Martial/Caster Differences

[MeimuHakurei]

The Champion Fighter thread has sparked a discussion about the effectiveness of the class vs. a caster. While I think it's appropriate for the topic to touch upon this, I think the discussion at large should be kept into its own topic. For the sake of definition, I'll be defining Martial, Caster and Hybrid classes here:

Martial:
-Fighter
-Rogue
-Barbarian

Hybrid:
-Paladin
-Ranger
-Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
-Rogue (Arcane Trickster)
-Monk

Caster:
-Wizard
-Cleric
-Druid
-Bard
-Sorcerer
-Warlock

There's a lot of flawed arguments that have been made about martials and casters in 3.PF, so I'll put down a few as a reminder:

1. A martial class can roleplay, make use of skills or cleverly manipulate the environment, but this is not off-limits to a caster.
2. While Fighters and Wizards are often cited as examples, keep in mind that a boon/counter to one of those classes may not apply to the other Martial/Caster classes.
3. It being possible to make a scenario that challenges a spellcaster does not invalidate their position relative to martials.
4. If you insist on evaluating the party in its entirety, assume the caster's party is only other casters and the martial's party is only other martials.

EDIT: Monk is now fully a hybrid class.

[CantigThimble]

Counterargument to #1: Restrictions breed creativity. At least in my experience, my mindset while playing a caster or martial is quite different. While playing a caster I'm carrying around a set of keys and keeping an eye out for the locks they fit in. Every time a new challenge emerges I will go down my list of spells, my list of skills and my inventory looking for something that specifically applies, if I don't find anything then I start looking at other characters' options. While playing a martial, it's more like carrying around a hammer and seeing how much things resemble nails, and what can be bent into a nail. It is a very different experience to approach a problem starting with 'Athletics' and trying to figure out any and all possible ways a high bonus to athletics checks would allow to overcome the challenge ahead of you. It is surprising how many more uses you can find for an ability when it's all you have. Or ways to overcome a challenge that don't require the use of ANY abilities.

No, this is not an objective advantage that martials have over casters. It is entirely subjective. However, I think that supporting subjectively different ways of playing the game is more important than forcing some kind of a level playing field with regard to character options. If my players aren't satisfied with the number of options they have then I have them rebuild as casters, simple as that.

[Ignimortis]

The Champion Fighter thread has sparked a discussion about the effectiveness of the class vs. a caster. While I think it's appropriate for the topic to touch upon this, I think the discussion at large should be kept into its own topic.

As someone who let himself get carried away and sidetrack that thread, I'd say that my position is basically as follows.

I like martials. I usually play martials. I certainly don't think that casters are the one true way, and I don't begrudge people saying that simple martials are fun and enjoyable for them. However, my most enjoyable experience in 5e was always with casters, and the more casting you could do, the more fun the game was. That is not true for other systems. That's because 5e limits martials in the typical D&D way, which had never been fixed in core.

Martials play the game and usually get ways to play it a bit better - bigger numbers, better damage, maybe faster movement speeds. Casters break the core game and get ways to break it better. Casters can do anything the martials can, even if they do it worse, but martials can't do most things casters can.

Health? The caster uses summoned creatures as disposable meatbags. Or just heals themselves, which most of them can.
Damage? Might not be as good for single targets...oh wait, 2-level Warlock dip, now you've got 4d10+20 force damage at will if you want, and you still get level 9 spells. Even if you don't, cantrips are good enough to output 50-70% of the damage a martial gets.
Movement? You've got flight at 60 feet/turn at level 5, and it gets better (sorcerers just get a permanent fly speed at later levels, even). You've got teleports at level 3 with Misty Step, and it gets better, eventually you can hop thousands of miles.

And you can have it all on one character. No single martial ever gets access to as many tricks. In 5e, you don't get tricks equivalent to spells at all. Even low-level weak spells. A measly level 1 Jump improves a STR 10 wizard's jumping prowess more than having 20 STR and Athletics proficiency on a Fighter. Level 5 Fly? Forget about it, the best you get as a martial is Barbarian 14, which is basically "fly 40 feet then fall at the end of the round".

The best solution implemented so far in the history of D&D was the Tome of Battle and its' spiritual successor for Pathfinder, Path of War. Why? Because they give martials a limited repertoire of tricks comparable in power and utility to spells. A ToB/PoW character might not have as much versatility as full casters, but they can still break the core rules, because they can fly/teleport, actively and effectively negate attacks, and in general do things that allow you to circumvent significant obstacles. There are special senses (scent/blindsense), incorporeality, etc. if you want them on your punchy dude. Sure, you don't get the high-end stuff like summons and reality warping, but that's still a step in the right direction design-wise.

[Derpaligtr]

The Champion Fighter thread has sparked a discussion about the effectiveness of the class vs. a caster. While I think it's appropriate for the topic to touch upon this, I think the discussion at large should be kept into its own topic. For the sake of definition, I'll be defining Martial, Caster and Hybrid classes here:

Martial:
-Fighter
-Rogue
-Barbarian
-Monk

Hybrid:
-Paladin
-Ranger
-Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
-Rogue (Arcane Trickster)
-Monk (Four Elements)

Caster:
-Wizard
-Cleric
-Druid
-Bard
-Sorcerer
-Warlock

There's a lot of flawed arguments that have been made about martials and casters in 3.PF, so I'll put down a few as a reminder:

1. A martial class can roleplay, make use of skills or cleverly manipulate the environment, but this is not off-limits to a caster.
2. While Fighters and Wizards are often cited as examples, keep in mind that a boon/counter to one of those classes may not apply to the other Martial/Caster classes.
3. It being possible to make a scenario that challenges a spellcaster does not invalidate their position relative to martials.
4. If you insist on evaluating the party in its entirety, assume the caster's party is only other casters and the martial's party is only other martials.

I believe the Monk should be a hybrid class. They have features that work like magic, in some cases are magic, as part of their base class. Thus, they aren't as restricted as the martial base classes and it isn't fair to lump them in to that group.

[MeimuHakurei]

I believe the Monk should be a hybrid class. They have features that work like magic, in some cases are magic, as part of their base class. Thus, they aren't as restricted as the martial base classes and it isn't fair to lump them in to that group.

I wasn't sure how magical the monk really is since only 4 elements really goes into the pseudo-caster territory. Looking over it, I think you're right so I'll update the OP.

[JackPhoenix]

I wasn't sure how magical the monk really is since only 4 elements really goes into the pseudo-caster territory. Looking over it, I think you're right so I'll update the OP.

Look at Shadow monk again. And Sun Soul. And even the basic class: it may not be flinging spells around, but anything ki-related is magical.

[mgshamster]

Counterargument to #1: Restrictions breed creativity. At least in my experience, my mindset while playing a caster or martial is quite different. While playing a caster I'm carrying around a set of keys and keeping an eye out for the locks they fit in. Every time a new challenge emerges I will go down my list of spells, my list of skills and my inventory looking for something that specifically applies, if I don't find anything then I start looking at other characters' options. While playing a martial, it's more like carrying around a hammer and seeing how much things resemble nails, and what can be bent into a nail. It is a very different experience to approach a problem starting with 'Athletics' and trying to figure out any and all possible ways a high bonus to athletics checks would allow to overcome the challenge ahead of you. It is surprising how many more uses you can find for an ability when it's all you have. Or ways to overcome a challenge that don't require the use of ANY abilities.

No, this is not an objective advantage that martials have over casters. It is entirely subjective. However, I think that supporting subjectively different ways of playing the game is more important than forcing some kind of a level playing field with regard to character options. If my players aren't satisfied with the number of options they have then I have them rebuild as casters, simple as that.

I have found this to be true as well, and I've been making this same argument for years.

It's also not a subjective thing; it's part of psychology and education. What you're talking about is called lateral thinking, and the ability to do so is actually measurable. While it isn't subjective, it's also not concrete; it's fuzzy with lots of overlap that's compounded by education and where one applies their Intellect.

Most kids excel at lateral thinking, but many education systems around the world force us out of it and teach us to use specific tools for specific tasks, without branching out. Some people are capable of branching out a bit more - artists, research scientists, anyone who's forced to thinking outside the box on a regular basis. But for the most part, people don't think in terms of rearranging what's known to something completely new in order to solve a problem.

Here's an example, how many ways can you think of to use a paper clip? Most adults in the US can think of around ten or so. Particularly gifted adults can think of 20 or 30. Most children under the age of 8 can think of over a hundred.

This form of lateral thinking isn't regulated to just martial classes, but I do see it much more often in martial classes than I do caster classes. And it follows basic psychology - a restriction of choice forces you to use lateral thinking and to find more ways to use that paperclip. Some people will still refuse to think outside the Character Sheet and only use their character buttons to solve problems even with restricted choice - and these folks will generally just say, "I can't help" or "I don't know" when they encounter problems they doesn't fit thier limited toolset. It's these same folk who often argue that the champion is boring, because it doesn't come with a built-in tool set for problem solving.

On the other side, those who are experienced with lateral thinking may do so even with plenty of options. But in this case, only those who are regularly practiced with lateral thinking will do so on a regular basis.

I often find it's true that people who are capable of lateral thinking, but not regulaly practiced at it, will take offense to this entire idea. They don't like that they don't use lateral thinking, and will stgue vehemently that this idea isn't regulated to martials, and caster players can do it too.

While theoretically true, most of us are accustomed to using the right tool for the job. It's a type of mindset that is is extremely common in the US. These folk will usually default back to simply finding that tool for the job with their many class options. They'll find some button on the Character Sheet controller to solve the problem in the game. And why not? Thinking within the box is much easier, can lead to a satisfying conclusion, and provides its own rewards in terms of creative thinking. There's no reason to go beyond the buttons and engage in lateral thinking when applying our intellect to finding the right spell for the situation works equally as well. Most of the time, we treat it as a puzzle, trying to find the right piece that fits. Added on to this is the psychology of wanting to use the tools you have, so you feel satisfied in spending your resources. You don't want to feel like you didn't get your value's worth on your choice, so you want to use that special option you have chosen. This makes it even more likely you'll stick to your many options instead of finding extra creative ways to use them.

So while it's true that some people won't use lateral thinking with limited choices and some people won't use lateral thinking even with many choices, most often people with limited choices will engage in more lateral thinking than those with many choices. Since martial classes tend to have fewer tools than caster classes, this means that martial players are more likely to use lateral thinking than caster players. Both sets of players may use critical thinking, they'll just apply them in different ways - one finding new and creative uses for the tools on hand, and the other finding the right tool for the job.

Now, all this is compounded by the edition of D&D that you grew up with. Both 1e and 2e often forced players to use lateral thinking and to find creative ways to solve problems. Both 3.X and 4e encouraged people to find the right tool for the job and focus on using their character sheet buttons to engage in the game (often penalizing those who tried to find creative solutions, especially in PF).

For those who want to train on lateral thinking, forcing yourself to have limited options is a great way to train on it. It's possible to do it with many options, but it's an uphill battle as you're constantly having to fight the urge to just use the right tool, and it is compounded by being forced to use critical thinking outside the box and looking at situations and ideas from a different perspective in order to possibly find the chance that one of your limited tools will work in a new way. If you still do not want to step away from a caster, try choosing only Non-Combat spells.

[Derpaligtr]

Look at Shadow monk again. And Sun Soul. And even the basic class: it may not be flinging spells around, but anything ki-related is magical.

Yes and no.

If it produces a magical effect, then yes, if it doesn't then no... Jeremy Crawford is a weird dude when it comes to this and I would just stick with the fact that the PHB calls it magic when it is describing what Ki is.

I was thinking more so how the monk plays and works as a class. It's like if the battlemaster was a bit better at doing stuff other than hurting things.

[awa]

On one hand i can see how limited options can increase creativity but casters just have better options for being creative.
with a permissive dm i abused the heck out of minor illusion with my last two characters because it was just such a versatile ability (with a cooperative dm). The at will cantrips really increase a players choices for being creative.

[RSP]

Counterargument to #1: Restrictions breed creativity.

I disagree with this. Wizards certainly have more options for “cool tricks” but I don’t see how it impacts creativity either way. If said Wizard uses Detect Thoughts and initiated conversations to learn valuable information to the campaign, why is that less creative than the fighter kidnapping someone and interrogating them for the same info? Are you saying that using spells is less creative than not using spells? Spells, if anything, allow greater creativity as they allow more possibilities.

[Derpaligtr]

I disagree with this. Wizards certainly have more options for “cool tricks” but I don’t see how it impacts creativity either way. If said Wizard uses Detect Thoughts and initiated conversations to learn valuable information to the campaign, why is that less creative than the fighter kidnapping someone and interrogating them for the same info? Are you saying that using spells is less creative than not using spells? Spells, if anything, allow greater creativity as they allow more possibilities.

I think what people mean to say, is that restriction forces creativity.

But then again, that still is based around the player and not the class/character. usually a creative player will be creative, an uncreative player won't be.

I agree with you and have seen it for decades, just how creative casters can be.

If you have more options, you have more ways in which to be creative. A fighter will never be able to get creative by going using "water breathing" in order to sneak through the fully submerged water ways of a castle... Because they can never do that in the first place.

[CantigThimble]

Okay, what I said is being understood in a lot of different ways so I'm just going to make a short list of things I AM NOT SAYING:
-Someone who plays a martial is a more creative/better player than someone playing a caster.
-You can't be creative while playing a caster.
-If anyone uses magic to solve a problem then that's boring and they should do something more interesting.
-Martials are objectively better at problem solving than casters.
-Casters are not objectively better at problem solving than martials.

What I am talking about is the psychology of playing the game. The quote "Restrictions breed creativity" comes from Mark Rosewater, one of the lead creative directors for Magic the Gathering. He has a lot to say about game design (listen to his podcast sometime, it's great) and that is one of the cornerstones of his philosophy developed over many years of experience. He found that removing restrictions and granting more freedom did not correlate to better outcomes in the creative process. A level of restriction of options is, while perhaps not absolutely necessary, very helpful for producing creative outcomes because it helps to focus thinking significantly.

Things that were NOT said in the above paragraph:
-More restrictions always equals more creativity.
-No one can be creative unless they have restrictions.

Now, back to what I said originally. I never claimed that martials have any objective advantage over casters in their problem solving ability. I said that in my experience, the mindset of myself and some (but not all) others I have seen is significantly different when playing a martial character versus when playing a caster. While it is theoretically true that a caster who applies the same degree of creativity to every spell in his arsenal as a fighter applies to his smaller list of abilities would objectively be more capable of solving problems, that often is not what I see played out. Despite the fact that, in theory, martial characters should be leagues behind casters in problem solving capability I often observe martial characters contribute just as much or more than casters to solving party problems. (no, I'm not saying that I never see martial characters contribute less, I often do) I attribute that fact to the aforementioned difference in mindset, and furthermore believe that the fact that the classes play out significantly differently and favor different mindsets is a good thing for the game.

[Aimeryan]

These folk will usually default back to simply finding that tool for the job with their many class options. They'll find some button on the Character Sheet controller to solve the problem in the game. And why not? Thinking within the box is much easier, can lead to a satisfying conclusion, and provides its own rewards in terms of creative thinking. There's no reason to go beyond the buttons and engage in lateral thinking with applying our intellect to finding the right spell for the situation works equally as well. Most of the time, we treat it as a puzzle, trying to find the right piece that fits. Added on to this is the psychology of wanting to use the tools you have, so you feel satisfied in spending your resources. You don't want to feel like you didn't get your value's worth on your choice, so you want to use that special option you have chosen. This makes it even more likely you'll stick to your many options instead of finding extra creative ways to use them.

Enjoyed reading your post mgshmaster; I both agree and disagree with it. Allow me to explain.

Lets come up with some example:
Your fighter needs to get past some royal guards to see the king to warn him of grave danger. You try persuasion but charisma, being a mental stat, isn't a stat you could afford to put much into and you fail. You would love to try some spell but you don't have one because you are martial. Your party is currently elsewhere (otherwise a caster will just get past this obstacle before you even have a chance to apply your paperclip thinking).

You inform the DM that your fighter circles the keep looking for options. The DM says there are no weaknesses in the walls. You ask how high they are, the DM says far too high to jump over. Basically, any options you try get shot down (this includes options not listed here). Turns out you will just have to wait for your party to deal with this situation.

What happened there? Well, the DM wasn't ready for a paperclip solution, so he didn't provide any options for one. This is where the problem lies in lateral thinking and games where specific tools fit specific problems. It is the same problem many video games have; you can think of some way to use your paperclip, but the game/DM has not prepared for this and thus it doesn't work.

For a martial to apply lateral thinking with the limited tools he has the DM has to be receptive to them too. Which means a DM who can easily adapt on the fly - maybe because they have gone through all the scenarios before hand and written material for them, or because they are just talented at doing so, or some other means.

Most DMs I feel would rather just stick with the prescribed tools and rules - which means the casters have far more options available. It of course need not be this way.

[RSP]

Enjoyed reading your post mgshmaster; I both agree and disagree with it. Allow me to explain.

Lets come up with some example:
Your fighter needs to get past some royal guards to see the king to warn him of grave danger. You try persuasion but charisma, being a mental stat, isn't a stat you could afford to put much into and you fail. You would love to try some spell but you don't have one because you are martial. Your party is currently elsewhere (otherwise a caster will just get past this obstacle before you even have a chance to apply your paperclip thinking).

You inform the DM that your fighter circles the keep looking for options. The DM says there are no weaknesses in the walls. You ask how high they are, the DM says far too high to jump over. Basically, any options you try get shot down (this includes options not listed here). Turns out you will just have to wait for your party to deal with this situation.

What happened there? Well, the DM wasn't ready for a paperclip solution, so he didn't provide any options for one. This is where the problem lies in lateral thinking and games where specific tools fit specific problems. It is the same problem many video games have; you can think of some way to use your paperclip, but the game/DM has not prepared for this and thus it doesn't work.

For a martial to apply lateral thinking with the limited tools he has the DM has to be receptive to them too. Which means a DM who can easily adapt on the fly - maybe because they have gone through all the scenarios before hand and written material for them, or because they are just talented at doing so, or some other means.

Most DMs I feel would rather just stick with the prescribed tools and rules - which means the casters have far more options available. It of course need not be this way.

One comment on the situation: I’ve seen similar things in play, both as a third party player and as the DM and I don’t think this comes down to “an unreceptive DM.” The character is trying to break into a keep wherein lives a king. That shouldn’t be easy. It shouldn’t be “This Guy with zero charisma and no Persuasion proficiency talked past the guards.” It shouldn’t be “oh just climb the walls and you’re in.” Just because a Player wants to do something, it shouldn’t all the sudden force the DM to create a DC 10 check to do it.

Getting in to see the king should involve more creativity then “well, i talked to the guards and checked the walls...”

[MaxWilson]

Enjoyed reading your post mgshmaster; I both agree and disagree with it. Allow me to explain.

Lets come up with some example:
Your fighter needs to get past some royal guards to see the king to warn him of grave danger. You try persuasion but charisma, being a mental stat, isn't a stat you could afford to put much into and you fail. You would love to try some spell but you don't have one because you are martial. Your party is currently elsewhere (otherwise a caster will just get past this obstacle before you even have a chance to apply your paperclip thinking).

You inform the DM that your fighter circles the keep looking for options. The DM says there are no weaknesses in the walls. You ask how high they are, the DM says far too high to jump over. Basically, any options you try get shot down (this includes options not listed here). Turns out you will just have to wait for your party to deal with this situation.

What happened there? Well, the DM wasn't ready for a paperclip solution, so he didn't provide any options for one. This is where the problem lies in lateral thinking and games where specific tools fit specific problems. It is the same problem many video games have; you can think of some way to use your paperclip, but the game/DM has not prepared for this and thus it doesn't work.

Naw, it's not the DM's fault in this case. It's on the player to think some more.

Waiting for the party is a viable option, but if the party is never going to show up (maybe the fighter is the only one who hasn't been captured and beaten unconscious and taken to the castle dungeons) the fighter will have to come up with something. E.g. social engineering, waiting for a merchant train to show up and infiltrating it, taking a hostage (perhaps a noble who leaves the castle on a hunting trip), or sneaking in while it's dark.

Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible: Fallout) is in D&D terms basically just a Fighter who thinks quickly (high Int) and has access to a disguise kit. And yet Ethan's solutions are often more ingenious in his solutions than Harry Potter is, despite Harry having access to a cloak of invisibility and dozens of magical effects literally at his fingertips.

Anyway, "I circle the castle and wait" is an invitation for the DM to call for a short break while the player thinks things over.

[CantigThimble]

Another thing to consider is that DMs will often be pretty receptive to creative ideas being incorporated into their adventure. Asking "Do I see any other entrances?" Puts the onus on the DM to come up with the creative alternate solution for you. Instead saying "I bet servants come and go from somewhere, I'm going to look for a servant's entrace or see if deliveries are coming in somewhere." gives the DM a creative solution he can easily incorporate in.

[Derpaligtr]

Naw, it's not the DM's fault in this case. It's on the player to think some more.

Waiting for the party is a viable option, but if the party is never going to show up (maybe the fighter is the only one who hasn't been captured and beaten unconscious and taken to the castle dungeons) the fighter will have to come up with something. E.g. social engineering, waiting for a merchant train to show up and infiltrating it, taking a hostage (perhaps a noble who leaves the castle on a hunting trip), or sneaking in while it's dark.

Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible: Fallout) is in D&D terms basically just a Fighter who thinks quickly (high Int) and has access to a disguise kit. And yet Ethan's solutions are often more ingenious in his solutions than Harry Potter is, despite Harry having access to a cloak of invisibility and dozens of magical effects literally at his fingertips.

Anyway, "I circle the castle and wait" is an invitation for the DM to call for a short break while the player thinks things over.

First, the two characters have vastly different target audiences, what counts as entertainment for one's fans doesn't necessarily count as entertainment to the other's fans.

You can't equate D&D characters to characters in movies, shows, or even books fairly. The main characters in movies, shows, or books tend to be mary sues PLUS their actions are planned out by a whole group of people who know what will happen from point A to point B. D&D has people who improb their actions.

Completely disingenuous to try and compare the two.

[Aimeryan]

Naw, it's not the DM's fault in this case. It's on the player to think some more.

Waiting for the party is a viable option, but if the party is never going to show up (maybe the fighter is the only one who hasn't been captured and beaten unconscious and taken to the castle dungeons) the fighter will have to come up with something. E.g. social engineering, waiting for a merchant train to show up and infiltrating it, taking a hostage (perhaps a noble who leaves the castle on a hunting trip), or sneaking in while it's dark.

Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible: Fallout) is in D&D terms basically just a Fighter who thinks quickly (high Int) and has access to a disguise kit. And yet Ethan's solutions are often more ingenious in his solutions than Harry Potter is, despite Harry having access to a cloak of invisibility and dozens of magical effects literally at his fingertips.

Anyway, "I circle the castle and wait" is an invitation for the DM to call for a short break while the player thinks things over.

The example is just an example - quickly thought up, likely full of holes!

Anyhow, the bolded part is the solution, but also the problem - what if the session recently started? DMs I've played with prefer far more time to come up with new material than say 30 minutes. If they are not prepared for it its probably not happening (until they are).

My example here was meant to infer that the DM had a plotline in mind - the party would talk their way past the guards and see the king, probably under a lot suspicion but not hostility. The DM is likely to force going with what they had in mind when writing it, with flexibility allowed as long as it does not derail the plot (which in this case requires grabbing the party and proceeding together, with the non-martials providing the solution).

Not going through the official channels would force the DM into a whole new plot arc; if the fighter did get in some other way then he is no longer meant to be there. It can be done with a DM that is up to such tasks, but are most DMs that capable of rewriting plot arcs on the fly?

The other solution as I mentioned is to prepare for all such possibilities before hand - but that requires thorough analysis and multiplication of work effort (most DMs won't do this).

[MaxWilson]

First, the two characters have vastly different target audiences, what counts as entertainment for one's fans doesn't necessarily count as entertainment to the other's fans.

You can't equate D&D characters to characters in movies, shows, or even books fairly. The main characters in movies, shows, or books tend to be mary sues PLUS their actions are planned out by a whole group of people who know what will happen from point A to point B. D&D has people who improb their actions.

Completely disingenuous to try and compare the two.

Comparing movies is not the point. The Fighter has a ton of options, still, but it's not the DM's job to spoon-feed the player. I like CantigThimble's suggestion about prompting the DM for a servants' entrance, and it could work just fine, but there are tons of others too if you use your head. You could bribe a servant to pass a note to the queen informing her of a threat to her husband and asking for 1000 gp to give details (you may not want the money really but mentioning the money will get her attention more readily); you could commit a crime in hopes of getting to plead for leniency from the king (at which point you direct him to the letter you wrote and hid beforehand, explaining why you're committing the crime for his sake, in order to prove that this really was a deliberate plan on your part and not just a desperate story you made up to avoid execution).

Some of those plans might work better and/or be more entertaining than others, but the point is that it's not the DM's job to come up with those plans for you.

[MaxWilson]

The example is just an example - quickly thought up, likely full of holes!

Anyhow, the bolded part is the solution, but also the problem - what if the session recently started? DMs I've played with prefer far more time to come up with new material than say 30 minutes. If they are not prepared for it its probably not happening (until they are).

Not really a problem unless the rest of the party really is unconscious in a dungeon somewhere, which is unlikely to happen at the start of a session. Otherwise, the party is already split so you're in a simultaneous scene--you can always cut to the other half of the party. See http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/33791/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-pacing-part-5-advanced-techniques for details. Quoting:


Let’s start with simultaneous scenes: Half the party leaves to explore the abandoned water tower while the other half of the party goes to question Jim Baxter, the farmer with an inexplicable supply of Nazi gold.

On two entirely separate occasions I’ve had a group I’ve been GMing for spontaneously announce that they weren’t going to split up because they didn’t want to make things tough for me. In both cases, I rapidly dissuaded them from their “good intentions”: The truth is, I love it when the PCs split up.

While it does take a little extra juggling to handle multiple sets of continuity, that slight cost is more than worth the fact that a split party gives you so many more options for effective pacing: The trick is that you no longer have to wait for the end of a scene. Instead, you can cut back and forth between the simultaneous scenes.

Back to you now:


My example here was meant to infer that the DM had a plotline in mind - the party would talk their way past the guards and see the king, probably under a lot suspicion but not hostility. The DM is likely to force going with what they had in mind when writing it, with flexibility allowed as long as it does not derail the plot (which in this case requires grabbing the party and proceeding together, with the non-martials providing the solution).

Not going through the official channels would force the DM into a whole new plot arc; if the fighter did get in some other way then he is no longer meant to be there. It can be done with a DM that is up to such tasks, but are most DMs that capable of rewriting plot arcs on the fly?

The other solution as I mentioned is to prepare for all such possibilities before hand - but that requires thorough analysis and multiplication of work effort (most DMs won't do this).

DMs should prep situations, not plotlines. It's fine to prep three or four ways for PCs to tackle a given problem (sort of like the Rule of Three for writing mystery adventures), but once you've done that you sit back and watch what the PCs do with no expectation that they will actually solve it the way you intended for them to solve it, because often they don't.

When you say, "The DM is likely to force going with what they had in mind when writing it," I immediately think, "Why are you still playing with this DM?" We all have better things to do with our time than sit around and play through someone else's unwritten heroic fantasy plotline. Making choices and exploring the consequences is the essence of good TTRPG play.

[Derpaligtr]

Comparing movies is not the point. The Fighter has a ton of options, still, but it's not the DM's job to spoon-feed the player. I like CantigThimble's suggestion about prompting the DM for a servants' entrance, and it could work just fine, but there are tons of others too if you use your head. You could bribe a servant to pass a note to the queen informing her of a threat to her husband and asking for 1000 gp to give details (you may not want the money really but mentioning the money will get her attention more readily); you could commit a crime in hopes of getting to plead for leniency from the king (at which point you direct him to the letter you wrote and hid beforehand, explaining why you're committing the crime for his sake, in order to prove that this really was a deliberate plan on your part and not just a desperate story you made up to avoid execution).

Some of those plans might work better and/or be more entertaining than others, but the point is that it's not the DM's job to come up with those plans for you.

You're the one comparing movies and it's very disengenious because D&D is not a movie.

The reason why Ethan can make all those creative decisions is because a room full of people took months or years deciding what will be done in order to entertain the target audience. The people who made Harry Potter did the same thing with regards to their different target audience.

In D&D you don't have a room full of people taking months or years to plan out every single step while knowing what exactly will happen at the end. The people making movies know how it will end, they just have to decide the best way to get from point A to point B.

In D&D, players don't know how it will end. They are making things up as they go.

It's like you don't understand that Ethan isn't a real person making decisions in real time.

[Aimeryan]

When you say, "The DM is likely to force going with what they had in mind when writing it," I immediately think, "Why are you still playing with this DM?" We all have better things to do with our time than sit around and play through someone else's unwritten heroic fantasy plotline. Making choices and exploring the consequences is the essence of good TTRPG play.

If you have a DM capable of doing drastic plot changes on the fly then by all means - I for one would absolutely try anything and everything just to see what happened. As it is, I doubt most DMs can do that - I know every DM I've played with requires hours of alone time to hash out new plotlines, with only minor diversions (usually non-plotline related stuff like buying from a merchant, etc.) given welcome.

This is not to say the session is set - there maybe several plotlines in play and the order the players do them in is up to them. Furthermore, the DM may have some side-encounters ready to be switched in if needed. The fighter-king-keep situation might be resolved by sticking the fighter with such a side-encounter for that session, while the rest of the party progresses another plotline - the fighter-king-keep situation then being written for the next session. However, this would probably only be considered if it is not feasible to just grab the rest of the party (they aren't currently with the fighter, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't be very soon).

In a situation where only the martial is applicable, then I would presume the DM would find some way for them to use their paperclip to effect to resolve the situation. When casters are the alternative, however, most will just write with the presumption that one (or more) of their tools will be adequate. It is not a matter of whether the player(s) attempt lateral thinking or not as much as it is a matter of whether the DM expects and therefore has written for it.

[CantigThimble]

If you have a DM capable of doing drastic plot changes on the fly then by all means - I for one would absolutely try anything and everything just to see what happened. As it is, I doubt most DMs can do that - I know every DM I've played with requires hours of alone time to hash out new plotlines, with only minor diversions (usually non-plotline related stuff like buying from a merchant, etc.) given welcome.

Well, it's less that I have a plotline written out and then when the players do something else then I have to write a new one. It's more that I never have a written out plotline to begin with. I have a general idea of what the area is like, a few key personality traits for people that are likely to be involved and a vague timetable of what events are going to happen if PCs don't interfere with them. Everything else is made up on the fly.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the impression that playing this way means that whatever the players do will lead to a new fully-fleshed out story with level-appropriate encounters but if you have then that's not what we're saying. If the PCs do nothing to interfere with whatever plans my current villain has or whatever terrible events are about to unfold and just go do their own things instead then that just means they muddle through random things while the evil plans/events unfold and bring the plot to them full-force.

If they don't get in to warn the king about the assassination plot then that just means the plot goes through. If they sneak/break their way in instead of talking their way in then that means they'll need to make their case for the king to listen to them very quickly, or else make it from the inside of a prison cell.

From my experience, this is the normal way to DM. I'm not even really sure what your way would look like in practice.

[Exocist]

Well, it's less that I have a plotline written out and then when the players do something else then I have to write a new one. It's more that I never have a written out plotline to begin with. I have a general idea of what the area is like, a few key personality traits for people that are likely to be involved and a vague timetable of what events are going to happen if PCs don't interfere with them. Everything else is made up on the fly.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the impression that playing this way means that whatever the players do will lead to a new fully-fleshed out story with level-appropriate encounters but if you have then that's not what we're saying. If the PCs do nothing to interfere with whatever plans my current villain has or whatever terrible events are about to unfold and just go do their own things instead then that just means they muddle through random things while the evil plans/events unfold and bring the plot to them full-force.

If they don't get in to warn the king about the assassination plot then that just means the plot goes through. If they sneak/break their way in instead of talking their way in then that means they'll need to make their case for the king to listen to them very quickly, or else make it from the inside of a prison cell.

From my experience, this is the normal way to DM. I'm not even really sure what your way would look like in practice.

Having played with both I can honestly tell you.

I run an established setting (Dark Sun 2e), so I can just pull up the characters I want to use whenever the PCs decide to go places that I didn't think they'd go. I know what they'll generally act like, how they'll respond to certain things, etc. If the PCs decide to "derail" (questionable because there was never any tracks in the first place, just some train stations) the campaign, I can easily adapt to it. Case in point, the party consists of a Trader (Cha -6 to Cha -10 check on 18 CHA to convince people on implausible falsehoods), an Earth Cleric (nothing too bad so far, but higher level 2e spells are wacky) and a Psionicist (basically put all his devotions into Dimensional Door, which is the Portal Gun from Portal) so some very interesting things happen.

One of the players I play with runs his homebrew setting and he doesn't have certain things fully fleshed out yet. So it is difficult for him to say that we can do anything, because he doesn't like not having at least a general idea of what's happening in any given area and what major NPCs are there. The default answer to trying to go "off the rails" with anything that isn't explicitly spelt out (like a spell) is either "can't do that" or a check that is ludicrously hard to do. He's been better about it recently, giving the martial character terrain & hazards to work with both in and out of combat, but when the campaign first started, things were fairly rough for our martial friend.

[mgshamster]

Enjoyed reading your post mgshmaster; I both agree and disagree with it. Allow me to explain.

Thank you!

I enjoyed your counter thoughts. You make a good point that lateral thinking can be blocked by a system which disallows for it. Most commonly, a non-human system is the one which blocks creative and lateral thinking, but it is certainly possible for a human system to block it as well.

As a real life example, I once played with a DM who would "refuse to math." They used "math" as a verb to counter any argument that a player had which used math to prove their point. If you tried using math, then whatever it was that you were trying to do would fail by default.

And this is even more common is editions which encourage following the rules over using creative thinking, to the point where it's simply easier to use our brains to find the best build or use the best rules, rather than trying to fight the system with lateral thinking. 3.X did this extensively, often penalizing characters for trying something not specifically listed on their sheet.

And beyond the game, we're all certainly familiar with the concept of bureaucratic red tape that blocks "common sense" in favor of the system.

So I do agree with your points, but I would use it as a caveat rather than a counter. :)

[MeimuHakurei]

A lot of discussion here seems to argue whether or not a situation is the fault of the game's structure for a Fighter/Martial not having the right tools at hand or if it's the DM not being permissive enough. I propose a "same game test" situation to see how well certain classes hold up in various situations. Since 5e doesn't apply a CR to anything but monsters, I'll borrow from the Tiers of Play definitions and other editions to pick out ten scenarios that a Level 10 party should be able to deal with.

Your party escorts a caravan through a desert trail. There, the caravan gets halted by traps buried under the sand and a Young Blue Dragon comes out, eager to raid it for its hoard.

The party is on the road to the next town by the mountainside, which is still three miles away. Suddenly, one of them hears an explosive burst - the mountain is a volcano! And the eruption is threatening that town's very existence!

Inside a missing wizard's mansion, the party is searching for clues about his whereabouts. Problem is, the mansion is protected by a fairly large amount of mimics disguised as various objects.

A vital trade route between two villages leads through a narrow mountain passage. It is blockaded by a highly territorial stone giant and his hobgoblin troops.

Within a large town's embassy, one of the diplomats is secretly a doppelganger. This doppelganger tries to upset negotiations with the king such that the two nations will go to war.

While marching through a swamp, the party is assaulted by a horde of stirges.

The party nears a large city controlled by an evil king. They need to contact an underground resistance to be able to overthrow the regime, but its leader has a hard time trusting the party.

A princess needs to be escorted across the sea to meet at a royal wedding in an island kingdom. On the way, the ship's under attack by an Aboleth.

The party needs to get rid of a wraith disturbing a village's cemetery. It already has numerous specters under its control.

While fighting a demon cult, the party gets attacked by several acolytes and their summoned creature - a Vrock.

[MaxWilson]

You're the one comparing movies and it's very disengenious because D&D is not a movie.

"Disingenuous", adjective. "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

I don't know what you thought it meant, but this is what it actually means.


In D&D you don't have a room full of people taking months or years to plan out every single step while knowing what exactly will happen at the end. The people making movies know how it will end, they just have to decide the best way to get from point A to point B.

If it would take you months or years to plan how to get into the castle and give a message to the king, honestly I pity you.

In a movie, the writers plan things out exhaustively because they need to make it dramatic, exciting, and fun to watch, but in D&D that doesn't matter--you just need something that might work, and then uncertainty and the risk of failure provides its own drama. D&D, unlike movies, doesn't have to please spectators.


Well, it's less that I have a plotline written out and then when the players do something else then I have to write a new one. It's more that I never have a written out plotline to begin with. I have a general idea of what the area is like, a few key personality traits for people that are likely to be involved and a vague timetable of what events are going to happen if PCs don't interfere with them. Everything else is made up on the fly.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the impression that playing this way means that whatever the players do will lead to a new fully-fleshed out story with level-appropriate encounters but if you have then that's not what we're saying. If the PCs do nothing to interfere with whatever plans my current villain has or whatever terrible events are about to unfold and just go do their own things instead then that just means they muddle through random things while the evil plans/events unfold and bring the plot to them full-force.

If they don't get in to warn the king about the assassination plot then that just means the plot goes through. If they sneak/break their way in instead of talking their way in then that means they'll need to make their case for the king to listen to them very quickly, or else make it from the inside of a prison cell.

+1 to all this. Prep situations, not plotlines.

[mgshamster]

I'm not sure how many of these will serve to be good examples in 5e, but all of them provide interesting challenges.

If the question is to analyze how classes provide options to use and buttons to press to solve problems, then I think we can clearly states that the caster classes all win, hands down. Caster classes most certainly provide more buttons to press.

But if we want to look at 5e as a system, I think we should look at the character as a whole, since 5e balances many classes by adding in features beyond the class and having many options imbedded in to the system itself.

When doing such an analysis, I feel it is important to remember that 5e tried to balance itself around three pillars: Combat, Social, and Exploration.



Your party escorts a caravan through a desert trail. There, the caravan gets halted by traps buried under the sand and a Young Blue Dragon comes out, eager to raid it for its hoard.

Rogues and Rangers may have been able to spot the traps beforehand, as scouts for the caravan. But let's assume everyone was taken by surprise here.

The crux of the problem is a tough flying enemy. Martials should have no issue with ranged weapons, and even those that don't may be able to grab ahold of the dragon and climb on, attacking it while it's in the air. Certainly appropriate for a level 10 group.

Casters would likely buff allies or simply hit it with various spells, but for the most part, this is a combat challenge. One thing martials don't lack in is combat.



The party is on the road to the next town by the mountainside, which is still three miles away. Suddenly, one of them hears an explosive burst - the mountain is a volcano! And the eruption is threatening that town's very existence!


This entirely depends on the type of volcanic eruption. Are we talking Pompeii (79), St Helens (1980), or Kilauea 2018?

For the first, there's nothing to be done. All are dead. Even casters can't do anything. For the last, simply walk to town and escort everyone out.

The real challenge here would be an eruption similar to Mt. St. Helens. Big enough to kill, small enough to handle. Your best bet is still to get in as quickly as possible and get people out.

For a level 10 caster, there aren't many options. Best hope you have some spells prepared.

Teleportation Circle won't get the whole town out; it only lasts for one round. Most of the House spells either don't keep things out or don't last long enough. Leomund’s Tiny Hut will keep 10 people safe for the entire duration. Perhaps summoning an elemental to help out. Protection from Energy might help some of the people. And look, here I am trying to find spells which work to solve the problem in a simple solution, like trying to find the right button on a video game controller to press and bypass the challenge, instead of trying to find creative ways to use those spells in a Lateral Thinking manner, like I discussed above. Just goes to show that even I am not immune to the pull of just pressing the buttons or using my brain to find the right spell when given the many options of the caster.



Inside a missing wizard's mansion, the party is searching for clues about his whereabouts. Problem is, the mansion is protected by a fairly large amount of mimics disguised as various objects.


The key here is to identify the mimics early or get them to not attack you. Detection spells may work, but then a ranger may be able to figure it out. The awareness feat would be of great help.

For the most part, I feel like this would be a trial and error system, and you'd learn clues and develop techniques early on. Or perhaps you'd find a way to mask your scent or make it smell more like the wizard you're trying to help. It's not a part of the monster description, but as a DM I'd award creative thinking like that.

As mimics are expert grapplers, I feel casters might actually be at a great disadvantage here.



A vital trade route between two villages leads through a narrow mountain passage. It is blockaded by a highly territorial stone giant and his hobgoblin troops.


This seems like a combat approach almost immediately, but it could also be a social challenge. Parley with the giant and his army, perhaps even work in a contract of protection for pay.



Within a large town's embassy, one of the diplomats is secretly a doppelganger. This doppelganger tries to upset negotiations with the king such that the two nations will go to war.


This just screams social and investigation challenges. I love those! While there are certainly spells which could help, my favorite doppelganger stories all involved quick thinking and observation on the part of the characters, rather than the use of magic to solve their doppelganger problems.



While marching through a swamp, the party is assaulted by a horde of stirges.

A simple combat encounter.



The party nears a large city controlled by an evil king. They need to contact an underground resistance to be able to overthrow the regime, but its leader has a hard time trusting the party.

I think this is less of a challenge and more of a story or adventure hook. Partly a social encounter, but the party must do something to prove their worthiness to the resistance. Or go their own way and continue without them. Or perhaps struggle against them even as the two groups aim for the same goals.

This doesn't seem like something magic should be required to solve.



A princess needs to be escorted across the sea to meet at a royal wedding in an island kingdom. On the way, the ship's under attack by an Aboleth.

Now here's a true challenge. Magic is almost certain required if you want to face the enemy in the waters. Unless the GM puts in an underground area for the PCs, it'll be challenging. Perhaps the challenge is less about defeating the aboleth, and more about the PCs trying to keep the important folks alive and out of its reach, having to decide which NPCs are taken as slaves. Or perhaps they all are taken as slaves and they have to fight their way out of its chambers, all under the disease forcing them to only breathe water.

The PCs may even come up with something clever.

Magic here seems more like it's an important buff for the martial classes than anything else.



The party needs to get rid of a wraith disturbing a village's cemetery. It already has numerous specters under its control.

Combat challenge. Magic isn't even required here.



While fighting a demon cult, the party gets attacked by several acolytes and their summoned creature - a Vrock.

Another combat challenge. No magic required.

Some of the answers will be different depending on the edition. How would you solve Challenge 10 in 2e, where demons and devil's are completely immune to non-magical weapons? Makes thinking outside the box a much more prominent part of the game. The same challenge in Pathfinder might have the Wizard or Alchemist completely subsuming the role of the fighter with extra magic to boot.

Again, if we're just looking at the class options, then yes, casters do have more buttons.

But 5e isn't balanced around the class, it's balanced around the Character. Sure, there are some issues - 7+ level spells can greatly swing things, as well as Simulacrum cheese or having an army of undead at your disposal. But for the most part, and through most of the game, it works out fairly well. Well enough that caster/martial disparity requires high level play to notice.

Edit: I'm not sure how well these particular challenges serve to highlight the difference between martials and casters. But one thing to consider is this: I recently ran a couple of solo games with various level 20 characters, and the champion player got the furthest in the Level 18 module (designed for four Level 18 PCs) before dying.

[Derpaligtr]

"Disingenuous", adjective. "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

I don't know what you thought it meant, but this is what it actually means.



If it would take you months or years to plan how to get into the castle and give a message to the king, honestly I pity you.

In a movie, the writers plan things out exhaustively because they need to make it dramatic, exciting, and fun to watch, but in D&D that doesn't matter--you just need something that might work, and then uncertainty and the risk of failure provides its own drama. D&D, unlike movies, doesn't have to please spectators.



+1 to all this. Prep situations, not plotlines.

Pity me? You still don't understand that what you're saying is utter nonsense. I never said it would take me... You're just being obtuse for the sake of it, ain't you?

The proper comparison would be saying that the people making the movies are like the DM. They know what will happen, how the enemies will respond, what they need to do in order to make everything work juuuust right.

Comparing a character controlled by a player who doesn't have the knowledge behind the scenes to a character controlled by people who know everything behind the scenes... There is no comparison.

[RSP]

...This entirely depends on the type of volcanic eruption. Are we talking Pompeii (79), St Helens (1980), or Kilauea 2018?

For the first, there's nothing to be done. All are dead. Even casters can't do anything. For the last, simply walk to town and escort everyone out.

The real challenge here would be an eruption similar to Mt. St. Helens. Big enough to kill, small enough to handle. Your best bet is still to get in as quickly as possible and get people out.

For a level 10 caster, there aren't many options. Best hope you have some spells prepared.

Teleportation Circle won't get the whole town out; it only lasts for one round. Most of the House spells either don't keep things out or don't last long enough. Leomund’s Tiny Hut will keep 10 people safe for the entire duration. Perhaps summoning an elemental to help out. Protection from Energy might help some of the people. And look, here I am trying to find spells which work to solve the problem in a simple solution, like trying to find the right button on a video game controller to press and bypass the challenge, instead of trying to find creative ways to use those spells in a Lateral Thinking manner, like I discussed above. Just goes to show that even I am not immune to the pull of just pressing the buttons or using my brain to find the right spell when given the many options of the caster...


For whatever reason, using Mold Earth to redirect the lava flow jumped out at me while reading this. I think the button-pushing confession is fine in this situation; other than warning the villagers and/or physically assisting an evacuation, there’s not much for non-magic to do, so going through magic options seems appropriate.

[mgshamster]

For whatever reason, using Mold Earth to redirect the lava flow jumped out at me while reading this.

Mold Earth! Why didn't I think of that?! I have a wizard who uses that cantrip almost exclusively.


I think the button-pushing confession is fine in this situation; other than warning the villagers and/or physically assisting an evacuation, there’s not much for non-magic to do, so going through magic options seems appropriate.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with button pressing. There's a certain amount of intellect required in finding the right tool for the job, especially on the spot. And a clever combination of tools for problem solving works wonders.

There's also the idea of charming that one villager who insists his house won't but down or teleporting the family with the disabled children or even sending some key individuals with a teleportation circle to a locale that can render further assistance.

But then, one not need be a wizard to figure this stuff out. It's equally as satisfying to be a leader, directing your group wizard to cast these spells in the proper situation. And here again, you can have a non-caster creating the options. Much like a police officer isn't the one who analyzes the scientific evidence, but may by the one who,after the results are given to him, puts all the pieces together to catch the serial killer.

And this here is something a lot of people miss out on in a group scenario; you don't have to be the one to physically do something to contribute to group success. Those with military experience will intrinsically understand.

[RSP]

And this here is something a lot of people miss out on in a group scenario; you don't have to be the one to physically do something to contribute to group success. Those with military experience will intrinsically understand.

Well this just goes back to creative people will be creative, regardless of class, but casters will have more options. A fighter can suggest creative uses of a Wizards spells and a Wizard can neglect having a lot of options to Firebolt all day.

[Waazraath]

That there are still threads like this surprises me, so deep in 5e. It feels so 3.x, ten years ago, whatever. The martial / caster disparity was true back then, even though often greatly exaggerated on optimization boards. It isn't anymore. 5e did an exeptional good job by keeping the feel of older editions, where 'magic' was an entire subset of abilities next to the usual abilities, without it being overpowering. Mostly by:
- the concentration mechanic: only 1 spell at the same time
- the concentration mechanic (2): sometimes having severe penalties for breaking a a spell (like haste, or any fly spell), and in any case losing the spell when failing a save
- balancing spell damage quite well with weapon damage
- tuning down some out of control spells, while keeping the idea of what they were doing the same (like 3e's alter self/polymorph line, or the teleportation spells).

At the same time, with spellcasting being made relatively weaker, martials got loads of great stuff. One of the (many) things in which casters were praised for in 3.x was the breaking of the action economy: Time Stop, Celerity, a dozen psionic (over)Powers... in 5e, it's the Fighter (!) that gets multiple extra 'full round actions' (or in 5e: actions) starting from level 2(!). And the Rogue / thief gets an extra turn as well, at lvl 17. The fighter further can heal himself. The Rogue gets blindsight. Both get fancy abilities from their subclasses. The Barbarian can be mutant straight from X-men, being able to fly in short bursts, see a mile far, and have strength and constitution above the humanly possible. Not to mention all the tools that the hybrids like monks, pally's and rangers got. Martials have lots of fun options, often ones that other classes, including casters, haven't (or at least need to spend lots of rescources for).


From the OP:



There's a lot of flawed arguments that have been made about martials and casters in 3.PF, so I'll put down a few as a reminder:

1. A martial class can roleplay, make use of skills or cleverly manipulate the environment, but this is not off-limits to a caster.
2. While Fighters and Wizards are often cited as examples, keep in mind that a boon/counter to one of those classes may not apply to the other Martial/Caster classes.
3. It being possible to make a scenario that challenges a spellcaster does not invalidate their position relative to martials.
4. If you insist on evaluating the party in its entirety, assume the caster's party is only other casters and the martial's party is only other martials.

EDIT: Monk is now fully a hybrid class.

Are these the refutes of the flawed arguments?

As for 1, true of course. But martials can be be frontline characters, and many casters can't. They lack both the damage potential, and the defenses (HP, AC, relevant class abilities). Yes, they can do other useful stuff in combat. And often have more utility (though that's the question when compared with a class like a Rogue - yes, the Sorcerer can use skills as well, but the Rogue will get much better results). As for 3, of course not, but there are plenty of scenario's in which a martial does better than a caster. And plenty where a caster will do better than a martial. And plenty where a hybrid will do better than both. So what's the point of a claim like this? As for 4: there have been legion threads about parties consisting of 4 characters with the same class. All of them concluded that in 5e all of them are viable. A party of Barbarians will be seriously challanged in social encounters. A party of Wizards will have a high risk of being wiped out at the lowest levels. Etc. This is obvious, why would this be an argument in favor of (or against) casters or martials in general?




Martials play the game and usually get ways to play it a bit better - bigger numbers, better damage, maybe faster movement speeds. Casters break the core game and get ways to break it better. Casters can do anything the martials can, even if they do it worse, but martials can't do most things casters can.

No, just... no. This looks like something copied from a 3.x forum. They can get to break the action economy, get to fly, get fancy control effects, get to buff alies, get to debuff enemies, get to detect invisible creatures, get to give their allies temporary hitpoints. Casters can't 'do anything martials can'. They can't get to the frontline and melee it out - at least, most casters won't, and those that can will invest significant rescources to do so. They can't do a lot of things that I mention here; a few casters might be able to break the action economy (sorcerer, mainly), nor will any martial be able to do so. But every class can get a number of interesting and unique abilities.

And seriously.... barring some Simulacrum nonsense that nobody allows: no caster 'breaks the core game' in 5e.



Health? The caster uses summoned creatures as disposable meatbags. Or just heals themselves, which most of them can.
Damage? Might not be as good for single targets...oh wait, 2-level Warlock dip, now you've got 4d10+20 force damage at will if you want, and you still get level 9 spells. Even if you don't, cantrips are good enough to output 50-70% of the damage a martial gets.
Movement? You've got flight at 60 feet/turn at level 5, and it gets better (sorcerers just get a permanent fly speed at later levels, even). You've got teleports at level 3 with Misty Step, and it gets better, eventually you can hop thousands of miles.

And you can have it all on one character.


In 3.x, when the power of casters was also overstated at forums like thise, there was Schrodingers wizard; having 3 or 4 mutually exclusive class features, and 30 levels of prestige classes over the course of 20 levels. I think he has returend. Let's seriously look at this claim, ok?
- can use summon spells, or healing
- dipping 2 levels of warlock for Eldritch blast + evocation, AND having maximum charisma
- fly at 5th level
- teleport and misty step (at 3)

How would this character look like? It has to be either Wizard or Sorcerer, other classes lack these spells at the mentioned levels (without entry levels mentioned, Lore Bard would be an option). Since it needs to multiclass Warlock 2, it should be the Sorcerer - having a wizard take 20 cha would be gimping it too much. The sorcerer hardly has summon spells though - only animate objects, if you want to count that one. And can't heal. So it requirers a specific sub class: the Divine Soul - it can heal, and gets a conjure spell from the Cleric list (conjure celestial).

To fullfill requirements above, the build needs to take 5 levels of sorcerer to begin with - else you'll never get misty step at 3 and fly at 5. To actually benefit from the warlock dip, I presume it is taken directly after that (most campaigns don't go to the highest levels, and of course we want to benefit from this great single target damage. It comes online at 7, in this case. But of course, it doesn't do 4d10+20, it'll do 2d10+8, max, if the level 4 ASI has increased Cha. Not that the next increase in cha is delayed two levels, due to multiclassing. And that at level 7 any modestly optimized fighter or barbarian will do a helluvalot more damage than 2d10+8.

If anybody sees any other build options based on the criteria above, let me know. But so far, I get to one (1) build that can. And it won't compare to martials in single target damage. It won't compare to other casters in many other areas, cause you're laggin behind in highest spell known.

This isn't the 3.5 uber powerful wizard, that was flying invisible above the battlefield, being a better fighter than the fighter, summoning creatures to do awesom damage and manipulating the action economy and the battlefield, not caring to do direct damage (but if he did, he could outdamage the damage dealers). This is a rather average caster, that does ok single target damage (but less than many others), that can choose to be either invisible, or flying, or having a summoned creature around.

It's not that impressive, really. And definitely not an example of an average caster in 5e.



No single martial ever gets access to as many tricks. In 5e, you don't get tricks equivalent to spells at all. Even low-level weak spells. A measly level 1 Jump improves a STR 10 wizard's jumping prowess more than having 20 STR and Athletics proficiency on a Fighter. Level 5 Fly? Forget about it, the best you get as a martial is Barbarian 14, which is basically "fly 40 feet then fall at the end of the round".

The first sentence is correct: casters learn more tricks, cause they learn a lot of spells. But what they can do with them, in a real game, is much less than you pretend. A fly is a significant investment of rescources (and dangerous unless Feather Fall is known as well). And many of those tricks, due to concentration, can't be combined for really powerful effects. Worse: spells can simply drop due to concentration. That amazing "meatshield" that was summoned can be gone with 1 arrow and an unlucky save. That raging barbarian: won't.



The best solution implemented so far in the history of D&D was the Tome of Battle and its' spiritual successor for Pathfinder, Path of War. Why? Because they give martials a limited repertoire of tricks comparable in power and utility to spells. A ToB/PoW character might not have as much versatility as full casters, but they can still break the core rules, because they can fly/teleport, actively and effectively negate attacks, and in general do things that allow you to circumvent significant obstacles. There are special senses (scent/blindsense), incorporeality, etc. if you want them on your punchy dude. Sure, you don't get the high-end stuff like summons and reality warping, but that's still a step in the right direction design-wise.

Best? It was a great fun book, played many martial adepts, made even more builds with them. But it was a nuclear option, a sort of final acknowledgement that 3.x was coming apart from power creep. "Don't play our core fighter, paladin, monk, have this new warblade, crusader or swordsage instead". Yes, nice classes, but it was admitting defeat by the designers. And it wasn't neccesary either, as far as I'm concerned: if the most overpowered spells were reigned in / errata'd, and a few new feat lines developed for the underpowered classes, they could have fixed a large part of the mess that was 3.x. They already did a great job with feats like Craven and Staggering Strike (for Rogue) or the Devotion feats (for paladin), to name a few.


"casters can do everything martials can do" is a fable 5e. Nothing more. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a return of the Crusader, Monk and Warblade, 5e hellasure doesn't need a system like that.

[Ignimortis]

That there are still threads like this surprises me, so deep in 5e. It feels so 3.x, ten years ago, whatever. The martial / caster disparity was true back then, even though often greatly exaggerated on optimization boards. It isn't anymore. 5e did an exeptional good job by keeping the feel of older editions, where 'magic' was an entire subset of abilities next to the usual abilities, without it being overpowering. Mostly by:
- the concentration mechanic: only 1 spell at the same time
- the concentration mechanic (2): sometimes having severe penalties for breaking a a spell (like haste, or any fly spell), and in any case losing the spell when failing a save
- balancing spell damage quite well with weapon damage
- tuning down some out of control spells, while keeping the idea of what they were doing the same (like 3e's alter self/polymorph line, or the teleportation spells).


It's still there. It's less in combat (it's still there, because spells are still concrete buttons with concrete effects and damage is something anyone can do), but the same outside of combat. Martials still don't get to do anything that isn't dependent on core game rules like skills and ability checks that every class can do. The only exception is Monk, who is a quasi-caster with Ki. Barbarians get Speak with Animals as one of their options, which is nice but incredibly niche. Fighters don't get anything new.



At the same time, with spellcasting being made relatively weaker, martials got loads of great stuff. One of the (many) things in which casters were praised for in 3.x was the breaking of the action economy: Time Stop, Celerity, a dozen psionic (over)Powers... in 5e, it's the Fighter (!) that gets multiple extra 'full round actions' (or in 5e: actions) starting from level 2(!). And the Rogue / thief gets an extra turn as well, at lvl 17. The fighter further can heal himself. The Rogue gets blindsight. Both get fancy abilities from their subclasses. The Barbarian can be mutant straight from X-men, being able to fly in short bursts, see a mile far, and have strength and constitution above the humanly possible. Not to mention all the tools that the hybrids like monks, pally's and rangers got. Martials have lots of fun options, often ones that other classes, including casters, haven't (or at least need to spend lots of resources for).


Action Surge is 1/short rest and it gives another action. That's nice, but Fighters only ever get to have 2 of them at best. Healing for 1d10+Fighter level, again 1/short rest, which basically means "ok, I didn't get hit last time I got hit" at best. Rogue does get an actual extra round's worth of actions, that's nice. Wizards can now turn into an Adult Red Dragon. Forever, if they wish so. And keep their spellcasting, because dragons are capable of spellcasting. Barbarians can fly...more like jump good, because that's not flight if it's at best 80 feet long and then it ends arbitrarily. Become stronger than humanly possible, yes...except still worse than the aforementioned Red Dragon Wizard.

The worst part about Action Surge and Thief Rogue's extra turn isn't that they're limited or anything. The worst part about those is that you don't get to do much with those actions other than "oh hey, I get to attack more". Sure, you can sometimes use that action for something else, but that's the situation being convenient, not your class having something else to do but say "oh, I attack some more". I've seen Action Surge used maybe a hundred times, and less than five of those were to do something else besides Dash or Attack. Unless there are non-combat objectives in an encounter which need an extra action to resolve, and that resolution would help more than killing the enemy, it's just some more DPR.



No, just... no. This looks like something copied from a 3.x forum. They can get to break the action economy, get to fly, get fancy control effects, get to buff alies, get to debuff enemies, get to detect invisible creatures, get to give their allies temporary hitpoints. Casters can't 'do anything martials can'. They can't get to the frontline and melee it out - at least, most casters won't, and those that can will invest significant rescources to do so. They can't do a lot of things that I mention here; a few casters might be able to break the action economy (sorcerer, mainly), nor will any martial be able to do so. But every class can get a number of interesting and unique abilities.

And seriously.... barring some Simulacrum nonsense that nobody allows: no caster 'breaks the core game' in 5e.


All of this is something casters can do. When I say "break the core game" I don't mean "win the game because you're so powerful and well-prepared". I mean that as "you can ignore something that others take as something they'll be dealing with normally". The moment the party gets their hands on Teleport, the whole dynamic changes. A kingdom in peril three thousand miles away? For martials, that a few months of trekking and horseriding. For casters? That's a few finger snaps. Yes, Teleport is a bit more inconvenient than it used to be, but the actual power is still there, it just requires some more preparation (Scrying is good, that's 10 minutes). A poisonous fog prevents passage? Better find the source and plug it or something, unless you've got a caster who has Gust of Wind/Warding Wind/whatever.

Most non-combat problems have instant solutions in form of spells. 5e just nerfed some of those and broke the others (Charm Person is now about 80% less useful than before). The actual mindset is still there — martials take things as they're dealt and try to work around them, casters ignore the problem if they have the right tool.



In 3.x, when the power of casters was also overstated at forums like thise, there was Schrodingers wizard; having 3 or 4 mutually exclusive class features, and 30 levels of prestige classes over the course of 20 levels. I think he has returend. Let's seriously look at this claim, ok?
- can use summon spells, or healing
- dipping 2 levels of warlock for Eldritch blast + evocation, AND having maximum charisma
- fly at 5th level
- teleport and misty step (at 3)

How would this character look like? It has to be either Wizard or Sorcerer, other classes lack these spells at the mentioned levels (without entry levels mentioned, Lore Bard would be an option). Since it needs to multiclass Warlock 2, it should be the Sorcerer - having a wizard take 20 cha would be gimping it too much. The sorcerer hardly has summon spells though - only animate objects, if you want to count that one. And can't heal. So it requirers a specific sub class: the Divine Soul - it can heal, and gets a conjure spell from the Cleric list (conjure celestial).

To fullfill requirements above, the build needs to take 5 levels of sorcerer to begin with - else you'll never get misty step at 3 and fly at 5. To actually benefit from the warlock dip, I presume it is taken directly after that (most campaigns don't go to the highest levels, and of course we want to benefit from this great single target damage. It comes online at 7, in this case. But of course, it doesn't do 4d10+20, it'll do 2d10+8, max, if the level 4 ASI has increased Cha. Not that the next increase in cha is delayed two levels, due to multiclassing. And that at level 7 any modestly optimized fighter or barbarian will do a helluvalot more damage than 2d10+8.

If anybody sees any other build options based on the criteria above, let me know. But so far, I get to one (1) build that can. And it won't compare to martials in single target damage. It won't compare to other casters in many other areas, cause you're laggin behind in highest spell known.


You can ignore the Warlock dip, honestly. So your sustained damage isn't 4d10+20 force, it's 4d10 fire or 4d10+5 fire. Except by the point you're getting there, you can quite safely blow your 2nd and 3rd spells to get 8d8 damage spread around, or 8d6 damage in an area, or something. And your big guns do 10d6+40, or 30d8, or 40d6x4 if you go nuclear. Sure, you can't do that all day, and the DMG adventuring day is specifically designed to not let you shine every combat. But that doesn't mean casters can't deal damage. They can deal enough damage to contribute in combat. They can deal enough damage that 4 casters can clear out the usual encounters pretty well after they hit level 5.

What optimized Fighter or Barbarian? Unless you take GWM, you're doing about 4d6+12 damage per round at best, if you hit both of your attacks, have 20 strength already and a magic weapon. If you take GWM, you have to deal with either hit penalties or advantage to hit you. It's good for single-target damage, but that same wizard or sorcerer does 2d10+5 damage with their piddly cantrips, the cleric does 2d12, and the druid just went into bear form and does 1d8+2d6+10 damage along with having a buffer of 42 health. Sure, they'll be knocked out of it in a turn or two, but hey, it's 2/short rest, more than Second Wind. And the thing is, that's enough damage to contribute and be useful in combat, while having superior utility in everything else.

Don't get me wrong - martials are the kings of damage in 5e, that's true. Nobody does as much damage per round as a martial. However, the same could be said for 3.5 - outside of infinite loops, ubercharger Fighter/Barbarians did enough damage to destroy appropriate-CR creatures in one round. The issue is that the game is not all about damage, and in a game where everyone can deal quite enough damage to keep up with their CR, "having better damage" is a placebo.



This isn't the 3.5 uber powerful wizard, that was flying invisible above the battlefield, being a better fighter than the fighter, summoning creatures to do awesom damage and manipulating the action economy and the battlefield, not caring to do direct damage (but if he did, he could outdamage the damage dealers). This is a rather average caster, that does ok single target damage (but less than many others), that can choose to be either invisible, or flying, or having a summoned creature around.

It's not that impressive, really. And definitely not an example of an average caster in 5e.


The game isn't all about combat. And as soon as winning stops being about "killing the enemies faster than they kill you", martials in 5e fall flat on the scale of ability to contribute compared to other classes, because they, with rare exceptions (some Monk subs for their tricks and Totem Barb in one small niche) only get what everyone gets - skills and ability checks. Sure, rogues get Expertise and might actually be able to overcome the swingy d20, but so do Bards, and Bards are full casters.

TL;DR: Magic rarely breaks the game in 5e, unless you try real hard. Combat is somewhat balanced, if you actually get your wizard to buff you with Fly so that you can hurt that dragon that's currently strafing you and spewing fireballs. But spells are still miles and miles ahead of anything martials have for solving any problems you could have outside of those that involve dealing damage and explicitly deny magic-users. The narrative impact and ability to influence events is still skewed towards spellcasters, because they get to ignore basic laws of the game much faster and in many more varieties than martials do.

[Exocist]

snip.

Honestly, you said it best. Martials do one thing well - combat. Outside of that, they don't really have features that make them useful (Rogue has Expertise, Monk has some stealth based features, Fighter/Barbarian has nothing, Ranger is all exploration features and no combat useful features, Paladin has some minor spellcasting).

Short of the DM enabling you to do something outside of making ability checks, you can't do anything aside from standing there dumbly while the casters do everything.

Sure, your DM can allow you to gain certain bonuses or make things easier based on your class. It stands to reason that a Fighter/Paladin would be able to requisition help from a form of ruler or the military as they would know about military things. Barbarians and Rangers could maybe roll with their "in touch with the natural world" angle (although this is mostly a druid thing), etc. However, this is not only mostly covered by backgrounds in 5e (I.e. DM may reasonably rule that unless you have the Soldier or Knight background, you can't requisition help from the military).

And, of course, the problem is evident - you are now in the territory of "Using things outside your class that anyone could, theoretically, do". The DM is just choosing to make it easier for you as it would make sense, however we are now talking about situations outside the core rules, which is what the Martial vs Caster argument covers. You DM could rule that martials have full casting and 20x the spell slots of a Wizard, however, that's outside the core rules and can't be accounted for.