters had to stop conjuring castles with wall of stone or ordering around their bound skeletons and demons into operating airships because that would make the martials feel bad. After a certain point the rules should force them become magic in some way or you should kick them out of the game. I guess you could just cap the power level of the game, too, but there are already a ton of low-powered fantasy games where the special effects crap out at 1st-book Harry Potter level.

sort of agree... as i've said in another thread, if you're in a level 20 party traveling with a guy who can alter reality with a few words, a man whose faith can literally call his deity to aid him in person, a dragon-blooded sorcerer who can level small villages from a mile away, and a guy who can pretty much sneak past a whole pack of bloodhounds in broad daylight at a dead run without one of them noticing him (who himself is frankly suffering a bit from lack of impressiveness when you consider the other things i mentioned the others being capable of are only *one* of the extremely impressive things they can do), if your answer to the question of "well what can you do" is "well, i can hit things pretty hard, and more often than most people".... yes, there really still is a problem of martials vs casters.

this isn't quite so true of all martials... i'd consider a paladin to be martial, but at least they have some cool unique abilities going for them. and a monk is arguably martial, but at least gets to pull off some pretty impressive stuff.

but whether or not it's "magical", i feel like martial classes need something so that when they explain what it is that they bring to the level 20 party, it doesn't sound like they're there out of pity.

i'm not glad that martials kinda got screwed again, mind you. i am glad that casters aren't handcuffed like they were in 4th edition though, and rather wish that martial classes would get brought up to the same level.

[Telok]

Casters have a limited explicit class feature to deal with anything: Spellcasting.
Everyone an unlimited implicit game feature to deal with anything: Roleplaying.

I believe that a problem arises only when the DM and players forget that they are playing a roleplaying game and not a "use a class feature to win" game.

If the players forget that they can roleplay to solve challenges then the only avenue for the characters to interact with the game world is through class features and the casters "win." If the DM only allows the characters to use class features to interact with the world then the casters "win." If everyone is playing the game mostly as intended and the GM is aware that the casters need to run out of their limited resources semi-regularly then there generally isn't a problem.

This is my experience over twenty years and all the versions of D&D. If the player plays a character and the GM plays the game it's not an issue. If the player plays the character sheet and the GM plays the rulebook then it's an issue. In my time I've seen an AD&D fighter, someone with no class featues beyond hitting things, sleep with half the noblewomen in the kingdom, broker a peace treaty with a goblin nation, and expose a gang of dopplegangers trying to impersonate the king. I've also seen a 3.5 wizard with a full spellbook and access to the largest library in the campaign say that he couldn't find out anything about a famous historical person.

[mr_odd]

The reason it's not a problem anymore is because 5e places a focus on party dynamics. It isn't individual vs individual, you have to work together as a party or you will fail. The most individual aspect of 5e is in roleplay, through personality traits and back stories, which personally, I love.

Every adventurer brings baggage. Every adventurer will conflict with another party member at some point. 5e gives the experience of playing that out only for the party to overcome it and become one cohesive party. It's beautiful.

[silveralen]

if your answer to the question of "well what can you do" is "well, i can hit things pretty hard, and more often than most people"

but whether or not it's "magical", i feel like martial classes need something so that when they explain what it is that they bring to the level 20 party, it doesn't sound like they're there out of pity.

i'm not glad that martials kinda got screwed again, mind you. i am glad that casters aren't handcuffed like they were in 4th edition though, and rather wish that martial classes would get brought up to the same level.

To be fair, part of the fact is that fighter/barbarian has been niched into just fighting and raging.

Nature, tracking, exploration or survival stuff? Ranger. Stealth, investigation, or persuasion stuff? Rogue.

Basically they are good at hitting things, breaking things, and lifting things. Oh and maybe jumping over things. It's not so much an issue with martials as it is those classes having lost any niche outside being strong and tough, and the creators don't seem to want to expand them back beyond that.

[SharkForce]

Casters have a limited explicit class feature to deal with anything: Spellcasting.
Everyone an unlimited implicit game feature to deal with anything: Roleplaying.

I believe that a problem arises only when the DM and players forget that they are playing a roleplaying game and not a "use a class feature to win" game.

If the players forget that they can roleplay to solve challenges then the only avenue for the characters to interact with the game world is through class features and the casters "win." If the DM only allows the characters to use class features to interact with the world then the casters "win." If everyone is playing the game mostly as intended and the GM is aware that the casters need to run out of their limited resources semi-regularly then there generally isn't a problem.

This is my experience over twenty years and all the versions of D&D. If the player plays a character and the GM plays the game it's not an issue. If the player plays the character sheet and the GM plays the rulebook then it's an issue. In my time I've seen an AD&D fighter, someone with no class featues beyond hitting things, sleep with half the noblewomen in the kingdom, broker a peace treaty with a goblin nation, and expose a gang of dopplegangers trying to impersonate the king. I've also seen a 3.5 wizard with a full spellbook and access to the largest library in the campaign say that he couldn't find out anything about a famous historical person.

and yet, this still doesn't change the fact that a caster has more tools, because they have "roleplaying", and they also have spells.

a DM can make anyone succeed as often as anyone else. the problem is that they have to, instead of letting it take care of itself as it should. you shouldn't have to have an awesome roleplayer to get things done as a fighter, and you shouldn't have to be completely incompetent to not get things done as a wizard. they should both have tools for accomplishing things. the tools don't necessarily need to be the same, and the things they can accomplish with those tools don't necessarily need to be the same, but when one person has tools that do everything the other person's tools do and more, there is a problem.

[Freelance GM]

and yet, this still doesn't change the fact that a caster has more tools, because they have "roleplaying", and they also have spells.

a DM can make anyone succeed as often as anyone else. the problem is that they have to, instead of letting it take care of itself as it should. you shouldn't have to have an awesome roleplayer to get things done as a fighter, and you shouldn't have to be completely incompetent to not get things done as a wizard. they should both have tools for accomplishing things. the tools don't necessarily need to be the same, and the things they can accomplish with those tools don't necessarily need to be the same, but when one person has tools that do everything the other person's tools do and more, there is a problem.

Why does the fighter need to be good at anything other than fighting? The class literally has "fight" in its name. 5E's Backgrounds make it so that a Fighter can also be a silver-tongued charlatan, or an inspiring folk hero, or even a bookworm, but the Fighter class doesn't need to be anything more than the best warrior in the game.

If you want to play a versatile Martial character, play a Rogue. If you just want to hit stuff, play a Fighter. Same thing goes for casters: if you want versatility, play a Wizard. If you just want to blow things up, play a Sorcerer.

[Cactuar]

I'm wondering if someone more math savvy than myself has already gone and done this math...

Let's assume the party is composed of four characters: a Rogue, a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Warlock who used the default Adventurer's League array of 15/14/13/12/10/8, and 150 GP to spend on equipment.


Variant Human Fighter:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 8.
12 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +5 to Hit, 2d6+3 Damage (Greatsword) on a hit.
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue:
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, deals up to 4d6+3 damage (Dual Scimitars + Sneak Attack)

Half-Elf Warlock
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
10 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +5 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, deals 1d10 damage. (No Agonizing Blast yet.)
Spell Slots: 1 (1st level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys

High Elf Wizard
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 16 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
8 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +5 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 1d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Chromatic Orb (spent starting GP for the material component), Mage Armor, Sleep, Shield.
Spells Known: All of the above, plus Alarm and Identify (both are Rituals).
Spell Slots: 2 + Arcane Recovery 1

Coming out of the gate, the Martials have higher AC's and damage outputs with their main attacks. The only exception is the Rogue- if the Rogue is not sneak attacking, and misses with one attack, the Rogue deals the least damage, while the fighter deals the most. The casters are tied in the middle.

According to the 5E DMG, the recommended XP/Adventuring Day is 300 per character at Level 1. (DMG 84) The per character part is important- this means that for a party of 4, there should be 1,200 XP's worth of encounters. For a party of four, this means encounter difficulty looks like this:

Easy: 100 XP (1 Worg)
Medium: 200 (4 Kobolds)
Hard: 300 (3 Wolves)
Deadly: 400 (2 Bandits and 1 Thug)

The party would have to do 3 deadly encounters, 4 hard encounters, 6 medium encounters, or 12 easy encounters to get the amount of XP they are supposed to earn in that single day. Or, obviously, they could do a combination. Say, 1 of each, with an extra medium encounter thrown in. The casters have their awesome spells, sure, but they have 5 spell slots between the two of them, which they need to divide between at least 3 encounters. Otherwise, they're relying on cantrips, which makes them tied for the worst damage dealers in the party, unless the Rogue is having really bad rolls and not sneak-attacking.

Outside of combat, the Rogue is supreme- a Half-Elf Rogue has a whopping 8 Skills, and Expertise in 2 of them (lets' assume Stealth and Acrobatics). The Warlock is the next best with 6 skills, but that's because the Warlock's a Half-elf, not because of caster shenanigans. Variant Human Fighter and Elf Wizard both have 5.

Now, the valid argument of "it's not about damage, it's about versatility!" is still valid for the casters, but consider this: Encounters aren't always combat. I used combat examples, but in 4E, you'd get XP for skill challenges, and 3.5 gave you XP for disarming traps. You can still do those with spells, but unless you're the trap monkey, it's usually pretty hard to die outside of combat. Every spell slot you use enchanting a noble, or bypassing a hazard is one less you have in combat- when things are actively trying to kill your character.



Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster:
Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 14 Cha: 8.
44 HP, AC 16 (Scale Mail), +6 to Hit, potential 4d6+6 Damage (Greatsword, 2 attacks)
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack
Has the Great Weapon Fighting style, and Great Weapon Master feat.

Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin):
Str: 8 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 13 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC15 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with a Finesse Weapon, dual-wields scimitars for 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage. Adds +3d6 damage on a sneak attack. Also, Assassinate makes attacks vs. Surprised enemies automatically crit.
Feat: Alert

Half-Elf Fiendlock (Tome Pact)
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 16
38 HP, AC14 (Studded Leather), +6 to Hit with an Eldritch Blast, gets 2 shots and deals 1d10+3 damage.
Spell Slots: 2 (3rd level)
Spells Known: Hex, Armor of Agathys, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt
Invocations: Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, Repelling Blast
Feat: Spell Sniper

High Elf Wizard (Diviner)
Str: 8 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 18 Wis: 12 Cha: 10
32 HP, AC12 (No armor) or AC15 (Mage Armor), +7 to Hit with Fire Bolt, deals 2d10 damage.
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Witch Bolt, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Fly, Fireball
Spells Known: All of the above, plus 5 more.
Spell Slots: 1st: 4, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 2 + Arcane Recovery 5

Now things start getting interesting, with everyone getting their subclass. The Fighter continues to have the most damage per swing, and a boost to Wisdom and the Battle Master spec make the character a tad more well-rounded- the Fighter can learn about enemies outside of combat, and the Battle Master maneuvers are starting to give the character some flexibility in combat beyond "hit it again."

The Rogue takes the assassin route, because instant crits! Combined with the Alert feat, this is pretty likely to happen. Also, the rogue gets extra proficiencies, becoming even more of an asset outside of combat. The rogue's damage is still very dynamic- it's either bad, a little worse than the fighter, or the best in the party, depending on circumstance.

The Warlock goes for long-range damage. Eldritch Blast is now two-for-the-price-of-one, with Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast giving the Warlock more damage and battlefield control, while the Tome Pact and Invocation let the Warlock learn some more cantrips and cast rituals- also becoming more valuable outside of combat. However, within combat, the character's damage still lags behind the Fighter. Unlike the Wizard, the Warlock can liberally use all two of the character's spell slots in combat- Short rests are easier to come by than long rests, after all.

The Wizard went the Diviner route (Portents are great), boosted INT, and got a ton more spells- including a weak teleport, some more offense, some more defense, good old Fireball, Fly, and the notorious Rope Trick. Arcane Recovery only gets better with time. This is where you could start arguing the Wizard gets OP. It certainly looks OP, right? But let's see what they're up against.

Recommended XP/Adventuring Day: 3,500 per character (15,000 total)
Easy: 1,000 XP (5 Hobgoblins)
Medium: 2,000 XP (A Bulette, with 200 XP left over)
Hard: 3,000 XP (4 Bugbears and a Bugbear Chief)
Deadly: 4,400 XP (3 Basilisks, but with 200 XP left over)

At Level 5, the minimum number of encounters has gone up. 3 Deadly Encounters leaves you 1800 XP shy of your daily allotment- you'd need an extra Medium encounter to get your recommended value of XP. Or, you could grind through 5 hard encounters. Or 15 easy ones. In a case like this, it becomes easy to understand how casters actually are balanced by their daily limit. I've already made the characters for you- grab them and play through what the book calls "one adventuring day" and see how the casters perform.

Again, these don't have to be combat, but I'm using combat as examples for what gives that amount of XP. Disarming traps and defusing social situations could still get you XP, as well as bonuses like Quest XP, but let's be honest- at this point, most of the XP will come from combat.


Now, I don't think I've ever seen a DM cram that many encounters in one day. That's the problem.

We can't complain that the game is broken if we're all playing the game wrong, guys.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not with the bit about us playing the wrong game.

The DMG says players are supposed to encounter 20 bugbears + 5 bugbear chiefs (or the equivalent there-of) in a single day? Like... over the course of 8 hours? And we're supposed to have a chance at a random encounter every hour? How does anyone survive in this world when they're constantly accosted by things - I can't imagine being a merchant that has to travel.

[bloodshed343]

To be fair, part of the fact is that fighter/barbarian has been niched into just fighting and raging.

Nature, tracking, exploration or survival stuff? Ranger. Stealth, investigation, or persuasion stuff? Rogue.

Basically they are good at hitting things, breaking things, and lifting things. Oh and maybe jumping over things. It's not so much an issue with martials as it is those classes having lost any niche outside being strong and tough, and the creators don't seem to want to expand them back beyond that.

I wrote up a new archetype for the fighter called the Hussar that brings the noble commander/knight feel to the 5e fighter. It's all about some versatility using your follower's skills. It also has a nifty charm feature. It cements the fighter's niche as the party leader.

I'm working on an archetype for Barbarians. Don't know where it's going yet.

But, anyway, as much as I like homebrew, these are problems that should be solved with splats/errata. The fighter and barbarian need an identity and the mechanics to reinforce it.

[silveralen]

I wrote up a new archetype for the fighter called the Hussar that brings the noble commander/knight feel to the 5e fighter. It's all about some versatility using your follower's skills. It also has a nifty charm feature. It cements the fighter's niche as the party leader.

I'm working on an archetype for Barbarians. Don't know where it's going yet.

But, anyway, as much as I like homebrew, these are problems that should be solved with splats/errata. The fighter and barbarian need an identity and the mechanics to reinforce it.

They do have one: hiting things hard, accurately, and often, while surviving a lot of punishment themselves. Those two have an identity based around combat.

Now, fighter as a professional soldier/commander in addition to combatant? That works. Barbarian with a primal connection? That works as well (though it is represented partially by spells so far).

[chiefjefe]

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this one, but I don't really think that martial characters and casters should be balanced. Here's why:

By definition, casters have access to magic, and the point of magic is that you can do things that can't normally be done. Things like flying, teleporting, scrying, bringing people back from the dead, summoning demons, hurling giant balls of fire, whatever. How in the world is a non-caster supposed to be "balanced" against that?

Basically, I see two options. Option 1 is that you give martial characters magic or something that approximates it. I believe 4ed kind of did that, although I skipped 4ed so I don't really know. But you can't go this route without completely changing fighters, barbarians, rogues, etc... into essentially supernaturally powered pseudo-casters, which very quickly overshadows their original theme. Now, some people may like this approach, and I bet it could be a fun RPG, but to me, fighters are good with weapons and they hit stuff hard. Anyone who expects a guy who hits stuff hard to be equal to someone who can bend reality with a word is drinking the sauce.

Option 2, you can weaken casters. This is its own can of worms, but I know one popular-ish method is to do E6 type games. Essentially, you just don't ever let caster's get to the high levels where they completely outstrip everyone else.

And actually, there's sort of an Option 3, which is strip caster's of damage dealing spells. Make them great at utility, but when it comes to combat, they can only function in a support role.

I do get that a lack of balance can be a major problem for some gamers, I just don't see a way to bring martials up to casters without going into the realm of the ridiculous.

[Eslin]

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this one, but I don't really think that martial characters and casters should be balanced. Here's why:

By definition, casters have access to magic, and the point of magic is that you can do things that can't normally be done. Things like flying, teleporting, scrying, bringing people back from the dead, summoning demons, hurling giant balls of fire, whatever. How in the world is a non-caster supposed to be "balanced" against that?

Basically, I see two options. Option 1 is that you give martial characters magic or something that approximates it. I believe 4ed kind of did that, although I skipped 4ed so I don't really know. But you can't go this route without completely changing fighters, barbarians, rogues, etc... into essentially supernaturally powered pseudo-casters, which very quickly overshadows their original theme. Now, some people may like this approach, and I bet it could be a fun RPG, but to me, fighters are good with weapons and they hit stuff hard. Anyone who expects a guy who hits stuff hard to be equal to someone who can bend reality with a word is drinking the sauce.

Option 2, you can weaken casters. This is its own can of worms, but I know one popular-ish method is to do E6 type games. Essentially, you just don't ever let caster's get to the high levels where they completely outstrip everyone else.

And actually, there's sort of an Option 3, which is strip caster's of damage dealing spells. Make them great at utility, but when it comes to combat, they can only function in a support role.

I do get that a lack of balance can be a major problem for some gamers, I just don't see a way to bring martials up to casters without going into the realm of the ridiculous.

Or instead of option 2 you give the martials access to 8-Bit Theatre style martials being ridiculously good at their job ie fighter blocking the ground, thief hiding under someone's hat while they're wearing it etc.

[Demonicattorney]

Can't high level Barbarians jump like 60 ft, and can routinely beat Giants on Strength checks? Can't Monks run faster than a horse, and fall almost any distance without injury? Paladins literally make their parties immune to half the status conditions in the game, can ride a freaking Unicorn, and Banish demons with a single-swipe of their sword. What more do you want?

Only Fighers lack truly super-human abilities, but they are the best at Fighting so. . .
If you really want a Fighter to be awesome, just houserule Indomitable to be an auto save. Then they are the most resilient class in the game.

[SharkForce]

Why does the fighter need to be good at anything other than fighting? The class literally has "fight" in its name. 5E's Backgrounds make it so that a Fighter can also be a silver-tongued charlatan, or an inspiring folk hero, or even a bookworm, but the Fighter class doesn't need to be anything more than the best warrior in the game.

If you want to play a versatile Martial character, play a Rogue. If you just want to hit stuff, play a Fighter. Same thing goes for casters: if you want versatility, play a Wizard. If you just want to blow things up, play a Sorcerer.

well, the thing is... casters are also good at fighting, whether it's in their name or not. if they are the best 'warrior' in the game (and that is not necessarily certain), it isn't by a large amount.

the problem is not "wizards have different tools than fighters", but "wizards have tools that let them do almost everything fighters can do, in some ways better, and can also do a bunch of other stuff". it is very easy for a wizard to contribute to a fight. it starts off somewhat limited (but then, the same is true for the fighter), and increases at a fairly close rate to the fighter (depending on type of caster and specific decisions made). meanwhile, their ability to contribute in other ways increases far more rapidly than the fighter. to make this fair, either the fighter needs to have tools that help them contribute in other situations almost as much as a wizard *or* the fighter needs to be undisputably superior in a fight at all levels.


Or instead of option 2 you give the martials access to 8-Bit Theatre style martials being ridiculously good at their job ie fighter blocking the ground, thief hiding under someone's hat while they're wearing it etc.

i think that's his option 1... call it what you will, but fighter blocking the ground is basically magic :P

(edit: not that i'm opposed to that, but he did already account for that option).

[Eslin]

Can't high level Barbarians jump like 60 ft, and can routinely beat Giants on Strength checks? Can't Monks run faster than a horse, and fall almost any distance without injury? Paladins literally make their parties immune to half the status conditions in the game, can ride a freaking Unicorn, and Banish demons with a single-swipe of their sword. What more do you want?

Only Fighers lack truly super-human abilities, but they are the best at Fighting so. . .
If you really want a Fighter to be awesome, just houserule Indomitable to be an auto save. Then they are the most resilient class in the game.

Paladins be half casters, and the best of them at that. To my mind they're one of the best designed classes of 5e, martials should be more like them. Though they don't get a unicorn.
It should be noted that both the monk abilities you just mentioned are level 1 spells to a wizard, and that barbarians can only jump 40 feet if they took one specific ability from one subclass at level 14.

Which is the entire point - martials should have things casters can't easily imitate, and pretty much everything you just mentioned is easily available from low level spells.

[chiefjefe]

I don't disagree in terms of playability that martials should be able to do some things better than casters. But the only way to do that is to either give martials super-powers, or take away certain spells. I mean, I guess you could have fireball do something like 2d6 damage so that it does comparable overall per round damage to a martial character, but that's not really much of a fireball, is it?

It really wouldn't be such a bad thing to houserule a few spells. As an example, you could have Knock allow for an open locks roll as though the wizard were proficient in that skill. Useful, but not the auto-success it currently is. Remove spells like invisibility altogether. If you want to be invisible you need to find a cloak of invisibility, which anyone can wear.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Mearls, et al are completely aware of this problem but have their hands tied. D&D from the very beginning has given casters amazing abilities and there would be a huge outcry if they were to remove the most iconic and powerful spells.

[Eslin]

I don't disagree in terms of playability that martials should be able to do some things better than casters. But the only way to do that is to either give martials super-powers, or take away certain spells. I mean, I guess you could have fireball do something like 2d6 damage so that it does comparable overall per round damage to a martial character, but that's not really much of a fireball, is it?

It really wouldn't be such a bad thing to houserule a few spells. As an example, you could have Knock allow for an open locks roll as though the wizard were proficient in that skill. Useful, but not the auto-success it currently is. Remove spells like invisibility altogether. If you want to be invisible you need to find a cloak of invisibility, which anyone can wear.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Mearls, et al are completely aware of this problem but have their hands tied. D&D from the very beginning has given casters amazing abilities and there would be a huge outcry if they were to remove the most iconic and powerful spells.

So give martials superpowers. A level 3 barbarian can survive a fall from the stratosphere by getting angry and a fighter can survive several arrows to the guys and get over it be spending an hour taking a nap, you're already well past what is physically possible. You don't need to weaken casters, but by the time the caster can turn the entire party into dragons or stop time martials should be getting stuff a lot better than 'hit someone slightly harder'.

[Gwendol]

Casters are basically shut down in a zone of Silence. I find that wide open to abuse, and it makes casters increadibly weak. Any intelligent foe worth his salt will want to be able to cast Silence in my games.

[Eslin]

Casters are basically shut down in a zone of Silence. I find that wide open to abuse, and it makes casters increadibly weak. Any intelligent foe worth his salt will want to be able to cast Silence in my games.

You mean casters can shut down other casters?

[Gwendol]

I'd say a rogue with a scroll of silence can do it quite handily. But sure, in my mind, spell-casting opponents are not uncommon.

And we're not talking PvP now right? It's still the utility of "martials" and "casters" vs the game?

[Eslin]

I'd say a rogue with a scroll of silence can do it quite handily. But sure, in my mind, spell-casting opponents are not uncommon.

And we're not talking PvP now right? It's still the utility of "martials" and "casters" vs the game?

Even in games like mine where the DM is completely ok with characters murdering each other PvP is very rare, so I'd say the best point of comparison is martials/hybrids/casters vs the game.
As a side note, a rogue with a scroll of silence wouldn't have bumped his concentration saves like casters do, so would lose concentration on that silence spell very quickly.

[Gwendol]

Why would the rogue lose concentration?

[Eslin]

Why would the rogue lose concentration?

From getting hit? He's hit someone with a zone of silence, if you hit him before whoever's in the zone's turn comes up then he's just wasted a scroll and an action.

[Gwendol]

Aren't rogues well suited to not even getting targetted or seen or noticed? A rogue built around magic device use, or an arcane trickster could well want to invest in concentration.

[Eslin]

Aren't rogues well suited to not even getting targetted or seen or noticed? A rogue built around magic device use, or an arcane trickster could well want to invest in concentration.

I guess it depends. Hiding rules say you're automatically noticed if you make noise you give away your position, would you make noise using a scroll? I know you do when casting, that's what the verbal component is.

[Asylum]

I really can’t understand people complaining about Martials being weaker than Casters. And that they NEED to be balanced.
I agree with chiefjefe that Casters being stronger than Martials is absolutely normal. That’s how it works in this gaming system called D&D. It is high magic fantasy. It is how the Wizards created it. Just deal with it.

However the fact that Casters are stronger does not in any way mean that playing Martials wouldn’t be fun or satisfying. Because for some it is frakking awesome to shrug off a straight hit from a huge giant like it’s nothing or decapitate a dragon using an axe as a simple hit’em-with-a-stick-guy.

And about this-and-that being highly situational, well the whole freaking game is highly situational. It is made up by the DM after all (with help from the players of course). Nothing exists before the DM DM explains the scene to the players. No classes, no races, no spells, nothing. They’re just sentences on a piece of paper suggesting how the made up world could work. D&D is NOT a video game, with determined battles, conversations and outcomes.

And if you really-really-so-very-much want that Casters=Martials --> play another system.
You wouldn’t play Call of Duty if you truly hate FPS-s, would you now. Or Skyrim if you just can’t stand sandbox RPG-s.

[Eslin]

I really can’t understand people complaining about Martials being weaker than Casters. And that they NEED to be balanced.
I agree with chiefjefe that Casters being stronger than Martials is absolutely normal. That’s how it works in this gaming system called D&D. It is high magic fantasy. It is how the Wizards created it. Just deal with it.

However the fact that Casters are stronger does not in any way mean that playing Martials wouldn’t be fun or satisfying. Because for some it is frakking awesome to shrug off a straight hit from a huge giant like it’s nothing or decapitate a dragon using an axe as a simple hit’em-with-a-stick-guy.

And about this-and-that being highly situational, well the whole freaking game is highly situational. It is made up by the DM after all (with help from the players of course). Nothing exists before the DM DM explains the scene to the players. No classes, no races, no spells, nothing. They’re just sentences on a piece of paper suggesting how the made up world could work. D&D is NOT a video game, with determined battles, conversations and outcomes.

And if you really-really-so-very-much want that Casters=Martials --> play another system.
You wouldn’t play Call of Duty if you truly hate FPS-s, would you now. Or Skyrim if you just can’t stand sandbox RPG-s.

Except that's not how the game's presented, 20 levels of ranger are supposed to be as useful as 20 levels of wizard. High magic doesn't have to mean spellcasters are more powerful, all classes are inherently magical - a barbarian sure doesn't use physics to survive getting stabbed ten times and then sleep it off during his midday nap. Martials don't need to have the same strengths as casters, but I would like to see them have different strengths that a caster can't just ape if he feels like it.

[Asylum]

Except that's not how the game's presented, 20 levels of ranger are supposed to be as useful as 20 levels of wizard. High magic doesn't have to mean spellcasters are more powerful, all classes are inherently magical - a barbarian sure doesn't use physics to survive getting stabbed ten times and then sleep it off during his midday nap. Martials don't need to have the same strengths as casters, but I would like to see them have different strengths that a caster can't just ape if he feels like it.

If 5E was presented as a system in which Casters = Martials in means of usefulness and power then it seems that WotC did their best but failed.
That doesn't change the game at hand however. 5E is currently complete with it's PHB, MM and DMG and by those Casters > Martials. (In a generic world without a normal DM.)
And by choosing a martial class to play with I accept that it's not the most optimal way in means of versatility. I accept that I cannot fly at-will or that I cannot kill a punch of mooks with snap of my fingers. I have fun hitting thing until they stop moving one-by-one.
And all things considered the most optimal way would definitely not be playing D&D with my friends. It would be trying to end world hunger or wars (or those incredibly stupid TV reality shows).

And as I implied before, everyone can choose a system he/she wants to play. If you don't like 5E as it is, homebrew it or pick another system. I've heard that in 4E classes were quite equal.

I enjoy 5E and the fact that I can do amazing things as an underling in a world full of all-mighty game-ending wizards.

[Gwendol]

I guess it depends. Hiding rules say you're automatically noticed if you make noise you give away your position, would you make noise using a scroll? I know you do when casting, that's what the verbal component is.

I'm not sure, and besides, with a 10 minute duration the rogue does not have to cast it within earshot of the enemy. Regardless, the fact that most spellcasting can be shut down by a second level spell is rather hilarious. Non-magical abilities aren't quite as easily turned off, and so can be viewed as an upside to their narrow scope of application (that and the consistency).

[Eslin]

I'm not sure, and besides, with a 10 minute duration the rogue does not have to cast it within earshot of the enemy. Regardless, the fact that most spellcasting can be shut down by a second level spell is rather hilarious. Non-magical abilities aren't quite as easily turned off, and so can be viewed as an upside to their narrow scope of application (that and the consistency).

It contains its own answer - its shut off by a second level spell, though one that you can just walk out of. If the rogue casts it ahead of time he's never going to get anyone in the zone in the first place.

[Gwendol]

It contains its own answer - its shut off by a second level spell, though one that you can just walk out of. If the rogue casts it ahead of time he's never going to get anyone in the zone in the first place.

If you can walk out of it... if it's set up as a trap, or the rogue has a grappler buddy (or is a grappler), or he simply casts the spell on a 10x10 room with locked exits, or... Even if the condition is temporary, to shut off spellcasting for for even just a few rounds would likely prove devastating.

Sorcerers bypass this of course, thanks to subtle spell.

[Eslin]

If you can walk out of it... if it's set up as a trap, or the rogue has a grappler buddy (or is a grappler), or he simply casts the spell on a 10x10 room with locked exits, or... Even if the condition is temporary, to shut off spellcasting for for even just a few rounds would likely prove devastating.

Sorcerers bypass this of course, thanks to subtle spell.

Other spellcasters also bypass this, as do features like shapechanger and benign transposition. There's no reason his friends can't just cast into the silence to help him.

As a side note, if you're setting up a trap why not just throw a bunch of glyphs down? Instant death and much harder to detect, all the conditions you just named for silence are... really conditional.

[Rallicus]

DMing 5e for a while, yes, there is discrepancy. Party Warlock has solved problems using his abilities more than once, and even with a combat timer he can always fall back on eldritch blast.

Meanwhile the barbarian can... hulk smash.

It's difficult to compete with the versatility that casters offer. I don't care if you're the most creative player in the world, casters are still superior by virtue of versatility.

But that's DND. I'd expect nothing less, and at least it's not as glaring this time around.

[Eslin]

DMing 5e for a while, yes, there is discrepancy. Party Warlock has solved problems using his abilities more than once, and even with a combat timer he can always fall back on eldritch blast.

Meanwhile the barbarian can... hulk smash.

It's difficult to compete with the versatility that casters offer. I don't care if you're the most creative player in the world, casters are still superior by virtue of versatility.

But that's DND. I'd expect nothing less, and at least it's not as glaring this time around.

Well, I expected more. They made good steps towards giving martials interesting options late in 3.5 and then did it fantastically in 4e - I didn't like 4e that much, but the martial tactical options (especially the leadership ones, hello warlord) were much better than previous editions. Then 5e came out and the closest we got was the poorly thought out battlemaster subclass.

Seriously, they already knew how to do this. Why was it not in core?

[silveralen]

Well, I expected more. They made good steps towards giving martials interesting options late in 3.5 and then did it fantastically in 4e - I didn't like 4e that much, but the martial tactical options (especially the leadership ones, hello warlord) were much better than previous editions. Then 5e came out and the closest we got was the poorly thought out battlemaster subclass.

Seriously, they already knew how to do this. Why was it not in core?

Because they never actually did in 3.5. 5e martials are closer in versatility to casters than they ever were in 3.5. If you say ToB I will laugh at you, because ToB did almost nothing for this. It let people hulk smash objects and track things with scent. Beyond that, it made them good in combat. Martials in 5e are already good in combat, and you can be a damage dealer or a utility combatant depending on the class (barbarian and fighter lean towards pure damage with a smattering of other options, monk has a bigger variety of ways to inconvenience enemies).

They knew how to do this, and they did do it. White raven and warlord are poorly represented, but the rest is pretty much there. Stuns, trips, smashing through walls, mobility, letting teammates move about, grabbing enemies attention, shutting down enemy movement, scaling damage.... it's there. They didn't bother giving it the same format as spells this time around (since that was one of the biggest complaints about 4e it isn't surprising) but really it isn't lacking.

[Gwendol]

Other spellcasters also bypass this, as do features like shapechanger and benign transposition. There's no reason his friends can't just cast into the silence to help him.

As a side note, if you're setting up a trap why not just throw a bunch of glyphs down? Instant death and much harder to detect, all the conditions you just named for silence are... really conditional.

Because shutting down casting may be the thing I want to do? Look, this is a thread about martials vs casters, and the general caster superiority. I'm pointing out a weakness when relying on spellcasting. You need to be able to speak, have free use of at least one hand, and often access to a material focus or spell components pouch. Naturally, having access to other abilities that don't rely on spellcasting are not affected. Listing all abilities that don't rely on the speech is... tedious and not really the topic of debate.

[Ghost Nappa]

This isn't my best metaphor but I think it works.


Mages are your artillery. They help you destroy your opponents safely and consisting but they're weak to being overrun and shut down.

Martials are your infantry and cavalry. They are destroyed by artillery if they are hit, but they are the best defense to protecting your own artillery and your best offense for ruining the enemies'.

The question is whether or not you get your artillery into optimal firing range and keep them shooting.

Without the artillery, your infantry can swarm any number of enemies but they lack some of the resources to take down certain kinds of enemies with ease.

Without the infantry, you can smartly position your artillery to be protected by the actual environment. But you greatly lack the ability to march at your leisure. You will be stopping and starting a lot as the artillery is going to fall if you move rashly into an ambush.

tl;dr
Mages are important because of the number of situations they can solve that you'd otherwise have to struggle and work for.

Martials are important because they allow you move around at a faster pace without being in danger, as well as drawing attention away from the casters.

In social situations, this may very well apply too! While casters may be far more amazing to work or talk with, martials are a lot more personable to the average person. People will understand what swinging a sword does. People will not understand how tweaking the crystal gem and burning some incense a top a statue alters the destination of the portal from the Feywild to the Elemental Plane of Fire and how a subsequent alteration to the runes will cause a small illusionary hobbit to shout "HAIL TIPPY."

That stuff's too complicated for a world of generally uneducated peasants.

[Eslin]

Because shutting down casting may be the thing I want to do? Look, this is a thread about martials vs casters, and the general caster superiority. I'm pointing out a weakness when relying on spellcasting. You need to be able to speak, have free use of at least one hand, and often access to a material focus or spell components pouch. Naturally, having access to other abilities that don't rely on spellcasting are not affected. Listing all abilities that don't rely on the speech is... tedious and not really the topic of debate.

Casters are vulnerable to being silenced by casters, martials are vulnerable to being disarmed by martials. It's a thing.


Because they never actually did in 3.5. 5e martials are closer in versatility to casters than they ever were in 3.5. If you say ToB I will laugh at you, because ToB did almost nothing for this. It let people hulk smash objects and track things with scent. Beyond that, it made them good in combat. Martials in 5e are already good in combat, and you can be a damage dealer or a utility combatant depending on the class (barbarian and fighter lean towards pure damage with a smattering of other options, monk has a bigger variety of ways to inconvenience enemies).

They knew how to do this, and they did do it. White raven and warlord are poorly represented, but the rest is pretty much there. Stuns, trips, smashing through walls, mobility, letting teammates move about, grabbing enemies attention, shutting down enemy movement, scaling damage.... it's there. They didn't bother giving it the same format as spells this time around (since that was one of the biggest complaints about 4e it isn't surprising) but really it isn't lacking.
ToB was mostly in-combat utility, with a reasonable chunk of out of combat usable stuff. 4e didn't give anything the same format as spells, it gave every single class the exact same format and resource costs. Martial utility wise I was referring to things like skill tricks, devotion feats and MiC being full of things martials could do to bridge the gap, as well as classes like the factotum, totemist and binder (non-casters with large amounts of in and out of combat utility).

5e wise, no. There are a few ways to tank (marks if included, a couple of battlemaster abilities, sentinel), but they don't compare to an actual system of scaling abilities. There are a ways of varying effectiveness and ease of obtaining to obtain various types of effects, but in general they're underwhelming and/or require significant investment in a world where the caster changes whether he wants to teleport or summon angels by waking up in the morning.


Mages are your artillery. They help you destroy your opponents safely and consisting but they're weak to being overrun and shut down.

Martials are your infantry and cavalry. They are destroyed by artillery if they are hit, but they are the best defense to protecting your own artillery and your best offense for ruining the enemies'.

The question is whether or not you get your artillery into optimal firing range and keep them shooting.

Without the artillery, your infantry can swarm any number of enemies but they lack some of the resources to take down certain kinds of enemies with ease.

Without the infantry, you can smartly position your artillery to be protected by the actual environment. But you greatly lack the ability to march at your leisure. You will be stopping and starting a lot as the artillery is going to fall if you move rashly into an ambush.
Falls down, since the artillery can easily reposition itself and summon extra infantry, change its own optimal range and easily extract itself from that ambush, while the infantry can't do anything but keep being infantry.


tl;dr
Mages are important because of the number of situations they can solve that you'd otherwise have to struggle and work for.

Martials are important because they allow you move around at a faster pace without being in danger, as well as drawing attention away from the casters.

In social situations, this may very well apply too! While casters may be far more amazing to work or talk with, martials are a lot more personable to the average person. People will understand what swinging a sword does. People will not understand how tweaking the crystal gem and burning some incense a top a statue alters the destination of the portal from the Feywild to the Elemental Plane of Fire and how a subsequent alteration to the runes will cause a small illusionary hobbit to shout "HAIL TIPPY."

That stuff's too complicated for a world of generally uneducated peasants.
Why would anyone care what a bunch of uneducated peasants think?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Casters are vulnerable to being silenced by casters, martials are vulnerable to being disarmed by martials. It's a thing.

A rogue using a silence scroll is not a caster by any definition.

though this gives me a hilarious idea where the banging of a giant drum or somesuch produces such a cacophony that it makes verbal components impossible to use

[Rack]

I always liked the idea that high level martials had Wudang-esque abilities. You weren't really going to compete with casters without those. If you don't want that capability in the world then play at lower levels or add caps to martial classes.

As it stands though some of the pure martials lack in utility compared to casters. Personally I'm inclined to fix this with a house rule that extends the time needed for any kind of rest. Short rest is 8 hours, long rest is a month. That makes the 5 minute adventuring day all but impossible without having a suspiciously large quantity of random bugbears. It has the added advantage of making non-magical healing feel more rational and pushing towards more "epic" quests.

[Gwendol]

So... you mean you can't take away the spellcasting focus from a caster? It's not even an attack roll, just an ability contest.

Being silenced with a level 2 spells is more of a nuisance than the risk of losing/dropping a weapon. "All" enemy casters barring the first level are expected to have access to 2nd level spells, while not all monsters can be expected to have the ability to disarm.

[Asylum]

though this gives me a hilarious idea where the banging of a giant drum or somesuch produces such a cacophony that it makes verbal components impossible to use

And in addition to that, telepathy should actually be a great way to counter casting. Good luck with spell-casting while a monster is screaming obscenities IN your head :smallbiggrin:.

[Talderas]

A rogue using a silence scroll is not a caster by any definition.

though this gives me a hilarious idea where the banging of a giant drum or somesuch produces such a cacophony that it makes verbal components impossible to use

The silence spell itself is not a vulnerability for casters. Start to speak. Hear nothing. Roll a d8 and move 30ft in the direction indicated by it. If you started in the central 10ft radius, congratulations you have exited the effect. If you're in the outer 10ft ring then as long as you don't roll a d8 result that takes you across the center of the effect you have exited the effect. Most of the time you would be better off prepping a spell that will impact everything between your team and the caster making it easier to engage the caster. If you want to use silence as an anti-caster tactic then you need to concoct a situation that keeps the caster inside the effect.

[Eslin]

So... you mean you can't take away the spellcasting focus from a caster? It's not even an attack roll, just an ability contest.

Being silenced with a level 2 spells is more of a nuisance than the risk of losing/dropping a weapon. "All" enemy casters barring the first level are expected to have access to 2nd level spells, while not all monsters can be expected to have the ability to disarm.

But focuses and component pouches are both insanely cheap. Why wouldn't you have like 10 of each strapped to you?

[Gwendol]

I bet they will after being "disabled" like that once or twice.

[Louro]

Anyone without idea of what D&D is reading this would think immediately on PvP.
It is a teamplay game, so I'm OK with different classes being... different. I started with AD&D where wizards were almost walking dead bodies till lv 10 or so, but if they managed to survive they could became real WIZARDS!!!
I also think that "tier" thing is a big lie. It says that anything a 3.5 fighter can do a cleric can do better. Nobody mentioned ever that this is true only if your enemies are polite enough to let you cast 2 or 3 spells before starting the hostilities.

I mean, each role has it purpose... and as long as everyone feels comfortable with his everything is perfect. All that caster/martial thing is campaign dependant, some DM might, for example, cap teleport spells or get them to work in a different way. And if you feel like your party is abusing the rope trick you still have a lot of options to make them pay for that: time, ambushes, traps, divination...

[Eslin]

Anyone without idea of what D&D is reading this would think immediately on PvP.
It is a teamplay game, so I'm OK with different classes being... different. I started with AD&D where wizards were almost walking dead bodies till lv 10 or so, but if they managed to survive they could became real WIZARDS!!!
I also think that "tier" thing is a big lie. It says that anything a 3.5 fighter can do a cleric can do better. Nobody mentioned ever that this is true only if your enemies are polite enough to let you cast 2 or 3 spells before starting the hostilities.
You mean at the start of the day? Because it's easy as hell for a cleric to persist several buffs and be better than the fighter at absolutely everything. You are allowed to think 'that "tier" thing is a big lie', but you will need to deal with being absolutely incorrect.


I mean, each role has it purpose... and as long as everyone feels comfortable with his everything is perfect. All that caster/martial thing is campaign dependant, some DM might, for example, cap teleport spells or get them to work in a different way. And if you feel like your party is abusing the rope trick you still have a lot of options to make them pay for that: time, ambushes, traps, divination...
These discussions assume normal rules since that's the only way to have a useful point of reference.

[Louro]

Not that easy, you need to focus for that and even then you can only persist lv 2 buffs. A focused fighter can deal astronomicals amounts of damage in just one hit.

To change rules is a normal rule. DMG pay 263.
EDIT: for example, my party only recovers a full class dice value + CON bonus after a long rest.

[Eslin]

Not that easy, you need to focus for that and even then you can only persist lv 2 buffs. A focused fighter can deal astronomicals amounts of damage in just one hit.
First off, mere damage is easy as hell to get. It's control, utility and methods of applying that damage that are important.
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by 'you need to focus', but you can persist more than level 2 spells. There are plenty of ways to lower metamagic costs, but most clerics cut right to the chase and burn a few turn/rebukes with DMM to persist spells.


To change rules is a normal rule. DMG pay 263.
EDIT: for example, my party only recovers a full class dice value + CON bonus after a long rest.
Yes, many people homebrew additional content or change/add/remove existing rules. For the most part, forum discussion assumes the rules as they're written in the books since different tables will have different changes - the official rules are the closest thing to a perfect point of reference we have.

[Louro]

DMM won't lower the +7 spell slot level required to persist something. Munchkingning boomsticks over the rules is another story.
Yep, cleric offer versatility and fighter damage. 1 cleric and 1 fighter are far way superior than 2 clerics because the first team is more versatile than the 2nd.

I'm just DMing a short test adventure so we only changed the long rest thing. On complex and long campaigns I think any master should think about what rules might interfere with the campaign settings or development.

But again, I see no such problem as long everyone enjoys the game and no one falls into complete uselessness, which I don't think can happen in 5e if players are active and imaginative.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I don't see the problem with different classes getting inherently different features. If you want certain abilities, there are choices you can take to get those abilities. Why complain about not getting the abilities when you didn't choose any of the many options that would give them to you?

[Eslin]

DMM won't lower the +7 spell slot level required to persist something. Munchkingning boomsticks over the rules is another story.
It's +6, if the DM changes the rules and you can't persist anything then make a druid instead, achieves the same thing without needing to persist any buffs. I have no idea what that second sentence means.


Yep, cleric offer versatility and fighter damage. 1 cleric and 1 fighter are far way superior than 2 clerics because the first team is more versatile than the 2nd.
Well, no. Not at all. Two clerics are far, far more versatile than a cleric and a tier 5, even if DMM has been banned and all metamagic reducers removed. Spending all day buffed to the gills is fun, but clerics have a huge amount of really good spells that don't require that.


I'm just DMing a short test adventure so we only changed the long rest thing. On complex and long campaigns I think any master should think about what rules might interfere with the campaign settings or development.

But again, I see no such problem as long everyone enjoys the game and no one falls into complete uselessness, which I don't think can happen in 5e if players are active and imaginative.
No class will be completely useless in 5e, partially because taking/receiving damage doesn't stop being a useful role later in the game like it did in 3.5.


I don't see the problem with different classes getting inherently different features. If you want certain abilities, there are choices you can take to get those abilities. Why complain about not getting the abilities when you didn't choose any of the many options that would give them to you?
No-one is claiming that classes should all have the same abilities, just that no classes should be all around more useful than other classes.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

No-one is claiming that classes should all have the same abilities, just that no classes should be all around more useful than other classes.

That is an incredibly subjective criteria, especially in a game where all the problems to be solved are DM created. I wish you luck in your quest.

[Gwendol]

DMM won't lower the +7 spell slot level required to persist something. Munchkingning boomsticks over the rules is another story.
Yep, cleric offer versatility and fighter damage. 1 cleric and 1 fighter are far way superior than 2 clerics because the first team is more versatile than the 2nd.


I don't think that's the case in 3.5 (at all), and this isn't the right forum to discuss it anyway.

[Gwendol]

No-one is claiming that classes should all have the same abilities, just that no classes should be all around more useful than other classes.

In the context of what exactly? To me that seems to be a very subjective goal, and secondly that I don't think all players will subscribe to that idea either.

[Vogonjeltz]

Ah, gotcha. That makes a sad sort of sense. I can't imagine playing a game like that.

I wouldn't worry about it. I've only ever heard of this happening on internet forum posts, so it's probably about as real as Bigfoot.

[Louro]

Well, no. Not at all. Two clerics are far, far more versatile than a cleric and a tier 5, even if DMM has been banned and all metamagic reducers removed. Spending all day buffed to the gills is fun, but clerics have a huge amount of really good spells that don't require that.
I disagree here. Fighters can't run out of slashes, and if they do they can still bring plenty of smashes. And furthermore you are basing all the cleric "versatility" in just one trick, which I would set anywhere far from versatility. Cleric is a support class, he excels at supporting. He can aid in a huge variety of ways but can't replace other roles entirely.


No-one is claiming that classes should all have the same abilities, just that no classes should be all around more useful than other classes.
And I disagree here too. It's just a matter of point of view. For me, as long as the group has a decent all around usefulness it is ok, no matter if character A contributes more or less than character B. It's a team and the D&D idea (for me at least) is that if everyone performs his part correctly they should have a high % of success rate... or something like that.

[Eslin]

I disagree here. Fighters can't run out of slashes, and if they do they can still bring plenty of smashes. And furthermore you are basing all the cleric "versatility" in just one trick, which I would set anywhere far from versatility. Cleric is a support class, he excels at supporting. He can aid in a huge variety of ways but can't replace other roles entirely.
Except that 'trick' allows you to persist high level spells all day, which can translate to incredible power and versatility - persisting a spell like holy star, for instance, gives you +6 AC or a free action ray each round that does 1d6 per two levels. That's on top of whatever else you want - if you're after replacing the fighter you could persist a spiritual guardian, for instance. The cleric in no way has to stay support, and can easily replace other roles.

Even without persist there are a great variety of spells that will let you replace a fighter entirely - hell, even just summon monster does most of the job by itself.


And I disagree here too. It's just a matter of point of view. For me, as long as the group has a decent all around usefulness it is ok, no matter if character A contributes more or less than character B. It's a team and the D&D idea (for me at least) is that if everyone performs his part correctly they should have a high % of success rate... or something like that.
If that's what you're after, good for you. Some people want to feel they're at least equally useful if not more useful if possible, however.


That is an incredibly subjective criteria, especially in a game where all the problems to be solved are DM created. I wish you luck in your quest.

In the context of what exactly? To me that seems to be a very subjective goal, and secondly that I don't think all players will subscribe to that idea either.
It honestly isn't that subjective. During the course of the campaign, the party will encounter many different problems and it's fairly easy to measure a class by how many problems it can contribute to solving and how much it contributes.

Give you a hint, a druid can solve and contribute a lot more than a ranger can.

[Louro]

I feel we might have different ideas of what versatility is. Reading you one could think clerics can cast spells all day long. Fighters contribute to versatility via reliability, since they can perform equally good in a good variety of situations while casters are prone to certain weakness. Weakness that clever enemies will exploit for sure, like sneaking the low HP caster, silences, hazardous environments that make casting difficult, anti magic fields and so on. Fighters on the other hand are way more difficult to deal with beforehand, sure the hazardous environment will hinder their movement, but not much their slashing capabilities.

And about the "A contributes more than B" "problem", it is more an RP issue than a mechanical one. Magic is powerful indeed, but I have never seen an useless martial class in combat (besides the 3.5 monk).

[Eslin]

I feel we might have different ideas of what versatility is. Reading you one could think clerics can cast spells all day long. Fighters contribute to versatility via reliability, since they can perform equally good in a good variety of situations while casters are prone to certain weakness. Weakness that clever enemies will exploit for sure, like sneaking the low HP caster, silences, hazardous environments that make casting difficult, anti magic fields and so on. Fighters on the other hand are way more difficult to deal with beforehand, sure the hazardous environment will hinder their movement, but not much their slashing capabilities.
AMFs hurt fighters just as much, as the game goes on a fighter becomes completely dependent on magical equipment. Yes, clerics can cast spells all day long, the fighter will run out of hit points far far sooner than a cleric will run out of spells, and persisting a few powerful ones at the start mean that even when they're not casting at all they're superior to the fighter in all respects. A cleric has on average one less HP per level than a fighter and far, far better defenses and ways of dealing with being attacked. And casters can deal far better with a hazardous environment by changing it, making it not affect them or using magic to leave it.


And about the "A contributes more than B" "problem", it is more an RP issue than a mechanical one. Magic is powerful indeed, but I have never seen an useless martial class in combat (besides the 3.5 monk).
Combat's the only area where most martials contribute much this edition, and they can often not do much except deal and take damage - suffering from both a lack of utility and an incredible amount of boredom due to having no tactical options. No-one's useless this edition, but overall use seems to pretty much go wizard/druid/bard/cleric>warlock/sorcerer/paladin/monk/rogue/eldritch knight>barbarian/fighter/ranger. The first lot can solve a huge amount of in and out of combat problems, and can often step in and fill any niche they choose just as well as a class dedicated to it. The second lot have a fixed set of tools which can't be adapted to all roles, but leave them with several options in and out of combat and can contribute well in their chosen areas. The third lot are basically stuck dealing/absorbing damage with maybe a few fixed abilities not directly related to that.

Just invented that on the spot and it may not be that accurate but notice that at the very worst 5e has 3 tiers as opposed to the original 6. Everyone is useful nowadays, which is a good thing, it's just overall casters are more useful than martials. If that doesn't bug you, great, it does bug some people though.

[LuthielValkire]

...Random Encounters.

By RAW, DM's are supposed to check for Random encounters every single hour PC's spend in the wilderness, or a dungeon, or even a particularly dangerous part of a city. Most DM's don't, because random encounters are inconvenient, and throw off the pacing of the DM's narrative. The 5E DMG actually dedicated most of a page (page 85) to explaining why DM's should use Random Encounters.

The first point on their list: "Create urgency."
The third point: "Drain character resources."

All it takes is 1 random encounter to ruin the 5-minute work day. Since they're supposed to be hourly, there are 8 chances for something do go wrong during a Long Rest. If an encounter happens, then the party Casters will still be low on spells, or out completely, so it's up to the Martials to save the day. Oh, and the 8-hour timer on the long rest restarts, because combat definitely counts as "strenuous activity."

For the 5-minute work day to work in a game with Random Encounters, the PC's would have to go all the way back to town, in order to rest safely. Even if they barricaded themselves in a room in the dungeon, a monster has plenty of time to try breaking the door down. It gets to the point where the cost of multiple trips to and from the dungeon to the town outweighs the benefits of replenishing the caster's spell slots, and so the 5-minute work day dies.

I've played a caster in a campaign like this, before. In this type of game, Rope Trick is the caster's ace in the hole, but even then, the caster has to 1) be a Wizard, Sorcerer, or a sufficiently high-level Bard. 2) Have the spell prepared, unless the caster is a Bard or Sorcerer, and 3) conserve a Level 2 spell slot for the entire 16 hours not spent in the spell's pocket dimension. 5-minute work days are still possible, but you have to earn it by conserving spell slots. Also, what if some creature that can see invisibility spots the window into your Pocket dimension? What if some Worgs track your scent to the spot just below your window, and camp out there? However, if even the possibility of a 5-minute workday is too much for you, just cut Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, and maybe even Demiplane from the game.

So, it seems that just from including random encounters, the 5-minute workday is mostly cured, and the game becomes balanced again. Those x/day abilities become pretty precious when the players have the potential to face a new threat every hour outside of town...

Yes, it's true, the Barbarian will still never be able to fly, but chances are the Caster won't be flying either, if one extra Haste or Fireball may be more useful later.

Still, the fact that it is THAT easy to upset the balance of the game suggests that more could be done. What do you all think?

My opinion is that there are a number of ways to deal with the five minute workday and still keep the spells like Hut, etc -- allowing them to be useful but not game wrecking.

1. Use of random encounters (as you suggest above).
2. Time-critical adventures (spending time to rest risks failure for various reasons)
3. Reactive environment

For reactive environment, I'll add a bit of description.

So say your party rolls into a dungeon and the casters blow all their spells in a fight against a group of trolls and kobolds. There's more of the same together with a dragon deeper down in the dungeon and the casters don't want to go down there and fight with an empty spell ammo belt. So they pop up a tiny hut and bed down.

Unbeknownst to our adventurers, the wandering group of death dog riding kobolds (random encounter 1 that is actually a patrol), comes upon the battle site just minutes after the hut goes up. They were alerted by the sound of screams and explosions and went in to investigate, but not before sending word to the shaman.

Upon inspecting the scene, this patrol finds that their forward contingent had been completely annihilated by some kind of extraordinary force. The shaman comes soon after and learns using the appropriate skills and perhaps some detect magic that magic using enemies -- likely heroes of great power and capability made this strike and then used sorcery to melt into the mists.

After about an hour, word gets back to the dragon who has time to consider the situation. This boss is a legendary monster of some cunning. He knows magic and understands the way adventurers are likely to use it. In fact, one of the reasons this dragon's alive is that he's likely had to deal with similar situations in the past.

So the dragon decides to lay a trap for the characters. He doesn't know where they went. But his scouts found no tracks leading out. In addition, the death dogs' keen noses keep leading them to a place where the adventurers seem to have disappeared into thin air.

Now it's time to call in some favors. The kobold shaman, using nasty rituals only available to dungeon denizens, casts a spell that allows him to speak with a group of giant spiders who lair deeper down in the dungeon (random encounter #2). He asks the spiders to hide in the ceiling crevices near where the adventurers disappeared and to send a messenger to the kobolds if the adventurers suddenly de-vanish.

Over the next few hours the kobolds gather a strike team consisting of two war parties, the devil dog riders, the shaman, and a couple of troll brutes. The parties deploy around the corner from the location where the party last disappeared -- leaving the adventurers with no clear egress.

Lastly, the dragon burrows to just behind a wall adjacent to the room where the adventurers were last seen. Scratching a peep hole in the wall, the dragon prepares for a long vigil -- focusing its keen dragon senses on the room.

The adventurers now find themselves confronted with entrapment and ambush by multiple groups of monsters they would otherwise have probably faced single-handedly. They may or may not be alert to the forces gathering around them. The devil dog patrol and the scouting shaman were obvious to any outside sensor or anyone sticking a head out of the hut at the time. But the stealthy spiders quietly crawling along the ceiling were not. They probably don't know about the forces gathered around the passageway corners near them and it is even more unlikely they know about the burrowing dragon...

When the players do decide to move, a stealthy spider sneaks out to alert the shaman. If the party doesn't see the spider, they probably won't be spooked back into their hiding spot. If they do spot the spider, it simply flees rapidly with a shriek of terror -- seeking cover at first opportunity. If the spider reaches the shaman or the shaman hears the spider's shriek -- he knows the adventurers are back. He waits until they are well away from any potential shelter before springing the ambush.

On round 1 the spiders fling webbing, the kobolds throw glue bombs and the shaman throws his staff of the python at an easily constrictable character. The dragon watches all with interest -- choosing his moment...

The above is an example of what can happen with a non judicious or simply unlucky use of rope trick or Leomund's Hut. But if the five minute workday is common, then this kind of response is entirely appropriate. At the very least, the surviving monsters would have learned some hard lessons.

[Louro]

"blah blah persist blah persist blah blah blah persist..."
As you can see all the versatility you give to the cleric is based on a broken mechanic. Stop this please, this is 5e and no such crap here. (I love clerics and I always refused to play such broken feat even when allowed to)

AMF doesn't hinder fighters that much anymore, as they are not that much item dependants now.
In the campaigns I play/master everyone runs out of spells. Not everyday, only when they need them the most.

Finally, the most important part of a RPG is the R. You are supposed to play a role and not a mathematics game involving reading comprehension (3.5 reference). If everyone gets involved on the story and can contribute to its development, then the game works.

I played AD&D and maybe is because of this that I can't see the problem you are stating. Even more, I expect it to be just like that and thus I didn't like 4th edition cause everyone look as clones.

[Eslin]

My opinion is that there are a number of ways to deal with the five minute workday and still keep the spells like Hut, etc -- allowing them to be useful but not game wrecking.

1. Use of random encounters (as you suggest above).
2. Time-critical adventures (spending time to rest risks failure for various reasons)
3. Reactive environment

For reactive environment, I'll add a bit of description.

So say your party rolls into a dungeon and the casters blow all their spells in a fight against a group of trolls and kobolds. There's more of the same together with a dragon deeper down in the dungeon and the casters don't want to go down there and fight with an empty spell ammo belt. So they pop up a tiny hut and bed down.

Unbeknownst to our adventurers, the wandering group of death dog riding kobolds (random encounter 1 that is actually a patrol), comes upon the battle site just minutes after the hut goes up. They were alerted by the sound of screams and explosions and went in to investigate, but not before sending word to the shaman.

Upon inspecting the scene, this patrol finds that their forward contingent had been completely annihilated by some kind of extraordinary force. The shaman comes soon after and learns using the appropriate skills and perhaps some detect magic that magic using enemies -- likely heroes of great power and capability made this strike and then used sorcery to melt into the mists.

After about an hour, word gets back to the dragon who has time to consider the situation. This boss is a legendary monster of some cunning. He knows magic and understands the way adventurers are likely to use it. In fact, one of the reasons this dragon's alive is that he's likely had to deal with similar situations in the past.

So the dragon decides to lay a trap for the characters. He doesn't know where they went. But his scouts found no tracks leading out. In addition, the death dogs' keen noses keep leading them to a place where the adventurers seem to have disappeared into thin air.

Now it's time to call in some favors. The kobold shaman, using nasty rituals only available to dungeon denizens, casts a spell that allows him to speak with a group of giant spiders who lair deeper down in the dungeon (random encounter #2). He asks the spiders to hide in the ceiling crevices near where the adventurers disappeared and to send a messenger to the kobolds if the adventurers suddenly de-vanish.

Over the next few hours the kobolds gather a strike team consisting of two war parties, the devil dog riders, the shaman, and a couple of troll brutes. The parties deploy around the corner from the location where the party last disappeared -- leaving the adventurers with no clear egress.

Lastly, the dragon burrows to just behind a wall adjacent to the room where the adventurers were last seen. Scratching a peep hole in the wall, the dragon prepares for a long vigil -- focusing its keen dragon senses on the room.

The adventurers now find themselves confronted with entrapment and ambush by multiple groups of monsters they would otherwise have probably faced single-handedly. They may or may not be alert to the forces gathering around them. The devil dog patrol and the scouting shaman were obvious to any outside sensor or anyone sticking a head out of the hut at the time. But the stealthy spiders quietly crawling along the ceiling were not. They probably don't know about the forces gathered around the passageway corners near them and it is even more unlikely they know about the burrowing dragon...

When the players do decide to move, a stealthy spider sneaks out to alert the shaman. If the party doesn't see the spider, they probably won't be spooked back into their hiding spot. If they do spot the spider, it simply flees rapidly with a shriek of terror -- seeking cover at first opportunity. If the spider reaches the shaman or the shaman hears the spider's shriek -- he knows the adventurers are back. He waits until they are well away from any potential shelter before springing the ambush.

On round 1 the spiders fling webbing, the kobolds throw glue bombs and the shaman throws his staff of the python at an easily constrictable character. The dragon watches all with interest -- choosing his moment...

The above is an example of what can happen with a non judicious or simply unlucky use of rope trick or Leomund's Hut. But if the five minute workday is common, then this kind of response is entirely appropriate. At the very least, the surviving monsters would have learned some hard lessons.

Why would the casters blow all their spells on a minor fight? It would take several combats to run out of spells and only then if you were throwing a spell out every single round for some reason.


"blah blah persist blah persist blah blah blah persist..."
As you can see all the versatility you give to the cleric is based on a broken mechanic. Stop this please, this is 5e and no such crap here. (I love clerics and I always refused to play such broken feat even when allowed to)
No, it isn't. Persist is merely an incredibly useful trick (and not one unique to clerics, they just have it easier), they have other options. I'm also going to stop responding to you now - for one, "blah blah persist blah persist blah blah blah persist..." is insulting and for two, you are the one who made the discussion about 3.5 clerics. You kept on with the discussion of the 3.5 cleric for several posts until you decided that I shouldn't be discussing it any more and responded with 'stop this please' based on a line of discussion you initiated and continued.

[Gwendol]

The 3.5 cleric doesn't need DMM to be both versatile and powerful. It's just icing on the cake.
Again, this isn't the right forum for the discussion.

Eslin, you keep pointing at your definition of versatility as if it's universal. It's not.
There are a lot of factors going into it, and while casters in general can be very versatile, not all are going to. Except bards. Bards are always versatile.

[SharkForce]

The 3.5 cleric doesn't need DMM to be both versatile and powerful. It's just icing on the cake.
Again, this isn't the right forum for the discussion.

Eslin, you keep pointing at your definition of versatility as if it's universal. It's not.
There are a lot of factors going into it, and while casters in general can be very versatile, not all are going to. Except bards. Bards are always versatile.

discussions of balance should not be made on the basis that maybe the person playing is incapable of or unwilling to use the features of the class.

by that measurement, not every fighter will contribute effectively in combat because some of them could decide to dump stat strength, dexterity, and constitution while maxing their charisma and intelligence.

[Eslin]

The 3.5 cleric doesn't need DMM to be both versatile and powerful. It's just icing on the cake.
Again, this isn't the right forum for the discussion.

Eslin, you keep pointing at your definition of versatility as if it's universal. It's not.
There are a lot of factors going into it, and while casters in general can be very versatile, not all are going to. Except bards. Bards are always versatile.

Then we probably should find as close to a universal definition for versatile as it relates to 5e classes.

[archaeo]

Again, the Tier system, and thereby the martial/caster split that it simply codified, was organized around the idea that casters simply have more options, not more power.

The "more buttons" approach to the martial vs. caster debate has always struck me as delightfully silly. Every PC has a set of options that is more or less unbounded by anything other than what the DM says. You have functionally infinite buttons, no matter what class you choose. What we're arguing over is the tiny, finite number of "well-defined buttons," though in 5e, many of those are nerfed or less reliable than they've ever been. In effect, the martial vs. caster divide exists only at tables where the DM and the players have allowed it to settle around them.

But NichG already put it much better above:


The abilities of casters can be problematic when they take what would be an interesting complex sequence of moves to design and playthrough and replace that with an atomic action. The abilities of casters are not a problem when they take what would be a boring or repetitive complex sequence of moves and replace that with an atomic action.

The problems that casters solve? They aren't even really very interesting problems. They can be interesting, and the game offers numerous ways and hooks to make them interesting, but, at some point, having your team's Wizard whisk you across the world to the next adventure seems like a far better use of time. Especially when any good DM would basically accomplish the same thing via a travel montage (notice, for example, that the OOTS doesn't have teleportation magic, but we nevertheless always find the party where the plot is thickest.)


Also, something that has been bothering me: why are martials defined by a lack of access to magic? Wouldn't you define a martial class one who excels at fighting and using mundane abilities?

It's a meme, silveralen. I mean, it's also a valid take on the rules, to some extent, and a long-running debate in the armchair game design discussions on the Internet since, I don't know, the invention thereof.

Of course, it's not really a problem the game expects you to have. As far as I can tell from reading 5e, the stance of the edition toward the rules is "Do this, but if you're not having fun, do something else." But, of course, other people disagree:


Yes, many people homebrew additional content or change/add/remove existing rules. For the most part, forum discussion assumes the rules as they're written in the books since different tables will have different changes - the official rules are the closest thing to a perfect point of reference we have.

I literally don't understand this point of view. Why do we need to have a "perfect point of reference" to discuss D&D? What's the point? No one is actually playing the game that way, so why should we have to discuss it that way? It doesn't impact the discussion at all if we accept that houseruling the game is not only valid, but encouraged. It only enriches it.

The only thing we lose is the ability to endlessly howl about RAW, and would anyone honestly miss it? 5e's not perfect, but it's not this inherently unbalanced thing it's made out to be in this and the dozens of other martial vs. caster threads. Not when the answer is to play the game, using the rules the game provides, in a way that just completely bypasses all these problems.

[Demonicattorney]

[QUOTE=Eslin;18553723]AMFs hurt fighters just as much, as the game goes on a fighter becomes completely dependent on magical equipment. QUOTE=Eslin;18553723]

Only in Eslin world does an anti-magic field hurt fighters as much as it hurts casters. At most levels they will only still have +3 AC, +40 HP, and three times as many attacks as a caster, all of which do more damage, but yeah they are equal.

[LuthielValkire]

Anyone without idea of what D&D is reading this would think immediately on PvP.
It is a teamplay game, so I'm OK with different classes being... different. I started with AD&D where wizards were almost walking dead bodies till lv 10 or so, but if they managed to survive they could became real WIZARDS!!!
I also think that "tier" thing is a big lie. It says that anything a 3.5 fighter can do a cleric can do better. Nobody mentioned ever that this is true only if your enemies are polite enough to let you cast 2 or 3 spells before starting the hostilities.

I mean, each role has it purpose... and as long as everyone feels comfortable with his everything is perfect. All that caster/martial thing is campaign dependant, some DM might, for example, cap teleport spells or get them to work in a different way. And if you feel like your party is abusing the rope trick you still have a lot of options to make them pay for that: time, ambushes, traps, divination...

I think the meme that some here continue to attempt to RE-establish is mostly contrived. Martials are not weaker than casters and it's easily arguable that they never have been. With even more power given to martials in 5e the argument has shifted to the realm of versatility. Unfortunately, this assumes that versatility is the basis of what represents a stronger character. A bear totem barbarian with resistance to practically all damage and a base of more than 280 hit points is supposedly weaker than the guy with the magical Swiss Army knife. I think this argument fails at its root supposition. That being that these guys are in some kind of Road Warrior cage match. And in that situation, the caster could well be in very dire straights.

But the game was not designed for PVP cage matches, as you well point out. The game is designed for characters/players to act as a team and combine strengths. In that situation, Hulk Smash or any kind of martial persistence and gritty effectiveness is very useful. I think casters lose something without some strong martials and I think the same is true the other way around. But here we continue along this divide and conquer line of talk-talk.

As for the 5 minute workday post above, it's absolutely relevant. A good game master will, at times, challenge party resources and that involves putting pressure on rest availability. Most good game masters already know this.

[JoeJ]

But the game was not designed for PVP cage matches, as you well point out. The game is designed for characters/players to act as a team and combine strengths. In that situation, Hulk Smash or any kind of martial persistence and gritty effectiveness is very useful. I think casters lose something without some strong martials and I think the same is true the other way around. But here we continue along this divide and conquer line of talk-talk.

Yes, and the real metric in any game is how enjoyable it is for the players. If we were playing Marvel superheroes, it wouldn't be too hard to find players who want to play the Hulk. Sometimes "Hulk SMASH!!!" is lots of fun even if you really can't do much else.

[LuthielValkire]

[QUOTE=Eslin;18553723]AMFs hurt fighters just as much, as the game goes on a fighter becomes completely dependent on magical equipment. QUOTE=Eslin;18553723]

Only in Eslin world does an anti-magic field hurt fighters as much as it hurts casters. At most levels they will only still have +3 AC, +40 HP, and three times as many attacks as a caster, all of which do more damage, but yeah they are equal.

Base fighter chassis is made to excel without magical support and to really wreck face with it. Anti magic shell wildly tips the scales against casters removing almost all of their base powers of note in addition to any magic item support.

The line of argument doesn't appear to be aimed at fixing D&D balance, but to remove magic from the game almost entirely and to still argue, based on the memory of the magical days of yore, that casters are still too powerful...

For my part, I think that magic is pretty well done in 5e. And there are still a few useful and world altering things you can do with it. But the martials are so inherently amazing, that I can't think of any game in which I'd pass up the opportunity to play one. In my gaming groups, such opportunities are rather slim as most people are calling dibs on martial types.

[chiefjefe]

Sure would be nice if we stuck with 5e in a thread in the 5e forum...

There's a big difference between the unrealistic abilities of martial classes and the magic of casters. Sure, martials can take more physical punishment than reality allows for, but that is not a function of supernatural ability. In the older versions of D&D, HP didn't even really represent ability to take hits. It was more a measure of luck and the ability to turn a hit into a glancing blow or near-miss. That changed over the years because people found it hard to comprehend how a hit that did damage wasn't really a "hit" in the conventional sense. Even a fighter with 60 hp was, in theory, felled by a sword straight to the heart, but his HP represented his skill at avoiding such fatal blows. Being able to survive from falls of incredible distance was not a supernatural ability, it just wasn't explained at all. Nor does a fighter lose this ability in an anti-magic shell or area of dead magic. It's just an artifact of game design, unlike magic, which is well, magic.

Now, one could have a D&D game with a wuxia style, where martials can do all sorts of amazing supernatural feats. That could be really cool. But that's not standard D&D. In standard D&D, casters get to do the really cool stuff and non-caster martials are essentially highly-skilled muggles. Historically, there really wasn't this concept that a L20 fighter was equivalent to a L20 wizard in power. The wizard required FAR more experience to hit L20 than did a fighter and the idea was that martial characters are good at the low levels and casters are good at the higher levels.

I'm not saying that it's good game design. It can suck to be outclassed by the party cleric and wizard. And there is definitely a legitimate argument that a class should always be the best at the thing it focuses on. That's why spells like knock, find traps, and invisibility are a problem -- they make the caster better than the rogue at rogue-specific tasks. But to think that you are going to make the classes equal without giving martials magic or hugely nerfing casters is just crazy talk

[Vogonjeltz]

Sure would be nice if we stuck with 5e in a thread in the 5e forum...

There's a big difference between the unrealistic abilities of martial classes and the magic of casters. Sure, martials can take more physical punishment than reality allows for, but that is not a function of supernatural ability. In the older versions of D&D, HP didn't even really represent ability to take hits. It was more a measure of luck and the ability to turn a hit into a glancing blow or near-miss. That changed over the years because people found it hard to comprehend how a hit that did damage wasn't really a "hit" in the conventional sense. Even a fighter with 60 hp was, in theory, felled by a sword straight to the heart, but his HP represented his skill at avoiding such fatal blows. Being able to survive from falls of incredible distance was not a supernatural ability, it just wasn't explained at all. Nor does a fighter lose this ability in an anti-magic shell or area of dead magic. It's just an artifact of game design, unlike magic, which is well, magic.

Now, one could have a D&D game with a wuxia style, where martials can do all sorts of amazing supernatural feats. That could be really cool. But that's not standard D&D. In standard D&D, casters get to do the really cool stuff and non-caster martials are essentially highly-skilled muggles. Historically, there really wasn't this concept that a L20 fighter was equivalent to a L20 wizard in power. The wizard required FAR more experience to hit L20 than did a fighter and the idea was that martial characters are good at the low levels and casters are good at the higher levels.

I'm not saying that it's good game design. It can suck to be outclassed by the party cleric and wizard. And there is definitely a legitimate argument that a class should always be the best at the thing it focuses on. That's why spells like knock, find traps, and invisibility are a problem -- they make the caster better than the rogue at rogue-specific tasks. But to think that you are going to make the classes equal without giving martials magic or hugely nerfing casters is just crazy talk

Magic did get nerfed from 3.5e to 5th edition. Compare spells in both editions, outrageous loopholes were closed, danger from spells was dramatically reduced, armor now protects against attack roll spells (a huge difference!) and saved are dramatically improved in the favor of the target, and the removal of bonus spells has curtailed the silly schroedingers wizard ideas.

5th edition has tilted far in favor of the non casting classes.

[LuthielValkire]

Sure would be nice if we stuck with 5e in a thread in the 5e forum...

There's a big difference between the unrealistic abilities of martial classes and the magic of casters. Sure, martials can take more physical punishment than reality allows for, but that is not a function of supernatural ability. In the older versions of D&D, HP didn't even really represent ability to take hits. It was more a measure of luck and the ability to turn a hit into a glancing blow or near-miss. That changed over the years because people found it hard to comprehend how a hit that did damage wasn't really a "hit" in the conventional sense. Even a fighter with 60 hp was, in theory, felled by a sword straight to the heart, but his HP represented his skill at avoiding such fatal blows. Being able to survive from falls of incredible distance was not a supernatural ability, it just wasn't explained at all. Nor does a fighter lose this ability in an anti-magic shell or area of dead magic. It's just an artifact of game design, unlike magic, which is well, magic.

Now, one could have a D&D game with a wuxia style, where martials can do all sorts of amazing supernatural feats. That could be really cool. But that's not standard D&D. In standard D&D, casters get to do the really cool stuff and non-caster martials are essentially highly-skilled muggles. Historically, there really wasn't this concept that a L20 fighter was equivalent to a L20 wizard in power. The wizard required FAR more experience to hit L20 than did a fighter and the idea was that martial characters are good at the low levels and casters are good at the higher levels.

I'm not saying that it's good game design. It can suck to be outclassed by the party cleric and wizard. And there is definitely a legitimate argument that a class should always be the best at the thing it focuses on. That's why spells like knock, find traps, and invisibility are a problem -- they make the caster better than the rogue at rogue-specific tasks. But to think that you are going to make the classes equal without giving martials magic or hugely nerfing casters is just crazy talk

Being able to act 4-8 times faster in combat than a normal person isn't supernaturally badass? There's your wuxia -- it just needs good description to make it work in the mind's eye. And the elemental monk just screams wuxia -- all powered by ki. Don't even get me started on monk's stunning fists. Truth is there are amazing supernatural tricks that the martials have which have no means of being replicated by magic. Particular traits that put them in their own unique category of awesome.

Limitations of knock -- max reasonable use x3 per day and makes a loud noise which makes knock a last resort for a caster. The rogue can do the equivalent of knock all day long, quietly, and disable the traps while doing it. Knock is a last resort. One you don't want to use. An issue you'd rather have the rogue take care of. And an issue the rogue is better off for 99 percent of the time.

Limitations of find traps -- max reasonable use x3 per day. If you are memorizing knock and find traps to try to replace the rogue, you're sacrificing other choices that are generally more helpful. You are better off just having a rogue and pulling out knock or find traps for one of those ridiculous situations after better options fail.

Invisibility -- always useful. But who is more effective when they have invisibility cast on them? The rogue who has a high dex and double the stealth proficiency bonus or the wizard? A rogue who can then use it to deliver a high damage sneak attack (or assassinate) or the bard who was kinda trying to be the rogue. The best party use of this resource is to cast it on the rogue. In any case, the arcane trickster rogue (a martial) gets this at 7th level and will be far, far more effective in its use than any wizard.

What we seem to be missing here is that martials are supernaturally badass without magic and have even more to bring to the table if they have some caster friends who are, well good friends who share their toys. Most casters I know do... And not just to be friendly. It's just that teamwork is almost always the smartest choice.

[LuthielValkire]

I'm just imagining this situation where the wizard comes up to a double locked door and casts knock. A loud boom resounds through the dungeon and the goblin behind the door, alerted by the noise, relocks the lock. The wizard, realizing there might be two locks on this door casts knock again...

How many knock spells does it take for a wizard to open this double locked door?

[chiefjefe]

Magic did get nerfed from 3.5e to 5th edition. Compare spells in both editions, outrageous loopholes were closed, danger from spells was dramatically reduced, armor now protects against attack roll spells (a huge difference!) and saved are dramatically improved in the favor of the target, and the removal of bonus spells has curtailed the silly schroedingers wizard ideas.

5th edition has tilted far in favor of the non casting classes.

I wouldn't say the spells were nerfed, but otherwise I agree.

[CyberThread]

Please bring back the dead

CPR

plane shift

Portal Pass

fly

Mounts

shaoebchange into a dragon

DragonBorn


do AoE,

Cleave



Let's see... Throw a creature literally through hell

river styx

Yeah not happening.




you were saying?

[chiefjefe]

Being able to act 4-8 times faster in combat than a normal person isn't supernaturally badass? There's your wuxia -- it just needs good description to make it work in the mind's eye. And the elemental monk just screams wuxia -- all powered by ki. Don't even get me started on monk's stunning fists. Truth is there are amazing supernatural tricks that the martials have which have no means of being replicated by magic. Particular traits that put them in their own unique category of awesome.

Limitations of knock -- max reasonable use x3 per day and makes a loud noise which makes knock a last resort for a caster. The rogue can do the equivalent of knock all day long, quietly, and disable the traps while doing it. Knock is a last resort. One you don't want to use. An issue you'd rather have the rogue take care of. And an issue the rogue is better off for 99 percent of the time.

Limitations of find traps -- max reasonable use x3 per day. If you are memorizing knock and find traps to try to replace the rogue, you're sacrificing other choices that are generally more helpful. You are better off just having a rogue and pulling out knock or find traps for one of those ridiculous situations after better options fail.

Invisibility -- always useful. But who is more effective when they have invisibility cast on them? The rogue who has a high dex and double the stealth proficiency bonus or the wizard? A rogue who can then use it to deliver a high damage sneak attack (or assassinate) or the bard who was kinda trying to be the rogue. The best party use of this resource is to cast it on the rogue. In any case, the arcane trickster rogue (a martial) gets this at 7th level and will be far, far more effective in its use than any wizard.

What we seem to be missing here is that martials are supernaturally badass without magic and have even more to bring to the table if they have some caster friends who are, well good friends who share their toys. Most casters I know do... And not just to be friendly. It's just that teamwork is almost always the smartest choice.

Not sure how a fighter moves 4-8x quicker than reality allows for, but I don't believe the intent is for them to be supernaturally quick. I would say that once again, anything they are doing that breaks reality is more an artifact of game design than an intentional choice to give them supernatural abilities. Note, I am not counting monks here, which clearly have some supernatural/wuxia abilities.

Sure, there are limitations on spells, and a particular limitation based on uses per day. Not really the point though. When the wizard has his spells he can do things a rogue does, only better. And when he runs out of spells, he can generally rest.

Having knock makes a loud noise was a really good design choice because it no longer allows the wizard to outdo the rogue at opening doors when stealth is important. So, I applaud that. Sure, a rogue is better invisible than is a wizard, but a wizard doesn't need a rogue to turn invisible. Not so the other way.

Personally, I think 5e martials are pretty badass, and I've noticed that people really seem to want to play martial characters a lot more. If you read my first posts on this topic, you'll see that I'm not opposed to the way the game is designed, but I do recognize that casters are generally "better" in most situations and would prefer that each class be allowed to be the best at the few things it does well. And by that, I don't mean that a rogue gets to be the best once the wizard runs out of spells.

[Gwendol]

But the rogue doesn't need to be invisible since stealth>invisibility anyway!

[pwykersotz]

To the OP, consider the possibility that the heated arguments are an indicator of the success of the balance between the two character focuses. Hotly contested and situational arguments are at their zenith when something is too close to call with reliability.

[Eslin]

To the OP, consider the possibility that the heated arguments are an indicator of the success of the balance between the two character focuses. Hotly contested and situational arguments are at their zenith when something is too close to call with reliability.

There were just as heated arguments about caster vs martial in 3.5, and the difference there was night and day.


Only in Eslin world does an anti-magic field hurt fighters as much as it hurts casters. At most levels they will only still have +3 AC, +40 HP, and three times as many attacks as a caster, all of which do more damage, but yeah they are equal.

We were discussing 3.5. 5e doesn't have the christmas tree effect nearly as bad (still has it, though) so a fighter is much more competent stripped of magic than he used to be. Please fully read through posts before replying in future.


I think the meme that some here continue to attempt to RE-establish is mostly contrived. Martials are not weaker than casters and it's easily arguable that they never have been. With even more power given to martials in 5e the argument has shifted to the realm of versatility. Unfortunately, this assumes that versatility is the basis of what represents a stronger character. A bear totem barbarian with resistance to practically all damage and a base of more than 280 hit points is supposedly weaker than the guy with the magical Swiss Army knife. I think this argument fails at its root supposition. That being that these guys are in some kind of Road Warrior cage match. And in that situation, the caster could well be in very dire straights.

But the game was not designed for PVP cage matches, as you well point out. The game is designed for characters/players to act as a team and combine strengths. In that situation, Hulk Smash or any kind of martial persistence and gritty effectiveness is very useful. I think casters lose something without some strong martials and I think the same is true the other way around. But here we continue along this divide and conquer line of talk-talk.

As for the 5 minute workday post above, it's absolutely relevant. A good game master will, at times, challenge party resources and that involves putting pressure on rest availability. Most good game masters already know this.
When are we talking about regarding it being easy to argue that they never have been? In 4e they were equal because every class was very similar, in 3.5 they weren't even on the same playing field after a while, before that who cares. And their power was always versatility - back in the day you could have a 3000 damage chargebarian and it still wouldn't be good. The tier system was a very accurate descriptor, it ranked classes by how easily they could solve problems and martials were always several tiers lower than casters. 5e's not perfect, but when using the tier system there are at most 3 tiers in 5e as opposed to 6, which is a good sign.

Regarding casters losing something without strong martials - no, they really don't. The whole reason they are still ahead is despite being competent in a whole host of roles martials cannot fill, they can also fill any martial niche they feel like without too much investment.

[Freelance GM]

Ok, so what I've noticed is that arguments we already had back when this thread was in the wrong spot are starting to happen again.
Here's the conclusions I have come to about the issues we've already discussed.


Spells are bound by RAW, but skills are only limited by imagination. Well, imagination, and DM fiat. If your DM isn't letting you use skills creatively, that is because the DM didn't read the RAW that says he's supposed to let you do that.

Yes, this actually makes everyone significantly better, as Casters also have skills. However, the Rogue- a martial class- benefits most of all. The Rogue is still the best in the game at using Skills, because of Expertise and Reliable Talent. A Rogue with 20 Dexterity, Acrobatics Expertise, and Reliable Talent can't get worse than a 25 on an Acrobatics check, allowing them to automatically pass checks whose DC is less than impossible- which is DC30.

Balancing on a Cloud is impossible. Impossible is DC 30. Therefore, a Level 20 Rogue with Acrobatics Expertise needs to roll a 13 or higher to balance on a cloud.


A Caster can do anything a martial character can do, possibly better than the Martial character can do it. The Knock spell has been a consistently used example. However, people tend to forget (or willfully ignore) the fact that spells are finite.

At Level 20, a Wizard can use Knock to outdo the Rogue 3 times per day, unless the Wizard wants to use Arcane Recovery, in which case, it goes up to 6 times per day.

However, at Level 20, a Rogue with 20 DEX, and Expertise in the use of Thieves' Tools has a whopping +17 on the roll, and can't do worse than a 27 because of Reliable Talent. Even better, this ability has infinite uses and doesn't make noise.

The trade-off for the Rogue's effectively infinite, silent Knock spells is that the Rogue cannot also throw fireballs and Plane Shift. However, under the right circumstances (sneak attack) a high-level Rogue can deal just as much damage as all but the best single-target spells, every turn.
Even though skills can't imitate every spell effect, with enough time and the right materials, you can still get a lot done with just skills.

The point? No, the Rogue cannot do everything the Wizard can. However, under the right circumstances, a Rogue has infinite-use abilities that are at least as good as the 1st level Spells the Level 20 Wizard can still only use 7 times per day.

It boils down to this question: Which restrictions do you want? Restrictions on when you can be useful, or how many times you can be useful?

An all-caster party can do everything an all-martial party can, and more, but even they will eventually run out of spells. A good DM is supposed to build the game around the party's strengths and weaknesses, so if you play an all-caster party, and you have a good DM, count on that happening. Why? See the next Spoiler.



A RAW day of adventuring, according to the 5E DMG, is arguably too arduous for a normal party. A Level 20 party of four would have to take on 3 legendary Krakens to get their daily XP allotment.

During every hour of this adventuring day not spent fighting something, the DM is supposed to roll for Random Encounters. The chances of one happening may vary or be less frequent, depending on the area, but in a typical dungeon this means there are 8 chances for something to interrupt the Caster's beauty sleep- before their spell slots recharge. In an all-caster party unfortunate enough to be out of spells, this can end badly.

Spells like Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Magnificent Mansion, and Demiplane can alleviate this. However, I don't think anyone's mentioned that Rope Trick only lasts one hour in 5E. Tiny Hut's a Ritual, but enemies can camp outside of it. So, the 5-minute workday isn't nearly as reliable of an option as it was in 3.P... At least not until Level 13.

If Random Encounters aren't your DM's cup of tea, the 5-minute workday can be shut down simply by giving the player's quest a time limit, or at least a sense of urgency. Players won't rest if the BBEG is less than 8 hours from enacting some nefarious plot.



It would be tough to find a stronger contrast than the difference between the Fighter class and the Wizard class, so stop trying to make them the same.

If you want a Martial character with versatility, play a Rogue, not a Fighter. Similarly, if you want a Caster who can't do everything, play a Sorcerer, not a Wizard.


A Fighter with no magic items is pretty good at hitting things. A Fighter with magical weapons and armor is amazing at hitting things.
Similarly, a Wizard kitted out in all the relevant Magic items becomes awesome.

So long as your DM spreads the rewards evenly, the status quo will not change in favor of either side.

You're welcome to disagree with my opinions, but I don't see the point of arguing about something again if we don't have anything new to add to the conversation.

I respect all of your opinions, and appreciate that you're trying to help me understand if this is or isn't a problem in 5E. However, as the person who started the thread, I'd also like to ask that we try to focus the discussion on parts of this argument that we haven't already covered, if any still remain.

[Freelance GM]

To the OP, consider the possibility that the heated arguments are an indicator of the success of the balance between the two character focuses. Hotly contested and situational arguments are at their zenith when something is too close to call with reliability.

Also, this is actually a pretty good point.

[Sudokori]

To quote a current Dm

"If I hear any more arguments about Martials versus casters I'm gonna make rocks fall and we'll play monopoly instead!"

[SharkForce]

enemies camping outside of leomund's tiny hut is not a drawback of the hut. it's a huge benefit. leomund's tiny hut is a forcefield that lets stuff from inside go out, but doesn't allow stuff from outside to go in.

so ummm... if the enemies all want to gather around my impenetrable fortress which i can sustain infinitely and let me take potshots, well... i'm ok with that. i mean, it kinda takes the challenge out of the fight when it's basically just target practice, but if that's what they want...

also, i don't necessarily want the fighter to have equal utility to the wizard. i want the fighter to have an area where they are as superior as the wizard is in utility situations, and i'd like for that area to not be limited to "the inside of an antimagic field"

rogues don't have it quite as bad, though they're still not in great shape outside of combat as the wizard, they do at least get to pick some skills where they're superior even to the mighty bard (albeit not by a huge amount). paladins are in pretty good shape; they have a variety of powerful abilities that, while not terribly versatile, allow them to do things that can't easily be replaced. rangers aren't really all that impressive at just about anything, and barbarians are basically just pure combat while, again, still not being all that superior to most casters. monks are probably the best off of all the martials, as they're almost like a caster in some ways.

basically, my way of looking at it is this: every class should be awesome at something. if that something is not going to be out of combat versatility, that's fine. but there should be some area where they shine more brightly than anyone.

right now, with just cantrips, wizards aren't all that far behind a fighter or barbarian for damage (depending on exact build, they can get extremely close or even superior potentially). oh, they'll deal less damage, sure. but it isn't exactly by a huge amount. when they start to use resources for dealing damage, they can in certain situations massively outperform anyone else who isn't also using spells.

to me, that shouldn't be the case. if the fighter is going to be exclusively about fighting, they should be so superior in that area that a class with massive out-of-combat versatility shouldn't even come close.

[Freelance GM]

To quote a current Dm

"If I hear any more arguments about Martials versus casters I'm gonna make rocks fall and we'll play monopoly instead!"

...Can I put that quote in my sig?

[Gettles]

The problem I see is from two directions. The first is everyone brings their own biases as to what the classes SHOULD be. If we all posted our ideas for what fictional character best represents what a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard is at levels 5/10/20 we'd all bring wildly different examples and when our ideals for the game are not met we tend to feel like the game has a problem. And that is not even getting into how certain characters can vary depending on which depiction you are thinking of (for example it sounds good to say a fighter should be King Arthur but that can mean someone who can solo and entire army of Picts, someone with a magic sword that can devastate everything around them for miles, or Graham Chapman awkwardly holding a sword and trying to fight of the shakes because it's been 3 hours since his last scotch.)

The other is that D&D balance is odd as it seems to assume that the wizard is more powerful as long as he has spells and after that (if there is time) then the martial get to do things a sort of "supply side economic" theory of balance. This is odd as it implies that the ones with the magic are more important than those without as they get to dictate the pace by which the game is played and the warriors are stuck as mere bodyguards.

[Freelance GM]

so ummm... if the enemies all want to gather around my impenetrable fortress which i can sustain infinitely and let me take potshots, well... i'm ok with that. i mean, it kinda takes the challenge out of the fight when it's basically just target practice, but if that's what they want...

basically, my way of looking at it is this: every class should be awesome at something. if that something is not going to be out of combat versatility, that's fine. but there should be some area where they shine more brightly than anyone.

right now, with just cantrips, wizards aren't all that far behind a fighter or barbarian for damage (depending on exact build, they can get extremely close or even superior potentially). oh, they'll deal less damage, sure. but it isn't exactly by a huge amount. when they start to use resources for dealing damage, they can in certain situations massively outperform anyone else who isn't also using spells.

to me, that shouldn't be the case. if the fighter is going to be exclusively about fighting, they should be so superior in that area that a class with massive out-of-combat versatility shouldn't even come close.

So, I actually tested this...


I'm wondering if someone more math savvy than myself has already gone and done this math...

Let's assume the party is composed of four characters: a Rogue, a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Warlock who used the default Adventurer's League array of 15/14/13/12/10/8, and 150 GP to spend on equipment.



Look at this, though (Level 10):
Fighter's damage: 4d6+8 (or 24) damage on average, not factoring Power Attacks or bonuses from Expertise Dice.
Rogue's Sneak Attack damage: 5d6+1d8+4 (or 29) damage, not factoring in the off-hand attack.
Warlock's Eldritch Blast damage: 2d10+8 (or 20 damage), plus Knockback.
Wizard's Fire Bolt damage: 2d10 (or 12 damage), and nothing else.

So, the Casters are still worse at skills, have lower AC's, less HP, and are worse at dealing damage, unless they use spell slots to augment their abilities.

The Damage per Round Potentials (Level 15):
Fighter: 6d6+15 (or 39), still ignoring GWF stuff and Maneuvers.
Rogue: 1d8+5 + 1d8 + 7d6 (43) on a Sneak attack.
Warlock: 3d10+15 (33) with Eldritch Blasts
Wizard: 3d10 (18) with Fire Bolt.


The classes start out on roughly even footing at earlier levels, but at that point, neither class really has any of their toys yet. This changes as soon as the Fighter gets Extra Attack. From then onward, the total damage of the fighter's basic, unmodified attacks literally double the average amount of damage the Wizard's cantrip has at Level 10.

The downside is having to roll to hit twice, but this is assuming they're both hitting all the time. If the Fighter fails, he gets a second chance. If the Wizard's cantrip misses, that's it.

Also, Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't allow objects or spells to pass through it- only the people you designate when you cast the spell can enter or leave.

[Eslin]

So, I actually tested this...

The classes start out on roughly even footing at earlier levels, but at that point, neither class really has any of their toys yet. This changes as soon as the Fighter gets Extra Attack. From then onward, the total damage of the fighter's basic, unmodified attacks literally double the average amount of damage the Wizard's cantrip has at Level 10.

The downside is having to hit twice, but this is assuming they're both hitting all the time. If the Fighter fails, he gets a second chance. If the Wizard's cantrip misses, that's it.

Also, Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't allow objects or spells to pass through it- only the people you designate when you cast the spell can enter or leave.

Taking and receiving damage is pretty much all a martial is good for. If a caster wants to spend in order to become good at those, he can (you'll notice you're just describing the wizard's basic cantrips there, 0 investment needed), but as long as you have a martial there why would you? It's literally the only job he's good at, might as well leave him to it. If you replace the martials with casters, however, the casters can fill whichever niches the martial did.

Your maths also checks out badly, the warlock will be doing an extra 10.5 due to hex. The casters are the same in skills - if you want a skillmonkey, take a bard. Taking a rogue vs a warlock and saying martials are better at skill is like taking a bard vs a fighter and saying casters are better at skills. If at your level 15 example the wizard actually wants to do sustained damage he'd be evocation and be doing 35 a hit, not 18 (also you need to round 10 to 5.5, not 6, that 18 should be a 16.5 and the other totals should be similarly smaller too).

So the casters aren't worse at skills, and while they have lower HP and probably lower AC (warlock and rogue will have low AC, fighter will have high, wizard will have high if he took a level of fighter like I always do for the improved defenses, fighter levels 1-3 are great it's just a pity the rest are so crap) they are, you know, casters, so they have defenses like shield/invisibility/wind wall/fire shield/misty step to avoid taking the hit in the first place.

[Freelance GM]

Taking and receiving damage is pretty much all a martial is good for. If a caster wants to spend in order to become good at those, he can (you'll notice you're just describing the wizard's basic cantrips there, 0 investment needed), but as long as you have a martial there why would you? It's literally the only job he's good at, might as well leave him to it. If you replace the martials with casters, however, the casters can fill whichever niches the martial did.

Yes, you're right, but that's a different discussion I've already had. Also, taking/recieving damage is pretty much all a Fighter is good for. Rogues are martials too, and I just got done explaining why they're great in their own way about 7 posts ago.

[Eslin]

Yes, you're right, but that's a different discussion I've already had. Also, taking/recieving damage is pretty much all a Fighter is good for. Rogues are martials too, and I just got done explaining why they're great in their own way about 7 posts ago.

Yep. Rogues join monks and paladins in the fun end of the martial pool, able to contribute in a good variety of ways. They're not perfect, I still want some ToB/4e style tactical options, but they're good in their chosen areas and contribute more than taking or receiving damage. It's a sliding scale - on one end you have the crap martials (fighter, ranger, barbarian) who can't really do much, in the middle you have the good martials and the crap casters (sorcerer, warlock) and up the other end the casters who can do pretty much anything (bard, wizard, ranger).

Finished editing the post before this one.

[archaeo]

Taking and receiving damage is pretty much all a martial is good for.

Well, unless you need to lift an impossibly heavy adamantine gate, keep your head out of water while being whisked down a raging river, carry your friends out of a collapsing dungeon, steal a MacGuffin from the Big Bad's pockets, hide from a hunting band of orcs, keep a trap from exploding, keep marching for days on end, make an entire population support your rule, etc., etc.

Especially if you need to do any of those things at the end of a full day of adventuring! Or if, Pelor forbid, you have to do any of this stuff in settings where magic isn't super popular.

Seriously, what someone said upthread about this being the "supply side economics" of D&D is right. This might make sense if every adventure was the same obstacle course for the PCs, but when the DM is free to make up the entire world and the campaigns that happen in it, I see absolutely no reason to run an adventure in which magic is always the solution. I can make martials just as good as casters, and I'm not fighting the system to do it.

[SharkForce]

So, I actually tested this...

[quoted quotes don't get quoted]

The classes start out on roughly even footing at earlier levels, but at that point, neither class really has any of their toys yet. This changes as soon as the Fighter gets Extra Attack. From then onward, the total damage of the fighter's basic, unmodified attacks literally double the average amount of damage the Wizard's cantrip has at Level 10.

The downside is having to roll to hit twice, but this is assuming they're both hitting all the time. If the Fighter fails, he gets a second chance. If the Wizard's cantrip misses, that's it.

Also, Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't allow objects or spells to pass through it- only the people you designate when you cast the spell can enter or leave.

so ummm... apparently warlocks in your games have never heard of the hex spell (no really, the duration is ridiculously long, why aren't you using it)? for wizards, it's a bit more complex than that... acid splash offers 4d6 damage if you can find a pair of targets, and wizards get to target weak defences (guy in full plate, use a spell with a reflex save). how likely you are to hit factors in to the equation quite heavily. there's also the fact that this is the wizard's damage from range, not melee. and of course, wizards also have a damage option... with an evoker, that firebolt is actually dealing 16 damage average, and the acid splash deals 12 damage to 2 targets, or 24 damage... equalling the fighter.

as to leomund's tiny hut:

"Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely."

is an arrow an object? why yes. yes it is. so umm... actually, i can shoot arrows, lob stones, stab people with a dagger, etc, no problem.

as to spells, generally speaking they originate from your hand. they may not be able to pass through, but i can poke my hand just through as i cast a spell, and retract it immediately afterward. reacting to this will likely require a held action, will be at disadvantage (they can't see me), and frankly should probably be extremely limited in damage potential if they can even be plausibly expected to do anything at all, considering a tiny part of my hand was exposed for a fraction of a second and they can't cut deeper than the tiny hut will allow.

so yeah, if they want to set up camp around the tiny hut, i'm actually ok with that. it's their funeral. i'll have fun sticking my finger *just* barely far enough outside to drop a fireball and enjoy not having to worry about it damaging myself, because hey... i'm inside my tiny hut.

[archaeo]

so yeah, if they want to set up camp around the tiny hut, i'm actually ok with that. it's their funeral. i'll have fun sticking my finger *just* barely far enough outside to drop a fireball and enjoy not having to worry about it damaging myself, because hey... i'm inside my tiny hut.

Couldn't they, you know, call over their Orc Shaman or whatever to cast dispel magic on your hut?

[silveralen]

ToB was mostly in-combat utility, with a reasonable chunk of out of combat usable stuff. 4e didn't give anything the same format as spells, it gave every single class the exact same format and resource costs. Martial utility wise I was referring to things like skill tricks, devotion feats and MiC being full of things martials could do to bridge the gap, as well as classes like the factotum, totemist and binder (non-casters with large amounts of in and out of combat utility).

5e wise, no. There are a few ways to tank (marks if included, a couple of battlemaster abilities, sentinel), but they don't compare to an actual system of scaling abilities. There are a ways of varying effectiveness and ease of obtaining to obtain various types of effects, but in general they're underwhelming and/or require significant investment in a world where the caster changes whether he wants to teleport or summon angels by waking up in the morning.

It gave everything the same format, which is why I think they tried to vary it a bit this time, with some classes staying away from obvious spell like scaling. Skill tricks are pretty much just an aspect of skills, devotion feats are very debatable as "not magic", and I have no idea why magic items helped then and not know.

With the classes.... are we actually calling binder a non magic using class? The guy who guy granted supernatural abilities from otherwordly mystical entities? Are we talking about the same class?

Seriously, if you can be a binder with devotion feats and count as a martial character, I never want to here someone call monk, any type of monk, a caster. Or even a hybrid.

The system of scaling abilities is gradually becoming my least favorite statement, simply because it has no backing. First off, there is a system of scaling abilities. Everything in DnD is based on scaling. You simply want a particular type you insist is going to be much superior to any other type. So it can't be like ranger or paladin, because those are actually listed as spells, but it can't be unique like battlemaster or open hand monk, because that doesn't perfectly mimic the spell system in growth. It has to be both exactly the same, or extremely close, despite not at all being the same thing.


Couldn't they, you know, call over their Orc Shaman or whatever to cast dispel magic on your hut?

But then it is magic dealing with magic, and that just means the martial characters are being discriinated against.

No, until the Orc chieftain can perform a fancy sword dance which allows him to cut through the magic that created the hut, thus dispelling it, it just shows how utterly unfair the system is to non casters.

Of course even if that were in game I'm sure someone would find room to complain about this "divide" somehow (the orc chieftan can't summon his own magic hut by planting hs sword in the ground while screaming? Unfair!).

[Freelance GM]

Couldn't they, you know, call over their Orc Shaman or whatever to cast dispel magic on your hut?

Or stab you in the hand. Or grab your wrist and drag you out of the hut. Ultimately, even if the RAW says one thing, the DM still decides what you can and can't do with the spell.


Yep. Rogues join monks and paladins in the fun end of the martial pool, able to contribute in a good variety of ways. They're not perfect, I still want some ToB/4e style tactical options, but they're good in their chosen areas and contribute more than taking or receiving damage. It's a sliding scale - on one end you have the crap martials (fighter, ranger, barbarian) who can't really do much, in the middle you have the good martials and the crap casters (sorcerer, warlock) and up the other end the casters who can do pretty much anything (bard, wizard, ranger).

Finished editing the post before this one.

Thanks for pointing out the problems in my math- I hadn't actually started looking into the number-crunching part of the game until fairly recently, so I'm still pretty new at it. Also, you're right, I didn't think about the Hex thing at all.

As for the skills and defensive casting, that was out of context. "Casters" meant just the two in the party- not all casters in general. If there was a Bard in the group, you'd be right- it would be even.

Those characters came from a post depicting an average, semi-optimized party built so that you had something to compare to the RAW Adventuring Day. The only reason there was a Warlock instead of a Cleric was because someone said all casters should be more like the Warlock, and I wanted to see how it compared. The casters could obviously use defensive spells, but the Warlock only has 2 spell slots per encounter, and based on that Adventuring Day, any slots the Wizard uses aren't coming back for a while.

[Eslin]

Well, unless you need to lift an impossibly heavy adamantine gate, keep your head out of water while being whisked down a raging river, carry your friends out of a collapsing dungeon, steal a MacGuffin from the Big Bad's pockets, hide from a hunting band of orcs, keep a trap from exploding, keep marching for days on end, make an entire population support your rule, etc., etc.

Especially if you need to do any of those things at the end of a full day of adventuring! Or if, Pelor forbid, you have to do any of this stuff in settings where magic isn't super popular.

Seriously, what someone said upthread about this being the "supply side economics" of D&D is right. This might make sense if every adventure was the same obstacle course for the PCs, but when the DM is free to make up the entire world and the campaigns that happen in it, I see absolutely no reason to run an adventure in which magic is always the solution. I can make martials just as good as casters, and I'm not fighting the system to do it.
20 strength/constitution cap means the gate and march won't work for the martial, too. And respectively: summons/polymorph, water breathing, summons, invisibility, invisibility, any number of magical ways to not step on a trap, teleport/wind walk/phantom steed/polymorph, casters are the only ones that actually want high charisma.

Now, these would seem to be heavy on the spell use, but for the most part the caster can avoid having to burn spells to fix these problems by not letting them happen in the first place - if you're a caster it's a lot easier to not get tossed in the river in the first place.


It gave everything the same format, which is why I think they tried to vary it a bit this time, with some classes staying away from obvious spell like scaling. Skill tricks are pretty much just an aspect of skills, devotion feats are very debatable as "not magic", and I have no idea why magic items helped then and not know.

With the classes.... are we actually calling binder a non magic using class? The guy who guy granted supernatural abilities from otherwordly mystical entities? Are we talking about the same class?

Seriously, if you can be a binder with devotion feats and count as a martial character, I never want to here someone call monk, any type of monk, a caster. Or even a hybrid.

The system of scaling abilities is gradually becoming my least favorite statement, simply because it has no backing. First off, there is a system of scaling abilities. Everything in DnD is based on scaling. You simply want a particular type you insist is going to be much superior to any other type. So it can't be like ranger or paladin, because those are actually listed as spells, but it can't be unique like battlemaster or open hand monk, because that doesn't perfectly mimic the spell system in growth. It has to be both exactly the same, or extremely close, despite not at all being the same thing.
No, I'm calling the binder a class that doesn't operate like a caster, which it doesn't. All classes are inherently magical, you don't survive arrow wounds to the gut and sleep it off otherwise. Magic items helped then because you could customise them to give tactical options martials lacked, which you can't now. They still help though, just not as much.

Things like binder and devotion feats don't fit into the martial vs caster category, they were examples of things that weren't 1-9 spellcasting that added interesting tactical options. And yes, I insist that a huge pool of abilities that increase in power, amount of uses and variety as you level is superior to a pool of <20 abilities that stay pretty much static and effectively reduce in options as you level in the same way that I insist elephants are larger than dogs. It's obvious.


But then it is magic dealing with magic, and that just means the martial characters are being discriinated against.

No, until the Orc chieftain can perform a fancy sword dance which allows him to cut through the magic that created the hut, thus dispelling it, it just shows how utterly unfair the system is to non casters.

Of course even if that were in game I'm sure someone would find room to complain about this "divide" somehow (the orc chieftan can't summon his own magic hut by planting hs sword in the ground while screaming? Unfair!).
Magic huts are useful against ambush, they're not an actual protection against intelligent foes. There's nothing to stop the orcs piling stuff onto the hut so when it disappears everyone inside it is crushed, you don't use huts as a long term defensive measure unless you have a good plan in mind.

[silveralen]

20 strength/constitution cap means the gate and march won't work for the martial, too. And respectively: summons/polymorph, water breathing, summons, invisibility, invisibility, any number of magical ways to not step on a trap, teleport/wind walk/phantom steed/polymorph, casters are the only ones that actually want high charisma.

Now, these would seem to be heavy on the spell use, but for the most part the caster can avoid having to burn spells to fix these problems by not letting them happen in the first place - if you're a caster it's a lot easier to not get tossed in the river in the first place.

Really? Who says you can't do that with a 20 strength or con? No where in the PHB does it prevent such things. Sure, the marching for days might require a roll every 6 hours, making it unlikely for any but the most hearty character to continue more than a day, and the DM can set the DC so high as to be impossible, but that's the DM preventing it, not the system.

[Louro]

Sure I have been a little rough with that answer, I'm sorry for that Eislin.

I subscribe everything Freelancer said, end of the discussion for me. RPG are meant to be imagination over mechanics games.

About a fighter being "4 times faster than..." He is not that faster, he is just experienced enough to find and exploit more openings on his enemy defences.

About tiny hut, sure it is great but a 1 minute casting time won't help much during an ambush. And casting it on a dungeon... well, if someone there is lucky enough to have a brain they will set up a good welcome for when the black impenetrable dome fades away. You throw stuff to them? They will wait behind the nearest wall... actually behind the nearest wall to the hut from the exit direction, to prevent you escaping as they are confident enough to defect you after gathering the entire dungeon population there.

Imagination OP.
You can't do much with zombies, but intelligent creatures can be veeery annoying for the party. Imagination is also OP on players hands, I get myself happyangry every time they bring up a viable totally unexpected cheap workaround for a difficult situation.

[Eslin]

Really? Who says you can't do that with a 20 strength or con? No where in the PHB does it prevent such things. Sure, the marching for days might require a roll every 6 hours, making it unlikely for any but the most hearty character to continue more than a day, and the DM can set the DC so high as to be impossible, but that's the DM preventing it, not the system.

By that logic the DM telling you you can't jump to Mars is the DM, not the system. At a certain point things become impossible.

But you do hit on a good point - we're already well into the realm of the impossible, martials should be able to do that kind of thing. I'm gonna start work on a list of abilities - chew through rocks, bend cast iron, balance on clouds, swim up a waterfall etc and have martial characters pick from the list at certain levels. Seems like a good way to add out of combat utility.

[silveralen]

By that logic the DM telling you you can't jump to Mars is the DM, not the system. At a certain point things become impossible.

But you do hit on a good point - we're already well into the realm of the impossible, martials should be able to do that kind of thing. I'm gonna start work on a list of abilities - chew through rocks, bend cast iron, balance on clouds, swim up a waterfall etc and have martial characters pick from the list at certain levels. Seems like a good way to add out of combat utility.

If it gives your party enjoyment to have a concrete list of things they can do, rather than referring cool ideas they come up with in response to the situation, go for it.

[Eslin]

If it gives your party enjoyment to have a concrete list of things they can do, rather than referring cool ideas they come up with in response to the situation, go for it.

The thing is, making it a discrete list means I can make the effects more powerful. If it's completely open ended they can describe pretty much anything and it's hard to judge what's appropriate - it works well for normal skills because we can equate it to what we think might work, but we're getting well into superhuman here and it's difficult to tell where to draw the line. If I give them specific tools, I can make those tools quite strong and the players can then find ways to adapt those tools to various uses.

[silveralen]

The thing is, making it a discrete list means I can make the effects more powerful. If it's completely open ended they can describe pretty much anything and it's hard to judge what's appropriate - it works well for normal skills because we can equate it to what we think might work, but we're getting well into superhuman here and it's difficult to tell where to draw the line. If I give them specific tools, I can make those tools quite strong and the players can then find ways to adapt those tools to various uses.

I think I tend towards a much looser game in regards to narrative balance.

For example, the aforementioned lifting of a big huge adamantium gate. If I'm trying to railroad the party hard and want the castle gate to be impassable, it's a magic enchanted gate guarded by sentient stonework. If getting through to the other side is either already a possibility or assumed to happen, then the straightforward method is fine. Might have complications if I felt it overly simplified the issue (you bypassed a few combat encounters this way, but you made so much noise you end up facing off against people coming to investigate, etc).

This is more or less the same approach I have with spells. There is very little a DM cannot prevent if it helps the game.

[Eslin]

I think I tend towards a much looser game in regards to narrative balance.

For example, the aforementioned lifting of a big huge adamantium gate. If I'm trying to railroad the party hard and want the castle gate to be impassable, it's a magic enchanted gate guarded by sentient stonework. If getting through to the other side is either already a possibility or assumed to happen, then the straightforward method is fine. Might have complications if I felt it overly simplified the issue (you bypassed a few combat encounters this way, but you made so much noise you end up facing off against people coming to investigate, etc).

This is more or less the same approach I have with spells. There is very little a DM cannot prevent if it helps the game.

You're right, that is a difference in approach. In my games it'll be the same gate no matter what - past the first session, there isn't really anything I 'want' the players to do. There'll be a gate there, how hard it is to open will be based only on what I think makes sense for the building materials.

[archaeo]

You're right, that is a difference in approach. In my games it'll be the same gate no matter what - past the first session, there isn't really anything I 'want' the players to do. There'll be a gate there, how hard it is to open will be based only on what I think makes sense for the building materials.

I sort of can't help but feel that 5e doesn't really meet you halfway for the kind of game you want to play, Eslin. There's just a level of precision, clarity, and detail that you prize in game design, and 5e was more or less expressly written to avoid the need for the type of rules complexity that demands.

[Eslin]

I sort of can't help but feel that 5e doesn't really meet you halfway for the kind of game you want to play, Eslin. There's just a level of precision, clarity, and detail that you prize in game design, and 5e was more or less expressly written to avoid the need for the type of rules complexity that demands.

Clarity should be a given, but 5e's precise and detailed enough to worth with. I'm loving the ability check system in particular, great way to adjudicate the uncoverably large set of possibilities that ordinary actions grant.

[Sudokori]

Great! Now that we've settled the dispute between casters and Martials can we please move on to something more important. Like actually PLAYING D&D?

[Eslin]

Great! Now that we've settled the dispute between casters and Martials can we please move on to something more important. Like actually PLAYING D&D?

Recruitment forum is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?51-Finding-Players-%28Recruitment%29). This is the forum for discussing 5e D&D.

[SharkForce]

Couldn't they, you know, call over their Orc Shaman or whatever to cast dispel magic on your hut?

if you're worried about that, it's actually fairly simple to solve. you just make *many* huts. unless there's an awful lot of shamans, they will run out of dispels before you run out of huts, on account of you can make a hut without expending (or even having) any spell slots available.

as to grabbing your hand, well, first off at best we're talking disadvantage. secondly, grab what? my fingertips? good luck with that.

as to hiding around the corner, that sounds great. by all means, pack everyone into a small space so that i can step out, lob an AOE and hit a whole bunch of you for a big chunk of damage, then step back in. even if you set up camp around *two* corners, i *still* have an impenetrable fortress that i can retreat to after throwing out a spell or two while you get into place to actually respond, and tight spaces and corners favour my smaller group with more concentrated power over a large group that relies on numbers to have a major impact.

as to piling stuff on top of the hut... well, you're gonna have to come into range for free damage, now, aren't you?

[Freelance GM]

Great! Now that we've settled the dispute between casters and Martials can we please move on to something more important. Like actually PLAYING D&D?

I don't know if we've settled, or just agreed to disagree. If anything has been concluded from this argument, its that they're much closer to balanced in 5E than they were in 3.5, and that most of the problems that still exist depend on your DM's style.

I, for one, am glad that everyone limited themselves to only 7 pages of discussion and argument, instead of 30-50.

[Sudokori]

Recruitment forum is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?51-Finding-Players-%28Recruitment%29). This is the forum for discussing 5e D&D.

I meant that you all should stop complaining about imagined disparities that would never happen in any half decent group and move on.

[JoeJ]

I meant that you all should stop complaining about imagined disparities that would never happen in any half decent group and move on.

If we did that that, what would be the point of having the internet at all?

[Vogonjeltz]

so ummm... apparently warlocks in your games have never heard of the hex spell (no really, the duration is ridiculously long, why aren't you using it)? for wizards, it's a bit more complex than that... acid splash offers 4d6 damage if you can find a pair of targets, and wizards get to target weak defences (guy in full plate, use a spell with a reflex save). how likely you are to hit factors in to the equation quite heavily. there's also the fact that this is the wizard's damage from range, not melee. and of course, wizards also have a damage option... with an evoker, that firebolt is actually dealing 16 damage average, and the acid splash deals 12 damage to 2 targets, or 24 damage... equalling the fighter.

as to leomund's tiny hut:

"Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely."

is an arrow an object? why yes. yes it is. so umm... actually, i can shoot arrows, lob stones, stab people with a dagger, etc, no problem.

as to spells, generally speaking they originate from your hand. they may not be able to pass through, but i can poke my hand just through as i cast a spell, and retract it immediately afterward. reacting to this will likely require a held action, will be at disadvantage (they can't see me), and frankly should probably be extremely limited in damage potential if they can even be plausibly expected to do anything at all, considering a tiny part of my hand was exposed for a fraction of a second and they can't cut deeper than the tiny hut will allow.

so yeah, if they want to set up camp around the tiny hut, i'm actually ok with that. it's their funeral. i'll have fun sticking my finger *just* barely far enough outside to drop a fireball and enjoy not having to worry about it damaging myself, because hey... i'm inside my tiny hut.

There are no reflex saves in 5th edition, and plate armor has literally no impact on the ability to make any saves.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The 5e core is awesome, but I think this is one area where there's still room to grow. Additional types of powerful but mundane equipment, more mundane "utility" feats and more feats in general, and probably a few added subclasses to address niches that the current selections don't cover adequately - all of these could add to the versatility of martial characters without system-level rule changes.

Equipment: Anyone seen the Attack on Titan anime? I want their grappling zipline thingies. Also more bombs, bolas, net launchers, etc. Basically everything Batman has in his utility belt should be available to 5e martials.

Utility feats: Inspiring Leader is great because it's a mechanical use for a high charisma on a martial character. I'd like "tactician"-style feats that make use of int, maybe a "zen" feat that makes use of wis, and so on. Plus more stuff like Healer and Dungeon Delver that makes a character really competent in an important skillset without having them rely on magic.

Subclasses: I tried an "epic hero" fighter subclass a while back ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/5earchetypes/showentry.php?e=7 ) and while it's far from perfect I think it works as a proof of concept that you can make a character subclass that feels like Hercules or Goku at high levels without making in more effective overall (at least in combat) than the existing mundane classes and subclasses. If anyone actually wants this kind of thing, we'll probably see more of it in the future - although i'd note too that totem barbarians, monks, and arguably rangers and paladins already achieve a lot of that too.

So overall, I don't think there is a huge martial/magic divide, and unlike 3e I think what divide remains has more to do with the types of characters and abilities WotC thought was ideal for the core ruleset than it does with screwy math and structural limitations (as was the case in 3.x).

[Freelance GM]

Equipment: Anyone seen the Attack on Titan anime? I want their grappling zipline thingies.


Funny you should mention those specifically... The party Rogue in an old PF game I DM'd had some creative ideas on what you could do with an animated rope, a grappling hook, and a scroll case...

[Eslin]

I meant that you all should stop complaining about imagined disparities that would never happen in any half decent group and move on.

But those disparities do exist. Some mind, some don't.

[Sudokori]

But those disparities do exist. Some mind, some don't.

And does anyone actually care? So what if the wizard uses a teleport to save a month long journey across the country. He's saving time and resources for the entire party. Think the Martials have too few abilities? Give them items that only work for Martials that give em a few new skills or abilities.

I'm not good at coming up with fixes, only because in my group the martial vs caster issue doesn't happen. We might have a hiccup here and there with the caster using a spell to make an encounter/skill challenge shorter but it doesn't come up much.

[silveralen]

But those disparities do exist. Some mind, some don't.

They can occur. And a DM can constantly toss antimagic fields and magic dead zones at a party to screw people whose abilities rely mainly on magic. I actually got annoyed at a DM doing this recently due to the party caster already struggling, he ported his 3.5 campaign without realizing how unneeded such tactics were in this edition, so it isn't like this doesn't happen (the fact the caster at my table is struggling without those also says a lot about the system).

Honestly a lot of these issues are DM based and fall into the same category. Abilities and skills should be able to duplicate most things that fall under skill tricks, and a lot of stuff from ToB.

[Ziegander]

Honestly a lot of these issues are DM based and fall into the same category. Abilities and skills should be able to duplicate most things that fall under skill tricks, and a lot of stuff from ToB.

And yet, this is the most important issue regarding this topic, spellcasters have spells that their players know allow them to do certain things before they ever hit the table. A Cleric knows it can cast Cure Wounds to heal their buddies 1d8+Wis mod hp per use. A Druid knows it can cast Entangle to slow a group of foes down, if not fully root them in place for a while. A Sorcerer knows it can cast Feather Fall to save itself and its allies from a nasty fall to their doom.

You say Abilities and skills should be able to duplicate 3.5 skill tricks and a lot of stuff from Tome of Battle. Great! But there's a hiccup there, even though you are open to the idea. The PHB doesn't tell the players what the DC for any ability or skill check will be, so even if they can be relatively sure that their DM will allow them to try just about anything, they have no idea if their character is capable of doing much of anything beyond the normal humdrum. You, as the DM, you have the make up these DCs and assign them, often on the fly, because it's highly unlikely you will have taken the time and effort beforehand to write out your own skill tricks/stunts system outlining all of the DCs and things you can do with skills/tools. And you're a particularly permissive DM it sounds like, when it comes to mundanes using the skills/tools system to do narratively cool things.

This is an especially egregious problem as it pertains to Adventurer's League play, because it seems like the Dev team is pretending this isn't an issue. A player can play in one game where they are allowed to do all sorts of wuxia/craftsman stuff with a robust, sort-of "proficiency mini-game" supporting them, set up and supported by their DM, and then move on to another game where they can't do that at all. Sure, you can say DM fiat governs spells too all you want, but at least in the case of spells, the players have a written example of what the spell is supposed to allow them to do, and they know if their spells aren't working right, the DM is directly screwing with them. Skills/tools do not have that to fall back on. A Strength check supposedly allows you to do stuff like "break free of bonds," or "keep a boulder from rolling," but the players have no idea how hard those are going to be, and if they can do other stuff, the book doesn't say so. They have to ask their DM. A Wizard doesn't have to ask their DM if they can cast Forcecage, they just cast it. If the DM says, "oh, no, that doesn't work, because... suddenly anti-magic!" then obviously they are being hosed; however, many "reasonable" DMs might say, "no, you can't flip over the giant and attack his head during the flip, landing on the other side of the giant with your Strength/Dexterity check."

I see now there's a disconnect in the arguments going on here. A lot of people are saying, "mundanes don't have options," and what they really mean is that players playing mundane characters don't have options that they know they can use, while casters have a whole bunch of options that they know will (should) work whenever they feel like pulling them out of their hats.

[Eslin]

And does anyone actually care? So what if the wizard uses a teleport to save a month long journey across the country. He's saving time and resources for the entire party. Think the Martials have too few abilities? Give them items that only work for Martials that give em a few new skills or abilities.

I'm not good at coming up with fixes, only because in my group the martial vs caster issue doesn't happen. We might have a hiccup here and there with the caster using a spell to make an encounter/skill challenge shorter but it doesn't come up much.

Yes, obviously people care or we'd never have any discussion about it. And items aren't the solution, the way to balance classes is to have classes themselves provide the functionality.


And yet, this is the most important issue regarding this topic, spellcasters have spells that their players know allow them to do certain things before they ever hit the table. A Cleric knows it can cast Cure Wounds to heal their buddies 1d8+Wis mod hp per use. A Druid knows it can cast Entangle to slow a group of foes down, if not fully root them in place for a while. A Sorcerer knows it can cast Feather Fall to save itself and its allies from a nasty fall to their doom.

You say Abilities and skills should be able to duplicate 3.5 skill tricks and a lot of stuff from Tome of Battle. Great! But there's a hiccup there, even though you are open to the idea. The PHB doesn't tell the players what the DC for any ability or skill check will be, so even if they can be relatively sure that their DM will allow them to try just about anything, they have no idea if their character is capable of doing much of anything beyond the normal humdrum. You, as the DM, you have the make up these DCs and assign them, often on the fly, because it's highly unlikely you will have taken the time and effort beforehand to write out your own skill tricks/stunts system outlining all of the DCs and things you can do with skills/tools. And you're a particularly permissive DM it sounds like, when it comes to mundanes using the skills/tools system to do narratively cool things.

This is an especially egregious problem as it pertains to Adventurer's League play, because it seems like the Dev team is pretending this isn't an issue. A player can play in one game where they are allowed to do all sorts of wuxia/craftsman stuff with a robust, sort-of "proficiency mini-game" supporting them, set up and supported by their DM, and then move on to another game where they can't do that at all. Sure, you can say DM fiat governs spells too all you want, but at least in the case of spells, the players have a written example of what the spell is supposed to allow them to do, and they know if their spells aren't working right, the DM is directly screwing with them. Skills/tools do not have that to fall back on. A Strength check supposedly allows you to do stuff like "break free of bonds," or "keep a boulder from rolling," but the players have no idea how hard those are going to be, and if they can do other stuff, the book doesn't say so. They have to ask their DM. A Wizard doesn't have to ask their DM if they can cast Forcecage, they just cast it. If the DM says, "oh, no, that doesn't work, because... suddenly anti-magic!" then obviously they are being hosed; however, many "reasonable" DMs might say, "no, you can't flip over the giant and attack his head during the flip, landing on the other side of the giant with your Strength/Dexterity check."

I see now there's a disconnect in the arguments going on here. A lot of people are saying, "mundanes don't have options," and what they really mean is that players playing mundane characters don't have options that they know they can use, while casters have a whole bunch of options that they know will (should) work whenever they feel like pulling them out of their hats.
He's said it well, but I want to add this - both martials and casters are equal skill users this edition, with rogues and bards standing out. One of the reasons this gap stands out so much is both martials and casters have access to that kind of undefined ability, let's call it general action, the capabilities of which vary table to table and even on your DM's mood considering there are no real guidelines. However casters also have a discrete, costed toolkit to cotnrast with it while martials do not.

[Shining Wrath]

Yes, obviously people care or we'd never have any discussion about it. And items aren't the solution, the way to balance classes is to have classes themselves provide the functionality.

In which case adding items would break the parity unless the DM arranges that every character gets an equally powerful item on any occasion when anyone did.

Really, the point is "does everyone have fun and contribute", not "are all classes 100% equal in all aspects".

[Eslin]

In which case adding items would break the parity unless the DM arranges that every character gets an equally powerful item on any occasion when anyone did.

Really, the point is "does everyone have fun and contribute", not "are all classes 100% equal in all aspects".

On average, everyone should be getting equally powerful items. Players aren't going to mind much if one does when they're aware they won't stay ahead for long - it's when the ranger notices that the druid's been better at everything for several levels now and it's going to continue indefinitely that it's a problem.

[silveralen]

And yet, this is the most important issue regarding this topic, spellcasters have spells that their players know allow them to do certain things before they ever hit the table. A Cleric knows it can cast Cure Wounds to heal their buddies 1d8+Wis mod hp per use. A Druid knows it can cast Entangle to slow a group of foes down, if not fully root them in place for a while. A Sorcerer knows it can cast Feather Fall to save itself and its allies from a nasty fall to their doom.

You say Abilities and skills should be able to duplicate 3.5 skill tricks and a lot of stuff from Tome of Battle. Great! But there's a hiccup there, even though you are open to the idea. The PHB doesn't tell the players what the DC for any ability or skill check will be, so even if they can be relatively sure that their DM will allow them to try just about anything, they have no idea if their character is capable of doing much of anything beyond the normal humdrum. You, as the DM, you have the make up these DCs and assign them, often on the fly, because it's highly unlikely you will have taken the time and effort beforehand to write out your own skill tricks/stunts system outlining all of the DCs and things you can do with skills/tools. And you're a particularly permissive DM it sounds like, when it comes to mundanes using the skills/tools system to do narratively cool things.

This is an especially egregious problem as it pertains to Adventurer's League play, because it seems like the Dev team is pretending this isn't an issue. A player can play in one game where they are allowed to do all sorts of wuxia/craftsman stuff with a robust, sort-of "proficiency mini-game" supporting them, set up and supported by their DM, and then move on to another game where they can't do that at all. Sure, you can say DM fiat governs spells too all you want, but at least in the case of spells, the players have a written example of what the spell is supposed to allow them to do, and they know if their spells aren't working right, the DM is directly screwing with them. Skills/tools do not have that to fall back on. A Strength check supposedly allows you to do stuff like "break free of bonds," or "keep a boulder from rolling," but the players have no idea how hard those are going to be, and if they can do other stuff, the book doesn't say so. They have to ask their DM. A Wizard doesn't have to ask their DM if they can cast Forcecage, they just cast it. If the DM says, "oh, no, that doesn't work, because... suddenly anti-magic!" then obviously they are being hosed; however, many "reasonable" DMs might say, "no, you can't flip over the giant and attack his head during the flip, landing on the other side of the giant with your Strength/Dexterity check."

I see now there's a disconnect in the arguments going on here. A lot of people are saying, "mundanes don't have options," and what they really mean is that players playing mundane characters don't have options that they know they can use, while casters have a whole bunch of options that they know will (should) work whenever they feel like pulling them out of their hats.

To me, that's always true. No ability is ever guaranteed to work. If a DM doesn't want you to do something it doesn't matter what ability or spell you have, you won't succeed.

A Flying Fortress the DM wants you to find an artifact to access may be buffeted by insanely high winds if someone tries to fly up there unassisted. A door might be reinforced by spells and have multiple locks which relock themselves if all three aren't disabled at once. Water breathing to explore the underwater temple rather than retrieving the submarine from the gnomes may seem like a less than awesome ideas when it gets dispelled from your party and the Druid can't recast it underwater due to verbal components (if it actually has them, AFB at the moment).

For your examples: Cure wounds actually can fail to restore HP in certain cases in earlier editions, I can think of at least one magic weapon which blocks healing magic this edition, a DM could easily incorperate something like that without even realizing he is stripping abilities away. Entangle... actually isn't a guarantee, since a saving throw negates it, it could do nothing even with zero DM intervention. I've seen people depending on feather fall be told they were in a dead magic area (this actually started an argument a few years ago, short version is the party destroyed something the DM had plans for, he was basically using the dead zone as a "rocks fall, everyone dies" thing).

Basically no ability is truly guaranteed. The idea that some are and some aren't again has to do with a certain type of DM you seem to have encountered who preferred crunchy, strictly laid out abilities over more vague and loosely established ones. This isn't a bad style either, it just does favor casters in this edition, more than either a loose or permissive style (what I lean towards) or a really tight borderline railroad style (in which case it hardly matters). I think 5e is built for my loose style, 4e was very much built for the crunchy strictly laid out person, 3/3.5 kinda a middle ground between the two. It doesn't mean you can't play it like that, just that you have to work more to get it to work.

[Eslin]

To me, that's always true. No ability is ever guaranteed to work. If a DM doesn't want you to do something it doesn't matter what ability or spell you have, you won't succeed.

A Flying Fortress the DM wants you to find an artifact to access may be buffeted by insanely high winds if someone tries to fly up there unassisted. A door might be reinforced by spells and have multiple locks which relock themselves if all three aren't disabled at once. Water breathing to explore the underwater temple rather than retrieving the submarine from the gnomes may seem like a less than awesome ideas when it gets dispelled from your party and the Druid can't recast it underwater due to verbal components (if it actually has them, AFB at the moment).

For your examples: Cure wounds actually can fail to restore HP in certain cases in earlier editions, I can think of at least one magic weapon which blocks healing magic this edition, a DM could easily incorperate something like that without even realizing he is stripping abilities away. Entangle... actually isn't a guarantee, since a saving throw negates it, it could do nothing even with zero DM intervention. I've seen people depending on feather fall be told they were in a dead magic area (this actually started an argument a few years ago, short version is the party destroyed something the DM had plans for, he was basically using the dead zone as a "rocks fall, everyone dies" thing).

Basically no ability is truly guaranteed. The idea that some are and some aren't again has to do with a certain type of DM you seem to have encountered who preferred crunchy, strictly laid out abilities over more vague and loosely established ones. This isn't a bad style either, it just does favor casters in this edition, more than either a loose or permissive style (what I lean towards) or a really tight borderline railroad style (in which case it hardly matters). I think 5e is built for my loose style, 4e was very much built for the crunchy strictly laid out person, 3/3.5 kinda a middle ground between the two. It doesn't mean you can't play it like that, just that you have to work more to get it to work.

The rules don't say being underwater prevents the verbal part of spells, there's no reason you can speak underwater - and I'd assume the components for the spell are designed to be extra usable underwater because duh.

[silveralen]

He's said it well, but I want to add this - both martials and casters are equal skill users this edition, with rogues and bards standing out. One of the reasons this gap stands out so much is both martials and casters have access to that kind of undefined ability, let's call it general action, the capabilities of which vary table to table and even on your DM's mood considering there are no real guidelines. However casters also have a discrete, costed toolkit to cotnrast with it while martials do not.

But some other concrete systems exist. Look at barbarian. First off, he obviously excels in certain discrete skill areas. Then you see he has some discrete abilities (everything but intimidating presence is in the totem section, which some people take issue with because it grants ritual access).

It isn't they lack all discrete abilities, merely that those are typically not the focus of the class the way they are with casters. Except fighter, who basically lacks any if he goes champion, any non combat if goes battle master, and very few even with eldritch knight. Fighter is pigeonholed into just fighting these days, annoys me a bit but I understand how it happened.


The rules don't say being underwater prevents the verbal part of spells, there's no reason you can speak underwater - and I'd assume the components for the spell are designed to be extra usable underwater because duh.

It has never once occurred to me that verbal components would be usable underwater. I actually think 5e is with me on this.

If the pitch and resonance of the words triggers the magic (p 203) to the point it won't work if the words aren't clear due to a gag, then I can't imagine it'd work underwater. You have to make the noises sound just right, which isn't going to work if you try to say them into the medium of water rather than air.

I actually thought I was being lenient allowing casters to ignore this under the effect of water breathing, raw they really can't....

This wasn't me trying to restrict casters either, just a natural outgrowth of my reading of the book. So, like I said, guaranteed abilities are in short supply in an edition where so much is left open to DM interpretation.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

He's said it well, but I want to add this - both martials and casters are equal skill users this edition, with rogues and bards standing out. One of the reasons this gap stands out so much is both martials and casters have access to that kind of undefined ability, let's call it general action, the capabilities of which vary table to table and even on your DM's mood considering there are no real guidelines. However casters also have a discrete, costed toolkit to cotnrast with it while martials do not.

This isn't strictly true. Rogues are way better at skills than anyone else, even bards (at mid to high levels at least). Thieves and fighters get more opportunities to use tools and items in combat thanks to Fast Hands, Action Surge, and (to some degree) Extra Attacks. Fighters get extra feats that they can spend on utility or item use if they want. Both classes (and the other mundane classes) also get a smattering of weak utility powers like Second-Story Work that boost their skills and/or let them be used more effectively.

As for DM permissiveness, you must not be seeing the same DMs or charop boards I am, because I see a lot of people arguing about whether you can trap a dragon with Forcecage and yet I haven't seen a DM who wouldn't let you jump over a dude and stab him if you had the jump height to manage it.

[Eslin]

This isn't strictly true. Rogues are way better at skills than anyone else, even bards (at mid to high levels at least).
Rogues get four skills from a specific list, bards get six skills of their choice. Both get double proficiency on four skills. Bards get half proficiency to all ability checks, rogues treat anything less than 10 as 10, bards get to spend a use of music to add another die to an ability check. I'd say it about evens out.


Thieves and fighters get more opportunities to use tools and items in combat thanks to Fast Hands, Action Surge, and (to some degree) Extra Attacks. Fighters get extra feats that they can spend on utility or item use if they want. Both classes (and the other mundane classes) also get a smattering of weak utility powers like Second-Story Work that boost their skills and/or let them be used more effectively.

As for DM permissiveness, you must not be seeing the same DMs or charop boards I am, because I see a lot of people arguing about whether you can trap a dragon with Forcecage and yet I haven't seen a DM who wouldn't let you jump over a dude and stab him if you had the jump height to manage it.
Obviously a DM would let you leap over something and stab him if you had the height, it would just get you advantage (possibly). Please contrast that with trapping a dragon in a forcecage in terms of results. But yeah, things like second story work are a great idea, all martials should have a bunch of similar features relating to their strengths.

[silveralen]

contrast that with trapping a dragon in a forcecage in terms of results.

This actually reminds me, when you calculate an enemies size, is the category indicative of the entire creature, or would certain bits like say a tail possibly be outside the creatures official area? I ask because a 20 by 20 creature who has a tail with an extra 20 ft of reach won't actually be completely contained in a 20 by 20 box. Nor would a 15 by 15 creature whose tail extends an extra 15 ft, unless the tail was constantly coiled about him.

Which is why I'm not sure you can forcecage an adult or ancient dragon.

[Ashrym]

Rogues get four skills from a specific list, bards get six skills of their choice. Both get double proficiency on four skills. Bards get half proficiency to all ability checks, rogues treat anything less than 10 as 10, bards get to spend a use of music to add another die to an ability check. I'd say it about evens out.

No. A low damage squishy specific subclass of bard gets six skills of their choice and a high level ability to spend inspiration on it.

Bards get 3 skills of their choice, half proficiency on everything else, and the ability to let someone else use inspiration for a bonus. Rogues get 4 skills of a limited list but that's mitigated by any skill based on background. Both classes end up with expertise in 4 skills but a rogue can have expertise in thieves tools and rogues do access them faster levelling.

Reliable talent is available for rogues only and because of it any ability that adds more skills is more beneficial to rogues. For example, half elf for 2 bonus skills and the free feat rogues have that bards don't spent on skilled gives reliable to 11 skills while the best a bard gets out them is the other half proficiency.

All rogues also have the capstone ability to use on skills.

Lore bards gain additional skills and that gets back to recovering half proficiency, and a limited resource bonus that can be added. Reliable talent and the capstone are better for developing skills.

Bards are good for skills, lore bards are better very stiff competition, but reliable talent takes first place imo and subclasses also have additional skill benefits.

[Eslin]

No. A low damage squishy specific subclass of bard gets six skills of their choice and a high level ability to spend inspiration on it.

Bards get 3 skills of their choice, half proficiency on everything else, and the ability to let someone else use inspiration for a bonus. Rogues get 4 skills of a limited list but that's mitigated by any skill based on background. Both classes end up with expertise in 4 skills but a rogue can have expertise in thieves tools and rogues do access them faster levelling.

Reliable talent is available for rogues only and because of it any ability that adds more skills is more beneficial to rogues. For example, half elf for 2 bonus skills and the free feat rogues have that bards don't spent on skilled gives reliable to 11 skills while the best a bard gets out them is the other half proficiency.

All rogues also have the capstone ability to use on skills.

Lore bards gain additional skills and that gets back to recovering half proficiency, and a limited resource bonus that can be added. Reliable talent and the capstone are better for developing skills.

Bards are good for skills, lore bards are better very stiff competition, but reliable talent takes first place imo and subclasses also have additional skill benefits.
One of two bard subclasses, and the standout better one. More versatile, access to more spells. Reliable talent is available only 3 levels earlier, only works on skills you're proficient in and the bard feature lets you burn a use of bardic music which is only useful for that and cutting words since the other uses burn actions. Spent the feat on skilled and you're still only equal to bards, and it's not like bards can't be half elves either, and if the bard cares about skills he can spend a spell known on guidance for an extra permanent 1d4 out of combat.

Now, the extra advantage thief gets probably pushes the rogue ahead, but do note that we're comparing different advantages other classes don't even compare to - this is like arguing over whether a rifle or a shotgun is better when everyone else is using sticks.

[Ashrym]

One of two bard subclasses, and the standout better one. More versatile, access to more spells. Reliable talent is available only 3 levels earlier, only works on skills you're proficient in and the bard feature lets you burn a use of bardic music which is only useful for that and cutting words since the other uses burn actions. Spent the feat on skilled and you're still only equal to bards, and it's not like bards can't be half elves either, and if the bard cares about skills he can spend a spell known on guidance for an extra permanent 1d4 out of combat.

Now, the extra advantage thief gets probably pushes the rogue ahead, but do note that we're comparing different advantages other classes don't even compare to - this is like arguing over whether a rifle or a shotgun is better when everyone else is using sticks.

It's not the standout better one because the class doesn't have a decent damage option and is squishy. Extra attacks and better armor rounds bards out better in the valor bard, not to mention casting spells and still making attacks. Burning actions isn't an issue because the duration on inspiration is long enough to use before combats start, and only renewing the inspiration die requires that bonus action. When there's only a maximum of 5 of them, and one of the uses is a bonus to bad saving through or attack roll, the dice are easy enough to make good use regardless of subclass.

The problem with lore bards is in using cutting words or peerless skill they are not getting the advantage of better attack rolls or saving throws, while valor bards do add additional situational benefits with the dice the team is using. Two more low level spells known doesn't mean much in the long run, and 3 skills is only a small bonus over jack-of-all-trades. Letting you burn a valuable resource like an inspiration die for a skill check is actually a drawback because of the better options available that are lost with that use. Cutting words and peerless skill are nice abilities with a huge opportunity cost not present with the valor bard benefits.

Guidance is a waste of magical secrets because bards only get a few of them, at certain levels, it costs concentration better used on other long term spells, and they have enough bonuses already that it's not worth it.

Reliable talent, like I stated and you repeated, works on every skill in which the rogue is proficient. There are only so many useful skills and I gave an example of leveraging that ability. 10 out of 18 listed skills is pretty good when a person is likely to skip arcana, religion, nature, history, medicine, and performance. The ability to take expertise in thieves' tools (not available to bard expertise) is a better expertise option than another skill. A wider variety of smaller bonuses (bard) does not match the greater reliability from reliable talent (rogue).

Spending the bonus feat on skills and that's more than lore bards, and much more than valor bards for skills. Lore bards take a big trade off for those skills.

[Eslin]

It's not the standout better one because the class doesn't have a decent damage option and is squishy. Extra attacks and better armor rounds bards out better in the valor bard, not to mention casting spells and still making attacks. Burning actions isn't an issue because the duration on inspiration is long enough to use before combats start, and only renewing the inspiration die requires that bonus action. When there's only a maximum of 5 of them, and one of the uses is a bonus to bad saving through or attack roll, the dice are easy enough to make good use regardless of subclass.

The problem with lore bards is in using cutting words or peerless skill they are not getting the advantage of better attack rolls or saving throws, while valor bards do add additional situational benefits with the dice the team is using. Two more low level spells known doesn't mean much in the long run, and 3 skills is only a small bonus over jack-of-all-trades. Letting you burn a valuable resource like an inspiration die for a skill check is actually a drawback because of the better options available that are lost with that use. Cutting words and peerless skill are nice abilities with a huge opportunity cost not present with the valor bard benefits.

Guidance is a waste of magical secrets because bards only get a few of them, at certain levels, it costs concentration better used on other long term spells, and they have enough bonuses already that it's not worth it.

Reliable talent, like I stated and you repeated, works on every skill in which the rogue is proficient. There are only so many useful skills and I gave an example of leveraging that ability. 10 out of 18 listed skills is pretty good when a person is likely to skip arcana, religion, nature, history, medicine, and performance. The ability to take expertise in thieves' tools (not available to bard expertise) is a better expertise option than another skill. A wider variety of smaller bonuses (bard) does not match the greater reliability from reliable talent (rogue).

Spending the bonus feat on skills and that's more than lore bards, and much more than valor bards for skills. Lore bards take a big trade off for those skills.
It has fine damage options, if you're worried about damage spend your level 6 acquisitions on fireball and animate dead. Bam, solved. It's not like I hate valor bards, and I find the way they make rangers utterly irrelevant hilarious, and as I'm typing it's occurring to me that my perception of bard ability may be being skewed by experience DMing for a lore bard who has so far dominated. I may need to rethink this.

[Ashrym]

It has fine damage options, if you're worried about damage spend your level 6 acquisitions on fireball and animate dead. Bam, solved. It's not like I hate valor bards, and I find the way they make rangers utterly irrelevant hilarious, and as I'm typing it's occurring to me that my perception of bard ability may be being skewed by experience DMing for a lore bard who has so far dominated. I may need to rethink this.

Animate dead or fireball aren't bad options, but AoE damage from a fireball on CR 5 opponents only softens them up. 14 or 28 points of damage can have a nice total, but monsters in that level range have 90ish+ hit points. Fireball only softens up CR 2 opponents in a lot of cases. At 6th level when it becomes available, only 3 fireballs are available. Most of the time the bard is using weapons or a cantrip. Animate dead is worth more damage, but needs something to go with those undead, like crusader's mantle, and does quite a bit of damage that way. The problem is in keeping the minions alive.

The biggest problem I have is in making that choice. It's not like there are not a lot of good options from which to select with magical secrets. This issue is it's only 2 of them each time it's gained, and only 2 more than a valor bard in total. Nice when it's taken, but not much in the long run. Extra attack is almost always the better option.

I also disagree with your assessment of valor bards invalidating rangers because the bard doesn't have the fighting style or hunter abilities to go with the class, and is very limited in the spell selection from which to select ranger spells. Taking 2 rangers spells instead of the full available list of options from all classes is unlikely, but in the event it occurs it's still only a portion of the spells available and actual class.

[Knaight]

Great! Now that we've settled the dispute between casters and Martials can we please move on to something more important. Like actually PLAYING D&D?

Some of us find the system side of things interesting for its own sake. D&D 5e has a particular set of rules, and this set of rules will cause it to play a particular way in use (within the context of a group, as the people involved are more influential than the system). The exact same group playing a different game will have a different dynamic.

There are also tons of role playing games out there to choose between. Understanding how the options work, what they incentivize, so on and so forth is helpful for making an informed choice between them, particularly for people who prefer to be engaged with the system. Some of these are also more contested than others. For instance, D&D is a combat focused game. It has a very large combat section, an experience section that is written assuming combat, lots of advice about fighting, and a book called a "monster manual". For a given group, D&D 5e in use will probably lead to gaming with substantially more violence than a game aimed somewhere else (the focus is obviously not a unique trait).

A more contested idea is that the specific mechanics of 5e lead to spell casters being more influential, through a few factors. One is that spells provide a high level of versatility and represent a higher level of engagement with the system than martial abilities. Another is that this exists within a game framework where the focus is on accomplishing things, where capability to accomplish things generally brings more attention to a particular character.

[Deathtongue]

Great! Now that we've settled the dispute between casters and Martials can we please move on to something more important. Like actually PLAYING D&D?

Sorry, but CoDzilla changed everything. Once Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards entered the public consciousness, it has been the defining issue of every edition of D&D. Pathfinder obtained its initial legitimacy (despite the fact that I think it made the caster disparity worse) over 3.5E by claiming to address this. If you ask any 4E D&D fan why they like their edition over 3E D&D, dollars to donuts the 'they balanced casters with noncasters' talking point will be the first one that get uses. 5E D&D is (unsuccessfully in my opinion) trying to strike a balance between having noncasters being the narrative equals of casters and having magic being cool and useful.

And you can't make it go away. Because the issue at heart is 'how much influence over the group's story should a certain character concept have'? Which in of itself is an issue of participation, fairness, and power dynamics.

[Eslin]

Animate dead or fireball aren't bad options, but AoE damage from a fireball on CR 5 opponents only softens them up. 14 or 28 points of damage can have a nice total, but monsters in that level range have 90ish+ hit points. Fireball only softens up CR 2 opponents in a lot of cases. At 6th level when it becomes available, only 3 fireballs are available. Most of the time the bard is using weapons or a cantrip. Animate dead is worth more damage, but needs something to go with those undead, like crusader's mantle, and does quite a bit of damage that way. The problem is in keeping the minions alive.

The biggest problem I have is in making that choice. It's not like there are not a lot of good options from which to select with magical secrets. This issue is it's only 2 of them each time it's gained, and only 2 more than a valor bard in total. Nice when it's taken, but not much in the long run. Extra attack is almost always the better option.

I also disagree with your assessment of valor bards invalidating rangers because the bard doesn't have the fighting style or hunter abilities to go with the class, and is very limited in the spell selection from which to select ranger spells. Taking 2 rangers spells instead of the full available list of options from all classes is unlikely, but in the event it occurs it's still only a portion of the spells available and actual class.

Most of the ranger spells suck, though. Take swift quiver, grab a level of fighter, enjoy being better at being a ranger than a ranger is.

[Giant2005]

Most of the ranger spells suck, though. Take swift quiver, grab a level of fighter, beg your DM relentlessly until he gives in and gives you the Hunter features, enjoy being better at being a ranger than a ranger is.

Fixed and bolded for emphasis.

[Eslin]

Fixed and bolded for emphasis.

Why would you want them? They're incredibly underwhelming. I'll take four attacks and full casting instead, thanks.

[Giant2005]

Why would you want them? They're incredibly underwhelming. I'll take four attacks and full casting instead, thanks.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not but I'll bite anyway.
The Hunter Archetype is one of the best in the game - its only downfall is that it is attached to the Ranger which is considered to be the worst class. If you took those abilities and added them as an archetype option of any other non-caster class, it would be extremely OP.
If you just look at the abilities for even a moment, it will become readily apparent.
Giant Killer is the most reliable way of using your reaction, thus increasing action economy beyond that what other classes can achieve. It is also the most reliable means of getting a second sneak attack in a turn if you have some Rogue levels.
Horde Breaker is an extra attack which doesn't need to be defended - that Bard might be pretty happy with 4 attacks but obviously that Ranger is 25% happier with 5. This one ability is the reason why Rangers seem so powerful in low level games compared to everyone else.
The level 7 abilities are a little underwhelming but do have their good points. Escape the Horse is like a free Mobility feat that doesn't consume your bonus action and Multiattack Defense virtually guarantees the odds are in your favor in any 1v1 battle.
Although Volley seems a little underwhelming at first glance, that couldn't be further from the truth. Volley + Lightning Arrow + Horde Breaker = 2 AOE attacks and a single target attack before even touching reactions or bonus actions. That is some AOE action economy that no-one can match. No-one. By taking a couple of Sorc levels, they could use the bonus action to chuck in a third AOE attack which is about as broken as it gets and surely something the designers hadn't considered.
All of the level 15 abilities are amazing and obviously so. I don't need to explain the benefits of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge. Stand Against the Tide seems like a lesser version of Giant Killer but at level 15+, the enemys you fight tend to inflict damage far superior than any single attack of a player will be, so using its attack in place of your own is pretty much the most powerful, sustainable, single attack that a player can bring to the table.

the bottom line is that the things listed are things the Ranger brings to the table that the poorly imitating Bard doesn't and they are things that the poorly imitating Bard could never emulate. Whether or not you think the only thing the Ranger brings to the table is Swift Quiver, any rational mind should be aware that Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver alone.
Bards are pretty great, Bards are amazingly great but they are better off being a Bard than a poor imitation of something else.

EDIT: Fixed a minor error in the above due to others choosing to focus on picking at such errors rather than making any attempt to defend their outrageous claims.

[Yenek]

1 is 25% of 4, not 20% ffs.

[Yenek]

Balancing on a Cloud is impossible. Impossible is DC 30. Therefore, a Level 20 Rogue with Acrobatics Expertise needs to roll a 13 or higher to balance on a cloud.


Can I add this to sig?

[Eslin]

1 is 25% of 4, not 20% ffs.

I was trying not to say it. My theory is happiness hits diminishing returns - maybe someone who gets 3 attacks where he had 2 is only 30 or 40 percent happier.

[Deathtongue]

the bottom line is that the things listed are things the Ranger brings to the table that the poorly imitating Bard doesn't and they are things that the poorly imitating Bard could never emulate. Whether or not you think the only thing the Ranger brings to the table is Swift Quiver, any rational mind should be aware that Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver alone.

Think in terms of marginal utility. While Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver, a bard with Swift Quiver is already dishing out more ranged attacks over the course of combat than 90% of ranged builds. How much is that extra stuff worth in terms of, say, 6+ level spells? There are noncaster builds that can outdamage a Divine Power-abusing cleric, but said cleric is still loads more powerful thanks to marginal utility.

[Giant2005]

Think in terms of marginal utility. While Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver, a bard with Swift Quiver is already dishing out more ranged attacks over the course of combat than 90% of ranged builds. How much is that extra stuff worth in terms of, say, 6+ level spells? There are noncaster builds that can outdamage a Divine Power-abusing cleric, but said cleric is still loads more powerful thanks to marginal utility.

Sure but those are Bardic abilities, none of which help him be a better Ranger than the Ranger as had been falsely stated earlier.

[Freelance GM]

Can I add this to sig?
Sure, go ahead.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Obviously a DM would let you leap over something and stab him if you had the height, it would just get you advantage (possibly). Please contrast that with trapping a dragon in a forcecage in terms of results.

A DM not allowing someone to leap over an enemy was your example, not mine. As for contrasting it with forcecage, let's take another example: a battlemaster shoots and "trips" a flying dragon, causing it to plummet to the earth prone and possibly take a great deal of falling damage so he and his allies can pummel it to death before it has a chance to react. He can do that 4-6 times per short rest. Forcecage is, what, 3-4 times per day if you use all your high-level slots on it, and it leaves the dragon perfectly intact and ready to incinerate you as soon as the wizard loses concentration. I honestly don't think there's a serious argument to be made that casters are considerably overpowered IN COMBAT, even at high levels; utility is another matter.

[silveralen]

Think in terms of marginal utility. While Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver, a bard with Swift Quiver is already dishing out more ranged attacks over the course of combat than 90% of ranged builds. How much is that extra stuff worth in terms of, say, 6+ level spells? There are noncaster builds that can outdamage a Divine Power-abusing cleric, but said cleric is still loads more powerful thanks to marginal utility.

The thing about bard is they are always second (or third) best.

For example, a valor bard can be a good archer, but won't be the best archer.

I'm actually going to talk about eldritch knight since they make better archers than actual rangers do, at least for the type relying on normal attacks over ranger's special arrows and barrage type spells, plus the lvl 11 AoE.

Sure, a bard can rock swift quiver for four attacks, but an eldritch knight has a basic 3-4, with an extra from haste. Or advantage from greater invisibility. Then factor in action surge, one of the best abilities in the game for killing things, fighting style, and eldritch knight's nice debuff (unless the disadvantage on saving throws specifies melee attacks for some reason, AFB). The fighter is the better archer, but the bard is a decent second place if he invests. After all, fighter is actually slightly less MAD, fighter has more ability points to spend, and if the bard doesn't grab sharpshooter he isn't keeping up alot of the time. The fighter might even grab crossbow expert or something similar.

Bard can get to 75% of where most classes are pretty easily if they try, 90% with heavier investment in feats, ability scores, and all class spell selection. That's really how you make a jack of all trades class.

[Eslin]

A DM not allowing someone to leap over an enemy was your example, not mine. As for contrasting it with forcecage, let's take another example: a battlemaster shoots and "trips" a flying dragon, causing it to plummet to the earth prone and possibly take a great deal of falling damage so he and his allies can pummel it to death before it has a chance to react. He can do that 4-6 times per short rest. Forcecage is, what, 3-4 times per day if you use all your high-level slots on it, and it leaves the dragon perfectly intact and ready to incinerate you as soon as the wizard loses concentration. I honestly don't think there's a serious argument to be made that casters are considerably overpowered IN COMBAT, even at high levels; utility is another matter.

How on earth would you trip a flying creature? That doesn't even make sense.

[silveralen]

How on earth would you trip a flying creature? That doesn't even make sense.

Distract or impede it in midair, causing it to briefly stutter with its flying and lose control.

Just like a well placed blow might cause someone to stumble and trip.

It'd probably be better represented with a different mechanic than a normal trip (you grapple the wings, or slash them, or stab the dragons eye to completely distract them and force them to land) but you can certainly think of ways.

[Eslin]

Distract or impede it in midair, causing it to briefly stutter with its flying and lose control.

Just like a well placed blow might cause someone to stumble and trip.

It'd probably be better represented with a different mechanic than a normal trip (you grapple the wings, or slash them, or stab the dragons eye to completely distract them and force them to land) but you can certainly think of ways.
I have no problem with the idea of impeding a flying creature, but the idea that you could 'trip' them and cause them to plummet seems kind of stupid. Though I don't think that wouldn't work on a dragon in any case, there's no way something that big and heavy could fly under its own power with wings like that so the flight has gotta be magical. Which makes sense I guess, they're innately magical beings.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I have no problem with the idea of impeding a flying creature, but the idea that you could 'trip' them and cause them to plummet seems kind of stupid.

It's right there in the phb, page 191. Knocking a flying creature prone makes it plummet to the ground unless it's using magic "like the fly spell" to stay aloft. This is both RAW and crystal-clear RAI. You can argue that dragons need magic to fly, but presumably they also need wings (or are those big things purely decorative?) so an effect capable of tripping them should knock them down just like it would a pterodactyl or whatever. Not a particularly tough description to come up with, either: you shoot the dragon in the wing and screw up its flight.

[Eslin]

It's right there in the phb, page 191. Knocking a flying creature prone makes it plummet to the ground unless it's using magic "like the fly spell" to stay aloft. This is both RAW and crystal-clear RAI. You can argue that dragons need magic to fly, but presumably they also need wings (or are those big things purely decorative?) so an effect capable of tripping them should knock them down just like it would a pterodactyl or whatever. Not a particularly tough description to come up with, either: you shoot the dragon in the wing and screw up its flight.

Yep, seems about right. Hadn't noticed that, it's never come up because midair fights have always been high enough above the ground to make correcting early a non-issue. Score one for trip attack against large or medium flying creatures - if they're less than 500 feet above the ground, their turn won't come up in time for them to get un-prone (though since it's all the same 6 seconds, I'd actually have it be 6 seconds times the amount remaining in the initiative order over the difference between the highest and lowest initiatives.

[charcoalninja]

I meant that you all should stop complaining about imagined disparities that would never happen in any half decent group and move on.

There's nothing imagined about it. Casters have 70 pages of tactical options martial characters do NOT. That is undeniable fact. There are players that enjoy the tactical depth casting classes get to enjoy, and are saddened that there exists not even ONE martial class that enjoys a deep, involved combat system that doesn't use spells to achieve it. The best 5e gave us is a subclass that runs out of steam in less than 2 rounds.

For a large group of players who deeply love this game, and want to enjoy playing what otherwise is a robust and fun new edition, that a LOT of people are trying out right now, this lack is a serious and frustrating issue made more pronounced by the fact that it is following on the heels of 4e which did exactly what we're talking about extremely well. (Edit: apologies for the shaneful run on sentence)

We're frustrated and disappointed at a very real issue here.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There's nothing imagined about it. Casters have 70 pages of tactical options martial characters do NOT. That is undeniable fact. There are players that enjoy the tactical depth casting classes get to enjoy, and are saddened that there exists not even ONE martial class that enjoys a deep, involved combat system that doesn't use spells to achieve it. The best 5e gave us is a subclass that runs out of steam in less than 2 rounds.

For a large group of players who deeply love this game, and want to enjoy playing what otherwise is a robust and fun new edition, that a LOT of people are trying out right now, this lack is a serious and frustrating issue made more pronounced by the fact that it is following on the heels of 4e which did exactly what we're talking about extremely well. (Edit: apologies for the shaneful run on sentence)

We're frustrated and disappointed at a very real issue here.

To be clear, there are two arguments in this thread: "fighters do/don't have enough utility options" and "fighters do/don't have enough discrete combat options." You're obviously concerned with the latter.

First off, look at Lawolf's warblade.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHLtUBIOpuzbhov9Jk6GsCgftm1TIb2_Q8oHBWo26Jk

That might scratch your itch right there.

Now personally I love the step away from tons of discrete combat powers for martial characters. A level 11 fighter has tons of tactical options just from having three attacks per round and a bunch of feats. Battlemaster maneuvers are just the icing on the cake. Put in the marking rules from the DMG and I honestly think he's on par with a 4e fighter in terms of versatility and power. If anything, I wish they'd introduce a more freeform magic-using class so I could play a mage without digging into that grueling homework assignment of a Spells chapter.

But I get what you're saying. No, 5e doesn't deliver a martial class with 70 pages of discrete powers. They probably won't for at least a couple years, so you might want to look to homebrew.

[Ashrym]

Think in terms of marginal utility. While Swift Quiver + stuff > Swift Quiver, a bard with Swift Quiver is already dishing out more ranged attacks over the course of combat than 90% of ranged builds. How much is that extra stuff worth in terms of, say, 6+ level spells? There are noncaster builds that can outdamage a Divine Power-abusing cleric, but said cleric is still loads more powerful thanks to marginal utility.

The bard gives up his concentration and bonus action, and a high level slot that's limited at the time, for the bonus attacks while a hunter archery ranger has a third attack from.hunter on another target, less impact to -5/+10 from the fighting style, and the ranger also has his at will AoE as a hunter.

The bard uses that as burst damage for an encounter or two but it's not sustainable for some time, and rangers aren't poor me classes as much as some posts claim.

[JoeJ]

So how about this: players roll up characters (no point buy). Total up the ability modifiers for each character. Whomever has the lowest total modifier gets to play whatever class they want, including wizard or bard. Whomever has the highest has to play a single-class ranger. For everybody else, the players with total modifiers above whatever the average is get to pick from any non-caster class. Those below average can play any class except wizard or bard.
:smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

There are clearly improvements in some areas. In some other ways, however, the comparison between martials and casters is actually even worse in 5th edition, such as in the case of the skill system relegating even more of the "mundane" character's worth to DM fiat... while spells still give you clear new capabilities.

Perhaps even more bothersome is that in areas where balance could be argued to have been improved, it is often done sloppily and at the cost of real content. For instance, "Animate Dead" only allows you to raise humans and forehead aliens, and they all act the same. No zombie monsters are happening. And yet, Animate Dead probably wouldn't qualify as a "well balanced" spell in 5e despite this hamfisted attempt at balance through deleting content. Rather than make a concerted effort to make Fighters scale properly into the stories of great wizards and Balors, they simply cut off the capability of the rules to emulate those stories. In the Monster Manual, for instance, the Balor's quote seems to be a case of the Balor tempting a mortal with access to a Wish... that they can no longer grant, since they're basically just a melee brick now.

[Freelance GM]

Perhaps even more bothersome is that in areas where balance could be argued to have been improved, it is often done sloppily and at the cost of real content. For instance, "Animate Dead" only allows you to raise humans and forehead aliens, and they all act the same. No zombie monsters are happening. And yet, Animate Dead probably wouldn't qualify as a "well balanced" spell in 5e despite this hamfisted attempt at balance through deleting content. Rather than make a concerted effort to make Fighters scale properly into the stories of great wizards and Balors, they simply cut off the capability of the rules to emulate those stories. In the Monster Manual, for instance, the Balor's quote seems to be a case of the Balor tempting a mortal with access to a Wish... that they can no longer grant, since they're basically just a melee brick now.

Personally, I'm ok with the bounded accuracy- in my 3.5/Pathfinder experience, the numbers got to the point where the bonus became more important than the die roll. Players couldn't miss unless the enemy was especially high-CR, and enemies couldn't hit unless they were within the PC's level range.
As a DM, I hated it because it limited the monsters I could use- iconic enemies like Orcs simply stopped being a threat after a certain point. In 5E, low-level monsters still present a threat to high-level characters, so I can set up epic, LOTR-type horde scenarios without them being a complete cakewalk for the players after Level 5 or so.

However, I'll readily admit it's all about preference. I like my PC's to feel vulnerable- it keeps the table atmosphere tense and dramatic. However, some players (and DM's) prefer seeing their characters effortlessly cleave through hundreds of foes without ever putting themselves at risk.

As for the Animate Dead stuff, I have to agree with you there. The fact that the MM teases at non-humanoid undead suggests that the "humanoids only" rule just applies to players, and that isn't exactly fair if the Big Bad can raise non-humanoid undead, but the party Necromancer can't.

[Sudokori]

1. Has anyone else realized that the entire magic user group of classes can be invalidated with one spell? Anti-magic field.

2. Anyone else tried to run an all caster party but was TPK'd by a monster with magic resistance?

3. Has anyone of the "wizards are so awesome and fighters suck so bad they can go die" people actually tried to play a non-caster class to see what it was like?:smallconfused:

4. Has anyone on this thread actually talked with the obnoxious caster of the party instead of complaining bitterly about it on the Internet?

5. How many pro-spellcaster people here would vehemently refuse to play a No magic or low magic (wizards are hunted down and killed on sight by everyone, even children) game because they won't be able to create their "tier 1 ultimate magic dude"

[Eslin]

Fix your attitude, man. The post I'm about to reply to is full of baseless and insulting assumptions, and implies a whole bunch of things that obviously aren't true about the people playing casters.


1. Has anyone else realized that the entire magic user group of classes can be invalidated with one spell? Anti-magic field.
An 8th level spell, so you're fighting another caster here.


2. Anyone else tried to run an all caster party but was TPK'd by a monster with magic resistance?
There are plenty of ways to get around that kind of thing. Everyone summons or turns into a physical damage dealer, for instance.


3. Has anyone of the "wizards are so awesome and fighters suck so bad they can go die" people actually tried to play a non-caster class to see what it was like?:smallconfused:
I don't think anyone with more than one campaign's worth of D&D experience hasn't played a martial class. Though I wouldn't blame anyone who hasn't - you don't necessarily need to have played at all to realise the class with 50 page's worth of options is gonna be more fun than the class with 3.


4. Has anyone on this thread actually talked with the obnoxious caster of the party instead of complaining bitterly about it on the Internet?
What obnoxious caster party? The only point of it was it was flat out better than a martial party, no-one's been complaining about the party itself, just wishing martials had more versatility.


5. How many pro-spellcaster people here would vehemently refuse to play a No magic or low magic (wizards are hunted down and killed on sight by everyone, even children) game because they won't be able to create their "tier 1 ultimate magic dude"
I mean, I'd definitely play a wizard in the 'wizards are hunted down on site' campaign, as I imagine anyone else would, that'd be fun. Plus it'd be fun to be able to kill basically everyone without about morality, considering they deserve it for trying to kill you for no reason. But low or no magic campaigns in general, I'd assume the reason some people wouldn't want to play is that they find martial characters boring, especially when the more versatile ones like monks and paladins are removed by 'no magic'. I'd do it in 4e or 3.5, both had enough options that you could make interesting characters - hell, I did do it in 3.5, had a blas, but 5e has too few options for that to be much fun.

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I'm ok with the bounded accuracy- My post said nothing about bounded accuracy. :smallconfused:

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly from this thread and my experiences? The Martial vs Caster problem is minuscule in comparison to what it was in 3.5. Back then you needed magic users because yeah frequent opponents needed a magical solution (such as anything ethereal)

These days you can go 3 fighters and a ranger and still be able to face nearly any monster in the MM without too much difficulty.

As for Utility, yeah Wizards and such have a big advantage on that, but that advantage is greatly overstated. Unless you are operating on a 5 minute workday where a wizard has effectively unlimited spells (cause you just rest without penalty when they are expended) then the wizard will be avoiding casting spells whenever possible.

Basically? The mundane solution is always better for the party because it conserves resources.

The second thing is that the DM is rarely going to throw problems at you that you are in no way able to solve. (either via a spell or mundane means) Thus, not having a spell available? Will rarely mean death for the group. (unless your DM is a jerk in which case you have bigger problems).

So as long as some conditions are met I don't think it's a problem

A) The spellcasters do have to manage their resources, AKA they can't rest and regain spells for 'free'.

B) Mundane Utility can actually solve problems

C) The Martial characters aren't rendered irrelevant by the Spellcasters in every aspect of the game. (Like Druids did to Fighters in 3.5)

Yeah, spellcasters are more powerful. But it's a team game. So one person being more powerful isn't a problem unless it's at the level that 3.5 was at. (Where balancing encounters for a team consisting of Rogue, Fighter, Druid, Cleric, and Dread Necromancer was almost impossible)

[Pex]

Personally, I'm ok with the bounded accuracy- in my 3.5/Pathfinder experience, the numbers got to the point where the bonus became more important than the die roll. Players couldn't miss unless the enemy was especially high-CR, and enemies couldn't hit unless they were within the PC's level range.
As a DM, I hated it because it limited the monsters I could use- iconic enemies like Orcs simply stopped being a threat after a certain point. In 5E, low-level monsters still present a threat to high-level characters, so I can set up epic, LOTR-type horde scenarios without them being a complete cakewalk for the players after Level 5 or so.

However, I'll readily admit it's all about preference. I like my PC's to feel vulnerable- it keeps the table atmosphere tense and dramatic. However, some players (and DM's) prefer seeing their characters effortlessly cleave through hundreds of foes without ever putting themselves at risk.

As for the Animate Dead stuff, I have to agree with you there. The fact that the MM teases at non-humanoid undead suggests that the "humanoids only" rule just applies to players, and that isn't exactly fair if the Big Bad can raise non-humanoid undead, but the party Necromancer can't.

You call it a bug. I call it a feature. My character has become just that good that orcs are no longer a threat. Great. Now I'm onto trolls or giants or liches or vampires. Wait, what's that? It's a group of 17th level NPC bad guys of all sorts of classes, including a wizard, a cleric, and a druid. But they're orcs? I'm supposed to be immune to orcs! Orcs get levels too? Since when? Since 3.0 came out.

As for "effortlessly cleave through hundreds of foes without ever putting themselves at risk", yeah, those are the mooks. 4E had the same thing but used the minion mechanic for monsters. You're high level. You're supposed to be that bad-ass. It's the dragon or lich or vampire or fire giant or antipaladin or whatever other BBEG and their lieutenants who are the risk. That's the vulnerability.

[Sudokori]

I guess Eslin just likes wizards better because they have more options. I just hate wizards because of one group that played all casters and I was the only martial character. Literally every encounter I had to either shoot a guy that got away with a bow or just sit there as my party blew up things to kingdom come with custom magic spells and epic tier magic items (Dm apparently loved casters). I was literally useless in the party and was just dragged along so they could see how awesome they were compared to my fighter. I hate magic users.

Edit: Left the group after the second session because I wasnt having any fun.

[Z3ro]

the class with 50 page's worth of options is gonna be more fun than the class with 3.


This, I think, is the problem. I personally see no correlation between the number of pages devoted to the class, and the amount of fun I have playing it. You obviously see it differently, but telling people they're wrong about their opinion of what is fun is both counterproductive and off-putting. More options don't always equal more fun.

[Freelance GM]

Rather than make a concerted effort to make Fighters scale properly into the stories of great wizards and Balors, they simply cut off the capability of the rules to emulate those stories.

I guess I misinterpreted "scale properly," in that case. My bad.


You call it a bug. I call it a feature. My character has become just that good that orcs are no longer a threat. Great. Now I'm onto trolls or giants or liches or vampires. Wait, what's that? It's a group of 17th level NPC bad guys of all sorts of classes, including a wizard, a cleric, and a druid. But they're orcs? I'm supposed to be immune to orcs! Orcs get levels too? Since when? Since 3.0 came out.

As for "effortlessly cleave through hundreds of foes without ever putting themselves at risk", yeah, those are the mooks. 4E had the same thing but used the minion mechanic for monsters. You're high level. You're supposed to be that bad-ass. It's the dragon or lich or vampire or fire giant or antipaladin or whatever other BBEG and their lieutenants who are the risk. That's the vulnerability.

See? I said it was a preference. The problem wasn't unsolvable, by any means, but making NPC's with classes is a hassle, and I'd rather spend that time building new regions or dungeons for the players to explore.


This, I think, is the problem. I personally see no correlation between the number of pages devoted to the class, and the amount of fun I have playing it. You obviously see it differently, but telling people they're wrong about their opinion of what is fun is both counterproductive and off-putting. More options don't always equal more fun.

I personally enjoy working with less options- that's why my favorite classes are Fighter and Sorcerer. However, getting stuck with too few options is another problem, especially if it's because only a few of the options are any good. Players shouldn't ever have to make certain decisions about their character because the alternatives suck. The best 5E example of this is the Ranger- if you're already playing a Ranger, why become a Beast Master when the Hunter is so much better?

[Z3ro]

I personally enjoy working with less options- that's why my favorite classes are Fighter and Sorcerer. However, getting stuck with too few options is another problem, especially if it's because only a few of the options are any good. For example, only using the core rulebooks, is it even possible to play a remotely decent Fighter in 3.P without taking Rapid Shot, Combat Expertise, or Power Attack as soon as possible?

While fewer options may be a problem (which I'll not deny), the number of options has no bearing on the amount of fun something is to play. Options are a measurable game statistic, while fun is a nebulous concept unique to each player. Saying one is more fun that the other is the equivalent to telling someone their preference is wrong.

[Freelance GM]

While fewer options may be a problem (which I'll not deny), the number of options has no bearing on the amount of fun something is to play. Options are a measurable game statistic, while fun is a nebulous concept unique to each player. Saying one is more fun that the other is the equivalent to telling someone their preference is wrong.

You're right, it didn't really carry over into the text, but I was agreeing with you. Lots of options can be fun, fewer options can be fun, so long as your decision isn't limited by one choice being inherently better than the alternatives.

Which is really sort of a summary of this whole thread, if you think about it. (We're still figuring out whether or not one choice is "inherently better," though...)

[Gnomes2169]

I guess Eslin just likes wizards better because they have more options. I just hate wizards because of one group that played all casters and I was the only martial character. Literally every encounter I had to either shoot a guy that got away with a bow or just sit there as my party blew up things to kingdom come with custom magic spells and epic tier magic items (Dm apparently loved casters). I was literally useless in the party and was just dragged along so they could see how awesome they were compared to my fighter. I hate magic users.

Edit: Left the group after the second session because I wasnt having any fun.

Wait, the DM homebrewed epic spells and items for casters to make them walking gods and then gave you (the only martial character) nothing? Yeah, leaving that group was a good idea... But I'm not sure it has a correlation with the discussion as far as core casters being better than core martials.

Personally, I've never had fun with vancian spellcasting. 3.5 psionics and the Tome of Battle (especially the sword sage)? Sure, loved those systems, tried to use them in every game I was part of (and I would love to get psionics in 5e to see what they do with them). But the wizard, cleric, archivist and druid way of things... Just doesn't appeal to me. It goes out of its way to be as complicated, bloated and off-putting as possible, the material costs are disgusting to keep track of, and everything about it is just... Something I don't want to deal with.

However, I do not stop my players from taking these classes if they want. As a DM for 5e, there have been exactly 0 situations in which my players were out-done by one another, as instead of competing with one another (which is the default assumption of this thread and others like it), they work together to solve their problems. The martials (especially the rogue), do far, far more to influence the game than the wizard, while the wizards is just happy to buff his buddies, throw out the occasional AoE to stop enemies and shoot scorching rays and magic missiles. He does not run the game with his fighter, paladin and rogue lackies waddling behind him (they are level 9 now, isn't that about the time a wizard has an "encounter-ender" for every encounter?)

From my experience, 5e just doesn't have 3.5's martial/ caster divide problems. All classes seem to be fun to play, and all classes seem to be viable.

[archaeo]

The idea that the DM crafts the story, and therefore will not present the players with problems they don't have the tools to solve, seems like a reasonable assumption about most D&D games. Eslin provides a good example of the counterargument; in a sufficiently well-developed sandbox, especially one that presupposes the existence of high-level magic the PCs can have access to, there is the possibility of martials being unable to keep up.

So I'd say it's fair to conclude that "martials vs. casters" is only a problem in setting-centric campaigns, as opposed to PC-centric campaigns. I'd argue that D&D is far better in play when the DM responds dynamically to the players, if only because that kind of feedback leads to the storytelling paradigm I enjoy in TRPGs, but if you're upfront with your players about what your campaign is going to be about, it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's just a strong DM fiat move.


While fewer options may be a problem (which I'll not deny), the number of options has no bearing on the amount of fun something is to play. Options are a measurable game statistic, while fun is a nebulous concept unique to each player. Saying one is more fun that the other is the equivalent to telling someone their preference is wrong.

It's also a problematic way to look at the rules, given that no single character can reasonably take every option. What's really being fought over, when people talk about "options," is how many choices a player makes in between actually playing the game. I can certainly see the argument that some people will enjoy that, and others won't.

But it's only a matter of time before WotC or the homebrew community responds to the vocal part of the playerbase that wants a martial character that feels as complicated as a full caster.

Edited to add:


As a DM for 5e, there have been exactly 0 situations in which my players were out-done by one another, as instead of competing with one another (which is the default assumption of this thread and others like it), they work together to solve their problems.

To be fair to the "other side" here, the assumption is really "If all my players are using the rules optimally, the casters come out ahead."

Which brings up interesting questions about why "optimal play" should be desirable, or if that's "competitive."

[silveralen]

So out of curiosity I decided to do some math just to think about the actual number of option available to each. Sorry tt's a wall of text, I tried to break it up to make it more readable.

1. Comparison of number of options available when building the character (ignoring archetypes a every class ahs equal access. Only when an archetype has choices within it, such as battle master or any which add a choice of multiple spells, will such things be noted).

Any full spell caster has 75-200 possible spells. The half spell casters have around 50. A rough estimate says roughly 5 spells per page (can go up to 7 for short spells, down to 2 for artwork).

So that is 10 pages for half casters, 15-40 pages for a full caster, excepting bard who does have access to all 70 pages in a limited way.

Half casters actually end up clocking in around 13 pages of options as well, due to their ability to utilize the 2 ish pages combat feats and 1ish page of universal maneuvers (counting DMG). The actual minimum options for a full caster hovers around 17, as warlock has a couple pages of invocations to choose from as well. Casting feats barely make up a third of a page, so I didn't bother including them.

Now fighter has a different amount depending on his archetype. Champion has four pages, battlemaster has five, eldritch knight actually matches or beats half casters in the number of overall options available, depending on how you factor in his semi restricted spells.

Monk actually comes in pretty low in customization, open hand or shadow is basically adding no new options. Elemental monk is decent, but doesn't even have the variety of eldritch knight, but barely beating battle master.

2. Comparison of options available at a given moment:

This one is a bit trickier to nail down. For simplicity I mainly plan to look at high level.

A battle master fighter has 9 unique maneuvers and basic attack options. Assuming feats are being used, he will likely have at least one option available from feats, and quite possibly multiples. It might be simply choosing whether to power attack, use his bonus action to shove or grapple, new uses for reaction etc. He also has action surge and second wind, indomitable being a bit overly reactionary to be seen as a choice imo. That's a total of basic+(12-14). This neglects the options to combine different maneuvers with one another in different ways.

A sorcerer has basic attack options from cantrips, followed by 15 spells and 4 metamagic options. Feat wise I only see one that adds an actual option for a caster in combat, warcaster, so I have a hard time including it. Their archetype does allow for about 3 discrete options in combat though. That brings his total up to basic+22, neglecting the interaction of each metamagic with each spell.

A paladin has basic attack options, 15 spells, 2 channel divinity options, the unique capstone, lay on hands, basic smite, and additional 10 spells from their oath. I'll avoid assuming a feat since I assumed maxed charisma when calculating spell. That actually comes in around basic+30 options.

Now monk, as always basic attacks come first. His variety of bonus actions (dodge, 1-2 attacks, dash, or disengage) starts him out at 4. stunning strike, stillness of mind, and empty body add another 4. So 8 for basic monk. Open hand adds 5, shadow adds 6-7, and elemental actually adds only 4-5. So monk as a whole is 12-15

3. Why did I do this? Well we have talked alot about what classes are enjoyable and what classes are not, and I am curious to see what sort of correlation there is.

For example, in both overall choices and choices at a given moment, monk ranks as one of the lowest. Yet I've heard people who find battlemaster overly limiting praise even open hand monk.

The only way monk excels in that regard is how often he can use his abilities, allowing him to effectively make more choices each combat. A paladin on the other hand can't even cast every spell he knows over the course of a day.

The problem being that, following this train of logic, fighter's ability to use normal maneuvers more effectively, by sacrificing a lower portion of his action, should weigh favorably in this regard. The same goes for feats, many feats can be used as often as you want. The problem is that, even though he can do this better than even other frontliners, anyone can do it. Anyone can take a feat. Even if it works out much better for fighter (try cramming GWM, sentinel, and polearm expert into a paladin or ranger build). So it doesn't feel as unique, those options don't feel as interesting.

Personally I think it is a good way of portraying mundane characters, but it isn't to everyone's liking.

4. My final conclusion is that the biggest issue isn't the sheer number of options though, options available is probably the biggest deciding factor, followed by how often such options can be used. That's why people feel underwhelmed by sorcerer or even warlock this time around compared to other full casters (both have received at least a couple complaint threads), and why battle master seems lacking even compared to monk.

[themaque]

Martial Vs. Caster

People with cheat codes to the universe able to bend reality to their will VS. Guy who is really REALLY good with a pointed stick.

In terms of raw power Caster will win. He gets spells so he gets to cheat.

Which is more fun to play? Depends on your own play style and the game in question.

Are martial useless? Of course not. Can you mete-game around them? Yes but with some creativity you can do the same thing for wizards. (Harder but yes you can).

So when it comes down to it, in a game where your own creativity and play style make the determining factor, neither one wins. Play how you like.

[jkat718]

Just a side note here:

I hear all of this talk about how OP spellcasters can get with all of the 3.5 splats, and wonder if mine is the only group that played core-only 3e? It was pretty decent, up until level 4 or 5. Then it went to hell in a handbasket...and back on Tenser's Floating Disc. :smallbiggrin:

[Todasmile]

On Options

I think that's an interesting analysis. I'd mention that the Monk actually has some really cool level-up abilities that aren't necessarily options at any given time - higher speed, unarmed defense, the whole unarmed strike thing, evasion, languages, saves, slow falls, arrow deflection, what have you. They might not necessarily be too strong, but they're all interesting. Aside from Elemental Monk - which actually does have a FEW really cool attacks, just not that many - all of the Monk's abilities just feel interesting and fun.

Contrast Fighters, who get ASIs, extra attacks, and the oh-so-terrible Indomitable. Even Barbarians get some interesting abilities, and they should be the epitome of mindless hack-and-slash.

So that could be a reason why Monks aren't complained about too much. Their abilities are all unique and interesting, while only a few of the Battlemaster's are anything but riders and a little bonus damage. I mean, jeez, even the naming is boring: ____ Strike.

On another note, I've said it before, but I think the Fighter's strengths are actually its weaknesses. It gets more attacks than anyone else, but it gets them to the exclusion of anything else. Where it gets another attack, every other class gets another option, another cool thing which is actually thought out. It gets two extra ASIs, sure, but it just gets to choose more of the same thing everyone else can already choose from - heck, you could argue that the extra two ASIs are just going towards CON anyways, since they need to max it more than most other classes.

I think they messed up with the niches. The Barbarian should be your go-to for incredible tanking and damage. A Raged Barbarian should be outputting the most sustained damage of anything in the game, except for a Frenzied one. Nobody complains about being a Barbarian and being the guy who gets really angry and hits stuff really hard, because it's fun and normal and exactly what you expect with a Barbarian going in. But when people play Fighters, they expect a more cerebral, technical experience. They don't want a guy who hits hard, they want a guy who's mastered fighting.

I think that's why there's still so much of a "martial problem". Sure, Casters get way too damn much attention, and they should learn to be happy with their 70+ pages of spells, and martial characters should get just as much love and care, but the reality is, most classes do have a niche:

Monks are Monks. Fight barehanded, become paragon of perfection, do cool martial arts. Go really fast. The "weird" martial character. Good class, in my opinion.
Rogues are Rogues. Be sneaky, stealthy, do tricky things. Be incredibly useful outside combat, very bursty and tricky inside combat. Great class, in my opinion.
Rangers are Rangers. Track enemies, learn everything about enemies, be great at outdoors stuff. Great archers, passable two-weaponers, they also can get companions and spells. Favoured enemy and terrain could be stronger and have more effects.
Paladins are Paladins. Be a very tanky bursty healy damage dealer. Stack auras, get spells, in general be a holy nightmare. An incredibly well-done class, in my opinion.

Druids have Wildshape and a lot of neat terrain-based things, along with their various spells. Very Druidic.
Warlocks are the "weird" spellcasters, with a bunch of neat abilities and patrons. Quite Warlockish.
Bards are the versatile spellcasters, being able to invest in skills, take other people's spells, and even enter combat passibly. They're unmistakably Bards.
Sorcerers are the bursty spellcasters. High damage, cool options with metamagic, relatively interesting paths to take. I don't like them that much, I feel like they got a bit muddled. Not much of a "Sorceror" vibe.
Clerics are the primary divine spellcasters, with incredible build versatility and all of what you'd expect of a Cleric. I honestly haven't looked at them that much.
Wizards are Wizards, with massive spell lists and insane amounts of versatility. Can do basically anything. Very Wizardly.

The Barbarian should be fine, but it's not, because the Fighter stole its niche. Now they can't do the most damage, because the Fighter's supposed to be the best in combat. So instead, we have a reasonably good class which would be better with a few tweaks, and a class whose niche was stolen from another class, and so doesn't feel like its own being. Give the Fighter the distinction of "best fighter" and the barbarian the distinction of "most sustained damage and tanking", because that's what they should be.

TL;DR : The gap needs to be lowered, and Martials clearly aren't loved as much as Casters with their spell list, but before any of that, the class designs need to be fixed - fix the Fighter and Barbarian, and it becomes a million times easier to see where the problems actually lie, because every other class is actually pretty well-designed.

[silveralen]

TL;DR : The gap needs to be lowered, and Martials clearly aren't loved as much as Casters with their spell list, but before any of that, the class designs need to be fixed - fix the Fighter and Barbarian, and it becomes a million times easier to see where the problems actually lie, because every other class is actually pretty well-designed.

You know... we already a lot of different "fighters" in the game. Maybe it would work better if the fighter was just divided up a little further.

3-3.5 sort of tried this. Fighter was just a building block for prestige classes, and later every martial concept under the sun started having a base class dedicated to it. It just seems fighter is a broad concept that made sense back before we had so many other fighting classes.

So.... We have a knight, woodsman, and angry guy. Conceptually we would need a nimble clever fighter (arguably this could even be a standard aspect of rogue) and a standard professional soldier/mercenary archetype. The former could have a focus on swashbuckling/duelist type fighting, the latter on team tactics and fighting as a group. Both could have archetypes that help them move around within it. You could also roll a variation on standard weapon master in there as well.

Just thoughts, unlikely to happen anytime soon, but hey who doesn't like tossing out wildly implausible ideas?

[Vogonjeltz]

There's nothing imagined about it. Casters have 70 pages of tactical options martial characters do NOT. That is undeniable fact. There are players that enjoy the tactical depth casting classes get to enjoy, and are saddened that there exists not even ONE martial class that enjoys a deep, involved combat system that doesn't use spells to achieve it. The best 5e gave us is a subclass that runs out of steam in less than 2 rounds.

For a large group of players who deeply love this game, and want to enjoy playing what otherwise is a robust and fun new edition, that a LOT of people are trying out right now, this lack is a serious and frustrating issue made more pronounced by the fact that it is following on the heels of 4e which did exactly what we're talking about extremely well. (Edit: apologies for the shaneful run on sentence)

We're frustrated and disappointed at a very real issue here.

That claim is hyperbolic. Not every caster has access to every spell within the entire 'spells' section, nor are all the spells they have access to combat related. Nor, of that small subset that any given caster has access to AND has a combat use, is every one of those something that can be considered a useful tactical option.

Although any given caster can have a variety of fun things to do, typically they are no more (or usually less) effective than an equal level martial combatant simply using the attack option.

Courtesy of the combat rules for making up your own action, there is a virtually unlimited number of tactical options available at any time to any class. Precisely because there is no limit but the users imagination, martials do not require (and should not seek) a discrete list of options in combat. The basics have been defined to get the ball rolling, but it is very incumbent on the players and the DM to use their imaginations to do anything.


You know... we already a lot of different "fighters" in the game. Maybe it would work better if the fighter was just divided up a little further.

3-3.5 sort of tried this. Fighter was just a building block for prestige classes, and later every martial concept under the sun started having a base class dedicated to it. It just seems fighter is a broad concept that made sense back before we had so many other fighting classes.

So.... We have a knight, woodsman, and angry guy. Conceptually we would need a nimble clever fighter (arguably this could even be a standard aspect of rogue) and a standard professional soldier/mercenary archetype. The former could have a focus on swashbuckling/duelist type fighting, the latter on team tactics and fighting as a group. Both could have archetypes that help them move around within it. You could also roll a variation on standard weapon master in there as well.

Just thoughts, unlikely to happen anytime soon, but hey who doesn't like tossing out wildly implausible ideas?

This would lead to the unecessary bloat issue. The Champion and the Battlemaster with a sailor/pirate or soldier background neatly encompass the swashbuckling duelist or the soldier/mercenary style of character. (Actually, the Valor Bard with Sailor/pirate background is probably almost as good at being the Swashbuckling type, so we've already got at least 3 reasonable options to play the exact same kind of character).

[darkdragoon]

Giving every class access to magic is a begrudging admission of the power of magic.

[Todasmile]

That claim is hyperbolic. Not every caster has access to every spell within the entire 'spells' section, nor are all the spells they have access to combat related. Nor, of that small subset that any given caster has access to AND has a combat use, is every one of those something that can be considered a useful tactical option.

Although any given caster can have a variety of fun things to do, typically they are no more (or usually less) effective than an equal level martial combatant simply using the attack option.

Courtesy of the combat rules for making up your own action, there is a virtually unlimited number of tactical options available at any time to any class. Precisely because there is no limit but the users imagination, martials do not require (and should not seek) a discrete list of options in combat. The basics have been defined to get the ball rolling, but it is very incumbent on the players and the DM to use their imaginations to do anything.

This would lead to the unecessary bloat issue. The Champion and the Battlemaster with a sailor/pirate or soldier background neatly encompass the swashbuckling duelist or the soldier/mercenary style of character. (Actually, the Valor Bard with Sailor/pirate background is probably almost as good at being the Swashbuckling type, so we've already got at least 3 reasonable options to play the exact same kind of character).

I disagree on the first part, because you're trying to justify something that cannot be justified. It doesn't matter how weak and useless spells in their entirety are, or that martials have the ability to do anything as long as the DM says it's okay. What matters is that casting classes got 70 pages more actualy, RAW attention than non-casting classes did, and that's horrible.

I agree that there shouldn't be a ton of different classes, though. You can add a few, obviously, in splatbooks or what-have-you, but the main issue is fixing the ones we do have. Remind them of their niches. The Barbarian should be doing and taking a ton of damage, but very little else. Maybe getting angry out of combat and ripping a door off of its hinges, but that's about as far as it goes. Then Totem adds some basic utility, and Berserker makes them insane damage dealers in a Frenzy.

Fighter should be more technical. Their "class feature" of getting more Extra Attacks needs to go away, because pure damage is the Barbarian's job. Fighter should be about fighting utility, dealing damage and controlling the battlefield, or using different fighting styles to their full effect instead of just 2H like the Barbarian. Fighters are skilled, not strong.