Martials in Tier 3 and 4, Possible Enhancement

[Trickery]

Most play happens in tiers 1 and 2 (levels 1-10). For games that go past level 10, it's a common observation that martials begin to struggle compared to casters. It's not so much that the martial features are bad so much as it is that, by that point, casters have far more features with powerful effects. If we think of each spell as a feature - since that's basically what a spell is - then casters have many times more features than martials do past level 10.

Of all the martials, the monk probably struggles during this phase the least. While it's true that monk damage past 10 is weak, monks have enough features that there's always something interesting for them to do at this point in the game.

Perhaps the design mistake was in having so many separate martial classes. Does a barbarian need to be distinct from a fighter? Does a monk need to be distinct from a rogue? A fighter and barbarian merged together would be able to keep up with casters in higher tiers. So would a rogue merged with a monk. The trouble is that merging these classes prior to level 10 would be crazy.

What do the rest of you think? Am I right that the primary problem with martials is their relative lack of features? If so, would it be wise to consider merging martial classes or creating some sort of post-10 gestalt system for martial classes only?

[OldTrees1]

What do the rest of you think? Am I right that the primary problem with martials is their relative lack of features? If so, would it be wise to consider merging martial classes or creating some sort of post-10 gestalt system for martial classes only?

Yes, No

It is not really the amount of features, it is the breadth of those features. Breadth of features, or flexibility can be a result of the quantity of features. However it is mostly a function of the qualitative differences between features.

For example a Rogue with Cunning Action, Expertise (4 skills by 6th), and Reliable Talent has 3 very flexible features for the level of those features. Take a moment and compare them against the 1st, 3rd, and 5th level Wizard spell lists respectively. If I were a Wizard I could be tempted to lose that list (and that level of slots) in exchange for the Rogue feature. I would usually keep the spell list, but try that comparison with other features and you will see my point. Some features are flexible, others are not.

However most Martial classes have rather similar higher tier features. So gestalting them would not increase the class's flexibility. It might increase their power. But 5E is rather balanced with regard to power when martials are still able to engage.

[PeteNutButter]

This is a problem of people putting assumptions/expectations of previous D&D onto 5e. 5e is actually fairly tough on casters. Monsters have legendary saves which stop all sorts of cool things from casters, but they can't handle the insane ERMAGOD damage of an optimized fighter dumping SS/GWM damage on 3-4 attacks action surged to 7-9. It's not uncommon for a fighter in tier 3+ to put out 200 damage on their big round. Similar things can be acheived with a PAM paladin smite dumping and to a lesser extent the GWM barbarian.

Casters role in higher levels seems to be relegated to AoE and crowd control as they cannot compete straight up with the damage of the martials on single targets. I have my complaints about 5e, but casters seem fine compared to martials. Yeah, they have more in their toolbag, but none of it obsoletes the fighter damage.

[OverLordOcelot]

Marials are incredibly potent in 5e adventuring, the place where martials fall behind is if you're giving a party unlimited long rests and letting full casters (especially wizards) have effectively infinite resources. When the party doesn't have time pressure and is always able to do "teleport away - heavy prep - teleport back," use risky information gathering spells like Contact Other Plane without the actual risk, and planar bind huge armies of minions, then martials just can't compete. When you're actually pressing into an enemy stronghold where they either will succeed at what you're trying to stop or leave if you take a break of a day or two from fighting, it's a completely different story.

[Misterwhisper]

This is a problem of people putting assumptions/expectations of previous D&D onto 5e. 5e is actually fairly tough on casters. Monsters have legendary saves which stop all sorts of cool things from casters, but they can't handle the insane ERMAGOD damage of an optimized fighter dumping SS/GWM damage on 3-4 attacks action surged to 7-9. It's not uncommon for a fighter in tier 3+ to put out 200 damage on their big round. Similar things can be acheived with a PAM paladin smite dumping and to a lesser extent the GWM barbarian.

Casters role in higher levels seems to be relegated to AoE and crowd control as they cannot compete straight up with the damage of the martials on single targets. I have my complaints about 5e, but casters seem fine compared to martials. Yeah, they have more in their toolbag, but none of it obsoletes the fighter damage.

You mean that fighter damage twice a rest.

On those rounds they can push out 160 damage or so assuming they hit every shot.

Otherwise it is about 90, assuming they all hit.

This is also assuming they have no resistance.

Caters at that level can just straight up end a battle with one spell sometimes based on a save, sometimes not.

High level martials depending on the class are pretty good at killing one bigger target.

High level casters are good at killing an army or disabling that one big target.

Fight vs storm giant jarl.

Fighter attacks 4 times, action surges for 4 more and probably has a bonus action attack.

Caster throws a spell to disable it vs it’s worse save. Or one without a save.

Caster has multiple special defensive spells while the fighter just has their normal ac, which the caster can get too with one class dip.

Fight vs 250 thug minions

Fighter does the same as vs the storm giant. But shoots or hits different people each time.

Caster just casts a massive aoe or self defense spell and nukes them.

Essentially martials are only good at one thing. Casters are good at everything

[Skylivedk]

This is a problem of people putting assumptions/expectations of previous D&D onto 5e. 5e is actually fairly tough on casters. Monsters have legendary saves which stop all sorts of cool things from casters, but they can't handle the insane ERMAGOD damage of an optimized fighter dumping SS/GWM damage on 3-4 attacks action surged to 7-9. It's not uncommon for a fighter in tier 3+ to put out 200 damage on their big round. Similar things can be acheived with a PAM paladin smite dumping and to a lesser extent the GWM barbarian.

Casters role in higher levels seems to be relegated to AoE and crowd control as they cannot compete straight up with the damage of the martials on single targets. I have my complaints about 5e, but casters seem fine compared to martials. Yeah, they have more in their toolbag, but none of it obsoletes the fighter damage.
A) you're not addressing the thread. The thread is not a discussion about "if martials fall off", it's "what to do when they do fall of"
B) the nuclear Wizard can easily outdo the damage you posted
C) yes, an army of permanently bound minions definitely obsoletes a Fighter's damage.


Marials are incredibly potent in 5e adventuring, the place where martials fall behind is if you're giving a party unlimited long rests and letting full casters (especially wizards) have effectively infinite resources. When the party doesn't have time pressure and is always able to do "teleport away - heavy prep - teleport back," use risky information gathering spells like Contact Other Plane without the actual risk, and planar bind huge armies of minions, then martials just can't compete. When you're actually pressing into an enemy stronghold where they either will succeed at what you're trying to stop or leave if you take a break of a day or two from fighting, it's a completely different story.
So if casters play like they're part of a group rather than real people, then martials shine? It's great that Wolverine can be useful when Phoenix telekinetically moves him close enough. What a break of immersion it would be if the reality warper just warped reality instead.

[Nagog]

A) you're not addressing the thread. The thread is not a discussion about "if martials fall off", it's "what to do when they do fall of"
B) the nuclear Wizard can easily outdo the damage you posted
C) yes, an army of permanently bound minions definitely obsoletes a Fighter's damage.

An optomized build can outdo a casual build any day of the week, no questions asked. An optimized damage wizard can probably out-damage a martial, an optimized defense caster can maybe out-tank a Barbarian. But that's the caster's niche, they're extremely malleable and can be heavily specialized. Most martial classes are less specialized and more generalized, with the general layout being Tanking/Damaging/Supporting. So Their point was that the martial classes don't fall off, the question itself is based on a misunderstanding of the martial's role in a party. They don't need to keep up with the spellcasters in terms of damage output, that's not their role. Their role is to tank and to prevent the enemy from reaching the squishy back line of casters.



So if casters play like they're part of a group rather than real people, then martials shine? It's great that Wolverine can be useful when Phoenix telekinetically moves him close enough. What a break of immersion it would be if the reality warper just warped reality instead.

The difference being that spells have limits built-in to make D&D more balanced and more fun. Your Phoenix Sorcerer could Dimension Door your Barbarian straight to the enemy, or they could use their Fireball and hope that the enemy doesn't survive to walk over and flick them with their 24 Str attack.

[Finieous]

Martials are more gear-dependent at all levels compared to casters. Some folks seem to think this stops being a consideration by Tier 2, when the fighter has plate armor and a +1 weapon. It doesn't -- if anything, the relative gear-dependence increases in Tier 3 and 4. In my experience, this is fine because gear-dependence is a feature for martial players (or, for players when they're playing martials).

DMs should make it possible for martial characters to earn gear appropriate for their levels. If martials lack breadth at higher levels, it's because they don't have the right tools.

[Skylivedk]

An optomized build can outdo a casual build any day of the week, no questions asked. An optimized damage wizard can probably out-damage a martial, an optimized defense caster can maybe out-tank a Barbarian. But that's the caster's niche, they're extremely malleable and can be heavily specialized. Most martial classes are less specialized and more generalized, with the general layout being Tanking/Damaging/Supporting. So Their point was that the martial classes don't fall off, the question itself is based on a misunderstanding of the martial's role in a party. They don't need to keep up with the spellcasters in terms of damage output, that's not their role. Their role is to tank and to prevent the enemy from reaching the squishy back line of casters.



The difference being that spells have limits built-in to make D&D more balanced and more fun. Your Phoenix Sorcerer could Dimension Door your Barbarian straight to the enemy, or they could use their Fireball and hope that the enemy doesn't survive to walk over and flick them with their 24 Str attack.

Strange, because it's exactly all the "break limits" cards that casters get that fuel discussions like these. I don't think we'll move much in this discussion. It's not even in combat the difference is biggest (albeit it also grows quickly there due to martials not getting class features with the strength of lvl 6-9 spells). It's out of combat the game really breaks apart. Again, if you don't want to see it, you won't, but humour me for a bit.

Let's say martials and full casters are even at level 9 (exact number isn't important). Now count the amount of features both get at each level. Please count each spell slot and each new spell as separate features (like you would for the Battlemaster when he gets more die or manoeuvres). Lo and behold: casters simply get more features - and their features become significantly more powerful every other level.

Either they weren't even or they aren't after the leveling

[Trickery]

Huh, once again, it seems the initial premise is contentious. I didn't want to get into the details of casters versus martials. That said, I would like anyone who doubts the power of high level casters to take a look at some of the high level tactics employed only by casters.

One example: Forcecage + sickening radiance is a combination that most creatures have no resistance against.

Another example: the standard Hexblade beats the fighter at the fighter's own game by being able to eldritch smite, as well as generating his own advantage from level 3 onward, culminating in the ability to cast Foresight. All of this on a pseudo-full caster with better casting ability than a Paladin or Ranger, both of whom have far more options than a Fighter past level 10 while still dealing competitive damage and being hard to kill.

[Nagog]

Strange, because it's exactly all the "break limits" cards that casters get that fuel discussions like these. I don't think we'll move much in this discussion. It's not even in combat the difference is biggest (albeit it also grows quickly there due to martials not getting class features with the strength of lvl 6-9 spells). It's out of combat the game really breaks apart. Again, if you don't want to see it, you won't, but humour me for a bit.

Let's say martials and full casters are even at level 9 (exact number isn't important). Now count the amount of features both get at each level. Please count each spell slot and each new spell as separate features (like you would for the Battlemaster when he gets more die or manoeuvres). Lo and behold: casters simply get more features - and their features become significantly more powerful every other level.

Either they weren't even or they aren't after the leveling

I agree, Casters definitely get more features than martial characters when you include each spell slot and spell level, but my point wasn't quantity of slots or spell levels, it was the role each class is built to fill. Martials are typically tanky and use their abilities as support by preventing enemies from reaching casters. Casters roles vary because (due to the spell slots/spell levels high versatility), they are built by their choices of spells. My point was that martials typically have a role their class is intended to fulfill, while casters tend to be more malleable and therefore more easily optimized.

[Trickery]

I agree, Casters definitely get more features than martial characters when you include each spell slot and spell level, but my point wasn't quantity of slots or spell levels, it was the role each class is built to fill. Martials are typically tanky and use their abilities as support by preventing enemies from reaching casters. Casters roles vary because (due to the spell slots/spell levels high versatility), they are built by their choices of spells. My point was that martials typically have a role their class is intended to fulfill, while casters tend to be more malleable and therefore more easily optimized.

The issue is that, if we imagine a given thing a character might do, casters are usually better at it past level 10.

Wall spells are more effective than tanks.
Greater Invisibility, Pass Without Trace, Gaseous Form, divination spells, and so on are more effective for scouting than Stealth Expertise with Reliable Talent.
Smites (Hexblade, Paladin) are more effective burst damage than anything a fighter or barbarian can do.
Spells like Forcecage are more effective CC than stunning fist (though monks can still contribute to a team full of casters better than most other martials). Note that many high level spells of this nature have no initial saving throw.
Summoned minions and similar often do more damage than martials as early as level 5. Polymorph creates a better Fighter than the Fighter as early as level 7.
Shield, Absorb Elements, and so on, continuing up to spells like Foresight, are more effective at mitigating damage and avoiding bad stuff than the options pure martials get.
Spells like Charm Person and Suggestion and extreme examples like Glibness are more effective for social encounters and getting others to do what you want them to do than having Expertise in some Charisma skills or advantage on some Charisma checks.

Basically, there comes a point in the game when casters are better than martials at any role the caster wishes to fill. That doesn't mean casters can fill all roles at the same time, only that they're better at what they choose to do than martials can be.

After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class.

That's in addition to martials having no way to replicate, at all, many of the things that casters do.

Fortunately, most games never make it to that point. Play in tier 3 is rare and play in tier 4 rarer still. The roles are relatively balanced prior to level 10, though things start getting bonkers as early as level 7 (especially if anyone picks up Polymorph). It's thereafter that things get truly out of hand. Eventually, the best thing a Martial can do for the party is walk into rooms first or willingly let himself be transformed into a better unit by the Wizard.

[OverLordOcelot]

So if casters play like they're part of a group rather than real people, then martials shine? It's great that Wolverine can be useful when Phoenix telekinetically moves him close enough. What a break of immersion it would be if the reality warper just warped reality instead.

Uh, no, that's not at all what my post said. I'm not really sure how to make it clearer, the problem arises when casters get unlimited resources because there's absolutely no time pressure. If you're trying to storm an enemy stronghold before they finish their ritual, the fact that reality warpers can only warp limited bits of reality at a time becomes a major limitation. For some reason there's a lot of people on forums who think that enemies should just sit in place like MMO mobs and let you spend days or weeks doing whatever you want to do, but playing the game that way breaks the 'adventuring day' mechanic which breaks game balance.

[Trickery]

Uh, no, that's not at all what my post said. I'm not really sure how to make it clearer, the problem arises when casters get unlimited resources because there's absolutely no time pressure. If you're trying to storm an enemy stronghold before they finish their ritual, the fact that reality warpers can only warp limited bits of reality at a time becomes a major limitation. For some reason there's a lot of people on forums who think that enemies should just sit in place like MMO mobs and let you spend days or weeks doing whatever you want to do, but playing the game that way breaks the 'adventuring day' mechanic which breaks game balance.

So your solution is for DMs to ensure that there is always a ticking clock of some sort? That seems forced. I wonder what the DM would do if the players just shrugged, said "oh well", and decided to move on.

Also, most casters just save their resources for important moments in cases like that. In MMO terms, it creates a situation where martials clean up trash mobs while casters deal with the important fights - assuming casters don't use teleportation, flight, invisibility, or related to just skip ahead to the important fights.

[Nagog]

So your solution is for DMs to ensure that there is always a ticking clock of some sort? That seems forced. I wonder what the DM would do if the players just shrugged, said "oh well", and decided to move on.

Also, most casters just save their resources for important moments in cases like that. In MMO terms, it creates a situation where martials clean up trash mobs while casters deal with the important fights - assuming casters don't use teleportation, flight, invisibility, or related to just skip ahead to the important fights.

The fix would be that the world moves on without them. The PCs decide whatever they're doing is more important than stopping the BBEG from attaining X, then it will be much more difficult for them to defeat BBEG because he has X. A DM should not pander their world to the players, the players are a small part in a large world, if the world decides to pause because the players want a long rest, then it ruins immersion. This is one of the things that makes D&D different from any story-based video game: Time matters.

[Willie the Duck]

So your solution is for DMs to ensure that there is always a ticking clock of some sort? That seems forced. I wonder what the DM would do if the players just shrugged, said "oh well", and decided to move on.

Have the dungeon denizens act with the knowledge that a wandering band of murderhobos invaded their lair with mayhem and looting in mind, and then left to go sleep somewhere. Or have reinforcements arrive. Or have the wrong person ascend to the throne. Or the Cult of the Dragon successfully brings the avatar of Tiamat to the Prime Material Plane.

Honestly, this is the part that me and my friends have never had a problem with. So if there are no outside pressures, nothing is ever under any real threat, and one can go off and recharge whenever one wants*, then a mechanical build which utilizes a small set of powerful-but-expended resources will outshine one with moderate-but-consistent level of power-output? Our answer has always been, 'Well of course. And....?'
*which I'm not really finding any less of a forced situation, to be honest.

If the resource-allocation metrics of the game do not match ones' expectations, that's a problem with that. There are massively multiple ways of dealing with it, including many in the DMG. I guess I'm just not seeing how it is such withering criticism (of the martial-caster divide, or the game as a whole) to say that the game breaks down if you wildly deviate from the basic expectations under which the game operates (which the game clearly lays out, and offers alternatives to for those who want to play the game, but consider this specific aspect unsatisfactory).

To me, Forcecage (which entirely too many foes do not have a response to), minionmancy (which conspires with strength-of-numbers being really effective in this edition), and things martials simply-can't-do without outside help (fly, plane shift) that really are the places where the game has not made non-casters and casters have parity at upper levels.

[JNAProductions]

After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class.

So prove it.

[Fable Wright]

Playing as a tier 3 Shepherd Druid with planar bound minions:

It really sucks when someone can use an action to kill your planar bound summon with Dispel Magic. Especially if it was cast with the intent of removing your summon's Haste (cast from another party member).

It really sucks how I have to end my long duration summons to activate Pass Without Trace, burning through precious reserves.

My job in combat is simple: minimize damage to the martial characters. I can fill any gaps the party has, but in a very limited capacity. It's like making a boat of duct tape and plywood. In theory, it will get you where you need to go, and you can make lots of other things from duct tape and plywood.

I would much rather have a real boat to work with.

[loki_ragnarock]

One example: Forcecage + sickening radiance is a combination that most creatures have no resistance against.
Which requires two rounds to combo, and several more to actually finish something off. In the time used to set up the combo, a modestly optimized fighter has killed most things through raw damage with his +1 weapon. I think you can count on one hand the number of creatures that have resistance to magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage.

Unless you took levels in fighter. Which makes you a fighter. Fighters rule!

Except when there isn't a fight, of course.
Comparisons of martial vs caster potency are best considered through their agency outside of fighting, which is often better. However, even then there is this tendency to give the caster the benefit of infinite time or resources to achieve their ends.
For instance: Simulacrum is phenomenally useful, but it produces something fragile and expensive both in time and gold. If you've managed to keep your simulacrum intact through the encounters leading up to facing Zariel, then it'll be a game changer. But if anything decided to dispel it or manages to deal a relatively small amount of hit point damage to it, that's 12 hours and 1,500gp of a highly specific spell component that won't have a meaningful impact on that final throw down. 12 hours is something you simply won't have while facing down the armies of Avernus.
Will the simulacrum have contributed? Surely; it took hits you otherwise might have, and maybe freed up some spell slots, but it's unlikely to make it so the caster could solo an assault on the Bronze Citadel.

But how does the fighter get to Avernus to fight Zariel's armies in the first place? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does the fighter get from one side of the continent to the other in the 3 days it will take for the cult to finish their ritual? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does a fighter dive to the bottom of the ocean to find the Atlantan McGuffin? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does a fighter build a fortress in a day? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative.

But the tools for circumstance and narrative already exist mechanically. Building a fortress requires nothing more than Daern's Instant Fortress. Diving to the Lost City of Atlanta requires nothing more than a Cloak of the Manta Ray. Getting to the other side of the continent requires nothing more than a Helm of Teleportation. Getting to Avernus requires nothing more than an Amulet of the Planes, a little knowledge, and familiarity with the unexpected. Or a rigged roll with a Bag of Beans and climber's tools. Or a Cubic Gate. Or a Sphere of Annihilation in combination with a Portable Hole and a rigged roll. Or a Well of Many Worlds.
So those specific challenges a martial character has the potential to handle, as well.

And seeing as there is at least one person playing the class that enables narrative and circumstance, if the martial character needs any of these to push forward that narrative, they'll come across them. It's the DMs most powerful class feature; story telling. Even in the event that there isn't an item that'll work off hand, story telling fills the gaps gamely.


Martials are fine; if a caster isn't there, the adventuring still gets done. They just get it done with magic items and story telling instead of class features. If the martial isn't there, the adventuring also still gets done. The casters get it done with class features instead of magic items and storytelling.
If they're both there, the adventuring still gets done, creating a dynamic in the party where everyone feels like they're contributing something the other can't. It's mostly illusory, but that doesn't stop people from failing their int saves.

[Great Dragon]

The roles are relatively balanced prior to level 10, though things start getting bonkers as early as level 7 (especially if anyone picks up Polymorph). It's thereafter that things get truly out of hand. Eventually, the best thing a Martial can do for the party is walk into rooms first or willingly let himself be transformed into a better unit by the Wizard.

Well, I was going to just read this; but I feel that this needs to be addressed.

(No offense is intended)
I love playing Casters (#1 (a) Wizards (b) Sorcerers, #2 Clerics, #3 Druids, #4 Warlocks, and lastly - Bards), and there are still a lot of situations that I'm not able to engage in.
(Rogues are Second Favorite, most everyone else that i play with take the other martial types, so I don't get to play them too often.)

One of the things that I remember about the (True) Polymorph spell is that it changes everything on the target, and not just their form. All Abilities, including Mental, are replaced by the new form's stats. And only those things that the new form is capable of doing are allowed.

Use True Polymorph (and no other 9th level spells are available for the rest of the day) to Turn the Bear Barbarian into a T-Rex? Sure, allow Rage, but with 2 Int and 12 Wis, means that while they can remember Friend from Foe (Wis) they don't remember any kind of tactics (Int) beyond Attack and Run Away. And the Wizard should know better than to cast Polymorph on themselves, since they can't cast spells in that form.

Want better results? have the Druid cast Shapechange on the Rogue, where they can most likely still Sneak Attack foes. (Unless the DM doesn't allow that, for some reason)

Forcecage + Sickening Radiance can be a nasty combination, but really is only effective against a single target that has no minions to help it out. Same with Banishment, if it actually works on the baddy.

Yes, I agree that there are more tools in the Caster's box.
But, all those tools shouldn't really be available at every level.

Which means that their 'flexibility' is severely limited to what is in their Spellbook.
Sorcerers are even more limited, and must choose very carefully what they know.

And if any class is dependent on magic items, its the casters. Mostly to save spell slots.

Unless the Monster has an AC over 30, the Martials can still hit it (sure with +11 to hit, they need a roll of 19-20 to do so) about as often as the Casters. And with a +3 weapon, they only need a 16+ on 1d20 to hit AC 30. Tank Martials can get an AC near 30 while Mages top out at 18 with a max AC of 23 for one round four times a day, without burning Higher Level Slots.

As for Time Limits, yes. I run a Living World based loosely on Faerun, and the BBEG isn't just going to sit there and twiddle their thumbs while the PCs take a Long Rest. Heck, they might let them take a Short Rest, just to set things up more to their Liking, when the PCs do finally show up.
Not sure how many Members would be interested in playing in my Games, because of some of the things that I do as a DM.

OldTrees1, myself, along with some others; are working on ways to help Martials have more Options in what they can do, especially for High Tier Play Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?593862-How-stronger-would-non-magic-classes-need-to-be-to-allow-broad-non-vancian-magic)


After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class.


So prove it.

I totally agree:
See, I did set up a 10th Level Wizard for people to look at, and maybe tear apart.


Click tiny Arrow.

Also found in my Ancient Realms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591658-Ancient-Realms) Thread. Post # 29.
Expanding that to 20th level isn't that hard.

[Trickery]

So prove it.

For damage, see Nuclear Wizard, Hexblade, or Vengeance Paladin (burst damage).

Also see less commonly discussed options, such as summoners. Druids can summon creatures who can outdamage the fighter for up to one hour as early as level 5. Consider the damage output of eight wolves from Conjure Animals, all attacking with advantage and dealing 7 on a hit with a chance to knock the target prone. They also can create a barrier and can make reaction attacks. This on a Moon Druid, who can also attack with their own action while commanding the beasts, is absurd damage. It doesn't really matter which creatures you get as their CR will guarantee a certain amount of damage.

In fact, a Bladesinger Wizard can likely outdamage a fighter round for round just by using Tenser's Transformation, and that is considered a bad spell.

For general tankiness, see any Paladin (self buffs, lay on hands, bonus to saves), Forge Cleric, Moon Druid, or even a Bladesinger Wizard investing in defense (mirror image, blur, shield, absorb elements). There's even something to be said for the Hexblade (sword and board, darkness or shadow of moil on self, tomb of levistus or whatever it's called).

For scouting, see Lore Bard, Wildshaped Druid, or even just a Wizard or Warlock using familiar and other forms of scouting via spells (gaseous form, arcane eye, greater invisibility). Note that these options have tremendous advantage over nonmagical scouting. Wildshape enables one to turn into forms that don't need to go unnoticed (house fly). The arcane eye is both invisible and can hover, thus arguably making no sound and being undetectable except via magic. There is no question that magic users beat martials at scouting in any campaign that allows magic.

For skill use, see Lord Bard. I could leave it there, as Lord Bards poop all over everyone for skill use. Did you know lore bards can use bardic inspiration to boost even their own initiative checks? However, there's also Enhance Ability and spells like it to boost specific checks, if that's your thing.

I'm not kidding when I say that casters can beat martials at anything. The only thing they can't do is beat martials at everything constantly without resting. That said, the likelihood that you'll run out of resources actually decreases with level. By level 11, casters have enough spell slots that they're generally unlikely to run out in a normal campaign, particularly since many of them can safely take a rest anywhere (see: wizard).

[Nagog]

All in all, having read through the whole thread here, the one issue with casters that is not addressed is resources, and not just spell slots and things. Many spells hav material components that 99% of DMs just assume the player has, because they don't care to nitpick and verify and keep track of their funding and what spell materials they need, etc. When you actually factor those in, things tend to balance out a bit better. Fighters don't need to spend 100 GP on a diamond to make a ranged attack that deals good damage. They just go and do it. Magic is expensive and taxing, and while martial classes can't typically Nova like casters can, they have the capacity to reliably output their damage and survivability 24/7. Considering the DM issue of a 15 minute adventuring day, fighters pale in comparison to casters because the Casters can Nova, finish combat, then go to bed for the day, ready to Nova the next battle tomorrow.

After coming to this issue on a good number of threads now, perhaps D&D is not as unbalanced as many of us think, the unbalancing is done by the DMs not running the game to it's full extent.

[JNAProductions]

Vengeance Paladin is a martial, or at most, a gish. I certainly don't count them the same as a Wizard.

For tankiness, I notice your first option is a Paladin-again, not a full caster. Forge Clerics are tanky, true... Exactly as tanky as a Fighter with Defensive Fighting Style on AC, but with less HP. They can self-heal, but then they aren't hurting the enemy very much (one attack with Divine Strike if they use Healing Word, or nothing if they pop Cure Wounds or similar). Moon Druids are boss tanks... For Tier 1 and early Tier 2. After that point, they fall off SEVERELY until they hit level 20 and go full Onion. Bladesingers can hit great AC, true-but AoEs still hit them right in their fragile d6 Hit Die butts.

For scouting in Tier 3, I'll take a Rogue every day. Minimum of 23 on Stealth Checks means your average guard literally can't spot them on a nat 20. All your stuff? Eats resources. And that's a common trend.

Skill use, Rogues and Bards are the best. Bards can hit bigger numbers, Rogues are far more consistent.

So, here's a specific challenge for you:

Build a full-caster capable of beating a martial at everything throughout a day.

Not "better in one area, worse in another." Not "capable of doing everything for five minutes then has to go take an 8 hour nap (that can only be taken once every 24 hours)." A build that completely and totally obsoletes the Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian.

Edit: Standard point buy, and minimal magic items. It's fair to assume that your Wizard has picked up, say, a Wand of the War Mage in their travels, not so much a Robe of the Archmagi.

[Trickery]

Build a full-caster capable of beating a martial at everything throughout a day.

It's obvious from reading your post that you disagree with me and that you aren't going to accept any build I provide to you. You'll use some definition of "throughout the day" as justification for why a rogue scout or whatever is better than a Bard doing the same thing but with spells, higher numbers, and added capabilities. So I'm not going to spend the time arguing with you about it.

[JNAProductions]

It's obvious from reading your post that you disagree with me and that you aren't going to accept any build I provide to you. You'll use some definition of "throughout the day" as justification for why a rogue scout or whatever is better than a Bard doing the same thing but with spells, higher numbers, and added capabilities. So I'm not going to spend the time arguing with you about it.

Let's say minimum four combat encounters. Typical day is supposed to be 6-8 medium-hard encounters, but I understand that's not fully realistic for actual play.

Even if you don't think you can convince ME, surely it'd help strengthen your position against others, at least.

[OverLordOcelot]

So your solution is for DMs to ensure that there is always a ticking clock of some sort? That seems forced. I wonder what the DM would do if the players just shrugged, said "oh well", and decided to move on.

It seems forced into dealing with an actual world instead of an MMO. At the most fundamental level, if the players are just going to shrug and say 'oh well' at the first sign of challenge, you don't have a functional adventuring campaign, and if you're not doing high adventure there are much better systems than D&D to play in, plus combat balance isn't a significant concern. If they actually do engage with the world, then 'just move on' tends to mean they lost. If the enemies they're confronting had a plan, they'll go ahead and complete it while the party is trying to use infinite long rests against them. If they were guarding loot, then they either take it and leave (letting the players raid an empty room) or call for help, leading to a tougher fight than the one the party ran off from. Enemies can also do as much or more 'month of planar binding' as the PCs can so that part at best cancels out, and often results in a tougher fight.

To use an example from a thread here a while back: Say the party thinks a demon has infiltrated a castle. The 'martial vs magic' argument was that the casters could just use contact other plane to find the demon (maybe taking a few casts, and whenever they got the temporarily insane result, they'd just rest. The fact that a skilled infiltrator could get in and out quickly without burning up resources was irrelevant since contact other plane was so good. But if the demon is going to kill the king and impersonate him, or just kill the royal family and leave, then the 'cast one spell - long rest - repeat' cycle gives him plenty of time to munch down on some mortals while the party is heroically sleeping off the ill effects of the spell.

People in the world actually responding to events and taking actions is not some silly gamey nonsense, it's much more realistic than the 'PCs have infinite time to do whatever they want' setup.


Also, most casters just save their resources for important moments in cases like that. In MMO terms, it creates a situation where martials clean up trash mobs while casters deal with the important fights - assuming casters don't use teleportation, flight, invisibility, or related to just skip ahead to the important fights.

So don't run an MMO with boring trash mobs and a few obvious important fights. Seriously, the point of playing tabletop games is that you're not stuck to MMO tropes, I know that if I wanted to play an MMO I'd just... play an MMO in the first place. Incidentally, teleportation into unknown areas is extremely risky and commonly blocked (like all of DMM and the interiors of TOA) so is often going to fail. Invisibility and flight bypass only a very limited amount of things, especially if you're dealing with a structure. Invisibility doesn't confer silence so a decent perception still finds you, and a great many things bypass it with senses like a bat familiar or conjured earth elemental. The fact that they are concentration spells also limit the caster's ability to maintain any other spells.

[Nagog]

It's obvious from reading your post that you disagree with me and that you aren't going to accept any build I provide to you. You'll use some definition of "throughout the day" as justification for why a rogue scout or whatever is better than a Bard doing the same thing but with spells, higher numbers, and added capabilities. So I'm not going to spend the time arguing with you about it.

I am also willing to hear this out. I believe that the issue is as JNA has said, that the main issue is that Casters lack the stamina to continue their output throughout the day vs. Fighters who have less limited abilities, but I can be convinced if evidence is provided. While I side that Martials don't really need any sort of buff in that department, I also typically play casters because of the versatility, so I think I'm fairly impartial on the matter.

[JNAProductions]

I am also willing to hear this out. I believe that the issue is as JNA has said, that the main issue is that Casters lack the stamina to continue their output throughout the day vs. Fighters who have less limited abilities, but I can be convinced if evidence is provided. While I side that Martials don't really need any sort of buff in that department, I also typically play casters because of the versatility, so I think I'm fairly impartial on the matter.

Rogues are actually the least limited. Even at level one, Fighters get Second Wind, which is a once per rest ability.

Fun fact! The only level 20 build (I am aware of, at least) that has NO limited resources of any kind is a Rogue 19 (any archetype except Arcane Trickster)/Monk 1.

[Misterwhisper]

Let's say minimum four combat encounters. Typical day is supposed to be 6-8 medium-hard encounters, but I understand that's not fully realistic for actual play.

Even if you don't think you can convince ME, surely it'd help strengthen your position against others, at least.

4 combat encounters in an adventuring day in t3 or t4?

Never.

I owned a comic and gaming shop for years with probably 4 to 6 adventure leave games and probably 10 normal games per week run from it and never did I ever see 4 combats in an adventuring day much less at tier 3 or 4. Unless those extras were just generic pointless mooks to waste time and resources on.

It is one of the huge flaws of 5e.

Short rest mechanics.

Classes are built around a certain number of encounter and rests per day but then they do not design a single campaign around using it.

[OverLordOcelot]

To me, Forcecage (which entirely too many foes do not have a response to), minionmancy (which conspires with strength-of-numbers being really effective in this edition), and things martials simply-can't-do without outside help (fly, plane shift) that really are the places where the game has not made non-casters and casters have parity at upper levels.

I think that magic-item-less games at level 11+ are unusual enough to count as an exception, and basing arguments around high level play with no magic items makes the argument irrelevant to most campaigns. As far as those specific examples:

The ability for casters to fly without magic items is actually pretty limited - they can't maintain concentration on any other spells (including minion spells) while maintaining fly, for example, and other methods of flight (like polymorph or conjuring flying minions) generally have similar issues. They can also easily be knocked out of flight by a dispel magic, antimagic zone (hello beholder!), or simple loss of concentration. (Want to feather fall to save yourself? there goes your ability to counterspell, absorb elements, or shield that round). There are exceptions like a level 18+ moon druid, but I don't think casted flight is actually as easy as people make it out to be.

Heavy duty minionmancy is a result of theorycraft against dumb enemies, in a real game it encounters huge problems with things like travel (a lot of methods of transport can't take huge swarms of allies) and AOE damage. Plus there's no reason an NPC can't simply do exactly what the PCs are doing, leading to two equal masses of skeletons ramming into each other - except that NPCs generally outnumber PCs and are usually on their home turf. Also minionmancy is generally highly vulnerable to dispel magic, and with the higher level spells a handful of dispels can leave the party facing not only the original enemies but also a lot of what they brought with them.

Plane shift is a 'bus driver' ability. Sometimes a PC likes to be the one who can get the rest of the party to the action, but no one really minds renting a car or hiring a cab to get to the action either. If no one has a plane shift spell and there are no plane shift items or gates or hirable NPCs, then you just don't have extra planar adventures. Also plane shift is a 7th level spell, meaning that a caster has at most 4 casts of it per day, and it takes 25% of their top level slots each time they use it, so it comes at significant cost. And back to minionmancy, it only transports a limited number of targets, so getting a skeleton army to another plane isn't really feasible without some other means of transport.

[JNAProductions]

I will use Great Dragon's build (spoiler below) unless presented a better one. But, after writing up a whole post detailing combat against each other, I realize that "Duh, D&D isn't about PvP!"


See, I figure the reverse, where Batman can't know and prepare for everything.

But, this isn't about Batman. Besides - he's someone else's "I can solve every problem" MAD Multiclassed-to-the-hilt character, anyway.


Unlike Modern Batman, Classic Batman doesn't have access to things that allow him to instantly know what is going on.

The Batsignal lets him know that something is happening, but has to go ask Gordon what it is.

He only has what he brought with him, or put in the batmobile.

Once knowing which Villain he's dealing with, he immediately takes off.

He wins by being smart, more than whatever gadgets he brought.

I actually like playing Mages, so I'll see what I can come up with.


So, level 10. No school.
Figure Point Buy start.
15 Int, 15 Con, 11 Dex, 10 Str, 10 Wis, 10 Cha.

Let's say High Elf to get +2 Dex and+1 Int.
16 Int 13 Dex
Both ASIs into Int = 20. (Can't exceed)

+4 Proficiency
Skills: Elf: Perception.
Sage (Apprentice) Background: Arcana, History.
Two bonus Languages.
Class: Insight, Religion.

5 Cantrips. 4/3/3/3/2

My Typical Adventuring spell list:

Cantrips: Fire Bolt, Light, Message,
Poison Spray, and Acid Splash.

(4 slots) First Level
Shield, Mage Armor

(3 slots) Second Level
Misty Step, Mirror Image.

(3 slots) Third Level
Counterspell, Fireball.

(3 slots) Fourth Level
Greater Invisibility, Phantasmal Killer.

(2 slots) Fifth Level
Hold Monster, Rary's Telepathic Bond.

5 bonus spells:
(1st) Chromatic Orb
(2nd) Hold Person
(3rd) Haste
(4th) Arcane Eye
(5th) Passwall

Now, the real question is what is in the


First level spells: Shield, Thunderwave, Detect Magic, Identify, Mage Armor, Chromatic Orb

(2nd class lv) Feather Fall, Fog Cloud.

Second Level spells: Misty Step, Mirror Image,
(4th class lv) Hold Person, Detect Thoughts

Third level spells: Counterspell, Fireball.
(6th class Level) Haste, Fly.


Suggested Stop?

Fourth level spells:
Greater Invisibility, Phantasmal Killer.
(8th class level)
Arcane Eye, Mord's Private Sanctum

Fifth level spells:
Hold Monster, Rary's Telepathic Bond.
(10th class level)
Passwall, Teleportation Circle.

Currently not giving any extra spells from treasure.

As can be expected, Wiz has some options, but not every spell available can be prepared.

Again, switching out spells Requires knowing what is needed ahead of time, and the Baddies should not allow an 8 hour break to change things. Heck even a Short Rest might be tricky getting.



So, sacrifice a 1st level slot for 8 hours of Mage Armor, keep at least one slot in reserve for Shield. Leaving two slots for Orb.

Three slots for 2nd Level: At least one use of Mirror Image during a fight. Save one for Misty Step, leaves only one left.

Three slots for 3rd Level:
One slot for Haste, one slot reserved for Counterspell, only one slot left.

Three slots for Fourth Level:
One slot for Phantasmal Killer, one reserved for Greater Invisibility, and most likely one Arcane Eye used to help Party Scout/Rogue

Two slots for Fifth Level:
One slot for Rary's Telepathic Bond, one slot reserved for Hold Monster.

Short Rest: Even if getting 5 levels of slots back, still limited to what is already memorized, so up to player to decide what might be useful.
Teleportation Circle escape?

Once out of all spell slots, must spam Cantrips.

Figure some Random (1d6) moderate, at least two Hard and maybe one Deadly - Encounters per "Adventuring day".

Fireball is needed for large groups.
Competes with Counterspell against enemy casters.

Invisibility requires Concentration, and there are still ways to detect, and attackers only have Disadvantage to hit while active.

Mirror Image only possibly prevents three hits during a fight. (Actually less effective than Dodge Action)

No listed magical items: DM dependant.

Oh, and for non-combat comparisons:
No Spider Climb, or Knock (etc) spells available.

Fly has limited speed and duration, and requires Concentration; maximum four times a day, if willing to not have any other third level spells available. Upcasting it isn't really worth doing, unless doing Party Travel.

Creative Players and DMs that actually care, can do these - with, or without, magic.


*****
So, please point out how that Wizard still outclasses the "I don't need magic" PCs?

So, I'll go to Kobold Fight Club (http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder), find four random hard encounters for a single level 10 PC, and see how a melee Fighter, a ranged Fighter, and the Wizard compare.

Fighter Alpha will be a Champion, S&B (Dueling and Defense) with a focus on Strength, Constitution, and not dying. Three ASIs are +1 Strength/Constitution (after starting with two 17s thanks to Mountain Dwarf), Tough, and +2 Strength.
Fighter Beta will be a Battlemaster, Archery, with a focus on Dex and Con. Three ASIs are Sharpshooter, +4 Dexterity. Maneuvers are Menacing Attack, Precision Attack, Disarming Attack, Parry, Trip Attack, and two others I don't care about. 5d10 Sup dice.

Encounters are!

Dyybuk
2 Bugbears
1 Nothic
5 Nupperibos
1 Orog
1 Succubus

Against the Dyybuk:

The Wizard has very little chance of killing it effectively. Despite rocking a mere 37 HP, its laundry list of resistances and Magic Resistance make it a tough cookie for a mage to crack. Even Fireball, at 8d6 damage, averages to 14 on a failed and 7 on a success, which means an average of just over 8 damage from a Fireball. Phantasmal Killer bypasses resistances, but has two saves before it takes hold and starts doing damage, and the Dyybuk is immune to frightening, meaning it has time to crump the Wizard. The Dyybuk hits the Wizard on an 8, for 13 damage each time and a minor HP reduction. That's (with the Wizard having 62 HP) eight rounds to kill the Wizard. The Wizard will probably win (HP differences) but will be severely wounded. Kiting is impossible, basically, since the Dyybuk flies at 40' and is incorporeal.

Fighter Alpha has a bit of trouble with Fear, since his Wisdom saves aren't too good. But, since the Dyybuk can't use both that and Phantasmal Force at the same time, he has to close to do damage. And even at Disadvantage, the Fighter hits twice per turn at +9 against AC 14, so needs a mere 5 to hit. At 1d8+7 damage per hit... It takes him a mere 3 turns to kill it, even WITHOUT Action Surge. Assuming he never saves against Fear. (Woops, forgot resistance! Make that 5 turns, my bad.)
The Dyybuk hits at +6, so needs a 15. Even if it gains advantage, such as from Fear, that's just over a 50% hit rate. Over 5 turns, two or three hits... Gets 1/4th washed away by Second Wind.

Fighter Beta does way better. Even if the Dyybuk closes to melee immediately, it's simple to eat an AoO and walk away, then shoot him in the face. Hitting at +11 against AC 14, they deal just over 4 points of damage an attack after resistance, for about 5 turns to kill assuming no Superiority Dice get spent. Spending a few to increase damage or use Sharpshooter more accurately makes it MUCH easier.

Edit: In other words, the Fighters walk out of the Dyybuk fight moderately hurt. The Wizard might die, and comes out a lot worse.

Now, terrain can favor the Dyybuk, such as by phasing in and out of walls to deny some attacks, and being incorporeal, he can't be grappled. But even with half the Fighter's attacks gone (since Extra Attack only functions on your turn-silly, but RAW) the Fighters still outdamage the Wizard.

[Jack Bitters]

Maybe the wizard should use Greater Invisibility then, and shoot fire bolts or chromatic orbs. He'll bypass the saving throw part at least, and have advantage on attacks, as well as giving the dybbuk disadvantage to hit.

[JNAProductions]

Maybe the wizard should use Greater Invisibility, then, and shoot fire bolts or chromatic orbs. He'll bypass the saving throw part at least, and have advantage on attacks, as well as giving the dybbuk disadvantage to hit.

Fair tactic, yeah. I feel that the Dyybuk is just too terrain-dependent to really say-in a dungeon, he can easily lurk behind a wall, and deal with any of the PCs at its leisure.

Main issue is that, even with advantage and +9, it still takes the Wizard about seven turns to kill the Dyybuk. And the Dyybuk hits back on an 8 (13 with Shield) so it'll hit about three times (only once with Shield every round it's needed), which is good... Unless the Dyybuk gets lucky, hits early, and forces a Concentration save.

I really shoulda thought about terrain for this stuff...

[Jack Bitters]

Encounters are!

Dyybuk
2 Bugbears
1 Nothic
5 Nupperibos
1 Orog
1 Succubus


Against the Dyybuk, definitely the invisibility + attack roll spells to beat it. Saving throws are not the way to go.
For the bugbear and the nothic, either fly out of reach with Fly and kite, or fireball + cantrips to eliminate the threats quickly. Nothic damage is sneezable.
For the Orog and Nupperibos, lead with a Phantasmal Killer against the Orog to take advantage of its +0 wisdom save whilst kiting the nupperibos back and using thunderwave to hold them at bay.
Finally, for the succubus, teleportation circle to leave because you don't want to deal with that.

[Skylivedk]

Have the dungeon denizens act with the knowledge that a wandering band of murderhobos invaded their lair with mayhem and looting in mind, and then left to go sleep somewhere. Or have reinforcements arrive. Or have the wrong person ascend to the throne. Or the Cult of the Dragon successfully brings the avatar of Tiamat to the Prime Material Plane.

Honestly, this is the part that me and my friends have never had a problem with. So if there are no outside pressures, nothing is ever under any real threat, and one can go off and recharge whenever one wants*, then a mechanical build which utilizes a small set of powerful-but-expended resources will outshine one with moderate-but-consistent level of power-output? Our answer has always been, 'Well of course. And....?'
*which I'm not really finding any less of a forced situation, to be honest.

If the resource-allocation metrics of the game do not match ones' expectations, that's a problem with that. There are massively multiple ways of dealing with it, including many in the DMG. I guess I'm just not seeing how it is such withering criticism (of the martial-caster divide, or the game as a whole) to say that the game breaks down if you wildly deviate from the basic expectations under which the game operates (which the game clearly lays out, and offers alternatives to for those who want to play the game, but consider this specific aspect unsatisfactory).

To me, Forcecage (which entirely too many foes do not have a response to), minionmancy (which conspires with strength-of-numbers being really effective in this edition), and things martials simply-can't-do without outside help (fly, plane shift) that really are the places where the game has not made non-casters and casters have parity at upper levels.

I don't get your point.

First you say there's no issue and then you point out where there's issues.

If you play a dungeon crawl such as tomb of annihilation and you're in the dungeon: we agree. No issue. If you have downtime say higher levels: issue. You need a constant Doomsday clock for the Wizard not to be able to stack permanent buffs with Simulacrum/Planar Binding/Demiplane etc.


Which requires two rounds to combo, and several more to actually finish something off. In the time used to set up the combo, a modestly optimized fighter has killed most things through raw damage with his +1 weapon. I think you can count on one hand the number of creatures that have resistance to magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage.

Unless you took levels in fighter. Which makes you a fighter. Fighters rule!

Except when there isn't a fight, of course.
Comparisons of martial vs caster potency are best considered through their agency outside of fighting, which is often better. However, even then there is this tendency to give the caster the benefit of infinite time or resources to achieve their ends.
For instance: Simulacrum is phenomenally useful, but it produces something fragile and expensive both in time and gold. If you've managed to keep your simulacrum intact through the encounters leading up to facing Zariel, then it'll be a game changer. But if anything decided to dispel it or manages to deal a relatively small amount of hit point damage to it, that's 12 hours and 1,500gp of a highly specific spell component that won't have a meaningful impact on that final throw down. 12 hours is something you simply won't have while facing down the armies of Avernus.
Will the simulacrum have contributed? Surely; it took hits you otherwise might have, and maybe freed up some spell slots, but it's unlikely to make it so the caster could solo an assault on the Bronze Citadel.

But how does the fighter get to Avernus to fight Zariel's armies in the first place? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does the fighter get from one side of the continent to the other in the 3 days it will take for the cult to finish their ritual? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does a fighter dive to the bottom of the ocean to find the Atlantan McGuffin? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative. How does a fighter build a fortress in a day? He'd be dependent on circumstance and narrative.

But the tools for circumstance and narrative already exist mechanically. Building a fortress requires nothing more than Daern's Instant Fortress. Diving to the Lost City of Atlanta requires nothing more than a Cloak of the Manta Ray. Getting to the other side of the continent requires nothing more than a Helm of Teleportation. Getting to Avernus requires nothing more than an Amulet of the Planes, a little knowledge, and familiarity with the unexpected. Or a rigged roll with a Bag of Beans and climber's tools. Or a Cubic Gate. Or a Sphere of Annihilation in combination with a Portable Hole and a rigged roll. Or a Well of Many Worlds.
So those specific challenges a martial character has the potential to handle, as well.

And seeing as there is at least one person playing the class that enables narrative and circumstance, if the martial character needs any of these to push forward that narrative, they'll come across them. It's the DMs most powerful class feature; story telling. Even in the event that there isn't an item that'll work off hand, story telling fills the gaps gamely.


Martials are fine; if a caster isn't there, the adventuring still gets done. They just get it done with magic items and story telling instead of class features. If the martial isn't there, the adventuring also still gets done. The casters get it done with class features instead of magic items and storytelling.
If they're both there, the adventuring still gets done, creating a dynamic in the party where everyone feels like they're contributing something the other can't. It's mostly illusory, but that doesn't stop people from failing their int saves.

1) for single damage yes, the Fighter is fine. I don't think anyone has argued against that. Only argument has been that that is a very limited quality of power and the quality of power friend really change.

2) fine, you finish the campaign, threat's over. If you don't put a Doomsday clock on immediately, Wizard starts building army/clones/gold whatever. It's only as long as the table stays in game mode and not in world building mode that this doesn't happen.

- not to mention: weird how easy it is to get one hour breaks behind enemy lines, no?

3) yes, of course a DM can mitigate the differences with narrative or by giving caster abilities to martials. That's a stall argument if I ever saw one. The DM might as well have an Elder God burn the brain out of random party members return no save every two seconds. Point?


All in all, having read through the whole thread here, the one issue with casters that is not addressed is resources, and not just spell slots and things. Many spells hav material components that 99% of DMs just assume the player has, because they don't care to nitpick and verify and keep track of their funding and what spell materials they need, etc. When you actually factor those in, things tend to balance out a bit better. Fighters don't need to spend 100 GP on a diamond to make a ranged attack that deals good damage. They just go and do it. Magic is expensive and taxing, and while martial classes can't typically Nova like casters can, they have the capacity to reliably output their damage and survivability 24/7. Considering the DM issue of a 15 minute adventuring day, fighters pale in comparison to casters because the Casters can Nova, finish combat, then go to bed for the day, ready to Nova the next battle tomorrow.

After coming to this issue on a good number of threads now, perhaps D&D is not as unbalanced as many of us think, the unbalancing is done by the DMs not running the game to it's full extent.

No, it's by tables running the game beyond the confines of a 2 short rest, never long term planning style of playing.


Vengeance Paladin is a martial, or at most, a gish. I certainly don't count them the same as a Wizard.

For tankiness, I notice your first option is a Paladin-again, not a full caster. Forge Clerics are tanky, true... Exactly as tanky as a Fighter with Defensive Fighting Style on AC, but with less HP. They can self-heal, but then they aren't hurting the enemy very much (one attack with Divine Strike if they use Healing Word, or nothing if they pop Cure Wounds or similar). Moon Druids are boss tanks... For Tier 1 and early Tier 2. After that point, they fall off SEVERELY until they hit level 20 and go full Onion. Bladesingers can hit great AC, true-but AoEs still hit them right in their fragile d6 Hit Die butts.

For scouting in Tier 3, I'll take a Rogue every day. Minimum of 23 on Stealth Checks means your average guard literally can't spot them on a nat 20. All your stuff? Eats resources. And that's a common trend.

Skill use, Rogues and Bards are the best. Bards can hit bigger numbers, Rogues are far more consistent.

So, here's a specific challenge for you:

Build a full-caster capable of beating a martial at everything throughout a day.

Not "better in one area, worse in another." Not "capable of doing everything for five minutes then has to go take an 8 hour nap (that can only be taken once every 24 hours)." A build that completely and totally obsoletes the Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian.

Edit: Standard point buy, and minimal magic items. It's fair to assume that your Wizard has picked up, say, a Wand of the War Mage in their travels, not so much a Robe of the Archmagi.

Weird challenge and not what the thread is about. Riddle me this: which level 13 ability does a martial get that doubles their offensive power?

...

No?

Which army building do they get?

Which ability to cheat death?

Which martial gets all of them?


It seems forced into dealing with an actual world instead of an MMO. At the most fundamental level, if the players are just going to shrug and say 'oh well' at the first sign of challenge, you don't have a functional adventuring campaign, and if you're not doing high adventure there are much better systems than D&D to play in, plus combat balance isn't a significant concern. If they actually do engage with the world, then 'just move on' tends to mean they lost. If the enemies they're confronting had a plan, they'll go ahead and complete it while the party is trying to use infinite long rests against them. If they were guarding loot, then they either take it and leave (letting the players raid an empty room) or call for help, leading to a tougher fight than the one the party ran off from. Enemies can also do as much or more 'month of planar binding' as the PCs can so that part at best cancels out, and often results in a tougher fight.

To use an example from a thread here a while back: Say the party thinks a demon has infiltrated a castle. The 'martial vs magic' argument was that the casters could just use contact other plane to find the demon (maybe taking a few casts, and whenever they got the temporarily insane result, they'd just rest. The fact that a skilled infiltrator could get in and out quickly without burning up resources was irrelevant since contact other plane was so good. But if the demon is going to kill the king and impersonate him, or just kill the royal family and leave, then the 'cast one spell - long rest - repeat' cycle gives him plenty of time to munch down on some mortals while the party is heroically sleeping off the ill effects of the spell.

People in the world actually responding to events and taking actions is not some silly gamey nonsense, it's much more realistic than the 'PCs have infinite time to do whatever they want' setup.



So don't run an MMO with boring trash mobs and a few obvious important fights. Seriously, the point of playing tabletop games is that you're not stuck to MMO tropes, I know that if I wanted to play an MMO I'd just... play an MMO in the first place. Incidentally, teleportation into unknown areas is extremely risky and commonly blocked (like all of DMM and the interiors of TOA) so is often going to fail. Invisibility and flight bypass only a very limited amount of things, especially if you're dealing with a structure. Invisibility doesn't confer silence so a decent perception still finds you, and a great many things bypass it with senses like a bat familiar or conjured earth elemental. The fact that they are concentration spells also limit the caster's ability to maintain any other spells.

I'm in ToA right now as a player. Funny thing about it:
A) you notice how many limitations are necessary for the casters not to break the dungeon (is, dimension door would ruin most of the traps... Or more)
B) Hexblade laughs at most of the dungeon. So would a cleric 1 or barbarian 1 or Ftr 1/Warlock X. Yes the Battlemaster CBE, SS is putting out +60 dmg per round. So what? It's not the fights that are most prone to kill you.

Two sessions ago, our Sorcerer blended a Beholder by using polymorph (and a trap room). The beholder could equally well have been killed by the Hexblade without help. Fly and Mage hand alone have saved the hides of the party uncountable times. A shepherd druid with conjure animals could singlehandedly rush through most levels, discover most traps and deal with most encounters+traps and not be shook.

Furthermore, only person addressed my point of the power curve accelerating due to both more choice and more uses of the choices given to casters (random level and level both a full caster and a martial; the martial gets less features per level).

[Willie the Duck]

<valid points>

Be that as it may, it's the part of the argument that holds up. Compared to 3e, the designers did a really good job of making martials genuinely good at what they do (no more Codzilla making fighters obsolete, etc.), and most of the 'butbutbut, nova potential'-style arguments are predicated on ignoring the guidance on game pacing, and then complaining that various aspects of game change when you do that. The part of the 'martial don't get no love' argument that does hold some water is that there are genuinely things that casters can do that martials cannot (without magic items, which as you say is an unusual case). Plane shifting might be a bus-driver role, but it's a hat only the wizard types can wear.

Mind you, I find the whole argument academic. 'Are each classes fun to play for the people who would want to play them?' is my metric on whether the designers did right, and I'd say 5e is a strong 4 of 5 stars.

[Great Dragon]

JNAProductions, and Jack Bitters:

This is great!

Yeah, Greater Invisibility is good against the Dyybuk.
But even at a disadvantage to be hit, Wiz will still walk away hurt.

Thanks guys!!



Riddle me this: which level 13 ability does a martial get that doubles their offensive power?

...

No?

Which army building do they get?

Which ability to cheat death?

Which martial gets all of them?

1) Counter:
(A) Which Caster has the ability to non-magically double their Hit Points?
(Heck, False Life still doesn’t give much more than the ability to survive maybe two - at most - extra hits. Absorb Elements works only a few times and against only a few energy types. Most CR 17+ Monsters laugh at the AC bonus from Shield.)

(B) Without Racial perks or Multiclassing, wear armor that makes hitting them difficult? (Mage Max AC = 23)

(C) Do an extra 9d6 damage whenever a friend is near? Sometimes not even needing that.

2) So, I suppose that the Martial with Leadership and at least decent Charisma can’t convince the local Army to come help out against the threat to the region? Oh, wait that require Roleplaying !! Dice Rolls optional.

3) Um - only the Cleric has the power to actually reverse/cheat death - not the Mages.
Avoid death? Maybe, for a little while, anyway.

4) No one should be able to do everything. Regardless of Class.
Especially in a tRPG designed for Group Play.


Plane shifting might be a bus-driver role, but it's a hat only the wizard types can wear.

Mind you, I find the whole argument academic. 'Are each classes fun to play for the people who would want to play them?' is my metric on whether the designers did right, and I'd say 5e is a strong 4 of 5 stars.

I agree.
5e D&D 4 out of 5 stars. But then, any RPG getting 5/5 is super difficult.
3x D&D 3 out of 5 stars.

I changed [B]Plane Shift from 7th to 9th level. Not only should physically shunting your entire being into another Plane be more difficult then just making a pseudo-body of yourself (that automatically returns home when killed, with only two exceptions) but so that the Wizard (maybe with Party) can't pop in, do something, and pop right back out.

[Throne12]

The issue is that, if we imagine a given thing a character might do, casters are usually better at it past level 10.

Wall spells are more effective than tanks.
Greater Invisibility, Pass Without Trace, Gaseous Form, divination spells, and so on are more effective for scouting than Stealth Expertise with Reliable Talent.
Smites (Hexblade, Paladin) are more effective burst damage than anything a fighter or barbarian can do.
Spells like Forcecage are more effective CC than stunning fist (though monks can still contribute to a team full of casters better than most other martials). Note that many high level spells of this nature have no initial saving throw.
Summoned minions and similar often do more damage than martials as early as level 5. Polymorph creates a better Fighter than the Fighter as early as level 7.
Shield, Absorb Elements, and so on, continuing up to spells like Foresight, are more effective at mitigating damage and avoiding bad stuff than the options pure martials get.
Spells like Charm Person and Suggestion and extreme examples like Glibness are more effective for social encounters and getting others to do what you want them to do than having Expertise in some Charisma skills or advantage on some Charisma checks.

Basically, there comes a point in the game when casters are better than martials at any role the caster wishes to fill. That doesn't mean casters can fill all roles at the same time, only that they're better at what they choose to do than martials can be.

After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class.

That's in addition to martials having no way to replicate, at all, many of the things that casters do.

Fortunately, most games never make it to that point. Play in tier 3 is rare and play in tier 4 rarer still. The roles are relatively balanced prior to level 10, though things start getting bonkers as early as level 7 (especially if anyone picks up Polymorph). It's thereafter that things get truly out of hand. Eventually, the best thing a Martial can do for the party is walk into rooms first or willingly let himself be transformed into a better unit by the Wizard.

If spells make any martial class pointless with all there spells why are there any martial classes at all.

Why do you need a rogue. When you have spells like pass with out trace, fine traps, unseen servant, mage hand, greater invisibility,

Why play a fighter with spells like shield, shadowblade, haste, tenser Trasnmutation, spiritual weapon, smite spells, ect

[Crucius]

Marials are incredibly potent in 5e adventuring, the place where martials fall behind is if you're giving a party unlimited long rests and letting full casters (especially wizards) have effectively infinite resources. When the party doesn't have time pressure and is always able to do "teleport away - heavy prep - teleport back," use risky information gathering spells like Contact Other Plane without the actual risk, and planar bind huge armies of minions, then martials just can't compete. When you're actually pressing into an enemy stronghold where they either will succeed at what you're trying to stop or leave if you take a break of a day or two from fighting, it's a completely different story.

I see the argument of resources brought up frequently and I'd like to interject a thought on this matter, for the sake of discussion more than that I really stand by it:

The whole resource argument kinda falls flat when you consider that martials do not have the ability to do some of the things that spellcasters can do.
For example: A sorcerer can sometimes Plane Shift, while a Rogue can never Plane Shift.
While there are a lot of spells that are similar to features granted to martial classes (that can use their features more consistently yes), there are also many spells that provide features that martials cannot match. Some of those are relevant for that level of play.

Just a thought, as I said before, not sure if I fully agree with it. Just being a Tiefling advocate.

[RainbowGorilla]

So, I am surprised no one has realized the ironic hypocrisy of "Challenge the players by challenging the casters" excuse that is going here.

"Hit their resources."
"Give them challenges that drain their spell slots."
"Have more fights in your games."
"Monsters have legendary resistances, magic resistances, and immunities! (as if any of this isn't a red flag for just how powerful casters are)."

Any half observant player will be able to tell you are purposely doing these things to make things more challenging CAUSE OF THE CASTER. Once they realize that, it becomes immediately not fun cause then the caster realizes this, and feels targeted. Likewise, that attitude will carry over to any other player at the table and make things unfun in general. So not only are you doing arbitrary things to make the game harder cause a full casters exists within your group (Never seen a group with only 1 full caster myself. Usually 3/4ths of the group is a full caster.), you are making it even harder on the martials. Doing these things doesn't magically only make it harder for casters, it also makes it harder on martials.

Not only that, there is this misconception that the power dynamic starts in t3/t4 games. No, it starts as early as 2nd level spells. Damage is fine and all, but when you can completely circumvent a encounter, or SEVERAL with 1 spell slot, that spell slot just effectively 'killed' how many people and effectively did 'how much damage' without having actual numbers?

Even without spells, I can give a prime example of just a full caster (sub)class being drastically more broken than anything a martial can do as early as level 3. And that is Glamour bards mantle of inspiration.

Temporary hit points? Check.
Free no attack of opportunity movement as a reaction IF THEY WANT TO? Check.
Get all uses back on a short rest as early as level 5? Check.
Temporary HP scales? Check.
Makes sure Bardic inspiration gets used, cause most people have trouble remember it or using it? Check.

It is the same reason why Lore Bard is so good. Cutting Words is such a swiss army knife ability with so much power that any martial class wishes they had that option. This is even before taking into consideration that Bards are Skill junkies that easily compete with rogues, as well as full casters. Yeah, while some people lament over Sharp shooter and GWM damage, those are FEAT abilities that don't even compete with tons of spells in the game that casters just GET. It only gets worse when you get into the higher tiers of play. No martial can compete with spells like Force Cage, Planar Shift, or Wish just a tiny small sample size of insanely overpowered high level spells. Even if you are letting the party get the fabled '2 short rests' a day.

There is like, no comparison. While 5e is fun and great, it is often lovingly called 3.5 lite in my circle of friends cause casters are still so much better than martials.

[loki_ragnarock]

Weird challenge and not what the thread is about. Riddle me this: which level 13 ability does a martial get that doubles their offensive power?

...

No?

Which army building do they get?

Which ability to cheat death?

Which martial gets all of them?
Not at level 13. But fighters get it at level 2. Then again at level 5. So... that hits a lot earlier, really. Barbarians got it at level 5. Rogues got it literally every round they can succeed at an opportunity attack or otherwise strike off turn, from level 1

Army building falls into the "casters get unlimited time and resources but nobody else gets the benefit of that same assumption" style of arguments. You can create a bunch of skelingtons. Awesome. While the wizard type is desecrating a veritable army of people's dead relatives, the social rogue has effectively taken over the court of an existing kingdom. The fighter that took a spare feat to allow himself the ability to function in social situations is rallying community after community against the depredations of all these spellcasters desecrating their dead relatives. The barbarian has an Iron Horn of Valhalla, instantly summoning a horde when he needs it.
Summoning demons? Cool. The Rogue has effectively taken over a kingdom, the fighter is now making his checks with advantage (demons causing a panic, and all), and the barbarian has still got an Iron Horn of Valhalla.
And they do it by interacting with the story and the world, not exclusively their class features.

I'm pretty sure high level Zealot Barbarians can cheat death pretty effectively.


So a high level Zealot Barbarian with a Horn of Valhalla checks all of the above.

That was simple enough.

[RainbowGorilla]

Not at level 13. But fighters get it at level 2. Then again at level 5. So... that hits a lot earlier, really. Barbarians got it at level 5. Rogues got it literally every round they can succeed at an opportunity attack or otherwise strike off turn, from level 1

Army building falls into the "casters get unlimited time and resources but nobody else gets the benefit of that same assumption" style of arguments. You can create a bunch of skelingtons. Awesome. While the wizard type is desecrating a veritable army of people's dead relatives, the social rogue has effectively taken over the court of an existing kingdom. The fighter that took a spare feat to allow himself the ability to function in social situations is rallying community after community against the depredations of all these spellcasters desecrating their dead relatives. The barbarian has an Iron Horn of Valhalla, instantly summoning a horde when he needs it.
Summoning demons? Cool. The Rogue has effectively taken over a kingdom, the fighter is now making his checks with advantage (demons causing a panic, and all), and the barbarian has still got an Iron Horn of Valhalla.
And they do it by interacting with the story and the world, not exclusively their class features.

I'm pretty sure high level Zealot Barbarians can cheat death pretty effectively.


So a high level Zealot Barbarian with a Horn of Valhalla checks all of the above.

That was simple enough.

So, you are ignoring the fact that a Bard, and druid can do all of this without any magic items? Nothing is stopping a bard from doing what the rogue is and even better cause he has spells as back up. Nothing is stopping the druid from doing what the Zealot Barbarian is doing, actually even better since they get unlimited wildshapes WHILE they can cast full spells.

Let us forget the class specific magical items that are grossly powerful for casters cause they don't even need to use their own spell slots cause of them as well (Robe and staff of the arch magi anyone? Staff of Power? Bardic instruments? Staff of healing?).

[Nhorianscum]

Fair tactic, yeah. I feel that the Dyybuk is just too terrain-dependent to really say-in a dungeon, he can easily lurk behind a wall, and deal with any of the PCs at its leisure.

Main issue is that, even with advantage and +9, it still takes the Wizard about seven turns to kill the Dyybuk. And the Dyybuk hits back on an 8 (13 with Shield) so it'll hit about three times (only once with Shield every round it's needed), which is good... Unless the Dyybuk gets lucky, hits early, and forces a Concentration save.

I really shoulda thought about terrain for this stuff...

I'm pretty sure Dyybuk's cannot cast shield so magic missile just kills in 2 rounds. Rolling a 4 with a force+1 focus (if your plane has those) at 5th level kills outright at a 25% chance

[JNAProductions]

I'm pretty sure Dyybuk's cannot cast shield so magic missile just kills in 2 rounds. Rolling a 4 with a force+1 focus (if your plane has those) at 5th level kills outright at a 25% chance

So you have your own build? Because the presented build lacks magic missile.

[Nhorianscum]

So you have your own build? Because the presented build lacks magic missile.

I just assume when someone puts "spend a 1st level slot for cantrip damage" the spell-the movie-the game on a list they actually typoed magic missile.

For giggles chromatic orb with a +9 to hit and no need to finagle with fear/whatever can also semi-reliably slug for lethal in 2 turns. Though 3 is more likely due to miss chance.

[jdolch]

Use True Polymorph (and no other 9th level spells are available for the rest of the day) to Turn the Bear Barbarian into a T-Rex? Sure, allow Rage, but with 2 Int and 12 Wis, means that while they can remember Friend from Foe (Wis) they don't remember any kind of tactics (Int) beyond Attack and Run Away. And the Wizard should know better than to cast Polymorph on themselves, since they can't cast spells in that form.

Erm... You are not using a 9th Level spell to turn someone into a T-Rex. You turn them into something else.

[OverLordOcelot]

For example: A sorcerer can sometimes Plane Shift, while a Rogue can never Plane Shift.
While there are a lot of spells that are similar to features granted to martial classes (that can use their features more consistently yes), there are also many spells that provide features that martials cannot match. Some of those are relevant for that level of play.

Yay, casters can be the bus driver who drives the party to where the actual adventure is at the cost of some of their high level power. I don't find "Joe got to use up some of his limited resources to get us to the actual adventure instead of having an NPC or item do it" to lead to "how could any of us martials possible enjoy the game if he got to drive the bus?" I mean, if the DM wanted to run an extraplanar adventure and no PC had plane shift, they'd either not run an extra planar adventure or they'd use a gate, magic item, or friendly NPC to get to the other plane where the action actually starts happening. Also generally you're not going to know a teleportation circle right in the middle of whatever new thing you're trying to kill, explore, or rescue so plane shift just gets you to the plane, it doesn't really bypass the journey (if you are going to a known teleportation circle, expect a trap waiting at it).

[Great Dragon]

The whole resource argument kinda falls flat when you consider that martials do not have the ability to do some of the things that spellcasters can do.
For example: A sorcerer can sometimes Plane Shift, while a Rogue can never Plane Shift.

You know, I remember a time when everyday people could find and use a Portal: and no-one's Treasure Vault was safe: because Gatecrasher Rogues (3x PrC) could go anywhere; but, now that they (WotC) have removed all the Planar Portals, you do have a minor point.

But even in the 14+ level games that I do see: Not very many people with a full caster take Plane Shift. Why? I mean, if it's so easy, and the rewards are so great, these Casters should be flooding the Planes.


While there are a lot of spells that are similar to features granted to martial classes (that can use their features more consistently yes), there are also many spells that provide features that martials cannot match. Some of those are relevant for that level of play.

Now, I'll give ya a point here.
Both The Valor Bard and especially the unmodified Hexblade


So, I am surprised no one has realized the ironic hypocrisy of "Challenge the players by challenging the casters" excuse that is going here.

"Hit their resources."
"Give them challenges that drain their spell slots."
"Have more fights in your games."
"Monsters have legendary resistances, magic resistances, and immunities! (as if any of this isn't a red flag for just how powerful casters are)."

I know a Monster that doesn't have Legendary Resistance, Magic Resistance, and is only Immune to being Prone.

But, still kills Casters (heck, TPKs) by the truck load.
The Beholder
And I'm not talking about the joke of that kind: Xanathar.

A DM that actually plays the Beholder as an Intelligent Monster should be able to keep a Party of 4/5 PCs of up to 15th level on their toes.
Especially if they are trying to take it on within its Lair.
And with 3 extra (random) Eye attacks each round with Legendary Actions.

And my 10th level Wizard would be trying to get as far away from it, and desperately seeking some Martial Allies, as soon as he even heard it was nearby.


Any half observant player will be able to tell you are purposely doing these things to make things more challenging CAUSE OF THE CASTER.

So not only are you doing arbitrary things to make the game harder cause a full casters exists within your group (Never seen a group with only 1 full caster myself. Usually 3/4ths of the group is a full caster.), you are making it even harder on the martials. Doing these things doesn't magically only make it harder for casters, it also makes it harder on martials.

I'm not sure how "targeting the caster" is making harder for other non-casting classes...


when you can completely circumvent a encounter, or SEVERAL with 1 spell slot, that spell slot just effectively 'killed' how many people and effectively did 'how much damage' without having actual numbers?


Even without spells, I can give a prime example of just a full caster (sub)class being drastically more broken than anything a martial can do as early as level 3. And that is Glamour bards mantle of inspiration.

Temporary hit points? Check.
Free no attack of opportunity movement as a reaction IF THEY WANT TO? Check.
Get all uses back on a short rest as early as level 5? Check.
Temporary HP scales? Check.
Makes sure Bardic inspiration gets used, cause most people have trouble remembering it or using it? Check.

Tell ya what, show up for my Game and play this PC, because there's a town here that would love to have this Hero of a Bard take care of a "little" problem, that's less than a week's travel away….


Cutting Words is such a swiss army knife ability with so much power that any martial class wishes they had that option. This is even before taking into consideration that Bards are Skill junkies that easily compete with rogues, as well as full casters. Yeah, while some people lament over Sharp shooter and GWM damage, those are FEAT abilities that don't even compete with tons of spells in the game that casters just GET.

That's because, once again, the DM is just ignoring the fact that all spells must be learned and just letting the Player pick whatever they want off the list, instead of actually making those casters earn and learn those spells. Sure, maybe the 1st level Casters get a break and can choose their First Level Spells, but nothing afterwards should just be easy.

Foci and Material Components has been mentioned, but are typically hand waved by a lot of (lazy) DMs.


It only gets worse when you get into the higher tiers of play. No martial can compete with spells like Force Cage, Planar Shift, or Wish just a tiny small sample size of insanely overpowered high level spells. Even if you are letting the party get the fabled '2 short rests' a day.

There is like, no comparison. While 5e is fun and great, it is often lovingly called 3.5 lite in my circle of friends cause casters are still so much better than martials.

Like, apparently you're not reading anything I (or the others) have written?



Army building falls into the "casters get unlimited time and resources but nobody else gets the benefit of that same assumption" style of arguments. You can create a bunch of skelingtons. Awesome. While the wizard type is desecrating a veritable army of people's dead relatives, the social rogue has effectively taken over the court of an existing kingdom. The fighter that took a spare feat to allow himself the ability to function in social situations is rallying community after community against the depredations of all these spellcasters desecrating their dead relatives. The barbarian has an Iron Horn of Valhalla, instantly summoning a horde when he needs it.
Summoning demons? Cool. The Rogue has effectively taken over a kingdom, the fighter is now making his checks with advantage (demons causing a panic, and all), and the barbarian has still got an Iron Horn of Valhalla.
And they do it by interacting with the story and the world, not exclusively their class features.

I'm pretty sure high level Zealot Barbarians can cheat death pretty effectively.

So a high level Zealot Barbarian with a Horn of Valhalla checks all of the above.

That was simple enough.
Nice.


So, you are ignoring the fact that a Bard, and druid can do all of this without any magic items? Nothing is stopping a bard from doing what the rogue is and even better cause he has spells as back up.

Sure, a Bard could take over the Kingdom, but they better not use any Charm spells doing so, or they will be up to their eyeballs in dedicated enemies out to kill them.


Nothing is stopping the druid from doing what the Zealot Barbarian is doing, actually even better since they get unlimited wildshapes WHILE they can cast full spells.

A possible point. I haven't seen a Druid of 18th level, yet. But, even the Moon Druid's best beast form only has AC 15, and still caps out at CR 6 Beasts for HP maximum. There are still ways to take this Tank down….


Let us forget the class specific magical items that are grossly powerful for casters cause they don't even need to use their own spell slots cause of them as well (Robe and staff of the arch magi anyone? Staff of Power? Bardic instruments? Staff of healing?).

Sigh. And if the DM is handing these out like cheap Candy and Xmas presents, they don't get to complain about how OP these PCs are.


Erm... You are not using a 9th Level spell to turn someone into a T-Rex. You turn them into something else.

T-Rex is the most common thing I've seen.
What's your choice?

Assume CR 20, and while it doesn't say either way by RAW, magical/supernatural Abilities are not duplicated. Also remember that creatures that cannot normally speak and without hands cannot cast spells, and all equipment is absorbed by the new form and not usable.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Yay, casters can be the bus driver who drives the party to where the actual adventure is at the cost of some of their high level power. I don't find "Joe got to use up some of his limited resources to get us to the actual adventure instead of having an NPC or item do it" to lead to "how could any of us martials possible enjoy the game if he got to drive the bus?" I mean, if the DM wanted to run an extraplanar adventure and no PC had plane shift, they'd either not run an extra planar adventure or they'd use a gate, magic item, or friendly NPC to get to the other plane where the action actually starts happening. Also generally you're not going to know a teleportation circle right in the middle of whatever new thing you're trying to kill, explore, or rescue so plane shift just gets you to the plane, it doesn't really bypass the journey (if you are going to a known teleportation circle, expect a trap waiting at it).

I think part of the point is that a group of martial characters that needs to shift planes on pursuit of a foe is powerless to do so on their own and their only recourse is to go bargain with a wizard, whereas there’s not really any situation we’re a group of wizards goes “Man what are we going to do now? How the heck are we going to fix this? You know what...we need a powerful fighter to do this for us, let’s go find one and beg or bargain for his aid.”

In a mixed party this manifests itself as the wizard being super integral to the party for both his RP and his vast powers and the mundane characters only really affecting grander story arcs or non-combat sections of the game with their RP. Which isn’t nothing but it feels lacking and sometimes kind of humiliating. Also it’s way more DM dependant. If you’re a social character and you want to raise an army in your downtime a lot of DMs, most probably, will say “well that’s a pretty big complex thing and it’s really hard and there’s lots of opposing factions and stuff so you might get a few people.” But if you can point to the book and the rules those same DMs will go “well yeah you get that spell slot back every day so I guess you can just spend every day of your downtime doing that.”


And some people might say that’s a DM problem, not a game problem, but if so many different DMs do that, and aren’t supposed to, then it’s a failure of the book not to be explicit enough with expectations. There’s nothing stopping a paragraph in the book from saying a level 20 fighter with 14 charisma and performance and persuasion trained can easily raise a personal army from almost any countryside in a few short weeks, so long as no great force directly opposes her. Or something like that but much broader and better written because I’m not a game designer and that’s just off the top of my head. Or the possibly less fun flip side of that being that abuse of magical powers carries with it a very very real risk of attracting powerful and unwanted attention from cosmic beings or something.


I actually think that the combat balance is pretty good, I admit I’ve never played a high level fighter, but I’ve played multiple high level casters and one high level rogue and the rogue definitely feels behind, but I think he should feel behind. Rogues, to my mind, are built around exploration and ‘adventure’ segments more than combat, whereas the fighters main thing should feel like juggernauts in battle. Again though I wouldn’t personally know with fighters. The wizard dominates any combat he chooses to dominate, but in big high pressure days his limited gas tank affects that in all but the highest levels. When you get to 18-20 the sheer number of spells especially with arcane recovery makes it a bit meaningless again but whatever.

The exploration or social areas of the game tend to be lower pressure though. You don’t necessarily have to run it like that but without a moment to breathe the campaign can get exhausting and over stressful. Unfortunately unlike in combat where damage and crowd control and stuff are things everyone can at least contribute to and are more balanced over the course of a big day, magic usually either does what no mundane character can even attempt, like Plane Shift or Teleport, or can make the mundane way totally obsolete like with Polymorph or Scrying.

[jdolch]

T-Rex is the most common thing I've seen.
What's your choice?

Assume CR 20, and while it doesn't say either way by RAW, magical/supernatural Abilities are not duplicated. Also remember that creatures that cannot normally speak and without hands cannot cast spells, and all equipment is absorbed by the new form and not usable.

T-Rex is the powergamers choice for Polymorph.
For True Polymorph, since your username is Great Dragon, how about an Ancient White Dragon (technically Evil but the polymorphed retains it's alignment and personality). 333 Hit Points, 20AC, Legendary Res, Legendary Actions, INT16, can speak and can assume humanoid form at will, so it can cast.

Not sure what you mean by "magical/supernatural Abilities are not duplicated". That seems like a houserule to me. In fact the true Polymorph spell implicitly states that the new form can cast if it can speak and has hands. And the Shapeform Ability of the dragon explicitly states that it retains his abilities as well. And just by logic: If you categorize by challenge rating, then of course everything that goes into that challenge rating is retained. Everything else makes no sense.

[MeimuHakurei]

A few points to address in here, which I'll do seperately:

Plane Shift: While the ability most definitely comes in handy to get to another plane on demand, it opens up a huge possibility space in those adventures that don't involve planehopping of any kind. The many planes offer different resources that can be bargained for or just outright pillaged and you can also use it as either a save or die (plenty of planes aren't well survivable, and if all else fails, just put them into Carceri) or an absurdly effective escape option.

Beholders: I fail to see how the Beholder sacrificing its only effective means to attack me and giving me free shots is a huge problem. And the closer it gets the easier it is for me to step out of the cone. Not to mention that if the Beholder chooses to slug it out with bite attacks, Valor Bards, some clerics and a few others will still come out on top in a head-on brawl.

Martials Roleplaying: As mentioned already, social interactions and non-statistical things are fully accessible to casters - even the less skill-inclined ones still have four proficient skills at minimum they can leverage. As well as a background feature and mundane gear.

"Teamwork": The thing with caster superiority doesn't necessarily mean that a single Wizard won't need a Fighter around - especially at lower levels having allies is valuable, which still held true in 3rd Edition. What's still a thing is that said Wizard would rather have a frontline-suitable Cleric or Druid over a Fighter, who does all the necessary tanking and way more. There's also the notion that you should be using your spells to buff the noncasters - having allies with their own spells will heavily decrease the load of having to throw around buffs for everyone and letting you use your more overall effective strategies freely (you will free their actions/concentration/slots if you choose to be a support).

Adventure Pace: It's not realistic to have all the time in the world preparing, but it's equally absurd to put the party against an advancing wall of doom that will kill them if they ever invest any downtime in gathering resources or information or even just carouse. There's also the factor that the effects of spells are clear-cut and largely unambiguous whereas most nonmagical activities - particularly those pertaining to downtime preparation - are very vague in whether they can be accomplished and what tangible effects that will have on the game.

[Bannan_mantis]

I think one remark which should be made is that overall character power is something that is honestly rather subjective. I think overall a character's power is heavily determined by two things and that goes for all characters (even the really OP homebrewed ones from dndwiki) and that is a dm's game and what things the player sees as valuable. No matter what people have a preference for what they see as more powerful, examples being nova damage vs consistent damage, short rest recovery vs long rest nova, out of combat abilities vs in combat abilities and etc. but all of these have their value determined by a player's opinions and how the dm of their table works. Overall all classes are good at a few select things but the classes power level in people's eyes will depend on that they see as powerful.

I think one example of this is how personally I dislike and feel the paladin is a worser choice than fighter for a single target damage dealing tank and my reason for that is when you compare consistent damage of the fighter to paladin the fighter wins 90% of the time and when you compare the recovery of the two fighter again comes out on top and I think for me I value these traits more than I value nova damage or large amounts of long rest resources. Now I am not saying the paladin is bad or weaker than fighter, the paladin is a powerful choice overall but I just personally feel that in my games the fighter is more valuable but that's purely my opinion and what happens on my table, your table could be very different to mine.

So overall while there is some level of objectiveness to this a comparison of martials to casters is a subjective comparison around 80-90% of the time.

[Great Dragon]

T-Rex is the powergamers choice for Polymorph.
For True Polymorph, since your username is Great Dragon, how about an Ancient White Dragon (technically Evil but the polymorphed retains it's alignment and personality). 333 Hit Points, 20AC, Legendary Res, Legendary Actions, INT16, can speak and can assume humanoid form at will, so it can cast.

Not sure what you mean by "magical/supernatural Abilities are not duplicated". That seems like a houserule to me. In fact the true Polymorph spell implicitly states that the new form can cast if it can speak and has hands. And the Shapeform Ability of the dragon explicitly states that it retains his abilities as well. And just by logic: If you categorize by challenge rating, then of course everything that goes into that challenge rating is retained. Everything else makes no sense.

Nice Choice.
I usually go either Ancient Silver or Ancient Gold, myself. :)
But, not sure if that's still possible with 5e.
Nope: have to settle for Ancient Brass.

Well, I did state that RAW didn't say either way.

But, I suppose my choosing to not allow everything to be gained even by transforming into a creature, can be considered Homebrew.

I can see being able to duplicate the Physical form of a creature, including Flight.

For your choice, I would say that Dragons can still cast in their natural form, being able to speak and appendages that can manipulate close enough to hands. I suppose that the Breath Weapon is kept, but the Save DC would be based on the caster's Proficiency bonus.

But, even a 9th Level spell shouldn't be able to duplicate innate magical Abilities of said Creatures.
(I got rid of Wish)
As for Legendary stuff…. How?

Yes, I will agree that the Wizard casting a spell and getting Legendary Anything before Epic will greatly outpace the Martials.


Planes
If anyone could just pop over to, say, the Plane of Earth and mine infinite gold/iron/Adamantine/etc, without much danger, then it's most likely that someone (Dwarves) is already doing that. And they won't like you doing it, and will take steps to prevent you from doing it.

And that's not taking into account all the various Earth Elemental beings that will most likely be upset at you being on their (literal) turf, and come to kick you off it.


Beholder
Well, that's kinda a dumb way to run a Beholder.

But, I'm not inclined to just give away all my DMing secrets.


Social
Depends on if the DM doesn't just hand-wave this with a few Downtime Rolls; and actually engages in serious Roleplay, where Combat is considered failure. And Dice are used only when the outcome is truly unknown. And where both Success and Failure add to the Story.

Being involved in Social interactions should require subilty and casting a spell usually isn't subtle. Sure, the Sorcerer can be less obvious, but it shouldn't take Holmes to figure out what was done, if not by whom.

(Which reminds me of my Subtle Sorcerer vPC trying to take over a small kingdom. Huh, no one has returned to that area in quite some time…. I'll have to think about that)

Also there should be at least one, if not several, casters on hand to detect and negate any unwanted spell effects.


Teamwork
Seems like the Classic Party is no longer wanted.

5e doesn't help with keeping the Fighter, since they only get a +1 bonus to AC from Defense Style, over anyone else Proficient in Full Plate and Shield.

Most everyone only looks at the BarBearian.

And more Swashbucklers than I can shake my magical stick at !




I think one remark which should be made is that overall character power is something that is honestly rather subjective. I think overall a character's power is heavily determined by two things and that goes for all characters (even the really OP homebrewed ones from dndwiki) and that is a dm's game and what things the player sees as valuable.
<Snip>
but that's purely my opinion and what happens on my table, your table could be very different to mine.

So overall while there is some level of objectiveness to this a comparison of martials to casters is a subjective comparison around 80-90% of the time.


Indeed
Sometimes sharing opinions can improve my game, though.


*****
Thanks for chatting with me.

Not sure if I have anything else to add, really.

I'll check in to read what is said, and respond to any posts to me.

[Willie the Duck]

So, I am surprised no one has realized the ironic hypocrisy of "Challenge the players by challenging the casters" excuse that is going here.

"Hit their resources."
"Give them challenges that drain their spell slots."
"Have more fights in your games."
"Monsters have legendary resistances, magic resistances, and immunities! (as if any of this isn't a red flag for just how powerful casters are)."

Any half observant player will be able to tell you are purposely doing these things to make things more challenging CAUSE OF THE CASTER.

RG, you should probably provide some actual quotes, as I feel you are arguing with a convenient straw opponent. However, even if people have said things like that, it may well be a case of framing.

You are right that, as you have chosen to frame it, people asking/choosing (and again, this would work better with some quoted references) to move things in a different situation less favorable to a given group would be a reaction to that group. However, calling that hypocrisy is assuming the state that you would want them to be judged in to be a neutral or objective state. If we are rating bicycles, and the setup is a gravel pit, arguing that the arena of judgment by changed to a more neutral state is in reaction to how an offroad bike would do in that situation, but it is hardly hypocrisy. One can frame (using the 'more fights in your games' one as an example) as, "Have more fights in your games," instead of "Why are there so few fights in this comparison you are using?" or "If you find yourself in a case where casters are running that roughshod over non-casters, it might be because of what level of fight-frequency you are setting your game to," and then we can argue about with state of gaming is genuinely most reflective of... I don't know... the way most people play/the way the game was intended/some other metric of how to judge the game.

Regarding "Monsters have legendary resistances, magic resistances, and immunities! (as if any of this isn't a red flag for just how powerful casters are)." -- well, caster's aren't powerful, because monsters have these resistances. Just like fighter's don't always hit, because monsters have AC scores. Those systems are put in place as a method of giving relative success rates to each type of endeavor. I'm not sure how or why this particular point is differential when applied to casters and not-casters.

It seems rather like you dislike the concept that people are going to find places where claims of caster supremacy are limited, muted, or have built-in countervailing forces, without a real argument for why those counterpoints are invalid. You have raised a number of valid specific examples (glamour bard being a good example), and they area a positive contribution to this thread, and I thank you for that. However, this charge that others are being hypocritical seems unsupported.

[OverLordOcelot]

I think part of the point is that a group of martial characters that needs to shift planes on pursuit of a foe is powerless to do so on their own and their only recourse is to go bargain with a wizard, whereas there’s not really any situation we’re a group of wizards goes “Man what are we going to do now? How the heck are we going to fix this? You know what...we need a powerful fighter to do this for us, let’s go find one and beg or bargain for his aid.”

If you're going to make weird arbitrary requirements in an adventure like 'you need the plane shift spell to pursue them and you can't have items or use gates to get there' then you can also put the enemy stronghold in an anti-magic zone and the wizards are now completely screwed and useless. You bet they will bargain with a fighter if they need to deal with an area where their magic doesn't work. I think that designing an adventure so that it absolutely requires or absolutely excludes particular players is dumb, but if you're going to use arbitrary design as an argument in one direction, then I'll use it in the other.

If you're not making weird arbitrary requirements, then plane shift RAW isn't especially useful for pursuit, BTW - it just gets you to the plane. You can specify a destination in general terms, but the spell explicitly says that it's unguided to the point that trying to land in "The City of Brass on the elemental Plane of Fire" might land you on the other side of the sea of fire. You need to know exactly where the enemy went on the plane, it needs to be distinct enough that you can name it, and even if you do you can end up days or weeks of travel from the point that you name. If the DM is making it so accurate that you pick a location right next to the guy who just left, that's a huge boost to the spell.


In a mixed party this manifests itself as the wizard being super integral to the party for both his RP and his vast powers and the mundane characters only really affecting grander story arcs or non-combat sections of the game with their RP. Which isn’t nothing but it feels lacking and sometimes kind of humiliating.

I don't know any actual sensible players who feel that a mage getting to be a bus driver ruins their enjoyment of the game. "Oh no, we use this item" or "My game is ruined, we have to step into this gate instead of me casting a spell" are just not things I actually hear.


Also it’s way more DM dependant. If you’re a social character and you want to raise an army in your downtime a lot of DMs, most probably, will say “well that’s a pretty big complex thing and it’s really hard and there’s lots of opposing factions and stuff so you might get a few people.” But if you can point to the book and the rules those same DMs will go “well yeah you get that spell slot back every day so I guess you can just spend every day of your downtime doing that.”

Then your problem is that the DM is arbitrarily letting casters do way more stuff than martials. It's not a problem with the game system or with game balance, it's a problem that the DM is arbitrarily ruling "Jim can raise an army, Larry can't".


And some people might say that’s a DM problem, not a game problem, but if so many different DMs do that, and aren’t supposed to,

In my 35 years of playing RPGs, the only time I've seen a DM allow 'as many minions as you want' type play is if they're deliberately doing a Gonzo campaign where they want silly stuff like people showing up to a fight with 40 bound elementals. (And, going back to the first point, your 40 elementals can't plane shift with you). I have never seen any evidence that 'so many different actual DMs running actual games do that', but rather that 'so many people posting on forums say it'. (And it's not actually that many people on forums).

[OverLordOcelot]

Plane Shift: While the ability most definitely comes in handy to get to another plane on demand, it opens up a huge possibility space in those adventures that don't involve planehopping of any kind. The many planes offer different resources that can be bargained for or just outright pillaged and you can also use it as either a save or die (plenty of planes aren't well survivable, and if all else fails, just put them into Carceri) or an absurdly effective escape option.

You can bargain and pillage vastly more resources than you can carry on the prime plane, you don't need planar travel for this. You can also travel to other planes by means other than casting the spell yourself in most standard settings, the only reason plane shift becomes super-special is if you set up your campaign world so that there aren't gates, items, or NPC wizards to travel to other planes. Yeah if you have a campaign where the campaign world is a desolate wasteland while the planes are rich and eager to give stuff to the PCs, and there are no means of plane travel other than PC casters the martials are going to feel screwed, but the problem there isn't the game system.

If you're using it as a 'save or die' then you're talking about casting a touch spell in combat, which requires you to get close to an enemy (range: touch), is vulnerable to counterspell, and has to get past a save and possible legendary resistance. It's not a terrible attack spell, but there are a lot of other spells in the 7+ range that are also effective, and the fighter in the same situation is going to drop 8+ attacks that might miss but can't be counterspelled. As an escape option, it can get the caster out but not really the party (if you're trying to flee, you probably don't have a whole round to get together and hold hands), and is pretty much an "I choose to lose but live" option.

[Great Dragon]

@ OverLordOcelot: Greetings, Fellow Old Gamer !

Are you a Grognard? I am, but I try to be a Friendly one. :wink:


Planar Binding
This actually has some very limiting requirements.
If trying to use on a (spell) Summoned Being, this is impossible for the Caster to do by themselves.

If done on another Plane, the Caster must find a way to hold the Being still for an hour.
Not many of those dumb enough to just wander into an inverted Containment Circle.

Plus, as OverLordOcelot points out, you can only take eight of these Bound Beings with you, with Plane Shift.

The Good news is, that there's no HD/CR limit to Planar Binding or Plane Shift, so arriving with Eight CR 23 Elder Tempests (if they somehow failed their DC 19 Cha Save) to fight for/with you for (about) 24 hours might be awesome.

[Sigreid]

So your solution is for DMs to ensure that there is always a ticking clock of some sort? That seems forced. I wonder what the DM would do if the players just shrugged, said "oh well", and decided to move on.

Also, most casters just save their resources for important moments in cases like that. In MMO terms, it creates a situation where martials clean up trash mobs while casters deal with the important fights - assuming casters don't use teleportation, flight, invisibility, or related to just skip ahead to the important fights.

This is exactly the opposite of what I see at my table. What I see is the casters dealing with the trash mobs so the martial characters can focus their superior single target damage on the main event.

[Bobthewizard]

Fair tactic, yeah. I feel that the Dyybuk is just too terrain-dependent to really say-in a dungeon, he can easily lurk behind a wall, and deal with any of the PCs at its leisure.

Main issue is that, even with advantage and +9, it still takes the Wizard about seven turns to kill the Dyybuk. And the Dyybuk hits back on an 8 (13 with Shield) so it'll hit about three times (only once with Shield every round it's needed), which is good... Unless the Dyybuk gets lucky, hits early, and forces a Concentration save.

I really shoulda thought about terrain for this stuff...

For that Wizard against the Dyybuk, open with misty step, move and dash to get away. With that combo you can move 90' in one round. He can only move 80' with a dash. Keep 85-120' away and kite with Firebolt. Maybe use greater invisibility for the advantage but you might not even need too. He'll maybe get one attack against you if he wins initiative but you should be able to avoid him after that.

But more importantly, I don't build my wizards to win one on one fights. I build them to help the martials win the fights. I'm usually more helpful against minions than against the big boss. But that's ok, because all of the martial classes are optimized for fighting the big boss.

When I DM, I make sure everyone gets a chance to shine. Have some days where the casters can nova, but other days where the reinforcements keep coming in waves so the casters either conserve spells or run out and then the fighters, rogues and rangers can shine.

Edit: I just saw they have Haste prepared as well. Probably a better use of your concentration in this scenario over greater invisibility. Not a spell I normally cast on myself but here it would work well to conserve your 2nd level slots.

[Callak_Remier]

By level 10 Most martial classes should have followers, Fighters and Paladins become lords, Barbarians become Chieftains or Kings. Rogues should be running syndicates.

A lot of these complaints about casters, highlight strengths and none of their weaknesses.

I'm playing a lvl 11 Wizard, i am broke. The rest of my party is throwing money away, they don't know what to do with it.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm playing a lvl 11 Wizard, i am broke. The rest of my party is throwing money away, they don't know what to do with it.

That's a crappy party. We buy adventuring stuff like plate mail for the paladin and spells for the wizard, and then split the rest of the loot.

[MadBear]

Outside of white room Bs, I've played with many groups and never once found this martials need help for tier 3 play to be meaningful.

One big problem I see that helps lead to this error, is that people look at the wizard spell list and act like they know and prepare every spell. That's almost never the case.

It's a silly non issue.

[Trickery]

This is exactly the opposite of what I see at my table. What I see is the casters dealing with the trash mobs so the martial characters can focus their superior single target damage on the main event.

In the first tier of play and, to a lesser degree, the second, this is generally true. Casters have AoE, which is better for dealing with lots of small units. Fighters save action surge and Paladins save smite for hard targets.

It's in the later tiers when things flip. If the Wizard can Forcecage the boss, then the Wizard should do so. It's a no-save death sentence. Again, this is just one example.

Yes, it's true that casters don't always have the exact right spell prepared. But they don't necessarily need to. It's possible for casters to out-burst martials, out-tank martials, out-stealth martials (by a wide, wide margin), out-social martials, and also do a wide variety of things martials can't (fly, invisibility, plane shift, teleportation, shapeshifting, divination, healing, and on and on and on).

If you ask me, a Rogue ought to always be better than a Bard at stealth. Generally speaking, that's the rogue's schtick. But it's usually the other way around. Pass Without Trace is better than reliable talent and is available much earlier.

If you ask me, a Fighter or Barbarian ought to always be better at taking hits and dealing single-target damage than a caster. But between Paladins, Druids, Wizards, and even Sorcerers at choice levels, that is very often not the case.

However, it is always the case that casters are better than martials at all of the extra utility stuff I mentioned above. And by "better than", I mean that martials can't do those things at all.

The main difference between a caster and a martial is this: a martial cannot even attempt to fill a caster's role, but a caster can sometimes fill a martial's role better than the martial depending on the specifics and the encounter. In some cases, such as a Bard or Druid or Divination Wizard competing with a Rogue as the party scout, the caster is almost always better. This statement becomes more true with every increase in spell level. And I think that's a problem.

[Sigreid]

In the first tier of play and, to a lesser degree, the second, this is generally true. Casters have AoE, which is better for dealing with lots of small units. Fighters save action surge and Paladins save smite for hard targets.

It's in the later tiers when things flip. If the Wizard can Forcecage the boss, then the Wizard should do so. It's a no-save death sentence. Again, this is just one example.

Yes, it's true that casters don't always have the exact right spell prepared. But they don't necessarily need to. It's possible for casters to out-burst martials, out-tank martials, out-stealth martials (by a wide, wide margin), out-social martials, and also do a wide variety of things martials can't (fly, invisibility, plane shift, teleportation, shapeshifting, divination, healing, and on and on and on).

If you ask me, a Rogue ought to always be better than a Bard at stealth. Generally speaking, that's the rogue's schtick. But it's usually the other way around. Pass Without Trace is better than reliable talent and is available much earlier.

If you ask me, a Fighter or Barbarian ought to always be better at taking hits and dealing single-target damage than a caster. But between Paladins, Druids, Wizards, and even Sorcerers at choice levels, that is very often not the case.

However, it is always the case that casters are better than martials at all of the extra utility stuff I mentioned above. And by "better than", I mean that martials can't do those things at all.

The main difference between a caster and a martial is this: a martial cannot even attempt to fill a caster's role, but a caster can sometimes fill a martial's role better than the martial depending on the specifics and the encounter. In some cases, such as a Bard or Druid or Divination Wizard competing with a Rogue as the party scout, the caster is almost always better. This statement becomes more true with every increase in spell level. And I think that's a problem.

We play very different games. Even at high level the casters can't afford to spend the resources necessary to substitute for having the specialist there at my table, regardless of who is DMing.

[JNAProductions]

Why do you keep listing Paladins alongside Wizards and Bards?

Yes, they cast spells, but they're (to me) more martial than caster. You can credibly say they're a gish, but they're certainly not full casters.

[diplomancer]

Why do you keep listing Paladins alongside Wizards and Bards?

Yes, they cast spells, but they're (to me) more martial than caster. You can credibly say they're a gish, but they're certainly not full casters.

Probably because Paladins severely weaken his case. They use the attack action in combat around 90% of the time, so are definitely martials, and they are generally considered to be one of the strongest class in the game.

I played a Paladin in a party of 3 with a Cleric and a Wizard, all the way to level 20. The cleric left around level 15, and the wizard liked nothing better in combat than to improve me and get out of the way, attacking with crown of stars. Sure, when we had to go to the outer planes he was the one to have to use one of his resources for it, though I fail to see why that means I was outclassed.

[loki_ragnarock]

It's in the later tiers when things flip. If the Wizard can Forcecage the boss, then the Wizard should do so. It's a no-save death sentence. Again, this is just one example.
It's a very good spell.

It's hardly a death sentence in isolation.


Yes, it's true that casters don't always have the exact right spell prepared. But they don't necessarily need to. It's possible for casters to out-burst martials, out-tank martials, out-stealth martials (by a wide, wide margin), out-social martials, and also do a wide variety of things martials can't (fly, invisibility, plane shift, teleportation, shapeshifting, divination, healing, and on and on and on).
There is little that a spellcaster can do that can't be duplicated by magic items. That there exists an entire category of the DMG that obviates them doesn't really make a strongest case for caster supremacy.



If you ask me, a Rogue ought to always be better than a Bard at stealth. Generally speaking, that's the rogue's schtick. But it's usually the other way around. Pass Without Trace is better than reliable talent and is available much earlier.
Bard is a pretty bitchin class, but stealth based rogue is generally going to be better a sneaking about. Pass Without Trace means that the Bard might be better an hour at a time. So even at high level, reasonably that's about 3 hours a day that the bard can be better at stealth than the rogue; you could use higher level spell slots, but the opportunity cost is high enough to make that a questionable commitment. Coupled with other things vying for concentration and causing the bard to drop it, concentration breaking due to damage or circumstance, such like things, 3 hours seems like a generous assessment.
For the other 21 hours, the rogue's better.

And that's without considering that reliable talent, while not hitting the same highs as Pass Without Trace, already adds most of that bonus to the bottom side of things; for most intents and purposes, it doesn't matter how high the roll is so long as it passes the threshold of the perception rolls that accompany it, and both characters wind up with a minimum stealth check of somewhere around 25. To sneak past a CR 18 Demilich with a passive perception of 13, both will be able to easily sneak by, which means that neither is really superior in a meaningful way. For a CR 17 Goristro with a Passive Perception of 17: the bard can't fail for 3 hours a day, but has a small chance of failure after that, while the rogue can't fail all day long. And a passive perception of 17 is unusually high for a 5e monster. But lets go gonzo and look at a CR 22 Dracolich with a passive perception of 22. Where the bard will certainly sneak by 3 hours a day and have a not insignificant chance of failure for the other 21 hours, the rogue isn't sweating it for 24 hours straight.

So in a realistic scenario... or rather, in a wholistic scenario where the full set of rules are considered, the bard is merely as good as the rogue for 3 hours a day while spending tactical and strategic resources. The rogue is simply better for 21 hours a day.

That seems to pretty closely line up with your expectations.


If you ask me, a Fighter or Barbarian ought to always be better at taking hits and dealing single-target damage than a caster. But between Paladins, Druids, Wizards, and even Sorcerers at choice levels, that is very often not the case.
Color me intrigued. Unlike most of the people here, I'm willing to give you paladins because they do cast spells.

Please illustrate your contention in more detail. I suspect it will probably wind up like the rogue example in practice.


However, it is always the case that casters are better than martials at all of the extra utility stuff I mentioned above. And by "better than", I mean that martials can't do those things at all.
But they surely can, thanks to magic items.

Sometimes it feels like the casters are better than martials argument boils down to "martials actually play with their toys as adults while casters are very serious business men in suits who have put away such childish things." But the thing is, by playing with toys they can exhibit most "caster exclusive" capabilities. I simply do not understand the denigration heaped on a whole set of classes that probably have more fun when treasure time trots out.

[Willie the Duck]

It's in the later tiers when things flip. If the Wizard can Forcecage the boss, then the Wizard should do so. It's a no-save death sentence. Again, this is just one example.

A blatantly false one. I am all for saying that Forcecage (and Force, as used in D&D, in general) is 'too good' -- there are entirely too many opponents who do not have a good response to it and it constrains a DM's options when designing a challenging high level encounter (or, on a worldbuilding level, what king of entities or groups might natural rise to some kind of high stature. However, it is anything but a no-save death sentence. There are massively-multiple numbers of responses that address the spell, many of which are available to 3rd-5th level PCs (or equivalent monsters). If your groups/DMs/playstyle have treated Forcecage as a no-save death sentence, then I think we have a plausible explanation as to from where you got the notion of caster supremacy.

[Trickery]

A blatantly false one. I am all for saying that Forcecage (and Force, as used in D&D, in general) is 'too good' -- there are entirely too many opponents who do not have a good response to it and it constrains a DM's options when designing a challenging high level encounter (or, on a worldbuilding level, what king of entities or groups might natural rise to some kind of high stature. However, it is anything but a no-save death sentence. There are massively-multiple numbers of responses that address the spell, many of which are available to 3rd-5th level PCs (or equivalent monsters). If your groups/DMs/playstyle have treated Forcecage as a no-save death sentence, then I think we have a plausible explanation as to from where you got the notion of caster supremacy.

You said there are "massively-multiple numbers of responses that address the spell, many of which are available to 3rd-5th level PCs." That's not true. There are exactly two ways out of it: teleportation and extraplanar travel. Both of those are niche abilities that most monsters don't have. The ones who do have those abilities must pass a saving throw.

And that's just one example.

I really don't know why anyone is arguing with this. Everyone knows that casters scale better than martials. There is no debate that casters can hit higher numbers than martials can at any task. It's provable. I don't care whether casters can do it once a day or a hundred times a day. The fact is that they can do it.

There's no getting around this point. You can argue with it if you want to, but arguing past this point doesn't make practical sense. You either agree or you don't.

If you played AL at a high level or had some other semi-objective way to compare martials to casters, I think you would agree with me. To those still arguing, I suspect you haven't seen what the rest of us have - games played at high levels where the DM doesn't specifically design encounters and campaigns such that everyone will be useful. Games where the DM lets the mechanics alone play things out to see who performs and who doesn't.

In short, you'd agree if you had the same information that I do. Your experience must wildly differ from mine.

But that's okay because every game of D&D is different and the DM need not be constrained by poor design. Maybe this doesn't affect you.

Oh, and by the way, just to address a rude point made earlier: I lump paladins and rangers in with casters because THEY CAST SPELLS. The point is to show that spellcasting scales better than not-spellcasting. I thought that was obvious.

[loki_ragnarock]

There is no debate that casters can hit higher numbers than martials can at any task. It's provable.
Be it provable, then it should be pretty easy for you to demonstrate that proof?



Further, I'd argue "higher" is only meaningful in so far as it is relevant. Creating an attack bonus of +100 is meaningless if monster AC only scales to 30, for instance, because every point past +29 is no longer relevant. These checks are typically pass/fail; the measure of success is success, not the degree of success.

But as it sounds like you have a means to demonstrate the claim at your fingertips, I sure would love to see it.

[Trickery]

Be it provable, then it should be pretty easy for you to demonstrate that proof?

Skill checks (any): see Lore Bard

Attack rolls: bounded accuracy, but see any spell that grants advantage.

Action Economy: see summon spells (find Familiar + Unseen Servant is a popular "free" tactic from level 1). Bards provide an extreme example again by being able to poach spells.

Damage rolls (including burst damage): see nuclear wizard, Hexblade, any spell that creates multiple summoned units (conjure animals at level 5, 8 wolves, pack tactics, 8*(2d4+2) with advantage + saving throws or fall prone, and some other creatures do even more damage).

Effective HP: see Moon Druid, Abjurerer Wizard, or just a Cleric. Also see Polymorph - the best kind of "healing." Bladesinger is noteworthy here again due to its damage reduction feature, Absorb Elements, and Tenser's if you really want to push things.

AC: bounded Accuracy, but see Bladesinger.

Saving Throws: see Lore Bard (again), Paladin (not as high, but no resource cost), and True Polymorph if you really want to go there.

I know it sounds like an extreme claim to say that casters have the potential to hit higher numbers than martials in any context, but it's the truth.

And, again, I know there are limits to how many times per day, etc. But those limits are less and less "limiting", and the gap between a powerful spell and a mundane ability continues to grow, with every level. That's the observation driving my point.

[diplomancer]

If you have a party of 2 with a fighter and a lore bard, the fighter will have better saving throws than the lore bard. Same thing in a party of a Fighter and a Paladin

You go and claim that Paladin is not a martial, and then mention a Paladin ability that requires no spells... Playing a full campaign as a Paladin, I think that, apart from shield of faith (which I mostly stopped using once I got polearm master, on level 12, and which would be one of the "battle focus" I will explain further down.), I cast spells in combat about 5 times, and that is counting preparation rounds when I still couldn't engage the enemy in melee.

It would be trivial to make a "spell-less" paladin that would still be one of the best classes in the game; take away the spell casting feature, keep the divine smite, and design "battle foci"; 2 for each spell level that the Paladin would get, one of them generic and one oath specific, you can use one of each power level per short rest, and you can't stack them (they work like Rage, also in that the effect of the focus is to improve the Paladin's combat capabilities, as the name implies). If you keep the same number of divine smites, that is a definite increase in power with a loss of flexibility. If it makes the class too powerful (possible), use the one-third caster progression for the number of divine smites instead, and adjust the number of uses of "battle foci" as needed.

[Nagog]

I really don't know why anyone is arguing with this. Everyone knows that casters scale better than martials. There is no debate that casters can hit higher numbers than martials can at any task. It's provable.I don't care whether casters can do it once a day or a hundred times a day. The fact is that they can do it.

There's no getting around this point. You can argue with it if you want to, but arguing past this point doesn't make practical sense. You either agree or you don't.


This right here is the issue. You're convinced that Casters are always better than martials because, as you said, casters can effectively Nova any encounter and then be done for the day, in any pillar of the game. In your mind, this makes them equal. For those opposed to this, the consistency at which such encounters can be succeeded is more important than Novaing them and blowing all your resources on it.

And lastly, the term "I don't care..." Essentially translates into "You can provide whatever evidence you want, you'll always be wrong to me". So why are we having this discussion? If you are adamant that everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who's opinions don't matter, then why bother going to the Forums with it?

[diplomancer]

Now, answering the opening post. IF, in YOUR gaming groups (which are not a universal experience, as many in this thread can attest) you experience great caster/martial disparity, to the point that people who would enjoy playing martials abstain from it because they feel underpowered compared to their team mates, then houserule away to make your gaming experience more fun, be it by improving the martials or nerfing the casters. Try out the suggestion you mentioned in the opening post and see if that encourages more people to play martials.

I believe that this would mean buffed up challenges as well (but according to your gaming experience, I would be wrong, since people who once were playing casters are now playing equally powerful martials).

Just beware: Go too far in that direction and you will fall into the bottomless and nameless pit of 4E. :p

[Willie the Duck]

I really don't know why anyone is arguing with this. Everyone knows that casters scale better than martials. There is no debate that casters can hit higher numbers than martials can at any task. It's provable. I don't care whether casters can do it once a day or a hundred times a day. The fact is that they can do it.

There's no getting around this point. You can argue with it if you want to, but arguing past this point doesn't make practical sense. You either agree or you don't.

If you played AL at a high level or had some other semi-objective way to compare martials to casters, I think you would agree with me.

Trickery, bolding your statements do not add value to them, calling something a fact is not the same as showing it to be true, and you are showing yourself to be very far away from 'objective.' People have laid down points and you are free to use words and argumentation and counterpoints to present the case for an alternate conclusion. Declaring (as opposed to showing) that someone else's arguments are invalid is, to be blunt, throwing a tantrum. You are free to do that, but why would the rest of us take it seriously?

As I said, I agree with various points. I think casters are, in fact, a little too good at upper levels. I disagree with various points of analysis that you and others have brought, but I treat them seriously and engage them in good faith. I am the kind of participant here you could actually change the mind of with a conscientious, well thought-through and articulated argument. This is not an example of that.

[JNAProductions]

Just beware: Go too far in that direction and you will fall into the bottomless and nameless pit of 4E. :p

I like 4E.

It wasn't good at being D&D, but it was a good tactical skirmish RPG. Treat it as such, and I think you'll have a good time with it.

[diplomancer]

I like 4E.

It wasn't good at being D&D, but it was a good tactical skirmish RPG. Treat it as such, and I think you'll have a good time with it.

I agree, though my experience with 4e was very limited, I read the books but played like 3 sessions (I skipped 3e entirely, my knowledge of that edition comes from OotS and retro-fitting 5e).

But, though my comment was tongue-in-cheek, there was a serious point to it. If, in a game, you have classes with mostly always-on abilities, and other classes with mostly rechargeable abilities (which, in 5e, is basically the martial/caster divide), it is imperative for game balance that the rechargeable abilities be more powerful, which means that the classes will be balanced at some specific recharge point. Ignore the recharge point in any direction and the classes will be unbalanced.

4e got away from that by giving all classes the same number of abilities with the same recharge frequency. It was not a hit with most D&D players.

[Trickery]

And lastly, the term "I don't care..." Essentially translates into "You can provide whatever evidence you want, you'll always be wrong to me". So why are we having this discussion? If you are adamant that everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who's opinions don't matter, then why bother going to the Forums with it?

The point of the thread wasn't to go off on a tangent about whether casters scale better than martials, nor whether casters hit the highest numbers at any task. You have to accept both of those in order for my opening post to make any sense. I did my best to bring things on track and even played along, providing my side of the argument. But it's no good.

I've seen all manner of argument that casters and martials are balanced because:

Martials can use magic items - Invalid. Anyone can use magic items.
Martials don't run out of spell slots - Moot point. Everyone runs out of resources and needs to rest sooner or later. Unless you're a rogue, you do run out of rages, action surges, superiority die, or whatever your resource is. All characters also run out of hit points, which are a resource. Besides, casters gain more spell slots as they level and are thus less likely to run out in the later tiers than before then.
Martials fill different roles than casters do - Incorrect. Casters can fill any role that a martial can. If a caster focuses on one of those roles, they can do it as good or better than a martial can by using spells and other features. But casters can fill roles martials can't. A caster can take a martial's role, but a martial can't take a caster's role.
Casters may not have the right spell for the job - Moot point. Casters don't need to bring every spell, they only need to bring ones that help them fill their chosen role. A caster's spell choices can be thought of like a Warlock's invocations. The caster is going to use the ones that help them. The difference is that most casters can change their spells prepared on a long rest, which is like a Warlock being able to change invocations on a long rest. Spells are features.

The post you quoted was me saying, in as straightforward a manner as I can, that I give up. People either agree with my contention or they don't. But that has nothing to do with what I intended to discuss in this thread: ways to give martial characters more features in tiers 3 and 4.

One way is with a sort of gestalt system. There are other ways. Magic items are not a good solution because players tend to split magic items up evenly among the party, as they should. We need a different solution if we're going to address this at all.

Another way is for the DM to do something about it, whether designing the campaign in such a way that everyone is valid or encouraging players to play cooperatively rather than competitively. However, if the DM is good and the players play along, then you can pair a level 0 commoner with a level 20 wizard and still have a good campaign. So that's also a moot point.

[JNAProductions]

The point of the thread wasn't to go off on a tangent about whether casters scale better than martials, nor whether casters hit the highest numbers at any task. You have to accept both of those in order for my opening post to make any sense. I did my best to bring things on track and even played along, providing my side of the argument. But it's no good.

I've seen all manner of argument that casters and martials are balanced because:

Martials can use magic items - Invalid. Anyone can use magic items.
Martials don't run out of spell slots - Moot point. Everyone runs out of resources and needs to rest sooner or later. Unless you're a rogue, you do run out of rages, action surges, superiority die, or whatever your resource is. All characters also run out of hit points, which are a resource. Besides, casters gain more spell slots as they level and are thus less likely to run out in the later tiers than before then.
Martials fill different roles than casters do - Incorrect. Casters can fill any role that a martial can. If a caster focuses on one of those roles, they can do it as good or better than a martial can by using spells and other features. But casters can fill roles martials can't. A caster can take a martial's role, but a martial can't take a caster's role.
Casters may not have the right spell for the job - Moot point. Casters don't need to bring every spell, they only need to bring ones that help them fill their chosen rolel. A caster's spell choices can be thought of like a Warlock's invocations. The caster is going to use the ones that help them. The difference is that most casters can change their spells prepared on a long rest, which is like a Warlock being able to change invocations on a long rest. Spells are features.

The post you quoted was me saying, in as straightforward a manner as I can, that I give up. People either agree with my contention or they don't. But that has nothing to do with what I intended to discuss in this thread: ways to give martial characters more features in tiers 3 and 4.

One way is with a sort of gestalt system. There are other ways. Magic items are not a good solution because players tend to split magic items up evenly among the party, as they should. We need a different solution if we're going to address this at all.

Another way is for the DM to do something about it, whether designing the campaign in such a way that everyone is valid or encouraging players to play cooperatively rather than competitively. However, if the DM is good and the players play along, then you can pair a level 1 commoner with a level 20 wizard and still have a good campaign. So that's also a moot point.

Couple of things:

One, to your last point: A perfect DM can make any group work. It's a hell of a lot easier and more practical, though, to make a more balanced group work. I myself would have no flipping idea how to properly engage and challenge a Commoner 1 with a Wizard 20. That's far beyond my skill as a DM-and I don't think I'm a bad DM. (Not great-but not bad.)

Two, to your point about casters only needing the spells for their role: What if there was a party where there are some martials, some casters, and the casters focus on buffing/BFC/other support and let the martials do the murder? And let the Rogue do the talking?

Three, to your point that we have to accept what you say as true to talk about this: No we don't. We can contribute to the thread even if we reject the premise, and SHOULD DO SO if the premise is faulty.

[Trickery]

Two, to your point about casters only needing the spells for their role: What if there was a party where there are some martials, some casters, and the casters focus on buffing/BFC/other support and let the martials do the murder? And let the Rogue do the talking?

Three, to your point that we have to accept what you say as true to talk about this: No we don't. We can contribute to the thread even if we reject the premise, and SHOULD DO SO if the premise is faulty.

Point #2 is the group making a conscious effort to work together. If players do that, then it doesn't matter who's good at what. I'm coming at this from the perspective of: if I wanted to make a character who was really good at X, would I play a caster or a martial character? And my realization was that, in the later tiers of play, the answer was virtually always caster if I wanted to be the best at whatever X was. But not just that, I'd be able to do far more things other than just X if I played a caster.

Point #3: you could say this about any thread. If I made a thread to discuss Ranger spell choice and someone brought up how they think Scout Rogues are better Rangers, or that Rangers should be a Fighter archetype, that's all fine and good. But it doesn't have anything to do with the premise.

Is that clear? I'm trying to be as transparent as I can be. It's difficult online when I can't actually talk face to face with someone and gauge how they're reacting. If we were talking face-to-face, I'm sure we could clear this up. As is, it's an awful lot of work just to get past an age-old point that I didn't think was widely debated in the first place and sure didn't want to spend several pages debating.

[Fable Wright]

The point of the thread wasn't to go off on a tangent about whether casters scale better than martials, nor whether casters hit the highest numbers at any task. You have to accept both of those in order for my opening post to make any sense. I did my best to bring things on track and even played along, providing my side of the argument. But it's no good.

I'll phrase it this way.

Your question is about tier 3 melee focused characters keeping up with tier 3 casters.

Over the 6 levels that make up tier 3, casters get 3 spells that they can cast. Functionally, this is all that differentiates them from a tier 2 caster.

Meanwhile...

1. Samurai Fighter gets four attacks per turn, extra saving throws, and more.
2. Thief Rogue gets Use Magic Device. With a Staff of the Woodlands, say, he's suddenly a powerful control caster with infinite Pass Without Trace.
3. Zealot Barbarian becomes immune to death.

Are the three special actions per day you get from being a caster better than those always available abilities? You say yes. Other people say no.

Your premise is
1. That casters and melee are roughly balanced in tiers 1 and 2.
2. This balance breaks down in tier 3.
3. You then waylay the point by talking about irrelevant points like specific builds outshining martials, and then complain when we talk about that instead of the benefit of three dailies vs stronger at wills.

Some people have made the case that loot is more important at those levels than abilities. I would tend to agree, you disagree.

Fundamentally, you view the existence of three extra dailies as invalidating the benefits of at wills, and ask for ways to make up the difference. When people suggest that granting items, the knob that the designers added for more or less this purpose, you reject it.

My postulate therefore is that you should play casters, exult in the power that can't be taken from you, and let the people happy with martials exult in the power of their at wills.

[JNAProductions]

There's a difference between "I'm playing a Ranger, how do I do that best?" In that thread, while Scout Rogue can bear mentioning, a response of "No, I'm playing a Ranger," means that it's not worth bringing up again. Basically, the fact is that they're playing a Ranger.

Your thread is based on the supposed fact that casters are better than martials. But, clearly not everyone sees that as true. It's debatable. In your example of "Help me Ranger," thread, there's no argument that the player is playing a Ranger.

Make sense?

[Trickery]

Yeah, no. After further consideration, I don't think this forum is the right place to have this particular discussion. This is either a design discussion, which requires a team speaking to each other with specific goals in mind (not strangers on the Internet), or it's a discussion to be had at the table about a particular campaign. I don't think a forum is going to provide any sort of clear resolution in this case.

No offense to any of you. Some discussions require that people be on the same wavelength and have the same goals in order for the discussion to be had. You can't expect that on a forum.

[Nagog]

Yeah, no. After further consideration, I don't think this forum is the right place to have this particular discussion. This is either a design discussion, which requires a team speaking to each other with specific goals in mind (not strangers on the Internet), or it's a discussion to be had at the table about a particular campaign. I don't think a forum is going to provide any sort of clear resolution in this case.

No offense to any of you. Some discussions require that people be on the same wavelength and have the same goals in order for the discussion to be had. You can't expect that on a forum.

Agreed. If, at the table you're playing, martials are falling far behind casters, a discussion would be necessary. The fact that this isn't an issue many have experienced outside these games means that the fix will have to be internal to the table experiencing it.

[Waazraath]

Oh my... this time of the year again? Well, the good thing about dropping in halfway is that most relevant things have been said already.

Most important:


This is a problem of people putting assumptions/expectations of previous D&D onto 5e.


Marials are incredibly potent in 5e adventuring, the place where martials fall behind is if you're giving a party unlimited long rests and letting full casters (especially wizards) have effectively infinite resources.


... if there are no outside pressures, nothing is ever under any real threat, and one can go off and recharge whenever one wants*, then a mechanical build which utilizes a small set of powerful-but-expended resources will outshine one with moderate-but-consistent level of power-output? Our answer has always been, 'Well of course. And....?'
*which I'm not really finding any less of a forced situation, to be honest.



A DM should not pander their world to the players, the players are a small part in a large world, if the world decides to pause because the players want a long rest, then it ruins immersion. This is one of the things that makes D&D different from any story-based video game: Time matters.


Outside of white room Bs, I've played with many groups and never once found this martials need help for tier 3 play to be meaningful.

One big problem I see that helps lead to this error, is that people look at the wizard spell list and act like they know and prepare every spell. That's almost never the case.

It's a silly non issue.


In addition to this, a few other points (some of them might have been made, or partly made):

- the arguments about how casters are uber, often ignores the action economy. A combat usually doesn't start when the caster is done buffing, it just starts. So casting Blur and Mirror Image cost you 2 turns doing nothing else, and casting Tenser's Transformation has a wizard lagging one round compared to martials.
- Concentration does exist. You can't assume you keep your wall, invisiblity, summon or whatever stays active, if any other foe shooting an arrow in you can disturb concentration and ruin the spell. Yeah, ok, you can, but it shouts out WHITE ROOM SIMULATION like nothing else.
- Something else that shouts the same, and "Schrodingers Wizard" is when it is assumed that Ubercaster knowns and has prepared all relevant spells (and hasn't spend slots earlier in the adventuring day)
- Spell components costs a lot of gc. Scribing spells in a spellbook cost money, for the wizard. If we assume that wizards can have hordes of undead following around, why can't other characters spend that money on hirelings, trained animals, or whatever, in a comparison?
- versimilitude 1: The World Knows That Magic Exists. So if people know it exist, they have defenses. Mundane, or when well connected, magical. Guards that know that invisibility is a thing, might make sure that footsteps are shown in certain watched areas. Spellcasting and components might be illegal in certain places. If somebody acts weird, people might now it's mindcontrolled in some way (and what are ways to counter that). Etc. etc. It's really silly to assume that in a magical world, your caster can do all kind of stuff and people won't notice Cause Magic.
- versimilitude 2: related to the above, charms and other mindbuggery isn't really that useful in a social situation. Cause a social situation ceases to be a social situation when somebody starts casting. It's the equivalent of drawing a weapon, and in most situations a DM will say "ok, roll initiative". Yeah, there are computer games where you can pull that kind of stuff. D&D isn't a computer game. There is a reason why 'Subtle Spell' is so great.
- versimilitude 3: no, you can't bring your undead horde most of the time. It's unconvienient. Nor can other characters bring their 50 hirelings or their pack of trained wolves. That's why you go into dungeons and stuff, especially at high level dungeons it is safe to say minion's usually can't follow. Pick a high level module, if you don't believe me. Or try to take 50 soldiers into Strahd's castle.
- Not All Casters: the fact that some casters can do something doesn't mean that every caster can. A lot of spells are restricted. That's why when making claims about 'casters' don't get taken too serious by most people I known, unless they are backed up with a solid build.
- the DM chooses the summons (usually). So no, you can't assume you get 8 wolves. It is the most stupid powerful options, and 8 weak critters is the one that delays combat the most, so also from that perspective not attractive (boring for the other players who have to wait).


To go a bit more into detail (bold added by me):

The issue is that, if we imagine a given thing a character might do, casters are usually better at it past level 10.

Wall spells are more effective than tanks. no, not when they can lose initiative and be surrounded before a wall can be cast, not when concentration can be disturbed, not when enemies show up from different directions, or can fly, or can teleport...
Greater Invisibility, Pass Without Trace, Gaseous Form, divination spells, and so on are more effective for scouting than Stealth Expertise with Reliable Talent. Can be really useful, but doesn't replace the stealth expert. GI only lasts 1 minute; Pass Without Trace buffs the entire party, so the Expert is still better than the wizard, divinition spells like Scrying can be expensive, and have limitations of their own.
Smites (Hexblade, Paladin) are more effective burst damage than anything a fighter or barbarian can do. No? Pally =/= caster, and Battle Master Fighter with Action Surge & using all maneuvers can nova just as hard, or harder.
Spells like Forcecage are more effective CC than stunning fist (though monks can still contribute to a team full of casters better than most other martials). Note that many high level spells of this nature have no initial saving throw. Yeah, if the baddy fits in the Cage. Which can work, few times/day, at most. At a time that a Monk can try to stun 50+ times.
Summoned minions and similar often do more damage than martials as early as level 5. Polymorph creates a better Fighter than the Fighter as early as level 7. Eh, no? Hand picking summons yourself, and forgot to optimize the Fighter?
Shield, Absorb Elements, and so on, continuing up to spells like Foresight, are more effective at mitigating damage and avoiding bad stuff than the options pure martials get. Not compared with a barbarian, for example, let alone a bear totem. And having a good AC all day is really better than having an AC a few points higher a few times/day (with major investment in ability scores and other spells).
Spells like Charm Person and Suggestion and extreme examples like Glibness are more effective for social encounters and getting others to do what you want them to do than having Expertise in some Charisma skills or advantage on some Charisma checks. No. See above on why 'charm' often isn't an option. Maybe, in a crowded tavern, you can cast it without folks noticing. But to assume it invalidates a good 'face' is ludicrous. With Glibness you can get further, but that's Bard and Warlock only, who have very limited spells known.

Basically, there comes a point in the game when casters are better than martials at any role the caster wishes to fill. That doesn't mean casters can fill all roles at the same time, only that they're better at what they choose to do than martials can be.

After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class.


No. You really haven't provided evidence for that claim so far. Sorry.



In fact, a Bladesinger Wizard can likely outdamage a fighter round for round just by using Tenser's Transformation, and that is considered a bad spell.


Eh.... wut? :smallconfused: Now I'm really starting to doubt things here...

Bladesinger wizard with Tenser's. That's level 11, earliest. At level 11, a bladesinger has 2 attacks, and if wielding 2 short swords, 3 (with the last not getting the dex bonus). Assume variant human, maximized dex, feat (res: con) to keep concentration up. 3 attacks, 1d6 + 2d12 + 5 / 1d6 + 2d12 + 5 / 1d6 + 2d12
= average dam of 59.5, when all attacks hit. Has advantages on attacks.
Compare with a variant human battle master fighter, Feats PAM and GWM, and maxed strength. Maneuvers: in any case trip, riposte and precision, ignore the rest. Has a reaction attack (either through PAM or with Riposte), has 3 regular attacks, and a bonus action 1d4 haft attack from PAM. With GWM, attacks do 1d10 + 15 damage, the bonus action attack 1d4 + 15. With a reaction, that's 4*(20,5) + 17,5 = 99.5 damage; each superiority dice spend on attacks that hit is another d10. Action surge is another 3 attacks for 61.5 damage. Theoretically, that's maximum 188.5 damage, but this isn't realistic: attacking with -5 makes sure that some Superiority Dice should be spend on precision, and (first hit in the round) on trip attack to gain advantage.

Round 1: wizard casts tensers, uses bonus action to start blade singing.
Fighter: makes 4 attacks; and a reaction attack on the critter's turn when moving into space. First hit use a trip attack to gain advantage on further attacks. Assume 1 superiorty dice needed for a precision attack. That would be 104 damage done.

Round 2: wizard makes 3 attacks. All hit, cause hey, maximized attack + advantage. 61.5 damage.
Figher: use 1 dice for riposte, use action surge. 8 attacks, with GWM, assume a few misses (3?) for again aprox 100 damage.

Round 3: wizard makes 3 attacks. We assume he doesn't get hit or in any case doesn't loose concetration, cause hey, high AC and good concentration modifiers. Another 61.5 damage.
Fighter: uses trip on the first attack that hits, makes 5 attacks in total, spens a maneuver on a reaction attack, and another to prevent a miss. Let's say 4 of 'em hit, and he does somewhere between 70 and 80 damage.

Whatever the fighter was facing should be very dead, by round 3. The Blade Singer didn't do half as much damage. Even if he would have gotten a buff round to cast Tenser's, hell, another buff round for Fire Shield for extra damage when attacked, he wouldn't have gotten close. And after a short rest, the Fighter is full strength again, while the wizard spends his most powerful spell on being a sub par fighter for a short while.


Seriously: if caster's are uber in your game, fine. I can imagine they are, if (for example) they can casts charms without repercussions, if the world seems oblivious to the existence of the party's magic, if there isn't time pressure in adventures and the world doesn't respond to what happens, if spells are interpreted in the most generous ways, if casters can have hordes of minions but other's cant, if cost of spellbooks and components are handwaved (and all spells and components are freely available)... it's not playing the game wrong, as long as you're having fun. But it is not standard, RAI and RAW, D&D. So turning this experience in generalized claims, is going to get a lot of push back.

[Skylivedk]

If it wasn't clear before, I'll make it abundantly clear here and now: I find the derailing of the thread to be about the premise rather than the question to be borderline rude. I tried the same some months ago when I was searching for changes to wildshape (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573426-Early-level-nerfs-Druid-and-Familiars-Suggestions-please&highlight=Nerfing+druid+wildshape).

I didn't really understand the need to respond to this kind of thread at all of you reject the premise. My current thesis is that it's a combination of:
The Substitution Principle (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LHtMNz7ua8zu4rSZr/the-substitution-principle)

And

Politics is The Mind-Killer (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer)

#2 explains why I get so baited into this as well, I guess.

#1 probably explains why only one person has addressed my point of taking a given point (ie level ten) as a point of balance and show how martials processed in equal amounts of power and flexibility.


Outside of white room Bs, I've played with many groups and never once found this martials need help for tier 3 play to be meaningful.

One big problem I see that helps lead to this error, is that people look at the wizard spell list and act like they know and prepare every spell. That's almost never the case.

It's a silly non issue.
Nothing civil about calling the discourse or experience of someone else BS. Tighten up. Your experience differ. Plenty of arguments have been made to why spell list preparation isn't a valid point. One hasn't: a Battlemaster can't change his manoeuvres at long rest. 3 full casters can.



1) Counter:
(A) Which Caster has the ability to non-magically double their Hit Points?
(Heck, False Life still doesn’t give much more than the ability to survive maybe two - at most - extra hits. Absorb Elements works only a few times and against only a few energy types. Most CR 17+ Monsters laugh at the AC bonus from Shield.)

(B) Without Racial perks or Multiclassing, wear armor that makes hitting them difficult? (Mage Max AC = 23)

(C) Do an extra 9d6 damage whenever a friend is near? Sometimes not even needing that.

2) So, I suppose that the Martial with Leadership and at least decent Charisma can’t convince the local Army to come help out against the threat to the region? Oh, wait that require Roleplaying !! Dice Rolls optional.

3) Um - only the Cleric has the power to actually reverse/cheat death - not the Mages.
Avoid death? Maybe, for a little while, anyway.

4) No one should be able to do everything. Regardless of Class.
Especially in a tRPG designed for Group Play.

I agree.
5e D&D 4 out of 5 stars. But then, any RPG getting 5/5 is super difficult.
3x D&D 3 out of 5 stars.

I changed Plane Shift from 7th to 9th level. Not only should physically shunting your entire being into another Plane be more difficult then just making a pseudo-body of yourself (that automatically returns home when killed, with only two exceptions) but so that the Wizard (maybe with Party) can't pop in, do something, and pop right back out.

What does non-magical have to do with anything. I never requested for the martials to get a magical increase in potency AND flexibility. I just want them to also increase in both mechanical choice and mechanical power. Choice every level or so and power every second. Please. Preferably at an accelerated pace for the power.

And just for giggles:
A) Bladesinger. Song of Defense doesn't mention magic, just consuming spell slots.
B) Weird contrived scenario. Hexblade level 10 (not that the armour matters much...) (Forge) Cleric, maybe with a Dodge action on top because, y'know they don't need the action to deal damage that often. Magic Jar. Shapechange. True Polymorph. Other ways of getting around this...

C) Willy the Extra-Planar Whisperer. His Friendly Neighborhood Extra-Terrestrials don't even need him on the same continent. But again. Who really cares about 9d6 damage? It's 31,5 average without modifying for misses. The Evocation Wizard probably didn't even want to take 25,5 certain, never miss damage.

2) *sniff sniff* smells like Stormwind Fallacy. Yes, DM can help you. Nice. And this option isn't open to the caster who can also add extraterrestrial allies, because?? Oh, because nothing.

3) Clone. Resurrection. Contingency. Wish.

4) Is this even a point? If yes, for whom?


By level 10 Most martial classes should have followers, Fighters and Paladins become lords, Barbarians become Chieftains or Kings. Rogues should be running syndicates.

A lot of these complaints about casters, highlight strengths and none of their weaknesses.

I'm playing a lvl 11 Wizard, i am broke. The rest of my party is throwing money away, they don't know what to do with it.

Maybe you and your group play DnD as a game and not a fictional world. That's the only way I can understand you being broke. Or maybe your character doesn't like money... I like the following solution you mention. It's nicely done by your DM. It's in no way suggested by the mechanics in the books


Probably because Paladins severely weaken his case. They use the attack action in combat around 90% of the time, so are definitely martials, and they are generally considered to be one of the strongest class in the game.

I played a Paladin in a party of 3 with a Cleric and a Wizard, all the way to level 20. The cleric left around level 15, and the wizard liked nothing better in combat than to improve me and get out of the way, attacking with crown of stars. Sure, when we had to go to the outer planes he was the one to have to use one of his resources for it, though I fail to see why that means I was outclassed.

Or maybe because they're casters and hence have the flexibility of choice as well as scaling of power? You know, the quadratic part of Quadratic Casters?


This right here is the issue. You're convinced that Casters are always better than martials because, as you said, casters can effectively Nova any encounter and then be done for the day, in any pillar of the game. In your mind, this makes them equal. For those opposed to this, the consistency at which such encounters can be succeeded is more important than Novaing them and blowing all your resources on it.

And lastly, the term "I don't care..." Essentially translates into "You can provide whatever evidence you want, you'll always be wrong to me". So why are we having this discussion? If you are adamant that everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who's opinions don't matter, then why bother going to the Forums with it?

Because he's looking for input to get viable solutions that would alleviate a delineated challenge in a specific game of the gaming experience. The discussion took a turn for Nova'ing. The Substitution Principle has Nova'ed hard in this thread. It wasn't the starting point nor the main point. The combination of power, utility and flexibility; the growth and quality of mechanically supported player agency was.


Now, answering the opening post. IF, in YOUR gaming groups (which are not a universal experience, as many in this thread can attest) you experience great caster/martial disparity, to the point that people who would enjoy playing martials abstain from it because they feel underpowered compared to their team mates, then houserule away to make your gaming experience more fun, be it by improving the martials or nerfing the casters. Try out the suggestion you mentioned in the opening post and see if that encourages more people to play martials.

I believe that this would mean buffed up challenges as well (but according to your gaming experience, I would be wrong, since people who once were playing casters are now playing equally powerful martials).

Just beware: Go too far in that direction and you will fall into the bottomless and nameless pit of 4E. :p

The more I read about 4e being described this way, the more I consider giving it a shot after replacing its skill system.


I like 4E.

It wasn't good at being D&D, but it was a good tactical skirmish RPG. Treat it as such, and I think you'll have a good time with it.
Interesting. Maybe add the other pillars from other games? Social battles from nWoD? Exploration from??? Swirls building from WFRP?


The point of the thread wasn't to go off on a tangent about whether casters scale better than martials, nor whether casters hit the highest numbers at any task. You have to accept both of those in order for my opening post to make any sense. I did my best to bring things on track and even played along, providing my side of the argument. But it's no good.

I've seen all manner of argument that casters and martials are balanced because:

Martials can use magic items - Invalid. Anyone can use magic items.
Martials don't run out of spell slots - Moot point. Everyone runs out of resources and needs to rest sooner or later. Unless you're a rogue, you do run out of rages, action surges, superiority die, or whatever your resource is. All characters also run out of hit points, which are a resource. Besides, casters gain more spell slots as they level and are thus less likely to run out in the later tiers than before then.
Martials fill different roles than casters do - Incorrect. Casters can fill any role that a martial can. If a caster focuses on one of those roles, they can do it as good or better than a martial can by using spells and other features. But casters can fill roles martials can't. [B]A caster can take a martial's role, but a martial can't take a caster's role.
Casters may not have the right spell for the job - Moot point. Casters don't need to bring every spell, they only need to bring ones that help them fill their chosen role. A caster's spell choices can be thought of like a Warlock's invocations. The caster is going to use the ones that help them. The difference is that most casters can change their spells prepared on a long rest, which is like a Warlock being able to change invocations on a long rest. Spells are features.

The post you quoted was me saying, in as straightforward a manner as I can, that I give up. People either agree with my contention or they don't. But that has nothing to do with what I intended to discuss in this thread: ways to give martial characters more features in tiers 3 and 4.

One way is with a sort of gestalt system. There are other ways. Magic items are not a good solution because players tend to split magic items up evenly among the party, as they should. We need a different solution if we're going to address this at all.

Another way is for the DM to do something about it, whether designing the campaign in such a way that everyone is valid or encouraging players to play cooperatively rather than competitively. However, if the DM is good and the players play along, then you can pair a level 0 commoner with a level 20 wizard and still have a good campaign. So that's also a moot point.

Based on experience, it'll be hard to have those entrenched in the "5e is (almost) perfectly balanced"-mindset let go of the discussion and the thread.

I suggest choosing a style for the enhancement:

A) beyond mortal abilities; whether it's drawing on myths such as Celtic and Norse mythologies (chosen for their more human, and often mortal, goods). They can be at will or constrained depending on power level and in and out of combat based; cleave through magic; be so stubborn your disbelief cancels it, reversed Warhammer Waargh! or instantly recognise structural weak points in buildings, cities, etc; perfect read of power play intention; jump buildings etc

B) based on in world followings, politics, etc

C) ... Damn, forgot. Too tired.
[Edit]C) make the world press casters between adventures - ie make them chased so they can't spend downtime to build armies, always have escape mechanisms prepared, avoid fame, etc. It doesn't make the class chassis weaker, but it prevents them from snowballing

Either way you do it, it will probably tilt the feel of your campaign a lot in that direction in a way magic doesn't, because magic is already magic.


Couple of things:

One, to your last point: A perfect DM can make any group work. It's a hell of a lot easier and more practical, though, to make a more balanced group work. I myself would have no flipping idea how to properly engage and challenge a Commoner 1 with a Wizard 20. That's far beyond my skill as a DM-and I don't think I'm a bad DM. (Not great-but not bad.)

Two, to your point about casters only needing the spells for their role: What if there was a party where there are some martials, some casters, and the casters focus on buffing/BFC/other support and let the martials do the murder? And let the Rogue do the talking?

Three, to your point that we have to accept what you say as true to talk about this: No we don't. We can contribute to the thread even if we reject the premise, and SHOULD DO SO if the premise is faulty.
That's a weird moral obligation. And no, your shouldn't. It's not like this kind faulty premise will leave an innocent in jail (you can find plenty of those elsewhere) or have a bridge collapse somewhere. This maybe faulty (probably unprovable for both sides with power and the experience of it being inter personal) premise will change the structure of a game of dice and stories. If you have a strong moral obligation to correct faulty premises, please apply this noble attitude to somewhere where it will make a difference, preferably a planet or life-saving kind.


I'll phrase it this way.

Your question is about tier 3 melee focused characters keeping up with tier 3 casters.

Over the 6 levels that make up tier 3, casters get 3 spells that they can cast. Functionally, this is all that differentiates them from a tier 2 caster.

Meanwhile...

1. Samurai Fighter gets four attacks per turn, extra saving throws, and more.
2. Thief Rogue gets Use Magic Device. With a Staff of the Woodlands, say, he's suddenly a powerful control caster with infinite Pass Without Trace.
3. Zealot Barbarian becomes immune to death.

Are the three special actions per day you get from being a caster better than those always available abilities? You say yes. Other people say no.

Your premise is
1. That casters and melee are roughly balanced in tiers 1 and 2.
2. This balance breaks down in tier 3.
3. You then waylay the point by talking about irrelevant points like specific builds outshining martials, and then complain when we talk about that instead of the benefit of three dailies vs stronger at wills.

Some people have made the case that loot is more important at those levels than abilities. I would tend to agree, you disagree.

Fundamentally, you view the existence of three extra dailies as invalidating the benefits of at wills, and ask for ways to make up the difference. When people suggest that granting items, the knob that the designers added for more or less this purpose, you reject it.

My postulate therefore is that you should play casters, exult in the power that can't be taken from you, and let the people happy with martials exult in the power of their at wills.
You start on the wrong foot. Casters get 3 new spell levels. They also get class features and a minimum of the choice of six new spells (Sorcerer).

Your A1 pales next to a Simulacrum or Planar Binding. That's not including Illusory Reality or Flight or...

A2. Yay! With help from the DM he can almost become a caster!! What joy.

A3. You mean except if he gets hit with a spell that stops him from raging? Like the mighty Sleep?

It's great you exult in the power of martials and I hope those who play martials in your group(s) do the same.

For those of us who'd like a (high) Fantasy roleplaying game where our experience isn't crippled by what we perceive to be an increasing gap between the in-world usefulness of martials compared to spell casters, it would be great if you could either emphasise with another viewpoint and bring suggestions that could change our experience for the better or discuss how well-balanced you find 5e to be in another thread.

[JNAProductions]

When I say "Should" I mean "Should if you choose to engage with the thread." Obviously there's nothing really at stake, bar perhaps some egos, when it comes to our magical elf games, but at the same time, there's no reason to let incorrect assumptions go unchallenged just because the OP asks so.

[Nhorianscum]

So to ignore scrodengers wizard. Etc etc.

Level 20 arcana cleric is a thing...

"Oh fighter you have 4 attacks? So do I"

"Also there are two of me, and we can wish, or just call down a God. Also we have skill monkey status and 35 prepared spells"

This is just PHB.

Man it's a good thing they fixed CoDzilla eh?

[JNAProductions]

Arcana Cleric ain’t PHB.

[MadBear]

Nothing civil about calling the discourse or experience of someone else BS. Tighten up. Your experience differ. Plenty of arguments have been made to why spell list preparation isn't a valid point. One hasn't: a Battlemaster can't change his manoeuvres at long rest. 3 full casters can.

yawn.

I don't care at all if you find my comment civil. My response was to the bare assertion that casters are always better then martial's, when that is obviously false. My lack of caring about being civil, was due to seeing that is how people treated each other on this thread already, and as such I'm matching tone for tone (on both sides, but especially the side of the OP).

Also, it's not just spell list, but spells known that matters, and in both cases, the caster rarely knows everything about what they need to prepare/have. Some amount of info yes. butt all. no. The fact that you'd even compare that to the BM fighter is silly, and I think you realize that. Their maneuvers are not like spells in that they are purely combat focused, and tend to do their job no matter what. I run a school club and have seen probably 50-60 groups over the last decade, and never once has this been an issue among the people playing in real time. So I'll repeat, I've only ever seen it grow out of white room theory BS.

[loki_ragnarock]

Skill checks (any): see Lore Bard

Word salad does not a proof make.

Looking at the Lore Bard abilities, Rogues are still not only more reliable, but also still hit the threshold difficulty class with ease for anything they have proficiency with.

Again, as most skill checks are pass/fail, the bard doesn't have a particularly meaningful advantage there.


Attack rolls: bounded accuracy, but see any spell that grants advantage.
Spells aren't the only way to grant advantage, and martials have their own options in that regard.


Action Economy: see summon spells (find Familiar + Unseen Servant is a popular "free" tactic from level 1). Bards provide an extreme example again by being able to poach spells.
Fighters have action economy covered just fine, thanks, with the added benefit of that action economy not being denied so easily by a fistful of damage or a DM who questions whether using the Unseen Servant to produce a help action is in line with "interacting with an object."


Damage rolls (including burst damage): see nuclear wizard, Hexblade, any spell that creates multiple summoned units (conjure animals at level 5, 8 wolves, pack tactics, 8*(2d4+2) with advantage + saving throws or fall prone, and some other creatures do even more damage).
I don’t believe that conjure animals allows you to pick the summon.
Hexblade isn’t a full answer. I’ll need you to elaborate because I’ve already actually done that math after a friend without a lot mechanical experience asked me what the best striker was in 5e and I found Hexblade caps pretty early while a few others keep expanding. I’d need to see the proof to buy the claim.
Nuclear Wizard depends on a whole lot going right for it, specifically that a Simulacrum survives long enough for the highest burst to be useful. Further, the nuclear wizard is actually a fighter, and so that build is invalidated for the purposes of caster vs. martial. He’s both, not either; a true example of the power of fusion.


Effective HP: see Moon Druid, Abjurerer Wizard, or just a Cleric. Also see Polymorph - the best kind of "healing." Bladesinger is noteworthy here again due to its damage reduction feature, Absorb Elements, and Tenser's if you really want to push things.
There’s a delicate balance between effective HP and actual tankiness; low AC means you’ll likely be taking every bit of that hp damage from monsters. IE Moon Druids get hit a lot when they try to tank, and hp simulation mostly helps them survive until someone casts Sleep, Eyebite, and the like. Abjuration wizards likewise will desperately need that buffer if they look to sub in as a tank, and because they aren’t real hit points still leave their lazy selves prone to Sleep and other hp dependent spells. Polymorph, importantly, renders the target mentally handicapped, making them poor combatants for any tactical engagement… let alone that the hp can disappear pretty readily if someone gives the caster cause to actually use them.
Which is to say, they might take the edge here, but that edge cuts both ways.

I’d buy Bladesinger – mostly because it’s widely considered a bit broko – but defenders of that class are quick to point out that the key features are more of a clutch move rather than something you use to replace a dedicated tank. I think they’re wrong, but I’m also in the bladesinger = broko camp. They can do it.


AC: bounded Accuracy, but see Bladesinger.
I don’t know, fighters can get pretty up there without spells; AC 26 while imposing disadvantage is good enough for most creatures. A warforged could squeak in a bit higher with a peak AC of 27 while imposing disadvantage. Assuming it’s his whole warforged shtick, he winds up using one of his spare feats to pull out Defensive Duelist for a 33 AC against one attack a round that hits, one might argue that falls into the realm of good enough when a Dracolich has a +12 to hit.
A Bladesinger with mage armor (13) a 20 dex (18) Bladsinging with a 20 int (23) and a reaction for shield (28). Magic leather armor could net them 2 more points of AC for AC 30.

So, yeah, the caster could still be hit by a Dracolich on a 18-20, while the Warforged fighter can only be crit; unlikely with disadvantage. But even so, 18-20 vs 20 is what, 3 times more likely to be hit than the fighter sans spells?

The claim falls apart under scrutiny.


Saving Throws: see Lore Bard (again), Paladin (not as high, but no resource cost), and True Polymorph if you really want to go there.
Beyond Bless, please elaborate. I’m pretty sure that Bards can’t target themselves with inspiration. I might have to give it to you here, though, Bless is one of the few ways to buff up those saves.

Except for being a monk and adding proficiency to all saves, Bless is about as good as it’ll ever get. But being proficient in all saves is actually pretty darned good, so I’m not sure this claim bears out in a meaningful way when the breadth of the bonus can smush things around a bit. But Paladins do probably have this one, between Bless and their Aura.

True Polymorph is pretty great… but suffers from all the same concentration issues of every other tanking buff that a spellcaster can put on. One failed save and it’s over.


I know it sounds like an extreme claim to say that casters have the potential to hit higher numbers than martials in any context, but it's the truth.
It is an extreme claim. At least a one of the examples you’ve provided don’t really hold up to scrutiny.


And, again, I know there are limits to how many times per day, etc. But those limits are less and less "limiting", and the gap between a powerful spell and a mundane ability continues to grow, with every level. That's the observation driving my point.
Mostly, these limited use resources are driving them to just about a fragile parity with martials.

[Fable Wright]

You start on the wrong foot. Casters get 3 new spell levels. They also get class features and a minimum of the choice of six new spells (Sorcerer).

Yes. They have options on what they can do with their three extra spells. That remains a total of 3 special actions that can be performed per day.



Your A1 pales next to a Simulacrum or Planar Binding. That's not including Illusory Reality or Flight or...

Simulacrum and Planar Binding are downtime spells that can be equally matched by fighters. They're basically vendors with a fixed service for a rate.

Wizard: I shall spend 1500 gold creating a disposable imitation of myself that will quickly die to AoE splash damage or Dispel Magic, and cannot be healed!

Fighter: Cool. I take 1500gp with me and go hire a really, really good mercenary.

Druid: I spend 1000gp to Planar Bind this Air Elemental!

Barbarian: How much to rent a Wyvern for a week?

As an added bonus, the wyvern and mercenary can't be dispelled. Sure, the magical versions DEFINITELY have some advantages, but in the end, it's a fixed cost for a fixed service. Fighters have wallets too.


A2. Yay! With help from the DM he can almost become a caster!! What joy.

Yay! With his share of the party loot, he can be a full-strength rogue at will, and also a decent strength caster when necessary! What joy.



A3. You mean except if he gets hit with a spell that stops him from raging? Like the mighty Sleep?


Given Persistent Rage, and the fact that enemies stopped using sleep 10 levels ago, yes, I do mean this. Name a spell other than Sleep that forces Unconsciousness. Go on. I'm waiting.


For those of us who'd like a (high) Fantasy roleplaying game where our experience isn't crippled by what we perceive to be an increasing gap between the in-world usefulness of martials compared to spell casters, it would be great if you could either emphasise with another viewpoint and bring suggestions that could change our experience for the better or discuss how well-balanced you find 5e to be in another thread.

I am, in fact, trying to bring another viewpoint to the table. You can't give shape to a problem without determining what the problem is.

Is the problem downtime spells, where the casters bring in a bunch of minions? Then bring to the table more formal rules on hiring mercenaries.

Is the problem the strength of Wizards' one and done spells? Then you need to assess why the daily abilities are so much stronger in your game than the at wills

You called out the issue yourself: perspective. I've outlined what I view to be the hard mechanical bones underpinning the issue. The question is why you feel that those bones are so flawed that your enjoyment of the game is ruined by it.

[Mikaleus]

This is a problem of people putting assumptions/expectations of previous D&D onto 5e. 5e is actually fairly tough on casters. Monsters have legendary saves which stop all sorts of cool things from casters, but they can't handle the insane ERMAGOD damage of an optimized fighter dumping SS/GWM damage on 3-4 attacks action surged to 7-9. It's not uncommon for a fighter in tier 3+ to put out 200 damage on their big round. Similar things can be acheived with a PAM paladin smite dumping and to a lesser extent the GWM barbarian.

Casters role in higher levels seems to be relegated to AoE and crowd control as they cannot compete straight up with the damage of the martials on single targets. I have my complaints about 5e, but casters seem fine compared to martials. Yeah, they have more in their toolbag, but none of it obsoletes the fighter damage.
To be fair, I’ve only had 1 level 17 oneshot, but I found this to be so true.

The party consisted of

Totem Barbarian
Drunken monk
Champion fighter
Arcane archer fighter
Moon druid
Forge Cleric (my character)

I was amazed at just how much damage the fighters were dishing out.
The Arcane Archer was a lot more effective than I was expecting too.

[Trickery]

I suggest choosing a style for the enhancement:

A) beyond mortal abilities; whether it's drawing on myths such as Celtic and Norse mythologies (chosen for their more human, and often mortal, goods). They can be at will or constrained depending on power level and in and out of combat based; cleave through magic; be so stubborn your disbelief cancels it, reversed Warhammer Waargh! or instantly recognise structural weak points in buildings, cities, etc; perfect read of power play intention; jump buildings etc

B) based on in world followings, politics, etc

C) ... Damn, forgot. Too tired.

Either way you do it, it will probably tilt the feel of your campaign a lot in that direction in a way magic doesn't, because magic is already magic.

Now that's an interesting idea. One thing I do like about Barbarian is that it can achieve higher Strength and Constitution than is normally possible. That feature feels cool. That's something you'd expect from a "hero." But it doesn't happen until 20, a level most players will never reach. And few martial features have this kind of feel to them.

If martials got a big feature like that at every level that casters get a 6th+ level spell (the truly powerful spells), that would work. It would certainly go a long way toward making everyone feel heroic and small-E epic. If a Cleric can summon a celestial, perform a resurrection, and cause an earthquake all in the same day, then a Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian of the same magnitude ought to be able to do some similarly impressive feats.

[OldTrees1]

Now that's an interesting idea. One thing I do like about Barbarian is that it can achieve higher Strength and Constitution than is normally possible. That feature feels cool. That's something you'd expect from a "hero." But it doesn't happen until 20, a level most players will never reach. And few martial features have this kind of feel to them.

If martials got a big feature like that at every level that casters get a 6th+ level spell (the truly powerful spells), that would work. It would certainly go a long way toward making everyone feel heroic and small-E epic. If a Cleric can summon a celestial, perform a resurrection, and cause an earthquake all in the same day, then a Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian of the same magnitude ought to be able to do some similarly impressive feats.

Ah, perhaps the thread is getting back on track.

Yes, if you want flexible and impressive Martials to match the flexible and impressive Casters, then give the Martials flexible and impressive features.

This is one reason I like the Reliable Talent feature Rogues get. All of a sudden the chance of failure disappears on some checks. The Rogue no longer rolls knowledge checks, they just know the answer. Now anchor your expectations, Reliable Talent is an 11th level feature and Rogues also get better at combat the same level. Reliable Talent is not even worth all of the 11th level. That means all of these high level martial abilities should be as or more impressive. Now to adjust your anchor, Reliable Talent's theme is out of place for 11th level. The mark of passage to competence was the theme of 5th level. As Trickery just put it, higher levels have a "small-E epic" theme. So the high level martial abilities should be more impressive still.

Yes, high level characters (martials included) can do the high level damage and survive the high level combats. Unfortunately WotC ran out of imagination and thus high level martials have little in the way of high level features outside of combat numbers. Although I will admit they do get some low level out of combat features at high level. There is more to D&D than combat numbers.

[OverLordOcelot]

I realized in looking over the thread that the definition being used for 'martials' and 'casters' is incorrect and tends towards 'casters win' because the definition of 'casters' so so broad. The fact that a character can cast a single spell doesn't stop them from being primarily a martial character, and the fact that a fighter who grabs one cleric level moves to the 'caster' category while a wizard who grabs 7 fighter levels doesn't should tell you the split is not measuring something meaningful.

By the split being used, 'martials' includes:

Fighters, but not the EK subclass from the PHB or any other subclasses that get something called a spell.
Rogues, but not the AT subclass from the PHB or any other subclass that gets something called a spell.
Babarians, but not the subclass that gets ritual casting, or any other subclass that gets something called a spell.
Monks, but not shadow monk, or any other subclass that gets something called a spell.
But also limits them to only races that don't have any 'casting' - any race that can cast a cantrip can't produce martial characters.

And casters are:
Everybody else. Including people who take magic initiate or ritual caster.

The fact that 'martials' come out pretty much even despite the fact that the comparison is so skewed is pretty telling.

[Nhorianscum]

Arcana Cleric ain’t PHB.

Whoops. SCAG it is.

[OldTrees1]

I realized in looking over the thread that the definition being used for 'martials' and 'casters' is

There is a historic usage of the terms Martial, Caster, Non-caster, and Non-magical that continues to be used despite not being the literal dictionary definition of the words.

Basically WotC makes D&D and there is a general trend in the content they create based upon various toggles.
Static abilities VS Mix & Match from an entire Chapter
Passive / At Will abilities VS Abilities that get expended
Non magical abilities VS "MAGIC"
etc
In each of those toggles, WotC has trouble imagining flexible or high level abilities on the left but does not struggle on the right. Mostly because the left is harder to imagine for. Flexible and/or high level abilities on the left would look different than on the right.
For example the power of a 1/day ability would be stronger than the power of a passive ability. But they could both be flexible because there in nothing inherent in the frequency that suggests anything about a flexibility difference being needed.
In contrast Static abilities need to be more flexible than the options you mix and match from an entire chapter because those Static abilities have to compare their flexibility against the chapter rather than against each of the options in the chapter. But it is hard to design those static flexible abilities.


For simplicity sake (or some other more lazy reason) all of this topic gets summarized as Martial and Caster.

[OverLordOcelot]

Also, a good number of the analyses in this thread are very clearly based on pure white room analysis and not actual play. I've played in around two dozen T3 and T4 Adventurer's league games, so I've seen a decent amount of abilities in action, and it doesn't play out like the 'casters rule' crowd says. Some examples of white rooms:


For that Wizard against the Dyybuk, open with misty step, move and dash to get away. With that combo you can move 90' in one round. He can only move 80' with a dash. Keep 85-120' away and kite with Firebolt. Maybe use greater invisibility for the advantage but you might not even need too. He'll maybe get one attack against you if he wins initiative but you should be able to avoid him after that.

This assumes the wizard has infinite room to kite the Dyybuk, and the Dyybuk is forced to pursue the wizard. If you build the encounter as an actual encounter, the wizard is unlikely to be able to do that. Lots of dungeons don't have unlimited expanses of 120' corridors to kite through, doors may close behind you, you may run into or attract other enemies in the dungeon, you may be blocked by enemies you bypassed with invisibility earlier, you might have some sort of closed door behind you, you might be trapped in a small space while fighting it, and so on. If you need to get past the Dyybuk for your objective, it can stay in an area where you can't kite with a readied action, or in other circumstances can run away from the kiting wizard and alert the rest of the dungeon.

The fact that the fighter just goes in and trashes the thing while the mage needs a very special and very artificial setup to hope to win is really telling. No DM I know is going to let someone do that kind of silly kiting consistently.


Damage rolls (including burst damage): see nuclear wizard, Hexblade, any spell that creates multiple summoned units (conjure animals at level 5, 8 wolves, pack tactics, 8*(2d4+2) with advantage + saving throws or fall prone, and some other creatures do even more damage).

This is another theorycraft example. In a white room, you conjure your creatures and they all get to attack. Even ignoring that the DM picks the creatures by RAW, this just doesn't work as smoothly in practice. The creatures go on their own initiative, which gives the enemy another turn before them about half the time (which means your damage waits 1/3 of a typical combat to fire off). You need enough room to put them down and have them attack the enemy, which doesn't work well with terrain (getting one fighter next to an an enemy is easy, getting 8 medium creatures requires that they're not next to a wall or two allies). AOE wipes them out easily, and T3-4 games typically have lots of background damage and AOEs being casually flung around which will remove the conjured creatures without even paying them attention. (I've seen a sorcerer take 9 fireballs to the face in an encounter in a published T4. And of course the fighter's damage isn't vulnerable to counterspell, dispel magic, or losing concentration.

[OverLordOcelot]

There is a historic usage of the terms Martial, Caster, Non-caster, and Non-magical that continues to be used despite not being the literal dictionary definition of the words.

I don't care if it's 'historic' or not, I'm saying that it is a bad distinction right now for the 5th edition of the game. Allowing a wizard to slap on as many fighter levels as he wants and still count as the 'caster' category but counting a fighter who takes a PHB subclass as no longer a 'martial' is silly. So is the fact that paladins count as casters now, but would stop being casters if you replaced the spells that they use for smites 95%+ of the time with a non-spell smite mechanic that lets them do the same damage.

[OldTrees1]

I don't care if it's 'historic' or not, I'm saying that it is a bad distinction right now for the 5th edition of the game. Allowing a wizard to slap on as many fighter levels as he wants and still count as the 'caster' category but counting a fighter who takes a PHB subclass as no longer a 'martial' is silly. So is the fact that paladins count as casters now, but would stop being casters if you replaced the spells that they use for smites 95%+ of the time with a non-spell smite mechanic that lets them do the same damage.

I hear you. However I am explaining why you will hear those terms used in that historic way. Perhaps you could slowly redirect the behemoth that is this old conversation spanning many many communities for many editions. In the meantime, "be warned that the French speak French", as in the terms will continue to be used in their historic context while you push for better terminology to catch on.

For example a 5E 50% Fighter/50% Wizard multiclass would be considered a Halfcaster and people will talk about their Martial features and their Caster features. They would also compare them to Paladins (another Halfcaster). They would also make a comparison to the Fighter/Wizard having non-magical Martial features while the Paladin has magical Martial features. They might even compare the Paladin Auras as Static Passive features vs the Battlemaster Fighter's mix & match expended features.

PS: I agree that Martial and Caster are not useful as opposites. However I have tried to alter the discourse with more precise terms when appropriate. We cannot turn the behemoth alone and it has a lot of momentum. So it is beneficial for me (and for you?) to know how to communicate with the historic terms while we try to replace them.

[Fable Wright]

Now that's an interesting idea. One thing I do like about Barbarian is that it can achieve higher Strength and Constitution than is normally possible. That feature feels cool. That's something you'd expect from a "hero." But it doesn't happen until 20, a level most players will never reach. And few martial features have this kind of feel to them.

If martials got a big feature like that at every level that casters get a 6th+ level spell (the truly powerful spells), that would work. It would certainly go a long way toward making everyone feel heroic and small-E epic. If a Cleric can summon a celestial, perform a resurrection, and cause an earthquake all in the same day, then a Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian of the same magnitude ought to be able to do some similarly impressive feats.

I will admit that my favorite item that I gave a player was simple: It was an adamantine axe that was enchanted so that all objects had Vulnerability to it.

GWM + Reckless Attack + Greataxe + Brutal Critical (2 dice) = (4d12+15) * 2 damage per hit. About 82 damage per hit. Average of two hits to destroy a 6" thick wall of stone.

Try to hit something load-bearing, and you start feeling like Hercules. I could see adding those two features (Adamantine, so all hits against objects are crits and objects having Vulnerability to damage) as 'trinket' features.

I've also allowed Rogues to do things like pickpocket memories with Sleight of Hand at around a DC 30. Or hide from people's memories retroactively when they start getting in the 40s and 50s on Stealth checks. That'll never be a reliable talent, but it adds an epic feel to the game, and rewards player creativity.

Fighter, I've enjoyed letting them use Strength for Bow attacks. Nothing says 'I fight dragons' like launching harpoons out of a Dragonslayer Greatbow (http://i.imgur.com/6POot4n.jpg). Or allowing said harpoons to initiate a ranged grapple. Nothing says "Fightin' Man" like wrenching a dragon out of the sky with your mighty thews, before taking out your lance and ending them rightly.

[Waazraath]

If it wasn't clear before, I'll make it abundantly clear here and now: I find the derailing of the thread to be about the premise rather than the question to be borderline rude.

Only thing I'm gonna respond to now, because it is a recurring theme on these boards. A player faces a difficulty with balance, be it a sucky warlock or too weak martials or whatever, and wants a 'fix'. Most of the time the balance problem the problem arises from not following the books / rules (5 minute adventuring days being a recurring culprit). This player can do a few things:
1) go to the 5e forums, say something like "hi, I'm experiencing a balance problem in my game. Is this common, do more people have this, and is a fix needed? If yes, how about XXX"
2) go the the 5e homebrew forum, arguably the best place cause either the needed fix is homebrew, as the issue itself comes from deviating of the rules (not following guidelines on adventure design / number of encounters / day).
3) go to the 5e forums and make an outrages claim about class X needing to be nerfed, a whole bunch of classes needing to be buffed, or proclaiming the balance of the edition is worthless. Or, in this case, "After level 10, there is no party role that an optimized martial can fill better than an optimized spellcasting class." and the like.

There are pretty nice people here on the forum. 1 and 2 will get kind and helpful reactions, in general. Only 3 will get pushback. There is nothing rude about that. If somebody claims in a bar that the world is flat (or anything else that is considered nonsensical by a large part of the crowd), people will react as well. What at a forum like this goes as well: people don't want new players to get silly ideas about how to play the game.

[diplomancer]

If:
1- Caster means: "has the ability to cast spells"
And
2- "casters are better than martials"
Then, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and Great Weapon Master are worse feats than Magic Initiate and we would see a lot more of magic initiate Fighters in the optimization game than PAM+ GWM Fighters. Also, all optimized rogues would be AT, all optimized fighters would be EK, and all optimized monks would be 4-elements!

At least One of these premises is wrong. The first one is true by definition, but it's useless.
If you want to talk about martials and casters, see what they do in combat: If they primarily cast spells and cantrips, they are casters. If they primarily Attack, they are martials. Valor Bards and Bladesingers are no exception to this rule, though maybe swords and whisper bards are (Ive never seen them in play, but looks to me that they might use the attack action more often). Hexblades ARE an exception, and many people consider them overpowered, possibly because of that, being BOTH martials and casters.

Also, the fact that the possible exceptions come from a later book, and the fact that if you use this division you have 6 caster classes (with some possibility of extra martialhood based on subclass) and 6 martial classes (with some possibility of extra casterhood based on subclass) indicates that this is more or less the division the designers had in mind.

[Skylivedk]

When I say "Should" I mean "Should if you choose to engage with the thread." Obviously there's nothing really at stake, bar perhaps some egos, when it comes to our magical elf games, but at the same time, there's no reason to let incorrect assumptions go unchallenged just because the OP asks so.

Plenty of reasons. Most of them related to time and effort ;) again, the assumptions are built on played experience. An AL game will probably not/barely feel it, a sandbox game in a low magic world with low level NPCs are prone to feel the difference.


yawn.

I don't care at all if you find my comment civil. My response was to the bare assertion that casters are always better then martial's, when that is obviously false. My lack of caring about being civil, was due to seeing that is how people treated each other on this thread already, and as such I'm matching tone for tone (on both sides, but especially the side of the OP).

Also, it's not just spell list, but spells known that matters, and in both cases, the caster rarely knows everything about what they need to prepare/have. Some amount of info yes. butt all. no. The fact that you'd even compare that to the BM fighter is silly, and I think you realize that. Their maneuvers are not like spells in that they are purely combat focused, and tend to do their job no matter what. I run a school club and have seen probably 50-60 groups over the last decade, and never once has this been an issue among the people playing in real time. So I'll repeat, I've only ever seen it grow out of white room theory BS.
Trickery's comment was that they could choose to (momentarily) be better at any given role. He also clarified that. Martials (to me below half-casters) can't do that.

And yes, of course I can compare a manoeuvre to a spell. Ie. I play s Hexblade in a campaign that has a Battlemaster. If he had an Arcane Archer it would be even easier, but already: we both have short rest resources: his can be poached with a 3 level dip (which is being considered by the Ranger) and he can't change them every level. He chooses new from an increasingly unattractive list, because he picked the best ones first. Mine can be changed every level. The list gets better and better.

Example of a fix I'd implement: give access to better manoeuvres later - or allow superiority dice to be spend on out of combat coolness (spend a superiority die to run as fast as a tiger in a chase scene).

You play in a school. I play with adults. That might also account for differences. My groups look at the fictional power structures and economies as part of the toys. Full casters can much more easily break and change those toys. Again, give the magically impaired features to address this and the ball will start rolling.

My biggest grief is NOT in the dungeon crawl setup. I still dislike the design there, but that's mostly due to how repetitive the magically impaired become to play. Especially in a lot of the published adventures...



Nuclear Wizard depends on a whole lot going right for it, specifically that a Simulacrum survives long enough for the highest burst to be useful. Further, the nuclear wizard is actually a fighter, and so that build is invalidated for the purposes of caster vs. martial. He’s both, not either; a true example of the power of fusion.
A Battlemaster can have his most iconic abilities poached in three levels. For a wizard, it's 17. That's because of the difference in scaling. The nuclear Wizard doesn't poach the Fighter to become better at fightering, hence why the build is known as a nuclear Wizard (and not fighter/Wizard/hexblade).



There’s a delicate balance between effective HP and actual tankiness; low AC means you’ll likely be taking every bit of that hp damage from monsters. IE Moon Druids get hit a lot when they try to tank, and hp simulation mostly helps them survive until someone casts Sleep, Eyebite, and the like. Abjuration wizards likewise will desperately need that buffer if they look to sub in as a tank, and because they aren’t real hit points still leave their lazy selves prone to Sleep and other hp dependent spells. Polymorph, importantly, renders the target mentally handicapped, making them poor combatants for any tactical engagement… let alone that the hp can disappear pretty readily if someone gives the caster cause to actually use them.
Which is to say, they might take the edge here, but that edge cuts both ways.
Or the Abjuration Wizard dips into hexblade for armour and Armour of Agathys. Polymorph is IMO better used on team mates dropping in hp (or to turn beholders into cats).


Yes. They have options on what they can do with their three extra spells. That remains a total of 3 special actions that can be performed per day.
A) moving goal posts. You claimed three features. I think that was shown to be off the mark.
B) you also ignored the at will abilities. One of them can conjure a new landscape in the radius of a mile. That's only once per day. Then three more times the same dude(dess) will have to do with conjuring 150 foot cube of terrain however (s)he pleases. That's before using any of the top two abilities gotten.



Simulacrum and Planar Binding are downtime spells that can be equally matched by fighters. They're basically vendors with a fixed service for a rate.

Wizard: I shall spend 1500 gold creating a disposable imitation of myself that will quickly die to AoE splash damage or Dispel Magic, and cannot be healed!

Fighter: Cool. I take 1500gp with me and go hire a really, really good mercenary.
A) I like this approach and suggested as my B) in my previous post. It's not supported by the books in the moment. Quite the opposite. By the description of tiers, it sounds like it would be almost impossible to hire a level appropriate mercenary whereas Simulacrum and Planar Binding are easy to use and requires almost the opposite to reign in: namely a DM constraining those abilities. I hope you see and appreciate the difference. If the magically impaired (below half casters) had a class feature that facilitated good recruitment, we'd be quite a lot further in this. It is not unheard of; prior editions did include something like it or recommendations for how to do it.



Druid: I spend 1000gp to Planar Bind this Air Elemental!

Barbarian: How much to rent a Wyvern for a week?

As an added bonus, the wyvern and mercenary can't be dispelled. Sure, the magical versions DEFINITELY have some advantages, but in the end, it's a fixed cost for a fixed service. Fighters have wallets too.
But it isn't a fixed cost - the cost for one is given by book (and can later be removed of you only need a day rent) and the cost for the second is campaign and DM dependent. That's without getting into how much more readily casting lends itself to massive wealth generation.



Yay! With his share of the party loot, he can be a full-strength rogue at will, and also a decent strength caster when necessary! What joy.
If the closest solution we find is to make the non-caster (in this case not even plural) casters, then I'm not impressed.



Given Persistent Rage, and the fact that enemies stopped using sleep 10 levels ago, yes, I do mean this. Name a spell other than Sleep that forces Unconsciousness. Go on. I'm waiting.
They did? My casters don't. Great spell. Also Eyebite and Symbol. There's probably half a dozen summons as well, but didn't really bother checking.




I am, in fact, trying to bring another viewpoint to the table. You can't give shape to a problem without determining what the problem is.

Is the problem downtime spells, where the casters bring in a bunch of minions? Then bring to the table more formal rules on hiring mercenaries.

Is the problem the strength of Wizards' one and done spells? Then you need to assess why the daily abilities are so much stronger in your game than the at wills

You called out the issue yourself: perspective. I've outlined what I view to be the hard mechanical bones underpinning the issue. The question is why you feel that those bones are so flawed that your enjoyment of the game is ruined by it.
I am not convinced by the mechanical dissection...I do very much appreciate the solution of a mercenary table. It expands upon what I saw as one of the solution paths. - and now I just remembered my
C) make the world press casters between adventures (I'll edit it back later)

Last, I did a sandbox campaign, I felt the issue was pertinent enough to rewrite a lot of Faerun so casters were being chased since their dread bodies could be harvested for their medical essence which could power items. Otherwise, I couldn't make the world make sense without too much suspension of disbelief.


I will admit that my favorite item that I gave a player was simple: It was an adamantine axe that was enchanted so that all objects had Vulnerability to it.

GWM + Reckless Attack + Greataxe + Brutal Critical (2 dice) = (4d12+15) * 2 damage per hit. About 82 damage per hit. Average of two hits to destroy a 6" thick wall of stone.

Try to hit something load-bearing, and you start feeling like Hercules. I could see adding those two features (Adamantine, so all hits against objects are crits and objects having Vulnerability to damage) as 'trinket' features.

I've also allowed Rogues to do things like pickpocket memories with Sleight of Hand at around a DC 30. Or hide from people's memories retroactively when they start getting in the 40s and 50s on Stealth checks. That'll never be a reliable talent, but it adds an epic feel to the game, and rewards player creativity.

Fighter, I've enjoyed letting them use Strength for Bow attacks. Nothing says 'I fight dragons' like launching harpoons out of a Dragonslayer Greatbow (http://i.imgur.com/6POot4n.jpg). Or allowing said harpoons to initiate a ranged grapple. Nothing says "Fightin' Man" like wrenching a dragon out of the sky with your mighty thews, before taking out your lance and ending them rightly.
Great ideas! I'll nick them :)

[RainbowGorilla]

I'll phrase it this way.

Your question is about tier 3 melee focused characters keeping up with tier 3 casters.

Over the 6 levels that make up tier 3, casters get 3 spells that they can cast. Functionally, this is all that differentiates them from a tier 2 caster.

Meanwhile...

1. Samurai Fighter gets four attacks per turn, extra saving throws, and more.
2. Thief Rogue gets Use Magic Device. With a Staff of the Woodlands, say, he's suddenly a powerful control caster with infinite Pass Without Trace.
3. Zealot Barbarian becomes immune to death.

Are the three special actions per day you get from being a caster better than those always available abilities? You say yes. Other people say no.



And? Let me know when Fighters, rogues, and barbarians can alter reality. Why does everyone not even notice it? And why is the answer always "Well, give martials crazy good magical items!" There isn't a non-homebrew magical items for martial classes that is even remotely close to being as powerful as anything any of the full casters COULD get.




Your premise is
1. That casters and melee are roughly balanced in tiers 1 and 2.
2. This balance breaks down in tier 3.
3. You then waylay the point by talking about irrelevant points like specific builds outshining martials, and then complain when we talk about that instead of the benefit of three dailies vs stronger at wills.

Some people have made the case that loot is more important at those levels than abilities. I would tend to agree, you disagree.

Fundamentally, you view the existence of three extra dailies as invalidating the benefits of at wills, and ask for ways to make up the difference. When people suggest that granting items, the knob that the designers added for more or less this purpose, you reject it.

My postulate therefore is that you should play casters, exult in the power that can't be taken from you, and let the people happy with martials exult in the power of their at wills.

You are literally trying to compare attacking with a +3 magical weapon to Wish, Force Cage, Planar shift (which hasn't even been mentioned that it can be used as an iwin button, not even for planar travel), True polymorph, Time Stop, Meteor Swarm, Prismatic Wall, Foresight, Feeblemind, Simulacrum, True ressurection, etc etc. Not only is there FULL CASTER CLASSES (Unlike Trickery, I am just talking Full casters here) that get access to these spells, but they get great 'at will auto attack' martial options as well.

Casters can literally fill any role a martial is doing, do it better, with more utility. Meanwhile martials literally can not even do that. Even the 1/3rd casters can't do that. It literally doesn't matter that a fighter can do 160 damage in one turn against a dragon when a wizard or sorcerer can make him blow all his legendary resistances with powerful low level save or suck hard spells, then just Planar shift the dragon into a different dimension that will kill him eventually.

[Justin Sane]

The way I see it, the issue isn't about combat power (yes, Balors get murdered by Fighters, all is well) - it's about narrative power.

Magic, at it's core, in pretty much every story out there, is a narrative tool. There's a reason why "a Wizard did it (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" is such a powerful trope - because "Magic" can be narratively defined as "that thing that makes impossible things happen".

And when you have some classes defined as Magic, and others defined as not-Magic... Doesn't take a Wizard to figure out what happens.

Even the whole "Teleport makes the spellcaster a glorified taxi service" argument: while yes, the DM should provide alternate means of transportation (the friendly airship captain is always a good stand-by), the fact remains that the spellcaster can serve as a taxi service, while the non-casters cannot.

[OverLordOcelot]

I hear you. However I am explaining why you will hear those terms used in that historic way.

And I am explaining that the way the people are using the terms is bad and that an argument based on such usage is worthless. Your habit of claiming to agree with me while arguing for the opposite is silly. I'm going to continue to insist that the 'casters can do anything martials can do argument' is completely absurd when you've defined the categories such that any martial who takes magic initiate for some fluff abilities is now a caster; of course casters can do whatever martials can do if a martial taking one feat moves them into the 'caster' category, but the problem isn't game balance the problem is that you're using such absurd definitions that one category includes most of what would really be the other.

[OverLordOcelot]

You are literally trying to compare attacking with a +3 magical weapon to Wish, Force Cage, Planar shift (which hasn't even been mentioned that it can be used as an iwin button, not even for planar travel),

Plane shift requires the caster to deliver a touch attack, allows a save, and just sends the enemy to another plane, that's not really an "I win" button. If the party is trying to kill an opponent, it's an "I've failed" button because they've just helped the opponent escape them. If the opponent has plane shifting of their own, you've just use a 7th level spell to moderately annoy them. The 'teleport them to a plane that is instantly fatal' is not something the spell actually does according to the rules. I'm not sure why people in this thread and others like it treat plane shift like they do.


Casters can literally fill any role a martial is doing, do it better, with more utility. Meanwhile martials literally can not even do that. Even the 1/3rd casters can't do that. It literally doesn't matter that a fighter can do 160 damage in one turn against a dragon when a wizard or sorcerer can make him blow all his legendary resistances with powerful low level save or suck hard spells, then just Planar shift the dragon into a different dimension that will kill him eventually.

The standard 3 legendary resistances requires getting off 3 successful save or suck spells, and your caster gets one save or suck spell per round. Even with a simulacrum, that's not really happening in the 'one turn' timeframe, especially in an actual challenging T3 or T4 encounter where there will be counterspells to contend with while you're trying to land your easy-to-counter low level 'save or suck hard' spells. I'm not sure how long your fights typically last, but my experience is that they're decided within 2-5 rounds (mopping up HP sacks can take longer, but the actual risky part of the fight is done). So in the time that the whole 'a wizard can just...' sequence manages to finish, the fight may already be decided. Also the fighter doesn't mind ending up next to the dragon, while if the dragon makes his save against plane shift the wizard is probably not all that happy to be in melee range.

Also like I said before, 'plane shift allows you to shift someone into a dimension that kills them without recourse' is not actually in RAW anywhere.

[Bobthewizard]

Also, a good number of the analyses in this thread are very clearly based on pure white room analysis and not actual play. I've played in around two dozen T3 and T4 Adventurer's league games, so I've seen a decent amount of abilities in action, and it doesn't play out like the 'casters rule' crowd says.

While you quoted me showing another tactic the wizard could use, I agree with your whole post here. These discussions are in white rooms, just comparing characters sheets, usually against a single enemy or obstacle. I'm happy to participate in these white room discussions, but they don't always reflect game play.

I think the most powerful and most fun parties have a mix of casters and non-casters. Even starting at level 1, wizards can end some encounters with sleep, but then the martial characters are much more effective for the other 4-5 encounters of the day. The spells change, but the pattern seems to hold.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Even the whole "Teleport makes the spellcaster a glorified taxi service" argument: while yes, the DM should provide alternate means of transportation (the friendly airship captain is always a good stand-by), the fact remains that the spellcaster can serve as a taxi service, while the non-casters cannot.

Saying Teleport is a glorified taxi service is selling Teleport so absurdly short.

So here’s a list of things I’ve personally used Teleport and it’s alikes in actual games, apologies for the bad formatting I’m on my phone:

The standard taxi service.

Guarding three places at once by staying at one and having allies with sending at the other two, if any get attacked were two rounds away from showing up, tops.

Bypassing supposedly impenetrable fortress defences in an instant.

Bouncing to an accurate location after an imprecise plane shift.

Escaping the underdark after awakening a horrible Eldritch monster.


And that last one is a big one. Being able to just push the eject button and get you and your entire party out of danger is an amazing feature of teleport and is in no way matched by a friendly airship captain or anything. That’s just one spell and only some of my actual uses for it off the top of my head. I have so many more for Mislead, and Polymorph and Animate Objects, and a half dozen other spells.

And never mind the fact that a wizard’s method for crossing a continent is to do it himself in an instant for free, and a mundane character’s is to find somebody else, pay them a lot of money and arrive weeks later. Something like that also happened in the last game I DM’d, which went to 20. There was a kraken attack against a fleet of ships the PCs were escorting, the Kraken used its lair power to control weather to summon a storm, but the PC wizard used control weather back to cancel the effect, so the kraken attacked during the fine weather and just barely managed to sink the ships before being driven away by a meteor swarm and a few fireballs, attacking from underneath and moving fast meant the martial characters couldn’t engage him. Then after the kraken retreated summoned seahorses pulled the crew to shore and ritual cast Phantom Steeds let the PCs move about the huge island at an ungodly daily pace. Anyway I could keep going but you see a pattern here.


BUT I think that’s a GOOD thing! It sets the wizard or the sorcerer apart and makes them awesome forces in the world, it’s cool and it’s fun and it has a big game impact. It’s just that the other classes should feel the same sometimes. For all my stories of being an awesome mid level wizard I have exactly zero after a dozen levels of rogue. I do have a ton of stories about how I sat there puzzling out a way to try and help before the wizard just offered to do it himself though. It’s a problem I don’t want to have, since I thought playing as a rogue for once would be cool, but I keep having it and I don’t even really understand how people couldn’t have it. The only real balance is in combat with a very full high pressure day.

[Trickery]

The way I see it, the issue isn't about combat power (yes, Balors get murdered by Fighters, all is well) - it's about narrative power.

Magic, at it's core, in pretty much every story out there, is a narrative tool. There's a reason why "a Wizard did it (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" is such a powerful trope - because "Magic" can be narratively defined as "that thing that makes impossible things happen".

And when you have some classes defined as Magic, and others defined as not-Magic... Doesn't take a Wizard to figure out what happens.

Even the whole "Teleport makes the spellcaster a glorified taxi service" argument: while yes, the DM should provide alternate means of transportation (the friendly airship captain is always a good stand-by), the fact remains that the spellcaster can serve as a taxi service, while the non-casters cannot.

That's a good point. It's related to what I and some others have said already, that casters can do what non-casters can (high damage, skill checks, tanking scouting), and do it competently, but the reverse isn't true.

Non-casters generally don't get strong narrative abilities. Things like the Rogue's Stroke of Luck have strong narrative power, but abilities like it come so late and are so few in number that they rarely get used.

Those abilities non-casters get at reasonable levels that should have strong narrative potential often do not. Take the Champion Fighter ability Remarkable Athlete. From the name, you'd expect it to do big things. Imagine all of the things you'd expect a remarkable athlete to be able to do in a fantasy setting. In reality, it's just a small +1 to +3 bonus to things the character could already do...

Non-casters should get more impactful abilities, especially in the later tiers of play. In a setting like FR, where magic is everywhere and people can develop supernatural abilities, there's no need to limit non-casters to what's realistic.

One idea for a high level feature, suggested by others, is for Rogues to be able to make creatures forget that they saw the Rogue. One way that might work is: "for the next minute, creatures do not notice your presence and forget that you exist. This does not work on creatures immune to mind-affecting spells and abilities. Making an attack roll or otherwise trying to harm a creature ends this effect early."

Features like that would make non-casters feel much better without significantly altering the game.

[jdolch]

Plane shift requires the caster to deliver a touch attack, allows a save, and just sends the enemy to another plane, that's not really an "I win" button. If the party is trying to kill an opponent, it's an "I've failed" button because they've just helped the opponent escape them. If the opponent has plane shifting of their own, you've just use a 7th level spell to moderately annoy them. The 'teleport them to a plane that is instantly fatal' is not something the spell actually does according to the rules. I'm not sure why people in this thread and others like it treat plane shift like they do.
Well it is a good spell in the specific case that you just want the enemy to leave you alone AND it can't plane shift on it's own. Not sure how often that would be the case. BTW would you get XP for that? (You didn't actually defeat them, you just sent them on vacation)


And I am explaining that the way the people are using the terms is bad and that an argument based on such usage is worthless. Your habit of claiming to agree with me while arguing for the opposite is silly. I'm going to continue to insist that the 'casters can do anything martials can do argument is completely absurd when you've defined the categories such that any martial who takes magic initiate for some fluff abilities is now a caster; of course casters can do whatever martials can do if a martial taking one feat moves them into the 'caster' category, but the problem isn't game balance the problem is that you're using such absurd definitions that one category includes most of what would really be the other.
And here is the Problem of the entire Argument. In a game where Half Casters and Multiclassing not only exists but are common, such categories don't exist. As has come up already multiple times in this thread: Is a Paladin a Caster or a Martial? How about a 6/14 Sorcadin? Caster? The guy who has to face one in melee would probably disagree with that. What defines a Martial? That he has no magic abilities whatsoever? That's not a lot of classes then. Or that they are not full Casters? In which case the whole Argument falls apart when a lot of Not-Full-Casters are among the strongest classes in play.

[JNAProductions]

Well it is a good spell in the specific case that you just want the enemy to leave you alone AND it can't plane shift on it's own. Not sure how often that would be the case. BTW would you get XP for that? (You didn't actually defeat them, you just sent them on vacation)

You bypassed the encounter. That's worth XP.

Part of the reason I don't bother with XP-I use milestone leveling.

[Trickery]

You bypassed the encounter. That's worth XP.

Part of the reason I don't bother with XP-I use milestone leveling.

Reminds me of when my current group dealt with an encounter by throwing oil and a torch, then leaving the room. We had to argue with the DM over whether we should get XP.

[Fable Wright]

And? Let me know when Fighters, rogues, and barbarians can alter reality. Why does everyone not even notice it? And why is the answer always "Well, give martials crazy good magical items!" There isn't a non-homebrew magical items for martial classes that is even remotely close to being as powerful as anything any of the full casters COULD get.

...Is your argument "Fighters can't cast spells; therefore they are inherently inferior to those who can"? If so, we're not going to get anywhere.


You are literally trying to compare attacking with a +3 magical weapon to Wish, Force Cage, Planar shift (which hasn't even been mentioned that it can be used as an iwin button, not even for planar travel), True polymorph, Time Stop, Meteor Swarm, Prismatic Wall, Foresight, Feeblemind, Simulacrum, True ressurection, etc etc.

I specified Tier 3 for a reason. I am not touching Tier 4 balance with a 10' pole. I am comparing attacks to Plane Shift and Feeblemind, due to the fact that Simulacrum is basically paying for a service.

And I feel like the attacks are balanced against Plane Shift and Feeblemind. Plane Shift lets casters, once per day, 'kill' a monster by succeeding an attack roll and the monster failing a Charisma saving throw, despite magic resistance, proficiency, legendary resistance, etc.

Usually, a monster you can banish like this is worth about... let's call it ~200 HP. That's about the benchmarks people are throwing around for what an Action Surge round's DPS numbers look like. Once per day, being able to do action surge damage if you manage to force them to fail their DC, otherwise you wasted your action, is pretty comparable.

Feeblemind is allowing monsters an Int save or ending up without spellcasting. Similar things can be done by trying to use an Attack while Grappled to stick a gag in the monster's mouth to bar all spells with a verbal component. Obviously not the same, but of roughly comparable power.


Not only is there FULL CASTER CLASSES (Unlike Trickery, I am just talking Full casters here) that get access to these spells, but they get great 'at will auto attack' martial options as well.

They get really, really bad auto attack options. You can't really compare a 4d12+5 damage Toll the Dead against an 11+th level fighter's full attack.


Casters can literally fill any role a martial is doing, do it better, with more utility. Meanwhile martials literally can not even do that. Even the 1/3rd casters can't do that. It literally doesn't matter that a fighter can do 160 damage in one turn against a dragon when a wizard or sorcerer can make him blow all his legendary resistances with powerful low level save or suck hard spells, then just Planar shift the dragon into a different dimension that will kill him eventually.

Please direct me to how the Wizard or Sorcerer is surviving long enough to blow the LRs? The fighter, doing 160 damage in round 1 and 80 damage in round 2, manages to kill the Adult Blue Dragon in two rounds, and has twice the HP of the Wizard. No saving throws, since it's just attack rolls.

The Wizard meanwhile has to make it to round 4, at least, if the dragon failed every single save against the wizard's other spells (when it's probably making at least half the saves, so put it at Plane Shift on round 7), and blow his high level spell, and get within melee range of the dragon, and force it to fail its +9 Charisma save.

Yep. That fighter's a real load, dragging the party down just by being there. Absolutely useless.

Oh. The Wizard died to a breath weapon in round 6. So close, and yet so far.

[Trickery]

Please direct me to how the Wizard or Sorcerer is surviving long enough to blow the LRs? The fighter, doing 160 damage in round 1 and 80 damage in round 2, manages to kill the Adult Blue Dragon in two rounds, and has twice the HP of the Wizard. No saving throws, since it's just attack rolls.

The Wizard meanwhile has to make it to round 4, at least, if the dragon failed every single save against the wizard's other spells (when it's probably making at least half the saves, so put it at Plane Shift on round 7), and blow his high level spell, and get within melee range of the dragon, and force it to fail its +9 Charisma save.

Yep. That fighter's a real load, dragging the party down just by being there. Absolutely useless.

Oh. The Wizard died to a breath weapon in round 6. So close, and yet so far.

First, the Wizard doesn't need to blow the LRs. Forcecage and many spells like it will work. Second, you must not be familiar with LudicSavant's nuclear wizard build that can hit the dragon with 609 unmissable damage in one turn.

There's a truly massive difference between a good (as in optimized) wizard and a bad one.

[Fable Wright]

First, the Wizard doesn't need to blow the LRs. Forcecage and many spells like it will work. Second, you must not be familiar with LudicSavant's nuclear wizard build that can hit the dragon with 609 unmissable damage in one turn.

There's a truly massive difference between a good (as in optimized) wizard and a bad one.

RainbowWizard specified Plane Shift, and I was refuting his specific point.

Forcecage is something that the Fighter can try to approximate with grapple (Prodigy granted Expertise on Athletics) and shove. Forcecage clearly has other advantages, but the core mechanic of crippling an enemy's options has been there since day 1.

The Nuclear Wizard mentioned requires multiclassing (an optional rule), a favorable cheesy rules interpretation (just because Crawford supports it doesn't mean the table does), and multiclassing into a pure martial class. If the DM has allowed it, it's clear that the table is OK with those damage figures as a trade for the Wizard's dedicated resource investment.

[Trickery]

RainbowWizard specified Plane Shift, and I was refuting his specific point.

Forcecage is something that the Fighter can try to approximate with grapple (Prodigy granted Expertise on Athletics) and shove. Forcecage clearly has other advantages, but the core mechanic of crippling an enemy's options has been there since day 1.

The Nuclear Wizard mentioned requires multiclassing (an optional rule), a favorable cheesy rules interpretation (just because Crawford supports it doesn't mean the table does), and multiclassing into a pure martial class. If the DM has allowed it, it's clear that the table is OK with those damage figures as a trade for the Wizard's dedicated resource investment.

I always get a chuckle when people call multiclassing optional and call RAW a "cheesy interpretation". As for the investment, this character is still a Wizard. The above combination is only one of many, many spells that Wizard will be casting.

At the heart of the matter, that's the point. This is an extreme case, but it doesn't actually take that much investment (as in lost ability to take other options) to pull off combinations like this. Tanking, scouting, and dealing damage require a small investment each. But there's no way for a non-caster to reasonably replicate most spells.

[diplomancer]

Well it is a good spell in the specific case that you just want the enemy to leave you alone AND it can't plane shift on it's own. Not sure how often that would be the case. BTW would you get XP for that? (You didn't actually defeat them, you just sent them on vacation)


And here is the Problem of the entire Argument. In a game where Half Casters and Multiclassing not only exists but are common, such categories don't exist. As has come up already multiple times in this thread: Is a Paladin a Caster or a Martial? How about a 6/14 Sorcadin? Caster? The guy who has to face one in melee would probably disagree with that. What defines a Martial? That he has no magic abilities whatsoever? That's not a lot of classes then. Or that they are not full Casters? In which case the whole Argument falls apart when a lot of Not-Full-Casters are among the strongest classes in play.

That is why I believe my classification system works well for 5e (which is the game under discussion, after all): a martial is someone who, in combat, primarily takes the Attack action. They may cast spells sometimes, but it is certainly NOT their defining characteristic. A caster is soneone who, in combat, primarily uses spells and cantrips. They may use the Attack action sometimes, but that is NOT their defining characteristic. These two classifications are in a spectrum, and some classes start off as more martial and become more caster later on (cleric, moon druid, and, to a lesser extent, Bard) ; there are classes which would be hard to fit into those two criteria, but I think it is telling that they are all not in the PHB.

[Fable Wright]

I always get a chuckle when people call multiclassing optional and call RAW a "cheesy interpretation". As for the investment, this character is still a Wizard. The above combination is only one of many, many spells that Wizard will be casting.

If you're doing it in tier 3, which is the place I am targeting with my arguments (again, not touching T4 balance), then you're 1-2 spell levels behind everyone else, and blowing the spells that differentiate you from a tier 2 caster on it.

Let's target level 16, the very top of tier 3. You just got your 7th level slot. You want to kill this dragon, so you Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile. That's 1d4+11 damage per missile, or 13.5, times 9 missiles, 120 damage instantly. Nice! Dragons still up, though, so you Action Surge and deal another 110, finishing off the CR 16 blue dragon, a Medium to Hard encounter.

You're now playing what amounts to a tier 2 wizard until you hit a short rest. You've got unique tricks, but you're having trouble keeping up with the fighter's numbers from now on. Hope the six levels were worth it; fighter's still going.



At the heart of the matter, that's the point. This is an extreme case, but it doesn't actually take that much investment (as in lost ability to take other options) to pull off combinations like this. Tanking, scouting, and dealing damage require a small investment each. But there's no way for a non-caster to reasonably replicate most spells.

My level 13 Warforged EK has turned this around a bit. He does, admittedly, have a +1 Shield, learned Enlarge, and knows a few spells, but can hardly be called someone who warps reality.

He managed to win initiative and get the drop on the dragon while Enlarged, and began a Grapple with a +15 Athletics check, with Advantage. Dragon failed. Next attack, he was proned. The rest of the party stayed away from the dragon's melee.

It was just like Forcecage. The dragon could breathe fire (as it could through the bars of the 20' Forcecage required to hold it), but that was it. Warforged had AC 26 before casting the Shield spell. The dragon was at +12 to hit with Disadvantage; it did bupkiss.

Now the fighter could not be the party taxi. He could not cast Animal Shapes and turn a village into flies to smuggle them across the border (long story). But he was in no way outshined by the casters in non downtime combat.

[jdolch]

That is why I believe my classification system works well for 5e (which is the game under discussion, after all): a martial is someone who, in combat, primarily takes the Attack action. They may cast spells sometimes, but it is certainly NOT their defining characteristic. A caster is soneone who, in combat, primarily uses spells and cantrips. They may use the Attack action sometimes, but that is NOT their defining characteristic. These two classifications are in a spectrum, and some classes start off as more martial and become more caster later on (cleric, moon druid, and, to a lesser extent, Bard) ; there are classes which would be hard to fit into those two criteria, but I think it is telling that they are all not in the PHB.

Yes but under your classification system the Sorcadin would be a Martial Class despite the fact that they have access to 7th Level spells, 9th Level Slots and a Spell selection that rivals the Wizards. Or do you just completely ignore multiclasses? I which case: Ok, but it makes this whole discussion even more pointless.

[diplomancer]

Yes but under your classification system the Sorcadin would be a Martial Class despite the fact that they have access to 7th Level spells, 9th Level Slots and a Spell selection that rivals the Wizards. Or do you just completely ignore multiclasses? I which case: Ok, but it makes this whole discussion even more pointless.

It's a spectrum, not a clear divide, and, quite naturally, multiclasses that involve martials and casters will fall in the middle of it. And you are talking about a 20th level Sorcadin. But yes, since most of what he does in Combat is to take the attack action, and as it is a build heavily optimized for damage (the martial speciality), I would argue that the Sorcadin (6/14 or 7/13, not 2/18) is a martial, very close to the center of the spectrum.

[OverLordOcelot]

Saying Teleport is a glorified taxi service is selling Teleport so absurdly short.

Note: The "Bus driver" comment was specifically about Plane Shift. Teleport is a significantly better spell for a variety of reasons, but it isn't the spell that people keep mentioning. One of the biggest differences is that teleport is useful for in-combat movement and precise destinations; plane shift requires the party to stop and hold hands for a round while teleport doesn't, and teleport picks a precise destination while plane shift usually ends up with you days away from any exact spot.

OTOH, teleport is usually warded against in actual T3 and T4 play, because it typically doesn't make sense for enemies who are threatening at that level to pick a lair that's vulnerable to telecommandos. As an example of this in RAW, all of DMM (including the T3 and T4 sections) is warded against long-distance travel. Lots of other adventures take place on other planes (where your knowledge of teleport locations may be limited) or demiplanes which don't have a teleport connection to other places.


Being able to just push the eject button and get you and your entire party out of danger is an amazing feature of teleport and is in no way matched by a friendly airship captain or anything.

Teleport doesn't actually do this. Aside from the issue of warded and extraplanar areas, it only gets you out of the immediate fight. You've still pissed off a high-end enemy, who can now respond by doing things like scrying to figure out what you're up to and where you are, using Dream to keep you from recovering spells, teleporting themselves to where you are, moving their area of operations so that you have to find them again, or warding their current location so the spell won't work a second time.

Overall, a decent 'module' setup is going to have teleport wards. In a 'sandbox' setup wards still make sense and if they're not available, then enemies have a lot of options themselves. Yeah, if you're fighting a simple dumb beast it will work, but T3 and T4 adventures tend to either involve intelligent enemies or a big dumb beast that you have to actually get past.

Also:

Guarding three places at once by staying at one and having allies with sending at the other two, if any get attacked were two rounds away from showing up, tops.

This is a really vulnerable setup. If the enemy just barges in it can work, but if the enemy drops silence on the defenders (which a monk can do without even counting as a caster) or is ready with antimagic or counterspells (also good in a surprise attack) they get to isolate one group of attackers and destroy them without the other two being aware. They can also feint to make you use up your teleport in the wrong location - if they have someone chuck some arrows or low level spells to make the defenders think there's an attack, the defenders send the call for help, you teleport in, you've just blown a 7th level spell on a feint, and they can keep doing it until you don't commit.

Also 'at most 2 rounds' is a LOOONG time in D&D combat terms when fights are generally decided in 2-5 rounds. Both this and the prior point are a good example of what I'd call MMO-style enemies - you aggro them, but if you leave the immediate area they forget you and go back to wandering around, then you come back while rested to kill them.


Bypassing supposedly impenetrable fortress defences in an instant.

No one who is an appropriate T3 or T4 threat is going to think of a teleport-vulnerable fortress as 'impenetrable' until they've safely forbiddanced it. This is like someone in modern times saying "He has fallen into my trap! No one can hear him now" and then hearing "Uh sir, he just used his cell phone to call for help."


Escaping the underdark after awakening a horrible Eldritch monster.

I would be very wary of using long range travel spells near an Eldritch horror that is strong enough that T3 or T4 characters need to run from it.

[OverLordOcelot]

Well it is a good spell in the specific case that you just want the enemy to leave you alone AND it can't plane shift on it's own. Not sure how often that would be the case. BTW would you get XP for that? (You didn't actually defeat them, you just sent them on vacation)

If you want a 'save or suck' spell it's servicable, and combining it with warcaster is absolutely hilarious if someone contemptuously runs past you. On one hand, plane shift only gets them back to your plane unless they have a teleportation circle nearby, so it will take them out of the immediate fight. On the other hand, if the area is warded against dimensional travel then it just won't work, so it's a bad choice somewhere like Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Also it does require you to touch the enemy when a lot of T3-4 casters would really prefer to stay far away. (Note that I never said that it's a bad spell, just that it's nowhere near as amazing as people are portraying it).

Whether you'd get XP would depend on what the scenario was - if you're setting out to destroy a lich, you don't succeed by sending him on a trip, but if you're trying to recover an artifact that he's guarding then you have defeated him. Unless, of course, it turns out that the item you're looking for was on his person, in which case you've not got to go track down the item on another plane.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Note: The "Bus driver" comment was specifically about Plane Shift. Teleport is a significantly better spell for a variety of reasons, but it isn't the spell that people keep mentioning. One of the biggest differences is that teleport is useful for in-combat movement and precise destinations; plane shift requires the party to stop and hold hands for a round while teleport doesn't, and teleport picks a precise destination while plane shift usually ends up with you days away from any exact

Cut for space.

I would be very wary of using long range travel spells near an Eldritch horror that is strong enough that T3 or T4 characters need to run from it.

Right that’s all true, there are counters that make those tactics not unbeatable victories all the time, but they’re all amazing things that martial characters just can’t hope to do, and while they can be countered they won’t always be. Well maybe if your DM is a total **** who never lets your plans work, maybe. Otherwise I f you need to guard three locations in three cities as a fighter it doesn’t matter what level you are, you just can’t even try.

Yes, teleporting out of a fight that you’re losing doesn’t magically kill the antagonists and all of their minions so that they’re never a threat to you anymore, but a barbarian's best option is to just disengage and start running, and even if that works it only saves himself. Which, again, is just fine, it’s cool to have characters doing different things and magic is amazing. I just want the opposite to also be true.

Where my caster characters have always felt like they could attempt anything and we’re never useless, my rogue feels restricted and never useful. For every awesome scene that I remember my casters doing in other campaigns from years ago there’s one from this campaign of being obsoleted.

We want to check out the top of this oddly smooth cliff face, the wizard sends his owl up to do it, I could climb it but our party is 4 strong with two dimension doors, so two DDs are going to be spent anyway, why risk breaking my neck? The gateway’s portcullis, which is been previously stuck open, is now creaking and threatening to crush the wagon train below it, as it’s 15 feet in the air I can’t hope to stop it, thankfully the illusionist with an upcast Creation on his person uses Malleable Illusion to instantly form a 10 foot block of stone under it to stop it. We need to grapple an orb from the hands of a dragon sorceress across an enormous cavern, my double rogue sprint gets me halfway there, then the warlock dimension doors the fighter into close range, and the wizard polymorphs him into a giant ape who very easily takes care of it. I mean that’s amazing, and a moment I loved, but it had nothing to do with our fighter being a badass. Almost got forcecaged by a lich who was way beyond our ability to fight, but our invisible wizard countered the spell, then next turn ran to me and teleported is both away, I think the lich tried to counter but he countered the counter, my supposedly slippery rogue and no recourse to mimic either of those things. I’ve got dozens of those, and they’re not white room theorycraft they’re actual play.

And it’s not 100% the worst thing ever. I contribute to damage in combat, I’m present in the team meetings and talk to NPCs and stuff, I’m still having an okay time, but none of it is due to my character being an awesome thief.

[Nhorianscum]

Quick plugs into this.

Tier 3 is where a lot of the more infamous multi's take off.

Oh no, teleport only gives late tier 2+ casters prep time. This is not useful at all and casters with prep time don't break anything.

[OverLordOcelot]

We want to check out the top of this oddly smooth cliff face, the wizard sends his owl up to do it, I could climb it but our party is 4 strong with two dimension doors, so two DDs are going to be spent anyway, why risk breaking my neck?

You could climb it without burning two dimension doors, and could climb 20 of the cliffs in a day without significant trouble. Yes, if martial characters just choose to sit around and do nothing then active players will get more done, but the problem is the decision to do nothing. If the 'oddly smooth' cliff face was arbitrarily made so smooth it couldn't be climbed by martials, then we should balance the anti-martial field by giving it an anti-magic field that puts the casters in the same situation.


The gateway’s portcullis, which is been previously stuck open, is now creaking and threatening to crush the wagon train below it, as it’s 15 feet in the air I can’t hope to stop it, thankfully the illusionist with an upcast Creation on his person uses Malleable Illusion to instantly form a 10 foot block of stone under it to stop it.

Strong types jump on top of a wagon and grab it, a clever rogue could have gone to whatever mechanism was holding it or to the walls and braced it so that it wouldn't risk falling. If the DM is letting the illusionist take his action 'instantly' but not you, that's not a rule problem as malleable illusion actually takes an action. So again, this is the casters taking action and the martials sitting back doing nothing.


We need to grapple an orb from the hands of a dragon sorceress across an enormous cavern, my double rogue sprint gets me halfway there, then the warlock dimension doors the fighter into close range, and the wizard polymorphs him into a giant ape who very easily takes care of it. I mean that’s amazing, and a moment I loved, but it had nothing to do with our fighter being a badass.

A Giant Ape has +9 athletics. Meanwhile a 13th level strength based fighter has a +5 proficiency bonus and should have athletics proficiency, plus +4 to +5 athletics bonus from strength - meaning that he's at least as good or at grappling as the ape and the polymorph wasn't actually needed. A similar Barbarian will be able to rage for advantage on the roll, so being turned into an ape would be a disadvantage. A serious grappler would have expertise (multiclassing or prodigy feat) and so would have +14-15 on grappling without any magic enhancing strength, significantly better than the ape (especially for the raging barb with advantage).


Almost got forcecaged by a lich who was way beyond our ability to fight, but our invisible wizard countered the spell, then next turn ran to me and teleported is both away, I think the lich tried to counter but he countered the counter, my supposedly slippery rogue and no recourse to mimic either of those things.

A standard lich has truesight to 120 feet, if the wizard is within 60 (120 with spell sniper) feet to counterspell, the lich sees through his invisibility without doing anything. This means that the lich could have counterspelled the counterspell and forced the forcecage to go off, and should also have seen the wizard when you were in the room. Meanwhile the lich only has +9 perception, which means that it's pretty likely that if you're built to be 'slippery' (+15 stealth, can't roll less than a 10) you can probably just remain unnoticed by him, and could make good use of your bonus action hide in trying to get away. So this is a case where if the lich was played to its full abilities, the wizard would get a nasty surprised and you'd have a distinct advantage.


I’ve got dozens of those, and they’re not white room theorycraft they’re actual play.

Two of your examples have the martial characters deciding not to do take actions, one has a sequence of events where the casters used a spell that wasn't necessary and might have even reduced the chance of success, and the last requires the DM to overlook an ability of the enemy that gives a huge advantage to the rogue over the wizard. You're not really making your case here.

[OverLordOcelot]

Oh no, teleport only gives late tier 2+ casters prep time. This is not useful at all and casters with prep time don't break anything.

Teleport is a 7th level spell, which means you need to be level 13 to get it, which is smack in the middle of T3, not "late tier 2". At 13 and 14 it uses up your highest level spell for the day, at 15 and 16 it uses 50% of your top two levels of spells. While it's a powerful spell when in an area where it works, it has a very significant resource cost even in late tier 3, and isn't available at all in tier 2.

[OldTrees1]

And I am explaining that the way the people are using the terms is bad and that an argument based on such usage is worthless. Your habit of claiming to agree with me while arguing for the opposite is silly. I'm going to continue to insist that the 'casters can do anything martials can do argument' is completely absurd when you've defined the categories such that any martial who takes magic initiate for some fluff abilities is now a caster; of course casters can do whatever martials can do if a martial taking one feat moves them into the 'caster' category, but the problem isn't game balance the problem is that you're using such absurd definitions that one category includes most of what would really be the other.

Did you want to review what I said because it does not match your caricature? Having a nuanced position is not silly. I can agree that the oversimplified dichotomy is bad (even while realizing it is not as oversimplified as your caricature). I can also see the utility in the more specific and useful terms rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water. If you wish, you could say I agree with a better version of your position and gave you constructive criticism to strengthen the area we agree.

1) I agree that the terms are bad, but the historic usage (while bad) does not match your caricature of the position.
Paladins are Halfcasters. Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 is a Half caster. Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Martial with a single casting ability. You can even compare the non casting features of a half caster vs the spellcasting.

2) While I agree the Martial vs Caster comparison is more nuanced, it is exactly that, more nuanced. Martials tend to be Non Casters and they tend to be Non Magical. Both of those continuums were noted as separate toggles that affected the difficulty in designing high level effects for Martials.

3) Consider Half casters for a moment. Paladin has some casting features and some non casting features. If we compare the casting features in contrast to the non casting features we see the same pattern where casting was easier to design high level flexible features for while the non casting features were harder to design such features (to the point that some of the features are higher level are not higher level features).

4) Did you think to compare the static magical Paladin Auras vs the mix & match non magical Battle Master maneuvers? Notice this is not talking about spells or casters. And yet we can see similar patterns emerge. The static nature of the Paladin Aura lead the designers to have trouble making it more flexible than a maneuver. And the non magical nature of the maneuvers gave the designers trouble in making them flexible.

So if you drop your caricature, then I will not have a reason to describe the historic usage to you. On the other hand if you continue to usage the caricature, I will continue to describe how even the bad historic usage does not look like your caricature. We agree that the historic usage is bad, but I don't imagine people being convinced to move away from it merely by you misrepresenting it.

[OverLordOcelot]

Did you want to review what I said because it does not match your caricature?

1) I agree that the terms are bad, but the historic usage (while bad) does not match your caricature of the position.
Paladins are Halfcasters. Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 is a Half caster. Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Martial with a single casting ability.

The terms that you are using there are not the terms being used in the thread and not what I objected to - note that the thread title doesn't mention 'half casters', and that various posts classify characters with a single casting ability (like Pass Without Trace) as casters instead of martials. (Also a Barbarian with magic initiate has three casting abilities - two cantrips and one spell). Your pretending that I was discussing a set of terms that wasn't used in the thread and that I didn't refer to instead of what I did discuss is the only caricature here, and it would be nice if you'd stop pretending I said something that I didn't. If you can't actually respond to what I wrote and are going to continue pretending that I said something different, I'm not going to waste time responding further.

[OldTrees1]

The terms that you are using there are not the terms being used in the thread and not what I objected to - note that the thread title doesn't mention 'half casters', and that various posts classify characters with a single casting ability (like Pass Without Trace) as casters instead of martials. (Also a Barbarian with magic initiate has three casting abilities - two cantrips and one spell). Your pretending that I was discussing a set of terms that wasn't used in the thread and that I didn't refer to instead of what I did discuss is the only caricature here, and it would be nice if you'd stop pretending I said something that I didn't. If you can't actually respond to what I wrote and are going to continue pretending that I said something different, I'm not going to waste time responding further.

These terms have a historic usage and a lot of that baggage has been throwing its weight around in this thread (because this thread is merely a continuation of the ongoing conversation). Yes there has been some hyperbole, but I do classify your oversimplification of the oversimplification as a caricature. To which I responded by stating the historic usage of the terms and agreeing with part of your position while not agreeing with your reaction to your own oversimplification.

If you feel like you don't want to engage with the bad terms, or with the more nuanced terms that could replace them, and only want to engage with your caricature, then I will rejoin the conversation elsewhere and leave you to flame this section of the ongoing conversation.

[Nhorianscum]

Teleport is a 7th level spell, which means you need to be level 13 to get it, which is smack in the middle of T3, not "late tier 2". At 13 and 14 it uses up your highest level spell for the day, at 15 and 16 it uses 50% of your top two levels of spells. While it's a powerful spell when in an area where it works, it has a very significant resource cost even in late tier 3, and isn't available at all in tier 2.

I was thinking tele circle. Woops.

Ok mid tier 3. Allow me to rephrase.

Man, it's not like TIER 3 casters with prep time are a thing that snaps the game in half.

[OverLordOcelot]

These terms have a historic usage and a lot of that baggage has been throwing its weight around in this thread (because this thread is merely a continuation of the ongoing conversation). Yes there has been some hyperbole, but I do classify your oversimplification of the oversimplification as a caricature. To which I responded by stating the historic usage of the terms and agreeing with part of your position while not agreeing with your reaction to your own oversimplification.

Responding to what people actually wrote is not a caricature or hyperbole. Enjoy making your bogus accusations to yourself.

[DrLoveMonkey]

You could climb it without burning two dimension doors, and could climb 20 of the cliffs in a day without significant trouble. Yes, if martial characters just choose to sit around and do nothing then active players will get more done, but the problem is the decision to do nothing. If the 'oddly smooth' cliff face was arbitrarily made so smooth it couldn't be climbed by martials, then we should balance the anti-martial field by giving it an anti-magic field that puts the casters in the same situation.

Well, the oddly smooth here was because it was in fact an ancient magically created wall that WAS previously perfectly smooth but the weather had torn up it's outer rim. Either way though, this wasn't a case of me just sitting back and not showing initiative, I wanted to be the one to scout the wall, it's supposed to be my job and my roll. So I took the initiative to just start doing it, but when it was pointed out that I might flub the roll and force the wizard to spend a featherfall vs the owl familiar just flying up there with zero risk whatsoever I dropped off it.

I mean, what's my argument here? "No, no guys, let me do it, I might fail and burn another character's spell slots, but the benefit we get out of it is that if we decide it's not worth our time I get to roll again on my way back down." That's just...no, send the damn familiar. Not to mention if there's some horrible monster up there it gets snatched and we book it, rather than me getting snatched.

As for the anti-magic field, they're rare, super rare. If you have a castle blanketed in the things it's ridiculous, it's like having a pair of Balors guarding your front gate or something. It is technically possible, and shouldn't be out of the question, but a permanent anti-magic field is a miracle and should be treated as such. Even Dungeon of the Mad Mage only has like 2-3 of them scattered around some of its highest level areas.



Strong types jump on top of a wagon and grab it, a clever rogue could have gone to whatever mechanism was holding it or to the walls and braced it so that it wouldn't risk falling. If the DM is letting the illusionist take his action 'instantly' but not you, that's not a rule problem as malleable illusion actually takes an action. So again, this is the casters taking action and the martials sitting back doing nothing.

I could have done something with my action, but that gate was like mere seconds from falling. If I wanted to get up there I'd have to sprint to the stairwell on the opposite side of the courtyard, up several flights of stairs, and back through the wall to the mechanism, hopefully with an action left to roll athletics to try and jam it up. I honestly don't remember if I did start sprinting to the stairs or grabbed the wagon to start trying to get it out of the way or what, but I do remember I was totally inconsequential.



A Giant Ape has +9 athletics. Meanwhile a 13th level strength based fighter has a +5 proficiency bonus and should have athletics proficiency, plus +4 to +5 athletics bonus from strength - meaning that he's at least as good or at grappling as the ape and the polymorph wasn't actually needed. A similar Barbarian will be able to rage for advantage on the roll, so being turned into an ape would be a disadvantage. A serious grappler would have expertise (multiclassing or prodigy feat) and so would have +14-15 on grappling without any magic enhancing strength, significantly better than the ape (especially for the raging barb with advantage).

Right, except you can't actually grapple a creature more than one size catagory larger than yourself. Technically it's not strict RAW but a giant ape grappling a medium target is like rolling a grapple check of a human against a mouse, no contest. No risk of rolling a 2 against their 15 or anything like that. In this case I was the serious grappler with expertise in athletics, the fighter just had regular training and didn't take any grappling feats or anything. Luckily he didn't need to be because giant ape beats all comers there.

That's not the only benefit the ape has in a lot of situations though. For example push/drag, a fighter with 20 strength has a truly impressive push/drag weight of 600 pounds! Impressive as all heck. Compared to a giant ape though? 2,760 and with the ability to apply leverage and reach in places and ways a 6ft tall character can't. It doesn't matter how strong your beefy dwarf arms are, they aren't holding up a 10ft ceiling. Giant Ape as seen a lot of uses in the campaign, in case you couldn't tell.



A standard lich has truesight to 120 feet, if the wizard is within 60 (120 with spell sniper) feet to counterspell, the lich sees through his invisibility without doing anything. This means that the lich could have counterspelled the counterspell and forced the forcecage to go off, and should also have seen the wizard when you were in the room. Meanwhile the lich only has +9 perception, which means that it's pretty likely that if you're built to be 'slippery' (+15 stealth, can't roll less than a 10) you can probably just remain unnoticed by him, and could make good use of your bonus action hide in trying to get away. So this is a case where if the lich was played to its full abilities, the wizard would get a nasty surprised and you'd have a distinct advantage.

We weren't actually in a room at the time, it was out in a snowfield, a clearing between two lines of trees. We thought this thing was maybe some weird low level demi-deathknight or something. The rest of the party was hiding in the trees, disadvantage to see due to snowblindness of noonday snowfield I think, which I imagine is how they got past the perception of the lich? I don't know, I didn't get to see that side of the DM screen. The invisibility made sure none of his guards got to roll on it anyway.

Even if he had seen him, or maybe it's DM error, it happens, that just means the forcecage goes off and that's it, I'm stuck. My only recourse to escape is to hope the wizard or warlock teleports into the cage with me to try and get me out of it.

[OverLordOcelot]

One thing that seems to constantly come up in the discussions: People house rule to make physical actions much weaker and magic much stronger than they are RAW, then complain that martial vs magic is unbalanced. In the game as written, a T3 strength character who picks up athletics is equal to or better than a giant ape at grappling large and smaller opponents, which is actually quite impressive. If you take that away from martial characters, the problem is not that martials need enhancement, it's that they need you to stop creating the situation you're complaining about in your house rule.


Well, the oddly smooth here was because it was in fact an ancient magically created wall that WAS previously perfectly smooth but the weather had torn up it's outer rim. Either way though, this wasn't a case of me just sitting back and not showing initiative, I wanted to be the one to scout the wall, it's supposed to be my job and my roll. So I took the initiative to just start doing it, but when it was pointed out that I might flub the roll and force the wizard to spend a featherfall vs the owl familiar just flying up there with zero risk whatsoever I dropped off it.

I mean, what's my argument here? "No, no guys, let me do it, I might fail and burn another character's spell slots, but the benefit we get out of it is that if we decide it's not worth our time I get to roll again on my way back down." That's just...no, send the damn familiar. Not to mention if there's some horrible monster up there it gets snatched and we book it, rather than me getting snatched.

My argument is that I'd rather send the person less likely to be spotted as the scout so that if there's something scary we're likely to not wake it up. The owl with only a +3 stealth who can roll below a 10 is massively more likely to be spotted than the rogue who can't get less than a 20 or 25. Also if the owl takes any kind of attack (including minor area damage) it's just dead, and then you have to burn an hour and ten minutes to ritual cast for another one, which is generally a worse penalty than a first level spell slot. Also, if you're worried about spell slots, sending a person up means you can rig a rope for other people to climb, eliminating the need to burn two fourth level slots to dimension door people up (it's really odd to me to double DD but be worried about a possible feather fall).

And if your group is houseruling familiars to be nigh undetectable, you have both the 'that's a house rule, not the game' problem and come right back to the definitional problem that I pointed out and OldTrees1 insists I'm making up. Familiars are not the purview of primary casters only; Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters can get them, as well as anyone going 2 levels into warlock or 1 level into wizard, and anyone spending a feat for ritual caster or magic initiate can get one.


As for the anti-magic field, they're rare, super rare. If you have a castle blanketed in the things it's ridiculous, it's like having a pair of Balors guarding your front gate or something. It is technically possible, and shouldn't be out of the question, but a permanent anti-magic field is a miracle and should be treated as such. Even Dungeon of the Mad Mage only has like 2-3 of them scattered around some of its highest level areas.

How common they are is entirely up to the DM and depends on setting, and they are at least in RAW as a spell, the anti-martial field some people like to create isn't. Anti-martial fields should be just as uncommon, if you have a castle blanketed in 'oh no you can't use any physical abilities, only magic will do' areas you should match it with the opposite. And minor antimagic areas are actually quite common - lots of adventures have areas where specific magic doesn't work, like flight, teleport, light, and other specifics; for example ALL of DMM, not just 2-3 areas scattered around and most of the indoor areas in TOA completely block teleport.


I could have done something with my action, but that gate was like mere seconds from falling. If I wanted to get up there I'd have to sprint to the stairwell on the opposite side of the courtyard, up several flights of stairs, and back through the wall to the mechanism, hopefully with an action left to roll athletics to try and jam it up. I honestly don't remember if I did start sprinting to the stairs or grabbed the wagon to start trying to get it out of the way or what, but I do remember I was totally inconsequential.

So why did you put the wagons under a gate that was falling in the first place? Send the scout out to check the mechanism BEFORE you put the wagons under it, that's what scouts are for! Yes, you approach the situation by preparing a non-magical thing in advance, much like the illusionist cast creation in advance, but there was clearly a non-magical alternative, you just didn't want to take it. Also I don't get how 15' is 'several flights of stairs', why you wouldn't just climb the wall (especially if you happened to be a thief archetype), why the wagon couldn't move 10' in mere seconds, and all of the rest. It doesn't sound like you actually lacked for options to me.


Right, except you can't actually grapple a creature more than one size catagory larger than yourself. Technically it's not strict RAW but a giant ape grappling a medium target is like rolling a grapple check of a human against a mouse, no contest. No risk of rolling a 2 against their 15 or anything like that. In this case I was the serious grappler with expertise in athletics, the fighter just had regular training and didn't take any grappling feats or anything. Luckily he didn't need to be because giant ape beats all comers there.

Like I said above if you house rule to make magical effects more powerful and martial abilities weaker, the problem is not with the balance of the game itself but with your house rule. In D&D 5e under regular rules a strength fighter with just athletics proficiency is slightly better than a giant ape at grappling large or smaller creatures, and the ape would have around a 50-50 shot at grappling him. This is a case where RAW gives the martials a cool ability and your group decided to take it away from them. And if you're buffing a strength character to help them grapple, enlarge lets the character use their own (better) athletics check with advantage, and uses a lower level slot.

Also, I don't know if you've ever dealt with a mouse on the loose, but grappling one is actually not an easy task if they're trying to get away from you, it's nowhere near automatic in real life. Aside from being unbalancing, that rule's justification is flawed.


We weren't actually in a room at the time, it was out in a snowfield, a clearing between two lines of trees. We thought this thing was maybe some weird low level demi-deathknight or something. The rest of the party was hiding in the trees, disadvantage to see due to snowblindness of noonday snowfield I think, which I imagine is how they got past the perception of the lich? I don't know, I didn't get to see that side of the DM screen. The invisibility made sure none of his guards got to roll on it anyway.

Even if he had seen him, or maybe it's DM error, it happens, that just means the forcecage goes off and that's it, I'm stuck. My only recourse to escape is to hope the wizard or warlock teleports into the cage with me to try and get me out of it.

No - again, what you've actually done is created an example where the martial should shine, but your group houseruled or misruled to make the martial fail. The wizard still needs to make a stealth roll to avoid being noticed by the guards, as they've got hearing, and there's a decent chance of that going badly, invisible doesn't mean unnoticeable. Meanwhile the rogue can't ever roll less than a 10, is always at a 20-25, which is never going to get spotted by the lich's passive of 19 or anything likely to be a guard. When you get within 120 feet of the lich, the lich automatically sees the wizard and won't notice the rogue unless he spends an action actively looking. The lich shouldn't have been targetting you as you're actually MUCH better at not being seen than the invisible wizard in this case, the wizard was the one who was in danger.

[Nagog]

We weren't actually in a room at the time, it was out in a snowfield, a clearing between two lines of trees. We thought this thing was maybe some weird low level demi-deathknight or something. The rest of the party was hiding in the trees, disadvantage to see due to snowblindness of noonday snowfield I think, which I imagine is how they got past the perception of the lich? I don't know, I didn't get to see that side of the DM screen. The invisibility made sure none of his guards got to roll on it anyway.

Even if he had seen him, or maybe it's DM error, it happens, that just means the forcecage goes off and that's it, I'm stuck. My only recourse to escape is to hope the wizard or warlock teleports into the cage with me to try and get me out of it.

Gotta agree with OverlordOcelot on this one, particularly because of the snow. Snow effectively makes invisibility useless, as the sound of crunching snow and obvious footprints would instantly give away your position to anything with an intelligence of 5 or higher. So you'd need to roll stealth, I'd rule at disadvantage, to remain undetected. Same for the Rogue, but even at disadvantage the Rogue will beat out the Wizard any day of the week. Even having Invis negate the disadvantage, the Rogue will do much much better.

[diplomancer]

Cats are tiny. Still not easy to grapple one if it's trying to avoid you. In fact, wasn't there a somewhat famous fantasy book/TV series that had a whole plot point about how hard it is to grapple a cat? ;)

Speaking personally, the houserule "you automatically suceed at grapple checks of creatures 2 sizes smaller than you" never seems to work when I attempt to grab a fly or a mosquito. The RAW rule that a mosquito or fly cannot grapple me, however, does seem to be true.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing that seems to constantly come up in the discussions: People house rule to make physical actions much weaker and magic much stronger than they are RAW, then complain that martial vs magic is unbalanced. In the game as written, a T3 strength character who picks up athletics is equal to or better than a giant ape at grappling large and smaller opponents, which is actually quite impressive. If you take that away from martial characters, the problem is not that martials need enhancement, it's that they need you to stop creating the situation you're complaining about in your house rule.


It's the common thread--

Spells are allowed to work unless the DM can not find a single remotely-possible way they could work.

Non-spells are allowed to work only if the DM can't find a single remotely-possible way they could fail.

Which is exactly backwards from the design of 5e. 5e spells only do exactly what they say they do. Nothing more, nothing less. No, you can't argue "but common sense says" or "but physics says". If it doesn't say it does <X>, it doesn't do <X>. Non-spells, on the other hand, are open-ended. There are only floors, not ceilings. You can jump (with a running start) a distance equal to your STR score without rolling. That's a floor. It's also said that you possibly can jump further, you'll just have to roll for it. Anyone can climb at half-speed, unless the surface is particularly smooth/lacking hand-holds or the person doesn't have free hands.

Someone with 20 STR should be able to do without rolling anything strength-related that Captain America can do. Same for 20 DEX and nimbleness/reaction-speed related tasks. Heck, at 20 STR you're nearly as strong as an Adult White Dragon (22 STR), and a level 20 barbarian can beat that dragon in straight STR. Etc. We put blinders and chains on "non-magic" actions and give spells free rein to break their limits.

[OverLordOcelot]

Gotta agree with OverlordOcelot on this one, particularly because of the snow. Snow effectively makes invisibility useless, as the sound of crunching snow and obvious footprints would instantly give away your position to anything with an intelligence of 5 or higher. So you'd need to roll stealth, I'd rule at disadvantage, to remain undetected. Same for the Rogue, but even at disadvantage the Rogue will beat out the Wizard any day of the week. Even having Invis negate the disadvantage, the Rogue will do much much better.

Note that reliable talent really shines here, as never getting below a 10 makes disadvantage almost meaningless. The rogue can't roll low enough for the lich to spot him with passive perception even if he doesn't have expertise in stealth since his floor is 10+10. And if he does, I'm not sure that there is any published monster that can see through it - the highest I know of offhand is a Solar, which only has a +14 which is just slightly too little to spot the rogue. This really is an encounter where, if run by RAW, martials have a HUGE advantage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that reliable talent really shines here, as never getting below a 10 makes disadvantage almost meaningless. The rogue can't roll low enough for the lich to spot him with passive perception even if he doesn't have expertise in stealth since his floor is 10+10. And if he does, I'm not sure that there is any published monster that can see through it - the highest I know of offhand is a Solar, which only has a +14 which is just slightly too little to spot the rogue. This really is an encounter where, if run by RAW, martials have a HUGE advantage.

There are many published monsters with higher PP. The highest in any of the non-adventure books is 31 (Molydus), and the ancient dragons tend to run in the 25+ range. But those are all CR 21+. The lowest CR for a high PP (20+) is the Storm Giant Quintessence, at PP 20 and CR 12.

But generally, you're right. Rogues do the sneaky thing WAY better than casters do, unless you house-rule invisibility to be undetectibility.

[Trickery]

But generally, you're right. Rogues do the sneaky thing WAY better than casters do, unless you house-rule invisibility to be undetectibility.

Or unless your DM rules that you cannot use stealth unless you cannot be seen. It's more surprising than you think, and even has some support in the rules text. I've seen this ruling. The result is that being stealthy requires invisibility at those tables, making the Lore Bard and Druid the overall best stealth-scouts.

A wizard using Arcane Eye is a more effective scout than either since the eye is invisible, floating, and seemingly makes no sound at all, but I digress.

However, if your DM treats high stealth rolls as basically invisibility - the correct ruling IMO - then a Rogue does fine and doesn't expend resources to do it. A Lore Bard is still technically better in the higher tiers due to Pass Without Trace and being able to bardic inspiration himself, but those are resources. Cheap ones, but still technically resources.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or unless your DM rules that you cannot use stealth unless you cannot be seen. It's more surprising than you think, and even has some support in the rules text. I've seen this ruling. The result is that being stealthy requires invisibility at those tables, making the Lore Bard and Druid the overall best stealth-scouts.

A wizard using Arcane Eye is a more effective scout than either since the eye is invisible, floating, and seemingly makes no sound at all, but I digress.

However, if your DM treats high stealth rolls as basically invisibility - the correct ruling IMO - then a Rogue does fine and doesn't expend resources to do it. A Lore Bard is still technically better in the higher tiers due to Pass Without Trace and being able to bardic inspiration himself, but those are resources. Cheap ones, but still technically resources.

And a rogue with Pass Without Trace beats a bard with it hands down.

Bard: Max stealth (if max Dexterity and expertise, which most don't have) is the same, but can roll much lower.

Heck, the best stealther is a Thief rogue with a scroll of Pass Without Trace. Minimum roll: 10 + 5 + 10 or 12 + 10 = 35 or 37. That means that you can sneak without possibility of failure past a Molydus, the creature with the best PP in the game. As long as you have some form of cover, you're not breaking stealth for anything. Heck, that Molydus must roll a 14 or 16 to catch you even searching. Have the caster give them invisibility and they're basically immune to detection unless they walk in front of something with truesight.

Arcane Eye is super slow. 30' per round, and anything with true-sight sees it instantly (since it can't hide). A rogue can sneak right past someone with truesight given any kind of cover. And a wood elf one can do so even with very limited cover. It also eats a 4th level slot and a prep slot, which are not trivial costs.

Edit: forgot about the lore bard 14th level ability.

[OverLordOcelot]

Or unless your DM rules that you cannot use stealth unless you cannot be seen. It's more surprising than you think, and even has some support in the rules text. I've seen this ruling. The result is that being stealthy requires invisibility at those tables, making the Lore Bard and Druid the overall best stealth-scouts.

Again, if you deliberatly nerf martials and buff casters, the problem isn't actually the game rules but the fact that your house rules are penalizing one over the other. Weird rulings like 'you're in a forest in a snowstorm but can only stealth if you have invisibility' just don't make sense and are clearly aimed at making magic better than skill. And even if you're using that house rule, a rogue getting someone else to cast invisibility on him or choosing arcane trickster is still a better scout than the other two.


A wizard using Arcane Eye is a more effective scout than either since the eye is invisible, floating, and seemingly makes no sound at all, but I digress.

Arcane eye gets immediately spotted by anyone with truesight, like the lich in the example this was in response to.

[Trickery]

And a rogue with Pass Without Trace beats a bard with it hands down.

Bard: Max stealth (if max Dexterity and expertise, which most don't have) is the same, but can roll much lower.

Heck, the best stealther is a Thief rogue with a scroll of Pass Without Trace. Minimum roll: 10 + 5 + 10 or 12 + 10 = 35 or 37. That means that you can sneak without possibility of failure past a Molydus, the creature with the best PP in the game. As long as you have some form of cover, you're not breaking stealth for anything. Heck, that Molydus must roll a 14 or 16 to catch you even searching. Have the caster give them invisibility and they're basically immune to detection unless they walk in front of something with truesight.

Arcane Eye is super slow. 30' per round, and anything with true-sight sees it instantly (since it can't hide). A rogue can sneak right past someone with truesight given any kind of cover. And a wood elf one can do so even with very limited cover. It also eats a 4th level slot and a prep slot, which are not trivial costs.

Edit: forgot about the lore bard 14th level ability.

Lore Bard can hit numbers that the Rogue can't while also being able to do other things at the same time. Is the Rogue more consistent? Maybe. Maybe not, though. And you're assuming that party members are both willing and able to cast beneficial spells on the Rogue. If you have a party with no casters in it AND no form of cover for stealth, then the rogue is up **** creek.

That's really the issue. If we ask the question: can a Lore Bard do what the Rogue does, the answer is yes. Whether dealing rogue-like damage or using stealth or other skills, the Bard can do it. Rogues get some useful goodies from their archetypes, but those tend to be limited in function, especially when compared to spells.

Meanwhile, the Lore Bard can do so many things that the Rogue can't.

From the perspective of strict optimization, if you wanted to make the most capable party, everyone would be a spellcaster. Lore bard for skills and scouting + helping people pass their saves, Cleric or Druid for keeping everyone alive and laying down hazardous AoE effects, Hexblade for killing things dead whether in melee or range for cheap (popular target for Polymorph, as well), Wizard for being a Wizard...

People say concentration is a limit on casters. That's not exactly true. Concentration limits what one caster can do. You get around it by having more casters. Is there any challenge a party of four casters using overlapping area effects, polymorph, and various utility spells cannot overcome?

But it's easy to think of challenges that mundane characters cannot overcome. Lock them in a forcecage and they have no chance of escape. There are many such scenarios.

That's what I wish to address. I'd like non-casters to be more capable. More useful outside of combat, more varied in combat, and more capable of dealing with unusual challenges. Non-casters should be capable of more extraordinary effects than they currently are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Lore Bard can hit numbers that the Rogue can't while also being able to do other things at the same time. Is the Rogue more consistent? Maybe. Maybe not, though. And you're assuming that party members are both willing and able to cast beneficial spells on the Rogue. If you have a party with no casters in it AND no form of cover for stealth, then the rogue is up **** creek.

That's really the issue. If we ask the question: can a Lore Bard do what the Rogue does, the answer is yes. Whether dealing rogue-like damage or using stealth or other skills, the Bard can do it. Rogues get some useful goodies from their archetypes, but those tend to be limited in function, especially when compared to spells.

Meanwhile, the Lore Bard can do so many things that the Rogue can't.

From the perspective of strict optimization, if you wanted to make the most capable party, everyone would be a spellcaster. Lore bard for skills and scouting + helping people pass their saves, Cleric or Druid for keeping everyone alive and laying down hazardous AoE effects, Hexblade for killing things dead whether in melee or range for cheap (popular target for Polymorph, as well), Wizard for being a Wizard...

People say concentration is a limit on casters. That's not exactly true. Concentration limits what one caster can do. You get around it by having more casters. Is there any challenge a party of four casters using overlapping area effects, polymorph, and various utility spells cannot overcome?

But it's easy to think of challenges that mundane characters cannot overcome. Lock them in a forcecage and they have no chance of escape. There are many such scenarios.

That's what I wish to address. I'd like non-casters to be more capable. More useful outside of combat, more varied in combat, and more capable of dealing with unusual challenges. Non-casters should be capable of more extraordinary effects than they currently are.

Except over and over again you've been shown to be buffing spell-casters (by taking generous interpretations of their abilities) and choosing house-rules to nerf martials. Don't do that. Oh, and putting a pure-martial party in a forcecage is bad DM'ing. That's spelled out in black and white in the DMG. Building encounters to nerf your party is bad. Don't do it.

And in my experience (which includes T3 and T4), casters in the real world don't overshadow martials. In my party of

* Monk
* AT rogue
* land druid
* GOO warlock with mostly fluffy choices

the most influential players (across all 4 tiers) were

combat: Rogue, then monk and warlock, then way down the list the druid
Social: rogue and warlock, with the druid and monk tied for dead last. This entirely due to personalities, not class features.
Exploration: Eh, everyone the same basically.

In 5e, unless you succumb to the "casters rool" mentality and set houserules to enforce it, player >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build/class. There's really no wide gap in power or versatility, unless you are in a schroedinger's wizard scenario with tons of free time to plan and prepare and build your character to a specific challenge.

For example, a normal Lore Bard won't max Dex (or will do so very late) and won't Expertise Stealth. So no, Pass Without Trace and Bardic Inspiration only get them up to the potential of a "normal" rogue sneaker. But with much more variability--can't save you from rolling a 1. Bards are flexible in potential, but in practice specialize hard. A lore bard is gonna suck in dealing damage. They don't have the chassis for it--very little survivability, low direct damage output, etc. But if you specialize in damage, you've given up all those nifty utility things (other than the ones bards get standard). And your damage will only be so-so.

[Nagog]

Lore Bard can hit numbers that the Rogue can't while also being able to do other things at the same time. Is the Rogue more consistent? Maybe. Maybe not, though.

There is no maybe about it, the Rogue simply is more consistent. That's what Reliable Talent does, like, that's it's base purpose. And the Rogue can do plenty of things the Lore Bard can't, that's why they are different classes. Frankly, many great points have been brought up in favor of martials having their uses and favored moments over casters, and casters obviously have their moments as well. The reason you may believe that martials are useless is your DM favors the situations where Magic is necessary to succeed and martial abilities fail. You throwing a fit about it and insisting that your experience is reason for a change to the game as a whole is inaccurate.

[Trickery]

There is no maybe about it, the Rogue simply is more consistent. That's what Reliable Talent does, like, that's it's base purpose. And the Rogue can do plenty of things the Lore Bard can't, that's why they are different classes. Frankly, many great points have been brought up in favor of martials having their uses and favored moments over casters, and casters obviously have their moments as well. The reason you may believe that martials are useless is your DM favors the situations where Magic is necessary to succeed and martial abilities fail. You throwing a fit about it and insisting that your experience is reason for a change to the game as a whole is inaccurate.

First, the rogue is only more consistent if he and the bard both have access to pass without trace. If only the bard has access, then the bard is more consistent because his minimum roll is the same as the rogue's while his maximum roll is ten points higher. We're also relying on the Lore Bard to roll low at least once in a meaningful moment and NOT use bardic inspiration or any of a wide number of alternatives to get around that. We're also relying on the DM to create an environment with cover such that invisibility is not needed - if it is, the rogue cannot succeed alone, but the bard can.

That's why I said it depends.

Second, no, it doesn't come down to DM style. We can argue over whether casters do the martial's job better, right? We're doing so right now. We cannot argue about the reverse. There are situations that only casters can handle, and DMs have to be conscious of that.

Similarly, there ought be situations that only martial characters can handle. Currently, there are no situations like that.

[Skylivedk]

A) the thread keeps being derailed to its premise. It's frustrating. If I asked about how I could change my car to go longer on the liter and kept being told it wasn't necessary because the car is still a great alternative to a helicopter, I'd also be frustrated.

B) as part of addressing A) I've yet to see anyone choose a level where they feel classes are balanced and subsequently show that martials get the same amount of features (with features scaling in power) per level after that.

Simple example. Let's pretend the game is balanced at level 10.

Fighter level 11: close to 50% increase in damage!
Wizard level 11: two long rest features that can be selected from a new power level and all prior power levels including 3 ways to break the action economy (Contingency, Create Undead and Homunculus) as well as one for changing all of your physical stats (Magic Jar), one feature to help you step on melee classes (Tenser's esp for Bladesinger). And your at-will damage got 33% dump.

Fighter 12: ASI.
Wizard 12: ASI + two choices of features

Fighter 13: Indomitable X2 (100% increase of a level 9 ability)
Wizard 13: two long rest features that can be selected from a new power level and all prior power levels including: Simulacrum; the ability to make an obedient slave copy of anyone (if used on yourself: generally near doubling you; can also be used on prisoners, team mates etc.), Force Cage, Mirage Arcana, Plane Shift and Teleport; ie one no-save ability, 1 world altering ability and two supreme mobility options.

Lvl 14, Fighter: ASI
Lvl 14, Wizard: Illusory Reality, Resistance to All Spell Damage and Advantage on All Saving Throws Against Spells, Overchannel, etc
... Oh, and two more choices because they needed that.

Level 15, Fighter: class feature (better crit, one sup die at the beginning of certain combats, up to 33% extra damage for samurais)
Level 15, Wizard: two options. New power level includes cheat death (clone), disable magic (Anti magic Field), disable charisma caster (feeblemind), become immune to mind altering effects (mind blank), access to your super man booth and hence Glyph shenanigans (Demiplane), ignore legendary resistance disable (Maze)

---

If you're not seeing the difference, I don't know what to say. It's both accelerated power AND massive flexibility in the use of said power for the Wizard. For the Fighter it's predetermined power and often not of a new quality. Some of the bumps are (very) nice, but not game or world altering. Only the ASI can do something out of combat

C) back to the thread's purpose.
Is there any options for changing this besides the options mentioned earlier?:
1. Give legendary stuff to do out of combat based on the characters (new skill usage, legendary SR/LR abilities).
Barbarians could punch through magic/shake castles
Fighters might gain an ability to predict tactics: "Tactical Genius: once per day you use your many years of experience to predict your opponent's move. Ask your DM about 2 of the following: how will our opponent use the environment to affect our level of success? What weaknesses are being targeted? What strength of ours is unknown to our opponent?" [Example. I'm sure your bright brains can do better than mine... Only at my first coffee]

2. Give mechanically supported world building/altering abilities (including recruitment). 2e had it IIRC.

3. Make the setting so that casters can't go nuts with 2. and stuff like demiplane. Ie., they're always huntedz shunned or...
.
4. Magic items

[Great Dragon]

That's why I said it depends.

Second, no, it doesn't come down to DM style. We can argue over whether casters do the martial's job better, right? We're doing so right now. We cannot argue about the reverse. There are situations that only casters can handle, and DMs have to be conscious of that.

Similarly, there ought be situations that only martial characters can handle. Currently, there are no situations like that.

First you say that it doesn't require DM style, but then you state that more DMs need to be aware of the problem and do something about it. Which is supporting DM style.

I'm not going to try and tell everyone that they need to Change their style/s of Running/Playing D&D, much less any other of the RPGs.

But, I've been aware of this problem for about three decades, and I still don't have a perfect solution. And I do try and make it where all the Classes have ways to acomplish things in the game. Magic only sometimes solves a problem.
**********
The above also seems to be a white room Solo Mission, instead of an actual in game problem of getting the entire Party past this Challenge.
*******
Well, ok, the above Demilich was in a Guardian position Outside for some reason.

Upon research, the Demilich's PP is 13.
(Which is kinda pathetic for a CR 18 creature with Trueseeing.)

Literally anyone of 5th+ level that is Proficient in stealth (and doesn't roll less than a 5 on a d20) can get past here, given even any kind of cover. (Or at least not set up in such a way that they can't use stealth.)

Invisibility (and other Illusions) simply doesn't cut it, once within 120' of the Demilich.

Now, both Pass Without Trace and Fog Cloud are better options, here. But, as mentioned, either one costs a resource.

Unless the Situation was set up that there is no cover anywhere within 120 feet of the Demilich - in advance by the DM - the Rogue (and if the Rogue has the Skulker Feat, just needs Dim Light or natural Darkness) can get past without even trying (no roll needed),
After dark, the Gloomestalker Ranger can literally walk past, again - no roll needed.
*******
Now, just for giggles, let's say that the Demilich is actually Proficient in Perception, and is treated as having the benefits of the Observant feat. PP is now 24.

No auto sneak here.

Everyone with Stealth Proficiency and +5 Dex now needs to roll 13+ to not be detected.
Expertise needs 7+ on d20.

(Rogue is more likely to have Stealth Expertise than Bard, since Bards tend to focus on other things for their Expertises)

The Druid, other Rangers, and Bards can get that down to a 3+ roll with Pass w/o Trace, but burned a slot to do so.

Casting Fog Cloud only blocks sight, so still needs 13+ to not be heard.

Deities help those not Proficient, and/or lacking at least a +4 Dex!! Not having both, means auto-fail without Pass w/o Trace and a roll of 11-14+ on d20.
******
Put this Demilich in a Treasure Room in the Dungeon, and then the Rogue (or the Stealth built Bard) is the only one with any chance of getting any Treasure without engaging: Bard still needs to roll over 5 to succeed;

Solo Rogue is walking away rich!!! Without rolling!!! Anything less than a PP of 26 also needs no roll, and a roll of 15 on d20 bypasses PP 30.

Does anything get a PP over 35?
If so, it cannot be bypassed without magic, which still tops out at PP 45.
*****
Ok, let's say everyone got past the Demilich, so now my question is, do these PC/s need to get past the Demilich on the way back?

If yes, I'm sure that the Casters aren't going to have any spell slots left to easily bypass.
But, both Rogue and Gloomestalker are just fine.

If no, what other Guardian types need to be gotten past - either in, or getting out of, the Dungeon?
(Intelligent high CR Monsters, shouldn't be a Random Encounter outside making the Dungeon/Challenge)
****
I'm also wondering why a Demilich doesn't have any Spells? But, that's a different problem.

[Trickery]

You know, it may be as simple as adding a few defining features to rogues, barbarians, and fighters. These classes generally get their defining features at low levels, and higher levels are more of the same (especially fighters).

For example, it would be cool if rogues could take two reactions, or if barbarians could two weapon fight with great weapons or take the Attack action as a bonus action (two attacks, total of four if only attacking). Those would be good level 14 features.

[Fable Wright]

Fighter level 11: close to 50% increase in damage!
Wizard level 11: two long rest features that can be selected from a new power level and all prior power levels including 3 ways to break the action economy (Contingency, Create Undead and Homunculus) as well as one for changing all of your physical stats (Magic Jar), one feature to help you step on melee classes (Tenser's esp for Bladesinger). And your at-will damage got 33% dump.

Magic Jar: One Dispel Magic and you die; if you get a low-HP humanoid, you save with your dump stat vs your primary stat or you die; and you can no longer play in AMFs.
Create Undead: Can you say 'Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage'? ...Or '3 minions with +4 to hit and no advantage'? Seriously, this is awful.
Tenser's Transformation: Universally regarded as terrible, and a trap, and it's for one fight per day, and it's a daily. It's really bad.

At-will damage: You now do as much as one of the fighter's three attacks on a hit! Wheeeeee!



Fighter 12: ASI.
Wizard 12: ASI + two choices of features

Druid 12: ASI, no change to features.
Cleric 12: ASI, no change to features.

We're judging ALL casters here, right?


Fighter 13: Indomitable X2 (100% increase of a level 9 ability)
Wizard 13: two long rest features that can be selected from a new power level and all prior power levels including: Simulacrum; the ability to make an obedient slave copy of anyone (if used on yourself: generally near doubling you; can also be used on prisoners, team mates etc.), Force Cage, Mirage Arcana, Plane Shift and Teleport; ie one no-save ability, 1 world altering ability and two supreme mobility options.

Simulacrum: Hire Greater Minion for 1.5k gold (which the DM might never give you), dies to AoEs rapidly.
Force Cage: Congrats, you're almost to the level of lockdown that a Prodigy: Athletics Fighter has had for the last 8 levels!
Mirage Arcane: You can now set up a volcano lair anywhere. Cool. Easily dispelled, doesn't really help in combat.
Plane Shift: "I am now a taxi driver!"
Teleport: Get Out of Dodge Fast. This does have a feature that can only be replicated by the Cleric's Word of Recall. It's good. But it's not stepping on anyone's toes. Otherwise, the main function can be replicated by a montage and a taxi driver looking forward to his adventurer-class tip.


Lvl 14, Fighter: ASI
Lvl 14, Wizard: Illusory Reality, Resistance to All Spell Damage and Advantage on All Saving Throws Against Spells, Overchannel, etc
... Oh, and two more choices because they needed that.

Druid & Cleric, again, don't get any more spell choices here, and far lower powered abilities.


Level 15, Fighter: class feature (better crit, one sup die at the beginning of certain combats, up to 33% extra damage for samurais)
Level 15, Wizard: two options. New power level includes cheat death (clone), disable magic (Anti magic Field), disable charisma caster (feeblemind), become immune to mind altering effects (mind blank), access to your super man booth and hence Glyph shenanigans (Demiplane), ignore legendary resistance disable (Maze)

Clone: "I can trade all the gear that defines my character in exchange for not being able to be resurrected by the cleric on hand! ...Wait."
Antimagic Field: "I can give up my only worthwhile class features in exchange for still being vulnerable to dragon's breath! ...Wait."
Feeblemind: "It's like I'm hitting him with Silence, except he gets a save now! ...Wait."
Mind Blank: ...Not gonna lie, it's good, but it's a team support ability.
Maze: "Remember Banishment? From 8 levels ago? That was mostly balanced at the time, and I can do it again, despite legendary resistance enemies! I am a GOD! ...Wait. It's still the same effect that I had eight levels ago, except I can do it less often per day. Damn."
Demiplane: Granted, 's good and not stepping on anyone's toes. Using it with the superman booth, though, is "Guys, THIS IS AWESOME! Also, I may need about 3 months setting this back up, and half the dragon's hoard to recoup expenses."



If you're not seeing the difference, I don't know what to say. It's both accelerated power AND massive flexibility in the use of said power for the Wizard. For the Fighter it's predetermined power and often not of a new quality. Some of the bumps are (very) nice, but not game or world altering. Only the ASI can do something out of combat

I am seeing a difference. You are correct, the Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue needs stronger world-interaction abilities, and only the fighter's combat-affecting abilities actually help deal with the enemies at this level.

I will agree that Melee needs stronghold rules, the rogues could very much be getting benefits from their own thieves' guild, and the barbarians should be altering terrain with their fists.

The casters have more narrative power in their features, but combat-wise, fighter's contributions outshine wizards' throughout tier 3.


C) back to the thread's purpose.
Is there any options for changing this besides the options mentioned earlier?:
1. Give legendary stuff to do out of combat based on the characters (new skill usage, legendary SR/LR abilities).
Barbarians could punch through magic/shake castles
Fighters might gain an ability to predict tactics: "Tactical Genius: once per day you use your many years of experience to predict your opponent's move. Ask your DM about 2 of the following: how will our opponent use the environment to affect our level of success? What weaknesses are being targeted? What strength of ours is unknown to our opponent?" [Example. I'm sure your bright brains can do better than mine... Only at my first coffee]

2. Give mechanically supported world building/altering abilities (including recruitment). 2e had it IIRC.

3. Make the setting so that casters can't go nuts with 2. and stuff like demiplane. Ie., they're always huntedz shunned or...
.
4. Magic items

Honestly, I would support Indomitable, probably the Fighter's weakest feature, to becoming straight up Legendary Resistance. It won't break anything, and it's very much appreciated with how difficult it becomes to make saves. That said, 1, 2, and 4 are the ways to handle it.


You know, it may be as simple as adding a few defining features to rogues, barbarians, and fighters. These classes generally get their defining features at low levels, and higher levels are more of the same (especially fighters).

For example, it would be cool if rogues could take two reactions, or if barbarians could two weapon fight with great weapons or take the Attack action as a bonus action (two attacks, total of four if only attacking). Those would be good level 14 features.

...You have never played at a tier 3 table, have you?

First, this is doubling down on combat prowess rather than narrative agency, where the key problems arise.
Second, that change fundamentally breaks game math, skyrockets Barbarians ahead of any other damage dealers, and is an entirely unnecessary buff.

Third, Rogues getting two reactions miiiight be fine? But given that they can be doing 8d8+10d6+5 damage on an AoO with Warcaster and Booming Blade, that could be an extra 86 damage per turn, which may or may not be overkill.

[OverLordOcelot]

People say concentration is a limit on casters. That's not exactly true. Concentration limits what one caster can do. You get around it by having more casters. Is there any challenge a party of four casters using overlapping area effects, polymorph, and various utility spells cannot overcome?

I think people are more concerned about balance in reasonable play. If you are deliberately forming a party of all casters or are arbitrarily having casters who only buff other casters and refuse to buff martials or are putting 'you must have spell X to beat this challenge, also you aren't allowed magic items' challenges in fromt of a no-casters party, you're just making weird groups. Cannot overcome a single challenge' is similarly divorced from real gameplay. What really matters is something like 'is there a set of challenges that constitute a full adventure that you'd rather have a party of mixed martials and casters than a party of pure casters for', and the answer is a resounding yes. When casters aren't allowed to full nova because there are multiple challenges to overcome before a long rest and have to deal with intelligently played enemies (so no, invisibility doesn't let you sneak by the lich with true sight), they find themselves wishing for a good solid fighter-type or rogue-type in the group.


But it's easy to think of challenges that mundane characters cannot overcome. Lock them in a forcecage and they have no chance of escape. There are many such scenarios.

Lock casters in an antimagic shell and they have no chance of escape. Whoop-de-do, if you build a perfect trap PCs can't escape it.


A) the thread keeps being derailed to its premise. It's frustrating. If I asked about how I could change my car to go longer on the liter and kept being told it wasn't necessary because the car is still a great alternative to a helicopter, I'd also be frustrated.

It's more like if you wrote a thread stating that motorcycles were completely superior to cars and asking how to improve cars to be equal to motorcycles, and people kept pointing out that your core premise was wrong.

[Trickery]

I can see there's a lot of disagreement over what martials are and are not good at, what casters can do in combat (especially Wizards), and whether martials are balanced against each other.

There are some basic points that escape attempts at math. For instance, an optimized Barbarian is usually getting three attacks per round as is, but only after the first turn of combat usually since rage costs a bonus action. Feats like PAM and GWM enable this. There's also debate over just how much damage Wizards can do (a lot) or whether they need to in order to win a fight (they don't). How do you actually do the math or value the impact of Watery Sphere, for instance? That spell does bad things whether you pass or fail your saving throw. How useful is it, really? How does it compare to action surge making five attacks? No one knows because you can't represent every possible encounter mathematically and not every group even uses a grid.

I'm looking at this from a high level design perspective. What kinds of features do non-casters need to get for the players to be excited about high levels? Are those features as exciting as high level spells? But I can't talk about those here without people arguing over whether a given change "breaks the game." Rudely arguing, in fact. In just this one thread, I've had multiple people imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I don't even play the game.

So I don't know what to do. I just hope WotC thinks about the bolded questions carefully when designing 6e.

[Great Dragon]

I'm looking at this from a high level design perspective. What kinds of features do non-casters need to get for the players to be excited about high levels? Are those features as exciting as high level spells? But I can't talk about those here without people arguing over whether a given change "breaks the game." Rudely arguing, in fact. In just this one thread, I've had multiple people imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I don't even play the game.

So I don't know what to do.

Well, I'm trying to not be rude.

However - I'm taking a chance on seeming Rude, here.

But your making a lot of complaints, but not really offering any Suggested Solutions:
at least none that I've really noticed so far*.

And your getting upset when others point out the flaws in said complaints, and rejecting offered Solutions as "not enough".

* I try and read the back posts, but can't do that all the time.


*********
I have also been trying to address that question.
But, I'm not a Dev, or even all that experienced in creating new mechanics.
Adding things causes changes to other things in the game, so Game Balance is a valid concern.


*********
My suggestions for more limits to Mages was mostly rejected.

Some of my suggestions for Improved Martial abilities seemed to be accepted as OK.
But how to best Implement them, wasn't agreed upon.


I think a good portion of what you are running into is a desire by at least some (I haven't done a poll and won't) that at high levels their non-magical character doesn't become just another magic guy. I can say for myself that when I play a fighter or a rogue,for example, it's because I expressly don't want to be doing or relying on magical things. When I looked at 4e, one of my main issues with it was that it looked to me like everyone was just some kind of a magicuser.

Some things I can understand not wanting/needing magic for.

Like the Monk that I just had in a recent game [B]jumping from tree to tree in the forest (Athletics check for distance) to try and throw the Orcs (opposed "Grapple" check) to the ground, where if said Orcs survived, they were nearly dead and prone!

But, jumping the 30 feet to get to the Orcs from a standing position?
Even with 24 Str they can (by RAW) only achieve 12 feet up (not sure about standing, will look when I can), without magic.

If getting the full 30 feet up (even from standing position) is desired, I'm not sure what mechanics to use to do that.

[Sigreid]

I can see there's a lot of disagreement over what martials are and are not good at, what casters can do in combat (especially Wizards), and whether martials are balanced against each other.

There are some basic points that escape attempts at math. For instance, an optimized Barbarian is usually getting three attacks per round as is, but only after the first turn of combat usually since rage costs a bonus action. Feats like PAM and GWM enable this. There's also debate over just how much damage Wizards can do (a lot) or whether they need to in order to win a fight (they don't). How do you actually do the math or value the impact of Watery Sphere, for instance? That spell does bad things whether you pass or fail your saving throw. How useful is it, really? How does it compare to action surge making five attacks? No one knows because you can't represent every possible encounter mathematically and not every group even uses a grid.

I'm looking at this from a high level design perspective. What kinds of features do non-casters need to get for the players to be excited about high levels? Are those features as exciting as high level spells? But I can't talk about those here without people arguing over whether a given change "breaks the game." Rudely arguing, in fact. In just this one thread, I've had multiple people imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I don't even play the game.

So I don't know what to do. I just hope WotC thinks about the bolded questions carefully when designing 6e.

I think a good portion of what you are running into is a desire by at least some (I haven't done a poll and won't) that at high levels their non-magical character doesn't become just another magic guy. I can say for myself that when I play a fighter or a rogue,for example, it's because I expressly don't want to be doing or relying on magical things. When I looked at 4e, one of my main issues with it was that it looked to me like everyone was just some kind of a magicuser.

[Skylivedk]

Magic Jar: One Dispel Magic and you die; if you get a low-HP humanoid, you save with your dump stat vs your primary stat or you die; and you can no longer play in AMFs.
No, you don't die. Especially not if you have clone. Otherwise you still have a save and with clone a perfect back-up. You might not like the spell; I personally don't think I'd use it often (growing a clone takes time and carrying around my body can be a nuisance). It still offers a type of both stat changing and narrative power no martial class approaches.



Create Undead: Can you say 'Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage'? ...Or '3 minions with +4 to hit and no advantage'? Seriously, this is awful.
Again, not something I would use in a fight. Definitely something I could fill a mote with when I'm in the deeper end of the alignment pool. Also, permanent effect.



Tenser's Transformation: Universally regarded as terrible, and a trap, and it's for one fight per day, and it's a daily. It's really bad.
Agreed. Hence why I wrote the note about Bladesingers. Normally regarded as a trap, because damage and hp are not seen to be worth of slots.



At-will damage: You now do as much as one of the fighter's three attacks on a hit! Wheeeeee!

I guess my own indifferent sarcasm didn't shine through.


Druid 12: ASI, no change to features.
Cleric 12: ASI, no change to features.
We're judging ALL casters here, right?

As written, I used examples. With the Druid, I'd point to them getting access to 16 features the level before and only ASI here. Same with Cleric except doubling of old ability + 10.



Simulacrum: Hire Greater Minion for 1.5k gold (which the DM might never give you), dies to AoEs rapidly.

I don't allow Simulacrum as a DM. I don't really understand how high level Wizards could have money trouble either. Ok, maybe the LG ones. For the rest, gold ought to be easy to come by unless it's an ultra high magic level setting you play in.



Force Cage: Congrats, you're almost to the level of lockdown that a Prodigy: Athletics Fighter has had for the last 8 levels!
You mean the single target lockdown that can be countered by a level two spell, takes a free hand (and hence only one subrace can do more than one), melee range, only works on large (or smaller) creatures and requires a skill check? You're comparing a bicycle to a flying minibus.



Mirage Arcane: You can now set up a volcano lair anywhere. Cool. Easily dispelled, doesn't really help in combat.

I've made it quite clear combat is not my primary concern. Quite a few times too. Ten Minute casting time doesn't really scream combat spell to you, does it? It can sink a castle, destroy a city and a bunch of other things with it. The fighter and barbarian can do absolutely nothing that resembles it. It's very hard for me to believe you're trying to see our understand anything new with this comment in mind. If you play mainly encounters following encounters and perfectly adjusted 2 short rests designed dungeons, sure. In that case it's probably an awful spell. In more sandboxy, free roaming games, this spell is one of the most powerful features you'll see.




Plane Shift: "I am now a taxi driver!"
Again, sounds like our metric varies. If your DM is prone to solving your problems for you, then sure, it's just a spell tax or a fairly risky long-term disable/eight-man escape mechanism (again, which ability for the fighter have that could allow him-/herself to escape with 7 team members?)



Teleport: Get Out of Dodge Fast. This does have a feature that can only be replicated by the Cleric's Word of Recall. It's good. But it's not stepping on anyone's toes. Otherwise, the main function can be replicated by a montage and a taxi driver looking forward to his adventurer-class tip.

It sounds more and more like we play different settings. In my group, doomsday clock runs out: demons take over the city, kids and other innocents lose their lives in ways so painful, you're not sure you want to sit through the DM's description.

I don't get what you mean with stepping on toes either. Maybe you're mixing me up with Trickery who made the claim that full-casters could fulfill any role of a martial better than a martial. I haven't run the numbers, haven't made the claim either. I think they can come way to close in certain parts of the game (ie Moon Druid in bear form is too strong in early levels), but I haven't run the math.



Druid & Cleric, again, don't get any more spell choices here, and far lower powered abilities.
Moon druids get the ability to make Athletics checks in water and disguise kit checks obsolete.

Shepherd druids summon 4 Giant Constrictor Snakes/Cave or Polar Bears/Allosaurus. I guess he got so tired of breaking the action economy he decided to do it in his sleep.

Clerics seem more meh.
CR3 undead doesn't seem to add too much.



Clone: "I can trade all the gear that defines my character in exchange for not being able to be resurrected by the cleric on hand! ...Wait."
Great thing that you're not dependent on your great to have an impact on the world then... And that you have numerous spells that allow you to store and recall gear from anywhere. Again, what can the Fighter do here if there's no cleric? Wait? Hope his Wizard friend who could plane shift, teleport, cove, contingency himself away soon learns wish? Nothing?



Antimagic Field: "I can give up my only worthwhile class features in exchange for still being vulnerable to dragon's breath! ...Wait."
And when the fighter needs to suppress a magical artifact, several casters, close down a magical effect he can??? If you use it against a T-Rex sized fire/acid/ice/poison spewing flying beast that's your mistake. Not the spell's. Again, Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins do not have a "Rupture Magic"-feature. Ironically, if you want to Mrs with high level magic, you need more high level magic.



Feeblemind: "It's like I'm hitting him with Silence, except he gets a save now! ...Wait."

... Except it lasts thirty days, you can't walk out of it and it doesn't take concentration and also works against a subtle spell Sorcerer and completely disables any complex action. Yup, same same.



Mind Blank: ...Not gonna lie, it's good, but it's a team support ability.

And??? So can Simulacrum, Plane Shift, Clone, Wish, Planar Binding etc etc etc be. I've never argued for the Wizard acting alone. I've argued he could build an army to facilitate it, sure, not that he had to or would. It lasts for 24 hours. In quite a few cases more than enough to easily surpass indomitable. Plus unless the Fighter, the Wizard can use this on anyone.



Maze: "Remember Banishment? From 8 levels ago? That was mostly balanced at the time, and I can do it again, despite legendary resistance enemies! I am a GOD! ...Wait. It's still the same effect that I had eight levels ago, except I can do it less often per day. Damn."

Maze boss, flee, kill mooks, whatever. Unlike banishment, no save, no check, nothing. I don't see too many of those abilities laying around the design space.



Demiplane: Granted, 's good and not stepping on anyone's toes. Using it with the superman booth, though, is "Guys, THIS IS AWESOME! Also, I may need about 3 months setting this back up, and half the dragon's hoard to recoup expenses."

Again, I don't get the gold trouble. You're a level 15 full-caster. You can singlehandedly sink a castle, run an old school powerplant (with Arcane Gate), create an ever-ending, no sleep or food needing workforce (elementals, undead, a bunch of others), create infinite water for the thirsty (Marid), raise the dead (Deva) and a bunch of other things I've yet to discover.



I am seeing a difference. You are correct, the Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue needs stronger world-interaction abilities, and only the fighter's combat-affecting abilities actually help deal with the enemies at this level.

I agree on the first part and, considering your approach to spells clearly designed for the second, don't really want to discuss the second further. If you somehow manage to see that Forcecage, Maze, Wish, Nuclear Wizards, Summoned/Planar Bound Armies, etc. don't work, then sure.



I will agree that Melee needs stronghold rules, the rogues could very much be getting benefits from their own thieves' guild, and the barbarians should be altering terrain with their fists.

The casters have more narrative power in their features, but combat-wise, fighter's contributions outshine wizards' throughout tier 3.

Same as before. I'm more than happy that Fighters and Barbarians are good at killing things. I'd loathe to play one considering how little their gameplay changes through time, but at least they put steel in bellies quite well (the belly-piercing, from what I have gathered, doesn't become significantly better from level 11 and onwards, except fighters late game peak, but let's leave that for now)



Honestly, I would support Indomitable, probably the Fighter's weakest feature, to becoming straight up Legendary Resistance. It won't break anything, and it's very much appreciated with how difficult it becomes to make saves. That said, 1, 2, and 4 are the ways to handle it.

Excellent. Suggestions on how to integrate those points in good and in-fiction cool ways?


...

And I agree with you on most of the points about Barbarians and Rogues not needing to be able to do more of the same. At least, it's not where I would start and not where I feel my data supports a change

[loki_ragnarock]

Let's look at it by the numbers, because doing it any other way is just people making baseless claims. This will be an exploratory exercise because I have to hold myself to the same standard of behavior that I'd want others to be held to when making such claims. The math is a little loose because this was done while idle at work on a construction site sans electronic devices to check myself with, only verifying after. It was hot today, though, so I might be way off.

Lore Bard vs Rogue: A Generic Challenge of Skills


So the Lore Bard:
- Can add bardic inspiration to ability checks (that’s quite an initiative check!)
- Has Expertise
- Has many skill proficiencies
- Adds ½ proficiency to untrained skills

So the Generic Rogue:
- Makes any skill they have proficiency in treat the roll as 10 if under 10.
- Has Expertise

At high level a bardic inspiriation die is a d12, which adds quite a swingy range of effect. So lets look at the skills they have expertise in first. Bard can throw down a d12 5 times per short rest, so I’ll grab a snapshot of what it looks like with Peerless Skill and what it looks like without. We’ll assume that they both have about a +15 in the skills they’ve specialized in. +5 proficiency proficiency bonus with a 20 main stat will get you there.
Bard:
With Peerless Skill + Expertise Min/Max/Average: 17/47/32
Without + Expertise Min/Max/Average: 16/35/25.5
Rogue:
Expertise Min/Max/Average: 25/35/27.75

The rogues probability curb is wonky, because the average is weighted to the low end rather than the high end. The Bard probably won’t be pulling this out all five times; Peerless skill isn’t just a limited resource, it’s a resource that competes with two other class abilities in Cutting Words and Bardic Inspiration. Assuming one use for each of those abilities limiting it to three uses, things still don’t look great for the rogue. The bard has managed to hit on average a whole tier of success higher, pulling ahead by 12 points. The rogue would need another 6 skill checks to pull even in raw numbers on average, putting him well behind.
In this category, the Lore Bard takes the crown.

For skills with regular proficiency, you can expect a score somewhere from +6-+8 with reasonable reliability, so sticking with +7 for the sake of plotting numbers.
Bard:
Peerless Skill + Trained Min/Max/Average: 9/39/24
Without + Trained Min/Max/Average: 8/27/17.5
Rogue:
Min/Max/Average: 17/27/19.75

But with Expertise factored out, the bard is still ahead by enough that follow up rolls would be unlikely to catch up. The Bard is about a tier of success ahead of the rogue with Peerless Skill, and roughly in the same tier as without it because the Rogue falls just shy of the next tier. So close, yet so far.
The bard takes the cake.

I did the math with untrained skills, but I think we can all intuit what’s going to happen here. This is assuming a +0 modifier; the category of skills that have been completely ignored by the character.
Bard:
Peerless Skill +Untrained Min/Max/Average: 4/34/19
Without + Untrained Min/Max/Average: 3/23/13
Rogue:
Min/Max/Average: 1/20/10.5

In this category, the rogue has no chance to bounce back. There is no scenario where they won’t be falling further behind in a cumulative number run.

So clearly the bard is the one with the best skill checks.

...

But what if they work together? You can’t actually stack a Lore Bard with another Bard; that d12 inspiration die only gets to apply to a roll one time. But a Rogue stacks with any kind of Bard, from a Whispers to a Valor. To demonstrate:

Rogue + Inspiration:
Expertise Min/Max/Average: 26/47/34.25
Trained Min/Max/Average: 18/39/26.25
Untrained Min/Max/Average: 2/32/12

You’ll notice that the averages for the top two categories are higher than what a Lore Bard can do himself. Working together, it makes sense to have the rogue roll the bones if he’s proficient and for the bard to clean up anything they both lack with jack of all trades. By my own standards, however, the only place where we see a genuinely meaningful uptick is in trained skills; working together puts them past the boundary for the next tier of success in that category, not just putting up a higher number for a number’s sake.

“But, Loki, you fool! A second Bard could cast guidance on the other bard, adding 1d4 to the check! Sure that would swing things wildly back into a dual bard party’s favor!”

Fair point, let us math that.

Peerless BARD+BARD Guidance
Expertise Min/Max/Average: 18/51/34.5
Trained Min/Max/Average: 10/43/26.5
Untrained Min/Max/Average: 6/38/22

“Ha! Within margin of error, Loki! Bards rule, rogues drool!”

Fair enough… but since using inspiration is a bonus action and casting guidance is a regular action, doesn’t that mean a bard could lay both upon their rogue ally?

Guided Inspired Rogue:
Expertise Min/Max/Average: 27/51/36.75
Trained Min/Max/Average: 19/43/28.75
Untrained Min/Max/Average: 3/36/19.5

Once again, martials and casters working together achieve the highest possible averages, firmly putting the expertise category into the next tier of success. Frankly, a stunning outcome; the bard and rogue working together can average an outcome that is the next category beyond “Nearly Impossible.” Which is to say, “Actually Impossible” becomes mundane when they are hand in glove.

Stunning.

I wonder how many other instances one can find of martials and casters complimenting each other so thoroughly that they push further than either one could go individually? I really hadn’t planned for the numbers to go in this kumbaya direction, but there it is; proof that a lore bard can do better than a solo rogue, but a rogue with any bard can do better.

This is why it's fun to scrutinize claims.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wonder how many other instances one can find of martials and casters complimenting each other so thoroughly that they push further than either one could go individually? I really hadn’t planned for the numbers to go in this kumbaya direction, but there it is; proof that a lore bard can do better than a solo rogue, but a rogue with any bard can do better.

This is why it's fun to scrutinize claims.

This is the thing that gets me the most. People act like it's a solo, competitive game. Instead, D&D is, at its core, a party game. The party is the basic unit of analysis. In 5e (unlike in 3e), caster + martial[1] beats two casters or two martials virtually all the time.

A few caveats about your (otherwise good) analysis--
* most of the time, those extra values are overkill. Standard DCs don't go above 20 or 30 tops. If something is literally impossible, the DC isn't 35. It's NO. So being able to hit arbitrary thresholds is rather meaningless. Instead, variance is what matters. And the rogue beats the bard hands down on that.
* That all assumes that the bard is specialized--expertise and max ability score (in likely a secondary stat/skill). Which most likely aren't. Bards are funny--they can be built for a lot of different things but once built have very little flexibility. And unless built for it (at the cost of most everything else), aren't contributing much in combat either as far as HP damage.
* (more of an amplification than a caveat): the bard is spending precious resources on this, with a much larger chance of failure. A sneaky rogue already beats the vast majority (all but 11[2] of 694) of the published, non-adventure-specific monsters' passive perception without rolling. On the other hand, the bard fails against 100 monsters covering the whole range of CRs if he rolls the minimum. To reach the rogue's baseline, the bard has to roll a total (on both dice) of 10 or spend a 2nd level slot + concentration. Without that resource spent (bardic inspiration and the minimum +1 it gives), he's now vulnerable to 137 monsters.

In a party with a caster and a thief rogue, the caster can make scrolls of concentration buffs and give them to the thief, thus letting concentration double-stack at a small cost in cash and time.

[1] I hate those terms because they're so squishy and ill-defined, but....
[2] all of them CR 21+, namely 2 arch-fiends (Zariel and Demogorgon), 8 ancient dragons, and the Molydeus. This is assuming a minimum roll of 10 (reliable talent) + 5 (max DEX) + 10 (pre-T4 expertise) = 25. Going to T4 boosts that to 27, which drops 4 more monsters off the list (Zariel, Ancient Red, Ancient Silver, and Ancient Black). If the T4 rogue rolls a 14+, they're beating every passive perception in the books.

[OverLordOcelot]

This is the thing that gets me the most. People act like it's a solo, competitive game. Instead, D&D is, at its core, a party game. The party is the basic unit of analysis. In 5e (unlike in 3e), caster + martial[1] beats two casters or two martials virtually all the time.

I think that if you want to do competitive D&D, do it like oldschool tournaments - make multiple parties and have them all run the same module, then compare how they do at the end. I would expect mixed parties to do significantly better than all caster or no caster parties unless the adventure is absurdly short or allows a constant nova-long rest-nova long rest cycle. I also expect parties where players are willing to buff each other to do much better than ones with players like the examples who work hard to max their own numbers and never do things like haste the fighter. And force the players to build out the characters and select spells with just a general idea of what they're facing, not Schroedinger's wizard style always having the exact right spell for the situation - and with a reasonable budget, not 'wizards have every spell'. Also have a DM who understands actual 5e spells and doesn't artificially boost them, like letting invisibility bypass true sight.


* That all assumes that the bard is specialized--expertise and max ability score (in likely a secondary stat/skill). Which most likely aren't. Bards are funny--they can be built for a lot of different things but once built have very little flexibility. And unless built for it (at the cost of most everything else), aren't contributing much in combat either as far as HP damage.

I agree, a lot of the 'casters' being used in examples are things like weirdly specialized lore bards who are built just to make a point, not like a character you'd expect to see in play. I've certainly seen a LOT more 'fighter or barbarian who dips or feats for expertise in grappling' than lore bards like that, and virtually every rogue has expertise in stealth and an elven cloak to go with it.


* (more of an amplification than a caveat): the bard is spending precious resources on this, with a much larger chance of failure. A sneaky rogue already beats the vast majority (all but 11[2] of 694) of the published, non-adventure-specific monsters' passive perception without rolling.... [2] all of them CR 21+, namely 2 arch-fiends (Zariel and Demogorgon), 8 ancient dragons, and the Molydeus.

I feel like it's worth repeating that a strength based character in T3 is slightly better at grappling people than a King Kong sized giant ape without specializing in grappling, and that a T3 rogue can sneak past everything but a handful of extreme monsters (3 named plus ancient dragons) without any chance of failure with just expertise in stealth (which is pretty much standard). It seems like a lot of people don't want to acknowledge these extreme feats or houserule them away, but I think they're pretty impressive.

[Skylivedk]

This is the thing that gets me the most. People act like it's a solo, competitive game. Instead, D&D is, at its core, a party game. The party is the basic unit of analysis. In 5e (unlike in 3e), caster + martial[1] beats two casters or two martials virtually all the time.

A few caveats about your (otherwise good) analysis--
* most of the time, those extra values are overkill. Standard DCs don't go above 20 or 30 tops. If something is literally impossible, the DC isn't 35. It's NO. So being able to hit arbitrary thresholds is rather meaningless. Instead, variance is what matters. And the rogue beats the bard hands down on that.
* That all assumes that the bard is specialized--expertise and max ability score (in likely a secondary stat/skill). Which most likely aren't. Bards are funny--they can be built for a lot of different things but once built have very little flexibility. And unless built for it (at the cost of most everything else), aren't contributing much in combat either as far as HP damage.
* (more of an amplification than a caveat): the bard is spending precious resources on this, with a much larger chance of failure. A sneaky rogue already beats the vast majority (all but 11[2] of 694) of the published, non-adventure-specific monsters' passive perception without rolling. On the other hand, the bard fails against 100 monsters covering the whole range of CRs if he rolls the minimum. To reach the rogue's baseline, the bard has to roll a total (on both dice) of 10 or spend a 2nd level slot + concentration. Without that resource spent (bardic inspiration and the minimum +1 it gives), he's now vulnerable to 137 monsters.

In a party with a caster and a thief rogue, the caster can make scrolls of concentration buffs and give them to the thief, thus letting concentration double-stack at a small cost in cash and time.

[1] I hate those terms because they're so squishy and ill-defined, but....
[2] all of them CR 21+, namely 2 arch-fiends (Zariel and Demogorgon), 8 ancient dragons, and the Molydeus. This is assuming a minimum roll of 10 (reliable talent) + 5 (max DEX) + 10 (pre-T4 expertise) = 25. Going to T4 boosts that to 27, which drops 4 more monsters off the list (Zariel, Ancient Red, Ancient Silver, and Ancient Black). If the T4 rogue rolls a 14+, they're beating every passive perception in the books.

Not to take anything away from your point; the rogue is reliable at skills, especially those where (s)he has expertise. I like that part. It's just; these shills are even more locked than a bard build. Skills are mostly chosen at creation and expertise are chosen and locked by the beginning of T2. (S)he isn't a to contributor on much of anything else (9d6+1d8+5) really isn't that much and if the skill check is not one where the rogue has Expertise; tough luck. That oftens leads to one or several weak pillars.
Classic Rogue: Stealth, Thieve's Tools, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand

Social pillar? Gone. You can have deception instead of one of them, perception too, but do you see where I'm heading with this?

Fighter: locked by feats/manoeuvres/fight style. Few skills, skill amplifiers and out of combat class features. Some help from extra feats.

Barbarian: feats and rage requirements. Few skills and few skill amplifiers. Also pretty hard pressed for feats.

Paladin: few skills, spells help with overall flexibility and utility. Secondary stat often sees play.

Ranger: main pillar almost obliterated by over-effectiveness. Tracking pretty much killed by pass without trace and teleports. Little flexibility known for to silly spell known progression.

Monk: a lot more utility! Weird they didn't give them the ability to jump with Dex. Super strapped for feats. Doesn't really have many skills either.

Misunderstand me right: there's tons of things I like about DnD. And then there's a bunch of things that just leave me scratching my head. Key amongst them being that three pillars are mentioned and very few classes can reasonably play a role in all of them. Secondly being way 4-5 classes get so much more flexibility and a much different power curve.

Ie.
Why didn't they allow the rogues more crazy agent behaviour later; either allude to more legendary actions, give more flexibility in expertise allocation (ie once per short/long rest you can change your expertise choices for 10 minutes). Stealing thoughts and memories have been mentioned; whichever - but please, more!

[JNAProductions]

I played a Rogue in T3.

I had Expertise in:

Acrobatics
Stealth
Persuasion
Deception

I would NEVER take Thieve's Tools Expertise barring some really weird circumstances, and I've literally never seen anyone take it.

[Misterwhisper]

I played a Rogue in T3.

I had Expertise in:

Acrobatics
Stealth
Persuasion
Deception

I would NEVER take Thieve's Tools Expertise barring some really weird circumstances, and I've literally never seen anyone take it.

I was close to the same but instead of deception I took insight.

[Fable Wright]

No, you don't die.

:smallconfused:


If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature’s soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature’s soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies.

In what situation are you carrying around your body and no one is asking very serious and pointed questions?


Especially not if you have clone. Otherwise you still have a save and with clone a perfect back-up.

...Except for all the items that don't hop from one body to another, and definitely don't transfer to the clone.


You mean the single target lockdown that can be countered by a level two spell, takes a free hand (and hence only one subrace can do more than one), melee range, only works on large (or smaller) creatures and requires a skill check? You're comparing a bicycle to a flying minibus.

Enlarge has been around since level 3 to boost that. Eldritch Knights can Enlarge themselves, creative maneuvering can let them grapple larger enemies with, say, ropes and grappling hooks.

From a functional point of view, though, yes. Forcecage is good. It's like a one-off grapple lockdown without needing to stay nearby. You should get some benefits for only being able to do it 8 levels after the Fighter could, and only once a day at that.


I've made it quite clear combat is not my primary concern. Quite a few times too. Ten Minute casting time doesn't really scream combat spell to you, does it? It can sink a castle, destroy a city and a bunch of other things with it. The fighter and barbarian can do absolutely nothing that resembles it.

My initial thesis in the thread is that, from a combat point of view (especially given Trickery's statements in the thread), the two are roughly matched, with a differentiation of at-wills vs dailies. His focus on the effect of daily spells affecting combat skewed things heavily to view casters as fundamentally outclassing martials, while dismissing the power of martial at-will abilities. Everything else is what I lumped in as a downtime feature, which don't affect the core underpinnings of the game.

It appears that we have been talking past each other. I was speaking to Trickery's point ("Wizards outshine Martials at their own game, therefore we must enhance the Martials' abilities to hit things!") while you were talking about narrative weight and the ability to do things that do not compete, in any way, with what martials would be doing on a regular basis, or want to do if they were taking a martial class.


It sounds more and more like we play different settings. In my group, doomsday clock runs out: demons take over the city, kids and other innocents lose their lives in ways so painful, you're not sure you want to sit through the DM's description.

If you had a team of all-martial characters, would the DM say "Too bad! You don't have a Wizard, and therefore can't teleport over there. Guess you lose the session!" ?

No?

You'll probably have someone who can drive the party over there at the speed of plot?

Great! So from a narrative point of view, the Wizard feels special for getting to drive that taxi, because no one else could do it. If there was no Wizard, then there'd be someone else who could drive the party bus.


I don't get what you mean with stepping on toes either. Maybe you're mixing me up with Trickery who made the claim that full-casters could fulfill any role of a martial better than a martial. I haven't run the numbers, haven't made the claim either. I think they can come way to close in certain parts of the game (ie Moon Druid in bear form is too strong in early levels), but I haven't run the math.

I am of the opinion that magic should be able to do things that martials cannot do, as well as the inverse. I think teleporting people over long-distances, acting as a party safety net, should be a role reserved for magic. It doesn't make the fighter feel bad for not picking a Wizard to play, and it lets the wizard feel good about his picks and preparations. Everyone wins.


Great thing that you're not dependent on your great to have an impact on the world then... And that you have numerous spells that allow you to store and recall gear from anywhere. Again, what can the Fighter do here if there's no cleric? Wait? Hope his Wizard friend who could plane shift, teleport, cove, contingency himself away soon learns wish? Nothing?

I'm not saying that Clone doesn't have a use as TPK insurance, or if you're in a situation without a Cleric/Druid/Paladin/Bard who learned anti-death spells. But in most games I've played in, Clone would just make you un-resurrectible, and that's... kinda a ****ty feature?


... Except it lasts thirty days, you can't walk out of it and it doesn't take concentration and also works against a subtle spell Sorcerer and completely disables any complex action. Yup, same same.

Point me to a monster in the book with Subtle Spell.
Point me to the last time in your game group that the person who got locked down in a Silence did not die in an encounter.
Point me to the last time that the 30 day thing actually did run its course, as opposed to a high level antagonist having a friend Greater Restoration him.

Great on paper. Makes you feel cool and special. Does not actually matter as much as you think.


In quite a few cases more than enough to easily surpass indomitable. Plus unless the Fighter, the Wizard can use this on anyone.

Sure. And of all the spells at this level, this one has the most influence in combat, and I feel that this is a fine niche for the Wizard to have.



Maze boss, flee, kill mooks, whatever. Unlike banishment, no save, no check, nothing. I don't see too many of those abilities laying around the design space.

Sure. And at level 7, you could Banishment most bosses, flee, kill mooks, whatever. At the level you got Banishment, anything with Legendary Resistance was either a Unicorn or CR 11, and odds of saving were really low.

You get the same effect, and bypass everything the game added on to make this one specific effect harder to do! It's still the same utility as before.


Same as before. I'm more than happy that Fighters and Barbarians are good at killing things. I'd loathe to play one considering how little their gameplay changes through time, but at least they put steel in bellies quite well (the belly-piercing, from what I have gathered, doesn't become significantly better from level 11 and onwards, except fighters late game peak, but let's leave that for now)

Sure. And that's your schtick. You like being able to make cool dramatic plot events happen. You'd make a great caster.

What about the people who want to feel like an underdog? The people who enjoy being Conan taking down godly sorcerers, or the daring rogue who keeps somehow surviving dragon attacks and so forth? Who need to solve problems with their wits alone? Some people don't like the flavor of being able to wave their hands and make plot happen.

Those people love martial classes. There were several people in the thread complaining that adding magic to all martials is what made them dislike 4th edition.


Excellent. Suggestions on how to integrate those points in good and in-fiction cool ways?

As I've stated, let players know what DC 25-35 skill checks can do. Have hirelings tables. Give ribbon features to let characters grapple outside of their size category if they have sufficient gear. Give ribbon features that make it easier to destroy inanimate objects. Give characters magic items that give them unique problem solving features.

Don't take away from the wizards. Let them keep a niche that doesn't overshadow martials. The fighter in full plate can't sneak like a Thief. Nor should he be able to teleport the whole party like a Wizard. Just start being okay with Rule of Cool epic feats for your table. Let them come up with custom gear if they've been trying to solve a problem. There's no one size fits all situation, but just listen to the people at your table. If they have something cool they want to do, let them build towards it.

[Great Dragon]

Point me to a monster in the book with Subtle Spell.

Sure:
Kobold Scale Sorcerer (CR 1; VgM pg 167)

But, from just the Monster Manual = none.

This is an interesting read.

[DrLoveMonkey]

My argument is that I'd rather send the person less likely to be spotted as the scout so that if there's something scary we're likely to not wake it up. The owl with only a +3 stealth who can roll below a 10 is massively more likely to be spotted than the rogue who can't get less than a 20 or 25. Also if the owl takes any kind of attack (including minor area damage) it's just dead, and then you have to burn an hour and ten minutes to ritual cast for another one, which is generally a worse penalty than a first level spell slot. Also, if you're worried about spell slots, sending a person up means you can rig a rope for other people to climb, eliminating the need to burn two fourth level slots to dimension door people up (it's really odd to me to double DD but be worried about a possible feather fall).

And if your group is houseruling familiars to be nigh undetectable, you have both the 'that's a house rule, not the game' problem and come right back to the definitional problem that I pointed out and OldTrees1 insists I'm making up. Familiars are not the purview of primary casters only; Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters can get them, as well as anyone going 2 levels into warlock or 1 level into wizard, and anyone spending a feat for ritual caster or magic initiate can get one.

No, familiars aren't undetectable, but usually they're pretty benign. If something sees a bird flying about their first thought probably isn't that an assassin is nearby, but a cloaked rogue covered in daggers is a different story. That's how I've usually seen familiars used for scouting anyway, they're not mega sneaky they just fly and slip beneath people's notice because who cares if some owl flies overhead.



How common they are is entirely up to the DM and depends on setting, and they are at least in RAW as a spell, the anti-martial field some people like to create isn't. Anti-martial fields should be just as uncommon, if you have a castle blanketed in 'oh no you can't use any physical abilities, only magic will do' areas you should match it with the opposite. And minor antimagic areas are actually quite common - lots of adventures have areas where specific magic doesn't work, like flight, teleport, light, and other specifics; for example ALL of DMM, not just 2-3 areas scattered around and most of the indoor areas in TOA completely block teleport.

Well, they don't completely block teleport, you can't teleport into them from outside, which is basically required otherwise everyone would just be able to skip right to the end. Even with that though, every other type of magical shortcut still works, you can even Misty Step through a doorway as long as you can see under it or through the keyhole or something. Areas that completely shut down magic entirely and make the sorcerer throw their hands up to say "I have no idea who's solving this, but it ain't me." are super rare.



So why did you put the wagons under a gate that was falling in the first place? Send the scout out to check the mechanism BEFORE you put the wagons under it, that's what scouts are for! Yes, you approach the situation by preparing a non-magical thing in advance, much like the illusionist cast creation in advance, but there was clearly a non-magical alternative, you just didn't want to take it. Also I don't get how 15' is 'several flights of stairs', why you wouldn't just climb the wall (especially if you happened to be a thief archetype), why the wagon couldn't move 10' in mere seconds, and all of the rest. It doesn't sound like you actually lacked for options to me.

Well we didn't just start driving the wagons under a gate that was already falling, Jesus, we're not complete morons! It was actually our own gatehouse with a mechanism that had been seized in place for decades before we happened to come into ownership of it. I'm still not entirely sure why it started loosening up at that moment, I suspect sabotage but we haven't learned that yet. Either way the exterior walls weren't climbable, the actual gate mechanism was 5' above the currently collapsing gate, the entrance was somewhere around 40-50 feet away down the wall, and there's just no way I'm going 50 feet over, 20 feet up stairs, then another 50 feet back in one turn with an action left.



Like I said above if you house rule to make magical effects more powerful and martial abilities weaker, the problem is not with the balance of the game itself but with your house rule. In D&D 5e under regular rules a strength fighter with just athletics proficiency is slightly better than a giant ape at grappling large or smaller creatures, and the ape would have around a 50-50 shot at grappling him. This is a case where RAW gives the martials a cool ability and your group decided to take it away from them. And if you're buffing a strength character to help them grapple, enlarge lets the character use their own (better) athletics check with advantage, and uses a lower level slot.

Yeah on looking through the rules again I guess we did screw that one up. I totally submit that we were wrong on that front.




No - again, what you've actually done is created an example where the martial should shine, but your group houseruled or misruled to make the martial fail. The wizard still needs to make a stealth roll to avoid being noticed by the guards, as they've got hearing, and there's a decent chance of that going badly, invisible doesn't mean unnoticeable. Meanwhile the rogue can't ever roll less than a 10, is always at a 20-25, which is never going to get spotted by the lich's passive of 19 or anything likely to be a guard. When you get within 120 feet of the lich, the lich automatically sees the wizard and won't notice the rogue unless he spends an action actively looking. The lich shouldn't have been targetting you as you're actually MUCH better at not being seen than the invisible wizard in this case, the wizard was the one who was in danger.
That seems like a really punishing reading of stealth to me, from 50' away outdoors and invisible you still need to make a stealth check not to be noticed? No way. As for myself I didn't have any cover to hide because so I just don't get to roll stealth, it's not World of Warcraft or anything, a rogue can't just crouch down and make a cool little cloaking noise and wander around right in front of a creature.

[jdolch]

That seems like a really punishing reading of stealth to me, from 50' away outdoors and invisible you still need to make a stealth check not to be noticed? No way.

50 feet isn't that far. You would still hear someone making a noise like stepping on a twig, walking through snow, carrying stuff that isn't totally silent. (Or "Wheezing" as any self-respecting Wizard would make a clear audible sound when subjecting to something as grueling as actually having to move one's body around)

[diplomancer]

50 feet isn't that far. You would still hear someone making a noise like stepping on a twig, walking through snow, carrying stuff that isn't totally silent. (Or "Wheezing" as any self-respecting Wizard would make a clear audible sound when subjecting to something as grueling as actually having to move one's body around)

One other thing that makes casters more powerful than martial in some campaigns are the assumptions of a non-magical world (I.e, a world like our own), where magic is not expected.

A good example is the scouting owl. In a non-magical world, having access to a familiar would give you great scouting advantages. On a world where literally EVERY human could have a familiar, an owl flying overhead is suspicious for any monsters of average intelligence. But if the DM is working from our world assumptions, they will think "oh, nothing suspicious about it".

[jdolch]

One other thing that makes casters more powerful than martial in some campaigns are the assumptions of a non-magical world (I.e, a world like our own), where magic is not expected.

A good example is the scouting owl. In a non-magical world, having access to a familiar would give you great scouting advantages. On a world where literally EVERY human could have a familiar, an owl flying overhead is suspicious for any monsters of average intelligence. But if the DM is working from our world assumptions, they will think "oh, nothing suspicious about it".

Not sure what that has to do with what i said, but anyway:

Sure it maybe "suspicious" but there is still way more non-familiar Animals. So in practice, what is one to do? Dive for cover every time a Bird shows up? Spend your days to hunt down any critter you can find, because one could be a familiar?
Also:
How high can a bird fly where you don't see it anymore (at least not immediately) and it can still see you no problem (at least the big picture)?
How stealthy can a mouse move? Very! I've had lots of trouble finding my sisters pet mouse on-the-lose even though I new which room it was in. And that was just a normal Animal not a telepathically guided one that can employ rudimentary stealth tactics like Not-running-across-the-room or Not-eating-that-suspiciously-placed-cheese.

[Great Dragon]

No, familiars aren't undetectable, but usually they're pretty benign. If something sees a bird flying about their first thought probably isn't that an assassin is nearby, but a cloaked rogue covered in daggers is a different story. That's how I've usually seen familiars used for scouting anyway, they're not mega sneaky they just fly and slip beneath people's notice because who cares if some owl flies overhead.

Well, this really does depend on how the DM has their World set up. In a world where Magic is Common and well known, and even peasants know basic things about Nature; Most people will know about Animal Companions and Familiars; As well as Shapechanging Druids, etc.

Now, I will agree that most people won't be immediately suspicious of an animal that wanders in, unless they know that particular animal isn't normally found in the area, or is out of place - like an Owl during daylight hours. (which does happen IRL, but is super rare)

They will watch the animal, and be more suspicious if it gets too close (most wild animals prefer to stay more than 20 feet away) or its behavior is unusual for a normal animal of that kind.

(Saved to edit when not tired)


That seems like a really punishing reading of stealth to me, from 50' away outdoors and invisible you still need to make a stealth check not to be noticed? No way.

Sound is a tricky thing to deal with in the games.

Sure, I can hear someone talking in a normal voice 50-60 feet away, but I'm most likely not going understand what they are saying.

Now, unless the person knows something is amiss, and is Alert (actively looking and listening) for unusual things nearby, all that is required in D&D is Stealth beating their Passive Perception to get past them.

I've been pondering this, what do you think:

Normal Perception up to 30 feet, and Disadvantage up to 60 feet? With maybe 100 feet for Creatures with "sensitive/superior" senses, like Dragons? (Unless Blindsight goes farther)

[diplomancer]

Not sure what that has to do with what i said, but anyway:

Sure it maybe "suspicious" but there is still way more non-familiar Animals. So in practice, what is one to do? Dive for cover every time a Bird shows up? Spend your days to hunt down any critter you can find, because one could be a familiar?
Also:
How high can a bird fly where you don't see it anymore (at least not immediately) and it can still see you no problem (at least the big picture)?
How stealthy can a mouse move? Very! I've had lots of trouble finding my sisters pet mouse on-the-lose even though I new which room it was in. And that was just a normal Animal not a telepathically guided one that can employ rudimentary stealth tactics like Not-running-across-the-room or Not-eating-that-suspiciously-placed-cheese.

Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post, but one before it.

As to how people would treat an animal flying overhead in such a world, it would probably vary; intelligent militarized creatures, like hobgoblins, would probably have a shoot on sight policy (remember that, at least by RAW, it is not just any bird that can be a familiar, only hawks, owls and ravens).

In fact, we DO know how people react to animals suspected of being familiars in our world, and that is with extreme mistrust.

And how stealthy is a rat? Not at all, no stealth proficiency, Dex 10.

[jdolch]

As to how people would treat an animal flying overhead in such a world, it would probably vary; intelligent militarized creatures, like hobgoblins, would probably have a shoot on sight policy (remember that, at least by RAW, it is not just any bird that can be a familiar, only hawks, owls and ravens).

In fact, we DO know how people react to animals suspected of being familiars in our world, and that is with extreme mistrust.

And how stealthy is a rat? Not at all, no stealth proficiency, Dex 10.

You are somehow managing to alternate between two fundamentally opposite Arguments and use them both to make your point. Are we now talking about Logic or Rules?

There is no reason to assume that only the creatures in the Books can be used as familiars. The reason there are only those creatures is because it wouldn't make sense to publish a 2000 page familiar companion Handbook with stats for every animal you can imagine. That the "Find Familiar" Spell doesn't use the words "such as" in contrast to the "Find Steed" Spell can imo easily be attributed to just one more oversight on part of WOTC. It's not like you need to look hard for those.

The stats for creatures are always lopsided as an effect of the very limited adaptability of the D&D game system. To any reasonable DM a Mouse would in practice have a pretty good Stealth score.

I think you are wildly overestimating how big the "Danger" is that the normal person would attribute to a creature that probably isn't but could be a Familiar. Simply put: How careful are you about what you say or do around people who could record you, aka everybody in this day? Just because people could record you on their phones, you don't assume they would. (And even if they would, what actual harm could they do?)

Sure, if you have NPCs that have a reason to be super paranoid let them look out for possible spies. Or if the situation itself makes the behavior/presence of a certain Animal highly suspicious let the NPCs react to it. But the Idea that NPCs who are running around outside in the Woods as part of their daily routine suspect every single Animal they see to be a Familiar of a random Wizard sneaking around is ridiculous.

And to top it off: Not "Everybody and their mother" has a familiar! Where do you even get that Idea? Adventurers are special, high level adventurers are super-duper special. And even among those, very few would have a familiar were it not for a bazillion optimancer guides singing odes to the abusablility of this particular spell. I think among the general population the chance of someone having a familiar is maybe 1:5000 at best. The vast majority of people are just normal people. Sorry, but assuming the Members of the Adventuring Party are the norm is just nonsense. If you were to actually play a random guy in that setting you would be a random farmer with 8 for stats, skill proficiency in farming and no interest whatsoever in leaving your home town to delve into Dungeons to fight Dragons. None.

Of course if you play a campaign where, for whatever reason, everybody is a Wizard that may be different.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Normal Perception up to 30 feet, and Disadvantage up to 60 feet? With maybe 100 feet for Creatures with "sensitive/superior" senses, like Dragons? (Unless Blindsight goes farther)

That sounds pretty reasonable, although environment still has to play a factor. For example in a howling mountain pass or near a waterfall the ambient sound is simply so high that you might even half those distances.


As to how people would treat an animal flying overhead in such a world, it would probably vary; intelligent militarized creatures, like hobgoblins, would probably have a shoot on sight policy (remember that, at least by RAW, it is not just any bird that can be a familiar, only hawks, owls and ravens).

In fact, we DO know how people react to animals suspected of being familiars in our world, and that is with extreme mistrust.

And how stealthy is a rat? Not at all, no stealth proficiency, Dex 10.

That gets kind of wonky though doesn’t it? You’d have human and orc populations hunting hawks and owls to extinction near their territory since whenever anyone sees it they pull out the longbows. Which seems like a waste anyway because 98% of the time it’s just going to be a mundane bird.

[jdolch]

Which seems like a waste anyway because 98% of the time it’s just going to be a mundane bird.

Make that 99.9999%.

Just think about it: How many animals are there in a square mile of pre-industrialized woodland? What is the Chance of there even being one Wizard in any particular square mile of that woodland? Even if there were a distribution of 1 Wizard-with-familiar per square mile of woodland, which is ridiculous, it would still mean 1 Familiar per 2000 or more normal animals. Not to mention that, while normal Animals spent their time running around outside, that 1 familiar has important tasks to accomplish, for example: Sit on the sleeping Rogues head. (Don't ask)

[OverLordOcelot]

No, familiars aren't undetectable, but usually they're pretty benign. If something sees a bird flying about their first thought probably isn't that an assassin is nearby, but a cloaked rogue covered in daggers is a different story. That's how I've usually seen familiars used for scouting anyway, they're not mega sneaky they just fly and slip beneath people's notice because who cares if some owl flies overhead.

Right, so your group house rules that familiars are much sneakier than rogues. This isn't a martial vs caster issue, this is a 'not applying the rules to a magical effect' issue. Especially when we're talking T3 and T4 games. In a world where there are wizards who have familiars, if I see an animal acting way out of the ordinary, like an owl flying right up the cliff where I'm hiding when they normally wouldn't, I'm not going to go 'oh that's odd', I'm going to try to kill it or assume someone has spotted me. And since I'm a creature or person that spend a lot of time out in the wild, I'm going to have a pretty good idea of normal behavior, and flying close to the ground isn't normal. In medieval times, animals that people thought were familiars were killed routinely, this isn't some pure gaming idea.


Either way the exterior walls weren't climbable,

Right, this goes right back to my earlier combat about 'anti-martial shells'. Normally you can simply climb by spending 2 feet of movement for every one feet of climbing, it only needs an athletics check if "You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid
hazards while scaling a wall. or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off." But somehow here you've got a basic rock wall that's impossible to climb without magic even though RAW it shouldn't even need an athletics check!

Like I said before, if you're going to toss anti-martial fields all over the place in the world and make walls that real people can climb unclimbable without magic, then to balance it out you should also have anti-magic fields all over the place too; anti-martial fields and anti-magic fields should be about the same rarity.


That seems like a really punishing reading of stealth to me, from 50' away outdoors and invisible you still need to make a stealth check not to be noticed? No way. As for myself I didn't have any cover to hide because so I just don't get to roll stealth, it's not World of Warcraft or anything, a rogue can't just crouch down and make a cool little cloaking noise and wander around right in front of a creature.

Yes, if you're crashing through the forest leaving footprints in snow and stepping on branches and leaves that you can't see under the white powder, a guard is probably going to notice all of the noise and big footprints even even if you're invisible. Are you really saying that you think anyone staying at shortbow range (80') can ambush your party without trouble because there's no way they'd be noticeable at that distance?

Your scenario doesn't make any sense - the wizard smashing around in the snow crackling branches/leaves and leaving footprints would be somewhat noticeable, and his invisibility actually should have done him no good by RAW, and why the 'slippery' rogue was just wandering in the open is a complete mystery. If your rogue was just standing out in the middle of an open field with no chance to hide then your rogue wasn't being very slippery. But that's not a game system problem, that's a 'don't walk up to enemies in the middle of a field' problem.

[OverLordOcelot]

I think you are wildly overestimating how big the "Danger" is that the normal person would attribute to a creature that probably isn't but could be a Familiar. Simply put: How careful are you about what you say or do around people who could record you, aka everybody in this day? Just because people could record you on their phones, you don't assume they would. (And even if they would, what actual harm could they do?)

No one that is a danger to a T3 or T4 party is actually a "normal person". And hanging around people as a normal person in the modern world is nothing like waiting in a lair to ambush people, acting as a guard for an evil being who's hatching plots that people will try to derail, or otherwise in a potential combat situation. Also I've also been to a number of events where pulling out a cell phone that doesn't have the camera covered will get you kicked out; if you're actually worried about having video taken you do, in fact, assume that people are recording.


Sure, if you have NPCs that have a reason to be super paranoid let them look out for possible spies. Or if the situation itself makes the behavior/presence of a certain Animal highly suspicious let the NPCs react to it. But the Idea that NPCs who are running around outside in the Woods as part of their daily routine suspect every single Animal they see to be a Familiar of a random Wizard sneaking around is ridiculous.

Aside from the fact that most NPCs have reason to be super paranoid, and probably wouldn't last into being a T3/T4 threat without being super paranoid, you don't have to be super-paranoid to say 'why is an owl flying within 30' of me, they don't usually do that?' or 'why is there a mouse in this room with humans that are moving around, they usually only come out when you're still or away'.

[Great Dragon]

That sounds pretty reasonable, although environment still has to play a factor. For example in a howling mountain pass or near a waterfall the ambient sound is simply so high that you might even half those distances

I agree.

But in those kind of places, even being able to hear your buddy yelling at you from a foot away, might not be possible.

In windy Mountain Pass or 100' away from waterfall = Might be able to hear 10'. Being right next to Waterfall = nope.

I've seen DMs rule that listening in on other people's conversations in the Bar/Hall/Inn isn't possible. (Which, if you've ever sat in a typical crowded bar, you know first hand what it's like) One of the main reasons I like Observant, since it allows Lip Reading.

I also still have Sign Language and Drow Sign as Languages in my game. Because you might need to communicate without talking.
Using these is better than magic, since only LoS detects.
I also allow those to be combined with Thieves Cant to decrease the chance of the message being translated.

[Nagog]

First, the rogue is only more consistent if he and the bard both have access to pass without trace. If only the bard has access, then the bard is more consistent because his minimum roll is the same as the rogue's while his maximum roll is ten points higher. We're also relying on the Lore Bard to roll low at least once in a meaningful moment and NOT use bardic inspiration or any of a wide number of alternatives to get around that. We're also relying on the DM to create an environment with cover such that invisibility is not needed - if it is, the rogue cannot succeed alone, but the bard can.

That's why I said it depends.

Second, no, it doesn't come down to DM style. We can argue over whether casters do the martial's job better, right? We're doing so right now. We cannot argue about the reverse. There are situations that only casters can handle, and DMs have to be conscious of that.

Similarly, there ought be situations that only martial characters can handle. Currently, there are no situations like that.

Sure, yeah, magic can give you a bonus, but you won't always have magic. If every single Bard has Pass without a Trace and Stealth Expertise, and enough spell slots to cast it all the time, then yeah sure it's more consistent. But they don't. That's akin to saying "Well if my Abjurer casts nothing but Abjuration spells, they'll have more hp in their Ward and their actual body to surpass the innate HP of a barbarian!" While technically true, you're comparing a highly focused build built specifically for surpassing the opponent in one thing and one thing only to a martial class that has innate abilities in it's base package that already does the job.

As for jobs casters can do that martials cannot, I'd say that 90% of the time, it's because you're playing the martial like you would in a video game, with hard constraints on what abilities you can use where, and casters like the free-form system 5e is built to encourage. If your DM has one and only one solution for a puzzle or other situation, then yes it is the DM's fault that martials are comparatively weak compared to casters. Likewise, if your DM uses an overabundance of antimagic and the like, casters will be really crappy compared to martials.


People say concentration is a limit on casters. That's not exactly true. Concentration limits what one caster can do. You get around it by having more casters. Is there any challenge a party of four casters using overlapping area effects, polymorph, and various utility spells cannot overcome?


Ok then, in this case let's compare a single PC playing 4 casters to another PC playing a single martial. Oh my goodness, look at that, you're right, casters are better than martials! Particularly when it's 4 to 1, but that's not important because it proves you right!




I'm looking at this from a high level design perspective. What kinds of features do non-casters need to get for the players to be excited about high levels? Are those features as exciting as high level spells? But I can't talk about those here without people arguing over whether a given change "breaks the game." Rudely arguing, in fact. In just this one thread, I've had multiple people imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I don't even play the game.

You're missing the point here. Casters scale differently than Martials do. Martials scale by having their Tier 1 and 2 abilities improved upon by their later abilities. Casters gain new "class abilities" with each spell, but they don't typically improve on the previous spells chosen. Each such "Class ability" is a standalone feature, so when you read something like a 7th level spell description, it sounds much cooler than a martial class feature gained at the same level because you don't have any of the context or previous features listed in the description that back up the base feature. So the martial features I already look forward to as a high level martial character? As follows:

Fighters: Triple attack, combined with the feats I've chosen, make the Attack action scale to INSANE levels, combined with 2 uses of Action Surge, allows me to make 12 attacks in 2 rounds.
Barbarians: Brutal Critical. Combine this with something like Fighter Champion, Assassin Rogue, and multiattack, and this gets HUGE single-target damage, or in the case of multiattack, huge multi-target damage.
Monks: Monks are just awesome all around. At higher levels, their various ways to resist and negate damage make them versatile and fun characters to play, and their scaling unarmed strike and plethora of attacks make them great martials for both crowd control and single-target damage
Rogues: I'd say Rogues are the best built martial class due to their versatility and adaptability. Reliable Talent, Blindsense, and Elusive are amazing features in and of themselves, and that's not even touching Sneak Attack damage and the wonderful options Rogue Subclasses have to offer.

[Nhorianscum]

One other thing that makes casters more powerful than martial in some campaigns are the assumptions of a non-magical world (I.e, a world like our own), where magic is not expected.

A good example is the scouting owl. In a non-magical world, having access to a familiar would give you great scouting advantages. On a world where literally EVERY human could have a familiar, an owl flying overhead is suspicious for any monsters of average intelligence. But if the DM is working from our world assumptions, they will think "oh, nothing suspicious about it".

Common magic worlds (Ravnica and Ebberon) are less "find familiar OP" and more "psst, hey buddy, wanna cast every spell in the game with an uncommon item?"

I'd say one of these is more busted.

Though the utility added to martial's in common magic worlds is no joke. Example: Mark of Shadow Rouge at 11 is guaranteed to be able to hide perfectly while standing on a beholder's eyeball. See also, teleporting barbarians.

This is never discussed for some reason in these threads.

[Great Dragon]

Adjustments for listening.



Are you really saying that you think anyone staying at shortbow range (80') can ambush your party without trouble because there's no way they'd be noticeable at that distance?

So maybe adjust listening ranges to 50' (normal) and 100' (Disadvantage)
With sensitive at least 150' ?

Foes shooting Arrows from max Longbow range (600') really should be a surprise.
********************
Most Ambushing Creatures like to be close enough that they can use ranged attacks and then move to where the PCs can't easily use ranged in return.

Ex: Goblins, and especially Orcs will be within 30 feet, and after shooting, will move to melee.

Hobgoblins, and especially Kobolds, will be at that 80' range and move away after the ambush. These engage only when it benefits them the most. Kobolds will kite you into a small area (where the exits are trapped) and then gang up on you.

@Nhorianscum: Teleporting Barbarians?
Looks like I need to do more research on these Worlds.

[Nhorianscum]

@Nhorianscum: Teleporting Barbarians?
Looks like I need to do more research on these Worlds.

Warforged get a lot of whiteroom hype but... The dragonmarked houses give spells up to 7th level usable on martial's and casters alike along with some really really nutso innate abilities and skill boosts.

Also magic items are explicitly available for purchase in both worlds up to 5th level spell/spell likes with Ravnica having some things that.... snap the game clean in half for both sides of the argument unlocked by guild prestige. (Hey fighter bro, want an angel normally summonable only by a 9th level CCelestial for free as a permanent ally? How about a pack of them?)

Casters still have more utility overall and don't need WBL for effects but the gap is noticeably smaller pre-tier 4 in common magic worlds. (Unless someone rolls an Izzet Sorc/Knowledge Cleric multi for Mizzium Apperatus in tier 1. Batman called and he says please take my lunch money oh God why is this a thing)

[OverLordOcelot]

Sure, yeah, magic can give you a bonus, but you won't always have magic. If every single Bard has Pass without a Trace and Stealth Expertise, and enough spell slots to cast it all the time, then yeah sure it's more consistent. But they don't. That's akin to saying "Well if my Abjurer casts nothing but Abjuration spells, they'll have more hp in their Ward and their actual body to surpass the innate HP of a barbarian!" While technically true, you're comparing a highly focused build built specifically for surpassing the opponent in one thing and one thing only to a martial class that has innate abilities in it's base package that already does the job.

Yeah, the habit of making really weird builds that limit their other abilities (like the super-stealth bard) and are not something you ever actually see at a table to do something that a martial character does with a completely ordinary build (like taking athletics on a strength character or stealth expertise on a bard) is an 'interesting' line of argument. Also completely ignoring magic items is pretty strange - you're talking about having 9th level spellcasters who care little enough about their magic items that they'll leave them on a disposable clone and who can buy expensive gems by the cartload for high level components, but martial characters who don't get anything but maybe a +X weapon/armor. Completely ignoring the rogue's ability to pull shenanigans like stealing a Staff of the Woodlands to have zero resource pass without trace at the cost of his concentration (which he doesn't use for anything else anyway) or classifying him as a 'caster' once he does it is another one of those peculiar lines of argument.

[Trickery]

Just occurred to me, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Currently, the skill system is pretty weird. We know who can hit what number, but not what one can actually do with those skills. Do you need to make an athletics check to climb a rope? What about a tree? What about vines? That depends on the DM, the situation, and on the sourcebook. I've seen DMs require a DC15 athletics check to climb down a rope and have seen other DMs not require a check.

For this reason, we don't know what our characters can actually do with skills. It's too DM dependent. This affects martials most of all since they tend to rely more on skills and attribute checks. The barbarian relies on his strength and endurance, and the rogue relies on his stealth.

What if we just put in a skill trick system similar to 3.5e? We could bake skill tricks into Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians so that these classes automatically can pick up skill tricks on odd levels, the same way that casters get new spell levels on odd levels. And the skill tricks would be things that the martial characters can definitely, absolutely do. And their capabilities would therefore increase with level while also letting players customize.

[Nhorianscum]

Just occurred to me, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Currently, the skill system is pretty weird. We know who can hit what number, but not what one can actually do with those skills. Do you need to make an athletics check to climb a rope? What about a tree? What about vines? That depends on the DM, the situation, and on the sourcebook. I've seen DMs require a DC15 athletics check to climb down a rope and have seen other DMs not require a check.

For this reason, we don't know what our characters can actually do with skills. It's too DM dependent. This affects martials most of all since they tend to rely more on skills and attribute checks. The barbarian relies on his strength and endurance, and the rogue relies on his stealth.

What if we just put in a skill trick system similar to 3.5e? We could bake skill tricks into Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians so that these classes automatically can pick up skill tricks on odd levels, the same way that casters get new spell levels on odd levels. And the skill tricks would be things that the martial characters can definitely, absolutely do. And their capabilities would therefore increase with level while also letting players customize.

5e Skill trick variant exists in WGTE.

The official free book nobody ever discusses outside of friggin warforged TO.

It's still DM dependant unfortunately but dragonmarks all come with built in no-roll skill tricks so the system is tolerable.

The new expansion to my boy Ebberon promises to expand on this. Hopefully. I still need to dive that shiz.

Sadly the 5e design space is that DM fiat is the game. It comes with the territory.

[JNAProductions]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595096-Skill-Tricks-WIP-Advice-Wanted

Skill Tricks. Made before your post.

[Trickery]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595096-Skill-Tricks-WIP-Advice-Wanted

Skill Tricks. Made before your post.

My trouble with those is that the Bard would get the most skill tricks. Bards have enough capability as-is. I think it needs to be handled similar to feats, and the skill tricks themselves need to be impactful.

[Nagog]

Just occurred to me, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Currently, the skill system is pretty weird. We know who can hit what number, but not what one can actually do with those skills. Do you need to make an athletics check to climb a rope? What about a tree? What about vines? That depends on the DM, the situation, and on the sourcebook. I've seen DMs require a DC15 athletics check to climb down a rope and have seen other DMs not require a check.

For this reason, we don't know what our characters can actually do with skills. It's too DM dependent. This affects martials most of all since they tend to rely more on skills and attribute checks. The barbarian relies on his strength and endurance, and the rogue relies on his stealth.

What if we just put in a skill trick system similar to 3.5e? We could bake skill tricks into Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians so that these classes automatically can pick up skill tricks on odd levels, the same way that casters get new spell levels on odd levels. And the skill tricks would be things that the martial characters can definitely, absolutely do. And their capabilities would therefore increase with level while also letting players customize.

Coming from Pathfinder where everything had set DCs for skill checks (and no bounded accuracy on anything at all), having it be DM dependent is better for level-dependent scaling and overall out-of-the-box uses for them. That's essentially what was addressed and mentioned earlier, that spells have their set uses while skills are more out of the box and only have a bottom floor of what you can accomplish, with skill checks allowing you to break through any perceived ceiling. For example, rolling athletics or acrobatics to swing on a rope ALA Spider-Man, or rolling Knowledge Arcana to help a Rogue gain sneak attack on a construct, etc. It's only DM jurisdiction because setting exactly what a skill check can accomplish limits the potential of what can be done with them. No matter how expansive the list, it still sets a ceiling on the potential of such things. If anything, this would nerf Martials moreso than buff them

[diplomancer]

You are somehow managing to alternate between two fundamentally opposite Arguments and use them both to make your point. Are we now talking about Logic or Rules?

There is no reason to assume that only the creatures in the Books can be used as familiars. The reason there are only those creatures is because it wouldn't make sense to publish a 2000 page familiar companion Handbook with stats for every animal you can imagine. That the "Find Familiar" Spell doesn't use the words "such as" in contrast to the "Find Steed" Spell can imo easily be attributed to just one more oversight on part of WOTC. It's not like you need to look hard for those.

The stats for creatures are always lopsided as an effect of the very limited adaptability of the D&D game system. To any reasonable DM a Mouse would in practice have a pretty good Stealth score.

I think you are wildly overestimating how big the "Danger" is that the normal person would attribute to a creature that probably isn't but could be a Familiar. Simply put: How careful are you about what you say or do around people who could record you, aka everybody in this day? Just because people could record you on their phones, you don't assume they would. (And even if they would, what actual harm could they do?)

Sure, if you have NPCs that have a reason to be super paranoid let them look out for possible spies. Or if the situation itself makes the behavior/presence of a certain Animal highly suspicious let the NPCs react to it. But the Idea that NPCs who are running around outside in the Woods as part of their daily routine suspect every single Animal they see to be a Familiar of a random Wizard sneaking around is ridiculous.

And to top it off: Not "Everybody and their mother" has a familiar! Where do you even get that Idea? Adventurers are special, high level adventurers are super-duper special. And even among those, very few would have a familiar were it not for a bazillion optimancer guides singing odes to the abusablility of this particular spell. I think among the general population the chance of someone having a familiar is maybe 1:5000 at best. The vast majority of people are just normal people. Sorry, but assuming the Members of the Adventuring Party are the norm is just nonsense. If you were to actually play a random guy in that setting you would be a random farmer with 8 for stats, skill proficiency in farming and no interest whatsoever in leaving your home town to delve into Dungeons to fight Dragons. None.

Of course if you play a campaign where, for whatever reason, everybody is a Wizard that may be different.

I think it is reasonable to expect that, as all elves have dark vision, whether they are adventurers or not, all (variant) humans have a feat. Now, the setting may vary as to how many humans are actually variant humans, and, obviously, many of those will not necessarily choose Magic Initiate (wizard-> find familiar). Healer feat would probably be VERY useful in such a world, and access to some feats might be culturally limited. Still, the number of familiars in a magical world is definitely a lot higher than would be our expectations, and any sort of decent military training would take their existence into account. Will the peasant tilling his field be worried at an owl flying overhead? Probably not. Would the hobgoblin scout or castle guard be worried about it? Definitely yes.

I actually do believe that the sheer extent of the Familiar list (3 times longer than for Find Steed), coupled with the lack of any phrase as "such as" is design intent. It's a closed list. You can house rule it differently without big balance issues, obviously, specially if the "traditional" familiars are not considered suspicious at all in your world, so a sparrow familiar is as suspicious as an owl familiar (I.e, not at all).

Finally, a scouting familiar does not act at all as a non magical animal acting naturally. Scouts and guards would be trained to learn those differences in that world. It's like that moment in the movie where the camera focuses on the familiar and you know it IS a familiar (or some sort of scouting device) and not just some random animal.

Anyway, this familiar problem is a familiarity problem, if you will pardon the pun, and it applies to A LOT of magical abilities. DMs quite naturally start from how, say, a guard in our world would react to something, and since a magical effect would probably make him investigate more closely, the DM assumes that a guard in a magical world would react the same way, instead of being instantly on guard and knowing that there is a caster around.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Coming from Pathfinder where everything had set DCs for skill checks (and no bounded accuracy on anything at all), having it be DM dependent is better for level-dependent scaling and overall out-of-the-box uses for them. That's essentially what was addressed and mentioned earlier, that spells have their set uses while skills are more out of the box and only have a bottom floor of what you can accomplish, with skill checks allowing you to break through any perceived ceiling. For example, rolling athletics or acrobatics to swing on a rope ALA Spider-Man, or rolling Knowledge Arcana to help a Rogue gain sneak attack on a construct, etc. It's only DM jurisdiction because setting exactly what a skill check can accomplish limits the potential of what can be done with them. No matter how expansive the list, it still sets a ceiling on the potential of such things. If anything, this would nerf Martials moreso than buff them

Agreed. By codifying it, you're limiting it. And you're limiting it to one particular style of game. Skill Tricks (that cost build resources) are even worse, because they say "unless you have this Trick, you can't do X". When most of the time, everyone should be able to do X, or at least try.

Remember, everyone--normal ability checks have DCs in the 10-20 range. Going higher should be highly unusual. Someone with 20 STR and Athletics proficiency (in T3/T4 anyway) is Captain America (for STR-related things). Could he make the jump/do the thing? Then at least it should be a (relatively) easy check for that character to pass. 20 DEX and high Acrobatics proficiency could beat Black Widow in relevant things. Etc. And with expertise, even more so. DMs, let your high-level characters be superheros. That's what they're supposed to be. Shed the shackles of mundanity and let them spread their wings and be that awesome.

[Trickery]

Agreed. By codifying it, you're limiting it. And you're limiting it to one particular style of game. Skill Tricks (that cost build resources) are even worse, because they say "unless you have this Trick, you can't do X". When most of the time, everyone should be able to do X, or at least try.

Remember, everyone--normal ability checks have DCs in the 10-20 range. Going higher should be highly unusual. Someone with 20 STR and Athletics proficiency (in T3/T4 anyway) is Captain America (for STR-related things). Could he make the jump/do the thing? Then at least it should be a (relatively) easy check for that character to pass. 20 DEX and high Acrobatics proficiency could beat Black Widow in relevant things. Etc. And with expertise, even more so. DMs, let your high-level characters be superheros. That's what they're supposed to be. Shed the shackles of mundanity and let them spread their wings and be that awesome.

I've heard this argument before. Putting specific numbers to skill checks means the game only fits one style, and that DMs can be more flexible with the sysrem this way. In theory.

In practice, here's what actually happens. The player tries to do X. An argument ensues with the DM and player arguing over what the room looks like and how hard X is to do. At the end of it, the player rolls to do X. And that's the player's entire action because a skill check costs an action.

You can't leave that totally up to the DM. DMs are inconsistent and don't think of everything. It's much easier to change a baseline than invent one.

Additionally, spells and certain checks are already fixed. We know what it takes to burst a chain, for instance, or break manacles. Knowing that, we can infer much.

Edit: typo, anything and everything are different words

[Skylivedk]

Sound is a tricky thing to deal with in the games.

Sure, I can hear someone talking in a normal voice 50-60 feet away, but I'm most likely not going understand what they are saying.

Now, unless the person knows something is amiss, and is Alert (actively looking and listening) for unusual things nearby, all that is required in D&D is Stealth beating their Passive Perception to get past them.

I've been pondering this, what do you think:

Normal Perception up to 30 feet, and Disadvantage up to 60 feet? With maybe 100 feet for Creatures with "sensitive/superior" senses, like Dragons? (Unless Blindsight goes farther)
I'd definitely expand the range for many adventuring conditions: ie. no background noise. 60 feet is not long; in normal adventuring conditions, first for example, or a dungeon floor, it's very hard to remain soundless at sixty feet.


Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post, but one before it.

As to how people would treat an animal flying overhead in such a world, it would probably vary; intelligent militarized creatures, like hobgoblins, would probably have a shoot on sight policy (remember that, at least by RAW, it is not just any bird that can be a familiar, only hawks, owls and ravens).

In fact, we DO know how people react to animals suspected of being familiars in our world, and that is with extreme mistrust.

And how stealthy is a rat? Not at all, no stealth proficiency, Dex 10.
Agreed on hobgoblins wanting to shoot on sight. If DM rules any animal form the argument weakens.


Sure, yeah, magic can give you a bonus, but you won't always have magic. If every single Bard has Pass without a Trace and Stealth Expertise, and enough spell slots to cast it all the time, then yeah sure it's more consistent. But they don't. That's akin to saying "Well if my Abjurer casts nothing but Abjuration spells, they'll have more hp in their Ward and their actual body to surpass the innate HP of a barbarian!" While technically true, you're comparing a highly focused build built specifically for surpassing the opponent in one thing and one thing only to a martial class that has innate abilities in it's base package that already does the job.
The Barbarian gets 3 more per level, +3 for first level. Level 15, the difference is 48.

4 x Shields/Absorb Elements/Mage Armor = 8
3 x Dispel Magic or counterspell = 18
2 x Banishment = 16
1 X Planar Binding/Upcasted Counterspell = 10
52 hp... Not hard. An Abjuration Wizard tank would probably use Upcasted Armour of Agathys and one of the two cheeses (Non-detection from the gnome or infinite Mage Armor from the invocation)

That's another 30-40 temp hp for the highest slots. Each. That deals the same amount in damage per melee hit, no roll needed. It's not the HP tanking that would make me go for the Barbarian. The AoA Wizard can do that without touching slots below fifth level. With cheese, fewer slots used. And it's not a highly focused built. The Bladesinger can do something similar.




As for jobs casters can do that martials cannot, I'd say that 90% of the time, it's because you're playing the martial like you would in a video game, with hard constraints on what abilities you can use where, and casters like the free-form system 5e is built to encourage. If your DM has one and only one solution for a puzzle or other situation, then yes it is the DM's fault that martials are comparatively weak compared to casters. Likewise, if your DM uses an overabundance of antimagic and the like, casters will be really crappy compared to martials.
For sure, DMs play a big role in this. As a DM, I allow for some vin Diesel worthy realism quite often. I'd also point out how little assistance DMs get to do this in both the DMG and the published adventures I've seen. It hasn't really been utility items galore in my experience.



You're missing the point here. Casters scale differently than Martials do. Martials scale by having their Tier 1 and 2 abilities improved upon by their later abilities. Casters gain new "class abilities" with each spell, but they don't typically improve on the previous spells chosen. Each such "Class ability" is a standalone feature, so when you read something like a 7th level spell description, it sounds much cooler than a martial class feature gained at the same level because you don't have any of the context or previous features listed in the description that back up the base feature. So the martial features I already look forward to as a high level martial character? As follows:
I'm not sure who's missing the point here. Let me give you my take on exactly the same. I'm not trying to be facetious, just an honest second opinion.



Fighters: Triple attack, combined with the feats I've chosen, make the Attack action scale to INSANE levels, combined with 2 uses of Action Surge, allows me to make 12 attacks in 2 rounds.

So: triple attack is without feats not that impressive. Mentioned way back that feat gating of martial abilities is by itself an issue since it allows gishes to do a lot of the same. Ie. the damage output isn't all that different for a Gish with a small dip, maybe haste and some kind of extra attack (ie Sorcadin, Hexblade, one of the two bards). The extra action surge is at level 17. It's great. Hardly wish, Shapechange or True Polymorph (you can create dragons out of boulders...). And it's still just damage. No change more or less for the Fighter in any other pillar in ages.



Barbarians: Brutal Critical. Combine this with something like Fighter Champion, Assassin Rogue, and multiattack, and this gets HUGE single-target damage, or in the case of multiattack, huge multi-target damage. no. It's not big. Even if we crit at 19 and have advantage, it's 3,7 per swing. Not huge.



Monks: Monks are just awesome all around. At higher levels, their various ways to resist and negate damage make them versatile and fun characters to play, and their scaling unarmed strike and plethora of attacks make them great martials for both crowd control and single-target damage
Single target cc, yes. Direct damage, no. Four attacks at 5,5+5 isn't a lot in T4. They also don't have many viable builds resulting in the often feeling quite the same across campaigns. They have cool out of combat abilities though! I wish they were even faster and jumped a lot higher. It's weird they don't run faster than Usain Bolt on level twenty.



Rogues: I'd say Rogues are the best built martial class due to their versatility and adaptability. Reliable Talent, Blindsense, and Elusive are amazing features in and of themselves, and that's not even touching Sneak Attack damage and the wonderful options Rogue Subclasses have to offer.
By now, it's probably no surprise that I don't fill heartedly agree. Sneak Attack isn't too impressive. Until level 17, Thief sacrifices too much combat for utility. As a matter of fact, I've dissolved the Thief and added it to the rogue chassis in my last three campaigns. No problems so far. No other class feeling stepped on in the slightest. I've not had a level 17 rogue. That might change it, but so far, smooth sailing.


Yeah, the habit of making really weird builds that limit their other abilities (like the super-stealth bard) and are not something you ever actually see at a table to do something that a martial character does with a completely ordinary build (like taking athletics on a strength character or stealth expertise on a bard) is an 'interesting' line of argument. Also completely ignoring magic items is pretty strange - you're talking about having 9th level spellcasters who care little enough about their magic items that they'll leave them on a disposable clone and who can buy expensive gems by the cartload for high level components, but martial characters who don't get anything but maybe a +X weapon/armor.
Argument taken in vain; for the clone, main point was that the Wizard doesn't need items much. Secondary point was that getting money was easy for a caster at higher levels. No mention of martial gear in that post, except it's more DM dependent.



Completely ignoring the rogue's ability to pull shenanigans like stealing a Staff of the Woodlands to have zero resource pass without trace at the cost of his concentration (which he doesn't use for anything else anyway) or classifying him as a 'caster' once he does it is another one of those peculiar lines of argument.
Where? Who? Quote? I've only said it's DM dependent. I even explicit mention magic items as a one of the solution paths. That being said: Thief would be a ton of fun more with more items to go with Fast Hands (smoke sticks, tanglefoot bags, flash pearls, etc). I didn't qualify him as as caster either. It seems your conflating different viewpoints and adding your own interpretation in a mix that is hard to address..


Coming from Pathfinder where everything had set DCs for skill checks (and no bounded accuracy on anything at all), having it be DM dependent is better for level-dependent scaling and overall out-of-the-box uses for them. That's essentially what was addressed and mentioned earlier, that spells have their set uses while skills are more out of the box and only have a bottom floor of what you can accomplish, with skill checks allowing you to break through any perceived ceiling. For example, rolling athletics or acrobatics to swing on a rope ALA Spider-Man, or rolling Knowledge Arcana to help a Rogue gain sneak attack on a construct, etc. It's only DM jurisdiction because setting exactly what a skill check can accomplish limits the potential of what can be done with them. No matter how expansive the list, it still sets a ceiling on the potential of such things. If anything, this would nerf Martials moreso than buff them
I tend to disagree. Then again, as a DM I allow a ton of stunts and both my DMs have been very conservative. I had one arguing that he didn't like martials automatic passing challenges when I made him aware that the jumping challenge at hand should be automatically passed by the group's ranger due to his strength score. I would have appreciated examples of high DCs in high Fantasy and low Fantasy.

[Trickery]

Also, skill tricks don't prevent people who don't have that trick from doing it. They just mean that someone who doesn't have the trick would need to roll.

[Sigreid]

I've heard this argument before. Putting specific numbers to skill checks means the game only fits one style, and that DMs can be more flexible with the sysrem this way. In theory.

In practice, here's what actually happens. The player tries to do X. An argument ensues with the DM and player arguing over what the room looks like and how hard X is to do. At the end of it, the player rolls to do X. And that's the player's entire action because a skill check costs an action.

You can't leave that totally up to the DM. DMs are inconsistent and don't think of everything. It's much easier to change a baseline than invent one.

Additionally, spells and certain checks are already fixed. We know what it takes to burst a chain, for instance, or break manacles. Knowing that, we can infer much.

Edit: typo, anything and everything are different words

It probably has to do with who I play with but i have never, in any edition seen an argument break out at the table over DC numbers.

[Trickery]

It probably has to do with who I play with but i have never, in any edition seen an argument break out at the table over DC numbers.

Argument may be a strong word, but I've seen a lot of discussion over what is and isn't possible.

But that's a good point. Experiences differ widely. It's one reason why it's so hard to talk about these things. Some people don't see the value because they've never had an experience that would necessitate it.

[Nagog]

I've heard this argument before. Putting specific numbers to skill checks means the game only fits one style, and that DMs can be more flexible with the sysrem this way. In theory.

In practice, here's what actually happens. The player tries to do X. An argument ensues with the DM and player arguing over what the room looks like and how hard X is to do. At the end of it, the player rolls to do X. And that's the player's entire action because a skill check costs an action.

You can't leave that totally up to the DM. DMs are inconsistent and don't think of everything. It's much easier to change a baseline than invent one.

Additionally, spells and certain checks are already fixed. We know what it takes to burst a chain, for instance, or break manacles. Knowing that, we can infer much.


(Bolded for emphasis) This is the thing: Skill checks aren't meant to be similar to spells. They're meant to be open-ended, meant to be flexible as to allow Martials to accomplish things Casters can't. A Caster can cast X spell to do X, but a creatively thinking Martial can do the same by doing X, represented as a roll of Y or Z, dependant on DM decision. Once again, if your DM is setting the DCs extremely high for such things, that's a table issue, not an issue with the system as a whole, and should be addressed as such.

Example:
Falling 20 feet:
A caster could cast Feather Fall to negate fall damage.
A clever martial could roll Acrobatics to attempt to roll as they land, which may mitigate/negate fall damage.

Both are viable to different degrees, and both have their limitations and drawbacks (Caster may nab Sheild over Feather Fall, Martial may not have high Acro/Dex or may be too far a fall for it to matter, etc.)

Spells are simple equations of "If X, then Y", whereas skills are more along the lines of "If X, then Y or Z, or consider A for mixed results."

As for the baseline, if there is one, DMs are often more likely to restrict you to it than change said baseline, particularly in AL games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(Bolded for emphasis) This is the thing: Skill checks aren't meant to be similar to spells. They're meant to be open-ended, meant to be flexible as to allow Martials to accomplish things Casters can't. A Caster can cast X spell to do X, but a creatively thinking Martial can do the same by doing X, represented as a roll of Y or Z, dependant on DM decision. Once again, if your DM is setting the DCs extremely high for such things, that's a table issue, not an issue with the system as a whole, and should be addressed as such.

Example:
Falling 20 feet:
A caster could cast Feather Fall to negate fall damage.
A clever martial could roll Acrobatics to attempt to roll as they land, which may mitigate/negate fall damage.

Both are viable to different degrees, and both have their limitations and drawbacks (Caster may nab Sheild over Feather Fall, Martial may not have high Acro/Dex or may be too far a fall for it to matter, etc.)

Spells are simple equations of "If X, then Y", whereas skills are more along the lines of "If X, then Y or Z, or consider A for mixed results."

As for the baseline, if there is one, DMs are often more likely to restrict you to it than change said baseline, particularly in AL games.

Exactly this, especially the last sentence. Baselines become "RAW RULES", and deviation is thus a house-rule. It's way easier to vary from no baseline than from a fixed one. Examples become normative rather quickly. Heck, even the pretty clearly-marked "this is just an example, do what you want" ones that we already have have taken on ironclad status.

Much better is to actually follow the instructions given, which are:
a) decide if a check is even needed: does it have a meaningful failure state with consequences, is it even possible[1]?
b) set a DC between 10 and 20 (10, 15, or 20), with 25 or 30 as very rare exceptions for exceptional cases and communicate that (and the consequences for failure) to the player.
c) roll, resolve, and move on.

And if there's arguments over DCs...you've failed at basic D&D 101. Which is that the DM decides how to resolve actions, using rules if necessary. Players don't call for checks. Players don't set DCs. And the DC's might vary tremendously based on differences in the world. This door and that door are very different things. With only 3 points (10, 15, and 20), trying to get precise about things is a total waste of time. Set a DC as a fan of the characters (ie let them do amazing things) and move on. If failure wouldn't matter or would not make sense, DON'T ROLL.

The DCs you set can vary by table as well. When I'm with some of my groups I'm much more free-wheeling, more "Action/Super hero" capable. With others, they're much more constrained. Codifying that removes that option unless I want to rebuild the entire system from the ground up and deal with the inevitable breakage that will result.

[Trickery]

I disagree. It's easy to change things once an idea is in place. If you want skills to be used, you codify ways for players to use them. If you don't have examples and DCs of what you can do with skills, then players are a lot less likely to attempt anything unusual and DMs are a lot less likely to allow it.

Besides that, you all know damn well that if skill checks were already more codified like this, then there'd be just as many people rushing to defend that decision because it's what they're used to.

[Skylivedk]

Besides that, you all know damn well that if skill checks were already more codified like this, then there'd be just as many people rushing to defend that decision because it's what they're used to.
+1
Also, in this version, full casters have skills. They aren't even that feat starved (ie compared to a monk or Barbarian). Skills alone do not make up for a lack of features in two out of three pillars. There's been some Poison the Well tactics used with Schrödinger's Wizard and with conflating Trickery and me for some two-headed ogre straw man, but key aspects haven't been addressed:
(1) full casters gain more and more powerful options AND flexibility
(2) most martial classes sacrifice combat abilities for out of combat or vice versa.

- and again, most don't address the main question and have taken upon themselves to correct the great perceived flaw in presumption rather than come up with changes that could ameliorate OP's, and those that share OP's, experience.

[Nagog]

I disagree. It's easy to change things once an idea is in place. If you want skills to be used, you codify ways for players to use them. If you don't have examples and DCs of what you can do with skills, then players are a lot less likely to attempt anything unusual and DMs are a lot less likely to allow it.

Besides that, you all know damn well that if skill checks were already more codified like this, then there'd be just as many people rushing to defend that decision because it's what they're used to.

I disagree, I think if the RAW were like that, there'd be as many threads on here discussing that as there are fixing the Ranger, and it'd be as hotly debated as many of the sorcerer threads on here. If that were the RAW, I wouldn't use that as RAW. As is, I will often incorporate an NPC to the party for a time if they don't use skills much just to show them that it is a possibility and a great avenue for problem-solving skills to be used real-time.

[Nagog]

+1
Also, in this version, full casters have skills. They aren't even that feat starved (ie compared to a monk or Barbarian). Skills alone do not make up for a lack of features in two out of three pillars. There's been some Poison the Well tactics used with Schrödinger's Wizard and with conflating Trickery and me for some two-headed ogre straw man, but key aspects haven't been addressed:
(1) full casters gain more and more powerful options AND flexibility
(2) most martial classes sacrifice combat abilities for out of combat or vice versa.

- and again, most don't address the main question and have taken upon themselves to correct the great perceived flaw in presumption rather than come up with changes that could ameliorate OP's, and those that share OP's, experience.

The difference skill-wise is the skill checks that actively change the world are often physical checks, which are not nearly as high on a caster than they are on a martial. The only exception is the Charisma skills, which, while higher typically on CHA based casters, can be bypassed 9 times out of 10 by good role playing and making your case in character rather than rolling.

The argument here is that martial classes don't need buffs. If you feel they do, feel free to buff them according to the issues you see in your game, but as each DM's game varies, one solution will not fix each individual's problem. If you present your table's problem here, we're happy to help, but just showing up and insisting that a blanket fix be made to Martials, you're going to get pushback. If you simply claim "Obviously they need a fix for the obvious reasons of they don't do well compare to casters", we will point out how they do in fact compare to casters and in some ways surpass them. If there is an issue, the process to fixing the issue is as follows:

1. Identify the root of the problem. This could be in such areas as the way the character was built, the way they are played, the situations they find themselves in, etc.
2. Correct the problem at the source. If it's a playstyle issue, adjust your playstyle accordingly. If it's a build issue, speak to your DM about rebuilding the character. If it's a DM issue, once again, speak to the DM.
3. If literally everything else fails, find ways to houserule it a solution.

If you immediately jump to #3 rather than diagnosing the issue as being a playstyle/DM issue, then you end up with something that works right until it's out of that playstyle or DM situation, at which point it becomes unbalanced and potentially game-breaking.

[Trickery]

I disagree, I think if the RAW were like that, there'd be as many threads on here discussing that as there are fixing the Ranger, and it'd be as hotly debated as many of the sorcerer threads on here. If that were the RAW, I wouldn't use that as RAW. As is, I will often incorporate an NPC to the party for a time if they don't use skills much just to show them that it is a possibility and a great avenue for problem-solving skills to be used real-time.

From what I remember, Skill Tricks were well-received in 3.5e. The most common criticism I recall was that they made martial characters who didn't have them too weak by comparison...which is telling.

The way I'd implement the system is like so: you could take skill tricks as a feat. Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians, and probably Monks and Rangers would get some automatically (smaller number for Monks and Rangers). They'd require a certain bonus to the skill and would allow you to do whatever it was (swinging using a whip or ignoring difficult terrain or whatever) automatically without rolling. Characters who did not have the skill trick could still do it, but it would require a roll with a known DC.

Because characters gained more over time and gained access to stronger ones, martial capabilities would provably grow with level with no need for DM fiat. It wouldn't just be getting better at what you already do.

And, obviously, I'd make the system optional just like spell points. You don't feel compelled to use spell points, do you? No? Then you wouldn't feel compelled to use this system. It wouldn't affect games where you were the DM.

[Reevh]

Just occurred to me, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Currently, the skill system is pretty weird. We know who can hit what number, but not what one can actually do with those skills. Do you need to make an athletics check to climb a rope? What about a tree? What about vines? That depends on the DM, the situation, and on the sourcebook. I've seen DMs require a DC15 athletics check to climb down a rope and have seen other DMs not require a check.

For this reason, we don't know what our characters can actually do with skills. It's too DM dependent. This affects martials most of all since they tend to rely more on skills and attribute checks. The barbarian relies on his strength and endurance, and the rogue relies on his stealth.

What if we just put in a skill trick system similar to 3.5e? We could bake skill tricks into Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians so that these classes automatically can pick up skill tricks on odd levels, the same way that casters get new spell levels on odd levels. And the skill tricks would be things that the martial characters can definitely, absolutely do. And their capabilities would therefore increase with level while also letting players customize.

I think giving DMs the discretion to run the table the way they think makes sense is a feature, not a bug. Play with a DM long enough, and you'll learn how they operate.

[Trickery]

I think giving DMs the discretion to run the table the way they think makes sense is a feature, not a bug. Play with a DM long enough, and you'll learn how they operate.

You could make the same argument about spells. Shouldn't spells do whatever the DM says they do? No, they shouldn't, because then players don't know what expectations to have going into the game. They don't know which class they should play in order to do the thing they want to do.

Few people on this forum seem to appreciate just how much you lose by encouraging DMs to do whatever they want, screw the rules, screw player expectations. It makes both DMs and players less creative. Creativity comes from operating within known boundaries, not from wandering off on an infinite plain.

[Reevh]

You could make the same argument about spells. Shouldn't spells do whatever the DM says they do? No, they shouldn't, because then players don't know what expectations to have going into the game. They don't know which class they should play in order to do the thing they want to do.

Few people on this forum seem to appreciate just how much you lose by encouraging DMs to do whatever they want, screw the rules, screw player expectations. It makes both DMs and players less creative. Creativity comes from operating within known boundaries, not from wandering off on an infinite plain.

Spells attack enemies' saving throws and Armor Class, which the players don't know either. It's fine.

[Nagog]

From what I remember, Skill Tricks were well-received in 3.5e. The most common criticism I recall was that they made martial characters who didn't have them too weak by comparison...which is telling.

The way I'd implement the system is like so: you could take skill tricks as a feat. Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians, and probably Monks and Rangers would get some automatically (smaller number for Monks and Rangers). They'd require a certain bonus to the skill and would allow you to do whatever it was (swinging using a whip or ignoring difficult terrain or whatever) automatically without rolling. Characters who did not have the skill trick could still do it, but it would require a roll with a known DC.

Because characters gained more over time and gained access to stronger ones, martial capabilities would provably grow with level with no need for DM fiat. It wouldn't just be getting better at what you already do.

And, obviously, I'd make the system optional just like spell points. You don't feel compelled to use spell points, do you? No? Then you wouldn't feel compelled to use this system. It wouldn't affect games where you were the DM.

If you feel that is a fix that works for your table and situation, go for it. But until now, this has been proposed as a "Fix to martial classes", which in large part we feel unnecessary. Beyond that, while the Spell Points and other variant rules either offer an alternate tracking system (as in Spell Points) or an optional re-flavor (Feats). Having martial classes need to pick up feats in order to do what they would be able to do normally with a skill check doesn't help Martials, it further limits them. Beyond that, most Martial classes get the same number of ASI/Feats as casters, so what's to stop a Wizard from nabbing them? Nothing at all. So sure, if you feel it will work at your table, go for it, I hope it works. But I don't think it will, and I think it will worsen the issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could make the same argument about spells. Shouldn't spells do whatever the DM says they do? No, they shouldn't, because then players don't know what expectations to have going into the game. They don't know which class they should play in order to do the thing they want to do.

Few people on this forum seem to appreciate just how much you lose by encouraging DMs to do whatever they want, screw the rules, screw player expectations. It makes both DMs and players less creative. Creativity comes from operating within known boundaries, not from wandering off on an infinite plain.

This is not my experience. Fixed rules set expectations, and expectations are sticky. The "creativity" you get is with more rules is playing the rules, not the game. Loophole hunting, RAW abuse, arguing about details[1], etc. And that's totally toxic IMO.

[1] The more codified the system, the more room there is for argument, not the less room. Because there are always more strange interactions to consider, more wording issues that can be exploited, and, most importantly, it promotes a culture of rules over players. Where "following the rules" excuses a lot of crappy behavior. As is obvious from 3e. Instead, if DMs trust players and players trust the DM...there aren't any problems that can't be worked out quickly. And what "works out" for my table will look very different from what works out for your table.

Plus, no one can codify anything globally except the designers. And they've made it very clear that they won't do so. Homebrew in this area is meaningless except by DMs. And since DMs already have the ability to set them however they want....there's nothing to discuss. It's also not a trivial task--I tried doing a limited portion of it once. Just for monster knowledge, and only looking at one small slice of things. It took me 5-6 pages. Because otherwise you have setting-mechanics dissonance, bear lore, and many other problems. Doing it for all the skills would involve writing another PHB.

[Reevh]

This is not my experience. Fixed rules set expectations, and expectations are sticky. The "creativity" you get is with more rules is playing the rules, not the game. Loophole hunting, RAW abuse, arguing about details[1], etc. And that's totally toxic IMO.

[1] The more codified the system, the more room there is for argument, not the less room. Because there are always more strange interactions to consider, more wording issues that can be exploited, and, most importantly, it promotes a culture of rules over players. Where "following the rules" excuses a lot of crappy behavior. As is obvious from 3e. Instead, if DMs trust players and players trust the DM...there aren't any problems that can't be worked out quickly. And what "works out" for my table will look very different from what works out for your table.

Plus, no one can codify anything globally except the designers. And they've made it very clear that they won't do so. Homebrew in this area is meaningless except by DMs. And since DMs already have the ability to set them however they want....there's nothing to discuss. It's also not a trivial task--I tried doing a limited portion of it once. Just for monster knowledge, and only looking at one small slice of things. It took me 5-6 pages. Because otherwise you have setting-mechanics dissonance, bear lore, and many other problems. Doing it for all the skills would involve writing another PHB.

Right. Excessive codification of rules results in excessive rules lawyering, not in actual true fun creative play. Some rules are good, but DMs are given a lot of leeway to craft the world and story they want for a reason. If you trust your DM and your DM trusts you, it'll be fun.

[Nagog]

You could make the same argument about spells. Shouldn't spells do whatever the DM says they do? No, they shouldn't, because then players don't know what expectations to have going into the game. They don't know which class they should play in order to do the thing they want to do.

Few people on this forum seem to appreciate just how much you lose by encouraging DMs to do whatever they want, screw the rules, screw player expectations. It makes both DMs and players less creative. Creativity comes from operating within known boundaries, not from wandering off on an infinite plain.

Have you ever played Pathfinder? Because that system has everything laid out in the rules, and I mean everything. And for the most part, it plays just like 5e. If you feel that is what creativity is, Pathfinder is perfect for you. I found it absolutely stifling and suffocating. 5e is intentionally less rigid and more is left up to the DM, both in terms of creativity and responsibility. Key being Responsibility. If you don't trust yourself or your DM with that responsibility, don't use 5e, use Pathfinder. It's that simple. 5e has tons of places that are up to DM fiat and choice, and if you attempt to houserule them all you'll end up with something that isn't 5e at all. Best to start with a system that doesn't have such open-ended prompts.

[Trickery]

Sheesh, guys. If I say the sky is blue, someone else comes in and says the sky is red. My sky might be a different color. My experiences are not the same as yours.

You don't have to love my ideas. You don't even have to respond to them. But I'm done arguing about it. It's not worth anyone's time.

[Fable Wright]

(1) full casters gain more and more powerful options AND flexibility

They are more flexible, and they do get options more powerful than they originally had.

But is it a problem? Have you been at tables where martial characters have felt overshadowed? At Adventurer's League, do all the tier 3/4 tables have only full casters?

Or do you find that the most common race/class combo is still human fighter, and that no one is complaining?



(2) most martial classes sacrifice combat abilities for out of combat or vice versa.

And I'm with you. If you want a thread in the Homebrew forums all about adding noncombat ribbon features to martial classes, I'd support it. But this is neither a homebrew forum nor about that, is it?



- and again, most don't address the main question and have taken upon themselves to correct the great perceived flaw in presumption rather than come up with changes that could ameliorate OP's, and those that share OP's, experience.



"Vanilla cake has absolutely no chocolate in it. Whatsoever. How do I change vanilla to be more like chocolate, so that everyone has chocolate cake?"

"Have you considered letting people enjoy their vanilla cake?"

"No, answer the question."

"But vanilla is fine!"

"I didn't ask if it was fine, I asked how to change it. You're not helping."

"You could add chocolate frosting."

"That does not change the fact that I want vanilla to be more chocolate. You can already add chocolate frosting to chocolate cake."

I suspect that you'll get better responses on the pastry chef board.

[JNAProductions]

Have you ever played Pathfinder? Because that system has everything laid out in the rules, and I mean everything. And for the most part, it plays just like 5e. If you feel that is what creativity is, Pathfinder is perfect for you. I found it absolutely stifling and suffocating. 5e is intentionally less rigid and more is left up to the DM, both in terms of creativity and responsibility. Key being Responsibility. If you don't trust yourself or your DM with that responsibility, don't use 5e, use Pathfinder. It's that simple. 5e has tons of places that are up to DM fiat and choice, and if you attempt to houserule them all you'll end up with something that isn't 5e at all. Best to start with a system that doesn't have such open-ended prompts.

Yeah, that's... I was gonna say "Goddamn lie" but that feels way too provocative.

That's not a universal truth in the slightest. I've tried playing Pathfinder, and I often get bogged down in mechanics without actually doing anything fun. So that's not universal-it might be true for you, but it's certainly not for everyone.

[Nagog]

Yeah, that's... I was gonna say "Goddamn lie" but that feels way too provocative.

That's not a universal truth in the slightest. I've tried playing Pathfinder, and I often get bogged down in mechanics without actually doing anything fun. So that's not universal-it might be true for you, but it's certainly not for everyone.

That's just my experience with it. Too many rules to try and remember them all, to the point I houseruled 20% of them out of existence because I didn't want to look them up when it only comes up once or twice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's just my experience with it. Too many rules to try and remember them all, to the point I houseruled 20% of them out of existence because I didn't want to look them up when it only comes up once or twice.

I only played Pathfinder a few times, but your opinion is similar to mine. We spent nearly as much time (with a relatively experienced PF DM at that!) looking up rules, figuring out how to resolve simple actions and dealing with other rules-minutia as we did actually playing. The DM had to cross-reference multiple books to try to figure out how a single (low-level!) monster worked. And trying to do anything outre is not an option--there's a feat for that, and if you don't have the feat, you either can't do it at all or you will be punished severely for trying (cf tripping without the feat chain). Codifying the "tricks" and stuffing them behind build resources means each character can do less, not more. And the mechanics can't adapt as easily to the narrative--the system was fragile to changes because everything touched everything else.

"There's a rule for that" breeds a culture where getting it right (by the rules) is more important than getting it fast and moving on. For me, that second way is key. When it takes minutes per person to resolve a single character's turn (let alone decide what the character will do), mainly because things have to be looked up in tables or cross-referenced between books, that's confining, not liberating.

On the other hand, in 5e I basically never need to look up anything as long as I have the basic stat block in front of me. And I can totally ad lib sessions with involved mechanics, traps, descriptions, ability checks, etc. I do it routinely (like last week, in fact). Heck, I can ad lib unprepared combats without stat blocks, because I know about what a CR 1/2's AC, HP, ATK, and DMG should look like. Done it several times. And if I'm wrong? Big whoop. And my players go way off the beaten path. They use tactics I've never even considered, let alone planned for. And the resolution mechanics work effortlessly.

[JNAProductions]

I only played Pathfinder a few times, but your opinion is similar to mine. We spent nearly as much time (with a relatively experienced PF DM at that!) looking up rules, figuring out how to resolve simple actions and dealing with other rules-minutia as we did actually playing. The DM had to cross-reference multiple books to try to figure out how a single (low-level!) monster worked. And trying to do anything outre is not an option--there's a feat for that, and if you don't have the feat, you either can't do it at all or you will be punished severely for trying (cf tripping without the feat chain). Codifying the "tricks" and stuffing them behind build resources means each character can do less, not more. And the mechanics can't adapt as easily to the narrative--the system was fragile to changes because everything touched everything else.

"There's a rule for that" breeds a culture where getting it right (by the rules) is more important than getting it fast and moving on. For me, that second way is key. When it takes minutes per person to resolve a single character's turn (let alone decide what the character will do), mainly because things have to be looked up in tables or cross-referenced between books, that's confining, not liberating.

On the other hand, in 5e I basically never need to look up anything as long as I have the basic stat block in front of me. And I can totally ad lib sessions with involved mechanics, traps, descriptions, ability checks, etc. I do it routinely (like last week, in fact). Heck, I can ad lib unprepared combats without stat blocks, because I know about what a CR 1/2's AC, HP, ATK, and DMG should look like. Done it several times. And if I'm wrong? Big whoop. And my players go way off the beaten path. They use tactics I've never even considered, let alone planned for. And the resolution mechanics work effortlessly.

Yeah, that's a big thing. Someone a while back compared the PF Bandit to a 5E Bandit and said "Look how many more skills and feats he has!"

My response was "The 5E Bandit can do more, since the system doesn't require feats or skill points to unlock basic competency."

[Reevh]

Sheesh, guys. If I say the sky is blue, someone else comes in and says the sky is red. My sky might be a different color. My experiences are not the same as yours.

You don't have to love my ideas. You don't even have to respond to them. But I'm done arguing about it. It's not worth anyone's time.

I thought Nagog's suggestion was pretty constructive, personally, but it's cool, I guess.

[Skylivedk]

The difference skill-wise is the skill checks that actively change the world are often physical checks, which are not nearly as high on a caster than they are on a martial. The only exception is the Charisma skills, which, while higher typically on CHA based casters, can be bypassed 9 times out of 10 by good role playing and making your case in character rather than rolling.
Again, table dependent. At my tables, you need the int skills often (but if knowledge isn't power at your table YMMV) and it's considered bad form/penalised if you play an 8 cha with no social proficiencies as a smooth operator. The roleplaying didn't necessarily require rolls, but it does require you to play the role of your character. Including non-combat weaknesses. With that in mind, persuasion/deception often beats most physical skills in the long run. Spending resources to cross a chasm isn't as bad as screwing up your relationship to the powers that be.



The argument here is that martial classes don't need buffs. If you feel they do, feel free to buff them according to the issues you see in your game, but as each DM's game varies, one solution will not fix each individual's problem. If you present your table's problem here, we're happy to help, but just showing up and insisting that a blanket fix be made to Martials, you're going to get pushback.

If you simply claim "Obviously they need a fix for the obvious reasons of they don't do well compare to casters", we will point out how they do in fact compare to casters and in some ways surpass them.
So I've done that. Three times. I even delineated my stance, explained how mercenaries could be hard to believe in fiction in later stages AND why gold was more easily acquired by casters. I did an example of the different progressions and refuted a counter example. So far for nought.



If there is an issue, the process to fixing the issue is as follows:

1. Identify the root of the problem. This could be in such areas as the way the character was built, the way they are played, the situations they find themselves in, etc.
2. Correct the problem at the source. If it's a playstyle issue, adjust your playstyle accordingly. If it's a build issue, speak to your DM about rebuilding the character. If it's a DM issue, once again, speak to the DM.
3. If literally everything else fails, find ways to houserule it a solution.

If you immediately jump to #3 rather than diagnosing the issue as being a playstyle/DM issue, then you end up with something that works right until it's out of that playstyle or DM situation, at which point it becomes unbalanced and potentially game-breaking.
1. I did. I showed how: martials gain less feature with a lower level of acceleration and especially how little those features could do out of combat. The nearest I got to a reply was Schrödinger's multi-class Fighter/Rogue.

2. Where I DM, I have done several things. I've shared them here as well: such as changing the likelihood of peaceful downtime for casters, adding Thief to the rogue chassis (I've done similar with a bunch of the fighter ribbons). I've entered this thread to draw on more ideas on how to do it cool. I liked the giant bow/harpoon barbarian, tribes/followings. It's not a DM problem that the Fighter gets no epic out of combat features. It's not a DM problem that skills are pretty much locked from level one, when spell selection isn't.

3. I've played pretty much since release. It's not a new observation. When I'm a player in a free-roam campaign with a rigid DM, I don't play martials.


Spells attack enemies' saving throws and Armor Class, which the players don't know either. It's fine.
What are you on about? It says in the work description what is targeted.


They are more flexible, and they do get options more powerful than they originally had.

But is it a problem? Have you been at tables where martial characters have felt overshadowed? At Adventurer's League, do all the tier 3/4 tables have only full casters?

Or do you find that the most common race/class combo is still human fighter, and that no one is complaining?

I've never played AL. I'm European. And yes, tons of times. Overshadowed and/or bored. If I've been a DM, I've adjusted items/world to make the game more fun. Normally not by upgrading combat, but by giving items (esp for our first Thief), features, alliances to remedy the situation.



And I'm with you. If you want a thread in the Homebrew forums all about adding noncombat ribbon features to martial classes, I'd support it. But this is neither a homebrew forum nor about that, is it?

I must admit, I don't know when a thread belongs in homebrew rather than 5e. I was looking for both kinds of solutions (in fiction and in mechanics).



I suspect that you'll get better responses on the pastry chef board.
And I guess you need a lesson in etiquette to avoid coming off as a condescending high schooler.

To continue your pastry analogy for the dough-minded: OP and I have asked for how to balance the taste of a crème brulée to have a counter point to its fat and sweetness while letting it remain distinctly crème brulée-esque. We've been told that it doesn't need that and/or that the taste is perfectly balanced as is. I still don't get why people answer this way.

[MeimuHakurei]

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1454/81/1454814610319.png

Not all of this is applicable to 5th Edition but it is still relevant

[jdolch]

[Semi-coherent pictures.]

Wow, somebody had an emotional meme day.

[Willie the Duck]

Not all of this is applicable to 5th Edition but it is still relevant

And both sides can levy the same thing against the other and pretend it helps their argument. 'This is always brought up in these types of arguments isn't actually a good refutation of any given point.

[Nhorianscum]

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1454/81/1454814610319.png

Not all of this is applicable to 5th Edition but it is still relevant

This made my day. Thank you.

[Reevh]

What are you on about? It says in the work description what is targeted.


But it doesn't tell you what DC or AC you have to hit for the spell effect to work, which is equivalent to players not knowing what DC their skill checks have to hit, which was what Trickery was complaining about.

[Fable Wright]

To continue your pastry analogy for the dough-minded: OP and I have asked for how to balance the taste of a crème brulée to have a counter point to its fat and sweetness while letting it remain distinctly crème brulée-esque. We've been told that it doesn't need that and/or that the taste is perfectly balanced as is. I still don't get why people answer this way.

Except you did not.

You asked about 1/4th to nearly half the recipes in the book in broad, sweeping terms, asserting that there was a problem with the underlying mechanics.

Even if there wasn't an assertion in the core premise that people disagree with, what counts as 'martial' has been heavily disputed in this thread, with the half casters going into a very grey area. When there's not a clear, laser focus in the core ideas, you can hardly blame a herd of cats for trying to clarify the question.

"The Rogue in my Tier 3 low-magic-item westmarches game is starting to feel overshadowed by the wizards in the area, but doesn't want to retire his character. What should we do?" is the question that is (at least to the perspective of the average forum-goer), closer to what you're wanting to ask. It speaks to one recipe/class (Rogue), a specific game style/cooking style (extremely player-driven with several DMs, whose interpretations of the rules may be inconsistent), speaks to a specific problem (lack of agency-granting high-tier abilities in martial classes), and implores creative solutions.

The advantage to making a separate thread instead of hijacking an existing, broad one is that (a) it gets more views, rather than a long thread that mostly pulls in repeated view points; (b) attracts more fans of crème brulée and their experiences, rather than people who simply enjoy vanilla; and (c) constrains the scope of how far the conversation will wander.

Why do people answer this way? Well, I can't speak to everyone else, but why I do it:
1. Because you're clearly frustrated. You're not sure why your questions are getting side-tracked or going wrong, and because I genuinely want to help, but because of lack of text and cultural divide, my words aren't seeming to reach you.
2. Because reframing the question to a more abstract one can demonstrate the differences in our perceptions and lead to a better understanding of a larger problem.
3. Because I come on this forum to help people in general and give ideas. When I give my time and energy entirely to help someone else for free and fun, and somehow no one involved is helped, gets ideas, or has fun, then there's a problem and I want to fix it.

[Nagog]

1. I did. I showed how: martials gain less feature with a lower level of acceleration and especially how little those features could do out of combat. The nearest I got to a reply was Schrödinger's multi-class Fighter/Rogue.


Which I've refuted with the fact that while spells are self-contained features, martial features tend to build off of their previous features, so reading the description of a spell is much more exciting that reading the description of a martial ability because you don't typically read the description of the ability in tandem with the other abilities you have at that level.




2. Where I DM, I have done several things. I've shared them here as well: such as changing the likelihood of peaceful downtime for casters, adding Thief to the rogue chassis (I've done similar with a bunch of the fighter ribbons). I've entered this thread to draw on more ideas on how to do it cool. I liked the giant bow/harpoon barbarian, tribes/followings. It's not a DM problem that the Fighter gets no epic out of combat features. It's not a DM problem that skills are pretty much locked from level one, when spell selection isn't.

3. I've played pretty much since release. It's not a new observation. When I'm a player in a free-roam campaign with a rigid DM, I don't play martials.


[QUOTE=Skylivedk;24085820]
And I guess you need a lesson in etiquette to avoid coming off as a condescending high schooler.


They were making a light hearted remark about how you may find better responses by changing the query and/or forum you post in to be a more accurate and succinct question (see below). Attacking them like this for attempting to be helpful to you shows that you aren't really here for help, you're here for validation.


Except you did not.

You asked about 1/4th to nearly half the recipes in the book in broad, sweeping terms, asserting that there was a problem with the underlying mechanics.

Even if there wasn't an assertion in the core premise that people disagree with, what counts as 'martial' has been heavily disputed in this thread, with the half casters going into a very grey area. When there's not a clear, laser focus in the core ideas, you can hardly blame a herd of cats for trying to clarify the question.

"The Rogue in my Tier 3 low-magic-item westmarches game is starting to feel overshadowed by the wizards in the area, but doesn't want to retire his character. What should we do?" is the question that is (at least to the perspective of the average forum-goer), closer to what you're wanting to ask. It speaks to one recipe/class (Rogue), a specific game style/cooking style (extremely player-driven with several DMs, whose interpretations of the rules may be inconsistent), speaks to a specific problem (lack of agency-granting high-tier abilities in martial classes), and implores creative solutions.

The advantage to making a separate thread instead of hijacking an existing, broad one is that (a) it gets more views, rather than a long thread that mostly pulls in repeated view points; (b) attracts more fans of crème brulée and their experiences, rather than people who simply enjoy vanilla; and (c) constrains the scope of how far the conversation will wander.

Why do people answer this way? Well, I can't speak to everyone else, but why I do it:
1. Because you're clearly frustrated. You're not sure why your questions are getting side-tracked or going wrong, and because I genuinely want to help, but because of lack of text and cultural divide, my words aren't seeming to reach you.
2. Because reframing the question to a more abstract one can demonstrate the differences in our perceptions and lead to a better understanding of a larger problem.
3. Because I come on this forum to help people in general and give ideas. When I give my time and energy entirely to help someone else for free and fun, and somehow no one involved is helped, gets ideas, or has fun, then there's a problem and I want to fix it.

[Reevh]

My DM typically has 5-8 encounters in an adventuring day. The casters typically have to conserve their spells as much as possible in the earlier encounters, while the melee goes nuts.

[Great Dragon]

Now, I didn't play Pathfinder (or 4e D&D), but looking PF over, it looked about the same as 3x D&D. Where enough was changed that I would have had to actually played it to find the Loopholes.



Sadly the 5e design space is that DM fiat is the game. It comes with the territory.

I don't know enough about Eberron or Ravnica to comment.

Ok. I don't know about anyone else:
But 5e having Rules for the things usually used in the game (Combat), and only basic (if sometimes vague) "guidelines" (Exploration) for things that might be rather rare in their games (Social Encounters/Challenges are rather hard for me to fit into a single game session) is actually something I very much like.

To me, both DM Fiat and Railroading are effectively the same: the DM just decided what was going to happen, and then not allowing any other outcome.

But, I suppose that as the DM, my changing an otherwise boring Roll or Event to be more interesting for those playing, could be considered Fiat.

And changing the actions of the BBEG and Minions to where they are still Encountered by the Party (even with changes in who is Encountered, and what they have, and even why they are there) might still be considered a type of Railroading.


*****
@Trickery: Skill Tricks are interesting, but should be something that is added to basic 5e skills, preferably not locked behind a specific build or class. And a feat shouldn't be required.

I might understand some of your frustration:
Back when I first joined, I made a thread complaining about how Thieves Tools worked in 5e, and that by simply taking one of two Backgrounds and maxing their Dex, anyone could match the Rogue in their use, unless said Rogue used Expertise.

And to me, even a six point difference (at 17th level) really wasn't very impressive. Especially if the DM is going by Bounded Accuracy and there aren't any DCs above 20. Even without Expertise, but with Reliable Talent, having a +11 means that I can't fail.

For the 11th level Rogue, extra points in Thieves Tools are just wasted (even in Stealth - unless going for the Ultimate Sneak - since normally only beating Passive Perception/s is required) and it's better to put Expertise in something that is opposed: like Insight or Deception (or both) or Persuasion; or Perception (plus Alert) to foil Ambushing Assassins.

Now, I do agree that a Warrior with 20 Str and is proficient in Athletics or with 20 Dex and is proficient in Acrobatics, really shouldn't need to even roll to do much of anything that requires those, unless there is something that makes doing them difficult.


I don't have a problem with allowing more animals.

(I find the "joke" that because the RAW only says "tiny sized creature" (and not a CR or HD limit) that a CR 18 Demilich can be a familiar, very irritating.)

If you're really having problems with this, I suggest the following:

(1) take the 3x rule of only getting one CR 0.25 or less animal with this spell - that can never be changed - but allow that recasting the spell will bring back the (same) Familiar if killed.

(2) perhaps looking back at what the cost was for getting a familiar in older Editions of D&D, and applying that, and that these are consumed.
I'll see if I can find that info and edit it in.

(3) if you don't want someone to be able to get Find Familiar with a Feat, the easiest way would be to make it a 2nd level spell.

(3a) Making Find Familiar only available as a Ritual would limit Familiars to Bards, Wizards and Chain Warlocks.


It probably has to do with who I play with but i have never, in any edition seen an argument break out at the table over DC numbers.

I have seen Rule Lawyers use a listed number for something - stating that by rolling high enough, their Character succeeds, despite any "mitigating modifiers', or not being proficient and having a Dump stat.


Creativity comes from operating within known boundaries, not from wandering off on an infinite plain.

See, here is where I'm weird.
Known boundaries are used to make new possibilities. This just creats a different boundary.

This is why I normally use Success Levels in my game: with each level giving more effect and flexibility.

But, I really can't imagine a truly infinite plain.

[Skylivedk]

Originally Posted by The pastry fan board
"Vanilla cake has absolutely no chocolate in it. Whatsoever. How do I change vanilla to be more like chocolate, so that everyone has chocolate cake?"

"Have you considered letting people enjoy their vanilla cake?"

"No, answer the question."

"But vanilla is fine!"

"I didn't ask if it was fine, I asked how to change it. You're not helping."

"You could add chocolate frosting."

"That does not change the fact that I want vanilla to be more chocolate. You can already add chocolate frosting to chocolate cake."
I suspect that you'll get better responses on the pastry chef board.


They were making a light hearted remark about how you may find better responses by changing the query and/or forum you post in to be a more accurate and succinct question (see below). Attacking them like this for attempting to be helpful to you shows that you aren't really here for help, you're here for validation.

On re-reading it, I can see, I misinterpreted where he was going with Pastry-Chef part For some reason this being (what I know guess to be) an allusion to the Homebrew forum escaped me. M'bad. Maybe tired/distracted/too used to the blue give aways. My sincere apologies to Fable Wright.



Which I've refuted with the fact that while spells are self-contained features, martial features tend to build off of their previous features, so reading the description of a spell is much more exciting that reading the description of a martial ability because you don't typically read the description of the ability in tandem with the other abilities you have at that level.
I addressed that in detail in post #191. We might just disagree. I still don't see it. Most martials[1] are locked by feats and early choices to a much higher degree, significant amounts of their power are feat dependent and deviation from combat power comes at the cost of combat power to a much higher/less flexible degree. A Wizard/Sorcerer can upcast spells to fill in (especially in combat), martials[1] are locked in their choice on the utility-deadly scale and most of the time can not change due to those changes being feats, fighting styles, skills and choice of features. Ie. a caster can change/pick new spells every level (if they need to, meaning do not have access to all) while a Battlemaster is locked with manoeuvres, a Barbarian with their totem choice etc. I know a spell-caster is equally locked in feats and skill, but they can more easily compensate or emphasise their weaknesses and strengths through spell-selection.



You asked about 1/4th to nearly half the recipes in the book in broad, sweeping terms, asserting that there was a problem with the underlying mechanics.

Even if there wasn't an assertion in the core premise that people disagree with, what counts as 'martial' has been heavily disputed in this thread, with the half casters going into a very grey area. When there's not a clear, laser focus in the core ideas, you can hardly blame a herd of cats for trying to clarify the question.

So my [1]: I can't find the post now, but early on, I put martials as being those not relying on magic for their key functions; I counted everyone with no magic, and everyone below half-casters. Half-casters were somewhere in-between, but depending on the way their spell-casting work would tilt to one end (ie Ranger to martials since they didn't have the flexibility) or to the other (Paladin to the other with full spell-list access). I agree it's not a great way of distinguishing classes. I did single out 4-5 full-casters as being way more flexible and gaining power at incrementally bigger jumps due to how spell levels work.



"The Rogue in my Tier 3 low-magic-item westmarches game is starting to feel overshadowed by the wizards in the area, but doesn't want to retire his character. What should we do?" is the question that is (at least to the perspective of the average forum-goer), closer to what you're wanting to ask. It speaks to one recipe/class (Rogue), a specific game style/cooking style (extremely player-driven with several DMs, whose interpretations of the rules may be inconsistent), speaks to a specific problem (lack of agency-granting high-tier abilities in martial classes), and implores creative solutions.
I understand that this is an approach that would solve a problem with one character. I've had this challenge across more or less all of my campaigns. As a DM, I've solved it by changing fiction, feats, skills, allowing more re-training and compromising the safety of casters (one campaign). The more free roam, the bigger the adjustments I (felt I) had to make.

As a player with a DM still slightly stuck in a 3x/PF-mindset, I ended up just giving up on the endeavour and going for a caster with comparable functionality in terms of front-lining, but with an ever-expanding option pool in the shape of spells (Hexblade). I could perfectly tank and often better than a tanky non-magical class and I still had flexibility to NOT do it and Fly us across chasms to build a rope bridge, Dimension Door an ally to safety (or to abuse how Dimension Door works in certain parts of ToA).



The advantage to making a separate thread instead of hijacking an existing, broad one is that (a) it gets more views, rather than a long thread that mostly pulls in repeated view points; (b) attracts more fans of crème brulée and their experiences, rather than people who simply enjoy vanilla; and (c) constrains the scope of how far the conversation will wander.
I'm not sure what you address here. Are you implying I'm hijacking the thread? I think both I (and OP judging by his statements) have felt the thread has been hijacked by another discussion than what was originally intended. As mentioned, I'm not sure where the line goes between Homebrew Forum and 5e Forum. To me, it's a distinct 5e problem that I've encountered repeatedly.



Why do people answer this way? Well, I can't speak to everyone else, but why I do it:
1. Because you're clearly frustrated. You're not sure why your questions are getting side-tracked or going wrong, and because I genuinely want to help, but because of lack of text and cultural divide, my words aren't seeming to reach you.
2. Because reframing the question to a more abstract one can demonstrate the differences in our perceptions and lead to a better understanding of a larger problem.
3. Because I come on this forum to help people in general and give ideas. When I give my time and energy entirely to help someone else for free and fun, and somehow no one involved is helped, gets ideas, or has fun, then there's a problem and I want to fix it.
And I thank you for your willingness to help - and once again pardon for the angry pastry backlash. I very much enjoyed your Dragonslaying Greatbow Harpoon - and the Adamantite axe (can't remember if it was yours). Those are good examples of what I was (also) looking for. I was hoping also for some directions to tested homebrew (but that probably belongs in the Pastry-Chef Forum ;) ) and examples of how people integrate faction building and how/why martials (fighters/barbarians/rogues) are better at it than Sorcerers/Bards with a towering persuasion check.

[Great Dragon]

examples of how people integrate faction building and how/why martials (fighters/barbarians/rogues) are better at it than Sorcerers/Bards with a towering persuasion check.

One of the things that I've always thought is that "Type attracts Type."

Thus, even though the Bard is a most convincing talker (Expertise in Persuasion), The Barbarian PC is more likely to impress the Savage Tribe, and thus be able to (with some RP and at least a decent roll) convince them to maybe come and help kill that pesky Dragon.

The Fighter can easily convince those Town Guards/Soldiers that they don't need to worry about the Party.

The Rogue can get otherwise secret information with their contacts.

Now, be a little fair.
The Wizard shouldn't have to make a lot of high DC Cha checks to get into the Mage's Guild or the local Library.

[Waazraath]

One of the things that I've always thought is that "Type attracts Type."

Thus, even though the Bard is a most convincing talker (Expertise in Persuasion), The Barbarian PC is more likely to impress the Savage Tribe, and thus be able to (with some RP and at least a decent roll) convince them to maybe come and help kill that pesky Dragon.

The Fighter can easily convince those Town Guards/Soldiers that they don't need to worry about the Party.

The Rogue can get otherwise secret information with their contacts.

Now, be a little fair.
The Wizard shouldn't have to make a lot of high DC Cha checks to get into the Mage's Guild or the local Library.

This is my experience as well, and makes imo sense from a RP / versimilitude perspective as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the things that I've always thought is that "Type attracts Type."

Thus, even though the Bard is a most convincing talker (Expertise in Persuasion), The Barbarian PC is more likely to impress the Savage Tribe, and thus be able to (with some RP and at least a decent roll) convince them to maybe come and help kill that pesky Dragon.

The Fighter can easily convince those Town Guards/Soldiers that they don't need to worry about the Party.

The Rogue can get otherwise secret information with their contacts.

Now, be a little fair.
The Wizard shouldn't have to make a lot of high DC Cha checks to get into the Mage's Guild or the local Library.

This is basically how I play. The person who the NPCs approach or are willing to listen to will depend on who they are. Always sending "the face" to go talk to people can backfire.

Take, for instance, my current group. The nominal face is a goblin bard. When dealing with the faction in the area that is currently at odds with the local goblin tribes, that bard will be a liability not an asset. His high CHA (etc) can mitigate that, but putting him front-and-center will be a bad thing. One party member is a water genasi tempest cleric. When dealing with the group of triton crusaders (who have setting-based connections to the genasi's home area), they're going to talk to him and basically ignore everyone else unless they do something to tick the group off. Etc.

Same with "knowledge" checks. I keep track of who the characters are, and assign checks (assuming they have a chance to talk about it) to the person most likely to have heard about the thing before. Sure, your wizard knows a lot about history in general, but the person from the tribe who served the BBEG at one time is much more likely to know details about plans and things and is going to get asked to make the check if the party wants to know. Etc.

On the flip side, I'm very generous with "baseline" knowledge and actions. If there's even a decent chance the character would know something or be able to do it, and there aren't dramatic, immediate consequences for a single failure, they'll do it/know it. At least to some degree. And with knowledge checks, they're usually degrees of success. Even on a low roll you'll get something, with higher rolls getting more information or more pertinent information.

[Nagog]

I addressed that in detail in post #191. We might just disagree. I still don't see it. Most martials[1] are locked by feats and early choices to a much higher degree, significant amounts of their power are feat dependent and deviation from combat power comes at the cost of combat power to a much higher/less flexible degree. A Wizard/Sorcerer can upcast spells to fill in (especially in combat), martials[1] are locked in their choice on the utility-deadly scale and most of the time can not change due to those changes being feats, fighting styles, skills and choice of features. Ie. a caster can change/pick new spells every level (if they need to, meaning do not have access to all) while a Battlemaster is locked with manoeuvres, a Barbarian with their totem choice etc. I know a spell-caster is equally locked in feats and skill, but they can more easily compensate or emphasise their weaknesses and strengths through spell-selection.


I went back and looked at the build, and while it does beat out the barbarian, it also is fairly powerbuilt. Multiclassing to get AoA, Abjuration subclass (the subclass specifically built for tanking). Perhaps our definitions of powerbuilding are different though, so no biggie. My definition of powerbuilding is allowing the stats and numbers build the character for a specific purpose/role/end rather than the story and the character's personality allowing them to grow into new opportunities and options. I'd argue that an Abjurer Wizard/Warlock is fairly powerbuilt, especially for the purpose that you've set for them there. On that example as well, the caster now surpasses the Barbarian in terms of HP after building themselves like that, but that's taking the bare bones example of a Barbarian and one aspect of said Barbarian. Armor/weapon proficiency, tank support abilities (meaning not just taking hits, but preventing others from bypassing you to your weaker back line), Str-based checks/skills, etc.

[Nhorianscum]

I went back and looked at the build, and while it does beat out the barbarian, it also is fairly powerbuilt. Multiclassing to get AoA, Abjuration subclass (the subclass specifically built for tanking). Perhaps our definitions of powerbuilding are different though, so no biggie. My definition of powerbuilding is allowing the stats and numbers build the character for a specific purpose/role/end rather than the story and the character's personality allowing them to grow into new opportunities and options. I'd argue that an Abjurer Wizard/Warlock is fairly powerbuilt, especially for the purpose that you've set for them there. On that example as well, the caster now surpasses the Barbarian in terms of HP after building themselves like that, but that's taking the bare bones example of a Barbarian and one aspect of said Barbarian. Armor/weapon proficiency, tank support abilities (meaning not just taking hits, but preventing others from bypassing you to your weaker back line), Str-based checks/skills, etc.

*Points to out-the-box moon druids and HAM Clerics*

It's like fully optimized barbarian, except better in every way.

[Fable Wright]

I'm not sure what you address here. Are you implying I'm hijacking the thread? I think both I (and OP judging by his statements) have felt the thread has been hijacked by another discussion than what was originally intended. As mentioned, I'm not sure where the line goes between Homebrew Forum and 5e Forum. To me, it's a distinct 5e problem that I've encountered repeatedly.

You have a concurring opinion to the OP, in that you agree that there should be a change, but you differ in your reasons. OP, as topic leader, early on steered the discussion to mechanical numbers favoring casters, and when you aimed for difference in ability to shape a narrative. You're both trying to talk to two different aspects of the same root problem, generating interference.



And I thank you for your willingness to help - and once again pardon for the angry pastry backlash. I very much enjoyed your Dragonslaying Greatbow Harpoon - and the Adamantite axe (can't remember if it was yours). Those are good examples of what I was (also) looking for. I was hoping also for some directions to tested homebrew (but that probably belongs in the Pastry-Chef Forum ;) ) and examples of how people integrate faction building and how/why martials (fighters/barbarians/rogues) are better at it than Sorcerers/Bards with a towering persuasion check.

Both were mine, yes.

My experience is that Homebrew is better for refining ideas, and 5e is better for finding real play experience to generate ideas. What I would recommend to solve the narrative problem is, say, start a new thread. "Paragon Paths in 5e." 4e had a feature of that name for levels 11-20, and it was one of its better ideas, baking flavorful abilities into a class.

In it, I'd outline the goal: Noncombat features on levels 11, 13, 15, and 17 that act as higher level background features. If you follow the path of the kensei, you can get abilities to interact with religious people and perhaps nobles without dice rolls; get followers; call duels that even a dragon would heed.

State that they are designed primarily to give characters narrative agency in higher level games without needing to use spell slots, and aim to gear them more towards replicating downtime spell utility with things like explicit options to hire X CR mercenary at Y price. Both a fighter and a Wizard CAN take it... but it expands the Fighter's options more.

When you get enough ideas, write 2-3 out fully, make a Homebrew thread asking for more paths and refinements, then probably crosspost to Reddit to try and get more traction. Hopefully you'll come out with enough Paragon Paths to try out in a full game, and see if it improves the experience.

[Nagog]

*Points to out-the-box moon druids and HAM Clerics*

It's like fully optimized barbarian, except better in every way.

Except not. HAM scales out of being feat-worthy in late Tier 1, and while Wild Shape gives you a decent chunk of effective HP, that's essentially all you are: a mobile wall of HP. Depending on your shape, you may be able to deal some damage here or there, but nowhere near what a Barbarian can dish out. Keep in mind that Beasts are meant to be pitted against players, and players, as a general rule, are glass cannons. Meaning most enemy stat blocks consist of a large chunk of Effective HP and a few attacks that are good with their attack bonus and not so great with their effective damage.

Compared to Barbarians, which get full on Resistance. Halved damage. 100 damage becomes 50, no questions asked. HAM turns 100 into 93, which will still one-shot your cleric. Moon Druids, even with their buff to their Wildshape CR, still never quite reach the pinnacle of Beasts, the T-Rex. Also, the oft-forgotten drawback to Wild Shape: you can only assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. So unless you're DM allows you to visit the Zoo at some point in your campaign, your wild shape is extremely limited.

[JNAProductions]

Except not. HAM scales out of being feat-worthy in late Tier 1, and while Wild Shape gives you a decent chunk of effective HP, that's essentially all you are: a mobile wall of HP. Depending on your shape, you may be able to deal some damage here or there, but nowhere near what a Barbarian can dish out. Keep in mind that Beasts are meant to be pitted against players, and players, as a general rule, are glass cannons. Meaning most enemy stat blocks consist of a large chunk of Effective HP and a few attacks that are good with their attack bonus and not so great with their effective damage.

Compared to Barbarians, which get full on Resistance. Halved damage. 100 damage becomes 50, no questions asked. HAM turns 100 into 93, which will still one-shot your cleric. Moon Druids, even with their buff to their Wildshape CR, still never quite reach the pinnacle of Beasts, the T-Rex. Also, the oft-forgotten drawback to Wild Shape and Polymorph: you can only assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. So unless you're DM allows you to visit the Zoo at some point in your campaign, your wild shape is extremely limited.

I wouldn't call "Have seen it before" a real limitation. Druids are nature folk, and at least for me, I assume PCs are competent. So any of the forms in the PHB would be available to a Druid in my game, barring some REALLY unusual circumstances.

Agreed that a HAM Cleric or a Moon Druid cannot properly replace everything a Barb can do, though.

[Reevh]

I wouldn't call "Have seen it before" a real limitation. Druids are nature folk, and at least for me, I assume PCs are competent. So any of the forms in the PHB would be available to a Druid in my game, barring some REALLY unusual circumstances.

Agreed that a HAM Cleric or a Moon Druid cannot properly replace everything a Barb can do, though.

I think it's reasonable in many campaigns to suggest that the druid has never seen a dinorsaur, but I don't think that should stop them from being able to take advantage of the mechanics of that beast. I think as a DM, I'd let the player reskin the dinosaur as an equivalent beast that makes sense for the stat block that they'd be more likely to see in the place they're from (and of course anything they've seen along the way in the adventure).

[Nagog]

I wouldn't call "Have seen it before" a real limitation. Druids are nature folk, and at least for me, I assume PCs are competent. So any of the forms in the PHB would be available to a Druid in my game, barring some REALLY unusual circumstances.

Agreed that a HAM Cleric or a Moon Druid cannot properly replace everything a Barb can do, though.


I think it's reasonable in many campaigns to suggest that the druid has never seen a dinorsaur, but I don't think that should stop them from being able to take advantage of the mechanics of that beast. I think as a DM, I'd let the player reskin the dinosaur as an equivalent beast that makes sense for the stat block that they'd be more likely to see in the place they're from (and of course anything they've seen along the way in the adventure).

I've mostly seen it limited to what kind of animals are native to your home biome/region, with the addition of any you find along the way. In any case, a Dino of any sort would be DM Fiat, which could also go to the Barbarian for a magic item of equivalent value.

[Skylivedk]

I went back and looked at the build, and while it does beat out the barbarian, it also is fairly powerbuilt. Multiclassing to get AoA, Abjuration subclass (the subclass specifically built for tanking). Perhaps our definitions of powerbuilding are different though, so no biggie. My definition of powerbuilding is allowing the stats and numbers build the character for a specific purpose/role/end rather than the story and the character's personality allowing them to grow into new opportunities and options. I'd argue that an Abjurer Wizard/Warlock is fairly powerbuilt, especially for the purpose that you've set for them there. On that example as well, the caster now surpasses the Barbarian in terms of HP after building themselves like that, but that's taking the bare bones example of a Barbarian and one aspect of said Barbarian. Armor/weapon proficiency, tank support abilities (meaning not just taking hits, but preventing others from bypassing you to your weaker back line), Str-based checks/skills, etc.

Armour and weapon proficiencies are given by Hexblade. If you cheese it up (and at this point, why not), grab Spirit Guardians from Ravnica's Orzhov background (yeah, I wouldn't allow it either). Your ward can help others. You're still almost a full caster so ignoring you is hard. You have Web, Grease, Counterspell, Fear etc. and Booming Blade to keep people away. If you roll stats and roll well, you can even do the build with a Conquest Paladin 3/6 and deep gnome Abjurer X with the racial feat to charge the ward.


You have a concurring opinion to the OP, in that you agree that there should be a change, but you differ in your reasons. OP, as topic leader, early on steered the discussion to mechanical numbers favoring casters, and when you aimed for difference in ability to shape a narrative. You're both trying to talk to two different aspects of the same root problem, generating interference.



Both were mine, yes.

My experience is that Homebrew is better for refining ideas, and 5e is better for finding real play experience to generate ideas. What I would recommend to solve the narrative problem is, say, start a new thread. "Paragon Paths in 5e." 4e had a feature of that name for levels 11-20, and it was one of its better ideas, baking flavorful abilities into a class.

In it, I'd outline the goal: Noncombat features on levels 11, 13, 15, and 17 that act as higher level background features. If you follow the path of the kensei, you can get abilities to interact with religious people and perhaps nobles without dice rolls; get followers; call duels that even a dragon would heed.

State that they are designed primarily to give characters narrative agency in higher level games without needing to use spell slots, and aim to gear them more towards replicating downtime spell utility with things like explicit options to hire X CR mercenary at Y price. Both a fighter and a Wizard CAN take it... but it expands the Fighter's options more.

When you get enough ideas, write 2-3 out fully, make a Homebrew thread asking for more paths and refinements, then probably crosspost to Reddit to try and get more traction. Hopefully you'll come out with enough Paragon Paths to try out in a full game, and see if it improves the experience.

Thanks, I really like your approach. With sessions rare for me, it will be a while. First I probably need a forum break, then redesign the end of Storm King's Thunder for my oldest Campaign and update a few builds in LudicSavant's threat. I might also choose to treat a new system that handles magic differently from the ground up and hopefully in general is a bit more varied in the early levels.


Except not. HAM scales out of being feat-worthy in late Tier 1, and while Wild Shape gives you a decent chunk of effective HP, that's essentially all you are: a mobile wall of HP. Depending on your shape, you may be able to deal some damage here or there, but nowhere near what a Barbarian can dish out. Keep in mind that Beasts are meant to be pitted against players, and players, as a general rule, are glass cannons. Meaning most enemy stat blocks consist of a large chunk of Effective HP and a few attacks that are good with their attack bonus and not so great with their effective damage.

Compared to Barbarians, which get full on Resistance. Halved damage. 100 damage becomes 50, no questions asked. HAM turns 100 into 93, which will still one-shot your cleric. Moon Druids, even with their buff to their Wildshape CR, still never quite reach the pinnacle of Beasts, the T-Rex. Also, the oft-forgotten drawback to Wild Shape and Polymorph: you can only assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. So unless you're DM allows you to visit the Zoo at some point in your campaign, your wild shape is extremely limited.
I hope he meant early and late levels... At early levels most classes have a hard time matching the bear in hp and melee damage potential. AFAIK, you basically need a vHuman to do it. Wildshape

[Nhorianscum]

Except not. HAM scales out of being feat-worthy in late Tier 1, and while Wild Shape gives you a decent chunk of effective HP, that's essentially all you are: a mobile wall of HP. Depending on your shape, you may be able to deal some damage here or there, but nowhere near what a Barbarian can dish out. Keep in mind that Beasts are meant to be pitted against players, and players, as a general rule, are glass cannons. Meaning most enemy stat blocks consist of a large chunk of Effective HP and a few attacks that are good with their attack bonus and not so great with their effective damage.

Compared to Barbarians, which get full on Resistance. Halved damage. 100 damage becomes 50, no questions asked. HAM turns 100 into 93, which will still one-shot your cleric. Moon Druids, even with their buff to their Wildshape CR, still never quite reach the pinnacle of Beasts, the T-Rex. Also, the oft-forgotten drawback to Wild Shape and Polymorph: you can only assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. So unless you're DM allows you to visit the Zoo at some point in your campaign, your wild shape is extremely limited.

You're right, clearly cleric and druid scale more slowly than barbarian after tier 1.

Additionally it's clear that neither class has any way of gaining resistance.

Edit: Poly does not require seeing a thing(?)

[OverLordOcelot]

I think it's reasonable in many campaigns to suggest that the druid has never seen a dinorsaur, but I don't think that should stop them from being able to take advantage of the mechanics of that beast. I think as a DM, I'd let the player reskin the dinosaur as an equivalent beast that makes sense for the stat block that they'd be more likely to see in the place they're from (and of course anything they've seen along the way in the adventure).

Seeing creatures is only a problem pre-polymorph, once you have polymorph you can poly someone into a creature to see it as polymorph doesn't have that limitation. If you're able to pick creatures for conjure animals, you can make a point to conjure things you want to turn into. Also once you T3 and T4, my experience as a moon druid is that I only used beasts for fun stuff, as elemental forms are just so good for combat (immune to grapple and able to move through enemy spaces is extremely good) and don't require you to have seen them. Yeah, a mammoth or triceratops has a lot of HP, but it's also a huge creature so anytime you're indoors or passing through a human sized portal or whatever you get stuck.

[Nagog]

You're right, clearly cleric and druid scale more slowly than barbarian after tier 1.

Additionally it's clear that neither class has any way of gaining resistance.

Edit: Poly does not require seeing a thing(?)

Sorry, I mistook that. I'll update it!