Unpopuler view casters vs martial

[KaussH]

So, personly i think the issue with the dnd progression of casters and martial is less one of power creep and more one of weakness loss.
Early martial weaknesses
Need armor
Need weapon
Need better weapon for many monsters
Super focused on combat.
Low starting saves


Modern martial
Most weaknessrs remain the same.

Early casters ( not so much clerics as they were more caster/martials who had slow spells)
No/very limited armor
Poor combat scores
Low hit points
Limited spell per day and overall
Spells easy to interupt in combat
Getting spells hard and gm limited
Out of spells then super limited combat ability
Cant cast some/all spells without freedom of movement/speaking/components/hands.

Modern casters

Pretty much every above weakness is gone or easy to fix.


So i the past, outside combat casters had a lot of flexability. In combat they were super glass canons who needed a party to live and cast.
Now casters can solo as a group in combat and get spells off with ease, and retain all out of combat use.

The tl'dr version, removing so many caster weaknesses is what makes them op now, its less power creep and more " i don't want a hindered charicter in any way"
Heck the ability to pick freely spells can be unbalancing for games where the gm doesnt know some synergy tricks.

So if you want to balance the classes. You may want to look at weaknesses not powers.

If (for example) fighters lost the ability to be disarmed and could save to "protect a weapon from harm) and got bonuses above the base level of armor to ac ( like +1 unarmered, +2 light, +4 medium, +6 heavy) the balance would swing a lot. Or just give casters half their weaknesses back :)

Just my 2 cents

[Khedrac]

Note, the following only really refers to various versions of D&D - other systems have a similar disparity, but it can be for very very different reasons!

I think there's a lot of truth in what you are saying, and I do like your analysis of where the problem has come from, however, I think you failed to carry your analysis method far enough:

One of the main complaints about casters vs mundanes in 3.X D&D is that there is a spell for everything (making mundanes redundant).

{In fact looking at 3.5 there have been so many new spells published (as in nearly all the books have new spells as it is an easy way to include player content) probably the best starting move for balance that can be made is to drastically reduce spell availability.}

What this means that is with your buffs to martials many standard resource spells (flight etc.) are still missing from the mundane's capabilities so while they are less weak, they are still at the mercy of most casters.
Carrying on your logic of balance by looking at weaknesses, the answer could be to re-introduce weaknesses to casters...
Take arcane spell failure chance - no-one playing a caster who actually plans to cast in combat ever plays with a non-0 ASF - it's just not worth the risk; add in the fact that there are now so many ways to give casters a decent AC or miss chance (and it is often a better one than the martials while boosting touch AC too) and it's often martials that are weak on defence. Potential solution - remove most of the ways to magically boost AC - if you want a good armor class wear armor with the associated risks.

[Keltest]

Personally, i think a significant amount of spellcaster power is only theoretical. The ceiling for ideal situations for them is significantly higher, but how many people can actually say they've seen them in game?

Lets take Polymorph, for example, since that that tends to be one of the more popular examples for out of control spellcaster strength. On paper, you can pick some super obscure poorly balanced creature from a new sourcebook. In practice, the first thing the DM is going to ask is "how do you know what that is?", assuming they even let you draw from the sourcebook at all. And while there are certainly some core creatures that are still good to polymorph into, the overall point here is that people tend to dismiss the level of prep work and resources that would actually need to be invested to get a character to perform like that in an actual game whenever they theorycraft.

Which is not to say that martials are in an ideal spot right now, but wizards aren't as runaway powerful as people like to act.

[HouseRules]

Pre-3E Martial
Start with relatively Higher Saves than other classes in more relevant categories.
Saves grow faster than Spell Difficulty Class, as fast as base attack

Pre-3E Caster
No Concentration Skill, automatically fail any concentration check.
Always fail concentration check if take any damage.
10 segment round system, spells take a number of segments equal to the spell level, shifting initiative of characters.
Buff Spells have harsh penalties or costs.

Post-3E Martial
Start with low saves.
Saves do not grow the same pace as Base Attack Bonus.

Good Saves grow at the same pace as Spell Difficulty Class of Full Casters (with 8 or 9 spell levels).
Poor Saves grow at the same pace as Spell Difficulty Class of Partial Casters (with 6 or 7 spell levels).


Post-3E Caster
Concentration is a skill, and it is more likely to be successful.
Less spell failures, and fissile; also less spell interruption.
Buff Spells no longer have penalties or costs.

[LibraryOgre]

Pre-3E Martial
Start with relatively Higher Saves than other classes in more relevant categories.
Saves grow faster than Spell Difficulty Class, as fast as base attack

Pre-3E Caster
No Concentration Skill, automatically fail any concentration check.
Always fail concentration check if take any damage.
10 segment round system, spells take a number of segments equal to the spell level, shifting initiative of characters.
Buff Spells have harsh penalties or costs.


Also worth noting: Time.

An AD&D caster, at high levels, could take DAYS to recover all their spells. The idea of "going nova" or the "ten minute work day" simply couldn't happen in AD&D, because memorizing Teleport would take almost an hour; the idea that you could pop in, cast multiple high level spells in a few rounds, and then pop out, then repeat it again was not there.

[HouseRules]

Also worth noting: Time.

An AD&D caster, at high levels, could take DAYS to recover all their spells. The idea of "going nova" or the "ten minute work day" simply couldn't happen in AD&D, because memorizing Teleport would take almost an hour; the idea that you could pop in, cast multiple high level spells in a few rounds, and then pop out, then repeat it again was not there.

True, Casters are much weaker and also require more experience before 7th level.
Wizards achieve 8th level the same time Clerics achieve 7th because Wizard's 6th and 7th have lower requirements.

AD&D 1E requires for spell preparation

15 minutes per 1st level spell
30 minutes per 2nd level spell
45 minutes per 3rd level spell
60 minutes per 4th level spell
75 minutes per 5th level spell
90 minutes per 6th level spell
105 minutes per 7th level spell
120 minutes per 8th level spell
135 minutes per 9th level spell

AD&D 2E requires for spell preparation

10 minutes for all 1st level spells
20 minutes for all 2nd level spells
30 minutes for all 3rd level spells
40 minutes for all 4th level spells
50 minutes for all 5th level spells
60 minutes for all 6th level spells
70 minutes for all 7th level spells
80 minutes for all 8th level spells
90 minutes for all 9th level spells

The preparation time decreases over the edition evolution.

[DeTess]

So if you want to balance the classes. You may want to look at weaknesses not powers.


There is a bit of a problem with this, something that my group calls 'decker-syndrome', as it's something that's particularly noteworthy in shadowrun (and likely other modern and futuristic settings). Basically, if you've got one character that's really good at activity A, and really poor at activity B, and another character that's really bad at activity A and very good at activity B, then at any one time only one of these characters is actively playing. Reintroducing the caster weaknesses to make them a more 'out-of-combat' class is not going to solve all the issues. In the best case, it means that out-of-combat casters still do their thing, making mundanes not all that useful and basically spectators, and during combat, the situation is reversed. In the worst case, it's going to make things actively worse for martials, as the casters are now actively incentivized to arrange things so that combat doesn't happen at all, and they are likely to still have the tools they need to do so.

[KaussH]

There is a bit of a problem with this, something that my group calls 'decker-syndrome', as it's something that's particularly noteworthy in shadowrun (and likely other modern and futuristic settings). Basically, if you've got one character that's really good at activity A, and really poor at activity B, and another character that's really bad at activity A and very good at activity B, then at any one time only one of these characters is actively playing. Reintroducing the caster weaknesses to make them a more 'out-of-combat' class is not going to solve all the issues. In the best case, it means that out-of-combat casters still do their thing, making mundanes not all that useful and basically spectators, and during combat, the situation is reversed. In the worst case, it's going to make things actively worse for martials, as the casters are now actively incentivized to arrange things so that combat doesn't happen at all, and they are likely to still have the tools they need to do so.

Hence why role play and exploration are important. A wizard lacking spells in combat can still move and assist and rp and ect. They can also save spells for the right moments.
In town, everyone can rp
Meeting other people casters can use control spells and such, but its a limited resource, so talking works too.

The idea that every pc must be able to do something in each and every combat and non combat encounter mecanicly is silly. As least my 2 cents :)

[Faily]

Personally, i think a significant amount of spellcaster power is only theoretical. The ceiling for ideal situations for them is significantly higher, but how many people can actually say they've seen them in game?

Lets take Polymorph, for example, since that that tends to be one of the more popular examples for out of control spellcaster strength. On paper, you can pick some super obscure poorly balanced creature from a new sourcebook. In practice, the first thing the DM is going to ask is "how do you know what that is?", assuming they even let you draw from the sourcebook at all. And while there are certainly some core creatures that are still good to polymorph into, the overall point here is that people tend to dismiss the level of prep work and resources that would actually need to be invested to get a character to perform like that in an actual game whenever they theorycraft.

Which is not to say that martials are in an ideal spot right now, but wizards aren't as runaway powerful as people like to act.

This. This is pretty much my experience with casters at different tables.

People theorize a lot online about how awesome a caster can be, but the execution in play is a whole other story.

[JNAProductions]

Shouldn't this belong in the 3.5 forum?

[Ignimortis]

Shouldn't this belong in the 3.5 forum?

The issue still exists in D&D 5e, it's just less obvious.

[Composer99]

Hence why role play and exploration are important. A wizard lacking spells in combat can still move and assist and rp and ect. They can also save spells for the right moments.
In town, everyone can rp
Meeting other people casters can use control spells and such, but its a limited resource, so talking works too.

The idea that every pc must be able to do something in each and every combat and non combat encounter mecanicly is silly. As least my 2 cents :)

Every player character in any edition of D&D can contribute mechanically in almost any combat or non combat situation as it is.

Combat: Every PC can attack with a weapon. Some of them can even cast spells. Depending on edition, some of those spells might be cantrips of varying usefulness. Depending on edition, most or every PC has limited-use or at-will special abilities as well (D&D 4e being the most extreme example).

Non Combat: Every PC can keep an eye out for danger (which is often represented mechanically, especially in 3.X and subsequent editions of D&D). Every PC can interact with any given NPC, which is occasionally represented mechanically. There are a bunch of other things every PC can do, whether well or not. And some PCs can even cast spells that let them do things better, or do things they couldn't otherwise do (flying, teleporting, mind control, etc). Some non combat activities, especially in 3.X, are gated behind skill training, but it's not usually that onerous unless you're looking at epic uses of skills. For instance, it's not often the case that everyone can pick locks or disarm traps, but those activities in D&D aren't likely to fall foul of decker syndrome, insofar as they don't take up a lot of table time.

So what's so silly about expecting changes to the way the classes work to more or less keep this standard in place?

[oxybe]

The core problem is still "the fighter fights and... what else?"

While polymorphing into a Pock-speckled Albermung and confusing your GM with it's 3rd party borkedness is definitely one way of using it but "I turn into a bear and maul this guy" is a fine backup use, "I turn into a mouse to escape the prison" and "i turn into a hawk to spy on the enemy camp/escape pursuit" are also reasonable uses I can't see many DMs balking at.

The potential of casters is what makes them powerful and while many players effectively play them as walking grenade launchers, that's less a problem with the caster and more the player's preference.

Honestly I would prefer if we drew inspiration from the legendary warriors of myth and legend: from the more fanciful techniques like Son Wu Kong who could clone himself by plucking hairs off his head to MCU's Thor who originally traveled long distances by throwing his hammer and letting it carry him, make the fighter more then just a guy at the gym covered in a tin can.

Then again I usually prefer buffs over nerfs. Accept that end game D&D is effectively a game of titans duking it out with the mortals at stake, and make everyone awesome at the high end.

[KaussH]

Shouldn't this belong in the 3.5 forum?

Not really as its a 1st-5th comparative issue. Every edition spun how to fix things diffrently with varied sucsess. But removing weaknesses from casters was the most common event.

[Kaptin Keen]

The core problem is still "the fighter fights and... what else?"

The real core problem is that the fighter fights - but the wizard fights just as good, and the cleric fights better. With levels, of course. And preparation.

And the solution always seemed fairly simple to me: Make spellcasting stronger. Yea. Stronger, but specialized. So you can't do everything as a mage - you can do one thing, but with scary efficiency. Not, you know, one thing exclusively. I like how it's done in Dark Heresy (and WF, I guess, but I never play it). Imperial psykers get access a wide range of fairly low power common powers - and then need to pick a Discipline, where the real oomph is. But they get only one (well, they get more, later, but they never get all).

[KaussH]

The core problem is still "the fighter fights and... what else?"

While polymorphing into a Pock-speckled Albermung and confusing your GM with it's 3rd party borkedness is definitely one way of using it but "I turn into a bear and maul this guy" is a fine backup use, "I turn into a mouse to escape the prison" and "i turn into a hawk to spy on the enemy camp/escape pursuit" are also reasonable uses I can't see many DMs balking at.

The potential of casters is what makes them powerful and while many players effectively play them as walking grenade launchers, that's less a problem with the caster and more the player's preference.

Honestly I would prefer if we drew inspiration from the legendary warriors of myth and legend: from the more fanciful techniques like Son Wu Kong who could clone himself by plucking hairs off his head to MCU's Thor who originally traveled long distances by throwing his hammer and letting it carry him, make the fighter more then just a guy at the gym covered in a tin can.

Then again I usually prefer buffs over nerfs. Accept that end game D&D is effectively a game of titans duking it out with the mortals at stake, and make everyone awesome at the high end.

So back in the day, we had a joke comment about 1st ed fighters. Keep in mind they had great hp, great ac, great saves by the time they hit the 15-20 sweet spot.
"Walk off the 200 foot cliff, brush themselves off, fight the red dragon..."

Heck, used to be best way to destroy an army was a 20th level wizard... and the best way to kill that wizard was a 20th level fighter.

My overall point is, we removed the weaknesses from one side and not the other. If you really want to fix it by doing the same to martials it would work. Be a bit gonzo but..
Make fighters able to use all weapons with full bonuses, extend their tactics outside the battlefield ( abilites like read motive or sence combat power) make armor work better for them, re add the attract troops, ect). While not my taste (i like a little vulnerability and more human weaknesses in my sword and spell settings. Super hero's are a diff thing tho) it would fix the issues.

[Glorthindel]

Note, the following only really refers to various versions of D&D - other systems have a similar disparity, but it can be for very very different reasons!

I think there's a lot of truth in what you are saying, and I do like your analysis of where the problem has come from, however, I think you failed to carry your analysis method far enough:

One of the main complaints about casters vs mundanes in 3.X D&D is that there is a spell for everything (making mundanes redundant).


Actually, the OP cover that:



Getting spells hard and gm limited


Ultimately, there is only a "spell for everything" if a player can get hold of those spells. If no one teaches a specific spell, then it fundamentally doesn't exist. In older editions you could hold the leash as tight or as loose as you like, depending on what suits the game and the players; if the DM wanted to keep a specific spell that allowed a Wizard to overshadow another class, out of his hands, he could do so completely within the rules. But newer versions move a large part of the spell collection process over to the players, leaving the DM to actively houserule to remove a spell from their reach.

[DeTess]

The idea that every pc must be able to do something in each and every combat and non combat encounter mecanicly is silly. As least my 2 cents :)

So have you actually played a game in which characters specializing for one aspect of gameplay only is the norm? My group did enjoy Shadowrun, but we considered the way decker's specialized into their own niche that happened separate from everyone else a clear downside. Now, I might just be reading you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting moving the casters to an out-of-combat specialist role, which would necessarily mean that they're significantly better at it then non-casters, right? The point I'm making that designing a system where at any one time only a couple of characters are making significant mechanical contributions for a long period of time is not going to make for fun gameplay.

[Kardwill]

So have you actually played a game in which characters specializing for one aspect of gameplay only is the norm? My group did enjoy Shadowrun, but we considered the way decker's specialized into their own niche that happened separate from everyone else a clear downside. Now, I might just be reading you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting moving the casters to an out-of-combat specialist role, which would necessarily mean that they're significantly better at it then non-casters, right? The point I'm making that designing a system where at any one time only a couple of characters are making significant mechanical contributions for a long period of time is not going to make for fun gameplay.

At my table, that's called the Starfighter Pilot Syndrome. Your Star Wars character is a starfighter pilot that can fly circles around a squadron of Tie Fighters without breaking a sweat? Cool! But since he's the only real pilot in the group, anything that would be a challenge for him will transform the other characters into smears on the local asteroids. Thus, the Star Wars campaign will not include any serious space combat (or maybe just one, because the GM took pity). Thus, your character will suck, since you invested a big chunk of your character ressource in useless stuff.

Works for any game where you have to invest a significant chunk of character points/abilities/skill to create character specialised in a specific domain.

[oxybe]

My overall point is, we removed the weaknesses from one side and not the other. If you really want to fix it by doing the same to martials it would work. Be a bit gonzo but..

Make fighters able to use all weapons with full bonuses, extend their tactics outside the battlefield ( abilites like read motive or sence combat power) make armor work better for them, re add the attract troops, ect). While not my taste (i like a little vulnerability and more human weaknesses in my sword and spell settings. Super hero's are a diff thing tho) it would fix the issues.

Fighters need far more then just weapon use and armour though.

the practical dofferences between a carpenter's hammer and a sledge is largely one of scale, but boiled down, they're still just hammers.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the fighter is a terrible concept for a class.

As for the old edition Fighter V Wizard in older editions, it would depend on preparation time, magic items (not just weapons/armour/cloaks but also including potions/scrolls, etc) and spells the wizard has at his disposal.

Even assuming that the wizard has a terrible spell list prepared that basically reads "a couple of fly spells, some windwalls and all the magic missiles" a level 20 fighter caught unaware armed with only a +2 sword and +2 plate is a different beast than one who has the advantage and further equipped with winged boots and a potion of speed.

In short, most DMs and modules don't really optimize how cautious a high level wizard should likely be, but the D&D equivalent of "3 stock, 5min, no items, Fox only, final destination" is also not the point of the game.

Wizards, as written, have a bigger problem-solving toolkit then Fighters who are IMO overly focused.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison: the Fighter is a grillmaster dead set on making a juicy wagyu steak while the Wizard is a trained chef still at the supermarket deciding on if he's going to spluge on the wagyu or just take a lesser, but still nice, cut of meat and supplement it with potatoes and veg.

Meeting halfway is technically possible, and i'm sure some would argue that the current setup would be the middle, but IMO it would be better served to figure out which end of the game, tonally speaking, we want to play at: high powered everyone at high level is fantastically super powerful, or low powered everyone is more durable but their abilities are more grounded and less fantastic.

[Kaptin Keen]

I feel MMO's - or other types of computer games - are generally good yardsticks for what mundanes need in order to feel .. on par with casters. WoW has charge and heroic leap, abilities to disrupt spell casting and break debuffs, and so on, just as mages or warlocks or priests have a ton of tools to stay out of melee when they want to.

I actually despise pvp, so I'm hardly the expert, but still: I've played plenty of Warrior, and I've felt I had more than enough buttons to push to not feel inadequate =)

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, a lot to agree with on this thread.

I’ll start with a bit of confusion though, as I don’t know why the thread is titled, “Unpopuler view casters vs martial.” Outside of maybe alignment, the caster-martial disparity is probably the top issue people have with D&D and D&D-alikes. And amongst those that remember the TSR-era, that they’ve slowly added restrictions (perhaps in the name of ‘realism’) to martials while simultaneously removing the constraints on casters are the most recognized reasons for the increase in caster supremacy as the editions have gone on.


Carrying on your logic of balance by looking at weaknesses, the answer could be to re-introduce weaknesses to casters...

That would certainly be a solution. I want to point out, however, that the game changed from how it used to be for good reasons (mostly, exactly why fighters stopped having good saves, particularly versus magic, is an absolute mystery to me).

Many of the constraints were burdensome, often to the point that groups routinely ignored (and nothing is worse than a restraint you can’t or won’t use, as it gives the impression that the problem has been addressed, yet in play it still happens). The primary example is 1e initiative. Yes, it kept high level spells from routinely happening in combat… if people used it, but a huge number of game groups simply used B/X-style initiative or houserules simply because it was so cumbersome.

Others simply setup a gameplay style that either 1) people consistently chose not to work with, or 2) people no longer want out of their gaming. The primary example is the escape from the dungeon. Early D&D was designed around (at least at low levels when wizards have very few spells) crawling through dungeons full of 10’ wide corridors where it is easy to set up a defensive line. Because soldiers (party fighters, as well as clerics and henchmen/hireling, who are also part of this expected setup) could line up 3-abreast in a 10’ corrider, along with a second row of spear/polearm-users, and because missile weapons roll randomly for who is targeted if fired at such a formation, wizards can safely occupy the rear (excepting anyone serving rear-guard duty) position and expect relative safety*. The problem is that people routinely don’t want to be stuck in 10’ dungeon corridors anymore, and definitely don’t routinely like playing squad leaders, so much as heroes in a 4-6 strong party.
*note also that this position as vulnerable high-value asset makes the game all the more ‘about’ the magic user,

The tl/dr is that re-introducing constraints from the TSR-era is possible, but a lot of those restraints were removed for good reasons – they simply didn’t either rein in the actual power level or boost the non-casters at a sufficient rate to compensate.


Hence why role play and exploration are important.

But again, this is mitigating the problem by trying to impose a playstyle on peoples’ games. I am all for having my characters be realized, living characters with hopes and dreams and also to care about discovery as much as victory, but if someone else wants to run their game as a series of connected battles, the game system theoretically ought* to be balanced for both.
a super-loaded term, but you know what I mean

Regarding side comments others have made: DeTess, you are definitely right about ‘decker syndrome,’ but I think it can be extrapolated to a more general truism. Solving ‘XYZ is overpowered’ with constraints that make them either super-useless or super-vulnerable runs the risk of making the entire game all about finding ways to make them shine (be it focusing on decking missions, turning fighters into protectors/escorts for the oh-so-important fragile-but-powerful caster, or having casters nova and then run out and sleep until they are ready to run back into the dungeon and nova again). To Faily, I also notice that wizards-in-practice are highly different from wizards-in-principle. Oftentimes because the online assumption is that any situation, ‘the wizard will have foreseen that and _____,’ and that omits the fact that the wizard is played by a fallible human being. Heck, half the time the DM doesn’t have the next challenge planned until doing the prep work for this week’s game, so how exactly the wizard is supposed to know everything ahead of time is at best a ‘hope spot’ that you sometimes achieve.

[Rhedyn]

If you want to see a good balance point, check out Stars Without Number and Codex of the Black Sun.

These books address a lot of the concerns raised while still having casters be cool and fun to play. Like their spell list doesn't replace the mundane classes, they can instead do impossible things with their spells that add to the party rather than make some other party members useless. They do not get many spell slots, but spells can have very long effects. It also helps that it has a fleshed out magical research and magical crafting mechanic.

Although these books have a sci-fi bent, I have been tempted to run fantasy with them, but I can wait until the author releases his "Worlds Without Number" next year.

[KaussH]

So have you actually played a game in which characters specializing for one aspect of gameplay only is the norm? My group did enjoy Shadowrun, but we considered the way decker's specialized into their own niche that happened separate from everyone else a clear downside. Now, I might just be reading you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting moving the casters to an out-of-combat specialist role, which would necessarily mean that they're significantly better at it then non-casters, right? The point I'm making that designing a system where at any one time only a couple of characters are making significant mechanical contributions for a long period of time is not going to make for fun gameplay.

I have indeed played a number of games like that, and to be honest the decker effect is more like the scout leaving the party and playing by themselves.
This would not force casters to be out of combat only, it would restore weaknesses to them in combat. Aka safer to use magic outside combat. Also explanes why npc casters dont rule the world.

As i said however, even with weaknesses casters still can do combat, so its not the same at all. Being forced to save a spell, or use a poor weapon isnt the same as not playing at all.

[Psyren]

I feel MMO's - or other types of computer games - are generally good yardsticks for what mundanes need in order to feel .. on par with casters. WoW has charge and heroic leap, abilities to disrupt spell casting and break debuffs, and so on, just as mages or warlocks or priests have a ton of tools to stay out of melee when they want to.

I actually despise pvp, so I'm hardly the expert, but still: I've played plenty of Warrior, and I've felt I had more than enough buttons to push to not feel inadequate =)

WoW has just as much disparity though, it's just that the players don't have access to any of it because the game has next to no utility magic. Tabletop doesn't really have that luxury - not unless you're going for 4e levels of disinterest in non-combat magic, anyway.

Consider any of the major lore casters and their feats for example - Velen shielding the Exodar's entire population during the Legion attack, Malfurion holding Darkshore together during the Cataclysm, Talanji invoking her loa to sink an entire Alliance fleet, or literally anything Jaina and Medivh do. Compare their feats to high-level martials like Saurfang, Greymane and Varian - their accomplishments are nowhere near each other. Again, this doesn't come up in WoW's combat-focused gameplay, but in a tabletop adaptation of Warcraft it absolutely would.


If you want to see a good balance point, check out Stars Without Number and Codex of the Black Sun.

These books address a lot of the concerns raised while still having casters be cool and fun to play. Like their spell list doesn't replace the mundane classes, they can instead do impossible things with their spells that add to the party rather than make some other party members useless. They do not get many spell slots, but spells can have very long effects. It also helps that it has a fleshed out magical research and magical crafting mechanic.

Although these books have a sci-fi bent, I have been tempted to run fantasy with them, but I can wait until the author releases his "Worlds Without Number" next year.

This is definitely a lot easier to balance in science-fantasy. "Mundane" classes can utilize technology to keep pace with magic, and in a magic + high-tech world, it makes sense that technological solutions to magical problems/threats would be devised. Star Wars and Starfinder are good examples of this too.

In regular fantasy, the only plausible counter to magic is more magic, barring setting quirks like special materials or alchemy interfering with it, and that plausibility more than anything is what leads to the disparity. (Keep in mind that I don't consider caster-martial disparity to be an inherently bad thing either., as long as the gap isn't too wide in most games.)

[Willie the Duck]

In regular fantasy, the only plausible counter to magic is more magic, barring setting quirks like special materials or alchemy interfering with it, and that plausibility more than anything is what leads to the disparity. (Keep in mind that I don't consider caster-martial disparity to be an inherently bad thing either., as long as the gap isn't too wide in most games.)

Skills can be sufficient in systems built for it. Especially depending on how much 'build cost' being a mage actually is. If I can fight, pick locks, play diplomat, sneak past guards, gossip-hunt the back entrance to the castle, sail a ship, heal mundane wounds, and know the big-bad's weak spot (through being a lore master or simply that canny), and all the bookworm can do is fly, heal mortal wounds, and summon fireballs, then it might be a balanced situation. It's just when magic can do everything a skilled person can do and the impossible, then it becomes insurmountable.

[Rhedyn]

This is definitely a lot easier to balance in science-fantasy. "Mundane" classes can utilize technology to keep pace with magic, and in a magic + high-tech world, it makes sense that technological solutions to magical problems/threats would be devised. Star Wars and Starfinder are good examples of this too.

In regular fantasy, the only plausible counter to magic is more magic, barring setting quirks like special materials or alchemy interfering with it, and that plausibility more than anything is what leads to the disparity. (Keep in mind that I don't consider caster-martial disparity to be an inherently bad thing either., as long as the gap isn't too wide in most games.)
Oh it certainly is easier, but the books I reference don't rely on it. You can run traditional fantasy with SWN and Codex of the Black Sun without all the tech. I really recommend the read.

[Max_Killjoy]

IMO, resisting magic, especially specific to certain kinds of magic, should be built right into any system with magic. So should counter-magic and magic-vs-magic fighting that amounts to more than spell-tag.

D&D kinda does it piecemeal with Saves and Resistances and sometimes higher attributes giving higher difficulties when targeting the character with a spell.

HERO (4th/5th) gives every character "EGO combat value" to resist mental attacks as a default part of the system, even if it's not used in some settings/campaigns because there are no mental attacks -- and it's trivially easy to add Mental Defense as a calculated characteristic that every character would get a few points of. (Normally it's a power you buy, which then gets a starting value based on your EGO plus what you buy, but the calculated part can be made default with a snap of the GM's fingers.)

But any system or setting in which magic is the only defense against magic immediately sets off my alarm bells. If only magic users have any defense at all against magic, if only mentalists have any defense at all against psychic powers, I'm going to take a step back and start digging for other issues.

[Mordar]

Personally, i think a significant amount of spellcaster power is only theoretical. The ceiling for ideal situations for them is significantly higher, but how many people can actually say they've seen them in game?

Which is not to say that martials are in an ideal spot right now, but wizards aren't as runaway powerful as people like to act.


This. This is pretty much my experience with casters at different tables.

People theorize a lot online about how awesome a caster can be, but the execution in play is a whole other story.

I've played in two long-duration 3.x games, including one that started when only the three core books were available. Both were with players that were far from "power gamers" and would have to google what "CharOp" meant if I said it out loud. The first group had 7 characters...Paladin, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer/Ftr, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger. The Fighter eventually multiclassed to Wizard but only did buffing spells. The cleric quickly discovered that they had great combat prowess and summons through his spells and was thus able to out-shine each of the other characters, and the druid caught up a couple levels later. And this wasn't even close to CoDzilla. They weren't even the most "gamist" of the players.

The second group was 5 players and was a few years into 3.x. Starting at somewhat higher levels (5ish, I think) the wizard was quickly the game breaker. Sure, solutions existed that would shut him down but they were either contrived or would obliterate the rest of the party. I was the only player common to both games, so it wasn't likely a comprehensive play style or ability issue.

I've never seen it as bad as I have read (scry-and-die, mega Batman, 15-minute work day) but even what I have seen is clear.

So yeah, I'm in favor of rebalancing, and probably on the side of lowering all power levels, not hiking martials up.

- M

[Psyren]

Oh it certainly is easier, but the books I reference don't rely on it. You can run traditional fantasy with SWN and Codex of the Black Sun without all the tech. I really recommend the read.

Is there an SRD or something?


Skills can be sufficient in systems built for it. Especially depending on how much 'build cost' being a mage actually is. If I can fight, pick locks, play diplomat, sneak past guards, gossip-hunt the back entrance to the castle, sail a ship, heal mundane wounds, and know the big-bad's weak spot (through being a lore master or simply that canny), and all the bookworm can do is fly, heal mortal wounds, and summon fireballs, then it might be a balanced situation. It's just when magic can do everything a skilled person can do and the impossible, then it becomes insurmountable.

I prefer systems where a mage can do everything a skilled person can do OR the impossible. I'm fine with a mage quietly unlocking doors, disarming traps, slipping past guards while invisible etc - but every one of those should have limitations and opportunity costs, like every door you quietly unlock with magic is one less fireball you have for whatever might be behind that door. This means that even if you can do everything (absolute advantage), it's still worthwhile to just bring a rogue (comparative advantage.)



But any system or setting in which magic is the only defense against magic immediately sets off my alarm bells. If only magic users have any defense at all against magic, if only mentalists have any defense at all against psychic powers, I'm going to take a step back and start digging for other issues.

Agreed, and I may not have explained this part fully. There should be mundane means of dealing with magic, like being able to tie up a wizard and take their book/pouch away. It's probably not the most practical thing you can do in a fight, but it's effective afterward.

[olskool]

I have added some "grit" to 5e by requiring Spell Casters to make a Proficiency Roll to perform magic. I initially only did this for Rituals only, but I did try it in a "one-shot" and it worked fine. I have a Caster make a check with the following DCs...

DC = 10 + Spell Level (cantrips are 0 level) and the Caster can add their Proficiency Bonus and Characteristic Bonus to their roll.

A 1st Level spell would have a DC of 11 and a 9th Level spell would have a DC of 19.

A 1st Level Caster with an average of +2 PB and +3 CB would have a 70% chance of successfully casting a 1st Level Spell while a 20th Level Caster with a +6 PB and +4 CB would have a 55% chance of successfully casting a 9th Level spell.

This system works well and the added uncertainty also added to the tension of the game (a positive for my players).




I think that 5e would benefit from a "step back" to AD&D2e's Proficiency system for weapons. Here's an example of how it could work using 5e Proficiency Terminology...

Non-Proficient = -2 penalty To Hit but this can be "offset" by Characteristic Bonuses. Essentially the character is not skilled in the use of this weapon.
Basic Proficiency = No Proficiency Bonus on To Hit. Characteristic Bonuses do apply. The character has sufficient training to use a weapon without penalty but not enough to be an "expert."
Martial Proficiency = The Proficiency Bonus applies as well as any Characteristic Bonuses on To Hit rolls. The character has had extensive training in the use of these weapons.

The Races would all give Basic Proficiency and the Classes would give the following Proficiencies;

Barbarian = 4 Basic Proficiencies, 2 Martial Proficiencies.
Fighter = 6 Martial Proficiencies.
Ranger = 2 Basic Proficiencies, 4 Martial Proficiencies.
Paladin = 3 Basic Proficiencies, 3 Martial Proficiencies.
Thief = 4 Basic Proficiencies, 1 Martial Proficiency.
Bard = 4 Basic Proficiencies.
Cleric, Druid = 3 Basic Proficiencies, 1 Martial Proficiency in the form of the cleric's god's favorite weapon.
Monk = 2 Basic Proficiencies.
Spellcasters = 1 Basic Proficiency.

The various Weapon Proficiency Types would be;

HTH/Brawling (everyone starts with this)
Clubs & Maces (everyone starts with this)
Thrown Weapons "aerodynamic" (includes rocks, Javelins)
Daggers, Knives, Claws
Swords (excluding Greatswords)
Axes & Hammers (excluding the Greataxe and Maul)
Spears
Shields (these are "weapons" in my game)
Crossbows
Firearms
Staves

The following weapons require TWO Proficiency Slots:

Thrown Weapons, "asymmetrical" (includes bolas, axes, knives, boomerangs, nets, and other exotic thrown weapons).
Great Weapons (Greatsword, Greataxe, Maul).
Chains & Flails
Polearms
Bows
Slings
Atlatl
Whips
Any "weak-handed" Proficiency with a single proficiency weapon

The following weapons require THREE Proficiency Slots:

Weak-Handed Proficiency with any double proficiency weapon.

[Rhedyn]

Is there an SRD or something?The free version of Stars Without Number is pretty comprehensive, but you have to pay for Codex of the Black Sun.

[King of Nowhere]

In a moderate optimization setting i've found that adding a few weaknesses to casters (really, remove ways to ignore the weakness) and shoring up a few mundane weaknesses reaults in a balanced environment.
What i did was basically
- restrict offensive spells on the principle of "there must be a reasonable way to defend from this". Basically, everything wither has a saving throw, or it doesn't hurt too bad
- no defensive spellcasting. You get pulled in melee, you eat an aoo
- easier for non-casters to access stuff like see invisibility, fly, and the like.
- high level skill uses cannot be duplicated by magic, at least not without significant limitations.

The result is that it is very difficult for a caster to take down a martial who focused on magic defence. And if the martial gets close, they suffer. It makes the casters much more reliant on the meat shields. Especially since i allowed two adjacent characters to swap places without taking aoo. This way a fighter can interpose himself to cover a caster, becoming more useful.
And fighters really became better at dealing with single target. Wizards excel at dealing with multiple threats thanks to area spells. While the skill monkey can do stuff the wizard cannot replicate.

Worked nicely enough. Everyone was relevant most of the time.

[ezekielraiden]

I don't see how this is an unpopular opinion. Pretty much everyone (who recognizes the gap between primarily-casters and primarily-not-casters) agrees that D&D from 0e through to 3.5e slowly but surely removed one weakness after another from casters, until they had fairly few weaknesses at all. And I think most people (same caveat) also agree that magic either stayed the same or got more powerful as the editions wore on. Heinsoo even explicitly stated in an interview that he had to constantly fight against a slow encroachment of the Wizard specifically, to prevent it from being made the most powerful class, while he was designing 4e. 5e had to make its overt not-4e-ness very clear to the audience, so it reversed on that, but not all the way to the blatant excesses of the 3rd edition era.

To an extremely vocal minority of players, and to a significant portion of D&D's current designers, spellcasting has nearly complete hegemony on "magic," and spellcasting is simply superior to non-spellcasting when you need a solution. This is supposed to be mitigated by various design elements that add externalities to the use of magic. IME, such externalities are easily circumvented and depend extremely heavily on DMs being rather draconian (no pun intended) about their enforcement, which often leads to spellcasters feeling persecuted or "singled out" for their choice of class....so DMs are discouraged from using the very tools the system expects them to use to keep spellcasters balanced with classes that don't cast spells, or cast far fewer spells.

Part of the problem is the *scattershot* nature of spells. Each individual spell is supposed to be relatively specific in function, and in general that really does happen. 3.5e actually did an awful lot of work to make that more true--splitting emotion into several much more specific spells, splitting symbol, etc. Taken as individual units, spells are and should be powerful but narrowly-tailored, allowing a burst of focused effect. The problem is...nobody has one spell. Not even Sorcerers or Warlocks are that limited, they both know 2 spells at first level. 5e has put effort toward limiting this further, but it's still a serious design problem: how do you keep magic bound by its two central limitations ("powerful but focused" and "impactful but temporary") when even the limited-spells-known classes can usually end up with at least 2 spells for any occasion and the spell slots to cast at least one of them IN every occasion?

Primary-magic classes, despite having to work with short-term and narrowly-tailored pieces, almost always end up being capable of dealing with nearly all situations at or beyond the abilities of a master in that field. Coupled with the pressure toward 5MWDs, which can even come from the very players whose classes get sidelined by it (after all, who doesn't want their team firing on all cylinders for every engagement?), and you get a situation where theory and practice wildly diverge. In theory, Magic is far more than just Spellcasting, and Spellcasting is both limited and narrowly focused. In practice, Magic reduces to either just Spellcasting, or things made by or imitating Spellcasting, and Spellcasting is both unlimited and omnicapable.

(It also doesn't help that, mathematically, 5e was designed expecting 8 combat encounters a day. It's not as tight as 4e was, but the math actually works out surprisingly well to keep even Champions within a reasonable bound of relevance if there are in fact 8 specifically combat encounters and an average of ~2.5 short rests every single day. Unfortunately, many many many many groups actually default to an average around 4 encounters and 1.5 short rests per day, which significantly tilts the balance in favor of, you guessed it, primary spellcasters.)

[JackPhoenix]

(It also doesn't help that, mathematically, 5e was designed expecting 8 combat encounters a day. It's not as tight as 4e was, but the math actually works out surprisingly well to keep even Champions within a reasonable bound of relevance if there are in fact 8 specifically combat encounters and an average of ~2.5 short rests every single day. Unfortunately, many many many many groups actually default to an average around 4 encounters and 1.5 short rests per day, which significantly tilts the balance in favor of, you guessed it, primary spellcasters.)

Except, per DMG's math, that's not true.

For a party of 4, expected adjusted XP value per adventuring day is 1200 at level 1, 14k at level 5, 32k at level 11, and 120k at level 20. That work out to (unless I've made some mistake like looking at the wrong number in the table):
12 easy encounters, 6 medium encounters, 4 hard encounters or 3 deadly encounters at level 1
14 easy encounters, 7 medium encounters, 4.7 hard encounters or 3.2 deadly encounters at level 5
10 easy encounters, 5 medium encounters, 3.3 hard encounters or 2.2 deadly encounters at level 11
10.7 easy encounters, 5.3 medium encounters, 3.5 hard encounters or 2.3 deadly encounters at level 20

Note that those are treshold values, the actual XP value of encounter of a given difficulty will likely be higher. You are expected to get 2 short rests per adventuring day. The GM should be aiming for medium or hard encounters, with easy and hard being rarer.

So, If you keep to the advice, the actual number of encounters per adventuring should be 4-6, not 8. 4 is within the guidelines, if the encounters are hard or deadly, though depending on the party's optimization level, you may need to exceed the recommended adventure day XP to challenge the characters, while keeping the same number of encounters.

[strangebloke]

Am I the only one who finds martials completely dominating at my tables?

Like most people I play from tier 1 to tier 2, but I've finished out a tier 3 campaign as well, and practically without exception I find that the strongest player in each group was a martial. The only exception being the party cleric in one extreme low-level campaign but that was also the only experienced player in a group of noobs.

It might purely be down to the players I have but TBH I think a lot of it comes down to how I structure my games, with lots of short rests and LOOOONNG adventuring days.

I can agree that certain spellcasters (clerics, druids, and hexblades) have tons of strength without any clear drawbacks, but sorcerers, bards, and wizards all have clear weaknesses unless you spend a lot of build resources covering those weaknesses. Bards can't deal damage unless you spend your magical secrets, subclass, and a feat on it.

The bigger issue for me is how overpowered EK's and AT's are relative to other subclasses, or how many goodies Paladins and Rangers get compared to the lackluster abilities of a level 5 or higher barbarian.

TL;DR: I think if you want to talk about imbalance in 5e you need to get more into the weeds than just say "casters are better" because IMO fighters, wizards, and rogues don't really have serious balance problems, but clerics, druids, paladins and barbarians do.

[darknite]

Having played several high level casters in 5e, there are just a handful of damaging or control spells I use beyond fireball and lightning bolt. This is mainly due to the permissiveness of saves and the lackluster amount of damage done for a scarce resource (spell slot) for higher level spells. As such my casters gravitate to support spells over damaging/control spells for their impact on the high tier battlefield. Definitely a different feel than earlier versions of D&D.

[opaopajr]

:smallcool: Welcome to the old school, my dear child. We shall have grand adventures in ye olde D&D! :smallbiggrin: Thar be loot to XP and eldritch mysteries to hit with our axe!

... and it shall be glorious! :smallcool:

[strangebloke]

Having played several high level casters in 5e, there are just a handful of damaging or control spells I use beyond fireball and lightning bolt. This is mainly due to the permissiveness of saves and the lackluster amount of damage done for a scarce resource (spell slot) for higher level spells. As such my casters gravitate to support spells over damaging/control spells for their impact on the high tier battlefield. Definitely a different feel than earlier versions of D&D.

I don't think anyone is maintain that the problem in 5e is damage. Generally people point to the control/utility spells. But even there... I'm skeptical.

Like, the big advantage of a spell like Banishment over a spell like phantasmal force is that the former doesn't need to repeat a save every turn. Both do pretty much the same thing (take someone out of the fight) but one is two levels higher. But the "no repeat save" is a pretty meh bonus actually. If you're casting a spell its likely because the enemy has a pretty bad chance at actually saving against it, so the odds are very good that phantasmal force will keep the enemy out for 2-3 rounds and TBH that's all the time you need. And by the time you get to spells like banishment, things like legendary saves can come into play. There's nothing quite like a diviner wizard realizing that their "overpowered" class feature does nothing until the boss has already failed three saves.

I do think that some caster classes are overpowered, and that specific spells are just too strong in general. (absorb elements and shield, most notably) But I don't think that's a general caster/martial problem.

[fbelanger]

In actual edition The fighter multi attack is far better than any previous edition.
Action surge is an amazing power too.
Most of the time martial class outshine casters to deal pure damage.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I’ll start with a bit of confusion though, as I don’t know why the thread is titled, “Unpopuler view casters vs martial.” Outside of maybe alignment, the caster-martial disparity is probably the top issue people have with D&D and D&D-alikes. And amongst those that remember the TSR-era, that they’ve slowly added restrictions (perhaps in the name of ‘realism’) to martials while simultaneously removing the constraints on casters are the most recognized reasons for the increase in caster supremacy as the editions have gone on.

I was about to make this comment, too. It's probably the most popular opinion in regards to this. See the trope "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" for context and other places this same issue crops up.

"Unpopular Opinion" is starting to become the new "Am I the only one..." for thread titles. No, you're not the only one in pretty much anything and chances are your unpopular opinion is actually a popular one, just not the majority view (and sometimes it still is the majority view).

[MrStabby]

So some things I have said before, and some things I will almost certainly say again... and trying to not tread too heavy on stuff that has already been said a lot:

I think the main issue is versatility, but some of it comes from unexpected places. Spells known or prepared are maybe on the high side. A bigger opportunity cost for some spells making it a real pain to chose what you want would tighten up the system. The sorcerer, the class which has the tightest spell known, is also the caster class that people feel least outclassed by. I would say second is cleric as clerics strong spells are not quite so broad as other classes to leave more space for them to shine.

The transition from 3rd edition gave more classes spontaneous casting, which might have been a bit of a mistake. Every eventuality that you could prepare for cost you not only knowledge of the spell but also a spell slot. There was more of a soft incentive to leave some functions to other party members.

The spell lists are also a problem, although barring a few options I see utility spells as the main offenders. Any spell that lets a caster dictate when and how a combat will happen ensures that the most important, most dramatic combats will happen with the caster having full resources. Let the other players shine against the expendable henchmen in fights no one cares about.

Some of the other stuff that frankly annoys me is the added edge cases that always seem to favour magic. Look at spells like pass without trace. Not only is it the kind of utility spell I took offence at in the previous paragraph but it prevents tracking by non magical means. So no matter how good your skills are, if you are not a caster then you are out of luck. Did it really need this restriction to be any good? Or at the other end forcecages- yeah there are ways round the spell: counterspell, misty step, dimension door, disintegrate... yeah. All spells.

And if you want to do something epic without spells then restrictions get thrown at you. Cant grapple a creature two sizes larger than yourself for example. In a world where wizards can cast walls of force or banishment to prevent a being from attacking anyone is a grapple really the worst offender that needed this clause added. Of course you could get a magic spell to make you bigger...

I think up to about level 6 things are pretty much perfect and ok up to level 10. The proliferation in spells known, power of spells and so on is big news though. When you can target multiple different saves to find a weakness or just hit hard for damage on a spell that targets AC you can search out weaknesses vs a character that can only target AC.

I would have liked to have seen caters be more thematic and less generalist. No class able to target more than 3 different weaknesses with "good" spells, fewer different effect types available to different classes and generally pushing more of the utility function to skills rather than spells.

[KaussH]

I was about to make this comment, too. It's probably the most popular opinion in regards to this. See the trope "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" for context and other places this same issue crops up.

"Unpopular Opinion" is starting to become the new "Am I the only one..." for thread titles. No, you're not the only one in pretty much anything and chances are your unpopular opinion is actually a popular one, just not the majority view (and sometimes it still is the majority view).

To be clear, the unpopular part is wanting to bring back weaknesses as opposed to just buff things up. A lot of people go a little crazy when you say you want to make a class/group weaker.

[ezekielraiden]

Except, per DMG's math, that's not true.

For a party of 4, expected adjusted XP value per adventuring day is 1200 at level 1, 14k at level 5, 32k at level 11, and 120k at level 20. That work out to (unless I've made some mistake like looking at the wrong number in the table):
12 easy encounters, 6 medium encounters, 4 hard encounters or 3 deadly encounters at level 1
14 easy encounters, 7 medium encounters, 4.7 hard encounters or 3.2 deadly encounters at level 5
10 easy encounters, 5 medium encounters, 3.3 hard encounters or 2.2 deadly encounters at level 11
10.7 easy encounters, 5.3 medium encounters, 3.5 hard encounters or 2.3 deadly encounters at level 20

Note that those are treshold values, the actual XP value of encounter of a given difficulty will likely be higher. You are expected to get 2 short rests per adventuring day. The GM should be aiming for medium or hard encounters, with easy and hard being rarer.

So, If you keep to the advice, the actual number of encounters per adventuring should be 4-6, not 8. 4 is within the guidelines, if the encounters are hard or deadly, though depending on the party's optimization level, you may need to exceed the recommended adventure day XP to challenge the characters, while keeping the same number of encounters.

All I can tell you is, I ran the expected-value calculations* based on reasonable ranges of input stats (e.g. Str modifier of +3 to +5), and every time, you only get the Champion keeping up with the Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight if there are between 7 and 9 combats per day--that's the sweet spot where their slowly-increasing crit bonus keeps up with the bonus damage from maneuver dice (remarkably, whether they give straight-up bonus damage, or bonus accuracy via Precision Attack). Obviously an EK can cast spells other than pure damage all the time, but this sweet spot again remains in effect assuming EKs don't cast 100% of their spells on damage--as long as it's half to 3/4, 7-9 combats again keeps Champions pretty much on par with everyone else.

If the actual number is 4-6 combat encounters a day, Champions guaranteed fall behind other Fighters, and Fighters-in-general fall behind Paladins (and any other spell-wielding class); they do less overall damage, and bring less utility.

It's also worth noting that if you have, on average, 0-1 deadly encounters, 1-2 hard encounters, 2-4 medium encounters, and 3-6 easy encounters, and shave off whatever is in excess, you actually do end up with around 6-9 encounters a day at level 5...so your XP numbers don't look, to me, like they conflict with what I've said. Things might fall slightly at high level, but they pick up mostly because you're going to pick up an extra Deadly encounter or two in exchange for 2-4 Easy encounters, which will not generally change total resource expenditure. And I literally did say an average of 2.5 (meaning some days you get 2, some days you get 3, and occasionally you only get 1 or you get an impressive 4). IIRC the average was slightly below 2.5, it just made for a better guideline to peg it to a relatively round number.

*I even did extra calculations trying to factor in careful addition of feats. Just about the only thing I didn't do was non-spellcasters relying consistently on spellcaster-provided buffs, because that's dramatically harder to wrangle into a meaningful statistical statement. I felt it was a reasonable modelling choice, particularly given that I'm already accounting for a portion of spells being spent on entirely non-combat utility uses that cannot be quantified by this analysis. AKA, I was modelling "does the Champion actually make good on its 'I am amazing at combat without lots of thought' premise?" And the answer, pretty consistently, was, "No, not with how most people play 5e." I actually found a few simple tweaks that could change that, though I'm afraid I don't remember any off the top of my head.


Am I the only one who finds martials completely dominating at my tables?
Highly unlikely. Statistics not only expects, but (statistically!) demands that some people experience the opposite of the overall trend. That's the nature of a statistical, rather than purely causative, pattern--it's a distribution, not a point. The question is not whether non-full-casters never ever dominate, but whether they (a) frequently end up being weaker and (b) meaningfully end up weaker if it is frequent. (In statistical terms: (a) does the observed center of the distribution lie above/below the expected center, and (b) does the spread of the data preclude the observed center being consistent with the expected center.)

You may have gotten lucky; you may have personal opinions, preferences, patterns of behavior, or at-table influences that mitigate the problem; or you may just have players who really know how to take advantage of non-full-caster classes while not knowing how to take full advantage of spellcasters. All of these are, of course, statistical fable-telling, that is they explain the data after the fact without really revealing anything, so don't take them as prescriptive. It's just an offer of an explanation for why your experience does not have to conform to the overall statistical pattern, even if that pattern really exists.


Like most people I play from tier 1 to tier 2, but I've finished out a tier 3 campaign as well, and practically without exception I find that the strongest player in each group was a martial. The only exception being the party cleric in one extreme low-level campaign but that was also the only experienced player in a group of noobs.

It might purely be down to the players I have but TBH I think a lot of it comes down to how I structure my games, with lots of short rests and LOOOONNG adventuring days.
All four of these effects actively mitigate the problem. Full-casters only start to diverge at late Tier 2, and it's really only getting into tier 3 where they begin to consistently outshine non-full-casters; if your campaigns never really complete Tier 2 most of the time, you're just never getting to the region where casters dominate. (Well, with a few exceptions--I'm looking at you, Circle of the Moon.) Ultra-brand-new players rarely know enough to leverage a system, so it is mostly luck as to who accidentally picks something powerful (and I'd argue the Cleric is among the most-easily "accidentally optimized" classes in 5e). Your players could just really dislike doing the things that make casters powerful (this is a big problem for me in many games--I don't like ruthlessness as a playstyle, but it's often necessary to demonstrate a strategy's power.) And if you specifically shoot for at least 8 encounters a day and many short rests, classes like the Warlock and Fighter are going to pull ahead of long-rest-based classes; in this regard, you deviate from literally 100% of the people I have ever spoken to regarding 5e, who emphatically do not ever pursue such long days, and even have "just 1 encounter and then a long rest" happen on a regular basis.


I can agree that certain spellcasters (clerics, druids, and hexblades) have tons of strength without any clear drawbacks, but sorcerers, bards, and wizards all have clear weaknesses unless you spend a lot of build resources covering those weaknesses. Bards can't deal damage unless you spend your magical secrets, subclass, and a feat on it.
In my experience, many unspoken "rules" of conduct for both fellow-players and DMs have a tendency to mitigate these weaknesses substantially. As for the Bard, I find your argument not particularly persuasive. Inspiration is a very strong attack bonus (and makes Valor/Swords quite dangerous), spending Magical Secrets on your chosen specialty is totally the point of the Bard to begin with, and whatever feat you refer to (presumably War Caster) really isn't as vital as you paint it to be (several feats are certainly good, but nowhere near vital).


The bigger issue for me is how overpowered EK's and AT's are relative to other subclasses, or how many goodies Paladins and Rangers get compared to the lackluster abilities of a level 5 or higher barbarian.
You won't hear questions from me on that front, other than the Ranger, who suffers from having multiple class features locked behind limited-spells-known. Full-casters got bumped down a peg or two but are still very strong overall. Part-casters got bumped up quite a bit, particularly the Paladin and Fighter-gish types. Non-casting Barbarians and Fighters both got left behind in 5e, and it deeply frustrates me.


TL;DR: I think if you want to talk about imbalance in 5e you need to get more into the weeds than just say "casters are better" because IMO fighters, wizards, and rogues don't really have serious balance problems, but clerics, druids, paladins and barbarians do.
Fighters, particularly Champions, get left behind, I agree. Wizards are IMO more powerful than you give them credit for, and are not meaningfully behind Clerics or Druids. Paladins are definitely the most powerful of the "warrior" classes, and have a meaningful amount of utility on top. (That's, incidentally, a big part of my problem: Fighters are supposed to be "amazing at fighting" to make up for their near-total lack of anything ELSE they can do, and yet they really aren't meaningfully better and may be meaningfully not-quite-as-good as classes like Paladin.)

[Skylivedk]

Hence why role play and exploration are important. A wizard lacking spells in combat can still move and assist and rp and ect. They can also save spells for the right moments.
In town, everyone can rp
Meeting other people casters can use control spells and such, but its a limited resource, so talking works too.

The idea that every pc must be able to do something in each and every combat and non combat encounter mecanicly is silly. As least my 2 cents :)
I would have to disagree. A system where one of my dear friends is not having meaningful contributions during what is sometimes less than a monthly session is a bad system.


This. This is pretty much my experience with casters at different tables.

People theorize a lot online about how awesome a caster can be, but the execution in play is a whole other story.
Otherwise, we only have anecdotes. The issue is a lot a smaller in something like a dungeon crawler and bigger in a sandbox game. Hexblade also makes the issue clear in a crawler.

"Oh, that's a huge hole with only a few platforms we can jump on, barely doable by the Fighter"
Hexblade casts fly.
"Argh, a swarm of flying archers is approaching us from the tunnel above us"
Hexblade casts Synaptic State.
"Argh, we're trapped with a Golem, surely the fighter must be the ideal tank here"
Hexblade casts Baleful Curse, already had Armour of Agathys and outtanks the Fighter with a spell to spare.
"Oh no, Larno dropped. Protect him!"
Hexblade dimension door's him away.

Most of this could also be done by an lr caster and especially one with a single level dip for ac. Short rest casting in a dungeon just obliterates the need for noon magic solutions very very very often


The core problem is still "the fighter fights and... what else?"

While polymorphing into a Pock-speckled Albermung and confusing your GM with it's 3rd party borkedness is definitely one way of using it but "I turn into a bear and maul this guy" is a fine backup use, "I turn into a mouse to escape the prison" and "i turn into a hawk to spy on the enemy camp/escape pursuit" are also reasonable uses I can't see many DMs balking at.

The potential of casters is what makes them powerful and while many players effectively play them as walking grenade launchers, that's less a problem with the caster and more the player's preference.

Honestly I would prefer if we drew inspiration from the legendary warriors of myth and legend: from the more fanciful techniques like Son Wu Kong who could clone himself by plucking hairs off his head to MCU's Thor who originally traveled long distances by throwing his hammer and letting it carry him, make the fighter more then just a guy at the gym covered in a tin can.

Then again I usually prefer buffs over nerfs. Accept that end game D&D is effectively a game of titans duking it out with the mortals at stake, and make everyone awesome at the high end.
I like your approach.

[Zalabim]

All I can tell you is, I ran the expected-value calculations* based on reasonable ranges of input stats (e.g. Str modifier of +3 to +5), and every time, you only get the Champion keeping up with the Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight if there are between 7 and 9 combats per day--that's the sweet spot where their slowly-increasing crit bonus keeps up with the bonus damage from maneuver dice (remarkably, whether they give straight-up bonus damage, or bonus accuracy via Precision Attack). Obviously an EK can cast spells other than pure damage all the time, but this sweet spot again remains in effect assuming EKs don't cast 100% of their spells on damage--as long as it's half to 3/4, 7-9 combats again keeps Champions pretty much on par with everyone else.

If the actual number is 4-6 combat encounters a day, Champions guaranteed fall behind other Fighters, and Fighters-in-general fall behind Paladins (and any other spell-wielding class); they do less overall damage, and bring less utility.
Champion Tangent: Battle master cares only a little about number of combats and champion more cares about number of rounds of combat. For that I personally use 20 rounds. I am more concerned that your example of reasonable range of input stats doesn't have anything to do with the champion's damage bonus. For most maneuvers, and all of the champion's critical chance bonus, varying strength bonus would obviously have no effect. I don't think it's a good state to be in, but you should have found that champion can actually fulfill it's simple premise pretty much exclusively at high levels combined with a half-orc and great-weapon fighting style. It only internally pays off with that specific build. The right magic items and ways to get advantage more frequently can also make it worthwhile, but both are going to be outside the player's or character's personal control.


*I even did extra calculations trying to factor in careful addition of feats. Just about the only thing I didn't do was non-spellcasters relying consistently on spellcaster-provided buffs, because that's dramatically harder to wrangle into a meaningful statistical statement. I felt it was a reasonable modelling choice, particularly given that I'm already accounting for a portion of spells being spent on entirely non-combat utility uses that cannot be quantified by this analysis. AKA, I was modelling "does the Champion actually make good on its 'I am amazing at combat without lots of thought' premise?" And the answer, pretty consistently, was, "No, not with how most people play 5e." I actually found a few simple tweaks that could change that, though I'm afraid I don't remember any off the top of my head.
The GWM feat really stands out as the only particularly good option for the champion's increased critical range and it's also a really notable boon for the battle master's maneuvers. I've found that champion can actually reward putting a lot of thought into combat with better performance, while failing to do anything exciting otherwise. In contrast, the battle master pays off even for a hypothetical braindead player that never uses superiority dice as anything more than bonus damage. /champion tangent.

[Tanarii]

The understanding of how the issue arose isn't necessarily unpopular, but the idea of reintroducing caster weaknesses probably is.

If you want a more old school feel for spells and missile fire, introduce a few house rules:
- firing a missile or casting a spell provokes an OA.
- taking damage while casting a spell forces a concentration check or lose the spell. Even for non-concentration spells.
- missile fire at a creature randomly targets the creature or any adjacent creature.

Possibly with an exception for healing-type spells, if you want to encourage their use in combat.

[Pex]

I disagree needing armor and weapon are weaknesses. It's the whole point. Using equipment is not a horrible thing you need to put up with.