Why Spellcasters suck vs melee characters

[Whit]

1. I find it humorous how many people keep believing that spellcasters are over buff compared to melee champs.

2. Damage single target vs multiple
Yes the 8d6 AE can kill #10 10hit point goblins and people think that it equals 100 damage
Yet at that level chances of fighting token mobs are limited and the biggest threat is the main creature or few creatures and when you consider the damage 8d6 no save = 31 save =. 15 resistance = 8 immunity = 0. Magic resistance = advantage on save rolls

Now if you want to apply one shot spells like disintegrate or polymorph you still have one shot vs above types of protection and the limited spell slots available to the casters.

Now when you compare melee or range vs AC

The AC target doesn’t have the above defense options. Maybe immunity or resistance to non magical weapons which is non existent at medium high levels for heroes to not have magical weapons.
Or the damage potential to the single target
Backstab , multiple strikes , gwm sharpshooter gwf etc don’t worry about damage reduction

And as for paladin which I do like but the +2 save to everyone is ridiculous and the Ancient getting at level 7 spell resistance is stronger than a lvl 14 gift. And then adding it to ae to all allies is a lvl 20 ability.

Yes spell asters can do amazing things.
But compared to weapon damage champs. They fall short vs all of the Anti spell protections.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not a competition. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Different classes are good at different things. In general, offensive spellcasters do better against groups of enemies than single big targets damage-wise, but also have strong control that most melee lacks. They also tend to have poorer defenses, depending on the guys with sharp/heavy things to protect them. Ranged physical types do better at single target sniping than spellcasters but are more squishy than melee. Support types (bards, clerics) aren't the best for dropping enemies, but are valuable for protecting, healing, and buffing allies and debuffing enemies. That's the basic pattern, anyway.

Ideally, every playstyle has a place. And I'm all in favor of keeping those boundaries somewhat high--a full-caster should never be as effective in melee as a dedicated melee without sacrificing something important, whether that's build resources (being feat/attribute dependent or having to devote invocations/spells to it) or defenses. In return, melee shouldn't be as good at dealing with hordes as the artillery.

And before you put down hoard-killing, the most difficult encounters I've ever run were so not because they featured one or two huge, high-CR creatures. No, they had a mix of beefy boys to tie down the heavy melee and low-CR ranged archers (CR 1 quad-drones, to be specific, against a party of level 9 characters with significant items) to actually deal damage. I was kind and spread damage around, but those low-CR creatures were brutal. Sure, each arrow is only 1d6+2 or so. But when the group of them is firing 40 arrows per round (10 quad-drones, each firing 4 arrows a turn), that's a lot of hurt. Being able to nuke a bunch at once is way more important than being able to over-kill a single one by a lot.

Paladins don't like physical skirmishers who hit and fade. They're superb against brutes and good support against saving-throw-causing types (as long as everyone sticks close), but they fall short against archers. By design. Barbarians can soak epic tons of damage and love to be stuck in on melee, but don't do well with ranged types or those who have cover they can't get around well.

What I'm trying to say is that comparing classes in a white theorycrafting room is rather pointless.

[micahaphone]

Yes, martials are good for single target dps. And are great for doing their thing all day long. You have identified their key bonuses.

Now tell me what out of combat utility a level 10 fighter has compared to a level 10 wizard. Or social manipulation options. Or who does more in a one-big-fight adventuring day. These are the things people critique.

It doesn't matter if you're really good at putting out big damage with a sword when your ally can teleport, mind control, send messages instantaneously across the continent, and create impenetrable safe resting spaces. While still being useful in combat. And no martial can teleport, fly, "Suggest" things, read minds, communicate long ranges, or set up a safety bubble to sleep in.

[Eldariel]

Casters can be built to do single target damage too (take e.g. Swords Bard or Bladesinger Wizard or Arcana Cleric). They can post similar single target damage as non-Pally classes and with a two-level multiclass into Paladin, any caster can Smite harder than any Paladin ever. Then there's the superbuffs like Magic Jar, Tenser's and Shapechange that let any caster be just as good in melee DPS as any martial for as long as need be (Magic Jar, Shepchange and True Polymorph can even give you permanent buffs). Or something like the Nuke Wizard: Hexblade 1/Evoker X. On level 2 it has the SR burst of dealing 3d4+9 or 16,5 autohit damage to a single target (multiple times if need be). And it gets much better from there as Proficiency bonus increases, higher level spell slots become available and you begin tapping into Evoker abilities. On level 11 your damage gets pretty stupid: level 5 slot lets you autohit for 87,5 damage (it might be possible for a CBE/SS/Archery Battlemaster using Action Surge to match that) and there's one more significant increase in damage with Overchannel becoming available.

But guess what's more efficient? Spells that just disable enemies. On level 1 Bard/Sorc/Wizard has Sleep: it's impossible for a level 1 warrior to average anywhere near 22,5 damage against anything regardless of build - at best a Dueling PAM Vuman can maybe get 25,5 average damage with about 50% hit rate for about 12,75 average damage or half of that. On level 3 you have e.g. Web/Levitate/Phantasmal Force/Suggestion/Earthen Grasp that just take out an enemy or multiple enemies regardless of their HP total (so you can essentially deal 100+ damage to a tough opponent with a single level 2 spell provided that the enemy is incapable of breaking out of the spell - if used smartly you're looking at over 60% success rate); on level 5 you have plenty of AOE CC options (Hypnotic Pattern/Fear/Slow/Sleet Storm) and you begin getting into no-save effects. And on level 5 you have Wall of Force/Telekinesis/Bigby's at which point you don't really even care about Legendary Resistance.

EDIT: Of course, the real difference comes everywhere else. Casters obviously shine at things non-casters can't even do.

[Ashrym]

Now tell me what out of combat utility a level 10 fighter has compared to a level 10 wizard. Or social manipulation options. Or who does more in a one-big-fight adventuring day. These are the things people critique.

2 bonus feats. While most players use those to enhance combat they are viable non-combat options either in more general bonuses (ASI's) or actual non-combat feats.

Wizards are still better out of combat but to be fair that's a high versatility caster to a low versatility martial. A sorcerer compared to a rogue, monk, or ranger isn't the same gap as a fighter to a wizard.

Aside from that, fighter subclasses unlock out of combat benefits not in the core, and fighters blowing through action surge and short rest abilities can make for nice little novas.

What I find is it doesn't matter if a wizard accomplishes a task more easily if the fighter still accomplishes the task. I also find it's less annoying to miss an attack with an unlimited resource than that watch my limited resources whiff on a save or miss.

Casters are great for AoE's, status effects, and versatility but I think martials get undervalued in those areas in 5e. Being worse at something does not mean it can't be done.

[CheddarChampion]

From my perspective:

Outspoken GiTP community members:
"Casters get more powers and their old powers get better as they level up. They get a variety of spells with different effects which can target different defenses, allowing them to select the right spell for the job. They have enough of a spell selection to also pick up some very useful utility spells such as Fly, Arcane Eye, and Tiny Hut. They usually have enough spells slots to last the whole 'adventuring day.' Compare this to martials who start being good at hitting things and only get better at hitting things as they level up. Usually they have to give up extra combat potential if they want extra utility. Given the scale of the caster vs the martial, the rate at which they grow more powerful, and a full 'adventuring day' being rare in actual play, the caster usually performs better than the martial. This is a shame, it would be more fun if a character's relative ability to contribute didn't rely on their ability to cast spells. Note that this doesn't take skills proficiencies into account because both martials and casters utilize skills at about the same level, on average."

OP:
"Lol no. Spellcasters suck compared to martials. Certain spells aren't as great as you say and hitting enemies with a sword/bow is actually pretty good. Also spells require spell slots. Besides, magic resistance exists. Even though weapon damage resistance exists too. Besides, there are ways to deal more damage with a sword/bow like extra attack, sneak attack, and feats. Oh and these few specific subclass features are good."

I think you're on a different wavelength, to put it nicely.

[LudicSavant]

2. Damage single target vs multiple
Yes the 8d6 AE can kill #10 10hit point goblins and people think that it equals 100 damage
Yet at that level chances of fighting token mobs are limited and the biggest threat is the main creature or few creatures and when you consider the damage 8d6 no save = 31 save =. 15 resistance = 8 immunity = 0. Magic resistance = advantage on save rolls

Now if you want to apply one shot spells like disintegrate or polymorph you still have one shot vs above types of protection and the limited spell slots available to the casters.

Casters aren't limited to just casting Fireball, or to lockdown that grants saving throws -- if they want to optimize for direct single target damage, it is entirely possible to do so. Yet your post doesn't address even a single example of a decent single target damage strategy for casters.

Also, being shut down hard by things like magic resistance is generally something that happens only to newbie spellcaster players. Veterans will generally prepare at least a few options that don't really care about the enemy's saving throws. Heck, sometimes most of the options a caster has chosen won't care about Magic Resistance.


Now when you compare melee or range vs AC

The AC target doesn’t have the above defense options. Maybe immunity or resistance to non magical weapons which is non existent at medium high levels for heroes to not have magical weapons.

Drawing on the full list of monsters in the Monster Manual, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, and Volo's Guide to Monsters, we can see that magical weaponry is actually resisted about as often as Thunder damage, and more often than stuff like Radiant or Force damage. Also, there are a huge variety of things that make it harder to damage someone via AC, besides just Resistance.

If anything, your argument is backwards -- casters tend to be the ones with the versatility to adapt to a wider range of defenses. Enemy has a high AC? Then they won't target AC. Enemy has a high saves? Then they won't target those saves. Enemy has Resistance to an element? Then they won't use that element.

They've got options not only for targeting any element, any save, or AC, but also great options that don't care about any of the above (like Wall of Force, Magic Missile, etc). One of the strengths of casters is that against a well built/played one, your defense tends to only be as strong as its weakest link.


They fall short vs all of the Anti spell protections.

It sounds like the issue is more that you aren't sure how to deal with those protections, rather than that casters actually can't.

[Dork_Forge]

Casters can be built to do single target damage too (take e.g. Swords Bard or Bladesinger Wizard or Arcana Cleric). They can post similar single target damage as non-Pally classes and (A)with a two-level multiclass into Paladin, any caster can Smite harder than any Paladin ever. Then there's the superbuffs like (B)Magic Jar, (C)Tenser's and (D)Shapechange that let any caster be just as good in melee DPS as any martial for as long as need be (Magic Jar, Shepchange and True Polymorph can even give you permanent buffs). Or something like the (E)Nuke Wizard: Hexblade 1/Evoker X. On level 2 it has the SR burst of dealing 3d4+9 or 16,5 autohit damage to a single target (multiple times if need be). And it gets much better from there as Proficiency bonus increases, higher level spell slots become available and you begin tapping into Evoker abilities. On level 11 your damage gets pretty stupid: level 5 slot lets you autohit for 87,5 damage (it might be possible for a CBE/SS/Archery Battlemaster using Action Surge to match that) and there's one more significant increase in damage with Overchannel becoming available.

But guess what's more efficient? Spells that just disable enemies. (F)On level 1 Bard/Sorc/Wizard has Sleep: it's impossible for a level 1 warrior to average anywhere near 22,5 damage against anything regardless of build - at best a Dueling PAM Vuman can maybe get 25,5 average damage with about 50% hit rate for about 12,75 average damage or half of that. On level 3 you have e.g. Web/Levitate/Phantasmal Force/Suggestion/Earthen Grasp that just take out an enemy or multiple enemies regardless of their HP total (so you can essentially deal 100+ damage to a tough opponent with a single level 2 spell provided that the enemy is incapable of breaking out of the spell - if used smartly you're looking at over 60% success rate); on level 5 you have plenty of AOE CC options (Hypnotic Pattern/Fear/Slow/Sleet Storm) and you begin getting into no-save effects. And on level 5 you have Wall of Force/Telekinesis/Bigby's at which point you don't really even care about Legendary Resistance.

EDIT: Of course, the real difference comes everywhere else. Casters obviously shine at things non-casters can't even do.

Some things worth mentioning:

A: This just isn't true, but still- A two level multiclass that requires a 13 Str and unless you're a Hexblade heavy investment in some form of physical stat, and even then the multiclass won't be able to take a hit in melee like a primary Paladin could.

B: This is talked about quite a bit on here, beyond RP shenanigans it seems unlikely to actually give you any meaningful boost like is often fantasised, unless your DM is very accommodating.

C: It takes an action to cast, requires concentration and comes online at the level where martials are getting their general DPR bumps. Sure for the investment of your highest slot, risk of losing concentration and putting yourself in a bad place you can put on a competent imitation of a martial. Oh then there's potentially getting exhaustion, boy would that be inconvenient.

D: This is a 9th level spell (so 17th level at the earliest), requires concentration, a 1,500GP investment and you still must have seen what you want to turn into. Nevermind the usual Counter Spell, Dispel Magic, Anti Magic baggage that comes with casting. With all of that it better had let you be capable in melee.

E: This relies on a MAD multiclass into a subclass that is well regarded as overtuned at best, and even then? You're looking at a single enemy nova, once per short rest, burning through resources at a pace that will leave you in cantrip territory very quickly.

F: Sleep is not some autowin button, you can roll low, you can catch friendlies in the cross fire and at early levels slots are stretched so thin you get it maybe once or twice a day, assuming you're doing nothing else besides that and defenses. Unless of course the enemy is undead, a form of Elf or just immune to the Charmed condition (judging by a cursory glance at D&D Beyond there's a decent number of those in the low CR category). Then you have a spell that ages poorly, if you're say, a Wizard, you're then stuck with it.


Casters obviously shine at things non-casters can't even do.

Yes this is true in some cases, where they're expending limited resources, martials can also shine at things most casters can't do for free, the difference is the martial usually isn't depleting their combat effectiveness to do so.

[Cheesegear]

But compared to weapon damage champs. They fall short vs all of the Anti spell protections.

But compared to spell damage champs. They fall short vs. all of the high AC protections.

Martials are allowed to take PAM/GWM.
Blaster Casters are never allowed to take Elemental Adept.
Classic double standard.

[Waazraath]

Some things worth mentioning:

A: This just isn't true, but still- A two level multiclass that requires a 13 Str and unless you're a Hexblade heavy investment in some form of physical stat, and even then the multiclass won't be able to take a hit in melee like a primary Paladin could.

B: This is talked about quite a bit on here, beyond RP shenanigans it seems unlikely to actually give you any meaningful boost like is often fantasised, unless your DM is very accommodating.

C: It takes an action to cast, requires concentration and comes online at the level where martials are getting their general DPR bumps. Sure for the investment of your highest slot, risk of losing concentration and putting yourself in a bad place you can put on a competent imitation of a martial. Oh then there's potentially getting exhaustion, boy would that be inconvenient.

D: This is a 9th level spell (so 17th level at the earliest), requires concentration, a 1,500GP investment and you still must have seen what you want to turn into. Nevermind the usual Counter Spell, Dispel Magic, Anti Magic baggage that comes with casting. With all of that it better had let you be capable in melee.

E: This relies on a MAD multiclass into a subclass that is well regarded as overtuned at best, and even then? You're looking at a single enemy nova, once per short rest, burning through resources at a pace that will leave you in cantrip territory very quickly.

F: Sleep is not some autowin button, you can roll low, you can catch friendlies in the cross fire and at early levels slots are stretched so thin you get it maybe once or twice a day, assuming you're doing nothing else besides that and defenses. Unless of course the enemy is undead, a form of Elf or just immune to the Charmed condition (judging by a cursory glance at D&D Beyond there's a decent number of those in the low CR category). Then you have a spell that ages poorly, if you're say, a Wizard, you're then stuck with it.



Yes this is true in some cases, where they're expending limited resources, martials can also shine at things most casters can't do for free, the difference is the martial usually isn't depleting their combat effectiveness to do so.

Amen... thanks for saving me the trouble :)

Also what Ahrym and PhoenixPhyre said. Martials can do a lot of stuff. They also get out of combat stuff, and even can pick stuff like fly or disguise self with the right race, if they really want it. Casters are more versatile, and have other niches, but all in all its pretty well balanced. (so also "nope" to the OP cause casters don't suck).

[LudicSavant]

E: This relies on a MAD multiclass into a subclass that is well regarded as overtuned at best, and even then? You're looking at a single enemy nova, once per short rest, burning through resources at a pace that will leave you in cantrip territory very quickly.

I've actually played the build he's talking about extensively, in full tier 1 to tier 4 campaigns (including ones that are very much a 'many encounters a day with Tucker's Kobolds / old school meat grinder' mentality, far more difficult than normal campaigns) and what you said clearly hasn't been true -- I found it to be quite resource efficient when played properly, and able to consistently last through not just 6 encounters a day, but 6 Deadly ones without ever feeling like I was left in "just cantrip territory." Heck I was even doing fine on days where we'd get up to 10 encounters a day.

If you're using up your resources as fast as you claim, there's probably a lot of room for improvement in the way you're managing your resources.

[Chugger]

Where are these churlish, troll-ish and somewhat abusive posts coming from??? Seriously, people, what is fanning the need to come in here and think you need to lecture us in what sounds like an angry tone of voice - and to just be flat-out _wrong_?

I don't get it.

As someone pointed out above, this isn't a competition - I sometimes think of DnD as being like blackjack, it's us players against the dealer (DM). We work together. When spells work, they often work really well. And when an anti-magic ray is beamed down the hallway at the party, it's nice to have meleers who can take on the monsters until the anti-magic ray can be stopped - or avoided.

Spells are extremely powerful when used properly. When a caster removes one of three deadly wereboars from a fight with banishment, say - or walls off two of four Slaads with a wall of force, the meleers have a _much_ easier time taking down enemies - because of divide and conquer. It's not just fireballing - spell casting is way more complex, as others have pointed out. Meleers are very important to a functioning party - so are spellcasters. Let's just grasp this and move on.

Is it the Covid lockdown? Something is making people testy and prone to churlishness. /shrug

[cutlery]

The nice thing about DnD is if you don't like a class you never have to play it.

That said, I don't know if I'd want to make a heavy comparison between a character that hits things with a held weapon and a character that bends the shape of reality.

Particularly along the level range where Force Cage is available.

[Trafalgar]

Is it the Covid lockdown? Something is making people testy and prone to churlishness. /shrug

It's an anonymous online forum filled with overly passionate nerds and geeks. When do we ever have a reasonable, mature conversation?

If you think this is bad, bring up alignment as a topic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Martials are allowed to take PAM/GWM. Blaster Casters are never allowed to take Elemental Adept. Classic double standard. I'm gonna get my paper towels and wipe the dripping sarcasm off of my screen. :smallsmile:

If you think this is bad, bring up alignment as a topic. And now I'll wipe up the spilled coffee. Thankfully, not on the keyboard. :smallcool:

[Segev]

I'm gonna get my paper towels and wipe the dripping sarcasm off of my screen. :smallsmile:

It’s too late; the sarcasm is coming from inside the screen!

[MaxWilson]

It’s too late; the sarcasm is coming from inside the screen!

That is .sig-worthy. If GITP had awards like Reddit I'd give you one. :)

[Dork_Forge]

I've actually played the build he's talking about extensively, in full tier 1 to tier 4 campaigns (including ones that are very much a 'many encounters a day with Tucker's Kobolds / old school meat grinder' mentality, far more difficult than normal campaigns) and what you said clearly hasn't been true -- I found it to be quite resource efficient when played properly, and able to consistently last through not just 6 encounters a day, but 6 Deadly ones without ever feeling like I was left in "just cantrip territory." Heck I was even doing fine on days where we'd get up to 10 encounters a day.

If you're using up your resources as fast as you claim, there's probably a lot of room for improvement in the way you're managing your resources.

No, your personal anecdote lacking any real depth or detail doesn't clearly show anything.

It's a build concept that revolves around burning spell slots on a chassis that has nothing but casting, if you didn't end up in cantrip only territory it's becuase you used cantrips extensively otherwise and/or had magic items you could fall back upon.

The concept is very simple, abuse the Hexblade and a stupid ruling for ridiculous amounts of Magic Missile damage. When your entire concept relies upon a leveled spell, you're burning resources, but since you'll clearly dispute this, fine:

-This comes online at 2nd level, at which point you start the day with 3 1st level spell slots, assuming two short rests there's a total of 6 1st level spell slots and three uses of HBC, Wizards are squishy unless they heavily compensate for it, usually via their magic, so it's safe to assume that at some point Shield/Absorb Elements will be used. Defenses cut into the daily resources heavily at this point, later in the day only one or two slots may be available at which point it's a choice between not taking what is likely to be catastrophic amounts of damage or getting off another use of your schtick. The only way to avoid heavy cantrip use at these levels (if actually going through the number of encounters you say) is to fall onto a weapon and play like a knock off martial. If this is the case then I seriously have to wonder how generous your game is with gold at such low levels, since this build will be burning it as fast, if not faster, than you make it.

-Let's take it to around tier 2 shall we? Arcane Recovery is giving you more bang for your buck, though you're best served grabbing a bunch of 1st level slots since that's the most efficient way of casting MM rather than upcasting it all of the time. Though if you are using MM so much, then slots for Shield/AE must be rather thin on the ground, leading to a defensive upcasting other Wizards/Sorcerer's probably aren't needing to do. Still total available slots are looking better, this is of course assuming you're not spending slots on anything other than combat though, right? Wizards are famed for their utility, so is this Wizard not fulfilling that role? Is all the utility conveniently filled by rituals that you have time to cast?

Of course as the levels increase and so do the threats more slots will probably be consumed on defenses, particularly Counter Spell since a simple 1st level casting of Shield completely nullifies the entire premise.

This nova stick can only be done 3 times a day (assuming 2SR), against a single monster each time and since it's so limited basically compels you to get the most out of it by dumping slots into it. Setting up said nova requires you to put yourself within 30 feet of whatever big bad thing you're trying to kill, forcing yourself to give up the defense of range that other Wizards may enjoy. You gotten yourself the ability to use medium armor and a shield, but you still have the hit points of a Wizard. You have the defenses but that cuts into your pool of slots.

No matter how you cut this, you will be using cantrips/weapons at some point in the day, I said "end" up there, if your argument is that you can spread it out by using them throughout the day then I don't think you're making the point you want to. You're still falling back on them, at some point in the day, everyone does, there's just simply not enough slots to get through a whole day without doing so, particularly when you're building around a nova premise that demands your slots.

So at the end of all this you wind up with a gold poor Wizard, struggling to financially function for much of the game unless treasure is particularly abundant or your party prop you up at their own detriment. A sub par Wizard at that, seeing as both your slot, spell, and ASI progression are delayed and you have a stretched stat line that has probably resulted int two dumped stats (I've seen your builds and your current campaign character's statlines, you seem to like to play with 2/3 dumped stats to achieve the schtick you want).

If you get through a 10 encounter day with slots left, you've leaned heavily on something else to achieve it, be it at the end of the day or through out it. There is no other way to do it.

Since you say that you played this character multiple times through early to late game, please provide the following:

-Race and stats
-Overall split and order of levels
-Magic items received and roughly when they were
-A gauge of how gold heavy the game was
-Your actual tactics throughout the day since you didn't end up dry on spells despite going through days of deadly encounters sometimes.

[MaxWilson]

No, your personal anecdote lacking any real depth or detail doesn't clearly show anything.

It's a build concept that revolves around burning spell slots on a chassis that has nothing but casting, if you didn't end up in cantrip only territory it's becuase you used cantrips extensively otherwise and/or had magic items you could fall back upon.

The concept is very simple, abuse the Hexblade and a stupid ruling for ridiculous amounts of Magic Missile damage. When your entire concept relies upon a leveled spell, you're burning resources, but since you'll clearly dispute this, fine:

*snip*

If you get through a 10 encounter day with slots left, you've leaned heavily on something else to achieve it, be it at the end of the day or through out it. There is no other way to do it.

I think you guys are talking past each other. LudicSavant is talking about how powerful it is to have the option to nova with Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile, but you know how he thinks--he's not going to Magic Missile in every encounter. Other times he's going to cast Dawn, or Wall of Force, or Wall of Light, or Summon Greater Demon, or Hypnotic Pattern.

It's about adding another tool to your toolbox, not becoming a one-trick pony.


-This comes online at 2nd level, at which point you start the day with 3 1st level spell slots, assuming two short rests there's a total of 6 1st level spell slots and three uses of HBC, Wizards are squishy unless they heavily compensate for it, usually via their magic

Note that the Hexvoker you're talking about has medium armor + shield proficiency so is no longer squishy.

[MrStabby]

1. I find it humorous how many people keep believing that spellcasters are over buff compared to melee champs.

2. Damage single target vs multiple
Yes the 8d6 AE can kill #10 10hit point goblins and people think that it equals 100 damage
Yet at that level chances of fighting token mobs are limited and the biggest threat is the main creature or few creatures and when you consider the damage 8d6 no save = 31 save =. 15 resistance = 8 immunity = 0. Magic resistance = advantage on save rolls

Now if you want to apply one shot spells like disintegrate or polymorph you still have one shot vs above types of protection and the limited spell slots available to the casters.

Now when you compare melee or range vs AC

The AC target doesn’t have the above defense options. Maybe immunity or resistance to non magical weapons which is non existent at medium high levels for heroes to not have magical weapons.
Or the damage potential to the single target
Backstab , multiple strikes , gwm sharpshooter gwf etc don’t worry about damage reduction

And as for paladin which I do like but the +2 save to everyone is ridiculous and the Ancient getting at level 7 spell resistance is stronger than a lvl 14 gift. And then adding it to ae to all allies is a lvl 20 ability.

Yes spell asters can do amazing things.
But compared to weapon damage champs. They fall short vs all of the Anti spell protections.

If the only point of comparison you think of between classes is damage... then yes, you are probably better suited to playing a barbarian than a wizard.

If you want to embrace the wonderous, diverse and subtle ways of ensuring your side wins combat most efficiently (or even better circumvent that combat entirely) then you are probably going to enjoy a wizard more.

[LudicSavant]

LudicSavant is talking about how powerful it is to have the option to nova with Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile, but you know how he thinks--he's not going to Magic Missile in every encounter. Other times he's going to cast Dawn, or Wall of Force, or Wall of Light, or Summon Greater Demon, or Hypnotic Pattern.

It's about adding another tool to your toolbox, not becoming a one-trick pony.



Note that the Hexvoker you're talking about has medium armor + shield proficiency so is no longer squishy.

Precisely so.

Edit:

No, your personal anecdote lacking any real depth or detail doesn't clearly show anything.

It means that I (and everyone who's seen me do it firsthand, many times over -- which includes multiple people on this very forum) know that I can consistently accomplish something you have wrongly assumed to be impossible. An assumption you appear to have made with no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise.


The concept is very simple, abuse the Hexblade and a stupid ruling for ridiculous amounts of Magic Missile damage. When your entire concept relies upon a leveled spell, you're burning resources, but since you'll clearly dispute this

Of course as the levels increase and so do the threats more slots will probably be consumed on defenses, particularly Counter Spell since a simple 1st level casting of Shield completely nullifies the entire premise.

This seems to be one of your biggest misconceptions about the build, and you keep coming back to it. The premise that one spell defines an entire Wizard is just... not true.

Heck, a guide-writer on here named Deathtongue did a whole guide on the Hexvoker in which he didn't take Magic Missile into account (because his DM wouldn't let him use it or something) and still concluded it was one of the best builds in the game, under those circumstances.

Hexvokers are strong even if they never use a single slot on Magic Missile. They are about as far from a one-trick pony as it gets.


if you didn't end up in cantrip only territory it's becuase you used cantrips extensively otherwise and/or had magic items you could fall back upon.

I neither needed to rely extensively on cantrips, nor on magic items, in order to get through a 6+ encounter adventuring day with resources to spare.

It's also worth noting that when they do use cantrips, they're unusually good at it. For example, Potent Create Bonfire is competitive with (in some circumstances, better than) Cloud of Daggers, and can be used for combos that likely go far beyond what you have in mind for 'just a cantrip' damage.


Wizards are squishy

Hexvokers aren't. They have top class offense and control (both of which dramatically hinder an enemy's offense in their own right) matched with medium armor + shield and a ton of great defensive tricks.

[Jerrykhor]

I have a friend who always play a melee martial (usually paladin) with GWM. He is famous for dealing big damage by critting at the time when we need it most. I have seen enough to form the opinion that this is why martials will always be relevant - Because there will always be big, strong monsters that needs to be defeated. Spell casters are fine and dandy for their utility and all, but when it comes to a fat sack of HP that rolls initiative against the adventurers, its time to bring the pain.

I'm not sure if this is what the OP means, but yes, I do think martials are underrated in their role for making things dead. Dead is still the best condition on a monster, and I have seen many fights where casters cannot do anything other than be a cheerleader to the martial. Especially when Legendary Saves, condition immunities and elemental resistances come into play. Lots of boss monsters have those. But its rare that they have more than 20AC, so the best tactic is to hit it till it dies.

[Gignere]

I have a friend who always play a melee martial (usually paladin) with GWM. He is famous for dealing big damage by critting at the time when we need it most. I have seen enough to form the opinion that this is why martials will always be relevant - Because there will always be big, strong monsters that needs to be defeated. Spell casters are fine and dandy for their utility and all, but when it comes to a fat sack of HP that rolls initiative against the adventurers, its time to bring the pain.

I'm not sure if this is what the OP means, but yes, I do think martials are underrated in their role for making things dead. Dead is still the best condition on a monster, and I have seen many fights where casters cannot do anything other than be a cheerleader to the martial. Especially when Legendary Saves, condition immunities and elemental resistances come into play. Lots of boss monsters have those. But its rare that they have more than 20AC, so the best tactic is to hit it till it dies.

Animate objects say 👋. This is just one spell that can do or exceed the single target DPR of martials fairly easily. This is before we abuse spell storing familiar shenanigans.

The hexvoker with MM can easily crush all but the most lucky crit strings of smiting Paladins.

[Dork_Forge]

I think you guys are talking past each other. LudicSavant is talking about how powerful it is to have the option to nova with Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile, but you know how he thinks--he's not going to Magic Missile in every encounter. Other times he's going to cast Dawn, or Wall of Force, or Wall of Light, or Summon Greater Demon, or Hypnotic Pattern.

It's about adding another tool to your toolbox, not becoming a one-trick pony.

I understand the toolbox argument, it's basically "you're still a Wizard," but the whole schtick of the nova Wizard is the MM+HBC combo, it's what defines it. Otherwise you'd be better off playing a different multiclass since going for Warlock takes a fairly big swing at how effective as a Wizard you actually are. Cleric dips and Artificer dips would still give armor and preserve slot progression at the very least, with Artificer reducing MADness.

If it wasn't advertised as a nova build I wouldn't have this issue, but that is what it's advertised as and regularly spoken about as, so I put in my two cents on it.


Note that the Hexvoker you're talking about has medium armor + shield proficiency so is no longer squishy.

I personally do not consider grabbing medium armor and shield prof enough to stop being squishy, though obviously opinions differ on what constitutes being squishy, so agree to disagree?

I just think that going for a Nova Wizard and then saying you're still a Wizard is a cop out is all when you could have MC'd for the profs and been a better Wizard. Though, as always I appreciate your point of view and the context you've offered into the discussion, thank you.



It means that I (and everyone who's seen me do it firsthand, many times over -- which includes multiple people on this very forum) know that I can consistently accomplish something you have wrongly assumed to be impossible. An assumption you appear to have made with no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise.

This is a point that you could have provided some depth or examples of, instead you took issue with me not taking your claim at face value. I have never played with you, I have never seen written out examples of what you're nebulously claiming and I have absolutely no reason to just mindlessly agree with you without some form of explanation or proof. You made a claim based on your experiences, backing that up is on you.



This seems to be one of your biggest misconceptions about the build, and you keep coming back to it. The premise that one spell defines an entire Wizard is just... not true.

Heck, a guide-writer on here named Deathtongue did a whole guide on the Hexvoker in which he didn't take Magic Missile into account (because his DM wouldn't let him use it or something) and still concluded it was one of the best builds in the game, under those circumstances.

Hexvokers are strong even if they never use a single slot on Magic Missile. They are about as far from a one-trick pony as it gets.

From what I remember about your write up of the nova wizard and what people bring up in various threads from time to time, it is defined by the MM+HBC exploit. I have no reason whatsoever to look at it as just a Wizard build when it is built around that combo (as already said above to Max, there's better ways to grab armour). Though even if you're doing other things, you're either spending spell slots on something else or presumably using a weapon or cantrips.


I neither needed to rely extensively on cantrips, nor on magic items, in order to get through a 6+ encounter adventuring day with resources to spare.

I wouldn't know, you were both prompted and explicitly asked for details and despite writing, and revising several times, a long post you avoided giving any. Since you're claiming you're not doing those things, and you can't possibly cast leveled spells every turn of a day like that for most of your career, I'll just assume that some turns were spent dodging or twiddling your thumbs. You were actively unwilling and avoidant about giving details, both initially and when prompted and actively questioned.


It's also worth noting that when they do use cantrips, they're unusually good at it. For example, Potent Create Bonfire is competitive with (in some circumstances, better than) Cloud of Daggers, and can be used for combos that likely go far beyond what you have in mind for 'just a cantrip' damage.

You don't know what I have in mind for cantrip damage, I know that a Dragon Sorc or Celestial Warlock are better at cantrip damage at 6th level. I know that the stereotypical Warlock is better at cantrip damage, I know that as of level 8+ something like half of all Clerics are better at cantrip damage. My threshold for cantrip damage isn't low.

As for Create Bonfire we can just disagree here:

-No save vs save
-Magical slashing (one of the better/best damage types) vs fire (one of the most resisted and immune damage types in the game)
-Damage on starting turn vs ending turn (Typically far harder to get a monster to end it's turn where it know's it will take damage...)
-CoD has a higher minimum and average damage with the same maximum (and that's assuming they fail the save)

If you want to run around splashing oil then that isn't cantrip damage and eats up more action economy and gold*, but sure that's something you can do at 7th level (lower level but without Potent). Arguing that at much higher levels a cantrip (paired with equipment and a class feature at least, but probably also other spells that need to be precast and can be destroyed before actually doing anything) can compete with a 2nd level spell (gained at 3rd level), when it's not upcast and under the right conditions is hardly singing its praises.

* Yes oil on it's own is cheap, but this build is already buying: Spellbook 50GP, a shield 10GP, Find Familiar 10GP starting (and knowing how you like to use them, substantially more over the course of a game) and medium armor, a scaling cost topping out at 750GP, nevermind costly components for other spells...


Hexvokers aren't. They have top class offense and control (both of which dramatically hinder an enemy's offense in their own right) matched with medium armor + shield and a ton of great defensive tricks.

You keep saying Hexvoker, that isn't what your build is called, that isn't what people think about when they talk about it (or actually say most of the time), then there's the picture and the large amount of spoiler text. The build defines itself as a nova build (Nuclear Wizard) that centres on MM for said Nova, yes you can do other Wizard things, worse than a straight Wizard can, but that wasn't the flashy thing that draws people is it?

As I already said above to Max, I don't consider grabbing medium armor and a shield as elevating a Wizard out of squishy territory. Nor do I consider offense a valid factor in it and control is pushing it at best.

You for the most part still just have the normal Wizard Defenses and at best are 2hp better off than a straight Wizard. Judging by your other builds there will be multiple holes in saves. Squishy Wizard is Squishy.

The moment a Nova Wizard's hp pool is hit they will feel it and feel it as hard as any other Wizard bar the Abjurer.

Maybe your build has some neat tricks in it to circumvent everything I've said, maybe you have some justification for building to a specific schtick just to end up saying but I'm still a (sub par) Wizard! But we wouldn't know, would we? I prompted you and even gave you a list of questions so that you could give useful information to back your post up. You replied with nothing that means much besides 'my anecdote matters and others will tell you the same!' I genuinely don't understand why you would dodge giving details, but you have.

It can be rather time consuming and draining to keep up a conversation like this: where an initial post is edited and added to, sometimes to the point of unrecogniseability, over an hour (or even more) after it was initially posted (try finishing what you want to say before posting, the forum isn't your drafting area). More so when said user takes a particular dislike to be challenged on something. So I will go back to the outcome of the barrage of PMs I received in the past:

In one of our last conversations I said that I wouldn't be replying to you again, I thought I would give you a chance to back your claims. Instead of doing so you have actively dodged and ignored the opportunity, when I believe most others would have either addressed it or just not replied at all. I won't make the mistake of wasting my time replying to you again.

[LudicSavant]

Since you say that you played this character multiple times through early to late game, please provide the following:

-Race and stats
-Overall split and order of levels
-Magic items received and roughly when they were
-A gauge of how gold heavy the game was
-Your actual tactics throughout the day since you didn't end up dry on spells despite going through days of deadly encounters sometimes.

Most recent one is also my current avatar.

PHB Tiefling (for RP reasons rather than optimization).
Pretty standard statline -- 16 / 14 / 14 / 14 / 8 / 8
ASIs are +Int / +Int / Res(Con) / Inspiring Leader
Hexblade 1 / Wizard the rest of the way

Currently Tier 4 (started at level 3)

My attunement slots as of level 17 are two Uncommon items (Cloak of Resistance and Dagger of Warning -- and the Uncommon Dagger of Warning got nerfed so that it doesn't negate Surprise for the party) and a plot-device Artifact which I don't really use in combat (I mean, yes, it's a magic weapon, but weapons aren't really my style. I use a wand that doubles an umbrella, thank you very much). I think I got the uncommon items sometime in late Tier 2 or Tier 3, and I got the Artifact at I think level 16. Best we've found for +X stuff is +1 armor by level 17 (and I think I found the armor at like, 15?).

As for gold, I had half-plate by tier 2, I remember that. And I was able to buy the spell components for spells that needed them, like Forcecage. But nothing at all like the piles and piles of treasure the DMG loot tables recommend.

As for what tactics I was using throughout the adventuring day... man, that's a broad question. I did something different basically every single day over the entire campaign. Like it sounds like you're expecting me to write an entire Wizard guide-length answer here where I tell you how to use every spell in every situation. So I pointed you to an actual Hexvoker guide that actually works on the premise that Empowered Magic Missile isn't a thing. You could also look up my past posts on this -- the one in my sig has quite a few examples.

If you want something more specific, it would be helpful if you narrowed the question a bit.

Edit: I'll also note that this top part of this post? I was in the middle of writing it while you wrote the above; it took me a while because I was trying to go through chat logs to figure out when I got stuff (the game's been going well over a year, I had to go and check). And because it was longer than my reply to the rest of the parts of your post combined.


I wouldn't know, you were both prompted and explicitly asked for details and despite writing, and revising several times, a long post you avoided giving any.

Before making a bunch of insults and accusations, did you consider the possibility that if I was writing and revising several times, adding answers to additional parts of your post over an extended period of time, I might reply to the last part of your post last, and that the part involving details would be the longest part, and that it would take the longest to write? :smallannoyed:


You made a claim based on your experiences, backing that up is on you.

Sure is! I am always happy to provide evidence of my claims. That's not the part of your post I took issue with.

There is a difference between not taking someone at face value, and acting by default like they made it up, or telling them that their experiences are meaningless, or telling them that 'really' something else must have happened, or generally taking a hostile tone towards that person.


-No save vs save
-Magical slashing vs fire
-Damage on starting turn vs ending turn
-CoD has a higher minimum and average damage with the same maximum

There are additional factors to consider.

- Has initial damage -and- damage on ending turn, vs only one instance of damage on the first turn. This is generally better on turn 1 (with some situational exceptions).
- The save only prevents half of the damage, not all of it.
- Cantrip damage scales.
- Since it ignites flammable substances, it combos with oil squares (among other things), which can be dropped by unseen servants or familiars. or the like And that damage offers no save.
- Can be used with the situationally very effective 'bonfire marching' strategy which just isn't possible with Daggers.

So for example, it's very possible for there to be situations where, for instance, Create Bonfire would do 6d8 (save for half) +5 (no save), so 32 or 18.5 if they save, when Cloud of Daggers would just be doing 4d4 (10) in the same situation.

On turn 1, Create Bonfire does damage immediately and at the end of their turn, which is generally better than "at start of turn" alone. On future turns, "at start of turn" is better, but doesn't always matter (after all, there must be some way that you were getting them to not walk out of the AoE on turn 1, and that might also be keeping them there on turn 2).

Ergo, there are situations where Potent Bonfire is better. I often found it outperforming the Lore Bard who was actually using Cloud of Daggers (we liked these kind of spells in this party, because we had a lot of ability to reposition or lockdown foes so we could do some pretty great combos with them).


If you want to run around splashing oil then that isn't cantrip damage and eats up more action economy and gold

Seriously? Eating gold? Oil is only 1sp. I must have spent like... 1 or 2gp on this throughout the entire campaign. :smallconfused:


As I already said above to Max, I don't consider grabbing medium armor and a shield as elevating a Wizard out of squishy territory. Nor do I consider offense a valid factor in it and control is pushing it at best.

It is not 'pushing it' to say that Wall of Force and other control spells help defend you. It does defend you. Quite effectively. I am not spending defensive resources on Shielding against people who are stuck in a Wall of Force.

It is not 'invalid' to say that offense helps defend you -- reducing Team Monster's ability to take more turns against you (and thus do Bad Stuff to you) is pretty much the entire point. I don't have to spend defensive resources on a turn they didn't get to take. Acting like I do is just sloppy white room theorycrafting.

In a real game, offense and control greatly affects the damage that you and your party takes, and the amount of defensive resources that you have to use in order to stay healthy. It also reduces the number of rounds that you (and your teammates) need to spend resources in, which frees you up to spend more resources per round.

Another thing; one of the strengths of the Hexvoker is that they have abundant level 1 slots in a 'standard adventuring day,' because of Pact Magic and Arcane Recovery. For example, at just level 4 they can use 9 level 1 slots in a 6 encounter / 2 short rest day (and I can toss in a level 2 Hellish Rebuke from my race for good measure). Especially at levels where level 1 spells are no longer relevant for offense, they can spam an awful lot of Shield, Absorb Elements, PFG&E, etc. It's by no means scarce. I often felt comfortable switching in as an off-tank to take pressure off the frontliners from those Deadly encounters, especially if the enemy was a kind I realized my defenses were particularly efficient against (sometimes they would be moreso than the main frontliner's).

It's also worth noting that the higher your AC is, the slower you use up Shields because your base AC is missed more often. Just like you use up less Shields if the enemy lives less rounds, or suffers more control.


From what I remember about your write up of the nova wizard and what people bring up in various threads from time to time, it is defined by the MM+HBC exploit.

Then you should be reminded that said write up says I feel it's a great deal even if Magic Missile is nerfed, and some of the reasons why (not all of the reasons -- I literally maxxed out the post limit size on that post). And gives quite a few examples of things it brings to the table besides Magic Missile. The big guide I pointed you to has more, from yet another poster who played it from tier 1-4. And, notably, his whole guide assumes not using Empowered Magic Missile, which would be pretty weird if he felt the build was defined by MM+HBC.


But we wouldn't know, would we?

I've pointed you to posts that would have let you know.


So I will go back to the outcome of the barrage of PMs I received in the past:

...You've been blocked from exchanging PMs with me since May (5/2020). It's now October (10/2020). Are you telling me that you are referring to some private message conversation from at least 5 months ago? Somehow I feel this probably isn't relevant to the thread.


In one of our last conversations I said that I wouldn't be replying to you again

If that's the sort of attitude you wish to take, then I think that may be for the best.

[cutlery]

Well, this all certainly neatly addresses OP's bizarre and entirely wrong arguments.

[Frogreaver]

It's also worth noting that the higher your AC is, the slower you use up Shields because your base AC is missed more often.

I'm going to try and stay out of the rest, but this isn't actually true in a typical game. You only use shield when something hits you by 5 or less. Unless you've managed to boost your AC quite a bit, Enemies are going to hit you by 5 or less the same amount of time as they hit a lower AC Wizard. Thus your higher AC doesn't actually mean you will be using shield less.

[LudicSavant]

I'm going to try and stay out of the rest Appreciated.


but this isn't actually true in a typical game. You only use shield when something hits you by 5 or less. Unless you've managed to boost your AC quite a bit, Enemies are going to hit you by 5 or less the same amount of time as they hit a lower AC Wizard. Thus your higher AC doesn't actually mean you will be using shield less.

You're mostly right, but there are a few more factors that come into play in a real game, in my experience.

1) If there are at least 5 6 numbers on the RNG that can hit you (why 6? Because crits can't be Shielded), and it's just a normal roll, chance of a shieldable hit is a flat 25%. Which I believe is what you're talking about.

2) If the number of non-crit numbers on the RNG that can hit you is less than 5 6, the chance of a shieldable hit decreases as AC increases (also as you say, except for my "6" nitpick). So for example, if you had +1 armor and shield, and a Cloak of Resistance (the case for my current character if she doesn't have any active defenses at the moment, such as the fact that our Warlock and Bard like Synaptic Static), enemies with an attack bonus lower than +7 would make shieldable hits less often.

3) If an enemy has Disadvantage to hit you, chance of missing within 5 decreases as AC increases. It no longer has the flat relationship you describe.

4) Counterintuitively, if an enemy has Advantage to hit you, chance of missing within 5 actually increases as AC increases (because they're more likely to hit you by a narrower margin).

5) Even in the cases where it was 'flat' in the way you describe, I felt that I needed to use Shield less in general because I was taking damage less in general (and mitigating more damage from multiattacks from Shields I did use), and thus I felt like I needed less extra mitigation overall.

Here's an Anydice program I wrote just now that you can use to check (example outputs are only there to make it obvious what you can edit): https://anydice.com/program/1e259

[cutlery]

I'm going to try and stay out of the rest, but this isn't actually true in a typical game. You only use shield when something hits you by 5 or less. Unless you've managed to boost your AC quite a bit, Enemies are going to hit you by 5 or less the same amount of time as they hit a lower AC Wizard. Thus your higher AC doesn't actually mean you will be using shield less.

So long as a natural 20 is always a hit, the way shield works with AC (and generally, any increase to AC) is asymptotic, particularly when advantage is in the equation, as Ludic notes.

The rules of thumb that "more AC is always better" and "the value of more ac increases as ac increases" is true for the linear part of the curve, but not really true once AC is so high most weak enemies need a 20 to hit you anyway.

[Deathtongue]

FYI, the Hexvoker I played in Adventurer's League to level 17 had a massive spike in power in T1/T2 but was continually hurt by being a spell level behind in T3. If you're playing in high-T3 or T4, I imagine a straight Evoker would be better. You'd do less damage at the discrete level, but at that level getting access to Simulacrum / Overchannel / another ASI / Wish / extra Crown of Stars or Whirlwind is more important.

Early access to an extra Contingency on myself and my Simulacrum to fast-cast an Overchanneled Melf's Minute Meteors was just more important to my day-by-day output than having Hexblade's Curse. Being able to drop the hammer with Crown of Stars AND MMM AND a Fireball from my Staff of the Magi/Power was the difference between ending an encounter early or risking a retaliation from two Alhoons.

[LudicSavant]

FYI, the Hexvoker I played in Adventurer's League to level 17 had a massive spike in power in T1/T2 but was continually hurt by being a spell level behind in T3. If you're playing in high-T3 or T4, I imagine a straight Evoker would be better. You'd do less damage at the discrete level, but at that level getting access to Simulacrum / Overchannel / another ASI / Wish / extra Crown of Stars or Whirlwind is more important.

Early access to an extra Contingency on myself and my Simulacrum to fast-cast an Overchanneled Melf's Minute Meteors was just more important to my day-by-day output than having Hexblade's Curse. Being able to drop the hammer with Crown of Stars AND MMM AND a Fireball from my Staff of the Magi/Power was the difference between ending an encounter early or risking a retaliation from two Alhoons.

I recall you talking about this in your thread!

You know, it occurs to me that I haven't actually tried MMM as one of my Overchannel choices yet. I think I will.

[Frogreaver]

So long as a natural 20 is always a hit, the way shield works with AC (and generally, any increase to AC) is asymptotic, particularly when advantage is in the equation, as Ludic notes.

The rules of thumb that "more AC is always better" and "the value of more ac increases as ac increases" is true for the linear part of the curve, but not really true once AC is so high most weak enemies need a 20 to hit you anyway.

I find it hilarious you bring this point up. I recently made a thread about AC and it’s value as Various attack bonuses approached needing a 20 to hit. You know what I was told - that none of that mattered because ACs don’t typically get that high...

And now at least 1 person from that thread is making that same exact point toward me...

It’s funny.

[cutlery]

I find it hilarious you bring this point up. I recently made a thread about AC and it’s value as Various attack bonuses approached needing a 20 to hit. You know what I was told - that none of that mattered because ACs don’t typically get that high...

And now at least 1 person from that thread is making that same exact point toward me...

It’s funny.

Yep; people should also have a minimum and maximum accuracy of 5% and 95% (respectively), too, when calculating how various things like advantage or accuracy boosts affect average damage. They don't always do that, though. The formulas aren't terribly difficult to put together, either.

I feel like if people did this they'd look at things like GWM and SS in very different lights.

[Deathtongue]

You know, it occurs to me that I haven't actually tried MMM as one of my Overchannel choices yet. I think I will.It goes great in a Contingency. You get an immediate attack when your contingency goes off, leaving your bonus action and action free for the round.

Of course, while single-classed Evoker is stronger at T3, 95% of games (and I'd suspect even higher) never get there. Hexvoker ranges from marginally superior to hugely superior vis-a-vis straight Evoker at every level in except character level 5. But then T3 hits and Contingency for MMM is a permanent game-changer for your damage. And it's not like T3/T4 Hexvoker is hugely inferior to Evoker. Even without immediate access to a L16 ASI or Overchannel or Simulacrum, you still have an AC that ranges from 'great' to 'Out of This World'. And Hexblade's Curse + Scorching Ray/MMM is always good for a laugh.

[MaxWilson]

It goes great in a Contingency. (A) You get an immediate attack when your contingency goes off, leaving your bonus action and action free for the round.


(A) is controversial. I don't agree--you only get that immediate attack when you cast it, but in this case that opportunity gets wasted because the spell does not come into effect until the Contingency goes off. Therefore, you have to release the missiles with your bonus action.

[LudicSavant]

I'm mostly interested in it as a possible alternative to Bigby's Hand (since it lasts 10 minutes, which to me says 'there's a good chance I can use this in more than one encounter').

Personally I've been using my Contingencies on Armor of Agathys and Greater Invisibility lately. I like GI for making it so that folks can't Counterspell me (since they need to see you). I'm wondering if there's some way I can get a similar effect without using my Concentration.

[micahaphone]

I'm curious where Whit is, just starting a contentious thread with a strong opening statement then going radio silent. Anyone have acid or fire damage at the ready?

[Deathtongue]

(A) is controversial. I don't agree--you only get that immediate attack when you cast it, but in this case that opportunity gets wasted because the spell does not come into effect until the Contingency goes off. Therefore, you have to release the missiles with your bonus action."You cast that spell -- called the contingent spell -- as part of casting contingency, but the contingent spell doesn't come into effect. Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs."

Or to put it another way -- if you were a 16 INT Evoker wizard at Level 11 with a Headband of Intellect, you cast Bigby's Hand to push yourself into a Contingency, then took off your headband the spell would the first time you used it to deal damage with, say, a Closed Fist you would deal 4d8 + 4 damage, not 4d8 + 3 damage.

[Deathtongue]

I'm mostly interested in it as a possible alternative to Bigby's Hand (since it lasts 10 minutes, which to me says 'there's a good chance I can use this in more than one encounter').I switched over to MMM specifically in AL because enough magical items dropped that I should shift my build to overwhelming offense. If I was playing in a home game that didn't have as much gold/magical item drops and I was concerned about dropping concentration from Contingency, I'd pick Blink or even Mirror Image. But generally I'd just go with Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'll agree with the OP to the extent that in tier 2 and 3 (I haven't played or DMed tier 4) there are some battles against single targets where full spellcasters are less impactful than martials. I'm currently DMing a campaign with a Diviner controlled by an experienced player, and while he shines most of the time, the 'Boss' fights can be challenging. The portents can't trigger auto-fails, so are often used to help other characters. Buff spells are decent options and summoning can be OK, but damage is generally halved. At the same time the martials are putting out a lot of damage every round. A MC Ftr Paladin or Ftr Gloomstalker can be hitting triple digit damage on a Nova round.
That said, I deliberately put those fights in occasionally because it allows those other characters to shine, as most of the time the Diviner is killing it.

[LudicSavant]

I'll agree with the OP to the extent that in tier 2 and 3 (I haven't played or DMed tier 4) there are some battles against single targets where full spellcasters are less impactful than martials. I'm currently DMing a campaign with a Diviner controlled by an experienced player, and while he shines most of the time, the 'Boss' fights can be challenging. The portents can't trigger auto-fails, so are often used to help other characters. Buff spells are decent options and summoning can be OK, but damage is generally halved. At the same time the martials are putting out a lot of damage every round. A MC Ftr Paladin or Ftr Gloomstalker can be hitting triple digit damage on a Nova round.
That said, I deliberately put those fights in occasionally because it allows those other characters to shine, as most of the time the Diviner is killing it.

Your group's Diviner may not be all that at single target damage, but one shouldn't be hasty to generalize from a single character to a category as broad and diverse as 'full casters,' which will exceed or fall behind in entirely different roles depending on how they're built and played.

For instance, you talk about your MC Paladin or Gloomstalker hitting triple digit damage on nova rounds at tier 3, but that's not uncommon for casters who actually intend to fill the single target damage role, either.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Your group's Diviner may not be all that at single target damage, but one shouldn't be hasty to generalize from a single character to a category as broad and diverse as 'full casters,' which will exceed or fall behind in entirely different roles depending on how they're built and played.

For instance, you talk about your MC Paladin or Gloomstalker hitting triple digit damage on nova rounds at tier 3, but that's not uncommon for casters who actually intend to fill the single target damage roll, either.

The example was intended as just that, an example. That said, none of the casters I've played with would come close to that sort of damage. Is it possible? I'll take your word for it. Nobody in my group is into Warlocks; I'm assuming that is one of the characters you are talking about. With 2 - 3 spells max per short rest are they full casters? (probably shouldn't write that since someone will likely go nuts and take the thread sideways.) Maybe a better question is: Are there full casters (of multiple classes) who can achieve the sort of single target damage and still fulfill their core roles and be as impactful as the Diviner in all those other situations?

[LudicSavant]

Maybe a better question is: Are there full casters (of multiple classes) who can achieve the sort of single target damage and still fulfill their core roles

Can you clarify what you mean by 'their core roles' exactly?

I'd say that the party role of two characters with the same class, but different subclasses and builds, can be very different indeed.

For example, if someone's playing a Life Cleric, they likely are going to consider "healing" a core role, but someone playing a Light Cleric might see 'AoE blasting' as their core role and healing as something they do sparingly. A Moon Druid might see themselves as the party tank, but the Land Druid is less likely to see it that way. That sort of thing.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Can you clarify what you mean by 'their core roles' exactly?

I'd say that the party role of two characters with the same class, but different subclasses and builds, can be very different indeed.

For example, if someone's playing a Life Cleric, they likely are going to consider "healing" a core role, but someone playing a Light Cleric might see 'AoE blasting' as their core role and healing as something they do sparingly. A Moon Druid might see themselves as the party tank, but the Land Druid is less likely to see it that way. That sort of thing.

I've played a Light Cleric and for sure AoE blasting was a big part of the build. I tended to stick with Bless as my concentration spell rather than Spirit Guardians well into the game so that the 3rd level spells were freed up for fireball.
But this thread is about single target, so I guess I'd be interested in examples of casters who can do the kind of single target damage you are talking about. Warlock and to some extent Sorcerer come to mind. So I guess the context I can put on it from my end having played 2 Sorcerers, is that yes, they could put their resources towards single target damage through things like twin, quicken, and empower. I guess I'd need some convincing that was both a good use of resources and didn't impact some of the other very impactful tricks they are know for. You mentioned Clerics and Druids, and I'll add Wizards and Bards: Briefly what are the basics of approaching triple digit damage per round for some of these characters, specifically when the target has PSB resistance which is going to impact most summoning?

[Deathtongue]

Single-target damage is somewhat overrated in 5E D&D anyway. Hit points in 5E D&D scale much faster than player damage for CRs 3 - 10. The scaling slows down a lot by CR 11 - 20 thankfully. But unless you're a hardcore single-target DD like a Samurai Sharpshooter Elven Accuracy Elf with an Oathbow, it's going to take 2-3 rounds to take down mid-tier targets in T2/T3 anyway.

[LudicSavant]

Briefly what are the basics of approaching triple digit damage per round for some of these characters, specifically when the target has PSB resistance which is going to impact most summoning?

A lot of them come in the form of...

- A strong action economy (Simulacrum, contingency, minionmancy, bonus actions, concentration pre-casts, warcaster reactions, passive retributive damage, smites, etc).
- Multi-hitting hazard combos (Basically, you can wrack up a ton of damage on things that do damage on 'enters' if you're good at smacking foes around).
- Certain spell/ability combos adding extra damage/hit to multi-hit spells like Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Eldritch Blast, Spike Growth, or the like can really get up there.
- Synergistic buffs, either for yourself, your summons, or other characters.
- Summons/animates.
- Often some combination of the above.

[Waazraath]

The example was intended as just that, an example. That said, none of the casters I've played with would come close to that sort of damage. Is it possible? I'll take your word for it. Nobody in my group is into Warlocks; I'm assuming that is one of the characters you are talking about. With 2 - 3 spells max per short rest are they full casters? (probably shouldn't write that since someone will likely go nuts and take the thread sideways.) Maybe a better question is: Are there full casters (of multiple classes) who can achieve the sort of single target damage and still fulfill their core roles and be as impactful as the Diviner in all those other situations?

I think it's a good question. I'm pretty sure some can, but others cannot. One example: the Swords Bard. Praised sometimes as a full caster that can do martial amounts of damage in melee (also in this thread), while imo it's one big trap class. You can't do that amounts of melee damage while at the same time playing your core role / your strength as party buffer. You need to spend all your bardic inspiration to have an AC that's acceptable for combat, and some sort of relevant damage - your not helping your allies pass that vital saving throw. Need to spend your magical secrets on spells relevant melee (offense or defense). Need feats, and invest in str or dex aside from cha, making you lag behind other bards (fewer inspirations, less high spell DC). Especially in tier 1 and 2 squishy as hell, and relying on expendable rescources - later tiers its easier to compensate with spells. In the end you end up with a bard that is much worse in bard stuff than other bards, better in melee than most bards as well, but still worse in damage and durability than a fighter paladin or barbarian. Though a valid concept (a true jack of all trades): I'd have a lore bard as a party member any time of the day, rather than a swords trying to be a melee combatant. Or a real martial.
Of course, you can use the entire optimization bag of tricks to compensate a bit, with the obligatory hexblade dip or a few levels of paladin for example, but next to these having disadvantages as well, in general I find the power of such subclasses often to be overstated.

[LudicSavant]

I think it's a good question. I'm pretty sure some can, but others cannot. One example: the Swords Bard. Praised sometimes as a full caster that can do martial amounts of damage in melee (also in this thread), while imo it's one big trap class. You can't do that amounts of melee damage while at the same time playing your core role / your strength as party buffer.

Does a Swords Bard have to simultaneously support like a Glamour Bard in order to meet the goalpost of 'do the martial's job about as well as a martial'?

Asking whether you'd rather have a Glamour Bard or Swords Bard on your team seems like an entirely different discussion, to me.


Can you clarify what you mean by 'their core roles' exactly?

Forgive me if I missed it but I don't think I got an answer to this question.

If core role is being used the way I think it's being used, it's a concept I object to. I would never complain, for instance, if a War Cleric wasn't acting as much of an in-combat healer. Clerics who dedicate themselves to healing are great, but so are ones that don't take on that 'core role.' Same goes for Bards, Wizards, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks.

D&D 5e is not designed with the "Trinity MMO" philosophy. Two characters of the same class can fill entirely different roles.

[Waazraath]

Does a Swords Bard have to simultaneously support like a Glamour Bard in order to meet the goalpost of 'do the martial's job about as well as a martial'?

Because that seems like a more-than-sufficient goalpost to meet for the 'do casters suck' discussion, as well as the 'martials can do a bunch of single target nova damage but casters can't' discussion.

Asking whether you'd rather have a Glamour Bard or Swords Bard on your team seems like an entirely different discussion, to me.


I genuinelly don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[Deathtongue]

I genuinelly don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Why should a particular Swords Bard care about whether they're still good at 'support' at all? It doesn't matter how good they are doing both bardy things like Inspiration while simultaneously being a melee combatant.

Now, I agree, the Swords Bard, especially in T1/T2, has some serious problems as a martial combatant. Their Blade Flourish extra damage is weak AF. And they're locked into the two weakest Fighting Styles in the game. They have probably the worst save array in the game (CHA/INT) and they're locked into a d8 hit dice. They also have very weak AC as a frontline fighter, with Blade Flourish not being enough to save your bacon in the low levels. But the real clincher is how they don't get the really good T1/T2 melee buttkicker spells like Shield, Absorb Elements, Blur, Protection from Evil and Good, Misty Step, Shadow Blade, Fly, or Haste.

At very high levels, as in late into T3/T4, Swords Bards can patch up these issues with the appropriate multiclass and Magical Secrets. Bards are the only class other than Wizards who can get Simulacrum in T3, that spell by itself will make you a competent melee combatant.

But a Swords Bard should be evaluated on how well they do as a martial by putting a reasonable amount of resources into it. If they save all of their Bardic Inspiration for Blade Flourish and never give one to a party member in-combat, that's okay -- so long as they get a good benefit from it.

[LudicSavant]

I genuinelly don't understand what you are trying to say here.

If one hypothetically made a Bard that could dish out damage and take a hit like a martial, but didn't do as much supporting as another Bard might, would that count as a 'trap character'?

If so, why?


Why should a particular Swords Bard care about whether they're still good at 'support' at all? It doesn't matter how good they are doing both bardy things like Inspiration while simultaneously being a melee combatant.

*snip*

But a Swords Bard should be evaluated on how well they do as a martial by putting a reasonable amount of resources into it. If they save all of their Bardic Inspiration for Blade Flourish and never give one to a party member in-combat, that's okay -- so long as they get a good benefit from it.

Beat me to it :smalltongue:


They have probably the worst save array in the game (CHA/INT)

Nitpick: They have Dex/Cha.

Which I still agree is one of the worse save arrays available.

[Waazraath]

If one hypothetically made a Bard that could dish out damage and take a hit like a martial, but didn't do as much supporting as another Bard might, would that count as a 'trap character'?

If so, why?

The problem is in your first assumption: that this sword bard could dish out damage and take a hit like a martial. It can't. Especially not in the first two (most often played) tiers of play.

I find its a trap subclass (not character, that depends on build) because it suggests you can take it out of the box and be a 'melee bard'. That type of bard is the no1 casualty in all D&D games I've seen. And yes, of course its optmizable, with multiclassing etc., but for that you need at least some system mastery (and optional rules systems in play). Just pick a swords bard, a cha/dex race, and walk in to the fray? It leads to an underperforming martial and an underperforming bard.

Which can be a valid role - as I said in the post you replied to (a true jack of all trades). I'm agreeing with most of what Deathtongue says, including
But a Swords Bard should be evaluated on how well they do as a martial by putting a reasonable amount of resources into it. If they save all of their Bardic Inspiration for Blade Flourish and never give one to a party member in-combat, that's okay -- so long as they get a good benefit from it. If a player counciously chooses such a character, fine, it won't suck or anything. But it sure as hell isn't 'martial single damage with extra stuff as well' as it is advertized sometimes, and from my playing experience, less of an asset to a party than either a dedicated martial or a dedicated support caster.

[LudicSavant]

The problem is in your first assumption: that this sword bard could dish out damage and take a hit like a martial. It can't. Especially not in the first two (most often played) tiers of play.

I did not actually make that assumption in the text you quoted.

I was basically asking you whether or not you would be willing to evaluate a Bard -- any Bard, not necessarily your Swords Bard -- as a good option if they were good at a role other than what you see as their 'core role.'

[Waazraath]

I did not actually make that assumption in the text you quoted.

I was basically asking you whether or not you would be willing to evaluate a Bard -- any Bard, not necessarily your Swords Bard -- as a good option if they were good at a role other than what you see as their 'core role.'

In general, yes. But I still don't see how this has anything to do with what I posted earlier. Somebody asked a question: can casters be good melee (or single target damage in general) without neglecting core roles. I provided an anser: some can, some can't. My example: swords bard, which are average melee/single target damage when spending a lot of rescources, at the cost of a bard core role (support). I think my answer to the question was pretty clear.

[LudicSavant]

In general, yes.

Thank you for clarifying.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is in your first assumption: that this sword bard could dish out damage and take a hit like a martial. It can't. Especially not in the first two (most often played) tiers of play. It can't be a melee bard until level 3 in any case; nor can a Valor Bard. Out of the box all bards are two levels of bardy support vicious mockers of enemies ...

But it sure as hell isn't 'martial single damage with extra stuff as well' as it is advertized sometimes, and from my playing experience, less of an asset to a party than either a dedicated martial or a dedicated support caster. Depends on the size of the party. We were having a similar problem with out Valor Bard until I pointed out to him that he could use Medium Armor, like a breastplate. He became a better assistant martial once he wrapped his mind around that; bards start as quite supporty, so it takes a certain amount of focus to embrace the more martial roles.

As I have not played a swords bard beyond a brief one shot, I'll not comment on that sub class.

[MrStabby]

I think swords bards can be very good but they are a bit unfulfilling if you play them as primarily casters.

If you assign ASIs, abilities and use spells on the basis that you are taking the attack action most of the time in combat then you get a very different feel.

With the Ravnica and Ebberon options for swapping up spells you can take something like a mark of warding or mark of passage character for spells that don't need a big wisdom (you will want it higher later for the inspiration, but at lower levels a boosted attack stat is better) and you can swan around with armour of Agathys on or similar.

As you go up levels and raise your charisma you can switch out spells for ones that rely a bit more on charisma, but still focus on keeping your actions free.


The downside is that this then falls into the category of characters massively improved by access to hexblade dip.

[heavyfuel]

Every time one of these threads show up, I'm further conviced that whoever is defending Martials as being just as good or better than Casters fall into either or both of the following categories:

Category 1: "They play D&D as a combat simulator" - These are the guys that have very little RP in their RPGs. It's a DM throwing monsters at the group until they level up, rinse and repeat. Being able to teleport, plane shift, fly, suggest creatures, go invisible, etc doesn't matter all that much because the only thing that matters is how fast you can kill monsters.

Category 2: "They've never seen a competent full-caster in play" - Self explanatory. If all you see is the average damage Fireball deals compared to the average HP of CR 5 creatures, you'll obviously think casters suck.

Edit: I actually forgot Category 3

Category 3: "They're trolling".

[Deathtongue]

Category 1: "They play D&D as a combat simulator" - These are the guys that have very little RP in their RPGs. It's a DM throwing monsters at the group until they level up, rinse and repeat. Being able to teleport, plane shift, fly, suggest creatures, go invisible, etc doesn't matter all that much because the only thing that matters is how fast you can kill monsters.
I've found it's much more common that modern tables completely excise the combat from D&D. I've played at plenty of D&D tables where your build was completely immaterial to progress, what matters is how interesting was your character and how well you roleplay.

If there's a level-appropriate or genre-appropriate obstacle that gets in your way, don't worry, as long as you ~roleplay~ the DM will make it happen somehow, whether it involves a convenient MacGuffin or benevolent questgiver or whatever.

These kind of setups favor martial vis-a-vis sandbox campaigns (where you have to be a self-starter, and martials have less options) and/or campaigns where if you can't come up with a plausible way to break into the BBEG's extradimensional fortress without being caught (where spellcasters have more options) then the DM isn't going to declare that there's a convenient mutinous guard or magic item to help out. You're just stuck at that obstacle until you fail the quest.

[MaxWilson]

Every time one of these threads show up, I'm further conviced that whoever is defending Martials as being just as good or better than Casters fall into either or both of the following categories:

Category 1: "They play D&D as a combat simulator" - These are the guys that have very little RP in their RPGs. It's a DM throwing monsters at the group until they level up, rinse and repeat. Being able to teleport, plane shift, fly, suggest creatures, go invisible, etc doesn't matter all that much because the only thing that matters is how fast you can kill monsters.

Category 2: "They've never seen a competent full-caster in play" - Self explanatory. If all you see is the average damage Fireball deals compared to the average HP of CR 5 creatures, you'll obviously think casters suck.

Edit: I actually forgot Category 3

Category 3: "They're trolling".

Category 4: they play in a setting with diminishing returns, where having four PCs who can Plane Shift or Fly, etc., isn't much of an advantage over having one. This is especially true if whatever deadly fights do happen tend to be against small groups of solo monsters, often with legendary resistance (e.g. dragons) or old-school magic resistance.

In this context, "just as good or better" means "warriors have a role to play in an optimal(ish) party", not "the one true optimal party includes all warriors and zero spellcasters".

[heavyfuel]

I've found it's much more common that modern tables completely excise the combat from D&D. I've played at plenty of D&D tables where your build was completely immaterial to progress, what matters is how interesting was your character and how well you roleplay.

If there's a level-appropriate or genre-appropriate obstacle that gets in your way, don't worry, as long as you ~roleplay~ the DM will make it happen somehow, whether it involves a convenient MacGuffin or benevolent questgiver or whatever.

These kind of setups favor martial vis-a-vis sandbox campaigns (where you have to be a self-starter, and martials have less options) and/or campaigns where if you can't come up with a plausible way to break into the BBEG's extradimensional fortress without being caught (where spellcasters have more options) then the DM isn't going to declare that there's a convenient mutinous guard or magic item to help out. You're just stuck at that obstacle until you fail the quest.

Ah, yes. How could I forget "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and railroads guides them to their goal regardless of player choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

Category 3: "They're trolling".
The possibility was raised some posts back ^^^up there^^^ that the OP might be found hiding behind door number three, but I'd like to follow up on something that Max pointed out.

In this context, "just as good or better" means "warriors have a role to play in an optimal(ish) party", not "the one true optimal party includes all warriors and zero spellcasters". Warriors do indeed have a role to play; the whole conceit of this game is a team of (4 +/- 1) adventurers, each from a different class, combining their strengths and weaknesses together to form an effective whole to overcome otherwise insurmountable odds. (HoTDQ themed jokes are now being entertained ....). It isn't about 'this class is better than that class' - that's baggage that some players bring to the table, or to a discussion, and I find it counterproductive in most cases.

I'd like to play from level 1-15, or ever from level 1-20, a four player group that has:
1 Fighter/Champion
1 Cleric/Life Domain
1 Rogue/Thief
1 Wizard/ Evoker

Just as it laid out in the free basic rules. And, since I personally find that five PC's is the best party size, pick one of the following to add if you have one more player

1 Paladin
1 Barbarian
1 Ranger
1 Monk

I think it would be a great ride.
Yes feats, no multiclassing.

[Xervous]

Ah, yes. How could I forget "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and railroads guides them to their goal regardless of player choice.

Which is itself a distorted interpretation of the minimal mechanics intent of fighter. It’s a valid style of play, the only thing worth griping about is that the dynamic is implicit rather than elaborated upon by the books that are supposed to tell you how the game works.

[Deathtongue]

Ah, yes. How could I forget "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and railroads guides them to their goal regardless of player choice.Eh. 5E D&D combat and obstacle progression, like all editions, is pretty arbitrary and stupid. I like it, I've written about 200 pages worth of guides on 5E D&D alone, but I'm not going to flex on people who understandly decide that mastering the resolution mechanics (to include combat) it's an obstacle/storytelling crutch. Would Critical Role be more entertaining if Matt dropped the hammer and started killing people who weren't enough of min-maxed Sun Tzus?

[KorvinStarmast]

Would Critical Role be more entertaining if Matt dropped the hammer and started killing people who weren't enough of min-maxed Sun Tzus? It sure would, but they might lock him up for killing people. :smallbiggrin:

And I'd also like to see character permadeath in Matt's game be a thing ... I realize that this is a matter of taste, but the now and again PC death adds to the story, or it can.

Roll up a new one ...

[Eldariel]

Warriors do indeed have a role to play; the whole conceit of this game is a team of (4 +/- 1) adventurers, each from a different class, combining their strengths and weaknesses together to form an effective whole to overcome otherwise insurmountable odds. (HoTDQ themed jokes are now being entertained ....). It isn't about 'this class is better than that class' - that's baggage that some players bring to the table, or to a discussion, and I find it counterproductive in most cases.

It's largely a matter of whether any given slot in a party is better filled by a warrior rather than a caster. We're far from the days where warriors actually had meaningful HP advantage over casters or their at-will DPS was significantly better (indeed, casters even having easy at-will DPS is a new phenomenon and it was made pretty darn good). So it does raise the question of what's the warrior bringing to the table worth enough to give up a whole full caster's worth of slots. Paladin can occasionally give something but other the classes have a hard time really answering that question; ultimately I'd say generally the role of a warrior would probably be fillable with a caster who brings more to the table in the grand scheme of things in any given party.

[Unoriginal]

Every time one of these threads show up, I'm further conviced that whoever is defending Martials as being just as good or better than Casters fall into either or both of the following categories:

Category 1: "They play D&D as a combat simulator" - These are the guys that have very little RP in their RPGs. It's a DM throwing monsters at the group until they level up, rinse and repeat. Being able to teleport, plane shift, fly, suggest creatures, go invisible, etc doesn't matter all that much because the only thing that matters is how fast you can kill monsters.

Category 2: "They've never seen a competent full-caster in play" - Self explanatory. If all you see is the average damage Fireball deals compared to the average HP of CR 5 creatures, you'll obviously think casters suck.

Edit: I actually forgot Category 3

Category 3: "They're trolling".

And any time I see anyone pretending that Casters are better than Martials I'm further convinced that they fall into either of both of the following categories:

Category 1: They're dramatically exaggerating about how important the few things casters are legitimately more useful at, like providing transportation or safe housing, make them

Category 2: They act as if whiteroom theorycrafting conditions are actually things that happen in-game reliably. Invoking the Shrödinger Wizard, who always has all the spells for every single situation prepared simultaneously and always enough spell slots for all of them, is generally a symptom of this.

Category 3: They're trolling.

Category 4: "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and let them do whatever without regards for limits, campaign constrains, or the like (essentially, giving the players carte blanche for their shenanigans and acting as if the gaming world actually was the white room theorycrafters act as it is).


Anyone claiming martials are superior is wrong, anyone claiming casters are superior is wrong. We're not kids and this isn't a "my guy can beat your guy" schoolyard argument.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's largely a matter of whether any given slot in a party is better filled by a warrior rather than a caster. That's a matter of taste and personal preference.

I think that the 'party optimization' thread (which I had such hopes for) seems to have died before it bore fruit.

[Eldariel]

That's a matter of taste and personal preference.

I think that the 'party optimization' thread (which I had such hopes for) seems to have died before it bore fruit.

We need to establish a better framework to define the issue and relevant variables before it can be done, I think. That's why I didn't post in so long: I'm working on a synthesis for better defining the game variables (reducing them down to minimun needed to differentiate between what any given set of logic can be appled to). Of course, I've hardly had any time to that end recently as with every autumn. Here's waiting for autumn break.

[Xervous]

“Better” is such a nebulous term.

Tools for narrative involvement? Fighter is deficient.
Ease of access for your beer and pretzels player? Fighter is probably king.

We can putz around assumptions with GMs to many degrees of inconclusive but what it really boils down to is the GM green lighting fighter things and red lighting caster things. The fighter has few guarantees and most rides on fiat, while casters run amok in absence of said fiat. One lends itself to prompting the GM for story while the other has the capability to push the story pending a divine objection.

[KorvinStarmast]

We need to establish a better framework to define the issue and relevant variables before it can be done, I think. That's why I didn't post in so long: I'm working on a synthesis for better defining the game variables (reducing them down to minimun needed to differentiate between what any given set of logic can be appled to). Of course, I've hardly had any time to that end recently as with every autumn. Here's waiting for autumn break. Maybe I need to go and post in it so that it doesn't fall into the "don't necro the thread" blues. :smalleek:

We can putz around assumptions with GMs to many degrees of inconclusive but what it really boils down to is the GM green lighting fighter things and red lighting caster things. The fighter has few guarantees and most rides on fiat, while casters run amok in absence of said fiat. One lends itself to prompting the GM for story while the other has the capability to push the story pending a divine objection. Until they fail that feeblemind saving throw. :smallcool:

[heavyfuel]

Category 1: They're dramatically exaggerating about how important the few things casters are legitimately more useful at, like providing transportation or safe housing, make them

Category 2: They act as if whiteroom theorycrafting conditions are actually things that happen in-game reliably. Invoking the Shrödinger Wizard, who always has all the spells for every single situation prepared simultaneously and always enough spell slots for all of them, is generally a symptom of this.

Category 3: They're trolling.

Category 4: "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and let them do whatever without regards for limits, campaign constrains, or the like (essentially, giving the players carte blanche for their shenanigans and acting as if the gaming world actually was the white room theorycrafters act as it is).


Anyone claiming martials are superior is wrong, anyone claiming casters are superior is wrong. We're not kids and this isn't a "my guy can beat your guy" schoolyard argument.

@ Cat 1: Well, these things are majorly important if you're in a campaign where the game world doesn't revolve around the PCs. If it does, then we're back to "easy mode the DM lets you have whatever"

@ Cat 2: It's true that Shrödinger Wizards are brought up more often than they should, but any full-caster with decent spell selection is better prepared for dealing with varied encounters. While a melee martial is good at killing things in charging distance, they don't do much else.

@ Cat 3: They're just everywhere, aren't they!?

@ Cat 4: I don't think pointing to a spell in the book and then pointing to your character level and saying "I do that because the book says I can do that" counts as "easy mode". Unless your meaning of "easy mode" is "a game where the DM doesn't arbitrarily nerf spellcasters", in which case you might as well admit that casters are too strong and need a nerf.

[Xervous]

Until they fail that feeblemind saving throw. :smallcool:

I warned you about particulars! We could debate who the proper target for the feeblemind is as per the narrative or if feeblemind is an efficient use of our villains resources in that moment. It’s a red light to the caster that typically won’t occur without intentional placement.

[KorvinStarmast]

I warned you about particulars! We could debate who the proper target for the feeblemind is as per the narrative or if feeblemind is an efficient use of our villains resources in that moment. It’s a red light to the caster that typically won’t occur without intentional placement. In a world where wizards exist, high level spell casting critters may well choose a spell like this as a means of self defense or 'an insurance policy'

Or they might choose something else, sure.

But it's not a DM being mean to casters. It is, in world, a sensible counter to spell casters being a problem for {pick a villain of the week}.

[MinotaurWarrior]

@ Cat 1: Well, these things are majorly important if you're in a campaign where the game world doesn't revolve around the PCs. If it does, then we're back to "easy mode the DM lets you have whatever"

@ Cat 2: It's true that Shrödinger Wizards are brought up more often than they should, but any full-caster with decent spell selection is better prepared for dealing with varied encounters. While a melee martial is good at killing things in charging distance, they don't do much else.

@ Cat 3: They're just everywhere, aren't they!?

@ Cat 4: I don't think pointing to a spell in the book and then pointing to your character level and saying "I do that because the book says I can do that" counts as "easy mode". Unless your meaning of "easy mode" is "a game where the DM doesn't arbitrarily nerf spellcasters", in which case you might as well admit that casters are too strong and need a nerf.

Cat 2: The premise of the game is that charging in and killing things will be useful the majority of the time

Cat 4: Easy mode DMing for spellcasters, imo, entails three main things:

1) Creating challenges specifically solvable via spells (e.g. you need to plane shift) but never having challenges specifically solvable by martials (e.g. you need to suddenly take two actions)

2) Allowing 5 minute adventuring days and spellspam downtime without ever having days with no rests or 10+ short rests

3) The opposite of GatG: never complicating or limiting spells, always having them achieve what the player wants. My favorite example is the common error of people playing "invisibility" as immediately making someone hidden.

[Unoriginal]

@ Cat 1: Well, these things are majorly important if you're in a campaign where the game world doesn't revolve around the PCs. If it does, then we're back to "easy mode the DM lets you have whatever"

There is nothing about those things that make them "majorly important if you're in a campaign where the game world doesn't revolve around the PCs." Those capacites are conditionally very useful, but none of those conditions are depending the world not "revolving around the PCs".

Having a campaign happen in a given metropolis will obviously make spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut less useful, and a world doesn't need to "revolve around the PCs" for there to be a portal to Acheron or the Astral Sea.

Also if you're in a party and people are expecting you to spend ressources on transportation, you're not superior, you're the designated driver.



@ Cat 2: It's true that Shrödinger Wizards are brought up more often than they should, but any full-caster with decent spell selection is better prepared for dealing with varied encounters. While a melee martial is good at killing things in charging distance, they don't do much else.

Coming at the cost that if they're in an encounter they're not prepared for or if it happens after they've already spent the ressources they'd have needed for it, the casters will be more hindered.

Not saying that the versatility isn't a good thing, just that it's not as good as people advance.



@ Cat 3: They're just everywhere, aren't they!?

Indeed.



@ Cat 4: I don't think pointing to a spell in the book and then pointing to your character level and saying "I do that because the book says I can do that" counts as "easy mode". Unless your meaning of "easy mode" is "a game where the DM doesn't arbitrarily nerf spellcasters", in which case you might as well admit that casters are too strong and need a nerf.

Pointing at a spell in the book and using it isn't easy mode, indeed. Pointing at a spell in the book and then ignoring X, Y and Z factors because you want to do it and then having the DM agree to it, on the other hand, is.

For exemple: the necromancer with 100 or so undead. Theoretically possible, but actually incredibly hard to pull off in an living, reactive world that doesn't revolve around the PCs, and doubly hard to pull off in an adventuring situation.


Cat 2: The premise of the game is that charging in and killing things will be useful the majority of the time

Cat 4: Easy mode DMing for spellcasters, imo, entails three main things:

1) Creating challenges specifically solvable via spells (e.g. you need to plane shift) but never having challenges specifically solvable by martials (e.g. you need to suddenly take two actions)

2) Allowing 5 minute adventuring days and spellspam downtime without ever having days with no rests or 10+ short rests

3) The opposite of GatG: never complicating or limiting spells, always having them achieve what the player wants. My favorite example is the common error of people playing "invisibility" as immediately making someone hidden.

Good points, too.

One of the most extreme examples I've seen for the last part is the "Mordenkainen's Hound can read minds" one.


In a world where wizards exist, high level spell casting critters may well choose a spell like this as a means of self defense or 'an insurance policy'

Or they might choose something else, sure.

But it's not a DM being mean to casters. It is, in world, a sensible counter to spell casters being a problem for {pick a villain of the week}.

Yeah, same way that a BBEG who know they have to face a martial PC known for bisecting their enemies in one strike may want to invest in an adamantine armor. Or how someone who has pissed off a cult of Asmodeus will want to be prepared to handle invisible imps running around.

[Xervous]

In a world where wizards exist, high level spell casting critters may well choose a spell like this as a means of self defense or 'an insurance policy'

Or they might choose something else, sure.

But it's not a DM being mean to casters. It is, in world, a sensible counter to spell casters being a problem for {pick a villain of the week}.

I’ll clarify that I’m phrasing none of this as being mean to casters. The world needs to push back to some extent on the capabilities of the players. Casters with their myriad options need to meet obstacles and it is up to the GM to provide them. Verisimilitude, campaign setting or even just putting the breaks on a caster for a session to shuffle up the dynamic. Explanation is available aplenty. I’m agreeing with you here.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m agreeing with you here. Wait, are we allowed to do that? :smallbiggrin:

[Xervous]

Wait, are we allowed to do that? :smallbiggrin:

The laws of magnetism suggest inevitable repulsion, unless we’re both stuck here by a greater opposite force.

Hmm, now do I ruin everything with some analogy like racecar casters and rollercoaster fighters?

[Waazraath]

+1 to almost everything Unoriginal and MinotaurWarrior have said on this. And in addition to


1) Creating challenges specifically solvable via spells (e.g. you need to plane shift) but never having challenges specifically solvable by martials (e.g. you need to suddenly take two actions)

2) Allowing 5 minute adventuring days and spellspam downtime without ever having days with no rests or 10+ short rests

3) The opposite of GatG: never complicating or limiting spells, always having them achieve what the player wants. My favorite example is the common error of people playing "invisibility" as immediately making someone hidden.

we have:
- not tracking material components, or material components costs, or having all material components even exotic ones always available
- handwaiving the rules on verbal and somatic components and how spell foci work
- assuming that most or all inhabitants of a highly magical world are unaware magic exists and lack even basic mundane or magical defenses against it

In addition to your point 3, there's the player that always deceides what the summons are in conjures (against RAW), the 5 by 5 ft cantrip hitting 4 or 5 squares, etc. etc.

[sithlordnergal]

Category 1: They're dramatically exaggerating about how important the few things casters are legitimately more useful at, like providing transportation or safe housing, make them


I'll agree with the safe transportation. I've never had an issue with transportation as a DM or player, nor have I ever needed to use any major transportation spells. This is mostly because transportation tends to be a weak part of 5e's design. It would come up in a far more open world where the players don't have a goal and are just wandering around, but that doesn't happen very often. However, I don't think anyone exaggerates the need for safe housing. The only dungeon I can think of that has a safe place to rest is in Tomb of Annihilation. Outside of that, the only safe place you can sleep is an Inn. If you sleep outdoors, you have a good chance of something finding you, attacking you, and interrupting your long rest. And don't even bother with sleeping, or resting, in a dungeon, or any area crawling with enemies. Even if you just want to take a short rest, there's a good chance some wandering monster will come across you unless you have a way to hide yourself with Rope Trick or Leomund's Tiny Hut.



Category 2: They act as if whiteroom theorycrafting conditions are actually things that happen in-game reliably. Invoking the Shrödinger Wizard, who always has all the spells for every single situation prepared simultaneously and always enough spell slots for all of them, is generally a symptom of this.


That is a good point about Shrödinger's Wizard...however, as a person who tends to only play spell casters, preferably Druids and/or Wizards since martials are boring, I can tell you that prep isn't actually all that hard. I mean yes, occasionally I'll wish I had X spell prepared instead of Y because it could solve the entire encounter on its own in a single round, but spells Y and Z work well enough together that it doesn't matter in the end. As for spell slots, the only time I ever find myself out of spell slots is when I'm:

A) Trying to play a Warlock because they have no spell slots.

or

B) I'm level 4 or lower

Once I reach level 5, I find generally have enough spell slots to last me the adventuring day, and the higher my level goes the more spell slots I have. At the highest tiers of play, I find I can generally finish an adventuring day with about 1/4th of my spell slots remaining. Also, you're forgetting that rituals are a thing. They don't require a spell slot, and if you're a Wizard you don't need to have them prepared. Some of the better spells like Detect Magic, Identify, Alarm, Leomund's Tiny Hut, and Find Familiar are all Ritual Spells.



Category 3: They're trolling.


Trolls are trolls, and trolls are everywhere.



Category 4: "They play easy mode D&D" where the DM babysits players and let them do whatever without regards for limits, campaign constrains, or the like (essentially, giving the players carte blanche for their shenanigans and acting as if the gaming world actually was the white room theorycrafters act as it is).


Ehhh, it actually heavily depends on what sort of shenanigans the caster is doing...Raising 100 undead? Yeah, that requires the DM's help. Conjuring 16 cr 1/4 beasts with Conjure Animals? Unless the DM has decided to nerf the spell and specifically states that you can only summon a certain number of beasts at a time, then I'm not being babysat, I'm following what the spell does when you upcast it. And honestly, there aren't a lot of spell combos where your DM specifically needs to help the player to do them outside of the 100 undead legion.

Everything from creating a perfect clone of yourself with Simulacrum/True Polymorph shenanigans to creating an area that almost nothing can walk through with Plant Growth and Difficult Terrain. Most of the big, scary, game breaking combos don't actually need your DM's help to pull off, because they already follow RAW and don't need as much effort as creating an army does. Now, many DMs might find a need to nerf such combos, but nerfing something is very different from facilitating it.

[Ashrym]

Regarding swords bards earlier: imo they suck.

ASI's and ability score allocation force the class to give up ability because flourishes are powered by CHA. The alternative is giving up advancement for higher level abilities with a splash, and that is still falling behind in a different way. Even splashing does not help with the fact flourishes run out fast with bardic inspiration dice.

What the splash does do is delay short rest dice recovery, extra attack, higher level spells, and free d6 flourishes.

Imo the splash helps more than it hurts but it doesn't resolve fewer flourishes compared to something like battle master maneuvers and superiority dice.

The swords bard isn't close to fighters, barbarians, or paladins in combat in having chosen that college. In using the college features the swords bard isn't adding inspiration to the group; or, if he is, isn't using the flourishes. That swords bard also isn't casting spells in combat; or, if he is, isn't using flourishes.

What kind of great advantage is there in mediocre damage, reduced party support, and limiting on spellcasting? It's the epitome of trying to do too many things at once to be unimpressive at everything. ;-)

Even at 15th level (1lvl splash and a long time to wait for a build to come online) when the build gains access to simulacrum and free flourishes every other bard can also have simulacrum, the swords bard is spending flourishes on AC so not helping damage, and the swords bard still cannot use flourishes and spells together.

Swords bards are mediocre combatants who either give up their abilities to cast in combat or cast out of combat. That's not that bad, tbf, but it's not what's it's been trumped up to be.


So it does raise the question of what's the warrior bringing to the table worth enough to give up a whole full caster's worth of slots.

I think you need to see the look on your DM's face when your character disarms a spell focus or sleight-of-hands a spell component pouch away.

I'm quite happy with what I can do blowing through expertise dice on an action surge while relying on AC, HP, and ability checks or equipment most of the time.

I can take enough actions that lead to enough checks over time that spell slots easily get outpaced without 5mwd arguments that it's not an issue. Since my experience has always demonstrated casters pace themselves and we don't 5mwd that argument doesn't hold much weight for me.

High level rogues getting to tier 3 with reliable talent is a blast for that specific reason. Higher bonuses mean less with the fixed ceiling bounded accuracy gives us than raising the floor when success ratios are shown.

5e has done way more for me wanting to play fighters and rogues than any other editions. ;-)

[cutlery]

Swords bards are mediocre combatants who either give up their abilities to cast in combat or cast out of combat. That's not that bad, tbf, but it's not what's it's been trumped up to be.


I have to agree - you can use them in a multiclass to do some ok things, but you can also just as easily use some other bard subclass (like, say, whispers) if you want to use BI to do cool stuff in combat.

[MaxWilson]

I think Hexblade/Swords bard is actually rather neat. You get both Expertise and Extra Attack so you can do the grapple/prone trick in one turn, and Swords gives you a little bit of extra movement when you do so (40' instead of 30'), which IMO is the main reason you'd want to go Swords over Valor for this. Your weapon damage throughout Tier 1-2 is competitive although (like monks) it falls off in Tier 3-4 as you switch to being more castery, but even in Tier 3+ you're a cross between a full caster and an aikido master. Grapple/proning an opponent is better than most cantrip options, and if you have Warcaster you can wear a shield and still Eldritch Blast the prone opponent without disadvantage, while it's stuck attacking you back at disadvantage and mostly getting deflected by your Shield spells. Even an Iron Golem will miss your Shielded AC 75% of the time when you've got it grappled and prone.

I think I like Hex/Lore a little better due to Cutting Words synergy with grapples (including other teammates' grapples), but Swords isn't bad.


I'm quite happy with what I can do blowing through expertise dice on an action surge while relying on AC, HP, and ability checks or equipment most of the time.

I can take enough actions that lead to enough checks over time that spell slots easily get outpaced without 5mwd arguments that it's not an issue. Since my experience has always demonstrated casters pace themselves and we don't 5mwd that argument doesn't hold much weight for me.

Sounds like you play with people who aren't stingy with their spell slots. One of the neat things about someone like the aforementioned Bardlock is that you never run out of fun stuff to do, and you aren't reliant on spending spell slots for everything either.

[LudicSavant]

I think you need to see the look on your DM's face when your character disarms a spell focus or sleight-of-hands a spell component pouch away.

I think you should always carry backup weapons and foci/components.

[OldTrees1]

I think you should always carry backup weapons and foci/components.

As soon as you can afford them of course. Maybe not in your 1st level's 100 lbs, but by the time you hit 5th level, that is a solid plan. A dungeoneer losing their only set of thieves tools is quite unfortunate.

[LudicSavant]

As soon as you can afford them of course. Maybe not in your 1st level's 100 lbs, but by the time you hit 5th level, that is a solid plan. A dungeoneer losing their only set of thieves tools is quite unfortunate.

Don't wait long. Foci are really cheap. Druids can get 'em for 1gp, Wizards and Clerics for 5gp. And you can get a backup weapon for less than 1gp.

[Gtdead]

1. I find it humorous how many people keep believing that spellcasters are over buff compared to melee champs.

2. Damage single target vs multiple
Yes the 8d6 AE can kill #10 10hit point goblins and people think that it equals 100 damage
Yet at that level chances of fighting token mobs are limited and the biggest threat is the main creature or few creatures and when you consider the damage 8d6 no save = 31 save =. 15 resistance = 8 immunity = 0. Magic resistance = advantage on save rolls

Now if you want to apply one shot spells like disintegrate or polymorph you still have one shot vs above types of protection and the limited spell slots available to the casters.

Now when you compare melee or range vs AC

The AC target doesn’t have the above defense options. Maybe immunity or resistance to non magical weapons which is non existent at medium high levels for heroes to not have magical weapons.
Or the damage potential to the single target
Backstab , multiple strikes , gwm sharpshooter gwf etc don’t worry about damage reduction

And as for paladin which I do like but the +2 save to everyone is ridiculous and the Ancient getting at level 7 spell resistance is stronger than a lvl 14 gift. And then adding it to ae to all allies is a lvl 20 ability.

Yes spell asters can do amazing things.
But compared to weapon damage champs. They fall short vs all of the Anti spell protections.

Too many misconceptions in this post in my opinion. Martials don't compete with Fireball and Disintegrate. These are actually niche spells. They compete with animate objects, shadowblade, hexblade dips and sorlock.

And just because there are monsters with immunities to spells while there isn't any immunity to physical damage, doesn't really mean that martials have an absolute edge. What is the fighter going to do if he attacks with disadvantage (lets say against a blurred caster). GWM is completely useless in that scenario, fighter doesn't have a reliable way to get get advantage himself, and without GWM he barely competes with a warlock casting hexed eldritch blasts.

There are very common scenarios where a fighter buffed with greater invisibility will outperform 3 fighters without any buffs. This is probably the most serious argument about the superiority of casters. After all this is an argument about optimization, and optimization in turn is all about opportunity cost. What is the cutoff point where adding a fighter outweights adding a wizard? What is the combination of classes that will perform better against a variety of difficult encounters? Is it 1 martial and two casters? Two martials and one caster? Depends on the situation and the toolkit. But I can't think of many scenarios where adding a fighter having the ability to support him magically, will out weight bringing another caster.

I don't really think that any dnd veteran actually believes that even meteor swarm is capable of outperforming an optimized fighter with adequate support (keyword: support) against an important adversary. Nuking spells aren't really what makes casters dangerous. However, fighter alone can't really kill anything by himself from a certain point and onwards while casters have the potential (keyword:potential) to do it and have a laugh about it too.

[MaxWilson]

What is the fighter going to do if he attacks with disadvantage (lets say against a blurred caster). GWM is completely useless in that scenario, fighter doesn't have a reliable way to get get advantage himself,

Shove the enemy prone to get advantage offsetting the disadvantage, then hit him until he loses concentration.

[Edea]

The gulf's not as wide as it was in 3rd/3.5, obviously, but Spellcasting still allows the character to do a whole bunch of things that a pure martial simply cannot, while trying to apply that in reverse...I guess they don't (usually) have Extra Attack?

[Eldariel]

I think you need to see the look on your DM's face when your character disarms a spell focus or sleight-of-hands a spell component pouch away.

Eh, can't anyone do that? I guess Disarm is a variant rule so maybe not that depending on the game, but sleight-of-hand certainly.


I'm quite happy with what I can do blowing through expertise dice on an action surge while relying on AC, HP, and ability checks or equipment most of the time.

I can take enough actions that lead to enough checks over time that spell slots easily get outpaced without 5mwd arguments that it's not an issue. Since my experience has always demonstrated casters pace themselves and we don't 5mwd that argument doesn't hold much weight for me.

High level rogues getting to tier 3 with reliable talent is a blast for that specific reason. Higher bonuses mean less with the fixed ceiling bounded accuracy gives us than raising the floor when success ratios are shown.

5e has done way more for me wanting to play fighters and rogues than any other editions. ;-)

I'm really happy for you. I wish they'd done that for me too. The first 3 levels looked really good and 5 levels were okay but it feels to me like they forgot to upgrade the tier of the abilities there-after; you get the best abilities on tier 1 (Action Surge, Cunning Action, maneuvers, etc.), not to the contrary.

[Waazraath]

Eh, can't anyone do that? I guess Disarm is a variant rule so maybe not that depending on the game, but sleight-of-hand certainly.


With sleight of hand, yes... but in general, the ones who could do it need to be in melee range (bar arcane trickster), which usually is easier for martials. And battlemasters can disarm with an attack that also does damage (even extra), and I guess a thief rogue might do it as a bonus action (depending on how far fast hands is allowed to go).


I think Hexblade/Swords bard is actually rather neat. Of course, with enough optimization you can squeeze a good melee character out of it (out of every class, really). I also saw the ravnica backgrounds and the eberon races being mentioned earlier. But though these are all common on fora like this, ime they aren't that common at the average gaming table. When you look at a class, you can look at optmiztion potential, and at how the class would fare on average without too much optimization and multiclasses. The former is fun for here, but the latter is much more important for the average player, I'd suspect. Subclasses like swords are really nice in specific builds (good optization potential), but have one run by a new player who doesn't care for optimization too much, and I'd expext dissapointment.

[Ashrym]

Eh, can't anyone do that? I guess Disarm is a variant rule so maybe not that depending on the game, but sleight-of-hand certainly.

I like battle masters and thieves. Battle master archers can do it at range and then push either the caster or focus also at range.

Arcane tricksters can sleight-of-hands at range while thieves can do it on the action and bonus action, and do it with 2 turns in the first round in tier 4. Either can apply reliable talent to remove low roll risk.

There's a difference between just a check and a check with all things considered.

[Unoriginal]

I like battle masters and thieves. Battle master archers can do it at range and then push either the caster or focus also at range.

Arcane tricksters can sleight-of-hands at range while thieves can do it on the action and bonus action, and do it with 2 turns in the first round in tier 4. Either can apply reliable talent to remove low roll risk.

There's a difference between just a check and a check with all things considered.

Also worth noting that the Sleight of Hands tricks also work to steal the enemy's weapons, if they haven't drawn them yet.

[Waazraath]

Just curious: do casters in the MM (and similar) have / use a focus or spell components? Or are it innate abilities? Or is that up to the DM? The detail of creatures is sometimes annoyingly lacking - I don't think any creature has a backup weapon for example, which makes disarming a lot stronger, but I'm not sure how realistic it is when fighting a knight or gladiator for example, or basicly any warrior type without even a backup dagger.

[Unoriginal]

Just curious: do casters in the MM (and similar) have / use a focus or spell components? Or are it innate abilities? Or is that up to the DM? The detail of creatures is sometimes annoyingly lacking - I don't think any creature has a backup weapon for example, which makes disarming a lot stronger, but I'm not sure how realistic it is when fighting a knight or gladiator for example, or basicly any warrior type without even a backup dagger.

Many (but not all) creatures with Inate Spellcasting can cast their spells without material components, but NPCs who have the Spellcasting ability like the Mage or the Acolyte do need a focus, a component pouch or similar to cast spells with material components.

[Gtdead]

Shove the enemy prone to get advantage offsetting the disadvantage, then hit him until he loses concentration.

Yes this is probably the best course of action. However, the chance to succeed in the first shove is about 70%? And then he will probably have to deal with a reactive shield. Essentially the damage output will be comparable to a sacred flame.

Without getting too much into detail, let's say the fighter normally has 70% hit chance on his attacks or 45% with GWM and each attack deals 12/22 average damage respectively. So assuming 3 attacks per action which will be the majority of the campaign provided that it's going to reach those levels, this all comes down to about 16 average damage and that's without the reactive shield. Tier 3 Sacred flame does 13.

With more attacks (lvl 20, PAM, Action Surge), the shove tactic becomes better so he still has some options, but it's hardly anything to write home about considering what he is trying to counter.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes this is probably the best course of action. However, the chance to succeed in the first shove is about 70%? And then he will probably have to deal with a reactive shield. Essentially the damage output will be comparable to a sacred flame.

Without getting too much into detail, let's say the fighter normally has 70% hit chance on his attacks or 45% with GWM and each attack deals 12/22 average damage respectively. So assuming 3 attacks per action which will be the majority of the campaign provided that it's going to reach those levels, this all comes down to about 16 average damage and that's without the reactive shield. Tier 3 Sacred flame does 13.

With more attacks (lvl 20, PAM, Action Surge), the shove tactic becomes better so he still has some options, but it's hardly anything to write home about considering what he is trying to counter.

That damage not only seems incredibly low, but it seems that this hypothetical tier 3 Fighter has no subclass.

[patchyman]

Cat 4: Easy mode DMing for spellcasters, imo, entails three main things:

1) Creating challenges specifically solvable via spells (e.g. you need to plane shift) but never having challenges specifically solvable by martials (e.g. you need to suddenly take two actions)

2) Allowing 5 minute adventuring days and spellspam downtime without ever having days with no rests or 10+ short rests

3) The opposite of GatG: never complicating or limiting spells, always having them achieve what the player wants. My favorite example is the common error of people playing "invisibility" as immediately making someone hidden.

4) Playing gentleman’s rules: No stealing the wizard’s spellbook. Not treating a caster who starts casting a spell in the populated area the same way the Secret Service would treat someone pulling a gun. Allowing the caster to use Stealth or Sleight of Hand to cast undetected. Making material components extremely easy to get or allowing substitutes.

[Morty]

My read on the caster/non-caster dynamic is that non-casters aren't so much weak as just... not very narratively important. They're level-headed sidekicks to the real protagonists. Or maybe even more like supporting cast. They can be necessary to get the heroes to where they're going, but in the end that's not who we're supposed to care about. The spotlight is not on them.

There's degrees to it, though. The martial/caster dichotomy is a bit flawed if only four classes don't natively cast spells, two of them have spell-casting subclasses and all of them can acquire spells in other ways (races, feats, magic items). But there's wizards and there's rangers or arcane tricksters, when it comes to spells.

Thus, the more spells you have, the more you can actually affect things. If you don't have spells at all, you'll struggle to stand out and rely on basic skill checks and attacks. Thus, playing a non-caster is fine if you want to be reliable background while the party members with spells do the important, impressive things.

[Unoriginal]

My read on the caster/non-caster dynamic is that non-casters aren't so much weak as just... not very narratively important. They're level-headed sidekicks to the real protagonists. Or maybe even more like supporting cast. They can be necessary to get the heroes to where they're going, but in the end that's not who we're supposed to care about. The spotlight is not on them.

And do tell, what do casters do that is more "narratively important"?



Thus, the more spells you have, the more you can actually affect things. If you don't have spells at all, you'll struggle to stand out and rely on basic skill checks and attacks.

Except you don't struggle if you rely on ability checks and attacks.



Thus, playing a non-caster is fine if you want to be reliable background while the party members with spells do the important, impressive things.

Important things like what? Being the group's chauffeur?

[MinotaurWarrior]

The earlier example of disarming a spell focus brings up the major issue that most martial options, including things that were standard in previous editions, are now optional rules or completely up to the DM. There's also preventing somatic and verbal components, and a large number of generic anti-monster or anti-environmental tactics.

But the question on party comp brings up shapely values. The key issue imo is that people don't properly assign the value of synergies and redundancy.

If you have a two person party of a wizard and a fighter:

1) If the wizard would die on his own, everything he does is a synergy with the fighter
2) Most powerful spells and tactics have hidden synergy - at level 1, sleep is an "I win" button for medium encounters - if you have someone who can actually reliably kill those Goblins one by one.
3) Buffs need to be evenly allocated to the buffer and buffee.
Etc.

But also, in a party with a wizard and two fighters:

1) The second fighter's high AC and hit points are helping a lot less now. The first tank was ensuring the wizard's survival anyway. So both of them are half as effective in this way.
2) If the first fighter would mop up the crowd controlled mobs, the second fighter isn't adding anything. So both of them are half as effective in this way.
Etc.

And the more you have 1/2 casters, and builds that I might call 7/8 casters with 1/2 martial capabilities (e.g "Iron Wizards"), the more you erode the value of fighters.

I think this is made much more common by the prevalence of build guides for characters and non-existence of build guides for parties. Builds that have a minor cost in terms of your "main job" to cover up a weakness (opportunity for synergy) look amazing in a vacuum. Even though, very often, they're creating redundancy.

In a party where you've got a sorcerer who never even learns shield or mage armor, but just hangs back behind a corner and is only in LoS to cast spells, a Sentinel / PAM fighter, and a rogue who is always hiding, Every point of the fighter's AC is protecting everyone by a huge factor. Every point you increase the spellcaster's AC, you decrease that factor. Similarly, the rogue's skills are diminished in value by, eg, a bard.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think this is made much more common by the prevalence of build guides for characters and non-existence of build guides for parties. Bingo. Typical party is 4 or 5 characters, there are 12 Character classes.

[Xervous]

And do tell, what do casters do that is more "narratively important"?

And the answer is it depends. With more innate tools they are more likely to take action on moments of narrative import. They have a car to drive anywhere the GM doesn’t prohibit. The fighter on the other hand lacks a car, being dependent on the presence of trolleys, subways and rollercoasters to achieve high speeds or travel. Unhindered a caster has the potential to take the noncombat spotlight via its tools. Unaided the fighter lacks tools to contest the spotlight. Casters have the license to drive by default and some decent rides to boot, fighters need to be given a taxi.

Or in a less garbled format. Casters ask about objections, fighters wait to be given permission.

[Unoriginal]

Just to know, because I'm curious:

People who believe martials are not important narratively/ just the sidekicks, do you actually tell that to people who play martials at your table?

Or is it more a "no one play martials at my tables so I don't have to tell that to anyone" situation?

[Morty]

Just to know, because I'm curious:

People who believe martials are not important narratively/ just the sidekicks, do you actually tell that to people who play martials at your table?

Or is it more a "no one play martials at my tables so I don't have to tell that to anyone" situation?

Since the "people" in question appear to be just me so far, I'm basing my assessment off my own play experience in 5E D&D. I have no idea what I'd do if I were to run 5E, since I don't plan on doing that.

[Xervous]

Just to know, because I'm curious:

People who believe martials are not important narratively/ just the sidekicks, do you actually tell that to people who play martials at your table?

Or is it more a "no one play martials at my tables so I don't have to tell that to anyone" situation?

Narratively impotent. “Are you here to bash heads and go along for the ride, taking what fork in the road options are presented? Fighter” vs “Do you want express permission to tug on facets of the narrative excepting the times you are overruled by the setting?”

[Unoriginal]

Since the "people" in question appear to be just me so far, I'm basing my assessment off my own play experience in 5E D&D. I have no idea what I'd do if I were to run 5E, since I don't plan on doing that.

When you play 5e, do you tell the Fighter's player that they're playing your sidekick? Or that their character is not narratively important/"narratively impotent" like the post above says?



Narratively impotent. “Are you here to bash heads and go along for the ride, taking what fork in the road options are presented? Fighter” vs “Do you want express permission to tug on facets of the narrative excepting the times you are overruled by the setting?”

Same question: do you tell the Fighter's player that you believe they're narratively impotent to their face?

[Morty]

When you play 5e, do you tell the Fighter's player that they're playing your sidekick? Or that their character is not narratively important/"narratively impotent" like the post above says?

I have played a rogue and a fighter and felt like a sidekick of lesser importance. I have not played a caster and I wouldn't look down on non-casting characters if I did. Would you mind not trying to paint me as a jerk trying to ruin other people's fun?

[Eldariel]

Slightly off topic, but I can't seem to find the party optimization thread. Did it scroll that far down?

I did update the thread now so that it's on the frontpage again. As the OP I should be free of the issues normally plaguing bringing up threads.


Same question: do you tell the Fighter's player that you believe they're narratively impotent to their face?

As a DM I of course warn the players that any game that heads to high tier 2 or above is likely to leave the characters on an unequal footing in most regards unless we use homebrew variants of the classes to somewhat address or at least help with this (I haven't found good ones yet). I usually oversee character creation in general to ensure that the characters are on a roughly similar footing so that nobody ends up playing Sideshow Bob.

As a player, it depends; I generally don't consider it my business to tell others what to play and I only provide input if requested or if we're explicitly co-creating characters. If imbalances do arise, I try to play in such a manner as to not trample on everyone's fun if possible. Still, conflicts do arise from expectations betrayed every now and then anyways; I did have two (out of five) players leave a game (first one, the second about 5 sessions later) when they concluded that our casters were hogging the spotlight (this occurred in early Tier 2) with no ill intent on anyone's part - everyone just tried to not die (the game had multiple near-TPKs with lots of character deaths).

[KorvinStarmast]

I did update the thread now so that it's on the frontpage again. As the OP I should be free of the issues normally plaguing bringing up threads.
Thanks.
As a DM I of course warn the players that any game that heads to high tier 2 or above is likely to leave the characters on an unequal footing in most regards unless we use homebrew variants of the classes to somewhat address or at least help with this (I haven't found good ones yet). As a DM, I find that magic items can often do some of that. But I've not run enough higher level 5e stuff to say more than that. Magic items are a part of the game.

[Xervous]

Sorry for the double post, I'll correct that when I get home.



Same question: do you tell the Fighter's player that you believe they're narratively impotent to their face?

I tell them that fighter is a good choice if they want to take or vote on plot choices available to any individual or the whole party, to have access to things their backstory suggests they would, and that’s it. If that’s sufficient I’ll applaud them making an informed choice, if it’s not the discussion will lead to other classes. Fighter itself does next to nothing for their narrative capabilities, it is insignificant compared to the baseline assurances I give any player and their character.

[Waazraath]

Narratively impotent. “Are you here to bash heads and go along for the ride, taking what fork in the road options are presented? Fighter” vs “Do you want express permission to tug on facets of the narrative excepting the times you are overruled by the setting?”

I never understood this argument. Your on a quest for whatever. As a party, you figure out that the easiest way to success is to go to another plane to do X. If you have a caster who knows the spell, great: now you have a sidequest for a specific forked rod component that may or may not be found. For which you might have to defeat a monster, or have to persuade somebody to lend it, you have to trade it for item Y in dungeon Z, or whatever. If you do not have a wizard (which the usual party won't, given there are 13 classes), you'll have to find another way to get there. Get access to a portal (for which another side quest might be appropriate). Find a high level caster or powerful monster to get you there. Or figure out an entire other way to fulfill the quest, without planar travel. It's an RPG, options are unlimited.

Where now is any character 'narratively impotent'? In the end, your a bunch of people thinking together about available options, and deceiding on one of them. And after that, you go through a number of challenges where everybody can contribute, unless the DM messes up (cause that's an explicit goal of the game: team doing team things). Maybe said caster is key, cause its a wizard and encounters are easily solved with its AoE or BFC spells. Maybe the charismatic rogue with expertise in persuasion is key. Or the fighter, cause it involves a lot of fighting without long rests available. In the end, what options will work depend on the guy behind the screen, the module used (if any) the quality of the ideas that players have, and maybe some random dice rolls. And if it turns out the only way to get to the other plane is sweet-talking somebody, for which said rogue has the best chance, is the wizard then 'narratively impotent'?

I never felt that way. Of course a lvl 10 fighter has less mechanical options than a lvl 10 wizard, there are less 'buttons to push' (until the adventuring day lasts really long and the wizard runs out of steam in any case). But it is great in a very relevant part of the game (combat), and outside it, I (the player) can contribute just as much through roleplay and thinking about solutions. Who cares, in the case that the solution to a specific situation is a spell, who has it on its character sheet? You (the players together) thougt about it and had fun coming up with a solution, and then you move on.

[Unoriginal]

I have played a rogue and a fighter and felt like a sidekick of lesser importance. I have not played a caster and I wouldn't look down on non-casting characters if I did. Would you mind not trying to paint me as a jerk trying to ruin other people's fun?

You told people over the internet, many of whom play martials, that you believe martials are sidekicks of lesser importance. I was wondering if you would say the same thing to people in person.


If you that telling people in person that their martials are sidekicks of lesser importance would make you look like a jerk trying to ruin other people's fun, believe me, the impact is not that lessened over the internet.


I'm sincerely sorry that your experience playing a Rogue was bad, and doubly so that it was *that* bad. It sounds like your DM failed to make anything to make playing a Rogue feel good.

But "I think Rogues are less important sidekicks because I played one and it was like that" does not remove the "I think Rogues are lesser sidekicks" part.

So I ask again: if someone picked Rogue at your table, would you think "they're taking the lesser sidekick class, just like I did back then"?

[Morty]

I'm sincerely sorry that your experience playing a Rogue was bad, and doubly so that it was *that* bad. It sounds like your DM failed to make anything to make playing a Rogue feel good.

My GM ran Storm King's Thunder and did it quite well. But there's only so much the module or the GM can do about the rogue class's inherent shortcomings.


So I ask again: if someone picked Rogue at your table, would you think "they're taking the lesser sidekick class, just like I did back then"?

If I ever end up in a group where someone wants to play a rogue and I become consumed with an urge to tell them they're making a bad choice, I might get back to you on that. But this is still a deflection from my assessment of the class. I'm not shy about my opinions, but whether someone takes them into account is their own choice.

[Skylivedk]

1) Didn't we have this discussion two months or so ago? With the first thread (are Martials really that screwed) breaking the post count?

Of course, this time we have a rare third camp: casters are screwed. Probably the most absurd claim I have seen regarding 5e class balance so far.

2) At the end of the day, I have not any counter to the argument that you can pick pretty much any random level you consider balanced for a martial class and level them parallel to a full caster, and the martial will come up short in terms of abilities gained (with new spell slots counted as LR-abilities or SR-abilities), flexibility in abilities and power of said abilities compared to prior abilities.

Here's the example for Sorcerer vs Barbarian starting at level 8:
The Barbarian's rage tops out at 6 times per day. If he can fly, he cannot do the control (of Ancients Barb) etc. From 8 to 20 the Barbarian gets:
ASIs (normal speed)
Brutal Critical (less than 5% - less than 10% extra damage) x 3 (each time less relative damage)
Relentless Rage
Path Feature
Indomitable Might
Primal Champion

Brutal Critical is meh. Relentless Rage is cool - both in and out of combat applicability. The Path Feature is pre-locked since level 3. It can be cool without being mind-blowing. Indomitable Might is good, but too late and Primal Champion is good, but pretty boring.

At the same time the worst of the full-casters get:
7 more spell known (from level 5 to 9) (and 12 changes of previous class abilities, sorry, spells)
2 new metamagics
2 Sorcerous Origin (and ie while the Barbarian can get a Fly speed while raging tops 1 round at a time, the Sorcerer just gets a Fly speed)
1 Sorcerous Restoration

I cannot see how it is not painfully obvious that casters get more features, more powerful features and more flexibility in choosing said abilities."

3) Swords Bard are great for Gish MC'ing and can absolutely go toe to toe with most Martials when you add 1 Hexblade and 2 Paladin.

4) My experience: full caster parties with system mastery utterly destroys the modules made by WotC. Full martial parties don't, but can easily be fun because they don't... Combat can just be a bit more boring because you have so few buttons. The fun is more about manipulating environment and trying to get the advantage before easily provided by a spell or two.

5) Skill system isn't really favouring Martials. - and it's weak to boot (compared with ie PF2, Fate, nWoD).

...

Disclaimer: MaxWilson has previously pointed out that my Combat as War playing style usually doesn't correspond to a lot of my fellow posters.

...

Disclaimer 2: I mean no offense when I criticise 5e. To me the critiques are made to improve the game and learn what can be done. Current experiments include house rules, trying Fate and PF2

[Unoriginal]

My GM ran Storm King's Thunder and did it quite well. But there's only so much the module or the GM can do about the rogue class's inherent shortcomings.



If I ever end up in a group where someone wants to play a rogue and I become consumed with an urge to tell them they're making a bad choice, I might get back to you on that. But this is still a deflection from my assessment of the class. I'm not shy about my opinions, but whether someone takes them into account is their own choice.

So you do look down at the Rogue and its "inherent shortcomings", and you're not shy about your opinions, but it's up to each person to choose to not be affected by you looking down on the class?



I tell them that fighter is a good choice if they want to take or vote on plot choices available to any individual or the whole party, to have access to things their backstory suggests they would, and that’s it. If that’s sufficient I’ll applaud them making an informed choice, if it’s not the discussion will lead to other classes. Fighter itself does next to nothing for their narrative capabilities, it is insignificant compared to the baseline assurances I give any player and their character.

You don't tell the Fighter's player their character will be narratively impotent, you'll tell them they'll be just as narratively potent as the other characters, and then you come to this forum and tell us about how the Fighter is narratively impotent?


What do you say to the Wizard's player, if you don't mind telling us?

[cutlery]

My GM ran Storm King's Thunder and did it quite well. But there's only so much the module or the GM can do about the rogue class's inherent shortcomings.



If I ever end up in a group where someone wants to play a rogue and I become consumed with an urge to tell them they're making a bad choice, I might get back to you on that. But this is still a deflection from my assessment of the class. I'm not shy about my opinions, but whether someone takes them into account is their own choice.

Rogues are one of the better designed classes in the game.

However, they need to play it tactically smart in combat, and like pretty much anyone else they pale next to full casters when the DM lets them get as much rest as they like. The damage is solid if you know how to get sneak attacks (and if you aren't playing solo, you should).

Unlike a fighter or a barbarian, they have the skill choices and expertise to make meaningful contributions in pillars other than combat, as scouts, investigators, or diplomats. Possibly all three; as expertise can cover for a poor base stat.

[Skylivedk]

You told people over the internet, many of whom play martials, that you believe martials are sidekicks of lesser importance. I was wondering if you would say the same thing to people in person.

You can definitely say this in nicer ways.

I.e: Hello my friend. Heads up: we're going to be playing mostly in tier 3, and a pure fighter isn't adding much in terms of available solutions outside of combat. Are you ok with that? By the way, in combat you'll also be quite one dimensional. Your decision tree will have fewer branches".



If you that telling people in person that their martials are sidekicks of lesser importance would make you look like a jerk trying to ruin other people's fun, believe me, the impact is not that lessened over the internet.

Do you, it do you think other people, take someone's opinion on WotC design so personally? I simply can't relate. If someone told me tango, books or TTRPGs were boring, I'd shrug and think it's their loss.


I'm sincerely sorry that your experience playing a Rogue was bad, and doubly so that it was *that* bad. It sounds like your DM failed to make anything to make playing a Rogue feel good.
Or the DM played one of the many printed modules (i.e. SKT as mentioned) were there's tons of situations where rogues just don't shine that much.




[QUOTE=Unoriginal;24743249]So you do look down at the Rogue and its "inherent shortcomings", and you're not shy about your opinions, but it's up to each person to choose to not be affected by you looking down on the class?

Generally speaking, yes. You and everybody else are responsible for your own feelings and someone being critical of a piece of design shouldn't impact your emotional state. Criticising the rogue isn't a personal attack.



You don't tell the Fighter's player their character will be narratively impotent, you'll tell them they'll be just as narratively potent as the other characters, and then you come to this forum and tell us about how the Fighter is narratively impotent?


What do you say to the Wizard's player, if you don't mind telling us?
To the Fighter: you can have a lot of fun, but you'll lack tools.
To the Wizard: Simulacrum isn't there/it doesn't provide anything above level 5 slots. You might want to consider how plane dwellers see Planar Binding.

... And a bunch of other things.


Rogues are one of the better designed classes in the game.

However, they need to play it tactically smart in combat, and like pretty much anyone else they pale next to full casters when the DM lets them get as much rest as they like. The damage is solid if you know how to get sneak attacks (and if you aren't playing solo, you should).

Unlike a fighter or a barbarian, they have the skill choices and expertise to make meaningful contributions in pillars other than combat, as scouts, investigators, or diplomats. Possibly all three; as expertise can cover for a poor base stat.
Agree to disagree. In my experience they're mostly a kinda boring bard. Reliable Talent is good. So much of the rest is meh and the combat options are lackluster/boring.

[Xervous]

You don't tell the Fighter's player their character will be narratively impotent, you'll tell them they'll be just as narratively potent as the other characters, and then you come to this forum and tell us about how the Fighter is narratively impotent?


What do you say to the Wizard's player, if you don't mind telling us?

A given character? They have the same baseline as any other character. Tacking on the fighter class adds a rounding error in terms of narrative influence.

To the player of the potential wizard I’ll be explaining the standards and expectations of the world as it relates to casters. This is session 0 after all. X spell functions Y way to dispel a common debate. Q spell doesn’t exist because R setting assumption. The wizard class brings the power to push upon the narrative and I’ll do my due diligence to let the player understand how the many rules translate into the reality of what we’ll be playing each session. Mixed in towards the start will be so many words questioning if it is indeed the complexity and breadth of options that wizard provides that they truly want for expressing their character and interacting with the plot.

Any one character will have the same weight behind their vote on a party action, be able to impress the duke with a previously researched detail or pour the ungent of unmaking on the possession enabling witchmark. The fighter only gets these options, which could be the whole world (a rigid AP) or a small slice of the universe (a sandbox). Put the wizard in the same railcar and it’s all flavor, they’re headed down the tracks regardless. Put them in the open field and they will typically have more options, especially those that can be taken without requiring the GM to arrange circumstances.

[KorvinStarmast]

I.e: Hello my friend. Heads up: we're going to be playing mostly in tier 3, and a pure fighter isn't adding much in terms of available solutions outside of combat. Are you ok with that? By the way, in combat you'll also be quite one dimensional. Your decision tree will have fewer branches". I might be tempted to laugh in your face based on my experiences in Tier 3 with a Half Orc Champion, but we were mostly on the Material Plane. For a plane jumping campaign it might be different.

(Among other things, I recruited a few dozen orcs and their four orog leaders to fight with us for part of the campaign; no magic required. Speak Orcish and have an OK persuasion effort and role play. And be badass enough to where the Orogs listened, which I was. It didn't hurt that some of them had watched our party shred a few giants before I made my recruiting pitch ... )

[Dork_Forge]

I'm truly astounded by this narrative influence talk, if all players don't have equal opportuniy to influence a narrative regardless of their class choice then that is a failing of the DM.

At no point should you be placing obstacles in front of your players that they cannot handle if it effects overall game progression, what would be the point of that? So what if cast Plane Shift changes to NPC casts it or you go on a side quest to address it? We're meant to be playing a game to have fun and this nonsense of needing to do everything yourself doens't mesh with that unless that is specifically the type of game you want to play.

[Asisreo1]

No one can force themselves to like a class that they fundamentally disagree with. I dislike wizards and no amount of "They're the best class in the game!" can convince me that they're any more fun than managing my financial records and doing taxes. I avoid them if they're not needed. Sorcerers are usually enough to fulfill any particular "solution" spellcaster needs, though I also like the Cleric in that role as well.

I find it quite unfortunate that there are DM's that would tell me to my face that my character has less "narrative potency" than another. It doesn't matter if they think they're being helpful and want to inform me of how they think a class runs. It immediately makes me think of favoritism.

I'd also be upset that the DM just reduced the character I made into a set of stats and not an actual character.

No, I'm not playing a PAM/GWM v.human fighter, I'm playing Karla the Regal. My character shouldn't be known for dealing 85 damage against a troll one time, she should be known for slaying Garbgalok the four-headed orc chieftain. An orc chieftain that had done nothing but raid and terrorize the land from which my family presides over. Nevermind that I only did 30 damage in the fight overall or that the wizard paralyzed him for half the fight. My character will boast of it for years with a trophy always by her side. No, that's not backstory. It's in-game events. And when I show these things off, the world should react. Applause, boos, cries, whatever the DM sees fit, but the world should react.

My character has narrative potency from being their own character. If I wanted narrative importance from the mechanics, I'd play Pathfinder because 5e relies on the DM, and its better for it.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, that's not backstory. It's in-game events. And when I show these things off, the world should react. Applause, boos, cries, whatever the DM sees fit, but the world should react.

My character has narrative potency from being their own character. If I wanted narrative importance from the mechanics, I'd play Pathfinder because 5e relies on the DM, and its better for it. Nice post, I find your approach similar to what I am used to seeing in play.

[Waazraath]

My character has narrative potency from being their own character. If I wanted narrative importance from the mechanics, I'd play Pathfinder because 5e relies on the DM, and its better for it.

Amen to this.

[Jamesps]

I didn't read the whole thread, but just a quick note from my play experience:

Sometimes martials can have more narrative impact just by remaining conscious longer than a caster. This is perhaps more noticeable for GMs that play with more tactical acumen for their monsters, and selectively target the casters.

I've had a few encounters where the martials were the only one's standing at the end of the encounter, and were solely responsible for everything that happened during the final rounds (obviously).

It doesn't come up often (unless your GM is pretty hardcore), but it's something to keep in mind, and a bit of a counter to the 'casters have more buttons to push' since unconscious characters don't get any of their buttons.

[Skylivedk]

I might be tempted to laugh in your face based on my experiences in Tier 3 with a Half Orc Champion, but we were mostly on the Material Plane. For a plane jumping campaign it might be different.

(Among other things, I recruited a few dozen orcs and their four orog leaders to fight with us for part of the campaign; no magic required. Speak Orcish and have an OK persuasion effort and role play. And be badass enough to where the Orogs listened, which I was. It didn't hurt that some of them had watched our party shred a few giants before I made my recruiting pitch ... )
A)
So in combat, you didn't mainly use the attack action?

B) Big fan of your DM giving your fighter better recruitment options amongst other men-at-arms. I do the same. It isn't a suggestions by the books though.

C) without that DM support, a Bard would do it better. Or a Hexblade.



I'm truly astounded by this narrative influence talk, if all players don't have equal opportuniy to influence a narrative regardless of their class choice then that is a failing of the DM.

At no point should you be placing obstacles in front of your players that they cannot handle if it effects overall game progression, what would be the point of that? So what if cast Plane Shift changes to NPC casts it or you go on a side quest to address it? We're meant to be playing a game to have fun and this nonsense of needing to do everything yourself doens't mesh with that unless that is specifically the type of game you want to play.

By your post, I take it you design sessions tailored to the players, rather than players interacting with a world that can and will brutally murder them if they venture beyond their means. I don't understand how you can reduce the hundreds of out of combat options of a wizard to just Plane Shift either. A Wizard can rig an entire city with surveillance equipment with Magic Mouth and some gold and that gold is a lot easier to find and acquire with spells. Scrying on a Warlock with Aspect of the Moon and you're a one man KGB, eavesdropping on everyone from the king's maid to the guard of your house.

A DM can overcome this in favour of the players. That doesn't change that certain classes don't get anything near these options.


No one can force themselves to like a class that they fundamentally disagree with. I dislike wizards and no amount of "They're the best class in the game!" can convince me that they're any more fun than managing my financial records and doing taxes. I avoid them if they're not needed. Sorcerers are usually enough to fulfill any particular "solution" spellcaster needs, though I also like the Cleric in that role as well.

I find it quite unfortunate that there are DM's that would tell me to my face that my character has less "narrative potency" than another. It doesn't matter if they think they're being helpful and want to inform me of how they think a class runs. It immediately makes me think of favoritism.

If you think your DM is playing favourites because they tell you about the difference in classes that's on you. Not your DM.



I'd also be upset that the DM just reduced the character I made into a set of stats and not an actual character.
Yes, of course. How is that connected to class design?


No, I'm not playing a PAM/GWM v.human fighter, I'm playing Karla the Regal. My character shouldn't be known for dealing 85 damage against a troll one time, she should be known for slaying Garbgalok the four-headed orc chieftain. An orc chieftain that had done nothing but raid and terrorize the land from which my family presides over. Nevermind that I only did 30 damage in the fight overall or that the wizard paralyzed him for half the fight. My character will boast of it for years with a trophy always by her side. No, that's not backstory. It's in-game events. And when I show these things off, the world should react. Applause, boos, cries, whatever the DM sees fit, but the world should react.

My character has narrative potency from being their own character. If I wanted narrative importance from the mechanics, I'd play Pathfinder because 5e relies on the DM, and its better for it.

Yes, and my character declared war on 3 gods, collected a wall full of dragon heads and converted both an entire clan of elves, a tribe aarakocras and some blind dwarves to his cause. You're mentioning things that can be done on all classes one way or the other. That has next to nothing to do with class design. I could have tons of fun playing a commoner in certain campaigns. That doesn't make commoners a good or well-designed class (or a class at all).

[Morty]

Rogues are one of the better designed classes in the game.

This opinion keeps coming up and I'm bewildered by it. To me, the best-designed classes seem to be paladins and bards, because they have a good mix of reliable and "special" abilities. As opposed to wizards, who rely on daily spells and are very dependent on long rests, or rogues, who have only at-will abilities and as such nothing too impressive.


However, they need to play it tactically smart in combat, and like pretty much anyone else they pale next to full casters when the DM lets them get as much rest as they like. The damage is solid if you know how to get sneak attacks (and if you aren't playing solo, you should).

I did, indeed, score sneak attacks most of the time. But that meant there was no real room for being tactically smart. I used Cunning Action to keep my distance and shot things. I hid, if I could. If not, I just aimed for enemies engaged in melee with my allies. That's the extent of a rogue's combat capacity. It might not be weak, but it's really boring, which is my argument.

I think our barbarian might have outdamaged me, but that's due to Great Weapon Fighter, which isn't a feat that should exist, and as such I won't hold it against the rogue class.


Unlike a fighter or a barbarian, they have the skill choices and expertise to make meaningful contributions in pillars other than combat, as scouts, investigators, or diplomats. Possibly all three; as expertise can cover for a poor base stat.

That's true and I did enjoy having a wider breadth of skills than the others (barbarian, paladin, wizard). But the skill system itself is lacking, a rogue is still at the mercy of poor rolls even with expertise and generally it feels like the best utility comes from having skills and spells. Like a bard, who also gets expertise but also a wide selection of spells. I will admit though that combat performance was my main complaint. Sadly, it's kind of difficult to avoid regular combat in D&D.

Besides, I don't think the rogue's status as the "skill class" does the game much good. Since it does mean that fighters, barbarians and monks struggle when it comes to doing anything that's not beating enemies up or shooting them. Especially since other classes have their own strong combat niches.

[Skylivedk]

I didn't read the whole thread, but just a quick note from my play experience:

Sometimes martials can have more narrative impact just by remaining conscious longer than a caster. This is perhaps more noticeable for GMs that play with more tactical acumen for their monsters, and selectively target the casters.

I've had a few encounters where the martials were the only one's standing at the end of the encounter, and were solely responsible for everything that happened during the final rounds (obviously).

It doesn't come up often (unless your GM is pretty hardcore), but it's something to keep in mind, and a bit of a counter to the 'casters have more buttons to push' since unconscious characters don't get any of their buttons.

There's a long range of casters that are quite tanky :-) I DM'd for a Forge Cleric 1/ Abjurer X (fluffed as Rune Magic). Even giving all types of giants extra extra attacks (meaning besides the ones in the campaign book) mostly targeting saves, the character was so so hard to put a dent in. Much harder than the Barbarian or the Paladin.

[Eldariel]

There's a long range of casters that are quite tanky :-) I DM'd for a Forge Cleric 1/ Abjurer X (fluffed as Rune Magic). Even giving all types of giants extra extra attacks (meaning besides the ones in the campaign book) mostly targeting saves, the character was so so hard to put a dent in. Much harder than the Barbarian or the Paladin.

Yeah, IME Barbarian is the only exception in terms of tankiness: most of the time I find Cleric/Wizard/Druid/whatever ultimately tanks better than non-casters simply due to spells (ranging from simple Shield/Absorb Elements to stuff like Sanctuary, Heal, Mirror Image, Armor of Agathys, Polymorph, etc.), which allows for a finer selection of what level of tanking is necessary in any given circumstances and thus using the appropriate amount of resources to accomplish the desired outcome as opposed to just either surviving or dying. Both have access to similar AC and HP (hit dice really don't matter a damn; the difference is often not even 1 hit on higher levels), while casters have ablative defenses, resistances, etc. only available to Barbarians among martials (and Uncanny Dodge).

[KorvinStarmast]

A) So in combat, you didn't mainly use the attack action? Not sure what game you are playing here. :smallconfused:
I usually fought/front lined it, but it was also very common that I was involved in controlling. I and grappled and shoved a lot (shield master) and generally kept enemies away from the squishies. Since 5e doesn't have zones of control, that required movement as well.
I certainly landed my share of sword blows. Hell yeah I did. That's a key part of my role on the team.
I also was often the one who got the rest of the group focused on what we were doing. The tactician was not afraind to say "Hey, I need you over here, now!") or "No, I need you to do this, not that!"
I was rarely wrong or countermanded by other PCs. (Though sometimes they didn't do as I wanted, so it goes).
Fighters should do that, IMO, since fighting is one of their core competencies.
If the Fighter isn't your small unit tactic leader ... why isn't he/she? But I guess that's a style choice as much as anything else.

Outside of combat I was as often as not engaged with interacting with NPCs. Sometimes, I'd add a bit of help to the rogue, other times because my salty old veteran was not shy, I was the first one talking to whomever.

Intimidation checks occasionaly got useful reaponses, but not always.

I did quite a bit of scouting; by end of tier 1 I had elven boots and decent dexterity. (Medium Armor Master is kind a cool for that, but now and again one rolls a 1 and the jig is up.

B) Big fan of your DM giving your fighter better recruitment options amongst other men-at-arms. I do the same. It isn't a suggestions by the books though. Yes it is. It's in chapter 7, under ability checks. Persuasion. And, what I was doing is called role play. :smallwink: Glad to see you have a similar view on that) I am getting the idea that you are attempting to limit what a PC does to a mechanic ... but I may be missing something.

C) without that DM support, a Bard would do it better. Or a Hexblade.
At what? We didn't have a bard, so that statement makes no sense.
We had a rogue swashbuckler who later MC'd into Warlock, but not a hexblade, to that's irrelevant.
Which then takes us to:
1. Hexblade wasn't an option.
2. A bard would probably have died had he tried to front line as I did.
Maybe a Valor bard could have done OK, maybe not. Hard to say. The only one I have seen in play wasn't very impressive, but that's a very small data point.

You play with the party you have. There are 12 classes and most parties have 4, 5, or 6 players (IME). In each party, there are some standard roles that 4e codified funcitonally pretty well, but they are a lot softer around the edges in this edition.

[Jamesps]

There's a long range of casters that are quite tanky :-) I DM'd for a Forge Cleric 1/ Abjurer X (fluffed as Rune Magic). Even giving all types of giants extra extra attacks (meaning besides the ones in the campaign book) mostly targeting saves, the character was so so hard to put a dent in. Much harder than the Barbarian or the Paladin.

That was basically my first 5e character that I ever played (I was a nature cleric since forge clerics didn't exist yet). He was okay, and certainly the most survivable thing on the field, but I had to sacrifice a lot of the utility that other casters had to do it. Most casting players prefer to focus less on tankiness.

Anyways, back in the day (2nd edition) most adventures had monster tactics that stated outright 'will target the caster first' or 'will push the spell casters into the water where they can't speak' or the like. So even if the casters were pretty tough, they'd often be taken out with the monster's alpha strikes or best surprise tactics. I haven't read a lot of 5e adventures (or 3 or 4th ed either), but I guess they don't do that anymore?

[PrismCat21]

I did even bother with reading the rest of the post. I got to your first example and gave up.


Yes the 8d6 AE can kill #10 10hit point goblins and people think that it equals 100 damage

In order to kill a 10 hp goblin through damage, you need to inflict a minimum of 20 damage as it doesn't die until their hp reach -10. For ten goblins, that means a minimum of 200 damage. Average damage for 8d6 is 28, times 10 = 280.
10 goblins, 200-480 damage, 1 standard action.

[Unoriginal]

A Wizard can rig an entire city with surveillance equipment with Magic Mouth and some gold and that gold is a lot easier to find and acquire with spells.

Is the argument that Wizards are somehow superior because they can spend gold?


Magic Mouth would also be a crappy surveillance system given that it triggers on visual or audible conditions, which people sneaking around would avoid.


I did even bother with reading the rest of the post. I got to your first example and gave up.



In order to kill a 10 hp goblin through damage, you need to inflict a minimum of 20 damage as it doesn't die until their hp reach -10. For ten goblins, that means a minimum of 200 damage. Average damage for 8d6 is 28, times 10 = 280.
10 goblins, 200-480 damage, 1 standard action.

What. No, a 10 HP goblin dies when their HPs reach 0. Unless the DM decides to give them saving throw.

Also AoE damage can't be calculted as "10 people took 20 damages, so it's 200 damages."

Not that I would recommend paying attention to Whit's opening post, but still.

[Gtdead]

That damage not only seems incredibly low, but it seems that this hypothetical tier 3 Fighter has no subclass.

It's by design that I don't use many class abilities in my calculations. You can claim that a Battlemaster can use precision strike for example, but this really doesn't help things along because then it becomes a simulation of the actual combat. This calculation isn't about potential but the basic output. I believe that when we calculate according to potential, it's misleading because we actually have to compare it to other classes' potential, and then instead of the hypothetical base fighter, we need to compare the 20 lvl Battlemaster fighter that uses precision strike and action surge and has at least a +3 weapon against something like a 20 lvl wizard with his wished simulacrum and his spell stored familiar doing his things which may seem a bit absurd, but since we maxed out the fighter, we need to max out his competition and we will spend more time talking about the potential ways to max out wizard output rather than the simple calculation that will determine Fighter's output.

This is something that annoyed me a lot when I was getting started with the edition. Calculating damage without getting hit chance into account was common place. Or these Assassin+Paladin+GWM showcases that not only assumed that GWM will hit 100%, but they calculated what happens if they actually do max damage on every hit! Any stray newbie like me back then would see something like this and get the wrong idea.

This is the base from which something can build. I admit that the math were against a hypothetical enemy that has access to spells and +4 to dex. So I'm going to do it against something more tangible:
Fighter has +10 to athletics and hit.
Mage has 15 AC and +2 acrobatics.

I assumed 3 attacks with a greatsword,
Assuming GWF His normal attack deals either 13.3 with a 80% hit chance normally, or 23.3 with 55% hit chance with GWM.

(This already yields a higher number, because this is the specific target https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/mage)

In a normal attack, the second option provides more damage, so 23.3 * 0.55 = 12.8~
In a disadvantaged attack, the first option provides more damage, so 13.3 * 0.64 = 8.5~
He has 80% chance to deal 25.6 and a 20% chance to fail and either choose between attacking with disadvantage or shoving again.
Shoving again has a 80% chance to deal 12.8 damage and a 20% chance to fail and then the fighter has to attack with disadvantage for 8.5
The other option is to just attack 2 times with disadvantage for 17 damage which is the superior choice.

So it's 80% chance to deal 25.6 or 20% chance to deal 17. An average of 24. I still haven't calculated the chance to break concentration, or the crit chance that will also provide a bonus attack with GWM. I can do all that, but however you decide to calculate it, assuming these 3 attacks, it's similar to just taking disadvantaged normal attacks without GWM which reinforces my original point, that against high defenses, fighter competes with the warlock in the sustained damage department. Sure he can use class features and cooldowns to boost his damage in certain cases, but so can everyone else. It's just that fighter will probably deal a bit higher damage against a single target compared to most of the other singleclassed builds. If that's so damn important, why no one talks about death clerics at all? They can compete with fighters.

[Morty]

There's a long range of casters that are quite tanky :-) I DM'd for a Forge Cleric 1/ Abjurer X (fluffed as Rune Magic). Even giving all types of giants extra extra attacks (meaning besides the ones in the campaign book) mostly targeting saves, the character was so so hard to put a dent in. Much harder than the Barbarian or the Paladin.


Yeah, IME Barbarian is the only exception in terms of tankiness: most of the time I find Cleric/Wizard/Druid/whatever ultimately tanks better than non-casters simply due to spells (ranging from simple Shield/Absorb Elements to stuff like Sanctuary, Heal, Mirror Image, Armor of Agathys, Polymorph, etc.), which allows for a finer selection of what level of tanking is necessary in any given circumstances and thus using the appropriate amount of resources to accomplish the desired outcome as opposed to just either surviving or dying. Both have access to similar AC and HP (hit dice really don't matter a damn; the difference is often not even 1 hit on higher levels), while casters have ablative defenses, resistances, etc. only available to Barbarians among martials (and Uncanny Dodge).

In the game where I played a battlemaster fighter, tanking was done by our artificer. His construct imposed disadvantage on enemy attacks just like a fighter with protection style, while the artificer can still do their thing. My fighter did have a shield, but I didn't pick protection style to do the same, but it would have lowered my AC (I picked Defender, being unaware that Dueling works with a shield).

[micahaphone]

I did even bother with reading the rest of the post. I got to your first example and gave up.



In order to kill a 10 hp goblin through damage, you need to inflict a minimum of 20 damage as it doesn't die until their hp reach -10. For ten goblins, that means a minimum of 200 damage. Average damage for 8d6 is 28, times 10 = 280.
10 goblins, 200-480 damage, 1 standard action.

You roll death saves for every single monster and minion in your game? Even the RAW says not to bother with it most of the time.

[Skylivedk]

Not sure what game you are playing here. :smallconfused:
I usually fought/front lined it, but it was also very common that I was involved in controlling. I and grappled and shoved a lot (shield master) and generally kept enemies away from the squishies. Since 5e doesn't have zones of control, that required movement as well.
I certainly landed my share of sword blows. Hell yeah I did. That's a key part of my role on the team.
I don't find fighters very good at maintaining a frontline since they only get one reaction. Shoving is part of your Attack Action :-) YMMV, but in my experience grappling becomes a very expensive way of doing control later on and the size requirements are a real pain in terms of keeping it relevant to non-casters.

Even adding Disarm, Shove and BA shove, we're at a very limited decision tree. Again: not trying to say it is badwrongfun, just that the game doesn't give that many options.



I also was often the one who got the rest of the group focused on what we were doing. The tactician was not afraind to say "Hey, I need you over here, now!") or "No, I need you to do this, not that!"
I was rarely wrong or countermanded by other PCs. (Though sometimes they didn't do as I wanted, so it goes).
Fighters should do that, IMO, since fighting is one of their core competencies.
If the Fighter isn't your small unit tactic leader ... why isn't he/she? But I guess that's a style choice as much as anything else.
We usually play heavily by the description of ability scores, so fighters suffer a bit as leaders on that account due to low int and cha. It's another subject though, but I have since made ways to reward other stats :-) inspired by a thread on this forum.



Outside of combat I was as often as not engaged with interacting with NPCs. Sometimes, I'd add a bit of help to the rogue, other times because my salty old veteran was not shy, I was the first one talking to whomever.
Our low mental ability score characters/players do the same. It's usually more fun than effective :D



Intimidation checks occasionaly got useful reaponses, but not always.
We play with physical intimidation (bouncer style) being Strength based. Works wonders. Again: probably your bard could have done this better if we go by RAW.



I did quite a bit of scouting; by end of tier 1 I had elven boots and decent dexterity. (Medium Armor Master is kind a cool for that, but now and again one rolls a 1 and the jig is up.
Yes it is. It's in chapter 7, under ability checks. Persuasion. And, what I was doing is called role play. :smallwink: Glad to see you have a similar view on that) I am getting the idea that you are attempting to limit what a PC does to a mechanic ... but I may be missing something.
You are :) it seems to me you conflate Martials not having out of combat mechanically supported options with me not rewarding/appreciating roleplaying. Check my signature. I'm very happy to go free form.



At what? We didn't have a bard, so that statement makes no sense.
We had a rogue swashbuckler who later MC'd into Warlock, but not a hexblade, to that's irrelevant.
Which then takes us to:
1. Hexblade wasn't an option.
2. A bard would probably have died had he tried to front line as I did.
Maybe a Valor bard could have done OK, maybe not. Hard to say. The only one I have seen in play wasn't very impressive, but that's a very small data point.

You play with the party you have. There are 12 classes and most parties have 4, 5, or 6 players (IME). In each party, there are some standard roles that 4e codified funcitonally pretty well, but they are a lot softer around the edges in this edition.
I was referring to your persuasion checks, not your frontline duties.

That was basically my first 5e character that I ever played (I was a nature cleric since forge clerics didn't exist yet). He was okay, and certainly the most survivable thing on the field, but I had to sacrifice a lot of the utility that other casters had to do it. Most casting players prefer to focus less on tankiness.

Anyways, back in the day (2nd edition) most adventures had monster tactics that stated outright 'will target the caster first' or 'will push the spell casters into the water where they can't speak' or the like. So even if the casters were pretty tough, they'd often be taken out with the monster's alpha strikes or best surprise tactics. I haven't read a lot of 5e adventures (or 3 or 4th ed either), but I guess they don't do that anymore?
Very little tactical information in mm. Also a lot of monsters have very few abilities

[KorvinStarmast]

We usually play heavily by the description of ability scores, so fighters suffer a bit as leaders on that account due to low int and cha. That is a self nerf. It is also not the rules. And just so you understand my frame of reference, player skill is a thing. One is not required to self nerf by this bizarre "what would my guy not be able to do" thing that I keep seeing - it looks like some kind of Forge era thing ... but maybe not.

You are :) it seems to me you conflate Martials not having out of combat mechanically supported options with me not rewarding/appreciating roleplaying. Actually, I was confused at how you were doing that - being a role play supporter it puzzle me that you'll artificially assert a mechanical limitation that isn't there.

But I think there's a style thing going on here, not any core disagreement.

On the other hand: my fighter can't fly without a magic item, or when our Wizard up casts it so that more than one PC can fly. Our wizard can.

But that's why we form a team. Everyone contributes. :smallsmile:

[Skylivedk]

Is the argument that Wizards are somehow superior because they can spend gold?


Magic Mouth would also be a crappy surveillance system given that it triggers on visual or audible conditions, which people sneaking around would avoid.


Sorry, missed your post.
There's a nice long guide about it here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-%28-Official-Rules-Technique-%29

TLDR: the wording of magic mouth enables it to do a lot more than you imply. And no, you can't just sneak past it :-) as for the gold:
1) I already mentioned they mitigating factors: it's easier for Wizards to get said gold.
2) it isn't that much gold.
3) Martials don't have anything that compares.
4) it just escalates. The Moon Aspect Warlock can keep doing his thing all day and night at distances the Martials can't dream to cover. If you get hung up on one class feature, then you aren't engaging with my main argument that casters get tons and tons of features; they can change between them and the power of said features continue to climb.

[Unoriginal]

TLDR: the wording of magic mouth enables it to do a lot more than you imply.

The wording doesn't enable anything. It's the DM who enables it.



And no, you can't just sneak past it :-)

Yes you can <¦:3c

Unless the DM decides to give Magic Mouth much more power than the spell implies because "casters are superior therefore they should be allowed to do that".



as for the gold:
1) I already mentioned they mitigating factors: it's easier for Wizards to get said gold.

It isn't. Unless the DM decides so.



2) it isn't that much gold.

True, but it doesn't change that the only objective part of your argument so far has been "Wizard can spend the gold".



3) Martials don't have anything that compares.

True, Martials don't have any class ability to spend gold on an ineffective defense system.



4) it just escalates. The Moon Aspect Warlock can keep doing his thing all day and night at distances the Martials can't dream to cover.

Yes, the Warlock can get a power to not sleep. That doesn't make them superior.



If you get hung up on one class feature, then you aren't engaging with my main argument that casters get tons and tons of features; they can change between them and the power of said features continue to climb.

Hadn't realized that it was your main argument. I apologize.

It also still doesn't make the casters superior.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorry, missed your post.
There's a nice long guide about it here: Yeah, Magic Mouth is a very fun spell to mess around with, though it can be dispelled if someone wants to dispel it.
It's not guaranteed to be permanent, but I think someone has to first trip over it and decide "hey, I don't like that!" and then it takes some detect magic aided investigation to find most of the nodes, and then the jig is up once a spell caster with Dispel Magic (a local NPC priest will suffice, they get level 3 spells).

But until then, it can do some neat and fun stuff.

Just like Unseen Servant exploits, Magic Mouth shennanigans is a part of the non combat fun in D&D.

[Skylivedk]

That is a self nerf. It is also not the rules. And just so you understand my frame of reference, player skill is a thing. One is not required to self nerf by this bizarre "what would my guy not be able to do" thing that I keep seeing - it looks like some kind of Forge era thing ... but maybe not.
Actually, I was confused at how you were doing that - being a role play supporter it puzzle me that you'll artificially assert a mechanical limitation that isn't there.

You think so? Interesting. I think it's pretty important to immersion that I don't have my 8 int Barbarian start doing advanced calculus and build siege equipment just because I'm capable of it IRL.

Also, Chapter 7, on Charisma, p. 178:
"Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others
. It includes such factors as confidence
and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or
commanding personality".

Edit for formatting.

[Unoriginal]

Just like Unseen Servant exploits, Magic Mouth shennanigans is a part of the non combat fun in D&D.

Spell shenanigans where someone a) tries to exact-word the text for more power b) tries to use real world logic for more power c) tries to stretch the implications of a spell for more power d) do all of the above actively hinder my fun with D&D. And with online discussions.


You think so? Interesting. I think it's pretty important to immersion that I don't have my 8 int Barbarian start doing advanced calculus and build siege equipment just because I'm capable of it IRL.

INT 5 creatures are capable of building siege equipment. INT 8 is still human average, even if in the low end.

[Skylivedk]

The wording doesn't enable anything. It's the DM who enables it.



Yes you can <¦:3c

Unless the DM decides to give Magic Mouth much more power than the spell implies because "casters are superior therefore they should be allowed to do that".

I beg to differ. It would require a DM making a ruling against it. The original text is very very permissive in the caster's favour:

"The triggering circum stance can be as general or as detailed as you like, though it must be based on visual or audible conditions that occur within 30 feet of the object. For example, you could instruct the mouth to Speak when any creature moves within 30 feet of the
object or when a silver bell rings within 30 feet of it."



It isn't [easier for the Wizard to get good - Added by Skylivedk for clarity]. Unless the DM decides so.

I call Oberoni on this one. It's quite apparent that casters have a huge tools to find and acquire gold that fighters don't. From divinations, to transport, to changing sizes and weights of objects... I can't take this argument seriously in any freeform/sandbox inspired game.



True, but it doesn't change that the only objective part of your argument so far has been "Wizard can spend the gold".

That's a huge and borderline dishonest simplification. I mention one spell that gives the Wizard a new way of spending gold. It's not like they are drinking the money away here. They're building quasi permanent tools.



True, Martials don't have any class ability to spend gold on an ineffective defense system.

Who talked about defense? I said surveillance. I.e. my gnome Illusionist was set up to use this badger familiar to drag magic mouth infused cables in tunnels all over town to eavesdrop on... Well, everybody. He was a bit paranoid.



Yes, the Warlock can get a power to not sleep. That doesn't make them superior.

And somehow you skip that the combination of short rest recharge and spells made for a Scrying powerhouse. Are you even trying here? Again, Martials have nothing that compare. Not even close. It completely changed how we managed our armies in Rise of Tiamat. Also, the guy who used to play Rogue said: "I'm happy I changed character".



Hadn't realized that it was your main argument. I apologize.

It also still doesn't make the casters superior.
No worries. It was on my post on this thread. Probably got lost in the torrent of answers.

You are entitled to your opinion. I'd like you to walk me through the Sorcerer v. Barbarian example. I struggle to see how Barbarians and Sorcerers (chosen two long rest classes, and Sorcerer to pick the one that's usually seen as the worst amongst the full casters to make it more fair) get the same design space value/quantity and quality of choice at they level up.

I'm not being critical of 5e design because I dislike DnD. I'm critical because I love DnD and want to make it better. To do that, we also need to be about to acknowledge flaws.

[KorvinStarmast]

You think so? Interesting. I think it's pretty important to immersion that I don't have my 8 int Barbarian start doing advanced calculus Immersion has nothing to do with numbers (well, that's how I approach it). The character sheet isn't a finite boundary of play. As to the Barbarian doing calclus: since nobody suggested that, why did you?
A Fighter being tactically astute is a core competency; you can even read up on what a Fighter is in the class description as regards what the general idea is behind fighters.

INT, as a stat, has to do with general memory and reasoning.

To be clear, I reject any assumption that what is on the character sheet is a limitation. That is what you appear to be advocating for (which again strikes me as odd since you are an RP advocate - scratching my head here).
All those numbers do is influence increased or decreased chances of success for a given event. You can try anything. There are no skill points or limitations of that similar nature (though I've seen a specific argument in re thieves tools as an exception that seems to me reasonable enough ... )

Also, Chapter 7, on Charisma, p. 178:
"Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others . It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality".
Like my Fighter: he had a commanding personality.
I don't need an 18 Charisma for that.
An 11 or a 12 suffices.

(If you are going to go the immersion route: if you want to break immersion, tell me your halfling has a 20 STR, but that is an entirely different topic).

[Skylivedk]

Spell shenanigans where someone a) tries to exact-word the text for more power b) tries to use real world logic for more power c) tries to stretch the implications of a spell for more power d) do all of the above actively hinder my fun with D&D. And with online discussions.
Since you use rulings that run counter to the text to indirectly nerf casters and I say the rules given by the text favour the casters, it seems we're a bit closer in opinion than I thought.




INT 5 creatures are capable of building siege equipment. INT 8 is still human average, even if in the low end.
I probably should have been more specific: trebuchets, cannons etc.

[MaxWilson]

You roll death saves for every single monster and minion in your game? Even the RAW says not to bother with it most of the time.

You don't have to actually roll dice during combat to give them death saves, as long as you eliminate the "natural 20 = return to 1 HP" rule. You can just roll them after combat to see who stabilized and who's dead, although if the players decide to check for and kill any survivors you don't even need to bother with that much.

[KorvinStarmast]

I probably should have been more specific: trebuchets, cannons etc.
Which don't exist ex nihilo, nor in a vacuum. Each of them was an outgrowth of a previous attempt over a period of years to perfect a war machine that does X (in this case, propel a heavy object to damage things at range) It took teams of people and a lot of trial and error to come up with them, and a lot of dead bodies during the R&D phase.
OSHA wasn't a thing back then. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

I sincerely apologize to everyone for my earlier rudeness. I should know better to not enter that kind of arguments. For the sake of peaceful conversation, I won't reply to this thread any further.


Since you use rulings that run counter to the text to indirectly nerf casters

I do not. A spell triggered by visual or auditory cues requires, obviously, visual or auditory cues to be triggered, and stealth is explicitly about avoiding giving those.

[Skylivedk]

Since nobody suggested that, why did you? A Fighter being tactically astute is a core competency, and you can even read up on what a Fighter is in the class description.
Where do you find that? The closest I come is this, which was in the flavor text. I always thought it was a reference to Commander's Strike:
"The half-orc nearby shouts orders, helping the two combatants coordinate their assault to the best advantage."

and this regarding character background
"Perhaps you trained in a war academy, learning strategy, tactics, and military history".

Hardly enough for me to conclude that fighters are master tacticians.


INT has to do with general memory and reasoning. To be clear, I reject any assumption that what is on the character sheet is a limitation. That is what you appear to be advocating for (which again strikes me as odd). All those numbers do is influence increased or decreased chances of success for a given event. You can try anything. There are no skill points or limitations of that similar nature (though I've seen a specific argument in re thieves tools as an exception)
Like my Fighter: he had a commanding personality.
I don't need an 18 Charisma for that.
An 11 or a 12 suffices.
I'm not advocating for not doing it. I'm stating that by the rules you'll be less effective at doing it. I'm also saying that our table gives bonuses (they're not set in stone, more like: this group of mercenaries won't respect a spell slinger) to make fighters better at interacting with other men-at-arms.

About INT: you forgot mental acuity. That seems fairly relevant for in the fly tactical decisions.

About your character's cha: nice for me to see the personality traits reflected in the stats. I think we're just talking degrees of commanding presence in this case ;-) as far as I know, a Bard would still usually do the persuasion better here. Which I honestly find odd.

There's a dimension of psychology that the books don't really touch on in this case, i.e. how former soldiers often connect more readily with one another than with an academic in the first couple of minutes. Charisma is... Kind of a weird stat which flattens the process of human connection tremendously.

[Unoriginal]

I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread anymore, but this warrants it enough. This is really my last post.



There's a dimension of psychology that the books don't really touch on in this case, i.e. how former soldiers often connect more readily with one another than with an academic in the first couple of minutes.

That is covered in the Backgrounds.

[Skylivedk]

Which don't exist ex nihilo, nor in a vacuum. Each of them was an outgrowth of a previous attempt over a period of years to perfect a war machine that does X (in this case, propel a heavy object to damage things at range) It took teams of people and a lot of trial and error to come up with them, and a lot of dead bodies during the R&D phase.
OSHA wasn't a thing back then. :smallbiggrin:
Agreed! But even knowing the workings of a catapult, building a good one is a lot easier if you can do some kwikmaffs ;-)


I sincerely apologize to everyone for my earlier rudeness. I should know better to not enter that kind of arguments. For the sake of peaceful conversation, I won't reply to this thread any further.

In my case: apology accepted. I've been pretty heated in similar discussions in the past. Extremely similar




I do not. A spell triggered by visual or auditory cues requires, obviously, visual or auditory cues to be triggered, and stealth is explicitly about avoiding giving those.
Giving those enough to be discovered, yes. In my reading, and since there's no perception score mentioned, and it says as specific or general as you like, I'm prone to saying it requires a ruling to not allow it to function in most cases (aka I read it like the guide did).

Even with a ruling allowing you to tippy-toe around Magic Mouth, it still functions to do classic surveillance (spying) regardless of Stealth.... And it's still just one of many many other tools in the box. You can still build telegraph cables etc with it.

Pardon if you see this as me overstepping after you gracefully bowed out. That isn't my intention.

EDIT: just saw the mention of backgrounds..I don't agree on that providing what I'm referring to at all. The references there are more pointed towards stuff like formal hierarchies (Soldier) and particular local situations (Folk Hero). It doesn't really encapsulate that I could quickly make friends and understand the Malaysian sergeant on my busride to Penang 5 years ago due to us having (some) similar life experiences

[KorvinStarmast]

flavor text. Which means to me that we are nearly done. That term's a flag that we aren't having the same conversation.
I'm stating that by the rules you'll be less effective at doing it. I am not sure that your rules foremost approach is a style I prefer, but yes, if you have fewer bonuses then the harder checks are going to be tougher to pass. (At which point you do what smart teams do, get the cleric to drop guidance on Whomever (rogue, bard, Fighter, Ranger) is trying to persuade, because we are a team).

About INT: you forgot mental acuity. That seems fairly relevant for in the fly tactical decisions. And you choose to overlook a key ingredient to making tactical decisions: experience. That's what Fighter brings to the table. (And just gonna say that, with a career in the military, my observation tactical smarts and book smarts are an uneven match - it's a mixed bag, but now and again a brilliant tactical insight will arrive. I honestly think that Wisdom informs tactical smarts as much as raw brain does, but experience often trumps both). How D&D models mental stats is once again exposed as "uh, kind of, it's a game"

About your character's cha: nice for me to see the personality traits reflected in the stats. I think we're just talking degrees of commanding presence in this case ;-) as far as I know, a Bard would still usually do the persuasion better here. Maybe. (And if the bard casts a spell like Mass Suggestion, perhaps way better than maybe).

But let's look at the situation: if you have a band of warlike Orcs led by a few Orogs, do you really think that some pretty boy is going to BS them into fighting on the party's side, or some scarred old sword and board fighter who speaks their language, and is like them A Warrior.
Sometimes, the messenger is the message. :smallwink:

Which I honestly find odd. There's a dimension of psychology that the books don't really touch on in this case, i.e. how former soldiers often connect more readily with one another than with an academic in the first couple of minutes. Charisma is... Kind of a weird stat which flattens the process of human connection tremendously. Which puts us into violent agreement. :smallbiggrin:
How did we do that?

[Skylivedk]

Which means to me that we are nearly done. That term's a flag that we aren't having the same conversation.
Didn't know else to call it. It's the text in the beginning that gives some random examples of widely different types of fighters where is extremely hard to tell what is general and what is specific :-)



I am not sure that your rules foremost approach is a style I prefer, but yes, if you have fewer bonuses then the harder checks are going to be tougher to pass. (At which point you do what smart teams do, get the cleric to drop guidance on Whomever (rogue, bard, Fighter, Ranger) is trying to persuade, because we are a team).
I don't use that approach to play :-) I use the approach to analyse the rules. As a player I have had to be more in tune with Guidance approach in my longest campaign for to that DM. I've also had the complete opposite experience plus I DM with very few rolls when players are in character.


And you choose to overlook a key ingredient to making tactical decisions: experience. That's what Fighter brings to the table. (And just gonna say that, with a career in the military, my observation tactical smarts and book smarts are an uneven match - it's a mixed bag, but now and again a brilliant tactical insight will arrive. I honestly think that Wisdom informs tactical smarts as much as raw brain does, but experience often trumps both). How D&D models mental stats is once again exposed as "uh, kind of, it's a game"
Agreed on experience. Nothing like practice and repetition when the bombs are falling... Ehh, dragon is spewing fire. I am just not sure how this favours the fighter over i.e. the War Wizard with a Soldier's background :)




But let's look at the situation: if you have a band of warlike Orcs led by a few Orogs, do you really think that some pretty boy is going to BS them into fighting on the party's side, or some scarred old sword and board fighter who speaks their language, and is like them A Warrior.
Compete agreement. As far as I can see our agreement is not supported by the rules though.



Which puts us into violent agreement. :smallbiggrin:
How did we do that?
By trying to keep our discussion of imaginary violence very civil?

[sithlordnergal]

Maybe. (And if the bard casts a spell like Mass Suggestion, perhaps way better than maybe).

But let's look at the situation: if you have a band of warlike Orcs led by a few Orogs, do you really think that some pretty boy is going to BS them into fighting on the party's side, or some scarred old sword and board fighter who speaks their language, and is like them A Warrior.
Sometimes, the messenger is the message. :smallwink:


Personally, I'd give you advantage to make the check. You'll still need to use your Persuasion check, and it'll be the same DC as what anyone else needs to beat. If you only have a +1 to the check, then the Bard is going to simply do better because they're far better at connecting and impressing those orcs. I'd expect the Bard to be able to do it better, because they'd be better at manipulating the Orogs then the scarred fighter. Charisma is more than just presence, since it aids in deception its also how well you can twist people into doing what you want with just your words.

[Sindeloke]

That is a self nerf. It is also not the rules. And just so you understand my frame of reference, player skill is a thing. One is not required to self nerf by this bizarre "what would my guy not be able to do" thing that I keep seeing - it looks like some kind of Forge era thing ... but maybe not.

I'm with Skylivedk & Sithlordnergal on this one; if you decide that "I can barely lift a gallon of milk in real life, but my orc warrior is not me and has Str 19 and can throw a small boulder at someone," you can't then turn around and say "I'm an experienced tactician who can easily see the best thing for each member of my party to do in this situation and cleverly outmaneuver the enemy general, so my orc warrior, who is me, can do it too, despite his 8 Intelligence." Either the game stats mean something, or they don't. 8 Int isn't stupid and 8 Cha isn't "might as well be furniture," but they're also a long way from Alexander the Great, and playing a character as smarter or more compelling than they are in the game makes ability scores meaningless. Which actually hurts martials more than casters; if you can be a notorious warlord despite your negative Charisma modifier, why shouldn't the wizard break down doors or knock over giants with his bare hands despite his negative Strength, and take away the one thing you were unquestionably better at? (.... although I suppose that's the way skills work in 5e anyway, so well played, WotC.)

But that's actually beside the point to begin with, because you said it yourself: player skill is a thing. Skylived's original argument, the one you replied to with your orc warband example, was that every character has a baseline competency, and that competency is equal to what the You, The Player, are able to do with the Skills, Backgrounds, and Roleplaying What A Person Might Do that every character has access to.

And then casters also have access to a bunch of cool effects that non-casters don't. Which are then, incidentally, multiplied by player skill.

Skylivedk didn't say "if you play a fighter you can't do anything." The specific warning was "if you play a fighter, your class itself will not give you any extra ability to interact with the narrative." Extra ability. Anyone can interact with the narrative by virtue of playing the game. Casters can interact more because they also have specific class features that support that.

Any character can go talk to a community of their own race and say "hey guys, can we get some help?" Martials can do it, casters can do it. Only a caster can also use mind control spells to coerce that community if they roll badly or if the community is, for whatever reason, simply not interested. Any character can disguise themselves as another humanoid to go talk to strangers who they aren't related to and try to trick them into helping. Martials can do it, casters can do it. Only a caster can also cast Tongues to make sure they speak the language,* or use illusions to trick their way into a community of animals, elementals, or other non-humanoid creatures outside the realm of a disguise kit.

* Okay, very high-level monks can speak any language natively as well. It's a nice feature actually, and serves as a good example of the sort of passive interaction feature that all martial classes should have been designed with.

[Asisreo1]

Okay, very high-level monks can speak any language natively as well. It's a nice feature actually, and serves as a good example of the sort of passive interaction feature that all martial classes should have been designed with.
This is an interesting opinion.

Question: do you imagine a ranger's favored enemy or favored terrain to be a well-designed feature of the ranger?

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't use that approach to play :-) I use the approach to analyse the rules. Understood.
By trying to keep our discussion of imaginary violence very civil? Brilliant.

Personally, I'd give you advantage to make the check. Which is a great tool that is In The Rules, but each DM will apply it as the situation warrants. (I wish I could swear to you that my DM gave me advantage, but I only remember rolling one die). I look for adv/disadv as a DM actively.

I'm with Skylivedk & Sithlordnergal on this one; if you decide that "I can barely lift a gallon of milk in real life, but my orc warrior is not me and has Str 19 and can throw a small boulder at someone," you can't then turn around and say "I'm an experienced tactician
No sale. You are artifically constraining the character with a self nerf for no good reason.
Also, I am sorry, but I haven't the time to have the same conversation twice.
For example, nowhere in INT does it say "tactical genius must have a high INT."
The class Fighter brings to the party experience in fighting, not in rolling d20's. If you read the text, and in particular if you choose the recommended quick build background of Soldier, soldiers are trained to fight as a unit. Small Unit Tactics are an integral part of that.
D&D combat is small unit tactics. (Some day, there may be a good UA or book that has something like company and battalion and regiment level fighting, but we ain't there yet and Matt C's book is still in work).

When it comes to grand strategy, I'll grant you that being the best platoon leader or company commander in the world may not help you. It's a different field of expertise. (So too is Operational Art, but that's not on topic here since we are not discussing a war game).

[MaxWilson]

I'm with Skylivedk on this one; if you decide that "I can barely lift a gallon of milk in real life, but my orc warrior is not me and has Str 19 and can throw a small boulder at someone," you can't then turn around and say "I'm an experienced tactician who can easily see the best thing for each member of my party to do in this situation and cleverly outmaneuver the enemy general, so my orc warrior, who is me, can do it too, despite his 8 Intelligence." Either the game stats mean something, or they don't. 8 Int isn't stupid and 8 Cha isn't "might as well be furniture," but they're also a long way from Alexander the Great, and playing a character as smarter or more compelling than they are in the game makes ability scores meaningless.

Also, Alexander the Great was dealing with fundamentally straightforward tactical problems (and maybe more-difficult strategic problems). He wasn't dealing with highly-abstract concerns like optimizing PC behavior for the specific initiative order that was rolled (if cleric goes before fighter, pop-up healing on the fighter is viable; if fighter goes before cleric, pop-up healing is not viable but Sanctuary is), or choosing in bullet time between dozens of meaningfully-different possible PC actions on four different PCs fighting new monsters in new terrain, or exploiting counterintuitive and counter-realistic rules like opportunity attacks to minimize attacks, turning monster abilities like antimagic cones against the monsters themselves, calculating the relative value of concentration and spell slots relative to the opportunity cost in a given encounter, etc.

I can totally buy an Int 8 fighter with a good grasp of getting there "the firstest with the mostest." A lot of groups probably don't even exceed that level of tactical sophistication in the first place, so no issue there. But if I were playing an Int 8 Eldritch Knight, I would feel quite cheesey about the prospect of telling the Moon Druid to Polymorph the party Lore Bard into a Giant Ape (because the Lore Bard's at-will attack is less valuable than anybody else's at-will attack) and instructing the bard to kite Star Spawn Hulks to death with his superior movement (since it cuts their offense by ~70%). It feels as wrong as having a timid, scholarly Wis 8 Cha 8 Sage wizard take the initiative to start his own business selling Fabricated silk dresses, derived from patterns Scried in the Faerie Courts, to decadent nobles with more cash than sense. That wizard is technically capable of such a thing, but would they?

My powergamer instincts say "yes, if it provides an advantage." My roleplaying instincts say "no, it's not in character." There's a tension there and I don't always choose the RP angle, but I'm not comfortable completely ignoring it either.


The class Fighter brings to the party experience in fighting, not in rolling d20's. If you read the text, and in particular if you choose the recommended quick build background of Soldier, soldiers are trained to fight as a unit. Small Unit Tactics are an integral part of that.
D&D combat is small unit tactics. (Some day, there may be a good UA or book that has something like company and battalion and regiment level fighting, but we ain't there yet and Matt C's book is still in work).

A squad full of Champions fighting hobgoblins is small unit tactics. I totally buy that.

But a lore bard, a fighter, a moon druid, and a multiclassed cleric/wizard fighting teleporting demons and shadows that crawl through the walls while a Flameskull bombards them with Fireballs and everything works by PHB RAW (as opposed to Gygaxian realism) is more like... Special Forces, cubed. It is orders of magnitude more complex than vanilla small unit tactics.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can totally buy an Int 8 fighter with a good grasp of getting there "the firstest with the mostest." A lot of groups probably don't even exceed that level of tactical sophistication in the first place, so no issue there. It helps that I came to D&D from wargames, and that I spent a lot of years playing D&D with people who were in various branches of the military service. But genre wise, D&D WoTC era looks like a Tom Clancy Black Ops video game in a lot of ways ...

But if I were playing an Int 8 Eldritch Knight, I would feel quite cheesey about the prospect of telling the wizard to Polymorp the party Lore Bard into a Giant Ape (because the Lore Bard's at-will attack is less valuable than anybody else's at-will attack) and instructing the bard to kite Star Spawn Hulks to death with his superior movement (since it cuts their offense by ~70%). If he'd seen that, or something similar, done before then it's not cheesy at all.

nd instructing the bard to kite Star Spawn Hulks to death with his superior movement (since it cuts their offense by ~70%). Only if they had fought Star Spawn Hulks before ... and here a DM intervention is sometimes useful.

But, for him to think for the wizard and tell him what spell to cast?

Yeah, that's a stretch and the rest of the party may say "Dude, play your own character!" as a response.
Which would IMO be the exact right response.
PS: I bite my lip, A Lot, in one play group when I see what a fellow player can do and they don't.
I'll sometimes ask them after the battle, but during the fight I just have to think about 'how can I improve our situation' before I take my action, or whatever.

There's a tension there and I don't always choose the RP angle, but I'm not comfortable completely ignoring it either. Yes. That tension is very good, and there's some healthy gray area in there.
I dislike the argument from those who claim that there is a clear line.
For Max.

But a lore bard, a fighter, a moon druid, and a multiclassed cleric/wizard fighting teleporting demons and shadows that crawl through the walls while a Flameskull bombards them with Fireballs and everything works by PHB RAW (as opposed to Gygaxian realism) is more like... Special Forces, cubed. It is orders of magnitude more complex than vanilla small unit tactics. Special Forces is small unit tactics with better gear and more experienced soldiers. You work with Spec Op units much? Their field craft alone sets them apart. (And they are really good at getting close air support, clearly identifying the targets, and knowing how and when to ask for it...sorry, RL digression there).

[MaxWilson]

It helps that I came to D&D from wargames, and that I spent a lot of years playing D&D with people who were in various branches of the military service. But genre wise, D&D WoTC era looks like a Tom Clancy Black Ops video game in a lot of ways ...
If he'd seen that, or something similar, done before then it's not cheesy at all.
Only if they had fought Star Spawn Hulks before ... and here a DM intervention is sometimes useful.

Good point about Black Ops--I haven't played the Tom Clancy games but my sense is that you're saying that those games have more individualized roles and more unusual opponents.

I think one of the benefits of intelligence is that it lets you abstract ideas, and generalize more easily. If you've seen a Star Spawn Hulk get kited by a giant ape, it doesn't take much intelligence to repeat the tactic. If you've seen a centaur win a fight with an ogre by kiting, it may take some intelligence to realize why the centaur won (superior movement vs. a Multiattacking enemy without ranged attacks), and generalize that to a different situation with similar abstract characteristics (Giant Apes are faster than Star Spawn Hulks, and Star Spawn Hulks do use Multiattack), eliminate situations where the generalization won't hold (won't work on difficult terrain, or when there are too many Hulks, or when the terrain is shaped wrong), and then use the tactic at the right time and not at the wrong times.

In fact, now that I think about it, I should probably be more ready to show low intelligence by re-using previously-successful solutions at inappropriate times, instead of just foregoing solutions that I know would be successful but are too complex. E.g. when I'm playing an Int 8 Goblin Moon Druid, I should probably sometimes try to conjure Constrictor Snakes even in terrain that is too tight for all of the Constrictor Snakes to effectively engage the enemy at once, or kite enemies that just wind up attacking a different PC instead of me.


Special Forces is small unit tactics with better gear and more experienced soldiers. You work with Spec Op units much? Their field craft alone sets them apart.

I have not, but my assumption is that whereas normal units are stingy with the special equipment (e.g. one guy gets the SAW, and the squad leader gets the grenades), Special Forces units also have more differentiation. A sniper, some demo specialists (cross-trained of course), heavy weapons, etc. That feels more like a PC party than a simple 11-B infantry company does, although a PC party is even more complex.

[KorvinStarmast]

That feels more like a PC party than a simple 11-B infantry company does, although a PC party is even more complex. Yeah, but do you know where Spec Ops gets their soldiers from? That same 11-B infantry company. :smallwink: They pick top performers.
So here we are, with PCs who are above average/exceptional, which is why they are PCs.
The 'average' soldier might be a town guard or a Veteran.

The above average one becomes
A PC. :smallwink:

So yeah, spec ops guy fits pretty well for your Champion, but IMO it really fits the Battle Master or your EK.
(And I won't mention where some of the mercs contractors we dealt with came from ... )

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, but do you know where Spec Ops gets their soldiers from? That same 11-B infantry company. :smallwink: They pick top performers.
So here we are, with PCs who are above average/exceptional, which is why they are PCs.
The 'average' soldier might be a town guard or a Veteran.

The above average one becomes
A PC. :smallwink:

So yeah, spec ops guy fits pretty well for your Champion, but IMO it really fits the Battle Master or your EK.
(And I won't mention where some of the mercs contractors we dealt with came from ... )

Full disclosure: the Army sent me home about twelve weeks into 11B AIT. I was too old, I had gotten injured and they didn't want to pay for surgery to fix it, and this was 2012 so the Army was downsizing. (And I had a good civilian career as a computer programmer so I didn't fight to reenlist under a different MoS.) Therefore I don't know all that much about active duty.

I feel like we are wandering off topic, or talking about different things, because I never said 11Bs can't turn into 18Bs/Cs/etc. I'm just saying typical PC parties occupy a far more heterogeneously complex tactical space than 11Bs do, whether or not typical players take full advantage of that space. I'd be fine playing an Int 8 fighter using tactics that I can imagine 11Bs using, but those are still relatively unsophisticated tactics.

[sandmote]

No sale. You are artifically constraining the character with a self nerf for no good reason. The only person I see "artifically constraining the character with a self nerf for no good reason," is the one insisting fighters be treated as stereotypes of the imagery given in the books, and that this character concept be restricted to a particular class.

A wizard who doesn't know one end of a maul from the other but who handled logistics in a military force is going to have an easier time interacting with and be more respected by trained soldiers than an edgelord who spent ten years studying the blade with his one tutor in the mountains. Mastery with weapons is part of being a fighter, because it is there in features you get from fighter levels; in their 1st level proficiencies, in their action surge, in their extra attacks.

"Is a soldier and knows how to impress them," is a stereotype of the class, but it isn't there in the fighter levels. It's there in the soldier background, but having a background is a piece of your character separate from the character's class. Any wizard can choose the Soldier background just as well as any fighter can. And there is no reason under the sun a bully urchin who's best suited to cut through a bunch of people with his greataxe because he spent years training is going to have any innate ability to converse with soldiers. And he's a fighter, same as the rest of them.



Also, I am sorry, but I haven't the time to have the same conversation twice. I sincerely doubt that (even if you had time to write it out again) anyone is interesting in reading you repeat yourself.

But if it wouldn't harm you, could you spare a moment to give a response on the subject Skylivedk, Sithlordnergal, & Sindeloke have been arguing?

Or at least give a reason why the characters represented by the fighter class should be artificially constrained to only one character concept?

Edit: Having had a moment to calm down, the above is crudely put. However, the basic point is that the abilities granted by a PC's class are only a subset of the abilities possessed by a PC. The full range of abilities a PC can have and the range of abilities granted by a class are two separate questions. I'm still not over the idea a person can go up to soldiers, say "I used to perform in the arena so we're the same," and have this actually provide a benefit. And a gladiator is explicitly mentioned in the PH as an example of a fighter.

[Asisreo1]

"Is a soldier and knows how to impress them," is a stereotype of the class, but it isn't there in the fighter levels. It's there in the soldier background, but having a background is a piece of your character separate from the character's class...Or at least give a reason why the characters represented by the fighter class should be artificially constrained to only one character concept?
The beautiful thing about fighters is the lack of restrictions that the game puts you under. Your flavor doesn't have to conflict with your mechanics as a fighter.

The same simply cannot be said of spellcasters.

A fighter can be so many different things. They can be a knight, an archer, a phalanx, a trooper, a commander, or just a person that has learned how to handle a few weapons. Nothing in the fighter's kit can conflict with this type of character. They aren't specifically supported, but they aren't clashing with existing mechanics.

A wizard will always and only ever be a Wizard, though. It doesn't matter if you want to be an All Flame! Wizard, a wizard that has only an interest in illusions, a wizard with access to only enchantment spells, or a wizard whose spells are meant to research becoming a lich. All of these wizards simply can't exist within the rules without seriously limiting yourself. A fighter's main ability is their focus on one particular aspect but a wizard's strength comes from their versatility. It doesn't matter that Magic Missile and Shield wouldn't make sense on your reckless wizard PC, you'll almost always want to have them.

This leads to a certain monotony on wizard builds, even in different subclasses. You may have 2 or 3 distinct spells from any other given wizard, but can I really tell your Enchantment wizard and Transmutation wizard apart when they both will always choose the same spells?

I seriously pass from being forced to take Out-of-combat specifications into my fighters. It gives off the same energy as forcing alignments on paladins in that I either play to the strengths forced onto me or feel like I'm putting a square toy down a circular hole.

I don't know what it is about all this "Class design" talk when classes don't matter. I don't play a class, I play a character, with background and races included.

Why do I care that my narrative potency comes from a class, the DM, or a background that Kerar the Halfling Wizard could have chosen. The point is, at this particular moment, my character is affecting the world just as like Kerar is.

[sandmote]

Your flavor doesn't have to conflict with your mechanics as a fighter.

The same simply cannot be said of spellcasters. Your flavor doesn't have to conflict with your mechanics as a spellcaster. Beside the fact it can physically be said, there's a lot of concepts that can fit a particular type of caster. Just take the wizard. They can be a wizened scholar, a deceitful trickster, a commander, a special operative, a business mogul, a mad scientist, or just a person that has learned how to cast a few spells. And particularly given you have lots of spell options, the wizard kit doesn't require anything that can conflict with this type of character. The difference is that they are specifically supported.

A fighter will always be a fighter, though. It doesn't matter if you want to be an Tactician! Fighter, a fighter that only has interest in defense, a fighter who only uses duel wielding, or a fighter whose techniques are meant to raise to become a king. Rather than just not being optimized, these concepts don't get any mechanical support.

This leads to a certain monotony on fighter builds, even in different subclasses. You may have a distinct fighting style from any other given fighter, but can I really tell your Champion Fighter and Samurai Fighter apart when they both will always be in strong armor with a weapon?

If we want to be reductive about it, this can be applied to any class. I take the same issue with pigeonholing wizards as I take with pigeonholing fighters.


It doesn't matter that Magic Missile and Shield wouldn't make sense on your reckless wizard PC, you'll almost always want to have them. To be honest, I think a reckless wizard would use Shield as a justification for why they'll be fine. But even if you have a character concept that doesn't you aren't required to optimize. It's perfectly fine to be missing a spell, even a strong one.

For magic missile, I don't consider than a good example. Personally I dislike the spell and generally ignore it.


Why do I care that my narrative potency comes from a class, the DM, or a background that Kerar the Halfling Wizard could have chosen. The point is, at this particular moment, my character is affecting the world just as like Kerar is. Consider the relative narrative potency between two PCs. If there is a imbalance, solving it generally requires identifying the source. If Kerar has a background reflective of what Kerar has done, it wouldn't be equitable for things Trary the Half Orc Rogue's did before the game starts to be the only past events that come up.

[Sindeloke]

Yes. That tension is very good, and there's some healthy gray area in there.
I dislike the argument from those who claim that there is a clear line.

I don't claim there is a clear line. But if you accept that ability scores have real meaning, that contradicts your contention that fighters make for natural leaders and decision-makers, either in combat or out, because they are not naturally inclined to take ability scores that support that. They can, of course, but so can anyone, which brings us back to the main point.


This is an interesting opinion.

Question: do you imagine a ranger's favored enemy or favored terrain to be a well-designed feature of the ranger?

Oh gosh no. Ranger's interaction features are conceptually interesting, but in execution they're either far too limited (one extra language doesn't go very far in a sandbox campaign), or too tied up in the vague, mealy-mouthed skill system (advantage on a check is only useful if we can be sure a check will accomplish anything meaningful). If you could, say, not just speak any language they speak, but automatically be treated like a native member of the community among your favored enemies, or had the ability to automatically discover a useful resource or relevant adventure site in your favored terrain X number of times per Y interval, that would be more in line with Tongue of Sun and Moon imo.

[Deathtongue]

And yet, I caught holy hell for saying that the Fighter class shouldn't exist and should be replaced with a Gadgeteer (think Batman or James Bond), Warlord (4E), and Warblade (3.5E).

[MaxWilson]

Oh gosh no. Ranger's interaction features are conceptually interesting, but in execution they're either far too limited (one extra language doesn't go very far in a sandbox campaign), or too tied up in the vague, mealy-mouthed skill system (advantage on a check is only useful if we can be sure a check will accomplish anything meaningful). If you could, say, not just speak any language they speak, but automatically be treated like a native member of the community among your favored enemies, or had the ability to automatically discover a useful resource or relevant adventure site in your favored terrain X number of times per Y interval, that would be more in line with Tongue of Sun and Moon imo.

I just wanted to say, I approve and wish WotC had done this.

[Morty]

Your flavor doesn't have to conflict with your mechanics as a spellcaster. Beside the fact it can physically be said, there's a lot of concepts that can fit a particular type of caster. Just take the wizard. They can be a wizened scholar, a deceitful trickster, a commander, a special operative, a business mogul, a mad scientist, or just a person that has learned how to cast a few spells. And particularly given you have lots of spell options, the wizard kit doesn't require anything that can conflict with this type of character. The difference is that they are specifically supported.

A fighter will always be a fighter, though. It doesn't matter if you want to be an Tactician! Fighter, a fighter that only has interest in defense, a fighter who only uses duel wielding, or a fighter whose techniques are meant to raise to become a king. Rather than just not being optimized, these concepts don't get any mechanical support.

This leads to a certain monotony on fighter builds, even in different subclasses. You may have a distinct fighting style from any other given fighter, but can I really tell your Champion Fighter and Samurai Fighter apart when they both will always be in strong armor with a weapon?

If we want to be reductive about it, this can be applied to any class. I take the same issue with pigeonholing wizards as I take with pigeonholing fighters.


I mean, you put that in blue sarcasm font, but it's pretty much on point. If I make a wizard with a soldier background and want to make them a "military wizard", I can pick my spells according to what I think would suit a wizard who trained for serving in an army - possibly AoE spells and communication. A fighter, meanwhile, is going to do what all fighters do, forever, with maybe a trick or two once I have access to some feats.

[Dork_Forge]

Well, falling so far behind in a thread is the price I pay for dozing off.


A)

By your post, I take it you design sessions tailored to the players, rather than players interacting with a world that can and will brutally murder them if they venture beyond their means. I don't understand how you can reduce the hundreds of out of combat options of a wizard to just Plane Shift either. A Wizard can rig an entire city with surveillance equipment with Magic Mouth and some gold and that gold is a lot easier to find and acquire with spells. Scrying on a Warlock with Aspect of the Moon and you're a one man KGB, eavesdropping on everyone from the king's maid to the guard of your house.

A DM can overcome this in favour of the players. That doesn't change that certain classes don't get anything near these options.


I'm, not sure what the difficulty of my sessions has to do here (it appears that is what you're referencing with the death concern) but I'll start with the tailoring thing. My games are of course tailored to my players to a degree, I hold session 0s to establish what is important to my players and do my best to respect that and strike a balance so that everyone has fun. In terms of my personaly preferences with DMing, I lean to death is always on the table, your decisions can lead to not only your own deaths, but to negative consequences for the world and NPCs. If you decide to wander to areas that you aren't prepared for, the chances of death increase proportionally.

I used Plane Shift as an example as it was mentioned multiple times in the thread around the time I made my post, it amde more sense to use that as an example for the framing of my post. I didn't intend, nor think it's a reasonable reading of my post, say that the only thing Wizards have is an incredibly niche 7th level spell. My point is this, if you have a barrier to progression that requires a specific solution and if your party doesn't have it then tough luck game over, that's bad DMing. That applies whether or not it's a fullcaster solution or a martial solution. Having different options can make things more convenient, like there's an immense gate in the way? The Barbarian lifts it for the party to proceed rather than going the long way, that can be fun and is okay. Marking a character as narratively impotent becuase of their options is just wrong, the story shouldn't hinge on what class you are or what spell you took, afterall you can have a party heavy in spell casters, just not with access to that grail spell, right?

The whole Magic Mouth thing is, a frustrating point in the argument of spell casters. If such low level spells are so revolutionary, then your party is screwed as the reigning government/kingdom etc. will have far more resrouces and authority to establish such things. Why should such things only apply to players utilising out of game experience and knowledge? Why wouldn't the components for these kinds of spells be regualted? A lot of the time components are just handwaved in these arguments, either just written off as a straight gold cost or even just assumed the gold would also be available.

Wizard's are the most gold hungry class in the entire game, through a combination of components and scribing in normal play. I don't find it reasonable to assume gold is always available or that components comes from a bottomless sack, in the example of MM, the Wizard would need to get their hands on thousands of gold worth of powdered Jade. That doesn't seem easy or discreet. That's if your DM is okay with the concept of ear pieces or creating a PC police state in a world that likely has no equivalent for the caster to base it off of.





It's by design that I don't use many class abilities in my calculations. You can claim that a Battlemaster can use precision strike for example, but this really doesn't help things along because then it becomes a simulation of the actual combat. This calculation isn't about potential but the basic output. I believe that when we calculate according to potential, it's misleading because we actually have to compare it to other classes' potential, and then instead of the hypothetical base fighter, we need to compare the 20 lvl Battlemaster fighter that uses precision strike and action surge and has at least a +3 weapon against something like a 20 lvl wizard with his wished simulacrum and his spell stored familiar doing his things which may seem a bit absurd, but since we maxed out the fighter, we need to max out his competition and we will spend more time talking about the potential ways to max out wizard output rather than the simple calculation that will determine Fighter's output.

This is something that annoyed me a lot when I was getting started with the edition. Calculating damage without getting hit chance into account was common place. Or these Assassin+Paladin+GWM showcases that not only assumed that GWM will hit 100%, but they calculated what happens if they actually do max damage on every hit! Any stray newbie like me back then would see something like this and get the wrong idea.

This is the base from which something can build. I admit that the math were against a hypothetical enemy that has access to spells and +4 to dex. So I'm going to do it against something more tangible:
Fighter has +10 to athletics and hit.
Mage has 15 AC and +2 acrobatics.

I assumed 3 attacks with a greatsword,
Assuming GWF His normal attack deals either 13.3 with a 80% hit chance normally, or 23.3 with 55% hit chance with GWM.

(This already yields a higher number, because this is the specific target https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/mage)

In a normal attack, the second option provides more damage, so 23.3 * 0.55 = 12.8~
In a disadvantaged attack, the first option provides more damage, so 13.3 * 0.64 = 8.5~
He has 80% chance to deal 25.6 and a 20% chance to fail and either choose between attacking with disadvantage or shoving again.
Shoving again has a 80% chance to deal 12.8 damage and a 20% chance to fail and then the fighter has to attack with disadvantage for 8.5
The other option is to just attack 2 times with disadvantage for 17 damage which is the superior choice.

So it's 80% chance to deal 25.6 or 20% chance to deal 17. An average of 24. I still haven't calculated the chance to break concentration, or the crit chance that will also provide a bonus attack with GWM. I can do all that, but however you decide to calculate it, assuming these 3 attacks, it's similar to just taking disadvantaged normal attacks without GWM which reinforces my original point, that against high defenses, fighter competes with the warlock in the sustained damage department. Sure he can use class features and cooldowns to boost his damage in certain cases, but so can everyone else. It's just that fighter will probably deal a bit higher damage against a single target compared to most of the other singleclassed builds. If that's so damn important, why no one talks about death clerics at all? They can compete with fighters.

I think we're just going to disagree on a very basic part of this, for example your assumption of escalation is if we take into account subclass we must include magic items, which amounts to a +3 weapon for the Battle Master but a Ring of Spell Storing for the Wizard's familiar? Subclasses don't need to neccessitate the inclusion of magic items and different classes gain different amounts of benefit from their subclasses. I'd argue that by and large Fighter's gain a lot more from their subclass than a Wizard does, so comparing a Wizard with their choice of spells to a Fighter that can only really choose to attack or shove.

In your specific example, why is the Figher at disadvantage? Greater Invisibility? If that's the case then I don't think I've seen any mention of the hindrance a caster faces when they can't see their target. The Mage also has Counter Spell, which if they are invisible they can use without risk of a Counter Spell back and forth. As for the damage numbers, you have to factor in concentration saves if you're putting concentration based disadvantage on the table.

It wouldn't be particularly prudent to talk about Death Clerics, as that is a subclass presented in the DMG for NPCs or perhaps evil characters. Though I'm curious why you say it specifically keeps up with single target damage, is it the channel divinity?

[Skylivedk]

I'm, not sure what the difficulty of my sessions has to do here (it appears that is what you're referencing with the death concern) but I'll start with the tailoring thing. My games are of course tailored to my players to a degree, I hold session 0s to establish what is important to my players and do my best to respect that and strike a balance so that everyone has fun. In terms of my personaly preferences with DMing, I lean to death is always on the table, your decisions can lead to not only your own deaths, but to negative consequences for the world and NPCs. If you decide to wander to areas that you aren't prepared for, the chances of death increase proportionally.
A) My way of DMing includes a bit of both.
I) I start off saying and asking which campaigns I and the players are willing to play.
II) I then give information about the world of the setting to a degree that I expect the characters to be informed.
III) during play, the world evolves. Cities the players aren't in burn down from raiders, NPCs they met become mayors, parents, die, etc.
IV) players are free to pursue whichever path they consider the most important. The choices they make, including spell and character selection will open some doors and close others.

B) I naturally strive for everybody to have fun. Hence I house rule/provide in setting reasons for certain balancing (i.e. have a lot more tools for the Thief to use with Fast Hands, remove/change Simulacrum, have a reason as to why high level casters don't kill low level adventuring groups whenever, etc.).

C) None of the above changes that certain classes get a toolbox that can have bigger narrative impacts than others.
I.e. getting one more indomitable doesn't provide the insight and world impact as Scrying 40 times per day or getting favours from your god.



I used Plane Shift as an example as it was mentioned multiple times in the thread around the time I made my post, it amde more sense to use that as an example for the framing of my post. I didn't intend, nor think it's a reasonable reading of my post, say that the only thing Wizards have is an incredibly niche 7th level spell. My point is this, if you have a barrier to progression that requires a specific solution and if your party doesn't have it then tough luck game over, that's bad DMing.
Maybe not game over, just game changes. The fey wild is now invaded by demons and forests are now a whole new kind of dangerous. I've definitely had players leave a town burning with demons taking over and portals opening to the Nether realms because they didn't have/use the right tools. The campaign got a little darker and the players took upon them nor of a rebel/guerrilla group. Still doesn't change that fighters generally bring nothing to the table from their class chassis that allows them to change much in this regard.



That applies whether or not it's a fullcaster solution or a martial solution. Having different options can make things more convenient, like there's an immense gate in the way? The Barbarian lifts it for the party to proceed rather than going the long way, that can be fun and is okay. Marking a character as narratively impotent becuase of their options is just wrong, the story shouldn't hinge on what class you are or what spell you took, afterall you can have a party heavy in spell casters, just not with access to that grail spell, right?
That looks like a badwrongfun argument if I ever saw one. It also doesn't address any of my points. We also seem to differ on "the story". The story is whatever we create together. It's not what I imagined as the DM. If it were, I'd lose a lot of love for DM'ing. Also part of the reason why I didn't like a bunch of the printed modules. Too confined and plots resembling Swiss cheese.



The whole Magic Mouth thing is, a frustrating point in the argument of spell casters. If such low level spells are so revolutionary, then your party is screwed as the reigning government/kingdom etc. will have far more resrouces and authority to establish such things. Why should such things only apply to players utilising out of game experience and knowledge?
Who said they did? My Zilargo (Eberron) is definitely wire tapped with magic mouth. I've also had castles use undead to pull gates etc.



Why wouldn't the components for these kinds of spells be regualted? A lot of the time components are just handwaved in these arguments, either just written off as a straight gold cost or even just assumed the gold would also be available.
I never said they were handwaved. I said they were an option of a type fighters/rogues don't get. I also have societies where Spellcasters are prosecuted/certain materials are not available.



Wizard's are the most gold hungry class in the entire game, through a combination of components and scribing in normal play. I don't find it reasonable to assume gold is always available or that components comes from a bottomless sack, in the example of MM, the Wizard would need to get their hands on thousands of gold worth of powdered Jade. That doesn't seem easy or discreet. That's if your DM is okay with the concept of ear pieces or creating a PC police state in a world that likely has no equivalent for the caster to base it off of.
I of course talked with my DM about it :) gold was an issue. It became increasingly less so in an open world.

You don't address my point with the Sorcerer v. the Barbarian either. I'd love your take on it since I think I'll learn more from somebody who has a different point of view than my own. Number of options/quality of options simply don't add up when I look at the class progressions.

[KorvinStarmast]

The whole Magic Mouth thing is, a frustrating point in the argument of spell casters. If such low level spells are so revolutionary, then your party is screwed as the reigning government/kingdom etc. will have far more resrouces and authority to establish such things. Why should such things only apply to players utilising out of game experience and knowledge? Why wouldn't the components for these kinds of spells be regualted? A lot of the time components are just handwaved in these arguments, either just written off as a straight gold cost or even just assumed the gold would also be available. It will really depend on the DM. I have had two DM's who require us to keep track of and barter/trade for those oh so precious diamonds for spells like revivify and raise dead. If you want to cast that spell and you can't show that you have it, no spell. Other DM's find that "a fiddly bit" and either hand waive it or have someome subtract 300/500 GP.

Wizard's are the most gold hungry class in the entire game, through a combination of components and scribing in normal play. I don't find it reasonable to assume gold is always available or that components comes from a bottomless sack, in the example of MM, the Wizard would need to get their hands on thousands of gold worth of powdered Jade. That doesn't seem easy or discreet. That's if your DM is okay with the concept of ear pieces or creating a PC police state in a world that likely has no equivalent for the caster to base it off of. That becomes something to work at in the process of world building, though the 'white room' magic mouth shennanigans are kind of fun. (See also T.F.D. shennanigans and U.S. shennanigans that have a long history)

And as a general statement: I note that the OP did a 'post and run' thing, and I have never agreed with the 'war between classes' garbage that we keep seeing posted on GiTP.

There are 12 classes to choose from. There are usually 4 or 5 PCs in a party. Form a party, and work as a team. This chest thumping is a lot of noise, zero value added.

We had a thread recently about why power gamers are sometimes disliked. I think threads like this amplifiy that problem. Optimization and power gaming are, to a great extent, a game within a game, and by themselves can certainly be fun and entertaining (and sometimes expose holes in the rule set).

But - the play's the thing. (to somewhat misquote The Bard)

[patchyman]

There's a nice long guide about it here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-%28-Official-Rules-Technique-%29

TLDR: the wording of magic mouth enables it to do a lot more than you imply. And no, you can't just sneak past it :-) as for the gold:
1) I already mentioned they mitigating factors: it's easier for Wizards to get said gold.
2) it isn't that much gold.
3) Martials don't have anything that compares.
4) it just escalates. The Moon Aspect Warlock can keep doing his thing all day and night at distances the Martials can't dream to cover. If you get hung up on one class feature, then you aren't engaging with my main argument that casters get tons and tons of features; they can change between them and the power of said features continue to climb.

So for this trick to work, all it requires is:
1) the campaign to have sufficient downtime to implement it;
2) the Wizard having sufficient gold to implement it (what is the Fighter doing with this downtime and gold?)
3) A DM bending over backwards to adopt the most favorable and tortuous interpretation of a 2nd level spell; and
4) The player cribbing off someone elseÂ’s internet post.

As to the most reasonable interpretation of the Magic Mouth spell, the spell says that the trigger may be “audible or visual”. What is Perceptible audibly or visually from the perspective of the Magic Mouth?

The spell doesnÂ’t say. The original poster concludes, with no basis, that this means that its Perception is essentially infinite.

A more logical inference is that the Magic MouthÂ’s perception defaults to the default passive Perception score: 10+prof+ability score. As the original poster points out, an object is neither proficient nor has an ability score, so its ability to perceive things is a straight 10.

This doesnÂ’t seem particularly effective as either a spy system, earpiece or way to detect hidden or invisible creatures.

[Xervous]

Put another way the main divide I see between casters and Martials is the former having always present plot levers on top of the ones handed out to the party. Some people do/don’t see a need for those tools. Some GMs will/won’t adjust the array of options presented to the characters based on the quantity and quality of levers the system provides by default.

Given ‘Player’ you have whatever is going to be granted in terms of party narrative options and whatever ‘Player’ gets from their character’s backstory. Devoid of mechanics that strongly reinforce any kind of identity a fighter rides almost entirely on party and backstory narrative options. Without name dropping the class you can’t really observe much attributable to fighter in a summary of the character’s exploits without dropping down to mechanical play by play. Make mentions of religion? Oh this could be a paladin, or maybe even a cleric. He plays an instrument? Could be a bard. Sneaky? Perhaps a rogue or a ranger. Angry? Barbarian. Fighter does nothing narratively, so people look elsewhere if they want narrative options from their class. Fighter is committed to nothing, so players blessed with party and backstory options can pursue whatever they like without the burden of preexisting features burdening them.

[patchyman]

Fighter is committed to nothing, so players blessed with party and backstory options can pursue whatever they like without the burden of preexisting features burdening them.

IÂ’d agree with this and go even further. You need the generic fighty class (class, not character) for players whose concept doesnÂ’t fit neatly in the barbarian, paladin or ranger boxes. Just like if D&D had enchanters, elementalists and necromancers as a class, you would need a generic wizard class for a player whose concept didnÂ’t fit in the existing classes.

What is interesting from a design perspective is that 5e approached this problem in different ways for fighters and wizards. For wizards, the specific is included in the subclasses (with 8 subclasses in the PHB). For fighters, the most common specifics are included in separate classes (Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger), with the subclasses included in the class being generic (both Battlemaster and Champion). Interestingly enough, the Eldritch Knight makes just as much sense as a separate class as the Paladin or the Ranger.

I think everyone can decide for themselves which approach they prefer. Overall, I prefer “have a generic class with generic subclasses and separate out most specific subclasses”. Separating out Paladins and Rangers means those classes have greater design space to work with compared to subclasses, and it also means that a given Paladin is more different from a given Ranger than a given Evoker is from a given Conjurer.

[Xervous]

IÂ’d agree with this and go even further. You need the generic fighty class (class, not character) for players whose concept doesnÂ’t fit neatly in the barbarian, paladin or ranger boxes. Just like if D&D had enchanters, elementalists and necromancers as a class, you would need a generic wizard class for a player whose concept didnÂ’t fit in the existing classes.

What is interesting from a design perspective is that 5e approached this problem in different ways for fighters and wizards. For wizards, the specific is included in the subclasses (with 8 subclasses in the PHB). For fighters, the most common specifics are included in separate classes (Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger), with the subclasses included in the class being generic (both Battlemaster and Champion). Interestingly enough, the Eldritch Knight makes just as much sense as a separate class as the Paladin or the Ranger.

I think everyone can decide for themselves which approach they prefer. Overall, I prefer “have a generic class with generic subclasses and separate out most specific subclasses”. Separating out Paladins and Rangers means those classes have greater design space to work with compared to subclasses, and it also means that a given Paladin is more different from a given Ranger than a given Evoker is from a given Conjurer.

Framed this way the problem with fighter (If any) is that the game does not highlight how the lack of narrative options innate to the class needs to be compensated for by the GM if the adventure isn’t heavily structured. Such an acknowledgement would provide GMs with guidance for at least considering the dynamic without having to wander through a whole meta analysis of the game. The system uses many of these things as foundational assumptions from which the design intent for classes spawned. And then it turns around and presents everything as implicitly equal and comparable... That’s where the interpretation issues come in.

[Skylivedk]

So for this trick to work, all it requires is:
1) the campaign to have sufficient downtime to implement it;
2) the Wizard having sufficient gold to implement it (what is the Fighter doing with this downtime and gold?)
3) A DM bending over backwards to adopt the most favorable and tortuous interpretation of a 2nd level spell; and
4) The player cribbing off someone elseÂ’s internet post.
1) a few hours per day should be fairly simple. Just two days off and you your first telephone.
2) good question. Something not explicitly supported by their class options, I'd wager.
3) nope, just raw.
4) and? This is a non-argument


As to the most reasonable interpretation of the Magic Mouth spell, the spell says that the trigger may be “audible or visual”. What is Perceptible audibly or visually from the perspective of the Magic Mouth?

The text says so: as detailed or specific as you'd like an audio or visual trigger within 30ft.


The spell doesnÂ’t say. The original poster concludes, with no basis, that this means that its Perception is essentially infinite.

Wrong, it does. You just don't like it. It even gives an example of "any creature", no exceptions mentioned.



A more logical inference is that the Magic MouthÂ’s perception defaults to the default passive Perception score: 10+prof+ability score. As the original poster points out, an object is neither proficient nor has an ability score, so its ability to perceive things is a straight 10.
No, this isn't more logical. It is just how you'd like it to be.


This doesnÂ’t seem particularly effective as either a spy system, earpiece or way to detect hidden or invisible creatures.
How's being able to eavesdrop on an entire town not useful? With a badger with burrow speed you can more or less eavesdrop any house. Seems legit.

You are also not answering my basic claims:
1) casters (through spells) get more features, more flexibility amongst features and those features are increasingly stronger to a higher degree than Martials. Reference the Sorcerer v. Barbarian example.
2) you somehow get stuck on one level 2 spell. I used one of the lowest level examples. You can also look at unseen servant+ find familiar helping the Wizard break action economy straight from level 1. Or the Scrying example I've used tons of times by now. It's not like there isn't plenty of other rituals that have enormous in world consequences. Most of them give tons of utility to which the Martials come up with naught (I know they can take a feat to get rituals).

For my sake, disregard the Magic Mouth example if it annoys you. Please proceed to the main points rather than an example you didn't like. I don't think we'll make any progress on Magic Mouth when we can't agree on what's written - and in the grand scheme things, it doesn't matter.
Skills are 7 pages in the PHB. Spells are 82 pages. Most classes are 7 or less. Individual classes overall, barring access to spells, don't provide the breadth of new options spells do.

[Gtdead]

I think we're just going to disagree on a very basic part of this, for example your assumption of escalation is if we take into account subclass we must include magic items, which amounts to a +3 weapon for the Battle Master but a Ring of Spell Storing for the Wizard's familiar? Subclasses don't need to neccessitate the inclusion of magic items and different classes gain different amounts of benefit from their subclasses. I'd argue that by and large Fighter's gain a lot more from their subclass than a Wizard does, so comparing a Wizard with their choice of spells to a Fighter that can only really choose to attack or shove.

In your specific example, why is the Figher at disadvantage? Greater Invisibility? If that's the case then I don't think I've seen any mention of the hindrance a caster faces when they can't see their target. The Mage also has Counter Spell, which if they are invisible they can use without risk of a Counter Spell back and forth. As for the damage numbers, you have to factor in concentration saves if you're putting concentration based disadvantage on the table.

It wouldn't be particularly prudent to talk about Death Clerics, as that is a subclass presented in the DMG for NPCs or perhaps evil characters. Though I'm curious why you say it specifically keeps up with single target damage, is it the channel divinity?

It wasn't about magic items. It was about end game builds. It's commonplace to see people claiming that fighter deals the most damage because he has 4 attacks. Yet they don't seem bothered that he only does so at lvl 20. What do they compare against? Cantrips, nuke spells? Or a bladesinger transforming into a pitfiend? Or a sorlock wishing for a simulacrum, and use darkness to spam 4 EBs with advantage from a mile away? The thread starter compared the multiattack/pam/gwm/ss/ce with fireball and disintegrate. I said that this comparison is too onesided and I doubt that most people actually see spells like fireball and disintegrate as good examples of caster damage potential.

The reason the fighter is at disadvantage in that example was a response to the thread starter stating that magic users have to deal with immunities while martials don't have such problems. To which I responded that while fighters are more reliable, high AC and offensive disadvantage affect them just as bad and completely nullify the bonus they get from feats like GWM and PAM. And without them they barely compete with a warlock on the dpr curve.

What I was getting at, is that the only way for the martial to overcome this problem is magical support and there comes a point where a fighter and a wizard buffing him with greater invisibility can outperform 3 fighters.

It may not seem like it from my posts, but I actually like having a Fighter in a party. By buffing him with the right spells, he can make sort work of a lot of iconic enemies in a single turn. He has the potential as can easily be demonstrated, but can't take advantage of it by himself because getting softcountered by high defenses completely takes away what makes him unique.

And yes, I mentioned death cleric mainly for his CD. The usual damage dealing cleric does Scag cantrip+SW (+SG). In that combo, Death cleric can seamlessly add 2 touches of death. Upcast all of it for level comparisons and you will notice that he competes with fighters against most AC values and surpases them in others. And yes it's once per short rest, but so is action surge for the majority of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

It wasn't about magic items. It was about end game builds. It's commonplace to see people claiming that fighter deals the most damage because he has 4 attacks. Yet they don't seem bothered that he only does so at lvl 20. Bingo. That third attack at level 11 is a nice boost. (I stopped paying attention to any build beyond 15 a couple of years ago since I believe that the game changes a lot in Tier 4 based on my very limited experience in play at that level).

The other issue is that magic items are a thing. You can't count on which item, but they are a part of the game. One if the best things that Jeremy C shared in XGTE was what the expected distro of items, in a gross sense, would be over an adventuring career for a four person party, and there's that nice matrix for rarities, and comments on expendables and fixed items like rings or swords or whatever.

No WBL, thank goodness, but there will be some magic items if you play the game.

Of note: magic swords were the single most important item (based on space allocated) in the original game (Monsters and Treasures) with magic rings coming in a close second.

Magic items are a way to harmonize some of the inequities at high level play; if the DM does not distribute any magic items I question whether or not D&D is the right game to be playing. All of the published adventures have magic items in them.

They are a part of the game: the never ending disagreement seems to be how big of a part?
That's a matter of taste.

[sithlordnergal]

It wasn't about magic items. It was about end game builds. It's commonplace to see people claiming that fighter deals the most damage because he has 4 attacks. Yet they don't seem bothered that he only does so at lvl 20. What do they compare against? Cantrips, nuke spells? Or a bladesinger transforming into a pitfiend? Or a sorlock wishing for a simulacrum, and use darkness to spam 4 EBs with advantage from a mile away? The thread starter compared the multiattack/pam/gwm/ss/ce with fireball and disintegrate. I said that this comparison is too onesided and I doubt that most people actually see spells like fireball and disintegrate as good examples of caster damage potential.

Oh, I'll give you an even better example for comparison between the Fighter and Wizard. The Wizard can create a perfect copy of the Fighter in one to two days, depending on how long that Fighter is willing to stand by the Wizard. Only that copy is friendly follows the Wizard's command. How? Its pretty easy at level 20:

Step 1: Cast Simulacrum, using the Fighter as your base. Simulacrum has a Range of Touch, so you can cast it and use the Fighter to base your Simulacrum off of. If you want to save materials and time, you can cast Wish to instantly create the Simulacrum and save some gold.

Step 2: Cast True Polymorph on the Simulacrum to make it into a copy of your Fighter, hold Concentration for an hour to make it permanent.

Congrats, you, the Wizard, now have an exact Clone of the Fighter. Only this Clone will likely follow your commands since Simulacrum states that its friendly towards the Wizard who made it and follows their commands, and True Polymorph has creatures keep their personality traits. And this is RAW by the way:

Simulacrum creates "The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow...the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates." Meaning if you use it to make a Simulacrum of a level 20 Fighter, that Simulacrum is a creature that is a level 20 Fighter.


True Polymorph then states:


If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose whose Challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or its level, if the target doesn't have a Challenge rating). The target's game Statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the new form. It retains its Alignment and personality.

You aren't limited by what you turn into, you don't turn into an average member of that creature's species, you turn into that exact creature. Given that the Simulacrum is a level 20 Fighter and a creature, you can use True Polymorph to make it into a real person with all of your Fighter friend's statistics, including Ability Scores, Feats, Features, Boons, ect.. This also means you can, technically, make a Simulacrum of yourself, then turn it into a Balor and/or Pit Fiend, and just have a friendly Pit Fiend working with you.


The only thing that could happen is a debate over what counts as the Simulacrum's personality. Is it being friendly towards you a personality trait? Is it following your spoken commands a personality trait? That's a bit of a gray point there. Either way, the thing I posted above is all RAW and can be done by the limits of those two/three spells. No offense to the Fighter...but what can it do to replicate something like this? What can they do when literally the Wizard can make a clone of them at any time, for free, over the course of two days. If a Wizard does this, the only thing left to the Fighter is their magical gear.

Obviously there is the problem of Anti-Magic Field and Dispel Magic, but still, the Wizard just being able to do that for no cost is nuts.

[Dork_Forge]

A) My way of DMing includes a bit of both.
I) I start off saying and asking which campaigns I and the players are willing to play.
II) I then give information about the world of the setting to a degree that I expect the characters to be informed.
III) during play, the world evolves. Cities the players aren't in burn down from raiders, NPCs they met become mayors, parents, die, etc.
IV) players are free to pursue whichever path they consider the most important. The choices they make, including spell and character selection will open some doors and close others.

With the exception of the bolded we are on the same wavelength, for example in a homebrew game I'm running for two different groups, there's a scroll in an ancient unknown language. Having Comprehend Languages would make deciphering it very easy and quick, the party didn't have it however so they instead had to travel to the city that houses the mage's university to have it translated. They didn't loose access to any doors because of their build decisions, they just had to walk a little further to get to it (and I'd wager they had more fun doing so *shrug*).



C) None of the above changes that certain classes get a toolbox that can have bigger narrative impacts than others.
I.e. getting one more indomitable doesn't provide the insight and world impact as Scrying 40 times per day or getting favours from your god.

Of course it doesn't you're comparing a strictly defensive ability to a utility spell and a maybe it'll work maybe it won't effect (that the player has no control over it's actual mechanical effect), a Fighter is... for Fighting their main chassis will just get things for that, subclasses offer more in that regard (and by the looks of the Fighting Styles in the the CFV UA more options are a comin'). Though Scrying can also do absolutely nothing and/or just draw the ire of whomever you're trying to Scry upon, it's not like it's free information.


Maybe not game over, just game changes. The fey wild is now invaded by demons and forests are now a whole new kind of dangerous. I've definitely had players leave a town burning with demons taking over and portals opening to the Nether realms because they didn't have/use the right tools. The campaign got a little darker and the players took upon them nor of a rebel/guerrilla group. Still doesn't change that fighters generally bring nothing to the table from their class chassis that allows them to change much in this regard.

That is entirely dependent on why that's happening to begin with, which as a DM you decided. This incursion could have been because of a ritual that needed to be disrupted, so combat and maybe destruction of an altar, perfectly doable, but it seems that isn't the way you went. So I'm curious, what tools did they need to prevent this?


That looks like a badwrongfun argument if I ever saw one. It also doesn't address any of my points. We also seem to differ on "the story". The story is whatever we create together. It's not what I imagined as the DM. If it were, I'd lose a lot of love for DM'ing. Also part of the reason why I didn't like a bunch of the printed modules. Too confined and plots resembling Swiss cheese.

I'm not really opposed to labelling someone's choice of character class 'narratively impotent' as badwrongfun, though that isn't really what I did. If the player knows that they will have less ability to affect the story because of how you DM if they choose a martial and are happy with that then great, not my table and certainly not my style.


Who said they did? My Zilargo (Eberron) is definitely wire tapped with magic mouth. I've also had castles use undead to pull gates etc.

Your counter example is 1) Eberron and 2) basically a secret police state of Gnomes. That is far from the assumption of MM and similar things being used like this in your average campaign, which I'd wager aren't Eberron let alone that particular corner of it.


I never said they were handwaved. I said they were an option of a type fighters/rogues don't get. I also have societies where Spellcasters are prosecuted/certain materials are not available.

I said "a lot of the time in these arguments" not that you had done so, though I'm not seeing where you address the cost and component of oyur own accord (maybe I'm just not seeing it). That doesn't change that a lot of the time in these discussions gold is not mentioned or just assumed to be available and the difficulty of acquiring the actual component itself is just not mentioned. If a Fighter/Rogue wanted spellcasting, then they can choose to get it, their particular chassis just means that's a subclass decision rather than a core part of them. They can also use races and feats (which they both get more of) to get magic should they choose.


I of course talked with my DM about it :) gold was an issue. It became increasingly less so in an open world.

Again it's great if your DM is behind it, but that's not usually what people usually say when talking about how you can abuse various spells to achieve effects. If peoplse posting such things acknowledged that cost, components and DM buy in were factors then I wouldn't have such an issue with it. I actually like playing casters btw.


You don't address my point with the Sorcerer v. the Barbarian either. I'd love your take on it since I think I'll learn more from somebody who has a different point of view than my own. Number of options/quality of options simply don't add up when I look at the class progressions.

I had to go looking for this, I didn't address it because you posed this to a different poster. I'm also not entirely sure I understand what you want, if it's "do Barbarians get as much choice as a caster" then the answer is very clearly no, if it's do Barbarians get meaningfully better as they level up? Then I would say yes, their core feature (Rage) scales in number of uses and potency as they advance as well as gaining abilities that greatly help in combat (main chassis) and out of it (some path features, usually at 6th level). The Barbarian progression is actually really nice, with built in movement speed increase, advantage on Dex saves and initiative etc. it's both meaningful and evocative. The only thing I would really change about it is that if Brutal Critical is going to be a thing then it shouldn't be the only feature gained at that level, because it's both meh and random (maybe speed up and push the rage damage a bit furter too).


It will really depend on the DM. I have had two DM's who require us to keep track of and barter/trade for those oh so precious diamonds for spells like revivify and raise dead. If you want to cast that spell and you can't show that you have it, no spell. Other DM's find that "a fiddly bit" and either hand waive it or have someome subtract 300/500 GP.

This is true and how I do it, imo not accounting for components makes being a caster a lot easier and not something that they need.


That becomes something to work at in the process of world building, though the 'white room' magic mouth shennanigans are kind of fun. (See also T.F.D. shennanigans and U.S. shennanigans that have a long history)

I see no reason to believe that True Polymorph would make a Simulacrum into a 'real' clone of the Fighter, you choose a creature with a CR and it becomes that creature, the Fighter isn't a listed creature.

Then there's the other issues you mentioned, there's absolutely nothing to say that this thing would be friendly to the Wizard, it can be Dispeled etc.

Then there's you trying to invalidate the Figher through use of one (potentially two) 9th level spells. Does that actually invalidate the Fighter for the 16 levels before the Wizard can even do this? Does it even invaldiate them once the Wizard can?

I'm going to guess that one of those is Unseen Servant but I can't place what TFD is. I like the diea of using these spells in creative ways, I just alsp think that in white room thinking they get overblown in the favour of casters (especially since they're easily available to everyone potentially.

But - the play's the thing. (to somewhat misquote The Bard)


It wasn't about magic items. It was about end game builds. It's commonplace to see people claiming that fighter deals the most damage because he has 4 attacks. Yet they don't seem bothered that he only does so at lvl 20. What do they compare against? Cantrips, nuke spells? Or a bladesinger transforming into a pitfiend? Or a sorlock wishing for a simulacrum, and use darkness to spam 4 EBs with advantage from a mile away? The thread starter compared the multiattack/pam/gwm/ss/ce with fireball and disintegrate. I said that this comparison is too onesided and I doubt that most people actually see spells like fireball and disintegrate as good examples of caster damage potential.

If it wasn't about magic items then you shouldn't have mentioned them, though I'm not sure I understand your point, nine levels before the Fighter does 4 attacks they're doing 3 attacks. That should be as valid a comparison point as anything else, though you should also bear in mind that a lot of the time spells thrown out in these topics for the casting side of things are often on the higher side. Why would people not see them as good examples of caster damage? What damage options would you be looking at instead at 3rd level for Fireball and no matter how you slice it Disintegrate is one of the better single target options, both in terms of numbers and damage type (plus if it reduces them to zero it makes them coming back a lot harder).


The reason the fighter is at disadvantage in that example was a response to the thread starter stating that magic users have to deal with immunities while martials don't have such problems. To which I responded that while fighters are more reliable, high AC and offensive disadvantage affect them just as bad and completely nullify the bonus they get from feats like GWM and PAM. And without them they barely compete with a warlock on the dpr curve.

...So you just arbitrarily gave the Figher disadvantage for no real reason whilst also not giving them a subclass, where they would have more tools to get around that disadvantage (Fighting Spirit, multiple maneuvers, spells, targeting saves etc.). Do you really think that paints an accurate picture of their damage output?


What I was getting at, is that the only way for the martial to overcome this problem is magical support and there comes a point where a fighter and a wizard buffing him with greater invisibility can outperform 3 fighters.

Or, they just use their own abilities, like Fighting Spirit etc. that you completely left out.


It may not seem like it from my posts, but I actually like having a Fighter in a party. By buffing him with the right spells, he can make sort work of a lot of iconic enemies in a single turn. He has the potential as can easily be demonstrated, but can't take advantage of it by himself because getting softcountered by high defenses completely takes away what makes him unique.

It sounds like you like having a Fighter so that they can be the target of the caster's spells, where as that's nice and how a team should function, but they don't need it.


And yes, I mentioned death cleric mainly for his CD. The usual damage dealing cleric does Scag cantrip+SW (+SG). In that combo, Death cleric can seamlessly add 2 touches of death. Upcast all of it for level comparisons and you will notice that he competes with fighters against most AC values and surpases them in others. And yes it's once per short rest, but so is action surge for the majority of the game.
It should compete with the Fighter, they're using two spells, their concentration and their channel divinity. Though I have to point out that you're in round two or three by the time all of that is actually on line and even then... where is this Cleric getting a SCAGtrip from? Not to mention you're having to bump both Wis and probably Str at the same time.

[Gtdead]

If it wasn't about magic items then you shouldn't have mentioned them, though I'm not sure I understand your point, nine levels before the Fighter does 4 attacks they're doing 3 attacks. That should be as valid a comparison point as anything else, though you should also bear in mind that a lot of the time spells thrown out in these topics for the casting side of things are often on the higher side. Why would people not see them as good examples of caster damage? What damage options would you be looking at instead at 3rd level for Fireball and no matter how you slice it Disintegrate is one of the better single target options, both in terms of numbers and damage type (plus if it reduces them to zero it makes them coming back a lot harder).

I did use a 3 attack fighter in my calculations claiming that he will spend the majority of the campaign doing it, assuming it will eventually reach 20. I also gave you examples of high damage abilities that aren't fireball or disintegrate. Nuking spells are overrated. A case may be made for fireball because it's an aoe (although comparing aoe abilities with martial output is pointless anyway, martials don't do aoe), but disintegrate isn't that amazing at it's level. I'd say that any saving throw targeting spell that doesn't at least deal half damage on a miss is a waste of time. Sure you can target the right enemy, but it's a waste if you don't do it against the important target. Overkill is pointless.



...So you just arbitrarily gave the Figher disadvantage for no real reason whilst also not giving them a subclass, where they would have more tools to get around that disadvantage (Fighting Spirit, multiple maneuvers, spells, targeting saves etc.). Do you really think that paints an accurate picture of their damage output?

I explained the reason I gave disadvantage, not my fault if you don't care about it. I was responding to a comment about "magical immunities". Do magical immunities paint an accurate picture of caster output? Unless it's an antimagic zone, casters have a lot of ways to bypass immunities too. And again, I calculate baseline. You can blow all the cooldowns you like, but against spells that impose disadvantage and AC boosting spells, fighter loses a significant amount of his dpr and barely competes with the warlock. I've stated this 3 times till now and it's an accurate picture of their damage output because all it does is take GWM out of the equation. GWM is bad against high defenses, simple as that. If you think you can counter my argument about GWM, which is explicitly stated in all my posts, please do so, and use whatever subclass you like. At most you will prove that blowing all precision strikes in a single turn is a good idea and samurai is a good subclass. Everyone else gets shafted.

A single classed fighter is the best class against 0 AC and a very average class against 20 AC. I don't compare builds, because it's pointless. Advantage generation solves a lot of fighter's problems for example but even then, what is that amazing feat that he can achieve? He will die against most cr appropriate encounters by himself. I get it, you don't agree with this premise, but I'm not ok with claiming a class is amazing because it has the ability to use multiple resources in a single turn to stay relevant.




Or, they just use their own abilities, like Fighting Spirit etc. that you completely left out.



It sounds like you like having a Fighter so that they can be the target of the caster's spells, where as that's nice and how a team should function, but they don't need it.

And I think they actually need it but I'm not going to get into it because again it's a discussion about builds. Suffice to say, there are a lot of factors that affect classes differently and mileages may vary depending on the experience people have with different classes and different DMs. I like to assume "hostile" DMs when I'm thinking about optimization and if there is an easy class to screw with, that's the fighter. All you have to do is throw at him high AC monsters that run fast. He won't be able to kill them and won't be able to flee. To make a wizard miserable you have to make them immune, give them high AC so he can't gish it up, ban teleportation, bring casters that counter spells like force cage, focus on their simulacrums etc.



It should compete with the Fighter, they're using two spells, their concentration and their channel divinity. Though I have to point out that you're in round two or three by the time all of that is actually on line and even then... where is this Cleric getting a SCAGtrip from? Not to mention you're having to bump both Wis and probably Str at the same time.

The combo can be done in one turn. Both the melee attack and SW are eligible for Touch of Death. SG may or may not be used, but it's not very relevant. Depends on if the target can be reached in the first turn or not. He gets the cantrip the same way fighter gets GWM and STR/WIS actually make little difference in that case because CD is a smite. Worst case scenario it misses an attack, but chances are the recipient will last at least 2 rounds for us to bother with using these resources anyway, which means that the cleric has good chances to use both his CDs. After all he has better chance to hit than a GWM fighter. It feels a bit "streaky" though in comparison.

And yes, it competes with the fighter, while bringing a ton of utility too, but for some reason people instead try to argue that fighter is amazing compared to casters..

I can get behind a comment like "Samurai is a great damage dealer" because it's the worst example of powercreep I've ever seen in my life. Probably worse than Hexblade. At least Hexblade as a single classed build isn't comically more powerful than the other warlocks, it just provides a better version of the things they can already do. Samurai got everything that fighter misses. Advantage in every combat, better saves, better social ability. They even gave him temp hit points so he won't feel so bad by taking two points of con to give it to wis and gave him undying rage because at these high levels his AC is mediocre and can die easily as a 2hander. I mean.. I'd love a cleric subclass that has extra attack and give him haste as a domain spell and a new cantrip that works like BB but deals radiant/necrotic damage instead. I don't think I'm gonna get it though.

[ThorOdinson]

I think melee characters suck vs spellcasters. I would love to see more viable tier 4 melee builds.

[Waazraath]

Not going in the entire argument again, but I find the suggestion that 'wizards don't have to worry about gold because for them it is easier to attain' to be pretty absurd. Both from a RAW/RAI perspective, as from a world building / versimilitude perspective.

We have a table in the DMG with starting gold at higher levels (p38). Nothing says there is a difference between classes. We have an entire section on downtime activities and how you can use them to earn money. "You'll get rich because your a wizard" isn't in it (and creating magical items is explicitly optional). The whole section on how the DM can change things heavily emphazises to not to change things in a way that leads to imbalance. This implies that 'balance is an intended part of the game' (as far as that isn't an obvious core assumption already), which makes the idea that you can use 'smart tricks' to handwaive an entire mechanism that is there for balance (material components with gc costs) unsustainable imo.

So as far as the rules go, there is nothing at all supporting some classes get richer than others between adventures because of their class features.

Of course, I can make up a lot of shizzl about "how my caster can use spells to earn money". But I can also make stuff up about how my barbarian and my fighter use their unique features to get money. Now we enter the world building perspective.

How special are the player characters? In most game worlds, not that special, there are plenty of powerful creatures, also casters. So no, you cannot use your prestidigitation as a laundromat to get rich at level 1, cause plenty of others provide that service. You can't use your major illusion as a cinema, cause if there is demand, there also already is supply and there are lots of cinema's. Etc. etc. If you play in a living world, all of this 'creative thinking' has been done by others already. And if you do play in a game world where the party are the very special people, the only ones who can cast spells and thus swindle every merchant with disguise self cause they don't know it exist and rob every bank by dimension door'ing in and out: then the martials are very special too; the noble ladies will throw their jewelery and bodies at the feet of the mighty barbarian that stopped the giants club with his chest muscles en then kicked his behind; the fighter is the best fighting man in the kingdom and will be handsomely rewarded if he is willing to train the kings men for a week. Etc. etc.

When you start making stuff up, outside of the rules, only for the caster classes, but not for martials, then that's class favoritism. Plain and simple. If you want to play the game that way, please, go ahead and have fun, but balance issues from this decision has nothing to do with the game, or the design of the game, but of personal biased choices.

Of course, I do concur that is easier to make stuff up about how to make money from spells, simply because there are more spells, it is easier to think of something abusable. But 1) it is not in the rules, and what there is in the rules works against it. And 2) even if you want to do stuff like that, there really isn't an ingame reason they should work.

[Gignere]

Not going in the entire argument again, but I find the suggestion that 'wizards don't have to worry about gold because for them it is easier to attain' to be pretty absurd. Both from a RAW/RAI perspective, as from a world building / versimilitude perspective.

We have a table in the DMG with starting gold at higher levels (p38). Nothing says there is a difference between classes. We have an entire section on downtime activities and how you can use them to earn money. "You'll get rich because your a wizard" isn't in it (and creating magical items is explicitly optional). The whole section on how the DM can change things heavily emphazises to not to change things in a way that leads to imbalance. This implies that 'balance is an intended part of the game' (as far as that isn't an obvious core assumption already), which makes the idea that you can use 'smart tricks' to handwaive an entire mechanism that is there for balance (material components with gc costs) unsustainable imo.

So as far as the rules go, there is nothing at all supporting some classes get richer than others between adventures because of their class features.

Of course, I can make up a lot of shizzl about "how my caster can use spells to earn money". But I can also make stuff up about how my barbarian and my fighter use their unique features to get money. Now we enter the world building perspective.

How special are the player characters? In most game worlds, not that special, there are plenty of powerful creatures, also casters. So no, you cannot use your prestidigitation as a laundromat to get rich at level 1, cause plenty of others provide that service. You can't use your major illusion as a cinema, cause if there is demand, there also already is supply and there are lots of cinema's. Etc. etc. If you play in a living world, all of this 'creative thinking' has been done by others already. And if you do play in a game world where the party are the very special people, the only ones who can cast spells and thus swindle every merchant with disguise self cause they don't know it exist and rob every bank by dimension door'ing in and out: then the martials are very special too; the noble ladies will throw their jewelery and bodies at the feet of the mighty barbarian that stepped the giants club with his chest muscles; the fighter is the best fighting man in the kingdom and will be handsomely rewarded if he is willing to train the kings men for a week. Etc. etc.

When you start making stuff up, outside of the rules, only for the caster classes, but not for martials, then that's class favoritism. Plain and simple. If you want to play the game that way, please, go ahead and have fun, but balance issues from this decision has nothing to do with the game, or the design of the game, but of personal biased choices.

Of course, I do concur that is easier to make stuff up about how to make money from spells, simply because there are more spells, it is easier to think of something abusable. But 1) it is not in the rules, and what there is in the rules works against it. And even if you want to do stuff like that, there really isn't an ingame reason they should work.

In my experience generally speaking, almost all the gold defaults to the wizard because the party knows that they will need it for spells. Even in campaigns that doesn’t cooperate generally the best gear or most expensive gear gets sent to the fighting/tanking classes first anyway and the casters are usually left with the gold or stuff that can be sold for gold. In about 5 games I played the wizards (might be campaign specific) nearly always ended the most flush with gold. Whereas the martials are the first to get legendaries.

[Waazraath]

In my experience generally speaking, almost all the gold defaults to the wizard because the party knows that they will need it for spells. Even in campaigns that doesn’t cooperate generally the best gear or most expensive gear gets sent to the fighting/tanking classes first anyway and the casters are usually left with the gold or stuff that can be sold for gold. In about 5 games I played the wizards (might be campaign specific) nearly always ended the most flush with gold. Whereas the martials are the first to get legendaries.

Makes sense; of course, a party can always choose to do this if this is the best outcome, and the game is such that scrolls are purchaseable. That's just solid party optimization, just as pooling resources to buy the fighter the full plate asap. But that's something else than assuming wizards (or other casters) end up with more cash because they can (ab)use spells to gain extra income, compared to other classes.

[Asisreo1]

Framed this way the problem with fighter (If any) is that the game does not highlight how the lack of narrative options innate to the class needs to be compensated for by the GM if the adventure isn’t heavily structured. Such an acknowledgement would provide GMs with guidance for at least considering the dynamic without having to wander through a whole meta analysis of the game. The system uses many of these things as foundational assumptions from which the design intent for classes spawned. And then it turns around and presents everything as implicitly equal and comparable... That’s where the interpretation issues come in.
I think the game system...tried. I find that it's actually intermediate DM's that struggle the most with this.

A new DM is pretty good with "yes, and..." improv so long as it doesn't cut through their vision, so a military character will have no problem flashing a badge and getting into a secure location.

Intermediate DM's tend to get caught up in RAW as well as put more restrictions so that their grand plot can be followed to a T. They're also the DM's that struggle the most when a player casts a spell. They aren't good enough at DM'ing to understand the various consequences of spells.

More importantly, though, they'll get caught up in "RAW" and forget PC's are actually characters and not stats to precisely balance an adventure on. So if there's a way to skip an encounter they designated to expend resources, they'll only let you get away with it if the RAW forces them to (like spell-cheese or imposing a status effect).

It's kinda why I don't like plot-based adventures designed to be a novel. The railroading type adventure only breaks because a DM didn't think of extra solutions but they also don't know what to do when a spellcaster does something within RAW.

I feel a more experienced DM will be able to both account for narrative potency from background alone while also understanding the strengths and limitations of spells to keep spellcasters from trying to overshadow others. The best way to do this is to stop trying to write story in the middle of it all. Know how it begins, predict how it ends, draw your maps and build your world then off they go. It may seem sandboxy, but it all depends on the urgency you give the conflict.

This detached style helps you just logically place things where and how they naturally will be. No puzzles to a vault room, no NPC's that the players must convince. Just them, on a quest, where you're open for them to do whatever they can to try to accomplish it, more "yes, and..." and less "No, sorry" or "wait, that shouldn't be right..."

[sandmote]

I mean, you put that in blue sarcasm font, but it's pretty much on point. If I make a wizard with a soldier background and want to make them a "military wizard", I can pick my spells according to what I think would suit a wizard who trained for serving in an army - possibly AoE spells and communication. A fighter, meanwhile, is going to do what all fighters do, forever, with maybe a trick or two once I have access to some feats. I've mostly seen blue used as "not entirely serious," more than sarcastic specifically. Half the time I see something written in blue it is a joke. That said, I was very much on the fence about writing it blue. What tipped the scale for me was the fact I didn't want anyone missing me call it reductionist to describe classes in the manner copied from Asisreo with some additions to account for the wizard's higher number of options.


more "yes, and..." and less "No, sorry" or "wait, that shouldn't be right..." Different choice give different amount of things the DM can say "yes, and..." to. You get some from your Character's backstory (ex: is used to being in the military), some from their race (ex: hobgoblin among goblins), a few from their feats, and most from their class. And the number of options granted between martials and casters is decidedly in the casters' favor.

No one is claiming a fighter PC is barred from the same character choices available due to being a PC. The question is specifically the number of choices granted from your class features.

Look at the following:



Intermediate DM's tend to get caught up in RAW as well as put more restrictions so that their grand plot can be followed to a T. They're also the DM's that struggle the most when a player casts a spell. They aren't good enough at DM'ing to understand the various consequences of spells If the caster/martial disparity were negligible, there would be martial features that DMs would need as long to wrap their heads around as the many, many spells.

[Asisreo1]

The question is specifically the number of choices granted from your class features.
I'm still unsure why there's such heavy weight on these "choices" that a class is supposedly opening up to people. Honestly, they all seem superfluous anyways.

A PC has infinite choices, regardless of their class.

What's interesting is that there's rarely anything a wizard PC can do that a fighter PC cannot within reason.

The typical example is flight. Wizards can fly but Fighters cannot. Except, a fighter has various means to elevate themselves in any reasonable circumstances. I've heard people ask how a fighter is supposed to bring down something levitating from 5 miles in the sky to the ground, but it's quite odd. Usually, it's just somewhere like a tower or large building that a flight spell is used for, but a fighter can just climb it.

Other effects, like charms, really only forces a DM to act a certain way, provided they succeed. No new options actually open up. A wizard can charm someone, but so can a fighter, so its not much of a new option, just expending a resource to make it more likely and more mechanical.

I've always been of the opinion that magic is a form of shortcut rather than a necessity. It's convenient but it rarely breaks anything without being extremely lucky.

The ironic thing about the spells plane shift is that it's actually not even unlocked for a spellcaster of their own volition until level 17 where they'd need to wish it. Which also means they're stuck there for a day until they long rest. Honestly, they might as well have Gate'd to their destination.

[OldTrees1]

I'm still unsure why there's such heavy weight on these "choices" that a class is supposedly opening up to people. Honestly, they all seem superfluous anyways.

A PC has infinite choices, regardless of their class.

What's interesting is that there's rarely anything a wizard PC can do that a fighter PC cannot within reason.

The typical example is flight. Wizards can fly but Fighters cannot. Except, a fighter has various means to elevate themselves in any reasonable circumstances. I've heard people ask how a fighter is supposed to bring down something levitating from 5 miles in the sky to the ground, but it's quite odd. Usually, it's just somewhere like a tower or large building that a flight spell is used for, but a fighter can just climb it.


I find your high level adventures to feel like low level adventures. I could scale a tower at 1st level, why are we still facing towers instead of floating in the sky? That is why I usually give these 4 high level environment examples.
1) Pinned in the sky
2) Multidimensional fight. Aka 4D combat. Ethereal + Material is the lowest level example. It is common enough to even show up in a 5E hardcover.
3) Inside a lava lake.
4) The vacuum of space. (A bit high level for 5E but was reasonable in 3E)

Although there are others:
5) Travel to the center of the earth. Yes, there is rock in your way. No, I don't expect that to stop you.
6) Last week called, they need your help.



I've always been of the opinion that magic is a form of shortcut rather than a necessity. It's convenient but it rarely breaks anything without being extremely lucky.

It is true that magic rarely breaks anything. But it does frequently enable something, so I am not sure I would call it a shortcut.


The ironic thing about the spells plane shift is that it's actually not even unlocked for a spellcaster of their own volition until level 17 where they'd need to wish it. Which also means they're stuck there for a day until they long rest. Honestly, they might as well have Gate'd to their destination.

You could elaborate. I believe Plane Shift is available at 13th level in 5E. I assume this must be about the attuned fork.

[cutlery]

A PC has infinite choices, regardless of their class.


Infinite choices, but not all with the same likelihood of success. Further, there are other people at the table.

The fighter can get talky all he or she wants, but if there is a bard with expertise in persuasion in the group and they charm the target for advantage, give it up.

The DM can try to let both of them do talking things, but one of them is getting a handicapped DC if they have similar success rates for the same task. 5e isn't a rules light system, and those two characters have vastly different abilities in the talking department.




What's interesting is that there's rarely anything a wizard PC can do that a fighter PC cannot within reason.


Wish, Simulacrum, Teleport, Magic Jar. Plane Shift. Etherealness. Telepathic Bond. Wall of Force. Geas. Dream. Scrying. Contact Other Plane.

Really, just open the SRD and look at every spell from 5th on. Other than the direct damage ones, most are things fighters don't have ready access to, and they certainly can't have ready access to more than one or two of those tricks via items.

Every wizard can fly if they feel like it; only a handful of fighters can.

No fighter can cast Reverse Gravity.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm still unsure why there's such heavy weight on these "choices" that a class is supposedly opening up to people. Honestly, they all seem superfluous anyways.

A PC has infinite choices, regardless of their class.

What's interesting is that there's rarely anything a wizard PC can do that a fighter PC cannot within reason.

The typical example is flight. Wizards can fly but Fighters cannot. Except, a fighter has various means to elevate themselves in any reasonable circumstances. I've heard people ask how a fighter is supposed to bring down something levitating from 5 miles in the sky to the ground, but it's quite odd. Usually, it's just somewhere like a tower or large building that a flight spell is used for, but a fighter can just climb it.

Other effects, like charms, really only forces a DM to act a certain way, provided they succeed. No new options actually open up. A wizard can charm someone, but so can a fighter, so its not much of a new option, just expending a resource to make it more likely and more mechanical.


That's...not really true? I mean, Fighters can make checks and such, but Wizards are able to do far, far more than a Fighter can. Technically a Fighter can't charm someone, few martials can outside of the Swashbuckler's ability. That said, Charm is fairly easy to replicate with a check. What is not easy to replicate are things like Wall of Force, which can provide an easy way to capture a creature or defend an area by creating a nearly impassible barrier. Wall of Stone does the same thing, only it has HP and can become permanent. Fighter's also can't create something better than difficult terrain in a 100ft radius, nor can they completely remove a combatant from an encounter. And I don't mean a combatant can't more, I mean the combatant can't move, take actions, bonus actions, or take reactions. Wizards can do that at level 1.




I've always been of the opinion that magic is a form of shortcut rather than a necessity. It's convenient but it rarely breaks anything without being extremely lucky.

The ironic thing about the spells plane shift is that it's actually not even unlocked for a spellcaster of their own volition until level 17 where they'd need to wish it. Which also means they're stuck there for a day until they long rest. Honestly, they might as well have Gate'd to their destination.

You don't play with many high tier wizards then, or at least not good ones. So, to make some corrections, first Plane Shift is only a 7th level spell. You get that at level 13, still a high level but also low enough to see use by your average party.

Second, by level 17 your Wizard has 9th level spells. As I have stated before, a Wizard with 9th level spells can create a perfect clone of the Fighter that will follow their every command in one to two days. And they can do it without twisting any rules, its a thing allowed by RAW, and they can literally do it for free at level 17. A Fighter is not going to be able to do that. Ever. Doesn't the fact that the Wizard can just make the Fighter kind of seem unbalanced? Just a little bit? Cause now everything the Fighter can do, the Wizard can have essentially a slave do. All the Fighter's feats, ability scores, and class abilities. The only thing the Wizard's Fighter will lack is the OG Fighter's magical gear.

[Ogre Mage]

Works for me. I always need cannon fodder a STRONG melee warrior while I am trying to cast my spells. :smallwink:

[Frogreaver]

Oh, I'll give you an even better example for comparison between the Fighter and Wizard. The Wizard can create a perfect copy of the Fighter in one to two days, depending on how long that Fighter is willing to stand by the Wizard. Only that copy is friendly follows the Wizard's command. How? Its pretty easy at level 20:

Step 1: Cast Simulacrum, using the Fighter as your base. Simulacrum has a Range of Touch, so you can cast it and use the Fighter to base your Simulacrum off of. If you want to save materials and time, you can cast Wish to instantly create the Simulacrum and save some gold.

Step 2: Cast True Polymorph on the Simulacrum to make it into a copy of your Fighter, hold Concentration for an hour to make it permanent.

Congrats, you, the Wizard, now have an exact Clone of the Fighter. Only this Clone will likely follow your commands since Simulacrum states that its friendly towards the Wizard who made it and follows their commands, and True Polymorph has creatures keep their personality traits. And this is RAW by the way:

Simulacrum creates "The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow...the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates." Meaning if you use it to make a Simulacrum of a level 20 Fighter, that Simulacrum is a creature that is a level 20 Fighter.


Kind of depends on the definition of Statistics? Is level a Statistic?

[sithlordnergal]

Kind of depends on the definition of Statistics? Is level a Statistic?

Yes, a level is part of the statistics of a character. Character level is treated the same as CR to determine things like Polymorph, True Polymorph, and Shapechange, and CR is one of the statistics of a creature.

[Asisreo1]

I find your high level adventures to feel like low level adventures. I could scale a tower at 1st level, why are we still facing towers instead of floating in the sky? That is why I usually give these 4 high level environment examples.
1) Pinned in the sky
2) Multidimensional fight. Aka 4D combat. Ethereal + Material is the lowest level example. It is common enough to even show up in a 5E hardcover.
3) Inside a lava lake.
4) The vacuum of space. (A bit high level for 5E but was reasonable in 3E)

See, the thing about a well-designed high-level adventure is that when the side missions are about flying or interplanar travel, that's fine.

I've never encountered an adventure that was gated away from us from the start without the solution being a requirement from our build. That would be terrible design.

What if the wizard multiclasses out for their last couple of levels and isn't able to cast what you thought they would? What if the bard doesn't know the expected spells?

So yes, adventures can involve something being in the sky, but that should rarely ever be an objective without any other way to get up there.

Fundamentally, if the fighter needs to fly they're given the option to fly by the DM.



Although there are others:
5) Travel to the center of the earth. Yes, there is rock in your way. No, I don't expect that to stop you.
6) Last week called, they need your help.

But we're taking these all out of context anyways.

If you played CoS, it takes place in a whole different plane. How do the adventures get there at level 1? They are teleported there by the mist. So even something as fantastical as "You need to go to a demiplane of an evil vampire," has already been covered with what a fighter can do in the adventure.



You could elaborate. I believe Plane Shift is available at 13th level in 5E. I assume this must be about the attuned fork.
Yes. In the DMG under Planar Travel they make it explicit that obtaining the fork can be more arduous than simply having 250gp. And with so many planes, going shop-to-shop won't guarantee you'll immediately find your specific one within a couple of years. (Pg 46).

They also mention Gate, which is 9th level and still isn't capable of going anywhere the spellcaster desires.

[Frogreaver]

Yes, a level is part of the statistics of a character. Character level is treated the same as CR to determine things like Polymorph, True Polymorph, and Shapechange, and CR is one of the statistics of a creature.

Proof that CR is a statistic?

[Valmark]

Proof that CR is a statistic?

The fact that it is part of the stat block and explained among the statistics, I imagine.

[Asisreo1]

Infinite choices, but not all with the same likelihood of success. Further, there are other people at the table.

The fighter can get talky all he or she wants, but if there is a bard with expertise in persuasion in the group and they charm the target for advantage, give it up.

That attitude will get you kicked from my table, easily. No player will ever "give it up" when they're participating because we don't discourage participation.

It doesn't matter if the fighter has 20 CHA or 8, they want to speak to the king so they will and the bard who thinks he's so fit for the job can wait. Because the fighter is also a player that wants to play the game. If he pisses off the king, great. The bard can step in. But under no circumstances will a player sit out because anyone else bullies them for their unoptimized stat. I may just have it be a group check anyways, or not have the dice rolled in the situation at all.

I suspect being told not to participate is crossing a line in many other tables as well, so I rarely believe anyone must "give it up."



The DM can try to let both of them do talking things, but one of them is getting a handicapped DC if they have similar success rates for the same task. 5e isn't a rules light system, and those two characters have vastly different abilities in the talking department.
Yes, that's their characters. They're better for it. It doesn't really matter, though, because the game isn't about maximizing success at every opportunity. If that's what the bard is focused on at all times, then its obvious they're incompatible with the general format of D&D and we'll have a discussion on success and failure and how the game isn't a linear set of tasks they must win.

Just because someone doesn't have a great chance of success doesn't mean they don't get to play the game.


Wish, Simulacrum, Teleport, Magic Jar. Plane Shift. Etherealness. Telepathic Bond. Wall of Force. Geas. Dream. Scrying. Contact Other Plane.

Let's go one-by-one.

Wish is a glorified 8th-level spell. Yes, it bypasses alot of spell restrictions but it's also once a day. Using it recklessly can seriously weaken your wizard by virtue of not having a 9th-level spell available for combat purposes.

Simulacrum requires a material component. Essentially, you don't get this until DM says so or until 17th level where you get a single Wish for the day. It's not all that spectacular since most enemies at that level only needs to go first, then your simulacrum just dies.

Teleport is just transportation, and it has a high likelihood of failure when you are using it to go somewhere you never had before. In fact, even if you tried to scry the place several times to get a good sense of it, you still have less than a 50% chance to be on-target. Not many people know this, but the farther you travel with Teleportation, the farther you'll be off-track from your actual destination if you fail. Plus, a fighter can just walk there. It's not like a different dimension because Teleport can't take you to other planes.

Magic Jar kinda sucks. If you're in a magic jar, you're essentially attempting to take someone's body. Better hope they don't resist it, because then they can just kill your body and break the container and don't worry about your soul returning. Or they can just throw the container really far before finishing you off. There's alot of chances of death with this spell and alot of creatures worthy to be possessed have high Charisma and Magic Resistance. But a fighter could just tame or convince the creature to join them, agreeing to deals and other such things.

Plane Shift doesn't work without a particularly researched and crafted tuning fork. Otherwise, you're using your Wish. You're never exactly where you want to be without a circle, though. Also, a fighter can just walk through a portal or find a sage. "Oh no! That means the fighter didn't do it!" No, that means the class features didn't do it. In the end, it all worked out so the fighter lost nothing.

Wall of Force is just trapping something. You can do that with a cave and dynamite or a cage or really any traditional methods of trapping something. Plus, no funky concentration or lame duration.


Most of these spells are, again, convenient, but I've never been stopped dead in my tracks for not having a specific spell. Therefore anything that a wizard can do, overall, a fighter can as well during an adventure. Everything else a wizard can do is superfluous.

[Valmark]

Teleport is just transportation, and it has a high likelihood of failure when you are using it to go somewhere you never had before. In fact, even if you tried to scry the place several times to get a good sense of it, you still have less than a 50% chance to be on-target. Not many people know this, but the farther you travel with Teleportation, the farther you'll be off-track from your actual destination if you fail. Plus, a fighter can just walk there. It's not like a different dimension because Teleport can't take you to other planes.


Note that if you Scry you see the place so you can Teleport there with complete precision.

Honestly, it is true that casters can do more stuff the martials or half-casters (I don't see quite the same difference between half-casters and martials) with their features... I have never seen that end up be a problem in 5e. It greatly depends on the players and the DM- in a group martials' players could be having less fun because of being overshadowed, and in another group everybody could be having fun regardless of the disparity.

When I say I never saw it I mean in my experience- I know people have had these problems, homewever.

[ThorOdinson]

That attitude will get you kicked from my table, easily. No player will ever "give it up" when they're participating because we don't discourage participation.

It doesn't matter if the fighter has 20 CHA or 8, they want to speak to the king so they will and the bard who thinks he's so fit for the job can wait. Because the fighter is also a player that wants to play the game. If he pisses off the king, great. The bard can step in. But under no circumstances will a player sit out because anyone else bullies them for their unoptimized stat. I may just have it be a group check anyways, or not have the dice rolled in the situation at all.

I suspect being told not to participate is crossing a line in many other tables as well, so I rarely believe anyone must "give it up."

Yes, that's their characters. They're better for it. It doesn't really matter, though, because the game isn't about maximizing success at every opportunity. If that's what the bard is focused on at all times, then its obvious they're incompatible with the general format of D&D and we'll have a discussion on success and failure and how the game isn't a linear set of tasks they must win.

Just because someone doesn't have a great chance of success doesn't mean they don't get to play the game.

Let's go one-by-one.

Wish is a glorified 8th-level spell. Yes, it bypasses alot of spell restrictions but it's also once a day. Using it recklessly can seriously weaken your wizard by virtue of not having a 9th-level spell available for combat purposes.

Simulacrum requires a material component. Essentially, you don't get this until DM says so or until 17th level where you get a single Wish for the day. It's not all that spectacular since most enemies at that level only needs to go first, then your simulacrum just dies.

Teleport is just transportation, and it has a high likelihood of failure when you are using it to go somewhere you never had before. In fact, even if you tried to scry the place several times to get a good sense of it, you still have less than a 50% chance to be on-target. Not many people know this, but the farther you travel with Teleportation, the farther you'll be off-track from your actual destination if you fail. Plus, a fighter can just walk there. It's not like a different dimension because Teleport can't take you to other planes.

Magic Jar kinda sucks. If you're in a magic jar, you're essentially attempting to take someone's body. Better hope they don't resist it, because then they can just kill your body and break the container and don't worry about your soul returning. Or they can just throw the container really far before finishing you off. There's alot of chances of death with this spell and alot of creatures worthy to be possessed have high Charisma and Magic Resistance. But a fighter could just tame or convince the creature to join them, agreeing to deals and other such things.

Plane Shift doesn't work without a particularly researched and crafted tuning fork. Otherwise, you're using your Wish. You're never exactly where you want to be without a circle, though. Also, a fighter can just walk through a portal or find a sage. "Oh no! That means the fighter didn't do it!" No, that means the class features didn't do it. In the end, it all worked out so the fighter lost nothing.

Wall of Force is just trapping something. You can do that with a cave and dynamite or a cage or really any traditional methods of trapping something. Plus, no funky concentration or lame duration.


Most of these spells are, again, convenient, but I've never been stopped dead in my tracks for not having a specific spell. Therefore anything that a wizard can do, overall, a fighter can as well during an adventure. Everything else a wizard can do is superfluous.

{Scrubbed}[/QUOTE]

[Gignere]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not entirely wrong but certainly off the rails from the initial topic of why do spell casters suck compared to martials. I think if your argument is that martials can accomplish anything in game that casters can with DM fiat instead of relying on class features, you’ve certainly conceded the point that martials are not better than spell casters.

[cutlery]

Maybe not entirely wrong but certainly off the rails from the initial topic of why do spell casters suck compared to martials. I think if your argument is that martials can accomplish anything in game that casters can with DM fiat instead of relying on class features, you’ve certainly conceded the point that martials are not better than spell casters.

Yep; If the DM will keep their finger on the scales, anything can happen, but a chatty fighter cannot keep up with an expertise bard that can charm. If they do keep up at a given table, perhaps 5e isn't the system for that table.

[ThorOdinson]

Maybe not entirely wrong but certainly off the rails from the initial topic of why do spell casters suck compared to martials. I think if your argument is that martials can accomplish anything in game that casters can with DM fiat instead of relying on class features, you’ve certainly conceded the point that martials are not better than spell casters.

{Scrubbed}[/QUOTE]

[Asisreo1]

Maybe not entirely wrong but certainly off the rails from the initial topic of why do spell casters suck compared to martials. I think if your argument is that martials can accomplish anything in game that casters can with DM fiat instead of relying on class features, you’ve certainly conceded the point that martials are not better than spell casters.
I absolutely do not think spellcasters are worse than martials. Not by a long shot. I apologize if that was what may have been implied with what I wrote.

I just also don't think the gap between what a fighter can do and what a spellcaster can do is so vast that one should consider a fighter "impared" or "unable to participate." Most of the concerns are overblown to make it sound like a fighter character is meaningless.

I understand that a spellcaster has a higher chance of success with the majority of their abilities but they do cost resources, can be counterspelled, disrupted, dispelled, and ended through any specifications within the spell description.

Ultimately, fighter is still a class I consider to have the widest range of flavor that doesn't try to railroad its players. They can be dumb or smarter and still be effective. They can be wise or aloof and still be effective. They can be charming or bumbling and still be effective. They can even be weak or ungraceful and still be effective if they aren't both at the same time. They're great for a weapon collector character and a dedicated single-weapon-type user.

Barbarians are encouraged to heavy weapons, Rangers are encouraged to bows, Paladins are encouraged to S&B or Two-handed weapons. Rogues are encouraged to crossbows and dual-wielding. Fighters can adopt any of these with ease and don't feel too bad moving away from their specialty.

Wizards can't really be dumb and effective. Clerics can't be aloof. Bards can't have a weak-presence. Even though there's still plenty of concepts to be had with all of these classes and plenty of customization, you still feel like there's a specific stereotype you must fulfill based on your scores.

[OldTrees1]

See, the thing about a well-designed high-level adventure is that when the side missions are about flying or interplanar travel, that's fine.

I've never encountered an adventure that was gated away from us from the start without the solution being a requirement from our build. That would be terrible design.

What if the wizard multiclasses out for their last couple of levels and isn't able to cast what you thought they would? What if the bard doesn't know the expected spells?

So yes, adventures can involve something being in the sky, but that should rarely ever be an objective without any other way to get up there.

Fundamentally, if the fighter needs to fly they're given the option to fly by the DM.


But we're taking these all out of context anyways.

If you played CoS, it takes place in a whole different plane. How do the adventures get there at level 1? They are teleported there by the mist. So even something as fantastical as "You need to go to a demiplane of an evil vampire," has already been covered with what a fighter can do in the adventure.


Yes. In the DMG under Planar Travel they make it explicit that obtaining the fork can be more arduous than simply having 250gp. And with so many planes, going shop-to-shop won't guarantee you'll immediately find your specific one within a couple of years. (Pg 46).

They also mention Gate, which is 9th level and still isn't capable of going anywhere the spellcaster desires.

Fundamentally, if the fighter needs to fly, and they don't get a solution natively, they're given the option to fly by the DM, or the DM stops requiring flight.

I think you have a point, albeit one I elaborated on with qualifiers. If the T4 Fighter does not natively have the ability to swim in lava, then I either give them a solution, or I remove the lava lake. As a DM it still bothers me when the system does not handle this natively with creative class appropriate solutions and instead I have to interfere with the characterization by stapling a generic solution onto the character. The DM giving the 5E Fighter Boosts of Flying as a build requirement bothers me more than the 5E Paladin having a winged mount.

[Frogreaver]

I think there's too much focus on higher level play in relation to this question.

A highly optimized martial character is spectacular through tiers 1 and 2 and with a few good magic items tends to be spectacular in tier 3 as well. Outside rogues, Martials will rarely contribute as much out of combat as casters - though that can depend a bit on setting.

[cutlery]

Fundamentally, if the fighter needs to fly, and they don't get a solution natively, they're given the option to fly by the DM, or the DM stops requiring flight.


Or the other characters that can fly or have long range attacks deal with the problem in a few rounds.

Some challenges the base fighter kit isn't suitable for, and either the players plan around it or the DM does - and when the DM does it, it is more transparent than they think most of the time.



I think you have a point, albeit one I elaborated on with qualifiers. If the T4 Fighter does not natively have the ability to swim in lava, then I either give them a solution, or I remove the lava lake. As a DM it still bothers me when the system does not handle this natively with creative class appropriate solutions and instead I have to interfere with the characterization by stapling a generic solution onto the character. The DM giving the 5E Fighter Boosts of Flying as a build requirement bothers me more than the 5E Paladin having a winged mount.

Yep. And if the DM is effectively handwaving that, they might as well effectively handwave attack rolls, armor class, hit points, and death saves.

[Frogreaver]

Yep. And if the DM is effectively handwaving that, they might as well effectively handwave attack rolls, armor class, hit points, and death saves.

It's the difference between a movie displaying a special forces squad and their heroics vs one displaying the x-men and their heroics. While the x-men are technically more versatile and powerful in pretty much every way, the special forces squad isn't going to be dealing with the same situations that the x-men will be. They will shine in their own adventures just as brightly as the x-men shine in their adventures.

[cutlery]

It's the difference between a movie displaying a special forces squad and their heroics vs one displaying the x-men and their heroics. While the x-men are technically more versatile and powerful in pretty much every way, the special forces squad isn't going to be dealing with the same situations that the x-men will be. They will shine in their own adventures just as brightly as the x-men shine in their adventures.

Running with the cinematic example, in the first avengers there's a scene where Hulk is bouncing from skyscraper to skyscraper smashing invaders, Thor is flying around with Mjolnir doing the same, and Iron man is tangling with a massive flying monster/personnel carrier...


...And Captain America is down with the ground pounders, punching aliens and looking winded fending off 4-5 of them.


The very first time I saw that scene, I thought: "That's a fighter".

[Frogreaver]

Running with the cinematic example, in the first avengers there's a scene where Hulk is bouncing from skyscraper to skyscraper smashing invaders, Thor is flying around with Mjolnir doing the same, and Iron man is tangling with a massive flying monster/personnel carrier...


...And Captain America is down with the ground pounders, punching aliens and looking winded fending off 4-5 of them.


The very first time I saw that scene, I thought: "That's a fighter".

Was there a reason you didn't respond to the overall point I made?

[Asisreo1]

Running with the cinematic example, in the first avengers there's a scene where Hulk is bouncing from skyscraper to skyscraper smashing invaders, Thor is flying around with Mjolnir doing the same, and Iron man is tangling with a massive flying monster/personnel carrier...


...And Captain America is down with the ground pounders, punching aliens and looking winded fending off 4-5 of them.


The very first time I saw that scene, I thought: "That's a fighter".
A fighter in a fight does quite well in a combat-focused game, which 5e is.

No matter what, giving your party a challenge they aren't equipped to handle while also threatening them with failing the entire campaign just isn't good form.

It's like having your combat take place completely in an area that has Wild Magic or Antimagic around it. It's fine with a couple of half-casters in the party but having it in an all-fullcaster party is basically just screwing them over, even if it 100% makes sense in terms of story.

In fact, I've ran an adventure where the majority of it was taken place inside an antimagic field. It was a flavorful reason, not meant to nerf, so I actually introduced a blessing that allowed their magic to bypass the field. Realistically, there was nothing they could do with their character options as they were but I was able to accommodate them (and it wasn't much of a problem to do so).

[MaxWilson]

Running with the cinematic example, in the first avengers there's a scene where Hulk is bouncing from skyscraper to skyscraper smashing invaders, Thor is flying around with Mjolnir doing the same, and Iron man is tangling with a massive flying monster/personnel carrier...


...And Captain America is down with the ground pounders, punching aliens and looking winded fending off 4-5 of them.


The very first time I saw that scene, I thought: "That's a fighter".

Well yeah, but Thor and the Hulk and Iron Man aren't wizards in that fight--NO 5E character class can do what they do for as long as they do it. A Wizard would nuke a small group of enemies with Meteor Swarm (killing foot soldiers or moderately wounding one of the flying Leviathans), and unless he's had the foresight to create his own army beforehand, he's pretty much done at that point. He can put up a Wall of Force and throw Fireballs, but that's Captain America-level stuff.

20th level 5E characters are not superheroes, except maybe w/rt how hard they are to kill. (Cast Regenerate on Captain America and he can fight for a long, long time.) They don't have superhero-level offense.

[cutlery]

20th level 5E characters are not superheroes, except maybe w/rt how hard they are to kill. (Cast Regenerate on Captain America and he can fight for a long, long time.) They don't have superhero-level offense.

Sure, but the difference in power levels was what struck me. Cap was clearly in a different weight class. Much like the fighter in Tiers 3 and 4.


Was there a reason you didn't respond to the overall point I made?

What was the point? If we're talking expertise in face stuff with charms vs a fighter with mere proficiency, it's xmen alongside special forces, and the special forces look quite dull.

Yes, fighters are cool in their element, but they can't participate in the other pillars as well as other classes (particularly casters and most particularly casters with expertise), and that gap only grows wider as the levels climb.


Even at lower levels casters can fly, short range teleport, use things akin to telepathy, and charm targets or use disguise self. That's a ton of utility that fighters can only barely touch in later tiers, they certainly can't do any of that stuff very well at the level other classes gain access to it.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, but the difference in power levels was what struck me. Cap was clearly in a different weight class. Much like the fighter in Tiers 3 and 4.

I don't agree that Fighters in general have that problem. E.g. if you want to kill Tiamat, one of the best RAW ways for a Wizard to use his Simulacrum spell is... to duplicate the Sharpshooter Fighter.

Wizards can be very, very powerful in some ways, and if Tony Stark had showed up at the battle with an army of flying drones I'd be all "that's a 5E wizard!" But he didn't. He showed up with power armor and a bunch of missiles, and so if anything I'm like "that's an old-school powergamer fighter with a ton of magic items from Monty Haul dungeon crawls!" I.e., a Fighter with 99 Necklaces of Missiles and Shadow Dragon-hide Armor +5 and a Shield +5 and a Vorpal Longsword +5 and a Ring of Vampiric Regeneration and Boots of Haste and Flying.

When it comes to personal combat or small unit tactics (i.e. the way most people actually play the game, without dozens of minions), Sharpshooter Fighters are still great in Tier 3/4. It is _fun_ to be able to kill CR 17-20 monsters mano-a-mano, and having great offense plus a ton of feats lets you do that. (Not 100% reliably, but we don't play dice games to never lose, do we?)

[cutlery]

Wizards can be very, very powerful in some ways, and if Tony Stark had showed up at the battle with an army of flying drones I'd be all "that's a 5E wizard!" But he didn't.

Early days; he gets there later with predictably catastrophic results.

If there's a BBeG that needs punching in the face, the fighter is the pick, for sure. (Provided the BBeG is within range.)

It's the rest of the session where they fall down.

[Ashrym]

The fighter can get talky all he or she wants, but if there is a bard with expertise in persuasion in the group and they charm the target for advantage, give it up.


Yep; If the DM will keep their finger on the scales, anything can happen, but a chatty fighter cannot keep up with an expertise bard that can charm. If they do keep up at a given table, perhaps 5e isn't the system for that table.

I have an issue with the way this was argued. ;-)

It was "wizard this wizard that" then switched up to bard for this particular example. That's cherry picking the best arguments for casters as representative of all casters to create positive false equivalents. Each time it's compared to the worst argument for martial characters (fighter) as representative of all martials for negative false equivalents.

IE, a discussion on casters vs martials is more than just bards and wizards vs fighters.

I'm not singling you out for that, however; it's pretty typical for this topic, lol. Charm person is an example of a spell particularly poor to use in the "magic is better" arguments.

First, it's commonly noted that charm person changes the target to friendly. This is true a can be useful, but that makes the assumption the target wasn't already friendly in the first place. Casting spells on targets leads to negative long term perception as people know they were charmed and/or people witness the act.

Meanwhile, any character can build friendly relationships instead. This can be done in a variety of ways, but I will use perform because you used bard. Perform gives the a wealthy lifestyle. That gives opportunity to build friendly contacts in areas of influence.

When the target of the social check is already friendly (an easy condition to meet) the spell erodes that relationship at best, and that part of the spells accomplishes nothing.

Next, there is the advantage on checks from the spell. The issue here is advantage is easy to get. So easy that it can be duplicated with the help action just by having someone else assisting.

The two best features are fairly easy to duplicate without spell casting.

Next, charm person is still running on limited spell slots. That fighter can throw spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Target A doesn't help try again with target B. Go down the line until the check is made.

When the target saves (which is something that was getting ignored) going down the line could be more costly because slots vs free use.

That ties into an additional minor note: charm and then the check takes more actions and has more opportunities to miss the favorable roll.

Finally, nothing prevents requesting favors from groups. The check allows for things like requesting to the same general favor from 11 targets in a group conversation at once. The counter argument is raising the goal post to mass suggestion here, and that's less readily available.

Charm person might be more situationally useful than knock, but it definitely isn't better than skill checks, especially if the target isn't a humanoid.

That gets us moving on to the class options. The bard is good not because he adds charm person. It's because he doesn't need to cast that spell in the first place. Bards don't waste spell slots when skill checks do the job. Bards don't take spells they can cover with good skill checks because of limited spells known.

Wizards don't have expertise or CHA synergy. They might use charm person but it's not going to be on the same level as the bard example would have been.

The fighter and wizard, if interested, can both expertise from other sources, however, such as prodigy. That devalues the bard expertise. The bard advantage is not needing another source of expertise and the fighter advantage over the wizard is bonus feats / ASI's (better stats).

The fighter and wizard comparison gives both PC's access to to similar bonuses overall and can be used on friendly NPC's.

I'm not going to say there aren't things magic can do that non-magic cannot. I will say that doesn't make those casters better choices. It gives those casters relevance they would otherwise struggle to find if martial classes could easily replicate all of it.

The big winner in social aspects is the glibness spell but that's because it enhances the floor on checks, and that still gets back to extremely limited high end resources.

It's not actually the fact casters have some toys. It's the frequency those tiys actually matters that keeps martial classes playing well overall.

[cutlery]

I have an issue with the way this was argued. ;-)

It was "wizard this wizard that" then switched up to bard for this particular example.


The thread is casters vs melee, though.



That's cherry picking the best arguments for casters as representative of all casters to create positive false equivalents. Each time it's compared to the worst argument for martial characters (fighter) as representative of all martials for negative false equivalents.


But fighters do have it worse than other martials outside of combat, save for perhaps the barbarian.



IE, a discussion on casters vs martials is more than just bards and wizards vs fighters.


Can a barbarian hang with a bard with respect to persuasion, or a wizard with respect to warping reality or either with respect to exploration?

A rogue can hang with the bard, but not with the wizard. The fighter and barbarian can't hang with either.



I'm not singling you out for that, however; it's pretty typical for this topic, lol. Charm person is an example of a spell particularly poor to use in the "magic is better" arguments.


Various bards gain the ability to charm as class features, though - they don't even need to use spells. You can build a bard to rock a persuasion check to an extent any of the others can't, save perhaps an arcane trickster using a spell - and if we have to use a spell to have a "noncaster" keep up with a caster, the game is up. Glamour bards in particular can charm without any negative repercussions, at Bard 3.






When the target of the social check is already friendly (an easy condition to meet) the spell erodes that relationship at best, and that part of the spells accomplishes nothing.


The spell gives advantage on the check. That's significant, and not "nothing".





Next, there is the advantage on checks from the spell. The issue here is advantage is easy to get. So easy that it can be duplicated with the help action just by having someone else assisting.

The two best features are fairly easy to duplicate without spell casting.


Requiring an extra body isn't "fairly easy".

The Bard can do this solo. The figter and barbarian might be able to manage it as a team; neither will have expertise as a class feature unless they have invested the prodigy feat.




Next, charm person is still running on limited spell slots. That fighter can throw spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Target A doesn't help try again with target B. Go down the line until the check is made.


Nope, class feature for glamour bards. Limited use, but its own resource. This is assuming the fighter is a samurai who can gain proficiency and add their wisdom mod.

The closest real competition would be a battlemaster with the new UA maneuvers; can use a sup die for Persuasion. That's the sort of stuff fighters need, and I really hope it makes it into TCoE.




Wizards don't have expertise or CHA synergy. They might use charm person but it's not going to be on the same level as the bard example would have been.


No, but they have dominate person. A fighter or barbarian has what?





I'm not going to say there aren't things magic can do that non-magic cannot. I will say that doesn't make those casters better choices. It gives those casters relevance they would otherwise struggle to find if martial classes could easily replicate all of it.


So... martial classes lack utility. The general thrust of the argument. Pick an out of combat utility function, and martials, fighters and barbarians in particular, will suck at it relative to other classes, and spellcasters in particular. Special caveat for rogues and expertise in thieves' tools, because by RAW no one else can do that (well, no one else without a level of rogue). In a game where combat is a major feature, this is probably fine. In a game where combat happens once a session - perhaps it is not so fine.

My point about the Bard was this: even though they are full casters, they can also out face pretty much anyone without even using their spells.

But, ok - fine. That's talking. What about flight?

[Zecrin]

But, ok - fine. That's talking. What about flight?

While warlocks, wizards and sorcerers are certainly better at flying than the fighter, they’re also better at flying than the cleric, so casters may be more likely to receive flight, but they don’t have a monopoly on the ability, especially when you account for races like aarakocra and winged tiefling, magic items like wings, boooms, boots, and carpets of flying, or subclasses like four elements monk, totem barbarian, swarmkeeper ranger, or phantom rogue.

I’d also contend that flight isn’t always the most useful ability when indoors. From my experience, a strength focused character’s ability to long jump 20ft. or high jump to attack enemies 17 ft. in the air is more action efficient, less resource exhaustive, and less likely to be counterspelled than casting fly.

In larger spaces, you’ll likely want flight for one of two reasons.

1). The enemy is in a position where you cannot reach them without flying.
2). The enemy cannot fly and you want a tactical advantage.

In the first scenario, martial characters specializing in ranged combat don’t really need to fly. As for melee focused characters who cannot fly themselves, the party receives more benefit from targeting that player with a fly spell than from targeting a caster who likely has access to ranged options. Therefore, scenario #1 may prove problematic to certain melee focused characters in a vacuum, but in play, these problems seem unlikely to manifest.

In scenario two, flight is probably unnecessary and in fact unwanted by the melee focused martial as they receive the most benefit by standing as close to the enemy as possible. Characters using reach or ranged weapons, however, would benefit from flight under these circumstances. For this reason, I think it would be a great idea to introduce more subclasses (aside from things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster) that grant flight.

Finally, with regard to out of combat utility, flight is certainly a large boon. Jumping, grappling hooks, and athletics simply cannot provide the same degree of usefulness as unrestricted 3D movement. However, the fly spell consumes a limited resource that these other three do not. Whether or not this is a fair exchange, could, I’m sure, be debated for a long time.

[sithlordnergal]

While warlocks, wizards and sorcerers are certainly better at flying than the fighter, they’re also better at flying than the cleric, so casters may be more likely to receive flight, but they don’t have a monopoly on the ability, especially when you account for races like aarakocra and winged tiefling, magic items like wings, boooms, boots, and carpets of flying, or subclasses like four elements monk, totem barbarian, swarmkeeper ranger, or phantom rogue.

I’d also contend that flight isn’t always the most useful ability when indoors. From my experience, a strength focused character’s ability to long jump 20ft. or high jump to attack enemies 17 ft. in the air is more action efficient, less resource exhaustive, and less likely to be counterspelled than casting fly.

In larger spaces, you’ll likely want flight for one of two reasons.

1). The enemy is in a position where you cannot reach them without flying.
2). The enemy cannot fly and you want a tactical advantage.

In the first scenario, martial characters specializing in ranged combat don’t really need to fly. As for melee focused characters who cannot fly themselves, the party receives more benefit from targeting that player with a fly spell than from targeting a caster who likely has access to ranged options. Therefore, scenario #1 may prove problematic to certain melee focused characters in a vacuum, but in play, these problems seem unlikely to manifest.

In scenario two, flight is probably unnecessary and in fact unwanted by the melee focused martial as they receive the most benefit by standing as close to the enemy as possible. Characters using reach or ranged weapons, however, would benefit from flight under these circumstances. For this reason, I think it would be a great idea to introduce more subclasses (aside from things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster) that grant flight.

Finally, with regard to out of combat utility, flight is certainly a large boon. Jumping, grappling hooks, and athletics simply cannot provide the same degree of usefulness as unrestricted 3D movement. However, the fly spell consumes a limited resource that these other three do not. Whether or not this is a fair exchange, could, I’m sure, be debated for a long time.


I mean, yes you'll always have a situation where A is better than B and B is better than A, however you need to look at the majority of those situations. What's going to have more application in more situations. A Fly speed of 60 feet, or jumping 20 feet? And while in play you'll see such tactics and team work being used, it doesn't change the fact that to have the Fighter fly up there in the first place you still need someone to cast Fly on you. So while the Fighter will be able to Fly, its still the Wizard who gets him up there, the Fighter won't Fly on their own power.

As for Winged Tieflings, Aarakocra, and Magical Items, those should not be brought into play when comparing what two classes can or cannot do. If a Fighter can be a Winged Tiefling then so can a Wizard, meaning there's nothing to compare because now they're the same. The same goes with magical equipment, you can give a Broom of Flying to the Fighter but a Wizard can use that too. Magical items should really only come into play if there's a specific restriction to who can use it, like the Holy Avenger can only be used by a Paladin so its something only Paladins can benefit from.

Now, if you want to break away from Wizards, we can look at Clerics and Druids. Clerics have far too many subclasses to mention, which range from giving the party a free +1 weapon or piece of armor, to an ability similar to the Echo Knight's, to being able to gain proficiency in any skill or tool they wish. As for spells they have everything from healing, which is always useful, to things like Calm Emotions, which is an excellent way to stop an enraged crowd, to Zone of Truth, which prevents lying. In a desert? The Cleric can make you as much water as you need, no need to forage and search for it. All with a 1st level spell.

Then you have Druid, probably the strongest spell caster given how much it can do. You have a plethora of utility with their Wild Shape, from flight, to scouting, to fighting, to infiltration. Their spells are just as strong, giving you instant access to food and water, charming animals for 24 hours without the downside of them becoming hostile, speaking with said beasts, making everyone in the party about as good at stealth as a Rogue, ect..

I love martials, but they just aren't as versatile as a spell caster.

[Asisreo1]

I love martials, but they just aren't as versatile as a spell caster.
And that's fine. It's not like all spellcasters are equally versatile, either.

As long as the argument isn't that martials contribute nothing or that playing a fighter has somehow removed your ability to be a PC, then it's fine that there are variations to this.

Of course, more versatility means more complexity. I don't think every single character should be as complex as a wizard. As long as they're still a viable option, they're fine.

I think the community should just drop the entire "martial" or "spellcaster" thing altogether. Instead, there should be a spectrum of "versatile" or "specialized" classes. The whole "this class sucks compared to this one" needs to die as well. It's great to compare benefits and drawbacks to playing each individual class but to actively discourage a class and trash on it to others just because it doesn't align with your playstyle isn't nice.

[Dork_Forge]

I guess I'm not surprised that it's becoming 'whatever caster is best suited for this example' vs 'a Fighter' or that the Fighter is not even fleshed out. The conversation has recently turned to the Fighter in Persuasion right? The PDK gives expertise and the Samurai lets you add Wis to your check, on one of the classes that can afford a better secondary/tertiary statline than a lot of other characters and with the ASIs to boost what they want or grab a feat like Prodigy or Skilled if they actually want to be particularly good at skills. For those pointing to the Bard in this cirumstance it should be highlighted that Expertise is far from caster specific and has absolutely nothing to do with magic and certainly nothing to do specifically with spells.

I'm not sure why some posts have also vague sentiments that Fighters specifically are down on their luck when it comes to long range combat either, for spells you're usually going to top out at 120ft, the longbow has a normal range of 150ft, heck you can choose to take a shot at long range (and just find a way to compensate for the disadvantage) with a lot of weapons, spells don't have that option, they just don't reach that far.

Spellcasters are inherently more versatile because they use a modular kit (spells), as a result, a lot of the time the base class is usually less versatile (look at the difference in playstyles as a whole caster subclass makes vs martial subclass). Apples and oranges in terms of comparison, if you value versatility in the moment then yes this would be more important to you, versatility also often comes at the cost of specialisation.

As for the whole "spell casters can do things martial kits can't" thing, well besides that being very biased (Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians can all access flight through their classes and one of the best builds for at will teleportation will always be a Shadow Monk) a better question would be, does it actually matter? Probably not, no. If you really need to shift planes, there will be a way to do that. It's a game, at what point would you consider a DM putting an obstacle in your way that you need a specific kind of spell (that you have to have from you own class) a good thing? Casters can multiclass, be the wrong type of caster or just not have the spell. This should never be a barrier to progression because that defeats the whole point of the game. "Ahead of you lies an unstable gate of primal energy, it's wild magic lashes out at your body and soul as you try and pass through it. The gate will do x amount of direct hp damage that cannot be reduced in anyway, falling to 0hp will result in instadeath." That's a scenario that would leave a lot of casters out to dry, one way to look at it would be that's a pretty contrived thing to just make martials relevant. Sure, it's also a valid way to level gate an area, like how you need a minimum amount of hearts to draw the Master Sword and no amount of temp hearts will help you. (and this thread is basically devolving into cherry picking things a subclassless Fighter can't do, so perspective also important there).

[tenshiakodo]

I mean, this topic has been debated so many times before it's almost silly. That having been said, the disparity between 'magic' and 'non-magic' classes has been narrowed quite a bit in 5e. Spells grant area effect damage, crowd control, party buffs, and narrative options. Weapons grant reliable single target damage output. You're going to need both. Weapon users also are less reliant on spell slots (which are more limited compared to previous editions).

Spellcasters do have a lot of versatility, the non-magic classes do need to be built to be good at what they want to do, while in some cases, you can switch around your spell loadout to handle a wider array problems.

This debate has always run into a few main issues, of which I'll mention two.

Anecdotal Evidence: what you have personally experienced in the games you have played. This isn't invaluable, but the way the game is run by the DM's you've encountered may bias your opinion. Magic hating DM's will not design encounters or enemies with spells in mind (unless they want to make the spellcasters less effective). A party of 2 Fighters, a Rogue, and a Healbot Cleric can take on tons of content just fine, especially if a DM loves using GIANT MONSTERS.

Conversely, DM's who like waves of enemies, or puzzles, or complex exploration challenges, or favors sandbox games where the players can interact with politics, capitalism, or the destiny of nations, might give spellcasters more opportunities to shine.

In order to really debate this topic, you need to have some idea of what a "generic D&D game" IS.

Related to this is Tier of play- the game functions very differently when it's just a pack of fools going up against a goblin lair vs. legendary heroes assaulting a Githyanki Fortress in the Astral. This is where you'll really see the differences in what the classes can do.

Personal Bias: some people like playing Joe the Soldier Guy, a bog standard sword and board hero who triumphs in spite of ridiculous odds. Others might like Zero the Elven Bladesinger, who is tragically cool, looks like a glam rocker, and has a suite of magical attacks that he names whenever he uses them.

You may, without realizing it, be quick to defend the style of play you prefer, and then find yourself deriding any points someone who finds that style of play "badwrongfun" without due consideration.

The way 5e is designed, you almost have to go out of your way to make a character who can't face most challenges. The only critical weakness (IMO) occurs in high tier play where you can find your character unable to make certain saving throws against high DC's. It's at this point that magic items and spellcasters become invaluable. So you really can play what you like. Are some classes just better than others? Yes, unfortunately. Is that really a problem? Not for most of the play you're likely to see.

[cutlery]

Are you arguing that Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard is solved in 5e?

[patchyman]

Yep; If the DM will keep their finger on the scales, anything can happen, but a chatty fighter cannot keep up with an expertise bard that can charm. If they do keep up at a given table, perhaps 5e isn't the system for that table.

The DM always has their finger on the scales. It just so happens that the most common ways the DM has their finger on the scales tends to favour spellcasters.

The solution is generally for the DM to recognize this fact, and if necessary, adjust their playstyle.

[tenshiakodo]

Are you arguing that Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard is solved in 5e?

Not necessarily solved, I mean, 4e did that already, but it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in the vast majority of gameplay. At the higher tiers, that can change, just because some classes lack the ability to cover all of their weak points without magic items (which can't be relied upon) or spells. My example being effects with high DC's- since a natural 20 no longer automatically allows a saving throw to succeed, and there are 6 potential saves, it's inevitable that you're going to encounter at some point a saving throw that is impossible to make.

If Feats are allowed, you can only take Resilient once. The example I saw was when I was playing Storm King's Thunder, the PC's encountered a red dragon and since the Fighter lacked proficiency in Wisdom saves, he couldn't succeed against the fear save no matter what he rolled, but he was fortunate to have eaten a Heroes' Feast that morning.

[MeimuHakurei]

Question: How many times do you feel the need to conciously include an enemy in your encounters that can cast spells (whichever you like) vs. the need to include a durable enemy that does strong melee damage?

[Asmotherion]

3 non-Casters would not stand a chance against a Caster of the same level, at least if the Caster knows what they're doing.

Who cares about Damage? Magic does much more important things than damage. And a really dedicated caster can do at least the same average Mundane's DPS. Some even more. All that, and he still can disable the whole enemy's group in a single turn.

I personally would rather face 5 Barbarians, each 3 levels higher than my character and be a caster, than a single caster, even 2 levels lower than me, and be a Barbarian or Fighter. One is a regular encounter, the other has high potential to be Deadly, depending on the spells used.


The DM always has their finger on the scales. It just so happens that the most common ways the DM has their finger on the scales tends to favour spellcasters.

The solution is generally for the DM to recognize this fact, and if necessary, adjust their playstyle.

No, man, you're plain wrong here. All DMs I know, including myself, will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to "not favor the caster" and "Favor the Mundane" specifically. Still, does not change anything.

[Dork_Forge]

3 non-Casters would not stand a chance against a Caster of the same level, at least if the Caster knows what they're doing.

Who cares about Damage? Magic does much more important things than damage. And a really dedicated caster can do at least the same average Mundane's DPS. Some even more. All that, and he still can disable the whole enemy's group in a single turn.

I personally would rather face 5 Barbarians, each 3 levels higher than my character and be a caster, than a single caster, even 2 levels lower than me, and be a Barbarian or Fighter. One is a regular encounter, the other has high potential to be Deadly, depending on the spells used.


Why did you feel the need to turn this into a pvp scenario?

Everyone cares about damage as a whole, it's by and large how you end encounters.

Both scenarios you suggest would likely end in caster death very quickly unless things were heavily stacked in the Caster's favour, I'm also going to guess that 4th level+ spells are what come to mind for the caster?

[tenshiakodo]

I don't know about it having to be 4th level and up spells, I've seen people chewed into hamburger by combinations of sleet storm, spirit guardians, stinking cloud, moonbeam, slow, and spike growth.

[Eldariel]

Question: How many times do you feel the need to conciously include an enemy in your encounters that can cast spells (whichever you like) vs. the need to include a durable enemy that does strong melee damage?

Generally I try and make sure most enemy factions have powerful or numerous spellcasting because otherwise the combat frankly becomes something of a boring slugfest IME. Players don't really have to expect anything out of the ordinary unless there's some magic involved and encounters boil down to "CC big enemies, AOE small enemies and mop up" (of course, I count stuff like Mindflayers as casters). Even a single enemy caster can completely change the equation. Of course, some martial enemies have interestingish abilities but ultimately spellcasters make the battles more different. And of course, make saves more involved and such. Monsters are another, but generally I prefer mostly humanoid opposition with few monsters rather than the other way around since humanoids can have much more complex motives and be much more efficient strategically.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know about it having to be 4th level and up spells, I've seen people chewed into hamburger by combinations of sleet storm, spirit guardians, stinking cloud, moonbeam, slow, and spike growth.

All of those spells are concentration (and scattered about different lists), the poster I replied to was referring to a single caster.

[MeimuHakurei]

No, man, you're plain wrong here. All DMs I know, including myself, will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to "not favor the caster" and "Favor the Mundane" specifically. Still, does not change anything.


This is actually a pretty relevant observation - favoring the mundane has become so commonplace and natural that it looks like the new normal. So if you stop writing the plot to favor any particular character or build, to them it looks like they're favoring the caster instead.

[Eldariel]

All of those spells are concentration (and scattered about different lists), the poster I replied to was referring to a single caster.

It's a good example of how multiple casters complement each other and make the whole party stronger in a way that adding non-casters simply cannot do though; with non-casters you can at best combo trip attack or something with a spell while with casters you can combo all sorts of spells with one another to create wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

[Dork_Forge]

It's a good example of how multiple casters complement each other and make the whole party stronger in a way that adding non-casters simply cannot do though; with non-casters you can at best combo trip attack or something with a spell while with casters you can combo all sorts of spells with one another to create wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

The poster was clearly referring to a kind of pvp scenario (or at least NPCs using class levels).

Your point is also unsurpisingly shallow on the martial side:

-Monk's Stunning Strike benefits everyone

-A raging Barbarian dragging a monster through a caster created effect like Spike Growth

-Rogue's taking advantage of status effects for damage

-Paladin's burst damage, various status effects from smite spells, some channel divinity options

-Maneuvers, Arcane Shots etc.

Martials are more than just subclassless Fighters occasionally shoving people, heck you chose trip but a Battlemaster can push, frighten etc.

[Eldariel]

The poster was clearly referring to a kind of pvp scenario (or at least NPCs using class levels).

Your point is also unsurpisingly shallow on the martial side:

-Monk's Stunning Strike benefits everyone

-A raging Barbarian dragging a monster through a caster created effect like Spike Growth

-Rogue's taking advantage of status effects for damage

-Paladin's burst damage, various status effects from smite spells, some channel divinity options

-Maneuvers, Arcane Shots etc.

Martials are more than just subclassless Fighters occasionally shoving people, heck you chose trip but a Battlemaster can push, frighten etc.

Obviously, but nothing of that is something casters couldn't do, generally better. Polymorphed Giant Ape is a far better dragger than a Barbarian in most cases; Rogue/Pally are just damage dealers, which is not really unique to any class; maneuvers are kinda like discount spells in that they have lesser effects but still have saves and still do damage so there isn't really much they can do that spells couldn't do better, etc. Monk's Stunning Strike is an exception since it directly comboes great with spells and can be applied multiple times per turn. Of course, it is resource intensive.

I'd definitely generally prefer another big Concentration spell to anything a non-caster can do in the vast majority of the scenarios though. Comboing Concentration effects is great. This is where you get into the Wall of Force + Wall of Light or Cloud of Daggers or whatever-kinda stuff that just autokills ~80% of the monster manual (the exceptions can either disable the effects, teleport, are too large, or are durable enough to take it; add a third Concentration effect and you can disable most teleports as they require LoS in addition to ensuring sufficient damage for basically anything leaving only a handful of exceptions).

[Asmotherion]

Why did you feel the need to turn this into a pvp scenario?

Everyone cares about damage as a whole, it's by and large how you end encounters.

Both scenarios you suggest would likely end in caster death very quickly unless things were heavily stacked in the Caster's favour, I'm also going to guess that 4th level+ spells are what come to mind for the caster?

Who mentioned a PVP scenario? :smallconfused: How exactly in my post did you come to the conclusion I was mentioning a PVP scenario? Are you putting words in my mouth? Why are you doing that?

And, no, I mean that as long as the Caster has access to spells of their level, he can face on equal footing something of much higher level than him, as long as that opponent has no access to spellcasting.

Even a 1rst level sleep spell has high potential to end an encounter with a non-caster of much higher level, baring some very specific races that are immune to it.

And, Win does not mean Kill in D&D. Just saying. Make somethig unconsious; you win. Make something unwilling to keep fighting; you win. Block the path so something can't reach you; you win.

Even in an actual direct combat scenario, one has access to Levitation and Cantrips that provide Concealment and Cover early on, and generally be out of reach from the Melee character, wile blasting with Long Rane Cantrips, wile the other will probably be stuck unable to damage the Caster most of the time.

[Frogreaver]

3 non-Casters would not stand a chance against a Caster of the same level, at least if the Caster knows what they're doing.

By the way this reads alot like a PVP scenario. Either way,

3 SS fighters will kill a typical single classed caster before he even gets a turn.


Who cares about Damage? Magic does much more important things than damage. And a really dedicated caster can do at least the same average Mundane's DPS. Some even more. All that, and he still can disable the whole enemy's group in a single turn.


I wonder why the caster gets to optimize his spells but the "average martial" is stuck being average and unoptimized. Your anti-martial pro-caster bias is really shining through in this comparison.


I personally would rather face 5 Barbarians, each 3 levels higher than my character and be a caster, than a single caster, even 2 levels lower than me, and be a Barbarian or Fighter. One is a regular encounter, the other has high potential to be Deadly, depending on the spells used.

One thing I find rather comical in these comparisons is that a large chunk of supposed caster supremacy is due to looking at a single encounter at very high levels and having the caster dump all their strongest resources into it. That's just not how the game is played.

The other part of caster supremacy is really an artifact of the melee vs ranged discussion. Range is typically superior to melee (at least until you look at a party that has a melee character already in it). That's perhaps the biggest advantage casters have over melee martials.

Not that your PVP scenarios prove anything, but they are fun to analyze -

Let's take your example here. 5 Level X+3 Barbarians vs Level X Caster. Let X = 4. I'd love to know what caster at level 4 can beat 3 level 7 barbarians. I'd love to know what caster at level 6 can beat 5 level 9 barbarians. Heck, I'd love to know what level 8 caster can beat 5 level 11 barbarians.

And even later when I think some casters could win, it depends on the caster. I don't think a cleric could win that at all. A bard would be highly questionable. Druid is a more fair fight. A high level wizard, i think that's really the only caster that could pull this off and it would have to be high level.

Let's talk about the Fighter vs the caster 2 levels lower. I'm going to use the SS version as I think you are mostly seeing the benefits of ranged over melee in your comparison. A level 7 CE + SS +Battlemaster Fighter can do over 30 DPR to a Level 5 Wizard using shield, and has a good chance of being able to use a superiority dice on damage while still using precision. Wizard on average will have 32 hp. That is, the fighter has a good chance of 1 turning the wizard and will with near certainty 2 turn him.


The poster was clearly referring to a kind of pvp scenario (or at least NPCs using class levels).

Your point is also unsurpisingly shallow on the martial side:

-Monk's Stunning Strike benefits everyone

-A raging Barbarian dragging a monster through a caster created effect like Spike Growth

-Rogue's taking advantage of status effects for damage

-Paladin's burst damage, various status effects from smite spells, some channel divinity options

-Maneuvers, Arcane Shots etc.

Martials are more than just subclassless Fighters occasionally shoving people, heck you chose trip but a Battlemaster can push, frighten etc.

Yep, that's one huge issue with the martial vs caster comparison.

The others are:
1. Caster Range vs Melee Martial - this is really more of a range vs melee issue than a caster vs martial issue
2. Whiteroom issues - no set spells for the caster, making them appear more versatile than they actually are.
3. Whiteroom issues - spell pacing. In the whiteroom comparison we tend to look at a single encounter instead of a whole adventuring day. This makes it appear that a caster has more power than they do in actual play because they can unload spell slots in this whiteroom with no thought of rest of the adventuring day. I find risk of not having a spell when later needed more is one of the biggest limiters on caster power. I mean, just think of how many times you could have solved a problem with a spell but didn't because of this. Then think of how many spells you have leftover at the end of most adventuring days.
4. Whiteroom issues - complications. Most of the best spells require concentration. It's incorrectly assumed that concentration will be maintained with no complications.

And perhaps the biggest point - Campaigns tend to scale to meet the parties capabilities at the desired difficulty level.

[Asmotherion]

By the way this reads alot like a PVP scenario. Either way,

3 SS fighters will kill a typical single classed caster before he even gets a turn.



I wonder why the caster gets to optimize his spells but the "average martial" is stuck being average and unoptimized. Your anti-martial pro-caster bias is really shining through in this comparison.



One thing I find rather comical in these comparisons is that a large chunk of supposed caster supremacy is due to looking at a single encounter at very high levels and having the caster dump all their strongest resources into it. That's just not how the game is played.

The other part of caster supremacy is really an artifact of the melee vs ranged discussion. Range is typically superior to melee (at least until you look at a party that has a melee character already in it). That's perhaps the biggest advantage casters have over melee martials.

Not that your PVP scenarios prove anything, but they are fun to analyze -

Let's take your example here. 5 Level X+3 Barbarians vs Level X Caster. Let X = 4. I'd love to know what caster at level 4 can beat 3 level 7 barbarians. I'd love to know what caster at level 6 can beat 5 level 9 barbarians. Heck, I'd love to know what level 8 caster can beat 5 level 11 barbarians.

And even later when I think some casters could win, it depends on the caster. I don't think a cleric could win that at all. A bard would be highly questionable. Druid is a more fair fight. A high level wizard, i think that's really the only caster that could pull this off and it would have to be high level.

Let's talk about the Fighter vs the caster 2 levels lower. I'm going to use the SS version as I think you are mostly seeing the benefits of ranged over melee in your comparison. A level 7 CE + SS +Battlemaster Fighter can do over 30 DPR to a Level 5 Wizard using shield, and has a good chance of being able to use a superiority dice on damage while still using precision. Wizard on average will have 32 hp. That is, the fighter has a good chance of 1 turning the wizard and will with near certainty 2 turn him.

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

And that's without putting in the effort to give you a strategy were you actually fight them.

In Melee, I'd love to see 3 Barbarians try to Down a Paladin with Heroism for example. Or a Hexblade with Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke.

Spells always trump mundane options, as long as you put the effort to strategise around them. A mundane has limited options which revolve around combat, and no matter your build, it will always result in "you have x ways to deal damage, and limited to no control or movement options".

Optimising or not the mundane, in any of the examples is irrelevant to the result. When I say Average, I mean "not an oddly specific build made exactly in order to counter X strategy". Which, again, is irrelevant, as the Caster has the luxury of not being a one-trick ponny, wile the Mundane does not.

Again, I never mentioned PVP. I'm not puting words in your mouth, so stop trying to do that to me. It's rude and insulting.

Unless you have no idea that NPC encounters can include 3 Barbarians?

Oh, and by the way, I made it an extra point to prove you wrong by just mentioning 1st and 2nd level spells. You know, for extra credit against the whole "Use all their highest resourses" supposed point. Which, btw, shows your own Bias against Casters (of the reverce of which you accuse me consistantly, without proving your point in the slightest).

[Frogreaver]

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

sounds like you are playing with some supped up version of invisibility - that can't efficiently be kept up all day anywyas.


And that's without putting in the effort to give you a strategy were you actually fight them.

Or their strategy to fight the caster...


In Melee, I'd love to see 3 Barbarians try to Down a Paladin with Heroism for example. Or a Hexblade with Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke.

Wait - you think 3 Barbarians can't down a Paladin that's getting 5 temp hp (or less) a round??? And why are you changing it to 3 instead of 5? And why are you talking about a Paladin instead of a full caster?

Also, why wouldn't said Barbarians, knock the hex blade to the ground, grapple him, and then take away his weapon/implement/component pouch. At that point they can just suffocate him by putting a bag over his head.


Spells always trump mundane options, as long as you put the effort to strategise around them. A mundane has limited options which revolve around combat, and no matter your build, it will always result in "you have x ways to deal damage, and limited to no control or movement options".

See my above example...


Optimising or not the mundane, in any of the examples is irrelevant to the result. When I say Average, I mean "not an oddly specific build made exactly in order to counter X strategy". Which, again, is irrelevant, as the Caster has the luxury of not being a one-trick ponny, wile the Mundane does not.

Like you do with casters.


Again, I never mentioned PVP. I'm not puting words in your mouth, so stop trying to do that to me. It's rude and insulting.

Unless you have no idea that NPC encounters can include 3 Barbarians?

If you are having classed NPC's fight PC's then it's technically not PvP but it's essentially the same thing as PVP. There's no real difference there.

[Unoriginal]

I've said I wouldn't reply in this thread anymore, but heck.



No, man, you're plain wrong here. All DMs I know, including myself, will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to "not favor the caster" and "Favor the Mundane" specifically.



Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

Invisibility disables no one. All Invisibility does is give the invisible one advantage on one attack (with the invisibility being dispelled if they start attacking or casting spells), give disadvantage to their opponents' attacks, making the invisible one a non-valid target for some abilities (most of them spells), and let the invisible one attempt the Hide action wherever. Any group of characters with PC classes is more than capable of handling a singular, lower opponent who uses Invisibility (or even Greater Invisibility, for that matter), no matter which classes. In fact they can also handle a singular, higher-level opponent who uses Invisibility.

So you're not only contradicting yourself on the whole "will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to 'not favor the caster'" thing, you're showing plainly to all that you are, indeed, blatantly biased toward casters.



Also just saying, but anyone calling non-magic-using classes the "mundane" show how much disrespect they have for those classes. NO D&D adventurer is mundane.

[johnny_sokko]

This whole conversation, while it is interesting, seems so pre 5e.

Consider the five martial arts classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
Two of them are explicit spell casters at the class level. Monk ki is explicitly magical and half of the Monk subclasses explicitly cast spells. Fighter has both a spell casting subclass and a non-casting magical subclass. Only Barbarian doesn't have a spell casting subclass and Barbarian has magical subclasses.

Consider the six full casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Four of six (Bard, Cleric, Warlock and Wizard) have martial arts subclasses. And these subclasses are often the most talked about in optimization discussions.

What is the real relevance of a martial vs spell caster conversation in a version of the game where almost every class has both martial arts and spell casting options and where non-spell casting, non-magical characters are actually a very small part of the character selection space?

[Frogreaver]

This whole conversation, while it is interesting, seems so pre 5e.

Consider the five martial arts classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
Two of them are explicit spell casters at the class level. Monk ki is explicitly magical and half of the Monk subclasses explicitly cast spells. Fighter has both a spell casting subclass and a non-casting magical subclass. Only Barbarian doesn't have a spell casting subclass and Barbarian has magical subclasses.

Consider the six full casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Four of six (Bard, Cleric, Warlock and Wizard) have martial arts subclasses. And these subclasses are often the most talked about in optimization discussions.

What is the real relevance of a martial vs spell caster conversation in a version of the game where almost every class has both martial arts and spell casting options and where non-spell casting, non-magical characters are actually a very small part of the character selection space?

Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

[johnny_sokko]

Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

I agree that's a meaningful division in the 5e context, but it's not the discussion in this thread. Martials (in this thread) do not cast spells and do not have any form of magic other than items. For example, at some point flying came up. There are members of both groups that can fly. But in the thread discussion it was clear that no 'non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.' who could fly was relevant to the conversation. So it becomes a tautology. Situations that require a spell obviously can't be handled by characters that don't cast spells. Moreover, it's not a discussion of classes at all, but a discussion of subclasses, and so irrelevant to the meaningful division of classes you have presented.

I don't find a discussion of that small group of subclasses particularly informative (though it is at least interesting).

[Frogreaver]

I agree that's a meaningful division in the 5e context, but it's not the discussion in this thread. Martials (in this thread) do not cast spells and do not have any form of magic other than items. For example, at some point flying came up. There are members of both groups that can fly. But in the thread discussion it was clear that no 'non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.' who could fly was relevant to the conversation. So it becomes a tautology. Situations that require a spell obviously can't be handled by characters that don't cast spells. Moreover, it's not a discussion of classes at all, but a discussion of subclasses, and so irrelevant to the meaningful division of classes you have presented.

I don't find a discussion of that small group of subclasses particularly informative (though it is at least interesting).

I think you are wrong. The OP talked about a Paladin seemingly in the melee character category. This discussion isn't about whatever you are claiming it is about.

[Asmotherion]

I've said I wouldn't reply in this thread anymore, but heck.





Invisibility disables no one. All Invisibility does is give the invisible one advantage on one attack (with the invisibility being dispelled if they start attacking or casting spells), give disadvantage to their opponents' attacks, making the invisible one a non-valid target for some abilities (most of them spells), and let the invisible one attempt the Hide action wherever.

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you? :smallconfused:

Again, as I said in previous posts, Win is not the same as Kill. If all you need to win is bypass a potential obstacle, you still Win the encounter.


Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

Which is also why I use the term Mundane (aka NON-Magical) instead of Martial; A Martial Character can be anything from non-caster to full caster and everything in between.

Finally, if you think I am biased, see the title (and thus premise) of the tread. I'm simply debunking the illogical premice. Maybe, with a slightly exagerative tone (though, I stand by my statement; I'd rather face 5 (NPC since apparently I need to emphasise this, so my words are not taken out of context) Barbarians as a Caster than a Single (Again, NPC) Caster as a Barbarian.

[Gignere]

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you?.

This was true in prior editions, but in 5e unless you take the hide action and beat passive perceptions, everyone knows where you are. So they can attack you just at disadvantage.

[Frogreaver]

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you? :smallconfused:

Again, as I said in previous posts, Win is not the same as Kill. If all you need to win is bypass a potential obstacle, you still Win the encounter.

Invisibility doesn't make you hidden and undectable. They will know what square you are in unless you hide. Since there are 5 of them they will have a pretty good chance of at least 1 being able to locate what square you are in even if you are hidden.



Which is also why I use the term Mundane (aka NON-Magical) instead of Martial; A Martial Character can be anything from non-caster to full caster and everything in between.

Which isn't what the rest of the thread is about...


Finally, if you think I am biased, see the title (and thus premise) of the tread. I'm simply debunking the illogical premice. Maybe, with a slightly exagerative tone (though, I stand by my statement; I'd rather face 5 (NPC since apparently I need to emphasise this, so my words are not taken out of context) Barbarians as a Caster than a Single (Again, NPC) Caster as a Barbarian.

Barbarian has a good chance of beating a lower level caster at most level ranges. Caster has no chance of beating 5 barbarians of higher level. Caster might can run away - but that's hardly "winning" the encounter.


This was true in prior editions, but in 5e unless you take the hide action and beat passive perceptions, everyone knows where you are. So they can attack you just at disadvantage.

And with reckless attack it won't even be at disadvantage!