At what level does caster over martial dominance start? [Archive]

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 05:04 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast "caster dominance" paradigm, and I certainly don't believe that the goal of D&D is to play the mechanically-strongest character all the time, but to the extent that it's possible for an all-caster group to be mechanically stronger in a dungeon crawl than even a well-optimized mixed-warriors-and-casters group, I'd pick level 9 because that's when things like Conjure Elemental come online which truly are viable replacements for warriors (although arguably Druids do the warriors' job as soon as level 2).

Two things that have a huge effect on how fun warriors are to play include:

(1) Is magic the only way to recruit minions, or can warriors do it too by training animals, hiring mercenaries, etc.? If it's possible for everyone this narrows the gap considerably and keeps warriors fun as they lead their unit of NPC hirelings.

(2) Who controls the tempo of engagements? In a dungeon crawl, PCs are often expecting trouble, and wizards will have their Mage Armor up, clerics may cast Guidance before kicking down a door, everyone is in formation to protect each other, minions may be pre-summoned, etc., and that gives casters more of an edge. On the other hand, if the game is less dungeon-crawly and features stuff like PCs at a social engagement, and Bob [PC] is just getting back from a visit to the restroom when he sees a group of waiters suddenly drop their trays, pull out poisoned knives, and attack the VIP... in this case, Bob the Hypothetical Fighter is on a much more even footing with Bob the Hypothetical Wizard, because they are both having to react.

-Max

heavyfuel

2021-02-02, 05:07 PM

It really depends on your definition of "caster dominance".

As early as level 1 you have casters doing amazing things that martials simply cannot do. For example, a Wizard with a familiar is a better spotter than a Ranger, and (ab)using the Help action can make a very meaningful impact in combat, although that impact is very synergistic (you usually want to Help your Martials, since they probably deal more damage than your 1d10 firebolt)

A Sleep or Healing Word spell can impact combat far more than any martial could, although this is also very synergistic. Obviously, these things are very limited due to how spell slots work.

Generally, I'd say martials can hold their own up until level 8.

Level 5 is when you start seeing the truly powerful spells, but Martials also get a big boost here in the form of Extra Attack, so they are still holding on. This boost can carry them well for the next few levels.

By level 9, however, they are no longer dealing that much more damage. The average monster HP increases by 50% from CR 5 to CR 9, but it's unlikely that a Martial's damage has kept up. And Casters now have more than enough slots to go through the day without having to worry too much. Plus, they also got a new spell level full of overpowered toys like Animate Objects, Teleportation Circle, Planar Binding, Geas, and Antilife Shell)

king_steve

2021-02-02, 05:41 PM

Coming at this from another angle, from my experience DM'ing, I feel there is less of a gap when magic items are in play. Magic items vary in quality and impact, but when the Fighter has Boots of Flying or a Cube of Force the difference between a caster and a martial seems less impactful.

l think if your party has a few rare (or rarer) magic items split between the martials and casters, there is likely less of a difference between casters and martials.

When a party isn't overflowing with gold or items casters can suffer from a lack of material components. For example, Simulacrum is a very powerful possibly game changing spell but it requires 1500 gp worth of powdered ruby. That's not something you'd out adventuring (maybe the rubies in a treasure pile but having the equipment to make powdered ruby would be another challenge). I've often talked to my players to say, alright you're leaving this big city, before you go how many material components do you have on you? Do you need to go trade with the local jeweler to find have X component for one of your spells? And then they may not be back to the city for weeks, so they have to find out how to make those components count.

In a game where material components are not being tracked and few magic items are given to the players (especially if the only magic items they find are +1/2/3 variants), I'd say a spellcaster would be fairly impactful by as early as lvl 10. But if your are tracking material components, components are being consumed, it takes downtime for a Wizard to write spells into their book and magic items are being given to martials, I'm not sure there is as big of a divide.

I know I am a bit partial to handing out items with all sorts of effects (both homebrewed and from the books), so I might be biased towards the power and impact of magic items.

* Note, above, when I say 'magic items' I mostly mean things other than +1/2/3 weapons or armor. Those can be powerful in their own right, but they do not expand players options in and outside of combat like, for example, Boots of Flying or a Cube of Force.

Doug Lampert

2021-02-02, 05:46 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

Combat as sport it may never happen, that's the biggest effect. If the players are expected to have their characters simply kick the door down and attack, with no real attempt to prepare and use minions, then warriors may be fine.

Combat as war? Probably level 9. Level 5 spells are a big deal (wall of force, commune, scrying, legend lore, raise dead, awaken, and the list goes on).

Meanwhile, at level 9 the fighter gets Indominable, once per day he can reroll a save (with the same save that just missed), wow. The barbarian gets a modest damage boost when he crits, at least its better than indominable. The Monk gets to walk on walls and water, which is really VERY nice for a martial and useful, but the casters have had fly for 4 levels at this point and while there are times when wall walking is better than flying, there are also plenty of times when it's not. Rogues get an archetype feature, which varies in utility.

So monks get something that MIGHT be worth a level 4 or 5 slot to have up all day; while the casters get a level 4 and a level 5 slot and the half casters gain 2 level 3 slots.

Unoriginal

2021-02-02, 05:49 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

Never. There is no caster over martial dominance.

OldTrees1

2021-02-02, 05:49 PM

Around Tier 3 is when casters continue to exceed my expectations for the tier but martials start to fail my expectations for the tier. Coincidentally this is also around when martials start to multiclass due to dead levels in the latter levels of their classes.

Dominance might start earlier, but martials still exceed my expectations. Tier 2 flying enemies are in range of the Barbarian picking up a bow. Tier 3 flying enemies are out of sight.

However if I, the DM, carefully choose which parts of encounters are Tier 3 and which are just Tier 2++, then I can keep the martial able to engage. If they are able to engage, then it does not become dominance until later. But the ability to engage with Tier 3 instead of Tier 2++ is the issue.

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 05:53 PM

Never. There is no caster over martial dominance.

Hmmm. What do you mean by that?

Without using the words "caster dominance", can you please explain the point you were trying to make? E.g. can a party of four combat-optimized warriors handle the same adventures as a party of four combat-optimized warlocks/druids/wizards/etc.? Are there adventures that the warriors could handle but the casters could not? Something else?

Unoriginal

2021-02-02, 06:46 PM

Hmmm. What do you mean by that?

Without using the words "caster dominance", can you please explain the point you were trying to make?

Sure, but if my statement was unclear, wouldn't OP's be equally unclear and warrant the same explanation request?

E.g. can a party of four combat-optimized warriors handle the same adventures as a party of four combat-optimized warlocks/druids/wizards/etc.? Are there adventures that the warriors could handle but the casters could not? Something else?

There are adventures that four martials can handle that four casters could not, and there are adventures that four casters can handle that four martials could not.

But, more relevant to this thread and *even* more relevant to the game as a whole, there are very few adventures that a group of diverse classes and subclasses and species, each relevant and useful in their own way, cannot handle.

And that is a fact, no matter how many people make threads about how due to X, Y, Z or any fraction of the alphanumerical system, some classes really can urinate further away than the others and as such deserve praise for their mighty kidneys.

Amnestic

2021-02-02, 06:50 PM

There are adventurers that four martials can handle that four casters could not, and there are adventurers that four casters can handle that four martials could not.

I'm guessing you meant adventures instead of adventurers. Are you referring to published modules here or homegrown stuff?

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 06:54 PM

Sure, but if my statement was unclear, wouldn't OP's be equally unclear and warrant the same explanation request?

There are adventurers that four martials can handle that four casters could not, and there are adventurers that four casters can handle that four martials could not.

But, more relevant to this thread and *even* more relevant to the game as a whole, there are very few adventures that a group of diverse classes and subclasses and species, each relevant and useful in their own way, cannot handle.

And that is a fact, no matter how many people make threads about how due to X, Y, Z or any fraction of the alphanumerical system, some classes really can urinate further away than the others and as such deserve praise for their mighty kidneys.

I would welcome an explanation from the OP but I was interested in the certainty with which you expressed your perspective. Thanks for explaining. I don't really agree with your first point past a certain level (there are no adventures anyone would actually run that four 10th level warriors can handle but four 10th level casters could not--i.e. I'm excluding adventures like "this whole adventure takes place in an antimagic zone"), but I do agree with your second point.

Warriors aren't unfun or useless.

Unoriginal

2021-02-02, 07:01 PM

I'm guessing you meant adventures instead of adventurers.

I did. Thanks for correcting me.

Are you referring to published modules here or homegrown stuff?

Both.

A caster-only party in, for example, Descent into Avernus would be hilariously awful. If they're all Clerics or maybe Warlocks they could have a chance, but otherwise... On the other hand, I wouldn't bet a ton on an all-martial party in the attack of the Sahuagin stronghold in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

Amnestic

2021-02-02, 07:05 PM

A caster-only party in, for example, Descent into Avernus would be hilariously awful.

I'm guessing you mean full casters here rather than eg. pallydans or rangoreos. Having not played DiA, what makes a full caster party bad for it? Lack of resting opportunity?

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 07:06 PM

A caster-only party in, for example, Descent into Avernus would be hilariously awful. If they're all Clerics or maybe Warlocks they could have a chance, but otherwise... On the other hand, I wouldn't bet a ton on an all-martial party in the attack of the Sahuagin stronghold in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

I haven't played Descent Into Avernus. Would it be awful only at low levels? What would be awful about e.g. a Goblin Shepherd Druid 10, a Goblin Moon Druid 10, a House Lyrandar (Mark of Storms) Hexblade 10, and a House Jorasco (Mark of Healing) Illusionist 9/Life Cleric 1? What's something in that adventure that they would struggle with but a 10th level party of warriors would find easy?

Unoriginal

2021-02-02, 07:25 PM

I'm guessing you mean full casters here rather than eg. pallydans or rangoreos.

Indeed.

Having not played DiA, what makes a full caster party bad for it? Lack of resting opportunity?

I haven't played Descent Into Avernus. Would it be awful only at low levels? What would be awful about e.g. a Goblin Shepherd Druid 10, a Goblin Moon Druid 10, a House Lyrandar (Mark of Storms) Hexblade 10, and a House Jorasco (Mark of Healing) Illusionist 9/Life Cleric 1? What's something in that adventure that they would struggle with but a 10th level party of warriors would find easy?

I will not say the martials would find it easy, but once you're in Hell it's a combination of having plenty of hard-hitting, sturdy enemies with a lot of resistances (including Magical Resistance) showing up in number, traveling either requiring you to do a CON-check each hour to avoid gaining exhaustion or to spend soul coins (which are not easy to find) to fuel an Infernal War Machine, long rests risking to turn you evil (and costing precious fuel for your War Machine), scarcity of precious material components, scarcity of spellbooks for the wizard, and various encounters with creatures or environment that do not play the casters' usual strength.

Martials wouldn't find it easy, that's 100% true, but that adventure grinds at casters pretty heavily.

Anonymouswizard

2021-02-02, 07:28 PM

Prepared full casters dominate in iversatility from level 1. However if hat matters varies a lot from table to table.

The key issue to the problem is that advancement in spellcasting leads to more versatility increases than anything else. However, in 5e there is never a single class that is useless at any level, and a balanced team will probably do better than Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard (unlike a certain also popular edition).

The exact turnover point depends on the exact classes, and I'm not familiar enough with the game to give a decent estimate. My immediate answer would be 7, as it's the first time new slot levels come online after extra attack, but I'm not sure if there are any 4th level spell strong enough to matter. My general rule is that when casters get access to both flying and raising the dead they have surpassed martials, but that's a personal definition based on what those markers meant in older editions of D&D (strong buffs for the wizard and classic attack spells by the time Fly arrives, and mundanes used to get followers when Raise Dead turned up to keep them competitive).

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-02, 07:33 PM

Prepared full casters dominate in iversatility from level 1.

They die easy at level 1 and level 2. I don't call that dominance. Though I'll give the nod to the 5e cleric on not being as killable at levels 1 and 2 as all other full casters. (Moon Druids own 15 minute adventure days at level 2, but in a day with loads of encounters, they do run out of tools since the beast form AC is so low. Easy to hit)

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-02, 08:18 PM

My thoughts, based on 14 or so parties ranging all over the levels, with most in the T2 range:

1. The game is a whole lot easier to plan for and runs better with a broad variety of build types. Magic, non-magic, whatever. 4 wizards is harder to DM for than a balanced party, as is 4 fighters.
2. The amount of dominance you see strongly depends on the particularities of the adventure and world.
3. Dominance starts earlier and becomes most pronounced when a few factors are in play:
3a. Non-magic is treated "realistically"
3b. Spells are allowed to be "creative" and go beyond their printed text (applying in places and ways and producing effects that they don't say they do).
3c. Content creators plan adventures with specific magical effects as solutions[1].
3d. Resources are not a binding constraint (ie 1 encounter per day, no real checking of components, etc)
3e. Shenanigans (I'm looking at you simulacrum and various conjure spells!)

As long as people aren't actively looking to break things or compete to see who can make the strongest characters, my experience is that class is the least impactful constraint on the narrative, well below things like player personality and engagement. My 1-20 campaign had a warlock, a rogue (AT, but rarely cast spells), a monk, and a druid. The two that drove the campaign's narrative were the warlock and the rogue, but that had nothing to do with their classes or features. It had everything to do with the personalities playing them and the characters' personalities. The monk was new and a bit retiring (played team mom most of the time), while the druid was similar. In my other major long-running game (1-15), the paladin and bard drove things while the other characters mostly were there for combat, no matter whether they were playing clerics or barbarians. In fact, one of them was more useful to the party as a barbarian than as a cleric. And the other, who played a rogue, basically stood in a corner and shot things. And sought out shinies. Even when he played a sorcerer, his major interaction was fireball. And then fireball again. One target? fireball. Many targets? fireball.

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-02, 08:26 PM

Even when he played a sorcerer, his major interaction was fireball. And then fireball again. One target? fireball. Many targets? fireball.
In my brother's campaign, our elven wizard has a similar theory on life. There can never be too much fireball. Good thing he's playing a monk in the Tamoachan adventure I am running. :smallyuk:
In that adventure, whenever you cast fireball bits of the building tend to fall on the party and cause damage.

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-02, 08:26 PM

Indeed.

I will not say the martials would find it easy, but once you're in Hell it's a combination of having plenty of hard-hitting, sturdy enemies with a lot of resistances (including Magical Resistance) showing up in number, traveling either requiring you to do a CON-check each hour to avoid gaining exhaustion or to spend soul coins (which are not easy to find) to fuel an Infernal War Machine, long rests risking to turn you evil (and costing precious fuel for your War Machine), scarcity of precious material components, scarcity of spellbooks for the wizard, and various encounters with creatures or environment that do not play the casters' usual strength.

Martials wouldn't find it easy, that's 100% true, but that adventure grinds at casters pretty heavily.

I'm currently DMing this mod and I'd generally agree. I also think back to the fight we had against Tiamat at the end of tier 3, which was largely about the Wizard buffing the 2 archers who did most of the damage. At least until the end of tier 3 (which our group has played many times) I'm not sure I agree with the premice of the OP's question.

OldTrees1

2021-02-02, 08:38 PM

I'm currently DMing this mod and I'd generally agree. I also think back to the fight we had against Tiamat at the end of tier 3, which was largely about the Wizard buffing the 2 archers who did most of the damage. At least until the end of tier 3 (which our group has played many times) I'm not sure I agree with the premice of the OP's question.

I find 5E combat leans heavily in the PCs favor. So the difference in damage, while present, is not a big deal. It is the things that enable the adventure / engagement that are harder to achieve in the higher levels.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-02, 08:42 PM

I find 5E combat leans heavily in the PCs favor. So the difference in damage, while present, is not a big deal. It is the things that enable the adventure / engagement that are harder to achieve in the higher levels.

Unless you define those as being magic only, I've not seen a difference. Things like teleport and fly are overrated IMO. And if a DM makes a campaign that requires specific spells to beat, well, I'd call that close to railroading.

Tanarii

2021-02-02, 08:56 PM

Martial over full caster dominance ends sometime around levels 7-9. That's when full casters start managing to really keep up.

From personal experience, full Caster Dominance hasn't started by 12-13 or so, although the few Tier 3 games were extremely limited, so comparatively speaking my experience is just a fraction of Tier 1 or Tier 2. But that was still my impression.

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 08:58 PM

I will not say the martials would find it easy, but once you're in Hell it's a combination of having plenty of hard-hitting, sturdy enemies with a lot of resistances (including Magical Resistance) showing up in number, traveling either requiring you to do a CON-check each hour to avoid gaining exhaustion or to spend soul coins (which are not easy to find) to fuel an Infernal War Machine, long rests risking to turn you evil (and costing precious fuel for your War Machine), scarcity of precious material components, scarcity of spellbooks for the wizard, and various encounters with creatures or environment that do not play the casters' usual strength.

Martials wouldn't find it easy, that's 100% true, but that adventure grinds at casters pretty heavily.

Honestly that sounds like an adventure the casters would have an easier time with than the warriors, due to (1) druid wildshape, plus (2) warlock-fueled Lyrandar elemental summons, both of which are on a 2x short rest timer and don't require material components, plus (3) efficient healing from the Jorasco doc minimizing the need for long rests when PCs do take real damage. The casters will want Resilient (Con), but so would monks or rangers or rogues, and it's not like Resilient (Con) isn't popular anyway. And unlike warriors, at least the casters have a way to heal exhaustion without taking days to rest.

It's not like the proposed caster party is short on at-will options either (Goblin Nimble Escape, warlock invocations, Malleable Illusion shenanigans), so easy encounters won't burn them out.

Shortage of material components or found spellbooks wouldn't be an issue for two druids, a warlock, and one wizard. Not that they couldn't make good use of it if they did find e.g. gems for Planar Binding, but it isn't essential--spell focii and auto-spells from levelling up will be good enough to be better off than the warriors would be.

Prepared full casters dominate in iversatility from level 1. However if hat matters varies a lot from table to table.

The key issue to the problem is that advancement in spellcasting leads to more versatility increases than anything else. However, in 5e there is never a single class that is useless at any level, and a balanced team will probably do better than Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard (unlike a certain also popular edition).

The exact turnover point depends on the exact classes, and I'm not familiar enough with the game to give a decent estimate. My immediate answer would be 7, as it's the first time new slot levels come online after extra attack, but (A) I'm not sure if there are any 4th level spell strong enough to matter. My general rule is that when casters get access to both flying and raising the dead they have surpassed martials, but that's a personal definition based on what those markers meant in older editions of D&D (strong buffs for the wizard and classic attack spells by the time Fly arrives, and mundanes used to get followers when Raise Dead turned up to keep them competitive).

(A) Polymorph springs immediately to mind. Summon Greater Demon plays a similar role in obsoleting warriors, but it's harder to use except in short bursts, whereas Polymorph last an hour.

They die easy at level 1 and level 2. I don't call that dominance. Though I'll give the nod to the 5e cleric on not being as killable at levels 1 and 2 as all other full casters. (Moon Druids own 15 minute adventure days at level 2, but in a day with loads of encounters, they do run out of tools since the beast form AC is so low. Easy to hit)

Mage Armor is great for a Moon Druid. A wizard buddy with Mage Armor can boost a Moon Druid to AC 13-15, which is enough to completely outclass level 2 warriors all day long. They're not so outclassed at level 5, but by level 5 the Moon Druid has other tricks (and even the Mage Armor trick stays good). The main thing warriors at better at than Moon Druids is killing from a distance, via archery, but then again so are warlocks.

LudicSavant

2021-02-02, 08:59 PM

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

That also depends upon player skill.

The biggest effect on changing it is player skill. Full casters tend to be characterized by a high optimization ceiling, but a low floor.

A caster-only party in, for example, Descent into Avernus would be hilariously awful.

I'm guessing you're saying this because of elemental resistance and magic resistance. The thing about these things is that they're not actually a meaningful impediment to skilled caster players, who will be intimately familiar with the many, many ways to get around or simply ignore such things.

I see no reason that a caster-only party wouldn't steamroll Descent into Avernus, other than user error.

MaxWilson

2021-02-02, 09:13 PM

Unless you define those as being magic only, I've not seen a difference. Things like teleport and fly are overrated IMO. And if a DM makes a campaign that requires specific spells to beat, well, I'd call that close to railroading.

If a DM makes an adventure that gives you an advantage for doing something (like following a map to a certain dungeon 200 miles across the ocean to get better magic items before assaulting an enemy base), and magic makes that thing convenient (Teleport) but the DM also tends to give you a chance to accomplish those same things differently (70% chance you can find a ship going in that direction, 2 weeks and 1000 gold for the round trip) in addition to whatever the party can come up with itself (if the party has previously befriended the Lord of the Eagles maybe they could beg a ride that way too), that isn't railroading. But it isn't coddling either--players who prepare for a broad range of challenges will be more successful in that adventure than those who think only tactically.

Tanarii

2021-02-02, 09:39 PM

Given a 33-43% chance of mishap, teleporting yourself to dungeons isn't a long term survival strategy.

Now if the DM has given you a verified object from the dungeon ... well clearly they are tailoring to help you use that shiny teleport spell, and it was taken into account. Go to it!

It's a great way to get home when you're done looting the dungeon of course. Possibly without much loot, depending on how your DM rules it treats objects.

Fable Wright

2021-02-02, 10:33 PM

In my eyes, it depends on what you mean by 'caster', what you mean by 'martial', and what you mean by 'dominance'.

If by 'dominance', you mean 'ability to strategically impact the game'? That's easy; it starts at level 9 with Teleportation Circle, and gets progressively wider-reaching with level 6+ Planar Binding and similar shenanigans. In my game, the party is made of a 20th level Cleric, 20th level Wizard, 20th level Bard, 20th level Fighter/spellcaster multiclass, 20th level Artificer.

The Cleric, the Wizard, and the Bard are the party taxi. They spend around half their level 6+ slots teleporting the party around for the adventure. The GM has gently disabused them of the notion of Planar Binding, True Polymorphing some sticks into minions, and Simulacrum chains.

In combat, the Wizard and the Bard usually wind up using Bigby's Hand and use some minor battlefield control, and the fighter destroys anything that moves with ranged damage. In combat, the GM is trying to figure out how to balance around the Fighter's capabilities, and not the rest of the party's. In this combat as sport environment, martials seem overtuned; next most important/relevant is Expertise on skills corresponding to primary abilities. Those see a lot more use than high level spells, outside of taxi.

So at the table I'm at... it doesn't?

Sigreid

2021-02-02, 10:40 PM

JackPhoenix

2021-02-02, 11:04 PM

I haven't played Descent Into Avernus. Would it be awful only at low levels? What would be awful about e.g. a Goblin Shepherd Druid 10, a Goblin Moon Druid 10, a House Lyrandar (Mark of Storms) Hexblade 10, and a House Jorasco (Mark of Healing) Illusionist 9/Life Cleric 1? What's something in that adventure that they would struggle with but a 10th level party of warriors would find easy?

Existing in the first place, as BG:DiA is a FR adventure, and your proposed party has Eberron characters.

OldTrees1

2021-02-02, 11:58 PM

Unless you define those as being magic only, I've not seen a difference. Things like teleport and fly are overrated IMO. And if a DM makes a campaign that requires specific spells to beat, well, I'd call that close to railroading.

I find that it is an emergent property. One does not "define those as being magic only" because one does not define them as bein solved by X, Y, Z. One makes a situation and then you do a quick check to see what options the PCs might have. The Players can surprise you with additional solutions, but you first check to see what solutions you can see as a DM. There are plenty of examples where D&D disappointed me by the lack of non spell options. This is especially aggravating if I could instantly innovate multiple class appropriate features. If I have a plague leviathan that is coating a land in a pox despite staying aloft 1000s of feet in the air, then I want D&D to have more solutions for that. But often I end up either abandoning the Tier 3 encounter for some mere Tier 2++ encounters, or I patch the game with magic items.

This sounds like you work with a lot of casters that don't realize often the best use of a spell slot is a spell cast on the martial.

??? Wildly bad guess. I have not had the experience of running for or playing with such an misinformed caster. In the case of the plague leviathan I lucked out. The party as a whole has enough casters + magic items to mitigate the pox and travel to the leviathan. However I can still see plenty of missed design opportunities for Tier 3 martial features that would have also worked if they existed.

Now both of you might notice I used the same example to reply to both of you. That is because that case was a borderline case. This particular party (including some magic items) could handle it, despite 5E not having as much martial Tier 3 support. Since they could handle it, I did not abandon it. When I cannot foresee enough options for engagement, I abandon the encounter. I have more discarded encounters than working encounters in Tier 3. I have almost no discarded Tier 2 or Tier 2++ encounters. That, plus other evidence, is why I see that boundary as the turning point (although also why I don't think "dominance" is the right word. Doing better is not an issue if the other can still engage.).

Frogreaver

2021-02-02, 11:58 PM

Depends on Feats/Magic Items/# of encounters/spell selection.

I would say that in most games a caster starts to dominate the game when he can cast a level 3+ spell every encounter while also having a decent at will option. I'd say this starts for sure at level 9 in a typical game. By level 11 it's substantially improved.

That said, if feats/magic items/# of encounter/spell selection leans the martials way then this can be delayed a little longer. Or vice versa it can be accelerated if those parameters are in the casters favor.

All this said, there's little comparison to the combat dominance something like a CE+SS BM can produce from levels 3-8.

kingcheesepants

2021-02-03, 12:36 AM

I'll echo those saying that it depends on what you mean by dominance and that it will vary considerably from table to table and be based more on the players and DM than anything else.

If by caster dominance you mean something along the lines of the casters significantly overshadowing the martials in the majority of encounters (combat, social and exploration) to the point that the martials don't really have anything to do. Than I would say that such dominance never occurs unless there is a significant gap between the various players' skill/engagement. A skilled player will dominate if all his peers are unskilled no matter what he's playing. If the players are all of roughly equal skill and the DM is good at reading the room and giving appropriate challenges and opportunites to shine for everyone, than no player should ever be dominating.

I've run or played in games at every tier and I can say that I have seen casters completely bypassing or making trivial certain encounters, but I've also seen martials doing the same and I've also seen both types of character get shut down hard. I've had to run enemies with all sorts of anti magic stuff (rakshas and ultroloths and what have you with tons of anti magic) in order to counter casters. But I've also had to scramble to figure out how to make enemies that wouldn't die in the first round when our fighter/rouge can manage to stealth 10 above anyone's passive perception and just sneak attack for 200+ damage before disappearing again.

Waazraath

2021-02-03, 03:53 AM

In my current game (lvl 9), dungeon crawl, the Fighter is still at least as important as the Sorcerer in encounters. As things are going, I'd rather have 4 fighters than 4 sorcerers. And that is my general experience (tier 1 and 2), there is no such thing as caster dominance. Some builds and classes are stronger, but this is not a martial / caster divide. If anytyhing, I tend to thinking the halfcasters (mainly paladin and artificer) to be a tad stronger over all, but that might be personal preference. It ain't 'dominance' though, for sure.

Furthermore, I think most important things have been said already. It highly depends on how you play the game, as #19 gives good examples of. Maybe it's different on the highest levels, but I've enough experience in older editions, especially 3.x that did have a caster/martial divide, to extrapolate from there that it shoulndn't be too much of a problem, if at all.

J.C.

2021-02-03, 03:56 AM

At level 9 for the most intelligent of Wizards. Pmw.

clash

2021-02-03, 08:14 AM

Just going to chime in that high level spells are going to fall into 3 categories:
1. Spells like simulacrum will either never see use(see time requirements) or any sensible dm will never allow real shenanigans with it.
2. Spells like plane shift are just a waste of a slot because any obstacle that requires it will have a way of solving it without having the spell, unless the dm specifically added the obstacle or didn't give a way of solving it because you have plane shift in which case if you hadn't taken that spell you wouldn't have to spend that spell slot solving the encounter.
3. Combat based spells. These are good but not good enough in my opinion to establish a level of disparity between casters and martial. Any real disparity exists in type 2 and as I said those cases would have been solved without the spell regardless.

stoutstien

2021-02-03, 09:05 AM

Casters never get to the point where they dominate like past editions but players who know casters and plan accordingly can start to emulate martial options around lv 9-13 well enough to cause some envy if the martial didn't also take the same steps to diversify their own options.

da newt

2021-02-03, 09:24 AM

IMO "dominance" is a problematic term (trigger), and probably not the most correct one either.

I find that casters become more impactful than martials around level 9. While a martial can NOVA damage or lockdown one foe, a clever caster can change the entire battle. The scale / scope of the PC's impact becomes order of magnitudes different.

On the other hand, many casters are still quite squishy and a party really benefits from some dedicated front line specialists, but IME around this level there tends to be a roll reversal where the casters were support for the damage dealing martials at earlier levels, the martials transition to a support roll protecting the casters so they can cast freely.

(and then there are the tweeners that are Paladins or Gish builds that complicate the discussion)

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-03, 09:28 AM

The biggest effect on changing it is player skill. Full casters tend to be characterized by a high optimization ceiling, but a low floor. Well said. For new players, I find that DM coaching, or coaching from experienced players is commonly required; getting the most out of spells and spell selection is a bit of an art. For beginners I usually recommend a wizard, cleric, or druid for a full caster because they can change their load out and experiment with various spells; 'known' casters don't have that flexibility.

And by the time we get to near the end of tier 2 and into early tier 3, you can expect a Martial to have a magic item. The game includes them. In AL you can plan for one if need be. Getting those boots of flying can make a bit of a difference, as but one example.

Depends on Feats/Magic Items/# of encounters/spell selection. {snip}
All this said, there's little comparison to the combat dominance something like a CE+SS BM can produce from levels 3-8. We have found in our groups that the casters control and shape the battlefield, or debuff/remove key enemies and the martials trash the enemy. The occasional fireball or spike growth or wall of fire to do damage to groups makes the clean up easier.

Xervous

2021-02-03, 09:47 AM

Depends on how many narrative handcuffs are applied to the casters and how many handicap ramps are deployed for the martials. In a game where one archetype is defined by preexisting options and the other by a relative absence of such the question is how much corrective force the GM applies.

There’s also the definition of dominance which seems to be pretty vague. Is the wizard dominating a plot made for Tier 1 capabilities with his Tier 2 capabilities? Is the fighter dominating the number chugging stand-and-slap fights? Is the warlock slaughtering everyone else on lore tie ins and emotional relevance? Is the champion fighter the absolute front runner because it’s all the complexity that Jimbo’s party can handle?

Tanarii

2021-02-03, 10:06 AM

I find that casters become more impactful than martials around level 9. While a martial can NOVA damage or lockdown one foe, a clever caster can change the entire battle. The scale / scope of the PC's impact becomes order of magnitudes different.Level 9 is when that capability just about lets full casters finally catch up with Martials..

Angelalex242

2021-02-03, 06:22 PM

Moreb Benhk

2021-02-03, 06:59 PM

As a Paladin player...

Either Paladins have enough spell slots to not miss being full casters much, or smites just highpoint damage well enough that I've never felt 'less' than a full caster.

I do my job, which is tank and smite big single targets.

I also tend to be oath of ancients with 20 (or 22 if I find the book) charisma, handing out saving throws and a +5(6) to saves.

Paladins are always a tricky point for caster vs martial, given they are decidedly both. I do note that the 'martial' aspects of a Paladin are pretty much online by level 5 and only really increase numerically therafter, but the more castery aspects of a paladin continue to increase qualitatively in terms of new kinds of things being possible that weren't previously.

And I find this as a general rule for most of the martial-caster divide. Martial characters (and martial aspects of the hybrid-types) are pretty much fully online by 5th level, and from then on its mostly numbers going up. They generally don't get to do anything qualitatively new therafter. Casters are really only starting to hit their stride at 5th (3rd levels spells are a huge step up from 2nd in what they can do) and they gain qualitatively new capacities at least every 2 levels thereafter, while also advancing in plain numbers.

My experience has been that by 5th, the game has more or less plumbed the depth of what a martial character can achieve (outside of hitting the bigger numbers), and thereafter they are just doing the same things but only more bigly, while casters become more and more flexible, diverse and adaptable as levels increase, gaining new kinds of solutions to problems (new and old), and its at around that 5th level mark that the casters just pull away in every area that isn't pure damage / damage taking.

Amdy_vill

2021-02-03, 07:06 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

depends on a lot of factors, from player skill to the given build soon on but stepping back and looking over the general and addressing it in the largest and broadest sense its starts at level 5 for full casters and level 10 for half caster, with it becoming a massive gap around level 10 for full casters and between level 10-15 for half casters. but this is supper generalized as the caster over martial dominance is its self a supper generalized idea. the biggest effects are builds, player skill, and the presence of magic items. magic items can both level or exacerbate the problem.

BoutsofInsanity

2021-02-04, 10:56 AM

I think, generally, and bear this in mind, it's right around level 9 and up. I only say this because that's about when Caster's can "win" an encounter with an over-sized influence. They can only do it a 1 - 2 times per day.

But that's typically what is thought of as Caster dominance. They have enough spell slots and versatility to begin dominating or answering problems that occur within the campaign. They have answers.

There is a big giant BUT attached to this statement though.

If...

You have more than two resource draining encounters per long rest
You have made sure to give interesting magical items to everyone in the party
You aren't babying the caster as a DM
Material Components
Variety of engagements and strategy within combats used by the enemies
Downtime is used for periods lasting longer than a couple of days

Then that "dominance" disappears and it becomes everyone's game.

dmhelp

2021-02-04, 11:29 AM

Tanarii

2021-02-04, 11:33 AM

So it sounds like giving martials some extra utility at 9 and 15 could be a good idea.
I wouldn't give them anything before 14th. They've only just caught up with Martials at the end of the previous Tier, and haven't gained a dominating position as late as 13th.

stoutstien

2021-02-04, 12:10 PM

I wouldn't give them anything before 14th. They've only just caught up with Martials at the end of the previous Tier, and haven't gained a dominating position as late as 13th.

Eh. Barbarian could use something before then. The critical effect is a joke and it's a long way until the next big feature.

Willie the Duck

2021-02-04, 12:27 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

The biggest effect is probably going to be how much you are expected to get done between long rests. If you can go recharge all your spells slots in between every major-- let's call them Significant Events* -- than the level where they tend (/have the capacity) to warp the adventure-solving conversation goes down.
*Something where the presence of a caster saying, 'oh, I know, I cast _____' and it either solves the problem or greatly changes the time/effort/cost/likelihood of success.

Waazraath

2021-02-04, 12:49 PM

Eh. Barbarian could use something before then. The critical effect is a joke and it's a long way until the next big feature.

Tasha's gave them 2 extra feats for free, which is something for the not-combat pillars. Having said that: the critical effect is indeed pretty poor; damage increase is a bit boring, and in addition not too nuch and situational/unreliable.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-04, 12:50 PM

*Something where the presence of a caster saying, 'oh, I know, I cast _____' and it either solves the problem or greatly changes the time/effort/cost/likelihood of success.

To me, the existence of such events, where one person taking one action solves a problem or solves it all but cleanup, is an issue. Specifically with adventure design.

Any challenge that can be solved by a single action of a single person is a bad challenge. Bad both because it is binary--trivial if you have the right spell/ability, painful otherwise and because it goes against the primary gameplay of D&D--teamwork.

For the following, LET "you" = "the adventure designer"

And I don't just mean casters. If you're putting out nature challenges that are trivialized by the presence of a ranger, you built a bad challenge. If you put out traps that are resolved simply by one person having high enough passive perception, you built a bad challenge. If you made a murder mystery that can be trivialized by speak with dead, you built a bad challenge. Now those can be sub-challenges of bigger things, but nothing significant should be able to be trivialized (either completely or primarily) by a single action of a single person. Every Significant Event should require the entire party (or large chunks of it) to act in concert, each in their own way.

Finding shelter in the wilderness? Trivial. Finding shelter in the wilderness while being chased by an army and dealing with rocks falling down on your head because the giants are playing ball? More of a challenge.

A single simple trap? Trivial. A trap that is part of a larger combat? Might be worth my time.

A murder where the victim a) knows who killed them, b) is willing to talk about it, c) has enough recoverable body? Trivial. A murder with red herrings, missing or substituted bodies, or where there's a larger conspiracy? Not so trivial.

/rant

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-04, 01:05 PM

A murder where the victim a) knows who killed them, b) is willing to talk about it, c) has enough recoverable body? Trivial. A murder with red herrings, missing or substituted bodies, or where there's a larger conspiracy? Not so trivial.

/rant I've got one of those in my Saltmarsh group right now. Various clues have been tossed out, and they appear to need a few more. (Murder happend around level 3 to 4, one of the party members, but it was a player who had to bail out on us due to RL getting really tough/job stuff.

And there was another murder attempt later that failed because the dwarf target (not a PC) has resistance to poison damage.

JNAProductions

2021-02-04, 01:07 PM

To me, the existence of such events, where one person taking one action solves a problem or solves it all but cleanup, is an issue. Specifically with adventure design.

Any challenge that can be solved by a single action of a single person is a bad challenge. Bad both because it is binary--trivial if you have the right spell/ability, painful otherwise and because it goes against the primary gameplay of D&D--teamwork.

For the following, LET "you" = "the adventure designer"

And I don't just mean casters. If you're putting out nature challenges that are trivialized by the presence of a ranger, you built a bad challenge. If you put out traps that are resolved simply by one person having high enough passive perception, you built a bad challenge. If you made a murder mystery that can be trivialized by speak with dead, you built a bad challenge. Now those can be sub-challenges of bigger things, but nothing significant should be able to be trivialized (either completely or primarily) by a single action of a single person. Every Significant Event should require the entire party (or large chunks of it) to act in concert, each in their own way.

Finding shelter in the wilderness? Trivial. Finding shelter in the wilderness while being chased by an army and dealing with rocks falling down on your head because the giants are playing ball? More of a challenge.

A single simple trap? Trivial. A trap that is part of a larger combat? Might be worth my time.

A murder where the victim a) knows who killed them, b) is willing to talk about it, c) has enough recoverable body? Trivial. A murder with red herrings, missing or substituted bodies, or where there's a larger conspiracy? Not so trivial.

/rant

That being said, is there anything wrong with trivial challenges? If you know they're trivial, let them be a showcase of how awesome the PCs are.

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-04, 01:12 PM

That being said, is there anything wrong with trivial challenges? If you know they're trivial, let them be a showcase of how awesome the PCs are. you can toss a few simple ones into an adventure day, for pacing, yeah. But I tend to agree with Phoenix. An encounter/adventure needs to test the team, not a single facet of team.

Tanarii

2021-02-04, 01:32 PM

Willie the Duck

2021-02-04, 01:34 PM

/rant

Be that as it may, I am using that as my unit of activity, not of adventure design. The question (my question, or point) isn't whether a challenge can be solved by a single action, but whether the spellcaster can go recharge between said actions. If the wizard can solve the 'we need a way to get to the lever over the pit' problem, and then regain spells before dealing with the 'we have to get through this 8" stone wall' problem, then their spellcasting ability is disproportionately valuable (compared to the martials with skills and hammers and chisels and crowbars) in comparison to the scenario where they can address one or the other but not both.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-04, 01:37 PM

That being said, is there anything wrong with trivial challenges? If you know they're trivial, let them be a showcase of how awesome the PCs are.

Trivial challenges aren't inherently a problem, but the existence and triviality of them shouldn't be used as a judge of balance or anything else. They're trivial.

I'm fine with building things to show off PCs. But if (as I suspect), that mainly happens to show off how awesome spells are, or if they're being unintentionally trivialized (ie the designer thought they were real challenges, but they weren't), then there's a problem.

Intentionally trivial challenges basically don't count for anything. They're surface glitter, flashy but meaningless from a system perspective. Unintentionally trivial challenges show that someone along the way didn't understand the system. Or that there's a system issue.

IMO, most of these are the unintentional type. People focus on atomic challenges. Traveling? Challenge is (pick one) finding food/finding shelter/random encounters/weather/speed. It's the pick one part that causes problems. Creating multi-stage, extended challenges is, IMO, the mark of a good scenario designer. I, personally, have a long way to go here as well.

Well, the designers didn't agree with you. They set up a system so you're expected to expend your resources to overcome challenges, and it's an inherent consideration of the difficulty of those challenges.

Huh? I don't see how that's responsive. Take combat encounters (the ones best defined). Combat encounters that only take a single action to overcome aren't even Easy. They're non-encounters. Social encounters that only take one action/check to overcome aren't challenges at all. They're speedbumps (and mighty low ones at that. And I'd say that any combat encounter that can be ended by a single spell is a bad encounter. Sure, it drains resources. But fails to provide fun. And if, in the absence of that spell, it was really a legitimate challenge, that means that the spell itself should not exist (or should exist differently).

JNAProductions

2021-02-04, 01:40 PM

Trivial challenges aren't inherently a problem, but the existence and triviality of them shouldn't be used as a judge of balance or anything else. They're trivial.

I'm fine with building things to show off PCs. But if (as I suspect), that mainly happens to show off how awesome spells are, or if they're being unintentionally trivialized (ie the designer thought they were real challenges, but they weren't), then there's a problem.

Intentionally trivial challenges basically don't count for anything. They're surface glitter, flashy but meaningless from a system perspective. Unintentionally trivial challenges show that someone along the way didn't understand the system. Or that there's a system issue.

IMO, most of these are the unintentional type. People focus on atomic challenges. Traveling? Challenge is (pick one) finding food/finding shelter/random encounters/weather/speed. It's the pick one part that causes problems. Creating multi-stage, extended challenges is, IMO, the mark of a good scenario designer. I, personally, have a long way to go here as well.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Just wanted to, with my post, point out that there's nothing wrong with players feeling awesome or powerful. Not everything needs to be a proper challenge.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-04, 01:44 PM

Agreed wholeheartedly. Just wanted to, with my post, point out that there's nothing wrong with players feeling awesome or powerful. Not everything needs to be a proper challenge.

I agree.

But IMX, I find that trivial, one-step-and-done challenges don't provide real feelings of awesome. I regularly throw in encounters that the party would have had to work for a couple levels earlier as "look how far you've grown." But if they're ended in one action, they feel hollow and fake. Because then, at most, only one person gets to feel awesome. And 9 times out of 10, that ends up being a spellcaster due to their bigger, one-off abilities. I'd rather have an Easy fight where everyone gets involved than a (notionally) Hard fight that one person locks down and the rest merely clean up.

Jon talks a lot

2021-02-04, 01:44 PM

At level 9 for the most intelligent of Wizards. Pmw.

JC back at it again with his superiority complex.

OldTrees1

2021-02-04, 02:23 PM

Sorry if I brought up a toxic term. It is a term brought up a lot when you tinker with the wrong rule. I’ve just been dming for rangers and rogues.

So it sounds like giving martials some extra utility at 9 and 15 could be a good idea.

It has been mentioned that half casters are ok but does that really include Rangers?

I am one of the harsher critics of class features. Paladin is less than perfectly designed in Tier 3 (it is worse in Tier 4). There are levels that feel like Tier 2 or Tier 1. However Rangers are even worse off.

I think you can safely buff Tier 3 Rangers as if they were Tier 3 Fighter/Barbarian/Monk.

dmhelp

2021-02-04, 03:37 PM

I am one of the harsher critics of class features. Paladin is less than perfectly designed in Tier 3 (it is worse in Tier 4). There are levels that feel like Tier 2 or Tier 1. However Rangers are even worse off.

I think you can safely buff Tier 3 Rangers as if they were Tier 3 Fighter/Barbarian/Monk.

So what I am hearing is that Barbarians/Fighters/Monks/Rangers/Rogues can safely get a buff at level 14, but it should be utility based.

So don't do something like give Fighters 4th attack at level 14, because that is just more of the same (they already excel at damage).

mistajames

2021-02-04, 03:50 PM

Martials start taking a back seat by about level 13 or so. It's not combat so much as it is out-of-combat versatility. Martials need to get more at higher levels to keep them in line with their caster counterparts.

Bobthewizard

2021-02-04, 03:59 PM

In boss fights, I'd say never. Martial characters are outstanding at single target damage and that ability carries through the whole game. Most spell casters struggle to keep up (although some can), and legendary resistance keeps control spells from dominating.

At almost everything else - swarms, puzzles, social, exploration - casters are better right from level 1. They can do everything martial characters can do, not always as well but they can still do them. Plus they have spells to do things martial characters just can't.

Just with cantrips like minor illusion, mold earth, and create bonfire, you can do things martial characters can't.

MaxWilson

2021-02-04, 04:36 PM

I agree.

But IMX, I find that trivial, one-step-and-done challenges don't provide real feelings of awesome. I regularly throw in encounters that the party would have had to work for a couple levels earlier as "look how far you've grown." But if they're ended in one action, they feel hollow and fake. Because then, at most, only one person gets to feel awesome. And 9 times out of 10, that ends up being a spellcaster due to their bigger, one-off abilities. I'd rather have an Easy fight where everyone gets involved than a (notionally) Hard fight that one person locks down and the rest merely clean up.

Calling down fire from heaven to annihilate a detachment of soldiers who were sent to arrest you, to make the next soldiers sent to arrest you speak more respectfully, is awesome. Awesome enough to still be iconic three thousand years later.

I mostly agree with the point you're trying to make but where we disagree is that I think trivializing a situation and Crowning Moments of Awesome are not mutually exclusive. It depends more on emotional factors like how NPCs react than it does strictly on challenge.

Of course, those NPC reactions can create trouble down the road--while utterly humiliating an important political enemy with Suggestion ("you urgently need to void your bladder immediately, right this second") can seem awesome at the time, even if the NPC has +0 to Wisdom saves, it might lead to bad things in the long run, like a coup d'etat (he uses military force because his social position has suffered enough that political solutions are no longer viable).

OldTrees1

2021-02-04, 06:16 PM

So what I am hearing is that Barbarians/Fighters/Monks/Rangers/Rogues can safely get a buff at level 14, but it should be utility based.

So don't do something like give Fighters 4th attack at level 14, because that is just more of the same (they already excel at damage).

You have good ears. Combat is fine, but utility is a weakpoint in the high tier class features (excluding spell lists).

Asisreo1

2021-02-04, 10:42 PM

I always find it interesting that the community feels so strongly about nonmagical classes vs magical classes, even though they are rare by all accounts.

A normal table isn't going to just so happen to accidentally form an all-nonmagical party unless they were specifically going for it.

It seems like people are taking one character's strength and, while noticing the absence of it in another, find that as proof of superiority.

Wizards are the kings of versatility, bar none. Their job is to be flexible in the hands of a proficient player. They reward tactical and optimal decision making but punish harshly to those who cannot do so. This extends to most other spellcasters in one way or another.

Nonmagical classes have less versatility but that doesn't mean they're helpless. They have the ability to push the narrative forward by their own merits and they allow a player to feel a diverse set of options without feeling overwhelmed. They don't punish you for being in the background or being in the wrong position nearly as much. And they don't punish you if you say you want to only attack for the rest of combat.

I think those that have a tactical and optimal mind should be respectful to those that do not have the priviledge of understanding every mechanic of the game and having good adaptation skills. It isn't a contest and as a DM, I guarantee any good DM isn't going to set things up where they'll knowingly make an amateur have choose optimal decisions or ruin the game. All that would ensure is no session 2.

Foxhound438

2021-02-04, 11:38 PM

kingcheesepants

2021-02-05, 12:18 AM

As a person who's endured many many 5 minute adventuring days as a monk or fighter, I always felt like the casters were already pulling ahead by level 7 or 8, when they have enough high level spell slots to just blast things with fireballs every turn. That obviously isn't as much of a concern if you do have a more resource intensive adventure between long rests, but a lot of people really enjoy boarding up and taking a long rest after every fight to feed their addiction to being the big badass with fireballs to throw every turn.

That isn't a martial/caster problem that sounds like a problem of a DM who needs to introduce some stakes so that the team doesn't stop to take a nap after every battle. As several others have pointed out the illusion of caster dominance is much easier to see through in a full adventuring day with a number of encounters and challenges that require more than a simple spell cast.

Foxhound438

2021-02-05, 01:29 AM

That isn't a martial/caster problem that sounds like a problem of a DM who needs to introduce some stakes so that the team doesn't stop to take a nap after every battle. As several others have pointed out the illusion of caster dominance is much easier to see through in a full adventuring day with a number of encounters and challenges that require more than a simple spell cast.

Kind of. It's true that a DM can build a story such that you have to keep fighting between rests.

At the same time, it can definitely get tiresome to keep trying to find excuses to make a party run through six different encounters in a day when they adamantly don't want to, and honestly too much combat can make a game worse. Even as a fan of short rest classes, spending too much time waiting for filler encounters to resolve gets really boring compared to getting to the meat of beating up the big bad, or doing a one-off heist and going into hiding, or engaging in the politics of a game, etc.

Realistically, the "Adventuring Day" that includes 5 encounters and 2 short rests as a metric to balance different resource systems around is a major flaw in the core design of 5e. You either force the adventuring day and have a pace that's boring to players who want to spend resources and do impactful things (and even people who just don't find attacking with a longsword 100 times interesting), or you have a much shorter adventuring day and accept the players whose characters are built more for longevity are going to be doing less in combat than the others. I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to come to the table every week having calculated exactly how many fireballs their 15th level group of wizard, sorcerer, and light cleric will be able to cast so that there's a few rounds where the monk can feel like they're not being punished for being a short rest class, but not go too far over and end up making the casters (75% of this table) all get bored as they fall into the much less exciting routine of casting not fireball, and somehow fit enough plot action to break up the 4 hours that much combat is going to take and make it feel like there's no filler fighting. I get that there is some ideal of a perfect DM that would do that every week regardless of how stressful their week was otherwise, but I wouldn't expect that from every DM, just like I wouldn't expect every player to be the ideal player who's put 100 hours of thought into their character before starting the game. I get that there's some amount of DM work that can help alleviate the 5 minute adventuring day problem, but it's not like it's impossible to have fun as a short rest class in a game that's story focused and has about one engaging fight every session before taking a long rest.

I guess that's kind of an off topic rant, but 5 minute adventuring day isn't an uncommon DM style, and the fact that it's "not intended" doesn't really matter to the balance people experience when a lot of people still do it. I mean, if there's someone out there running the grueling gauntlet campaign where you almost never long rest, the short rest classes would be really good there, and casters might be considered weaker even at level 20... But as far as I know no one does that because it turns out that would get really boring.

Captain Panda

2021-02-05, 05:16 AM

It depends on the caster and how much optimal all involves are both building and playing their characters. I would argue that martial characters start off more effective, and there is a slow curve where they fall and casters rise. This is not new to Fifth Edition, but I think the slopes and peaks on either side are more smoothed over now than previous editions. Still, a wizard at 17 who has time and money is powerful enough to solo what a team of five melee characters could do.

I think the casters pass melee, though don't dominate, at about level 9. Considering most gameplay in D&D is from 1-11, that's actually a lot less time for casters to shine than melee. Though I also contend it varies by class and subclass. Druids get some of their best spells early and then have long dry patches where they mostly just upcast conjure animals.

Not that I'm complaining, mind, conjure animals is amazing and bringing in fuzzy friends to eat your enemies is always a good move.

To give an accurate answer it feels like one would need a graph that shows the peaks and valleys of power gain for every subclass! Though on average, 9-10 feels like the point where the lines cross and the melee one is going down.

Ettina

2021-02-05, 06:55 AM

I did. Thanks for correcting me.

Both.

A caster-only party in, for example, Descent into Avernus would be hilariously awful. If they're all Clerics or maybe Warlocks they could have a chance, but otherwise... On the other hand, I wouldn't bet a ton on an all-martial party in the attack of the Sahuagin stronghold in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

That has not been my experience with that module. I've run it twice. The first was with a bard/wizard and a paladin/sorcerer/warlock(I think? definitely paladin/sorcerer/something else), and the gish had more trouble than the full caster (too dependent on fire damage). The second, which has just barely reached Mad Maggie, is a wizard and an artificer, and they're both doing so well that they've killed the narzugon in Elturel that they were supposed to run away from. They're a bit overleveled because they're only two players, but seriously, two lvl 10s killing a CR 13 creature with adds and a flying mount is not what I would consider "hilariously awful" by a long shot.

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 10:17 AM

As a person who's endured many many 5 minute adventuring days as a monk or fighter, I always felt like the casters were already pulling ahead by level 7 or 8, when they have enough high level spell slots to just blast things with fireballs every turn. That obviously isn't as much of a concern if you do have a more resource intensive adventure between long rests, but a lot of people really enjoy boarding up and taking a long rest after every fight to feed their addiction to being the big badass with fireballs to throw every turn.

That is a failure of the DM to use built in rest variants or otherwise adjust their game for operating outside the standard assumptions which are clearly laid out. Not a failure of the game.

Xervous

2021-02-05, 10:29 AM

That is a failure of the DM to use built in rest variants or otherwise adjust their game for operating outside the standard assumptions which are clearly laid out. Not a failure of the game.

Handcuffing casters and red carpeting Martials, D&D never changes.

Take a class that has lots of options, then define their actions by which are relevant or accessible.

Take a class that has nothing, then define their actions by circumstance.

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 10:37 AM

Handcuffing casters and red carpeting Martials, D&D never changes.
If you think casters are handcuffed in 5e, AD&D and BECMI are writhing in their grave.

What I'm talking about is not explicitly over-powering long rest classes by the book. It tells us what the expected baseline is and even how to adjust if you don't want to use it. So a DM failing to do so is a failure of the DM. Not a failure of the game.

Asisreo1

2021-02-05, 10:37 AM

Kind of. It's true that a DM can build a story such that you have to keep fighting between rests.

At the same time, it can definitely get tiresome to keep trying to find excuses to make a party run through six different encounters in a day when they adamantly don't want to, and honestly too much combat can make a game worse. Even as a fan of short rest classes, spending too much time waiting for filler encounters to resolve gets really boring compared to getting to the meat of beating up the big bad, or doing a one-off heist and going into hiding, or engaging in the politics of a game, etc.

Realistically, the "Adventuring Day" that includes 5 encounters and 2 short rests as a metric to balance different resource systems around is a major flaw in the core design of 5e. You either force the adventuring day and have a pace that's boring to players who want to spend resources and do impactful things (and even people who just don't find attacking with a longsword 100 times interesting), or you have a much shorter adventuring day and accept the players whose characters are built more for longevity are going to be doing less in combat than the others. I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to come to the table every week having calculated exactly how many fireballs their 15th level group of wizard, sorcerer, and light cleric will be able to cast so that there's a few rounds where the monk can feel like they're not being punished for being a short rest class, but not go too far over and end up making the casters (75% of this table) all get bored as they fall into the much less exciting routine of casting not fireball, and somehow fit enough plot action to break up the 4 hours that much combat is going to take and make it feel like there's no filler fighting. I get that there is some ideal of a perfect DM that would do that every week regardless of how stressful their week was otherwise, but I wouldn't expect that from every DM, just like I wouldn't expect every player to be the ideal player who's put 100 hours of thought into their character before starting the game. I get that there's some amount of DM work that can help alleviate the 5 minute adventuring day problem, but it's not like it's impossible to have fun as a short rest class in a game that's story focused and has about one engaging fight every session before taking a long rest.

I guess that's kind of an off topic rant, but 5 minute adventuring day isn't an uncommon DM style, and the fact that it's "not intended" doesn't really matter to the balance people experience when a lot of people still do it. I mean, if there's someone out there running the grueling gauntlet campaign where you almost never long rest, the short rest classes would be really good there, and casters might be considered weaker even at level 20... But as far as I know no one does that because it turns out that would get really boring.
It isn't about the adventuring day but the encounters themselves.

One-Trick encounters are easy to predict and certain spellcasters make light work of them. Unpredictable encounters with various moving, but simple, parts keep players on their toes and its usually the ones who can provide consistent damage that ends up carrying the team in those circumstances.

Fighting in the dark, invisible enemies, large amounts of cover, moving terrain, teleporting enemies, ambushers, waves, etc. These make up encounter design that a player can't automatically "win" in a single action since too many factors are at play to guarantee their white-room combat strategies.

Don't give your players whiteroom combats. They're already boring as is and using them as a gauge of strength tips the encounters towards casters.

mistajames

2021-02-05, 10:40 AM

Xervous

2021-02-05, 11:15 AM

If you think casters are handcuffed in 5e, AD&D and BECMI are writhing in their grave.

What I'm talking about is not explicitly over-powering long rest classes by the book. It tells us what the expected baseline is and even how to adjust if you don't want to use it. So a DM failing to do so is a failure of the DM. Not a failure of the game.

And I’m talking about it being on the GM to provide opportunities for martial relevance while limiting the impact of casters. It doesn’t flip and ask the GM to limit martials while providing opportunities for casters to find relevance.

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 11:24 AM

And I’m talking about it being on the GM to provide opportunities for martial relevance while limiting the impact of casters. It doesn’t flip and ask the GM to limit martials while providing opportunities for casters to find relevance.
Trust me, if you go far beyond the expected resource refresh rate in the opposite direction, long rest resource classes suffer, especially the Arcane Nukes. And short and no rest resource classes carry the day far more.

It's just that folks seem to like to break things in the opposite direction far more often.

Xervous

2021-02-05, 11:38 AM

Trust me, if you go far beyond the expected resource refresh rate in the opposite direction, long rest resource classes suffer, especially the Arcane Nukes. And short and no rest resource classes carry the day far more.

It's just that folks seem to like to break things in the opposite direction far more often.

Given the opportunity the players will rest. It is the GM’s decision to deny them said rest. I’m not saying running a 10 encounter day won’t drain the casters, I’m just saying it will only get Martials shining if the GM forces it or the casters consent to it.

kalkyrie

2021-02-05, 11:46 AM

I've run a long term (circa 4 year) campaign, and with thought from the DM martials can definitely feel a key part of the party, up to at least lvl 13.

This centres on their ability to bring consistent damage round after round, without using up resources.
The model here is that casters shut down a battlefield (and clear chaff), while the martials kill the dangerous enemies before they can break out of control effects. Or in some cases, get initiative.

A basic level 11 fighter with Sharpshooter and 20 Dex throws out 3 attacks a round at +4 to hit, for 1d8+15 damage.

As a DM you can tune that up. Let them find a +2 bow and bracers of archery (+2h/+4d).
Make some of your monsters casters (with low AC and hp). Hell, double the damage and half the hps of monsters for quick dangerous fights. (Trust me, it's fun).

Let the party pre-buff with Bless before kicking in the door. Remind them how to get advantage (monk stuns, control effects, knockdowns with Crossbow Mastery, etc, etc). Maybe even give them flametongue weapons or worse-case scenario, custom items.
Your optimised martials should be able to alpha for over 100 damage with Action Surge.
Or in other words, insta-gib a CR12 Archmage.

This is dependent on casters not being left to run too amok though.
At least *some* monsters will have to have some knowledge of what casters are, and simple counters to them.
For example, 'attack the guy in robes first'. 'If facing a horde of animals or flying daggers, break out the AOE attacks'. 'Ignore elementals and rush the guy in robes'. 'If a wall of force is stopping you attacking the party, run for help'.
Not every monster should do that of course - the casters should have their fun some of the time!

You'll obviously have to exclude the really broken stuff (chain simulacrums, 5 minute workdays etc).

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-05, 11:54 AM

If you think casters are handcuffed in 5e, AD&D and BECMI are writhing in their grave. And Original Magic Users are just rolling their eyes.

In T1-T2, your primary caster is usually saving their spells for key moments, but they have a big impact when they go off. Many experienced players do this. Inexperienced players go nova early and often and then realize "wait, all I have left are cantrips?"

In T3-T4, the caster gets so many spells that they can basically always use them.
Yes.

Spells like Slow, Hypnotic Pattern and Hold Person stay useful all game because their DC scales with your spellcasting class DC. These spells are still every bit as good at high levels (or even better, because you have a better selection of spells to target weak saves), and you get a lot of them. Concur.

Given the opportunity the players will rest. It is the GM’s decision to deny them said rest. Or, just have a ticking clock. I really wish the basic rules in the DM section had explicitly had a section on this for new DMs. A glaring omission on the part of the folks who issued the game.

Nice post Nice to see "how it works out in play" rather than abstract argument. +1. :smallsmile:

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 12:05 PM

Given the opportunity the players will rest. It is the GM’s decision to deny them said rest. I’m not saying running a 10 encounter day won’t drain the casters, I’m just saying it will only get Martials shining if the GM forces it or the casters consent to it.
I disagree. My experience is given opportunity, players will push on.

Asisreo1

2021-02-05, 12:11 PM

I think part of this problem comes from how casters are balanced in T1 and T2 play.

In T1-T2, your primary caster is usually saving their spells for key moments, but they have a big impact when they go off. In T3-T4, the caster gets so many spells that they can basically always use them.

Spells like Slow, Hypnotic Pattern and Hold Person stay useful all game because their DC scales with your spellcasting class DC. These spells are still every bit as good at high levels (or even better, because you have a better selection of spells to target weak saves), and you get a lot of them.

A Goristro only has a +7 to Wis saves. Magic resistance or no magic resistance, there's a decent chance it's failing its save against a L20 wizard's Hypnotic Pattern or Fear. With a -2 to Int, anything that targets Int is almost guaranteed to succeed regardless.
What's a single Goristro doing against a level 20 party, though?

At this point, they're an easy encounter and quite possibly has allies in the room.

A goristro only has a 30% chance to fail their save against hypnotic pattern. If they do succeed, they're likely to attack the wizard. A level 20 wizard with +1 con will have roughly 102 hp with AC of 18 with mage armor, 23 with shield. With the Goristro's +13, the player is likely to get hit by most multiattack attacks or charge. That's 83 damage on one turn, over 80% damage to the wizard immediately. If his allies get a piece of the pie, it may knock out the wizard immediately. Worse still, if the allies are spellcasters, they can cast a spell on the wizard and if the wizard used counterspell, they would be basically helpless unless its an intelligence save.

dmhelp

2021-02-05, 12:16 PM

Spells like Slow, Hypnotic Pattern and Hold Person stay useful all game because their DC scales with your spellcasting class DC. These spells are still every bit as good at high levels (or even better, because you have a better selection of spells to target weak saves), and you get a lot of them.

A Goristro only has a +7 to Wis saves. Magic resistance or no magic resistance, there's a decent chance it's failing its save against a L20 wizard's Hypnotic Pattern or Fear. With a -2 to Int, anything that targets Int is almost guaranteed to succeed regardless.

That is a really good point. There is a big change in saves over the editions. In AD&D with your standard ring of protection the weapon spec Fighter had saves of 2 across, failing only on a 1. 3e switched to the strong weak saves. 5e switched to strong and super weak saves.

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-05, 12:28 PM

Kind of. It's true that a DM can build a story such that you have to keep fighting between rests.

At the same time, it can definitely get tiresome to keep trying to find excuses to make a party run through six different encounters in a day when they adamantly don't want to, and honestly too much combat can make a game worse. Even as a fan of short rest classes, spending too much time waiting for filler encounters to resolve gets really boring compared to getting to the meat of beating up the big bad, or doing a one-off heist and going into hiding, or engaging in the politics of a game, etc.

Realistically, the "Adventuring Day" that includes 5 encounters and 2 short rests as a metric to balance different resource systems around is a major flaw in the core design of 5e. You either force the adventuring day and have a pace that's boring to players who want to spend resources and do impactful things (and even people who just don't find attacking with a longsword 100 times interesting), or you have a much shorter adventuring day and accept the players whose characters are built more for longevity are going to be doing less in combat than the others. I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to come to the table every week having calculated exactly how many fireballs their 15th level group of wizard, sorcerer, and light cleric will be able to cast so that there's a few rounds where the monk can feel like they're not being punished for being a short rest class, but not go too far over and end up making the casters (75% of this table) all get bored as they fall into the much less exciting routine of casting not fireball, and somehow fit enough plot action to break up the 4 hours that much combat is going to take and make it feel like there's no filler fighting. I get that there is some ideal of a perfect DM that would do that every week regardless of how stressful their week was otherwise, but I wouldn't expect that from every DM, just like I wouldn't expect every player to be the ideal player who's put 100 hours of thought into their character before starting the game. I get that there's some amount of DM work that can help alleviate the 5 minute adventuring day problem, but it's not like it's impossible to have fun as a short rest class in a game that's story focused and has about one engaging fight every session before taking a long rest.

I guess that's kind of an off topic rant, but 5 minute adventuring day isn't an uncommon DM style, and the fact that it's "not intended" doesn't really matter to the balance people experience when a lot of people still do it. I mean, if there's someone out there running the grueling gauntlet campaign where you almost never long rest, the short rest classes would be really good there, and casters might be considered weaker even at level 20... But as far as I know no one does that because it turns out that would get really boring.

I'm largely inclined to agree with this. Regardless of how I plan sometimes it's just unrealistic to have players on a 'clock' all the time or flat out railroading to get them moving. Our game last night was supposed to be 2 combat encounters separated with a short rest and a couple of social encounters (that may or may not use resources) mixed in. This is a 5th level party going through DiA and I generally try to get more encounters than this in a day, but it was a travel day so fewer seemed to fit.
Anyway, the first encounter didn't go well. The rogue ended up charmed immediately and running back to the last Hamlet to grab the Cambion some tea. The Druid blew his first turn trying to Dispel Magic on the charm, which didn't end up working as I ruled the Charm effect was equivalent to a 4+ level spell. So after blowing those first 2 roles the dice never did turn in the player's favor and they were nearing a TPK by the time the Fiend bugged out. So the short rest I had planned turned into a long rest (I did roll for random encounters but got none.) The next encounter I had, a Hydra attack on a harborside tavern, occurred the next day, and the players were able to kill it rather than save a few peasants and scare it off as I thought they would.
The players had a great time, and our 2 '5 minute adventuring days' were probably a nice change, but I really wish there wasn't this short/ long rest disparity to try and balance on top of everything else a DM needs to worry about.

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-05, 12:42 PM

The players had a great time, and our 2 '5 minute adventuring days' were probably a nice change, but I really wish there wasn't this short/ long rest disparity to try and balance on top of everything else a DM needs to worry about. Plenty of DM's run into this and I think that the basis is the disparity in rest rhythm between classes .... however, in a nicely mixed part that also gives various PCs a chance to shine, but not all of the PCs shine as brightly all the time.

Not sure if that is on purpose or by accident.

heavyfuel

2021-02-05, 12:45 PM

MoiMagnus

2021-02-05, 01:04 PM

I disagree. My experience is given opportunity, players will push on.

A player that cast one fireball per round every round will try to rest asap because otherwise they can't play anymore (because for them the point of playing a spellcaster is to cast powerful spells at every opportunity).

A player that carefully plan for its resource will push to get as much as possible from their resource, because otherwise their planing will go to a waste (because for them the point of playing a spellcaster is to manage resources).

While putting time pressure will push an hesitating player toward the second kind of behaviour, if too much of your players are firmly of the first kind putting time constrains might just result in the campaign failing (TPK, or the players letting the bad guy win) and/or gameplay frustrating for those players. And while the campaign failing is not a problem per itself, if the gameplay is constantly frustrating for most of the players around the table you're DMing wrongly.

You could argue that if you don't want to plan for resources, you should not play D&D and seek for another RPG, but the thing is that if the table is mostly nova players and the DM is lax enough to allow 5min adventuring days, those players can have a blast with D&D without having to search for another RPG.

The main problems being that (1) they might not be aware that they are not playing as intended (2) this balance state might be very frustrating for the minority players, assuming an heterogeneous group (3) this fill some forums with peoples complaining about the balance.

patchyman

2021-02-05, 01:22 PM

Or, just have a ticking clock. I really wish the basic rules in the DM section had explicitly had a section on this for new DMs. A glaring omission on the part of the folks who issued the game.

I agree. I really don’t get the people who say that having a ticking clock on most adventures in unrealistic.

In reality, most of the time I have an objective, I don’t have an unlimited amount of time to complete it.

Tvtyrant

2021-02-05, 01:29 PM

At 11?
At 13?
At 15?
At 17?

If it is campaign dependent what has the biggest effect on changing it?

Mechanically I would say whatever level they can cast a spell at every encounter and not run out. In a really grindy game without resting fairly high level, in a rest heavy game level 5.

MaxWilson

2021-02-05, 01:31 PM

I agree. I really don’t get the people who say that having a ticking clock on most adventures in unrealistic.

In reality, most of the time I have an objective, I don’t have an unlimited amount of time to complete it.

It really depends on whether the objective is reactive or proactive. In a sandboxy environment, my objective may be something like "I found this treasure map etched on a gold coin and I followed it, and now I'm outside a hobgoblin fortress sitting right on the spot where the map says I need to dig."

There are time constraints in this scenario but they're not a ticking clock per se, they're more likely to be something the players created for themselves like "I spent all yesterday lighting campfires on the mountains over there, so this morning half the hobgoblins rode out the gates to go scout out the apparent 'invading force', and I have a while before they get back." They're not hard deadlines.

Note: even in this scenario there's still more than enough time for the party to make multiple hit-and-runs on the hobgoblin fortress with short rests in between (courtesy of Rope Trick or Meld Into Stone or potentially even Pass Without Trace/Dream Druid). Five or six short rests is not unrealistic, and that's one of the awesome things about short-rest-based classes like Moon Druids, warlocks, and monks. The ticking clock is measured in hours, not minutes.

MoiMagnus

2021-02-05, 01:41 PM

I agree. I really don’t get the people who say that having a ticking clock on most adventures in unrealistic.

In reality, most of the time I have an objective, I don’t have an unlimited amount of time to complete it.

Sure, everything realistic have a ticking clock. But some adventures have naturally ticking clocks that are more months than hours.

Are you exploring old ruins that no one in a decade visited with for only objective greed? What's gonna happen if your progress one room per day instead of going all-in? The number of days you pass in the ruins is still negligible compared to the days of travel you took to get there, so supply should not be a problem. Sure, you probably want to be back before winter, so you have a deadline. But not an urgent one.
[It's not difficult for the DM to add a clock. Most films go with a rival trying to explore the ruins first, but you could also go with some sort of big magical curse to force the PCs to explore the ruin quickly. But it's an example where there is no adequately paced clock existing by default.]

I will admit that saying that "having a ticking clock on most adventures in unrealistic" is exagerated, that's IME definitely not the case for most, but I find that in a significant portion of them, the realistic clock is way too long compared to the default pacing of 5e.

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 02:10 PM

The easiest clock to add is a rule that the session ends on a Long Rest. That'll motivate the players to have their PCs behave like they're in a real world better than anything else.

king_steve

2021-02-05, 02:17 PM

The easiest clock to add is a rule that the session ends on a Long Rest. That'll motivate the players to have their PCs behave like they're in a real world better than anything else.

I'm not sure, my sessions are about approx. 2 hours a session and I would say we have a long rest every 3 or 4 sessions. If they had a long rest at the end of each session then I feel like I would run into 5 minute adventuring days, not that it never happens but usually we have more than 1 encounter per day.

diplomancer

2021-02-05, 02:29 PM

MaxWilson

2021-02-05, 02:35 PM

Eldariel

2021-02-05, 02:38 PM

If casters are pulling out all the stops? Level 5 is where casters begin to dominate (due to Animate Dead, Conjure Animals, etc. - Lore Bards need to wait until level 6 though) though first 4 levels are potentially pretty caster-dominated too since martials suck at doing anything around there, while casters can still win an encounter or two and Moon Druid has a "win two encounters per short rest"-button from level 2 while still scaling into a normal Druid with Conjure Animals and all that stupidity. Martials need feats and Extra Attack to really do anything while casters at least have their Sleeps and Minor Illusions and what-not that can do something even on poor rolls.

Frankly, this edition has pretty awful balance in this regard.

Asisreo1

2021-02-05, 06:28 PM

In my opinion, the problem is when a few characters start to outshine others simply by doing their thing.

Characters have their ability to shine in the game, irrespective of whether their class features tell them that they have a perfect tool or not.

Usually, its less that the character is not shining due to class features, hut moreso that the player themselves don't know how to navigate their character to shine.

Remove all hypotheticals and understand that a character, after creation, is mostly just how they are. It doesn't matter that theoretically the wizard could have taken a war wizard background alongside the fighter. The fact is that the wizard is studious and the fighter is a commander.

Or reverse the roles. Or have them take the same roles. Or neither. The point is that your character is moved by the player and while the DM can help or hurt, its ultimately the choices the characters make that make them shine, not their class abilities.

--------------------
Spells seem codified but whats the point of a reliable ability in an unreliable world? If the DM decides that people react to magic in ways unpredictably but still within the rules, the DM still pertains the right to screw you over.

"I cast Charm Person." "The guard flees and tells the king he feels weird near you." "The spell doesn't do that!" "No, but the guard does."

"I cast Wall of Force!" "An earthquake appears and ends you concentration" "That's not fair!" "Actually, concentration can be ended like that."

Spells aren't as DM-proof as people want to believe.

Foxhound438

2021-02-05, 08:30 PM

That is a failure of the DM to use built in rest variants or otherwise adjust their game for operating outside the standard assumptions which are clearly laid out. Not a failure of the game.

I kind of addressed this argument in my longer, admittedly rambly post. TL;DR: It is a flaw of the system to force the DM to jump through that hoop and into the minefield of potentially turning the game into a boring slogfest, and it requires a lot of effort to make that happen every single week that players wouldn't be expected to put in between sessions. See the long post if you want a bunch of qualifying statements to that.

If the game had made all the classes have symmetrical or at least semi-symmetrical resource design, the 5 minute adventuring day wouldn't be as much of a problem. If the casters were as they are, and all the martials looked a bit more like Paladins, where you get a scaling amount of resources that make you do your martial thing but better for that turn, then there would be no need to jump through hoops to make the classes balance by forcing a specific rest structure. Imagine for a moment if battlemasters instead got a number of superiority dice per day that scales in number and die size like a spellcaster's slots (at level 7, you might have 4d6 and 3d8 sup dice, for example), with scaling options that need to use the bigger dice that you get later on like the higher level spell effects. Imagine a monk that gets a single pool of ki per day but keeps getting more splashy and powerful effects at higher levels for higher ki costs. If you had more rests in that system, everyone would feel more powerful all the time. If you had fewer rests, everyone would feel less powerful as they started to run low on resources. Admittedly, I don't think that would be everyone's bag either, but the point is that the rest structure in 5e is ultimately at the heart of the issue a lot of people have.

Sol0botmate

2021-02-05, 08:53 PM

You mean PvP scenario or standard party gamet? Because in terms of "useful in combat" marials are fine all the way (even if boring mostly) and can still deliver pain on Tier 4 without issue. The depend more on magic items but DnD is heavy magic item setting by default so it should not be an issue on higher levels.

There are martial builds that can shut caster really easy but they require dips in casters but PvP scenarios are not your typical table game experience. If we talk about 1v1 white room no preparation duel scenario. But that's waaaay different world than normal game.

From my experience a well build martial (be it damage dealer, tank grappler or range dps) stays strong for all tiers when it comes to combat and I don't think casters dominate over them.

5e introduced Legendary Resistances on enemy bosses, which screws casters really bad. However a well build martial DPR or grappler don't give a dam about Legendary Resistances or Magic Resistance etc. And in my opinion contribute way more to defeating bosses than pure casters.

But since you mostly work together a caster will try to support front liner martial with hazrad spells for grapple combos or with buffs like Haste/Holy Weapon etc. to make them kill boss faster. And with Cleric behind who doesn't really need to battle enemy Legendary Resistance but can place Death Ward, Greater Restoration and Heal on your party martial - martial will make short work on many many enemies in really short time.

But in the end it's all about working together. Fighter will absolutely love Death Ward and Heroes Feast buffs and Holy Weapon or Twilight Aura on him and casters will love their 21+ AC high HP martial buddy making tons of high damage attacks vs enemy bosses, getting half of their HP in one turn.

One example was Curse of Strahd where party martial got Holy Weapon + Haste buff and he took Strahd by himself in 2 turns while Strahd had hard time getting through his 22 AC. He dealt like 180 dmg in 2 turns.

Another exampel was Critical Role where high HP enemy boss came out with Magic Resistance where party had almost no resources and their Barbarian rolled 2x20s + GWM third attack and did like 170-180 damage with Brutal Criticals and deleted boss in single turn. Martials have their place. Especially because they don't rely on Long Rest resources that much and can get most of their stuff at short rests.

Outside of combat? Of course casters dominate way more because spells solve tons of issues. Goodbierries, Tiny Hut, Polymorph, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Careful Suggestions/Charms, Teleportations, flying, utility spells etc. are all tools that well prepared caster can use.

In the end it's all about synergy.

I played one shot with level 17 Rune Knight not that long ago and let me tell you - I was MVP in every combat that day as martial and I didn't feel outshined by party casters al all. We worked together and won series of very challanging encounters and I pulled my weight in gold, so to speak. But I wouldn't do that without my party support, same as them without mine.

MrStabby

2021-02-05, 09:24 PM

Echoing a bit of what others have said:

1) Dominance doesnt kick in at a particular level it is a creeping affiar.
2) It happens a little differently and to different degrees by each class.
3) It can feel like casters are less powerful if they are buffing and healing a lot; they are still powrful but unnoticed.
4) The Paladin is a mssivly powerful martial class and an outlier; treat it as the exception not the rule.
5) Dominance might be where the game isn't fun a all anymore. The point where some abilities outshine others and make the game less fun (but still somewhat fun) can happen earlier.
6) Power increaes relative to both martials in combat and martials using skills.
7) A DM can sacrifice plot/realism/fun in other areas of the game to keep the most egregious balance issues in check; do you measure dominance from when the DM has to make sacrifices or from when their sacrifices are no longer enough or begin to break the game themselves?
8) Just as some classes will dominate earlier than others, others will be dominated sooner.
9) Level 2 moon druid is a bit of an exception, however it is the martial prowess of the druid that breaks it not the casting.

Reading through some of the responses suggesting early levels - I have to diasgree. Casters do get some awesome lower level spells but these really differentiate them from the martials rather than overshadow them. Detect thoughts can do something a martial cannot. Action surge is still very much in the relms of doing something that a caster cannot. In this I feel there is space for both to shine.

I think levels 5 to 8 are pretty solidly OK. Levels 9 and 10 begin to put the game under stress unless you are playing with magic items and feats. Even then you have to do some broad averaging - the casters will dominate some encounters (which is OK). The proportion of encounters they dominate will just increase at higher levels though.

Some encounters can be trivialised by martial characters even at higher levels, but this is rare. The paladin taking down a lich or a demi-lich in one round, the paladin bringing their aura to a fight with spellcasters, the paladin using cleansing touch to just undo the work of the powerful enchanter, the assassin getting surprise and hitting that solo enemy with a really nasty critical hit, the monk stun-locking the glass-cannon... I find that casters tend to find their own ways to trivialise encounters whereas martials tend to need to be baby-fed encounters at which they will excel for this to happen. Frankly, the worst issue I find is that casters can often trivialise encounters by circumventing them entirely - wall of force is obscene and hypnotic pattern is very powerful and all but it doesn't really do much more than pass without trace or fly when it lets you bypass the problem altogether.

Generally I subscribe to the view that casters are more powerful than martial whilst using resources but are less powerful whn not doing so - you should be looking for casters to be casting cantrips/attacking on about 50% of the rounds in combat (in a campaign where combat is the focus) for this to break even.

OldTrees1

2021-02-05, 09:25 PM

The easiest clock to add is a rule that the session ends on a Long Rest. That'll motivate the players to have their PCs behave like they're in a real world better than anything else.

Interesting idea. For groups with a different pacing, that might not have as much encounter volume per session. So they could change it to every Nth session ends on a Long Rest.

Angelalex242

2021-02-05, 09:47 PM

I would definitely agree Paladins are kings of the martials. and more so if you pick the really good oaths. Ancients is my preference, but Vengeance will wipe the floor with things, conqueror will scare everything that can be feared, etc.

...every session ends on a long rest?

...But how would the DM ever do cliffhangers?

Also, be mindful RL can do wacky things to any given gaming session.

Tanarii

2021-02-05, 10:51 PM

I'm not sure, my sessions are about approx. 2 hours a session and I would say we have a long rest every 3 or 4 sessions. If they had a long rest at the end of each session then I feel like I would run into 5 minute adventuring days, not that it never happens but usually we have more than 1 encounter per day.
I guess it never occurred to me that players couldn't fit at least a full adventuring day in about 4 hrs of session time. I'm used to that being enough time for significantly more than that.

It's certainly be a potential problem if you only had 2 hrs regularly. It's possible to fit a full adventuring day into that but both DM and players really have to be on their fast-paced A-game to make that happen.

Now if you had a LOT of no-resource (and therefore Easy) non-combat encounters in your adventuring day, it might not work. IMX those take up disproportionately more table time than their share of an adventuring day. Other than very short sessions, that'd be another reason my suggestion might not work.

I believe he meant more "if you take a Long Rest, the session ends", and not "at the end of every session, there's a Long Rest"; there definitely will be times when real life intervenes and a Long Rest would simply not be appropriate at all in the game world, specially for people who, like you, play short sessions.

You misunderstand. Another way to phrase Tanarii's suggestion is, "If you're still doing stuff and not ready to end this session, you aren't long-resting yet."Indeed, those are both better ways to put it. My assumption is it's easily possible to fit in more than an adventuring day into a single session, because that's my experience. Therefore I'm suggesting telling the players "PCs stopping for a LR in-game cuts the session short". Generally speaking, players would rather continue a session.

Asisreo1

2021-02-05, 11:22 PM

I would definitely agree Paladins are kings of the martials. and more so if you pick the really good oaths. Ancients is my preference, but Vengeance will wipe the floor with things, conqueror will scare everything that can be feared, etc.

But I wonder why, precisely.

Many talk about a paladin's spellcasting giving them martial versatility. But most of their abilities are really only useful for healing or attacking with very rare circumstances of abilities that could be considered utility. Especially compared to what other characters like the cleric or bard are doing in the same vein at the same level.

What about their "Nova Ability?" Its true that paladins can dump sorta "Ultimate Attacks" in terms of max level smiting, but that's not at all unique to Paladins, are they? Fighters get Action Surge, which can be thought of as an Ultimate Ability in terms of clutching a fight with it. Rangers have spells of their own at these high levels such as Lightning Arrow, which does more damage than a smite with the added benefit of AoE and still doing damage on a miss. Monks obviously have stunning strike-flurry combos but they also have things unique to their tradition like Elemonk's Water Whip or Open Palm's Quivering Palm. Rogues don't have natural control over these moments but their sneak attack is certainly an attack that fits the idea of hitting extremely hard as fast as possible.

I'm actually genuinely curious of what makes Paladins an exception to what they bring to the table rather than any other character.

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-05, 11:33 PM

OldTrees1

2021-02-06, 12:16 AM

Asisreo1

2021-02-06, 01:23 AM

I'd say 2 things.
1) The auras are just game changers not just for the Paladin, but for the whole party in terms of tactics.

The auras are certainly strong, especially past level 18. But before that, it can be tricky. Paladins are going to be in the front lines, that means anyone under the effects of the aura are also in the front lines. This is stellar for characters like Barbarians or other frontliners or skirmeshers but its harder to use as a backliner like an archer or mage.

Relying on it also brings a sort of madness to the table. You want good strength (or dexterity) otherwise your attacks won't connect as much and your smiting will be undercut. But you'll also want good constitution because being on the front lines makes you a prime target to enemy's attacks themselves and being incapacitated ends your aura.

More importantly, though, I don't know if this is much of a "shining" ability. Players will definitely appreciate it, but maybe not more than the character just ending the fight soon.

2) Smiting is the ability to use spells after you've determined that you've hit (in some cases with a crit). You can even determine the level of damage you want to add as you are going along. That's a rare thing to be able to determine with 100% certainty that your spell will work when you commit to it, and it makes the Paladin efficient with slots and effectively better than a 1/2 caster.
This is true. Though the drawback is that the effect is rather underwhelming for its cost. Sure, you're guaranteeing the slot does damage but the damage isn't good enough to warrant that use in other situations.

I think the benefit to drawback makes it balanced with slight edge to good but compare that to Destructive Wave. It isn't massive single target damage but the ability to have an expected 6 targets taking 10d6 damage or 5d6 on save is really good as well.

That's 210 average failed damage, 105 average success damage, and with a 50% success rate—157.5 damage. Not at all a bad move. Even against 2 enemies in a 60ft diameter distance, if one fails, you still did 52.5 damage with your slot. Compared to the 39 damage you'd have done previously, I think its a safer bet not to be married to Divine Smite most of the time anyways.

Foxhound438

2021-02-06, 02:25 AM

But I wonder why, precisely.

In my opinion, it comes down to the fact that paladins can expend a lot of resources to get a reasonably good numbers return at no action cost. Sure, a 3rd level spell slot doing 4d8 damage is not good in a vacuum, but when you throw on the fact that you get to expend the spell slot for damage without taking a specific action to do so, it becomes more like "attack for 2d8+10 (ish) +4d8 extra" for the 3rd level spell slot. Average on hits is ~37 damage, which is way better than a fireball. For a direct martial to cater comparison at 9th level, a paladin at level 9 can throw that much damage in the first and second turn, while a wizard using Cone of Cold does about 36 damage on their action, and is out of spell slots to do so after one go. Doing multiple smites in a turn gets pretty impressive in terms of raw damage when you don't have to worry too much about running out of resources because of a _ive _inute _dvenruring _ay. The number of slots a paladin has as they level up basically means they continue to scale in terms of short term effectiveness in the martial schtick - hitting things - while other martials quickly find their damage numbers souring if they don't have a particularly large number of combat rounds in every day (ie, attacking with a longsword 100 times in a row).

especially barbarians, who get next to nothing between 5 and 20

I personally like to use paladin spells for more problem solving type applications - wrathful smite to give a dangerous enemy disadvantage is more fun to me than using D-smite for 9 extra damage. But that's just me.

MrStabby

2021-02-06, 06:37 AM

But I wonder why, precisely.

Many talk about a paladin's spellcasting giving them martial versatility. But most of their abilities are really only useful for healing or attacking with very rare circumstances of abilities that could be considered utility. Especially compared to what other characters like the cleric or bard are doing in the same vein at the same level.

What about their "Nova Ability?" Its true that paladins can dump sorta "Ultimate Attacks" in terms of max level smiting, but that's not at all unique to Paladins, are they? Fighters get Action Surge, which can be thought of as an Ultimate Ability in terms of clutching a fight with it. Rangers have spells of their own at these high levels such as Lightning Arrow, which does more damage than a smite with the added benefit of AoE and still doing damage on a miss. Monks obviously have stunning strike-flurry combos but they also have things unique to their tradition like Elemonk's Water Whip or Open Palm's Quivering Palm. Rogues don't have natural control over these moments but their sneak attack is certainly an attack that fits the idea of hitting extremely hard as fast as possible.

I'm actually genuinely curious of what makes Paladins an exception to what they bring to the table rather than any other character.

Paladins, for much of the game, are really the best of both worlds. Martial toughness with heavy armour and shield proficiency and a 10th hit die. Able to dice enemies in combat as well as the other martial classes, indeed there is a strong case to be made that they are the best at doing melee combat damage. If they were to have zero spells known they would still be a powerful and versatile class.

Then on top of their martial capability arguably being the best in the game they have great support abilities. Cleansing touch, lay on hands, fear immunity, saves bonuses and usually an oath aura as well. The aura of protection is pretty analogous to circle of power, a level 5 spell... just perennialy up. Throw in really powerful channel divinity as well and you have a character that can deliver it's worth to the party through support abilities even if it never swings a sword.

And then you get spellcasting on top. For so much of the game more spells known than the sorcerer, ability to swap them out each day. Sure they do get limited slots and levels but their spell list is full of spells that could be a higher level. Wrathful smite wouldnt be bad value as a level 2 spell, find steed would not be vastly underpowered as a level 3 spell. I mean the spells are not quite as powerful as a full spellcaster, but still pretty ridiculous.

When we talk about dominance, much of this comes from choice. At level 10 a wizard will probably have 15 spells prepared, a menu of 15 things to choose from. A fighter might have "attack", "throw a javalin", "attack twice", "second wind" as their options. If attacking isnt a good option then action surge to do it twice is also possibly a waste. Yeah there will be some overlap on the wizard spells as well, but I think the overall picture is clear

Paladins last so much longer before being dominated because they have a larger menu and are passively doing so much as well. Healing, buffing, damage, debuffing, divination effects, control... and this is just in combat. With access to spells like zone of truth the paladin excels in other pillars of the game as well. The one paladin weakness is that it doesnt get the same "trivialise encounters by avoiding them entirely" buttons that other casters get - no invisibility, pass without trace, fly etc..

To be clear I am not saying that a level 17 wizard isnt more powerful than a level 17 paladin, but rather that the level at which there is some kind of dominance over the paladin is higher is higher than for the fighter, monk, barbarian or ranger.

There is a worry that someone might cherry pick something like a Paladin and a Cleric, compare the two at different levels then conclude that because the gap really isnt that big at a given level that casters are not more powerful than martials... rather than concluding there is one specific martial class that at that specific level is not much less powerful than one specific casting class. This was my reason for raising the paladin as an exception.

Citadel97501

2021-02-06, 06:51 AM

Personally I would say at level 7 for a pure caster, is where it takes off.

dmhelp

2021-02-06, 12:18 PM

What about martials vs single classed warlocks? Does the warlock dominate at a certain level or are warlocks a multiclassing only class?

MaxWilson

2021-02-06, 01:14 PM

What about martials vs single classed warlocks? Does the warlock dominate at a certain level or are warlocks a multiclassing only class?

Depends on the warlock and the warlock's willingness to abuse spells like Danse Macabre and Summon Greater Demon, but I bet I could take an all-warlock party further into a dungeon crawl than an all-warrior party starting at level 7, maybe at level 1.

And yet, I see more pure fighters in play than pure warlocks.

That says to me that whether or not warlock dominates fighters from a mechanical power perspective, they definitely don't dominate the play experience, maybe because people who would want to play a pure warlock that way just play wizards instead. (Although a wizard cannot summon two Barlguras an hour.)

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-06, 04:42 PM

The auras are certainly strong, especially past level 18. But before that, it can be tricky. Paladins are going to be in the front lines, that means anyone under the effects of the aura are also in the front lines. This is stellar for characters like Barbarians or other frontliners or skirmeshers but its harder to use as a backliner like an archer or mage.

Relying on it also brings a sort of madness to the table. You want good strength (or dexterity) otherwise your attacks won't connect as much and your smiting will be undercut. But you'll also want good constitution because being on the front lines makes you a prime target to enemy's attacks themselves and being incapacitated ends your aura.

More importantly, though, I don't know if this is much of a "shining" ability. Players will definitely appreciate it, but maybe not more than the character just ending the fight soon.

This is true. Though the drawback is that the effect is rather underwhelming for its cost. Sure, you're guaranteeing the slot does damage but the damage isn't good enough to warrant that use in other situations.

I think the benefit to drawback makes it balanced with slight edge to good but compare that to Destructive Wave. It isn't massive single target damage but the ability to have an expected 6 targets taking 10d6 damage or 5d6 on save is really good as well.

That's 210 average failed damage, 105 average success damage, and with a 50% success rateÂ—157.5 damage. Not at all a bad move. Even against 2 enemies in a 60ft diameter distance, if one fails, you still did 52.5 damage with your slot. Compared to the 39 damage you'd have done previously, I think its a safer bet not to be married to Divine Smite most of the time anyways.

Regarding the auras, for sure they aren't going to be used by the whole party all the time, but there are times in close confines that the party will by necessity (terrain, etc) find itself in 'fireball formation', or enemies and tactics dictate that is the best option. Yes my Barbarian buddy appreciated the guaranteed immunity to fear in our campaign against Dragons, I'm sure more than a few more points of damage.
Are Paladins MAD? Yes they are. The 6th level aura, some spells, and channel divinity rely on Chr. IMO this is the only thing that keeps them from being OP mid game. The only thing I'd disagree with you on is that missing the odd time because you haven't maxed your Str is not as big a deal on a Paladin because you can just tack on the smite damage onto the attacks that do hit; the base damage isn't as big a part of the calculation as other martials.

Regarding Smites vs. Spells you've used a 5th level slot on a fairly favorable AOE as an example, and for sure in that situation the spell is superior. In terms of single target damage smites can be amazing. In one of our recent sessions a player managed a 20 against a Shadow Demon. That 1st level slot he applied after he hit did 12d8 damage. Bye, bye Mr. Shadow Demon. Of course it's not always going to be that good, but in campaigns with fiends and undead or if you have builds that try to crit, you are going to outperform the baseline by a fair margin.

Angelalex242

2021-02-06, 05:28 PM

Also, there's magic items.

My Paladins max charisma and leave their strength and con where it starts.

If I want more strength, there's a belt for that. But there's no cloaks of charisma in this edition. Also, being charisma focused makes sure I maximize out of combat use as a talky guy.

...That's basically what my low level paladin did in Dragon Heist. He was a noble(!!) Paladin who was good at talking and insight. And it was Summer. Amazing how much weight that noble background pulled. Can't sneak to save his life, but he didn't approach any encounters with sneaking. That was someone else's job.

dmhelp

2021-02-06, 06:22 PM

Depends on the warlock and the warlock's willingness to abuse spells like Danse Macabre and Summon Greater Demon, but I bet I could take an all-warlock party further into a dungeon crawl than an all-warrior party starting at level 7, maybe at level 1.

And yet, I see more pure fighters in play than pure warlocks.

That says to me that whether or not warlock dominates fighters from a mechanical power perspective, they definitely don't dominate the play experience, maybe because people who would want to play a pure warlock that way just play wizards instead. (Although a wizard cannot summon two Barlguras an hour.)

So single classed warlocks, although unpopular, need nothing added to compare favorably to other casters. Including in tier 3 and 4?

Throne12

2021-02-06, 06:56 PM

At the beginning of the adventuring day. Where the martial character take over after one or two encounters.

MrStabby

2021-02-06, 07:07 PM

So single classed warlocks, although unpopular, need nothing added to compare favorably to other casters. Including in tier 3 and 4?

I am not sure how you can take a comparison between warlocks and warriors and get to the conclusion about relative favourability between warlocks and other casters.

It is possible for warlocks to simultaniously be weaker than other casters AND to be stronger than barbarians or rangers.

For what it's worth, I think that warlocks do not compare favourably to wizards, sorcerers, bards or druids and don't compare favourably to clerics at lower levels (at higher levels cleric's uninspiring spell list and total lack of features let the class down.

I think the main strength of casters is in being able to deploy the right tool for the circumstances - and as long as the right tool is to stick a poiny bit of metal into something then warriros are OK. Warlocks suffer due to lack of nuance - no chosing how much power to use, relatively narrow range of spells; the flexability that defines casters is just missing. Still, a choice of half a dozen spells, even if a lot less than other casters, is still more functional choice than most martials get.

MaxWilson

2021-02-06, 08:35 PM

dmhelp

2021-02-06, 08:39 PM

I am not sure how you can take a comparison between warlocks and warriors and get to the conclusion about relative favourability between warlocks and other casters.

I started the thread to try and help optimize my house rules (with the conclusion being add some utility around 14 to martials). Paladins have been brought up as a niche case and don’t warrant a bonus, but Rangers do. I read often that single classed Warlocks are not popular.

So I guess I’m just trying to ask at what level do regular spellcasters dominate Warlocks? Or does that not really happen and Warlocks are fine (with a more niche playing style)?

I kind of feel like I just said the exact opposite of that, although of course I'm just guessing.
Good point. At what level does it happen?

MaxWilson

2021-02-06, 08:46 PM

Good point. At what level does it happen?

Based on evidence, people who are going to bail out of warlock bail out in Tier 1. Others never start in the first place.

If your design goal is to make all classes more equally attractive, I'd start by looking at adventure construction and pacing. I would speculate that to make pure warlocks more attractive, you'd want a game pace that favors short resting. Something like:

Tier 2 dungeon. 10% chance of a random encounter for every six minutes spent inside the dungeon.

75% of the time you meet 1d12 orcs. Fighters and at-will characters like warlocks handle these encounters best.

20% of the time you meet 3d10 orcs and an orog. Too many for Fighters to handle easily, but not enough monsters to justify multiple Fireballs. Warlocks and short-rest classes like the Monk and Battlemaster handle these best, wizards can handle them too but see below...

5% of the time you meet 10d10 orcs, 2d6 orogs, and either a hill giant or a young white dragon. These encounters require not only a good concentration spell from someone but also multiple instantaneous spells on top of that (like Fireball), and ideally require a wizard or sorcerer or other long-rest-based spellcaster. This is what the wizard has been saving his juice for because a single warlock can't summon a demon and then Fireball five times in one battle, but a wizard can.

There are also fixed encounters in this dungeon, all of them on the critical path are at least of the 20% size, and one of which is of a size similar to the 5% battle. I.e. you can't win the adventure without beating several warlock- and at least one wizard-sized fights.

With enough short-rest casters in the party (4 warlocks) you might not need a wizard at all in this dungeon, and that might drive the metagame to favor warlocks.

MrStabby

2021-02-06, 09:20 PM

Interestingly I have seen a few warlocks make it to higher levels recently - mainly due to hexblade. Previously people who wanted a magiky-fighter were going paladin or EK or just dipping warlock for a bit of flavour.

I would say that warlock at level 11 enjoys a brief spike in effectiveness. Being able to go into tough combats with a whole 4 spells you can cast is a big step up from two and that third attack from eldritch blast keeps the class effective. That said, mystic arcana are clearly less good than the spells other classes get in terms of flexability of upcasting and shifting to new spells so the class is a tough sell in the upper levels.

LudicSavant

2021-02-06, 09:54 PM

Good point. At what level does it happen?

A Hexblade can outperform many things at level 1. They just straight up have one of the best level 1s in the game.

MaxWilson

2021-02-06, 09:58 PM

Has anyone ever tried just giving them regular spell slots for spell levels 6-9? So they get 2 6th, 2 7th, 1 8th, and 1 9th slots per long rest with 4 5th per short rest? You could use the 9th level slot on any mystic arcanum or warlock spell.

That would give them a lot of flexibility. Would it be too good?

I've tried it, giving them long rest spell points and short rest spell points and converting Mystic Arcana to invocations of the form "you know True Polymorph." E.g. at level 20 you'd have twelve invocations, and you can spend any number from zero to twelve on knowing Mystic Arcana invocations. Even if you pick four Mystica Arcana (one each of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th) at least now you can upcast, including upcasting spells like Summon Greater Demon and Armor of Agathys.

It works, does what you'd expect it to do: makes warlocks more flexible at high levels. They still don't get Wish or Planar Binding (ignoring Tasha's and UA) so can't do the most broken things that wizards (and bards and sorcs) proactively do, but reactively and tactically they are fine.

Is it "too much?" Well, it's stronger than a Fighter outside a antimagic zone, weaker inside one, and weaker than a Wish-abusing Diviner. That's true with or without the change to spell points / Mystic Arcana. Antimagic zones still shut down casters hard--this tweak doesn't really affect have game balance, just reduces fiction from the play experience. To me that means it's fine.

MrStabby

2021-02-06, 10:06 PM

A Hexblade can outperform many things at level 1. They just straight up have one of the best level 1s in the game.

Yeah, but by level 2 they have handed their crown over to moon druid.

LudicSavant

2021-02-06, 10:22 PM

Yeah, but by level 2 they have handed their crown over to moon druid.

More or less.

SharkForce

2021-02-07, 12:25 AM

I would place warlocks as being fairly similar in power level to paladins. perhaps not as strong as other spellcasters, but not far enough behind to need a major boost. at very high levels, the warlock is probably a little stronger than the paladin, but both are reasonably fine.

in terms of party role, they are of course quite different, apart from the potential of both to act as party face.

one major difference is that the warlock won't do as well in a game where short rests are rarely available.

I do think that warlocks *could* use some quality of life improvements; most of the invocations that give 1 use of a spell per day, costing a spell slot, are terrible, for example; if those invocations simply gave the spell known and a 1/day use of the spell, that gives them something to use when they've gone through their primary resources, and allows them to actually use the spell they invested in more than once per day. some of their other invocations are weak or just annoying to use (if you have a spell at will, why do you need to cast it? why not just let them have always-on jump if they choose that, and allow them to restore it with a bonus action if it is dispelled?).

I also think that their mystic arcanum could be improved in two ways; firstly, allow them to take lower level spells in higher level slots (not turning them into spell slots, but for example, allowing the warlock to choose conjure fey in a level 8 spell slot if they want, rather than being stuck exclusively with the warlock spell list which may not be appealing for many warlocks). second, most spellcasters get an extra level 6 slot at 19 and a level 7 spell slot at 20; I would give those to single-classed warlocks as well (basically, let them choose a second mystic arcanum at those levels, can either be the same or a different one). I don't think I would argue that these changes are absolutely necessary, but I do think they would help.

that said, the most common use of warlock in my experience is as a dip. there *are* warlocks that stick with the class, but there are a lot more that take 1-3 levels in warlock and then the rest of their levels elsewhere (frequently sorcerer, paladin, or bard).

Ashrym

2021-02-07, 04:16 AM

If I'm playing the caster? Possibly 1st level.
If I'm playing the martial? Possibly never.
I have to watch that I don't hog attention. ;-)

I can take my share of shining moments on any character I play. I focus on what my characters are good at instead of some other character that I didn't choose to play. If I wanted to have those other options I would have made a different character.

Most classes trade off versatility for raw power and based on resource requirements. I actually find paladins a bit over-rated because the class is a bit MAD and it costs, but also be cause more options aren't necessarily better options anyway. 15 different options that produce a different colored spot on the wall don't compare to a single rocket launcher. That's not specific to the options in question but a direct illustration of why the number of options was never an expression of potency -- it's the specific abilities given that matter more than the number of them. In the paladin's case, many of the spells are just cleric spells gained more slowly, most of the spells are geared towards combat so they don't add as much versatility just because there are many, and there's a large concentration conflict with the buffs and smite spells.

I find paladins largely combat oriented with the potential to combine CHA with persuasion proficiency for a decent bonus plus some decent healing. I have more fun with a DEX based battlemaster armed with crossbow, but if I were to look at really versatile martial classes I would look more at the ranger, monk, rogue, and artificer (although I find artificers player more like casters).

The monk and ranger subtly focus on DEX and WIS for good skill synergy, and as much as people complained about the PHB favored terrain and favored enemy abilities they did work in campaigns the ranger built around. Now Tasha's offers alternatives for those rangers. The ranger spell list offers more variety than the paladin spell list, Tasha's or Xanathar's offers subclasses that add to spells known, and Tasha's trades primeval awareness for primal awareness adding to spells known and free castings. Monks have many useful abilities within the ki powers.

Rogues have some strong class abilities for combat and utility, and reliable talent is amazing; but some of the subclass abilities (like arcane trickster spell support) are really where it's at.

"Caster dominance" is generally people trying to work out combinations with the wizard spell list (not all casters) or replicating those combinations via wish (sorcerers, most bards, arcana clerics, genie warlocks); or rely on having the most powerful spells at any given encounter example (5MWDism). The 5MWD is pacing and that's something DM's control, not players. Downtime of sufficient length is when the DM's provide it and not when players assume it's available on request, although be reasonable. ;-) Plus, I admit there are spells that facilitate resting so running the clock or the fear of events transpiring because of a rest can be needed, although be reasonable. ;-)

The spells that cause "wizard dominance" generally start at 11th level and generally apply to more casters at 17th or 18th level via wish. In actual gameplay what more often happens is many spells are convenience items that have little actual effect in the long run other than looking fancy, other spells are replaced by ability / skill checks that aren't a limited resource most of the time when repeat rolls come up so they become either situational or even superfluous, limited resource spells slots whiff on a miss or made save while those boring unlimited attacks don't waste resources over (more on this below), powerful monsters automatically saving x times is a thing, lair actions can be an issue, and concentration limiting buff stacking is big limiter.

It is true that the spell DC's increase so DC based low level spells become better. The problem with that argument is that it's the same formula that everything in 5e uses so those low level spells the partial casters are using can be just as effective or the special abilities those martial characters are using can use the same DC's. It's one of those advantages that can apply to casters and martials depending on how they are built.

There are abuseable spells but 5e is not like it was in 3e, and fights are often spell casters supporting martials via CC, buffs, and healing while martials tank the hits and deal the damage. If that's not happening then look at how the encounters are being given and how pacing is being applied.

I've played BCEMI and AD&D through 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. The only edition where casters really dominated was 3e. I find that casters are playing catch up in 5e until tier 3 when they have enough lower level spells to use them more often on top of the shining moments of the higher level slots. Even in tiers 3 and 4 the damage output and durability of the tankier martial classes matters along with their other abilities.

My 2cp.

MoiMagnus

2021-02-07, 04:56 AM

So single classed warlocks, although unpopular, need nothing added to compare favorably to other casters. Including in tier 3 and 4?

IMO, tier 3/4 warlock is very sad compared to other casters because of how constrained he is to always use the same spells once per day. However it is pretty easy to fix this.

Our table has the following fix:
Mystic Arcanum is replaced by an actual spell slot (per long rest, not refilled by the LV20 feature) and an additional spell known.

Level 15 warlock, before:
2 LV5 spell slot per SR, 13 spell known (of LV5 or less).
One fixed LV6 spell, one fixed LV7 spell, one fixed LV8, all of them usable once per LR, can never be swapped.

Level 15 warlock, after:
2 LV5 spell slot per SR, and one LV6, one LV7, and one LV8 spell slot per LR, 16 spell known (of LV8 or less).

[That's the same raw power, just more flexibility to match the usual caster's flexibility]

Asisreo1

2021-02-07, 09:58 AM

Paladins, for much of the game, are really the best of both worlds. Martial toughness with heavy armour and shield proficiency and a 10th hit die. Able to dice enemies in combat as well as the other martial classes, indeed there is a strong case to be made that they are the best at doing melee combat damage. If they were to have zero spells known they would still be a powerful and versatile class.

Then on top of their martial capability arguably being the best in the game they have great support abilities. Cleansing touch, lay on hands, fear immunity, saves bonuses and usually an oath aura as well. The aura of protection is pretty analogous to circle of power, a level 5 spell... just perennialy up. Throw in really powerful channel divinity as well and you have a character that can deliver it's worth to the party through support abilities even if it never swings a sword.

And then you get spellcasting on top. For so much of the game more spells known than the sorcerer, ability to swap them out each day. Sure they do get limited slots and levels but their spell list is full of spells that could be a higher level. Wrathful smite wouldnt be bad value as a level 2 spell, find steed would not be vastly underpowered as a level 3 spell. I mean the spells are not quite as powerful as a full spellcaster, but still pretty ridiculous.

When we talk about dominance, much of this comes from choice. At level 10 a wizard will probably have 15 spells prepared, a menu of 15 things to choose from. A fighter might have "attack", "throw a javalin", "attack twice", "second wind" as their options. If attacking isnt a good option then action surge to do it twice is also possibly a waste. Yeah there will be some overlap on the wizard spells as well, but I think the overall picture is clear

Paladins last so much longer before being dominated because they have a larger menu and are passively doing so much as well. Healing, buffing, damage, debuffing, divination effects, control... and this is just in combat. With access to spells like zone of truth the paladin excels in other pillars of the game as well. The one paladin weakness is that it doesnt get the same "trivialise encounters by avoiding them entirely" buttons that other casters get - no invisibility, pass without trace, fly etc..

To be clear I am not saying that a level 17 wizard isnt more powerful than a level 17 paladin, but rather that the level at which there is some kind of dominance over the paladin is higher is higher than for the fighter, monk, barbarian or ranger.

There is a worry that someone might cherry pick something like a Paladin and a Cleric, compare the two at different levels then conclude that because the gap really isnt that big at a given level that casters are not more powerful than martials... rather than concluding there is one specific martial class that at that specific level is not much less powerful than one specific casting class. This was my reason for raising the paladin as an exception.
Allow me to continue my point.

If Caster Dominance does exist, I don't see anything in the Paladin's toolkit that would make them an exception.

Nobody ever says that a fighter needs auras or more combat options to compete with upper-tier wizards. Nobody says "you know what would fix fighters? The ability to do extra damage at the expense of an external resource." Partially because they already have that.

It always goes into how a Wizard can teleport or vaguely "defy reality" while martial are doing the same things they've been doing at 1st-level. But Paladins can't teleport. Paladins can't turn invisible. Paladins can't summon meteors and earthquakes and they can't wish for a copy of themselves or mountains of gold.

So what makes them an exception to this so-called dominance that, say, a Ranger does not gain. Or a Battlemaster Fighter. Or a rogue?

heavyfuel

2021-02-07, 10:37 AM

A Hexblade can outperform many things at level 1. They just straight up have one of the best level 1s in the game.

One thing I feel stops Hexblades from being truly awesome at level 1 is equipment. Unless your DM is allowing Starting Gold instead of Starting Equipment, you' won't be nearly as effective as you should be at lv 1.

heavyfuel

2021-02-07, 10:41 AM

So what makes them an exception to this so-called dominance that, say, a Ranger does not gain. Or a Battlemaster Fighter. Or a rogue?

For one, the Paladin's damage scales better with levels. A big issue with Martials is that their DPR just doesn't keep up with Monster HP beyond level 5.

Plus, Find Greater Steed. Very early in Tier 3 the Paladin gains a permanent intelligent flying mount that can also fight. That's an amazing boost for the Pally.

MrStabby

2021-02-07, 11:49 AM

For one, the Paladin's damage scales better with levels. A big issue with Martials is that their DPR just doesn't keep up with Monster HP beyond level 5.

Plus, Find Greater Steed. Very early in Tier 3 the Paladin gains a permanent intelligent flying mount that can also fight. That's an amazing boost for the Pally.

I think that damage output does scale better at higher levels than people give it credit for. Most peole who think it is really bad seemto do so after failing to consider a few things:

To-hit rolls are easier to make - AC doesn't scale quite as well as the combination of attack stat and proficiency.

There is an assumption that as you level up you will not find things like magic weapons to boost your damage (which is sometimes justified)

There is an assumption that high level encounters are just a few top level enemies rather than more lower level enemies. If you factor in that as your level goes up your encounters are spread accross a broader range of CR monsters then AC doesn't really scale that much.

Honestly, I don't think that the paladin scaling of damage really is the thing that sets it appart. Barbarian spends a higher proportion of fights raging and with a bigger bonus (As well as the damage bonus from the capstone), fighters get a couple of extra attacks in the second half of the game, rogues still get sneak attack bonuses. Even monks get martial arts dice increases (which is pretty paltry to be fair).

I think that the paladin growth in effectiveness through tier 3 and tier 4 is partially due to new features but there is also a stealth buff that happens as abilities like the aura of protection find themselves protecting against nastier and nastier spells, and probably more frequently as well (though somewhat DM dependant on that front).

Tanarii

2021-02-07, 01:02 PM

I've played BCEMI and AD&D through 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. The only edition where casters really dominated was 3e. I find that casters are playing catch up in 5e until tier 3 when they have enough lower level spells to use them more often on top of the shining moments of the higher level slots. Even in tiers 3 and 4 the damage output and durability of the tankier martial classes matters along with their other abilities.
That's my experience with Tier 1 and Tier 2 as well. Long-rest full casters are playing catch up with Martials, who start of extremely dominant in Tier 1. There's a reason starting off with martial dips for full casters are so common when Multiclassing is allowed.

Warlocks do pretty good until about level 7, but that's because they're max power short rest full casters, who can also can buff up their at-will to martial levels. Then they start to feel the lack of level 1 & 2 spells that Spellcasting full casters get.

All in all, like AD&D, casters aren't dominant unless you play for a very long time, or skip to high level games. The difference is it takes 6 months of weekly gaming to get to high level in 5e, as opposed to AD&D's 2+ years.

SharkForce

2021-02-07, 01:22 PM

Allow me to continue my point.

If Caster Dominance does exist, I don't see anything in the Paladin's toolkit that would make them an exception.

Nobody ever says that a fighter needs auras or more combat options to compete with upper-tier wizards. Nobody says "you know what would fix fighters? The ability to do extra damage at the expense of an external resource." Partially because they already have that.

It always goes into how a Wizard can teleport or vaguely "defy reality" while martial are doing the same things they've been doing at 1st-level. But Paladins can't teleport. Paladins can't turn invisible. Paladins can't summon meteors and earthquakes and they can't wish for a copy of themselves or mountains of gold.

So what makes them an exception to this so-called dominance that, say, a Ranger does not gain. Or a Battlemaster Fighter. Or a rogue?

for me, at least, it is that paladins are much better to have around in combat. fighters can do consistent damage. paladins can do consistent damage. fighters can do burst damage. paladins can do burst damage. they are fairly alike in those regards.

but then we start making further comparisons: fighters can heal themselves for a small poorly-scaling amount. paladins can heal anyone for a much *better* scaling amount (although it starts off quite small). fighters can improve their own chance to make a saving throw a limited number of times per day. paladins can improve multiple people's saving throws an unlimited number of times per day. add on to this that all paladins have some rather useful spells they can concentrate on, allowing one extra use of that highly-valuable resource, while most other martials don't; bless, protection from evil and good, heroism, etc (note: heroism is not that great of a spell... until you face something that causes a lot of fear).

practically speaking, a paladin has far less utility than a wizard, but they make up for that by being a really good specialist in combat. there's nothing *wrong* with being a combat specialist, the problem is that you need to be much more useful in combat than a wizard if all you're going to do is combat. a high level fighter or barbarian doesn't really pull that off like a high level paladin will. they certainly aren't bad in combat, but a well-built wizard is also quite good in combat while also being able to solve a massive variety of other problems, even in combat-as-sport games.

and frankly, while they may not ever reach even close to the utility of wizards (especially at high levels), paladins do still have quite a bit more than the average martial. geas and locate creature may not pack the raw power of wish or shapechange, but at those levels a fighter is getting... what... another use of indomitable? an extra use of action surge per short rest? I mean, don't get me wrong, action surge is a really awesome ability, but it doesn't exactly offer a lot of utility in non-combat situations. and paladins could actually even choose to have those spells prepared, because in combat they can always rely on smite.

Witty Username

2021-02-07, 01:57 PM

It depends on the build and the playgroup, and what you mean by dominance?
I would say casters are effective at every level, with a sweet spot at levels 5-9, then a dip, then 15-20th level. If you mean dominance as being more effective than martial I would guess 9th level is where that begins. If you mean making the martial characters in the party feel superfluous, I am not sure that has a specific number, the most powerful spells tend to like having martial characters to benefit from them. I would also the feeling of domination can come from abilities that are less effective, a blaster mage can feel op, but a disabling, buffing, or de buffing mage may be much more impactful without feeling as dominating because the martial cast could be doing a lot of the actual work.
I would guess 15th is a decent average for when this happens, but it may go all the way to 20 without being an issue.

MrStabby

2021-02-07, 02:32 PM

So what makes them an exception to this so-called dominance that, say, a Ranger does not gain. Or a Battlemaster Fighter. Or a rogue?

Kind of an answer in two parts. Firstly, I would say that dominance requires a caster at least being competitive in your niche whilst doing other things. The things a paladin does well at, it does obscenely well at. Not much protects the party like a paladin aura and a bevy of spells like protection from good and evil. Not many spells can compete with nova single target damage like the paladin can do. These strengths not overlapping with the strengths of casters makes the paladin go further before being "dominated".

Then there is what they can contribute out of combat. Everything from raise dead, zone of truth, remove disease and poison from lay on hands, cleansing touch, that need not just any caster to be dominated bit a specific one with access to specific spells. The prepared casting contributes to this letting you really get value from your overly specific spells in a way classes like the ranger cant.

It is also worth noting that some of these abilities are not just "only second to a specific caster" but are in fact the most powerful in the game. If you want to remove feeblemind from a PC at level 14 the paladin is better than the abjuration wizard at dispelling it and can probably successfully do it more times per day than this dedicated wizard (ok, maybe a push but it would take the wizard a lot of spell slots to compete).

It depends on the build and the playgroup, and what you mean by dominance?
I would say casters are effective at every level, with a sweet spot at levels 5-9, then a dip, then 15-20th level. If you mean dominance as being more effective than martial I would guess 9th level is where that begins. If you mean making the martial characters in the party feel superfluous, I am not sure that has a specific number, the most powerful spells tend to like having martial characters to benefit from them. I would also the feeling of domination can come from abilities that are less effective, a blaster mage can feel op, but a disabling, buffing, or de buffing mage may be much more impactful without feeling as dominating because the martial cast could be doing a lot of the actual work.
I would guess 15th is a decent average for when this happens, but it may go all the way to 20 without being an issue.

Actually the dip in performance is an interesting point. I played a very thematic bard once that became near unplayable as the adventure began to have more and more enemies with fear immunity, charm immunity, and magic resistance/legendary saves. There is an era in the game where in some campaigns this stuff becomes prevalent and can effectively cut your available spells prepared in half (or worse). This really depends on the campaign.

Ashrym

2021-02-07, 03:49 PM

That's my experience with Tier 1 and Tier 2 as well. Long-rest full casters are playing catch up with Martials, who start of extremely dominant in Tier 1. There's a reason starting off with martial dips for full casters are so common when Multiclassing is allowed.

Warlocks do pretty good until about level 7, but that's because they're max power short rest full casters, who can also can buff up their at-will to martial levels. Then they start to feel the lack of level 1 & 2 spells that Spellcasting full casters get.

All in all, like AD&D, casters aren't dominant unless you play for a very long time, or skip to high level games. The difference is it takes 6 months of weekly gaming to get to high level in 5e, as opposed to AD&D's 2+ years.

I dunno, I find warlocks fall into a lull at about that level but at 11th level when they generally pop of 9 5th-level spell slots, 1 arcanum, and a few SLA invocations they are getting back on track. It's the rigidity of the arcanum that's a bit of a drawback over other arcane casters but that was part of the trade off for a lot of at-will support in invocations. And the d8 hit die instead of that pesky d6 wizards and sorcerers have.

When we were playtesting 5e as Next the idea was a campaign lasts about a year iirc. Different tables regularly throw that off where it takes more time or less time. I think how long it takes to level up is very DM dependent on how he/she/they runs the campaign.

but at those levels a fighter is getting... what... another use of indomitable? an extra use of action surge per short rest? I mean, don't get me wrong, action surge is a really awesome ability, but it doesn't exactly offer a lot of utility in non-combat situations. and paladins could actually even choose to have those spells prepared, because in combat they can always rely on smite.

A bonus ASI (feat) and an extra subclass ability. Another action surge every short rest certainly doesn't hurt either.

Fighters gain 7 ASI's/feats on a SAD class compared to the paladin's MAD design. Fighters also gain 5 subclass abilities compared to the paladin's 3 subclass features. The fourth subclass feature paladins gain is the capstone when all classes also gain a capstone. The number of subclass features each class gets is still part of the class progression when we look at the base class features.

Lay on hands is more versatile than second wind, but it's playing catch up with actual hp recovered as well. At 1st level it's 5hp / long rest. Second wind averages 6.5 / short rest so ~19.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. When the paladin is getting up to 20 / long rest at 4th level it's 9.5 / short rest for the fighter, or ~28.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. At 6th level when the paladin is catching up to that 4th level fighter the fighter is still going strong with ~11.5 / short rest, or ~34.5 / long rest on standard assumptions.

Lay on hands doesn't catch up to the standard assumption on second wind until 7th level. The kicker at that point is the fighter still only needs a short rest to recover another use while the paladin needs a long rest. In that same 8 hours the fighter can easily fit in 5 more short rests. Beyond that, a long rest benefit can only be received once in any 24 hour period. A fighter can fit a lot of short rests in that same amount of time. Wilderness and town environments cater to many short rests

Second wind kicks ass when the party is leveraging short rests like the the 5MWD model that comes up so often, and it's easier to justify a short rest over a long rest.

Smites can be great surge damage, but so is action surge. The difference again is long rest recovery version short rest recovery.

While leveling, giving up CHA for accuracy and damage is a drawback on those bonuses, and going for CHA gives up accuracy and damage compared to the fighter. MAD vs SAD. There are growing pains getting the paladin to high levels compared to the fighter, and by that time the extra feats and extra attack and extra actions surges are worthwhile.

Just sayin' ;-)

Tanarii

2021-02-07, 03:54 PM

I dunno, I find warlocks fall into a lull at about that level but at 11th level when they generally pop of 9 5th-level spell slots, 1 arcanum, and a few SLA invocations they are getting back on track.
Yes I was focusing on Tier 1 and 2 in my warlock comment.

I'm just taking peoples word that casters become dominant in later Tier 3 or Tier 4. Because I've DMd up to early Tier 3, and it's certainly not the case by then. But yes Warlocks get a nice little bump in early Tier 3.

Angelalex242

2021-02-07, 04:41 PM

I dunno, I find warlocks fall into a lull at about that level but at 11th level when they generally pop of 9 5th-level spell slots, 1 arcanum, and a few SLA invocations they are getting back on track. It's the rigidity of the arcanum that's a bit of a drawback over other arcane casters but that was part of the trade off for a lot of at-will support in invocations. And the d8 hit die instead of that pesky d6 wizards and sorcerers have.

When we were playtesting 5e as Next the idea was a campaign lasts about a year iirc. Different tables regularly throw that off where it takes more time or less time. I think how long it takes to level up is very DM dependent on how he/she/they runs the campaign.

A bonus ASI (feat) and an extra subclass ability. Another action surge every short rest certainly doesn't hurt either.

Fighters gain 7 ASI's/feats on a SAD class compared to the paladin's MAD design. Fighters also gain 5 subclass abilities compared to the paladin's 3 subclass features. The fourth subclass feature paladins gain is the capstone when all classes also gain a capstone. The number of subclass features each class gets is still part of the class progression when we look at the base class features.

Lay on hands is more versatile than second wind, but it's playing catch up with actual hp recovered as well. At 1st level it's 5hp / long rest. Second wind averages 6.5 / short rest so ~19.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. When the paladin is getting up to 20 / long rest at 4th level it's 9.5 / short rest for the fighter, or ~28.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. At 6th level when the paladin is catching up to that 4th level fighter the fighter is still going strong with ~11.5 / short rest, or ~34.5 / long rest on standard assumptions.

Lay on hands doesn't catch up to the standard assumption on second wind until 7th level. The kicker at that point is the fighter still only needs a short rest to recover another use while the paladin needs a long rest. In that same 8 hours the fighter can easily fit in 5 more short rests. Beyond that, a long rest benefit can only be received once in any 24 hour period. A fighter can fit a lot of short rests in that same amount of time. Wilderness and town environments cater to many short rests

Second wind kicks ass when the party is leveraging short rests like the the 5MWD model that comes up so often, and it's easier to justify a short rest over a long rest.

Smites can be great surge damage, but so is action surge. The difference again is long rest recovery version short rest recovery.

While leveling, giving up CHA for accuracy and damage is a drawback on those bonuses, and going for CHA gives up accuracy and damage compared to the fighter. MAD vs SAD. There are growing pains getting the paladin to high levels compared to the fighter, and by that time the extra feats and extra attack and extra actions surges are worthwhile.

Just sayin' ;-)

There is such a thing as a belt of giant strength. or even gauntlets of ogre power. There is no such thing as a cloak of Charisma, ergo, the Paladin should be boosting his CHA and waiting for the appropriate magic item to handle STR. Even if it takes a while, the Paladin should just be content with his 16 STR and beeline for CHA 20 to make sure that +5 to saves is online. Then again, my Paladins are basically defense oriented. They usually come into the world with heavy armor master and frequently sit there with sentinel and take the dodge action in the front lines. I'm usually content to let the bad guys flail uselessly with disadvantage against my AC.

Mr. Wonderful

2021-02-07, 06:30 PM

Sol0botmate

2021-02-07, 07:15 PM

The things that made casters dominant in 3.5E have been satisfactorily addressed in 5E, primarily thanks to Concentration and Attunement.

The days where a high level wizard or cleric would have 20+ buffs stacked up on them and a huge number of extra spells available due to items are gone.

If you're in a campaign where one class or character "dominates" the rest then that is an issue with the DM, not the ruleset.

I agree here. From my experience a good challanging encounters clearly shows how casters and martials depend on each other. In boss fights for example I see far more martials dominance than casters due to Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance which pretty much nulifies most casters strongest options. And that's without natrual high WIS saves of most bosses.

In encounters vs many enemies casters rely on martials being upfront and taking as many enemies away from them as possible while martial counts on his casters to keep him alive with heals and support if needed. It's co-operation. Martials try to get to enemies casters but they also want to keep enemy melee away from his casters and party casters try to counter enemy casters. At least that's how encounters are supposed to look like mostly if you want to have it balanced.

I see few ways where casters dominate on higher Tiers vs martials:

1. PvP. But we do not play PvP and there are martial builds with little multiclass into some casters that can shut high level caster in 1 turn. But it's not PvP game and it's not designed around that, especially since monsters/enemies do not have PC templates.

2. Short adventuring days and frequent Long Rests. If caster can just burn 2-3 Fireballs per encounter and do not care about resources then problem is how DM runs the game. Also 2-3 Short Rests per Long Rest should be standard to let pure martials get their resources back.

3. DM being cheap when it comes to magic items for martials. We all know that marials depend on good magic items way more than casters. If DM understands that then it's great game for martial. They also scale superb with magic weapons. Even simple Sword n Shield Fighter with Flame Tongue can 1/3 HP of Ancient Black Dragon in one turn.

4. DM runs too easy eno****ers without any enemy casters who can use counterspell or dispel magic or Silence or enemy rogues who can focus party casters and force them to play defensively. If every time PC caster just stands back and can just spam Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force then that's DM issue. Why no enemy Counterspells that? Why no enemy Dispel Magic? Why enemy cleric don't place Silence on PC caster and hidden enemy rogues suddenly gank caster?

I think 5e balanced casters vs martials very well and yes you can make riddiculous builds like Nuclear Wizard or Xbow Expert Tenser Pegasus Lore Bard however those are pure powerbuilds (some with very very gentle DM rulling involved) that maybe 2% of players use. But you can also make super duper strong builds with martials which can Nova for 200+ dmg easy. It's all there.

I also think with Tasha's martials got way better and some martials subclasses like EK, Rune Knight, Echo Knight and good old Samurai EA Archer are very powerfull and don't stay behind casters and scales really well into Tier 4. Martials got Blind Fighting, Fighting Style Feat, Great Half-Feats and new very strong mulitclass options.

Ashrym

2021-02-08, 12:25 AM

There is such a thing as a belt of giant strength. or even gauntlets of ogre power. There is no such thing as a cloak of Charisma, ergo, the Paladin should be boosting his CHA and waiting for the appropriate magic item to handle STR. Even if it takes a while, the Paladin should just be content with his 16 STR and beeline for CHA 20 to make sure that +5 to saves is online. Then again, my Paladins are basically defense oriented. They usually come into the world with heavy armor master and frequently sit there with sentinel and take the dodge action in the front lines. I'm usually content to let the bad guys flail uselessly with disadvantage against my AC.

Magic items exist, but a build that requires a specific magic item is going to struggle unless the DM enables it. They aren't a given and the chance on random rolls isn't worth it.

It is, however, one of the reasons an artificer is nice to have in the party. Replicate magic item is good.

I agree paladins are strong defensively. Every class has strong points.

MaxWilson

2021-02-08, 12:28 AM

Magic items exist, but a build that requires a specific magic item is going to struggle unless the DM enables it. They aren't a given and the chance on random rolls isn't worth it.

It is, however, one of the reasons an artificer is nice to have in the party. Replicate magic item is good.

I agree paladins are strong defensively. Every class has strong points.

I'd hardly call a Str 16 melee fighter one that "requires" magic items.

I do agree that it's better to pump Cha, since that's your unique value proposition. Even if you never find a Belt of Giant Strength you'll still be glad you pumped Cha instead of Str.

SharkForce

2021-02-08, 05:10 AM

A bonus ASI (feat) and an extra subclass ability. Another action surge every short rest certainly doesn't hurt either.

Fighters gain 7 ASI's/feats on a SAD class compared to the paladin's MAD design. Fighters also gain 5 subclass abilities compared to the paladin's 3 subclass features. The fourth subclass feature paladins gain is the capstone when all classes also gain a capstone. The number of subclass features each class gets is still part of the class progression when we look at the base class features.

Lay on hands is more versatile than second wind, but it's playing catch up with actual hp recovered as well. At 1st level it's 5hp / long rest. Second wind averages 6.5 / short rest so ~19.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. When the paladin is getting up to 20 / long rest at 4th level it's 9.5 / short rest for the fighter, or ~28.5 / long rest on standard assumptions. At 6th level when the paladin is catching up to that 4th level fighter the fighter is still going strong with ~11.5 / short rest, or ~34.5 / long rest on standard assumptions.

Lay on hands doesn't catch up to the standard assumption on second wind until 7th level. The kicker at that point is the fighter still only needs a short rest to recover another use while the paladin needs a long rest. In that same 8 hours the fighter can easily fit in 5 more short rests. Beyond that, a long rest benefit can only be received once in any 24 hour period. A fighter can fit a lot of short rests in that same amount of time. Wilderness and town environments cater to many short rests

Second wind kicks ass when the party is leveraging short rests like the the 5MWD model that comes up so often, and it's easier to justify a short rest over a long rest.

Smites can be great surge damage, but so is action surge. The difference again is long rest recovery version short rest recovery.

While leveling, giving up CHA for accuracy and damage is a drawback on those bonuses, and going for CHA gives up accuracy and damage compared to the fighter. MAD vs SAD. There are growing pains getting the paladin to high levels compared to the fighter, and by that time the extra feats and extra attack and extra actions surges are worthwhile.

Just sayin' ;-)

most of that offers no real non-combat utility. the ASI *might* depending on what the fighter takes; something like ritual caster could do something.

and yes, the paladin is pretty MAD. fortunately at high levels is when that starts to get less awkward, because you've gotten more ASIs.

yes, fighter is good at combat. paladin is also good at combat, and frankly, is *really* good at combat in a lot of ways that fighters simply don't do. auras are amazing. yes, even when they're only a 10 foot radius. the aura is that strong. their built-in healing and party support is vastly superior as well, including getting some almost-unique spells that can be very useful.

and then they have the out-of-combat utility, too. even if it isn't much compared to a primary spellcaster, as I said, it's a lot more than the average martial character is getting at similar levels.

all of those things help the paladin last longer than is typical before casters start doing crazy things. when *exactly* that happens is not something I can really put my finger on, whether we're talking about when it happens to fighters or when it happens to paladins, but it happens later for paladins because of all these little edges they have on other martials.

diplomancer

2021-02-08, 06:11 AM

I believe the answer to this question is somewhat dependent on how much downtime the party gets.

A lot of downtime? Casters (wizards specially) can start pulling permanent useful effects as early as level 3, though no dominance yet. But, at the latest, once you get to level 11, Planar Binding allows casters to CREATE their own martials (animate dead does that earlier, but I really dislike that spell and its mechanical impact, the worse possible combination of strong power and drastically slowing down combat, which is already too slow. I dislike it so much that I'd never use it as a player, would strongly encourage players not to use it if I'm the DM, and if they insisted on making use of it regularly I would make sure that, as the caster's fame increases, he'd get fear and loathing from pretty much EVERY NPC, with the exception of some evil-aligned apprentices hoping to learn from him and, eventually, get the better of him)

What about NO downtime (meaning, literally NO downtime, i.e there is never one single day where casters can use their slots for more permanent power, as every day there are a lot of combats where they HAVE to use their higher level slots or risk death)? Then I'd say, perhaps, once they get Wish for Arcane casters, at level 20 for single-classed Druids and Clerics

Ashrym

2021-02-08, 03:36 PM

I'd hardly call a Str 16 melee fighter one that "requires" magic items.

I do agree that it's better to pump Cha, since that's your unique value proposition. Even if you never find a Belt of Giant Strength you'll still be glad you pumped Cha instead of Str.

I don't disagree, but it still demonstrates the fighter's advantage over the paladin in that regard. As the paladin is adding CHA and the fighter is adding STR or DEX that's always on accuracy and damage, and with the 6th level bonus ASI / feat it opens it up with good damage feats to go along with it.

most of that offers no real non-combat utility. the ASI *might* depending on what the fighter takes; something like ritual caster could do something.

and yes, the paladin is pretty MAD. fortunately at high levels is when that starts to get less awkward, because you've gotten more ASIs.

yes, fighter is good at combat. paladin is also good at combat, and frankly, is *really* good at combat in a lot of ways that fighters simply don't do. auras are amazing. yes, even when they're only a 10 foot radius. the aura is that strong. their built-in healing and party support is vastly superior as well, including getting some almost-unique spells that can be very useful.

and then they have the out-of-combat utility, too. even if it isn't much compared to a primary spellcaster, as I said, it's a lot more than the average martial character is getting at similar levels.

all of those things help the paladin last longer than is typical before casters start doing crazy things. when *exactly* that happens is not something I can really put my finger on, whether we're talking about when it happens to fighters or when it happens to paladins, but it happens later for paladins because of all these little edges they have on other martials.

I think this begs the question of why you think fighters need out of combat options in the first place. Fighters are designed to fight and do that well, and other martial classes give out of combat options already. However, fighter out of combat options more often hidden in the subclasses and why fighters gain subclass features at 5 levels plus the capstone while paladins gain them at 3 levels and add another as the capstone.

Look at the rune knight as an example of fighter options with a lot of out-of-combat use. The fire rune giving tool expertise levels earlier than artificers gain it. The advantage or bonuses available on ability checks lends towards a lot of uses; more than the battlemaster ability check bonus maneuvers. I can add more with feats and use backgrounds and build based on DEX over STR around that base for a pretty roguish character on the fighter chassis starting at 3rd level.

What spells do you think the paladin is using to demonstrate the versatility you mention?

As for being MAD being less awkward at high levels, how do you think that plays out in the process of getting to those high levels? That's what I mean by growing pains. Fighters can cap out their main stat by 6th level easily. That affects accuracy and damage, and in the case of battle masters it also synergizes with maneuver save DC's.

I would point out that some of the fighter subclasses can be a bit more MAD than others. Rune knights use CON for DC's instead of STR or DEX so that's not too bad, but several use INT (eldritch knight, arcane archer, psi-warrior). People following the posts need to be careful of blanket statements because we all make them. ;-)

CapnWildefyr

2021-02-08, 04:21 PM

FWIW, I think there is a better question lurking behind the one that was asked. You've gotten a lot of good information from players and DMs in the 4-5 pages of posts. Those answers really show a lot about how we all play a different flavor of the game. Spellcasters can be incredibly powerful, not denying it. Sometimes OP, depending on the game. But we play the game for fun, and I think what you maybe are really asking is, "What can I do as a DM to make sure that the players keep having fun at higher levels, and one class type or player does not naturally dominate so some players feel left out (while still keeping that overpowering player happy too)?"

Now, you do not want to wantonly nerf players - that's usually counterproductive (and often interpreted as 'mean for no reason'). And, we are talking about OP spellcasters here -- wizards and cleric/druids. So (incl. prev. posts above and maybe some new thoughts):

Adjust the LR/SR's by making the characters want to continue. LR's can have bad consequences -- like the BBEG (or whatever is there) absconds with whatever you want. Also, most beings don't like dying. Even very effective parties can leave witnesses, and leave evidence of what they did (scorch marks, melted goblins, that sort of thing). Villains can figure them out (or try) and adjust their tactics accordingly. Let the party know witnesses might have gotten away so they have to think about what that means, and how much time they have to rest.
Add more attackers, change them to add some who are more resistant to the typical magic being used, that sort of thing so no one gets bored. A BBEG, given time and money, might hire assassins to snipe the party mages. (The BBEG probably sees the party as assassins, after all.) You're not trying to make the casters worthless, just make them use more and different spells.
Adjust tactics. The villains will try to better dictate the places of battle to their own advantage, places where they can attack from multiple directions. They might add pit traps, fire traps, whatever is in their skill sets.
Try to think about encounters -- make sure there's more than one way to get past them. Try to add tidbits that are tempting targets for using high-level spell slots -- like locked big heavy stone doors, or chasms across the path. They'll either burn spell slots or feel smart for not having done so. Win/win.
The villains might add smoke or other simple tricks to waste spellcaster's slots. Can't target something you can't see.
Be sure to read their spells' descriptions and impose the drawbacks. Fire burns stuff you might want. Reverse gravity (love that spell!) lifts everything that's loose in the area -gravel, boulders, money pouches... And have them buy & track material components, at least a little.

That sort of thing. Sorry I'm not overly imaginative right now--don't have better examples. Just remember you're not trying to negate everything the casters do, you're trying to make everyone have fun by increasing the demands on the casters while providing more for noncasters to chew on.

SharkForce

2021-02-08, 05:24 PM

I don't disagree, but it still demonstrates the fighter's advantage over the paladin in that regard. As the paladin is adding CHA and the fighter is adding STR or DEX that's always on accuracy and damage, and with the 6th level bonus ASI / feat it opens it up with good damage feats to go along with it.

I think this begs the question of why you think fighters need out of combat options in the first place. Fighters are designed to fight and do that well, and other martial classes give out of combat options already. However, fighter out of combat options more often hidden in the subclasses and why fighters gain subclass features at 5 levels plus the capstone while paladins gain them at 3 levels and add another as the capstone.

Look at the rune knight as an example of fighter options with a lot of out-of-combat use. The fire rune giving tool expertise levels earlier than artificers gain it. The advantage or bonuses available on ability checks lends towards a lot of uses; more than the battlemaster ability check bonus maneuvers. I can add more with feats and use backgrounds and build based on DEX over STR around that base for a pretty roguish character on the fighter chassis starting at 3rd level.

What spells do you think the paladin is using to demonstrate the versatility you mention?

As for being MAD being less awkward at high levels, how do you think that plays out in the process of getting to those high levels? That's what I mean by growing pains. Fighters can cap out their main stat by 6th level easily. That affects accuracy and damage, and in the case of battle masters it also synergizes with maneuver save DC's.

I would point out that some of the fighter subclasses can be a bit more MAD than others. Rune knights use CON for DC's instead of STR or DEX so that's not too bad, but several use INT (eldritch knight, arcane archer, psi-warrior). People following the posts need to be careful of blanket statements because we all make them. ;-)

this is all very fascinating, I'm sure, but it has very very little to do with the actual question at hand.

yes, fighters and paladins both start at similar strength levels (one might be above the other, but player skill is more likely to be the deciding factor than mechanical imbalance, most of the time). they stay similar for a while.

and eventually the paladin pulls ahead. not "the fighter is a strictly worse version of the paladin" ahead, especially if we're only comparing combat prowess, but "the paladin is approximately equal in some aspects, give or take a little, and is much much better in others".

the question of what it is like before the paladin pulls ahead is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not paladins fall as far behind as other martials at higher levels. yes, it takes a while. I never suggested that a level 2 fighter is obsolete as a consequence of not being a paladin. I also don't think I could put a finger on the exact point at which the paladin definitively pulls ahead. much like the lower levels, this is going to depend to some extent on the individual players' ability to use the system, both in character optimization and during actual gameplay.

if I absolutely had to pick a point where it starts to fall apart for the *specific* comparison of single-classed fighter vs single-classed paladin, I'd probably say around 12-13, mostly because that's when the fighter's class abilities just fall off a cliff and they're stuck looking at the next several levels with little to appeal to them... that said, a fighter can very easily push that back by not being a single-classed fighter (dex-based fighters can benefit a great deal by completely stopping all fighter progression and taking rogue levels at that point, as one example that works quite well in my opinion; sneak attack allows them to continue to progress their damage, bonus action dash and disengage is pretty nice, skill expertise can be decent to amazing depending on what you choose, and evasion can be a very useful thing to have in the toolkit).

the difference is that with a paladin, you don't really need to do that. you don't need to multiclass to add utility and power. they just keep gaining both of them (again, not as much utility as a primary spellcaster, but still more than the average martial).

(as far as specific spells that give them a little bit of utility, I believe I already listed a few... to some extent, it also depends on the oath they take, though).

MaxWilson

2021-02-08, 06:04 PM

if I absolutely had to pick a point where it starts to fall apart for the *specific* comparison of single-classed fighter vs single-classed paladin, I'd probably say around 12-13, mostly because that's when the fighter's class abilities just fall off a cliff and they're stuck looking at the next several levels with little to appeal to them... that said, a fighter can very easily push that back by not being a single-classed fighter (dex-based fighters can benefit a great deal by completely stopping all fighter progression and taking rogue levels at that point, as one example that works quite well in my opinion; sneak attack allows them to continue to progress their damage, bonus action dash and disengage is pretty nice, skill expertise can be decent to amazing depending on what you choose, and evasion can be a very useful thing to have in the toolkit).

EKs also get some very exciting abilities at levels 12, 13, 14 and 15. Your progression could easily look like this:

1-11: bunch of stuff, Dex 20, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert.
12: (if Tasha's is in play) Fighting style: Blindsight, so that your 2nd level evocation spell Darkness is now effectively a better 4th level Greater Invisibility.
13: Fireball and Animate Dead, so that you can Action Surge: Fireball x2 (16d6 (54)) against dangerous mobs, or animate a bunch of minions and meat shields at the end of the day if not.
14: Defensive Duelist for quasi-unlimited +5-6 to AC. Instead of AC 18, you now have essentially AC 23-24 whenever you draw a dagger at the end of your turn.
15: Teleportation before or after you action surge. Get Out of Jail card against effects like Forcecage, can help you kite and avoid opportunity attacks, etc. Doesn't look like much on paper but turns out to be terrific in practice.

I'm less enthusiastic about other fighters, could certainly see a Samurai or Cavalier multiclassing out around level 11 (to Rogue or some kind of full caster), but Tier 3 pure EKs are surprisingly good. IMO better than Paladins although some of that is my bias against melee-centric tactics and in favor of kiting. (Find Greater Steed isn't enough.)

Eldariel

2021-02-09, 12:10 AM

14: Defensive Duelist for quasi-unlimited +5-6 to AC. Instead of AC 18, you now have essentially AC 23-24 whenever you draw a dagger at the end of your turn.

Why would an EK use a whole ASI on an ability that eats your reaction and grants about the same AC bonus as Shield, but only against a single attack?

stoutstien

2021-02-09, 07:55 AM

Why would an EK use a whole ASI on an ability that eats your reaction and grants about the same AC bonus as Shield, but only against a single attack?

Because math. Once a players AC gets the point that they will only get hit ~1-2 times a round the relative value of DD is much higher than the shield spell. It also frees up those spell slots for other more impactful mitigation options like AE and PfGE.

*This is using the assumption that the party sees more than 1-2 encounters so spell slot management is a factor.*

diplomancer

2021-02-09, 08:35 AM

MaxWilson

2021-02-09, 04:11 PM

Because math. Once a players AC gets the point that they will only get hit ~1-2 times a round the relative value of DD is much higher than the shield spell. It also frees up those spell slots for other more impactful mitigation options like AE and PfGE.

*This is using the assumption that the party sees more than 1-2 encounters so spell slot management is a factor.*

True. An EK can easily use ALL of his 1st level slots for Shield in a couple of fights, AND he will normally want to save at least one of them for Absorb Elements/PfGE for the right ocasion. And unlike a Wizard, he's not getting them back on a Short Rest (or have unlimited uses of Shield at Level 18)

I concur.

In my experience, EKs are often starved for spell slots to the point where Shielding against a single hit for 9 points or 14 points or whatever just doesn't make sense. DD therefore saves you 9 HP or 14 HP or whatever each time that happens, while Shield is still available for emergencies (swarmed by kobolds).

As a fringe benefit, DD also still works in antimagic zones.

Tanarii

2021-02-09, 04:49 PM

I concur.

In my experience, EKs are often starved for spell slots to the point where Shielding against a single hit for 9 points or 14 points or whatever just doesn't make sense. DD therefore saves you 9 HP or 14 HP or whatever each time that happens, while Shield is still available for emergencies (swarmed by kobolds).

As a fringe benefit, DD also still works in antimagic zones.
Yeah but it required a finesse weapon and Dex 13, which no EK worth their salt is going to have.

MaxWilson

2021-02-09, 04:50 PM

Yeah but it required a finesse weapon and Dex 13, which no EK worth their salt is going to have.

Are you missing some blue text? Sharpshooter and Shadow Blade are both very popular among EKs.

Tanarii

2021-02-09, 05:22 PM

Are you missing some blue text? Sharpshooter and Shadow Blade are both very popular among EKs.
Sharpshooter means you're not in melee though. I suppose you could take it as a backup defense.

MaxWilson

2021-02-09, 05:41 PM

Sharpshooter means you're not in melee though. I suppose you could take it as a backup defense.

Crossbow Expert was also in the 1-11 build. The sequence goes "shoot a bunch of times, draw a gadget to parry, end turn." Next turn, "sheathe or drop dagger, shoot a bunch of times, retrieve dropped/sheathed dagger or draw a new dagger" (depending on how your DM runs object interactions). Instead of an AC 18 archer you're now an effectively AC 23ish archer.

But yes, killing from range is a better primary defense than AC. DD is a backup for when that isn't feasible/appropriate, which makes it okay to delay until Tier 3. At that point your role expands from pure archer to off-tank.

There are other feats just as good (Mobile) but the point here is that getting new feats is one of the exciting things the EK is getting at levels 12-15. They're not dead levels.

sithlordnergal

2021-02-09, 05:48 PM

I would say Tier 3 is about the time when Casters start to outshine Martials. By then you have more then enough spell slots to survive an entire adventuring day, and you get access to 6th level spells. 6th level spells are like that jump from 2nd level spells to 3rd, its absolutely massive. Wizards get access to things like Chain Lightning, Disintegrate, Globe of Invulnerability, Magic Jar, Mass Suggestion, Irresistible Dance, ect. Meanwhile Clerics get spells like Blade Barrier, Harm, Heal, Heroes Feast and Planar Ally.

And the gap only gets wider as things go on. At level 13 Wizards gain access to things like Simulacrum and Force Cage, Clerics have Resurrection and Plane Shift, Druids have Whirlwind and Reverse Gravity, and Bards have things like Project Image and Teleport. Heck, Teleport and Simulacrum alone are literal game breaking spells if the DM isn't prepared for them.

And by the time you reach 9th level spells, you're dealing with stuff like Wish, True Polymorph, and Shapechange. Heck, at that level a Wizard can literally cast Wish to get a free Simulacrum, wait for a day then cast True Polymorph to give it full HP and the ability to recover spells and hit points. Or, if they wanted to be cheeky, cast Wish to make an instant Simulacrum out of, say, a Fighter, cast True Polymorph on it, and boom. Now you have a second Fighter.

Topgoon

2021-02-09, 05:53 PM

It's hard to assess the spellcasting versatility of Paladins simply by looking at their class spell list. In practice, close to 50% of their prepared spells will come from their Oath list (and some are far better than others IMO).

For me, caster dominance is caused the fact that spellcasters can alter and reshape the game to their advantage, while martial classes (generally speaking) have no choice but to accept it.

It less about AC/DPR computations (though those are still important), than simply not having any viable counters to the various effects and scenarios that you can be placed in. It hits a critical point in higher tiers when no-save spells like Wall of Force comes into play, where aside from a few exceptions, most martial classes simply have zero counter move and are completely dependent on circumstances (whether it be your DM or your party) to be able to perform.

Given that, I do find Paladins are "less dominated" by casters because they at least have a suite of power that gives them more of a chance to resist this than other martials classes (especially at later tiers).

Between their good saves, the non-dispellable flight/mobility gained from Find Greater Steed, dispelling power from spells or cleansing touch, Paladins have some tools they can use to resist or even have an effect in the game of reality shaping that D&D becomes at higher tiers. Certain Oaths - like Vengeance, offers more counter moves via Misty Step and Dimension Door (i.e. Forcecage).

I would put certain Rangers (i.e. Fey Wanderer), EKs, and ATs roughly in this same mix, due to their abilities to access some these counter moves.

15: Teleportation before or after you action surge. Get Out of Jail card against effects like Forcecage, can help you kite and avoid opportunity attacks, etc. Doesn't look like much on paper but turns out to be terrific in practice.

Wouldn't you still need to make a CHA save to get out of a Forcecage? If so, it's still nice to have an option and chance (although I'd assume most EK would have terrible CHA saves), but I wouldn't exactly call it a Get Out of Jail card.

MaxWilson

2021-02-09, 06:41 PM

Wouldn't you still need to make a CHA save to get out of a Forcecage? If so, it's still nice to have an option and chance (although I'd assume most EK would have terrible CHA saves), but I wouldn't exactly call it a Get Out of Jail card.

Yes, you do still need to make a Cha save against Forcecage. (One of the few times where Indomitable's reroll is actually a big deal, and even then you probably need Bardic Inspiration or a Bless or Paladin aura.)

Angelalex242

2021-02-09, 07:28 PM

MaxWilson

2021-02-09, 11:15 PM

Well, anything with spells cries tears of woe when the Oath of Ancients Paladin+Mage Slayer stands next to it and grins.

+5(6?) to saves, advantage to saves, damaging spells are halved, reaction attack if they dare cast a spell...good times.

Oath of Ancients also has misty step (Though not dimension door). Still, Ancients is for defense (hi, stoneskin!), Vengeance for offense.

Make sure you get a DM ruling on whether the spell effect (e.g. Misty Step) happens before or after the Mage Slayer reaction. Xanathar's rule on simultaneous effects, if followed, makes Mage Slayer even sadder than it is otherwise: the player who controls the creature whose turn it is (i.e. the DM because he controls the enemy wizard) gets to decide what order things happen in (Misty Step before Mage Slayer reaction, so Mage Slayer is does nothing).

sithlordnergal

2021-02-10, 05:01 PM

Make sure you get a DM ruling on whether the spell effect (e.g. Misty Step) happens before or after the Mage Slayer reaction. Xanathar's rule on simultaneous effects, if followed, makes Mage Slayer even sadder than it is otherwise: the player who controls the creature whose turn it is (i.e. the DM because he controls the enemy wizard) gets to decide what order things happen in (Misty Step before Mage Slayer reaction, so Mage Slayer is does nothing).

Yeah, that is the downside of Mage Slayer...you end up in a position where its essentially useless cause the spell goes off before your reaction. And depending on the spell being used it could just remove your entire attack. =/

MaxWilson

2021-02-10, 05:12 PM

Yeah, that is the downside of Mage Slayer...you end up in a position where its essentially useless cause the spell goes off before your reaction. And depending on the spell being used it could just remove your entire attack. =/

I don't run Mage Slayer by RAW, partly because of this.

My house rules state that casting a spell with your action (not bonus action or reaction) when you're within reach of an enemy triggers a melee opportunity attack, and if you fail the concentration save then the spell doesn't take effect. So, at my table Mage Slayer has a different first benefit:

When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
When you make an opportunity attack against a spell being cast, you can disrupt non-concentration spells as if they were concentration spells.
When you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, that creature has disadvantage on the saving throw it makes to maintain its concentration.
You have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures within 5 feet of you.

Therefore, at my table, a Mage Slayer could prevent you from Dimension-Dooring out, if they hit and you fail your con save (at disadvantage if the Mage Slayer is within 5', vs. at 10' with a polearm or whip or something). You still couldn't disrupt Misty Step though--it's too quick.

MrStabby

2021-02-10, 09:26 PM

Yeah, that is the downside of Mage Slayer...you end up in a position where its essentially useless cause the spell goes off before your reaction. And depending on the spell being used it could just remove your entire attack. =/

I think the bigger problem with mageslayer is that a lot of DMs just don't run enough casters and more commonly use NPCs/Monsters that try and stick sharp things in you. In a world where caster NPCs are as common as martial NPCs it is a very, very powerful feat.

People seem to focus on the reaction attack, but that is only one part of it. Advantage on saves when close to the caster is a bit (very) situational but is pretty damn solid when used. Things like spirit guardians that like to be close suffer, but mainly it is great if you can get right up in the enemy's face quickly before they can cast their big spells. This is the weakest piece.

I would say forcing concentration saves at disadvantage is the strongest. If you DM uses enough casters you are probably going to see a good number of concentration saves cropping up and taking them down is very fun.

The reaction attack is pretty good but importantly it synergises well with the other two abilities. They cast a spell - say something like hold person targetting a few people in the party, you resist thanks to your advantage on saves, your reaction attack them, and thanks to disadvantage on saves you break their concetration and free the rest of your party. All works well with getting right up in their face. The reaction happening after the spell has resolved can be a good thing given your improved chance at breaking concentration.

Whilst I wouldn't say you need to build round this feat it does do better on some builds than others. I think mobility is key - rogues benefit massively; cunning action can get them to the caster and a reaction attack from them can be very nasty (although you also need to have advanatage or an ally close to hand - if you needed your extra mobility you might not have this). Monks are similar and their plethora of attacks lets them force a lot of concentration saves. I think sword and board dexterity fighters are also quite effective with this - take mobility as well (and the class can afford an extra feat) and at high levels you can even start to invest in things like sentinel to pin your enemies down and fey touched for even more mobility.

It's a great feat... you just need your DM to give you enough casters to fight.

JoeJ

2021-02-12, 07:02 PM

It starts at exactly the point when the DM decides that magic is inherently more special than non-magic; that you can be Green Lantern, but you can't be Batman.

sithlordnergal

2021-02-12, 07:30 PM

It starts at exactly the point when the DM decides that magic is inherently more special than non-magic; that you can be Green Lantern, but you can't be Batman.

I mean, not really...a DM can keep non-magic special...but there's not much a martial can do when Wizards at high levels can literally make a perfect, permanent clone of any Humanoid/Beast vis Wish and True Polymorph over the course of two days. Now, I will admit that combo is only do-able at level 17...but even before that Wizards can break games

JoeJ

2021-02-12, 08:03 PM

I mean, not really...a DM can keep non-magic special...but there's not much a martial can do when Wizards at high levels can literally make a perfect, permanent clone of any Humanoid/Beast vis Wish and True Polymorph over the course of two days. Now, I will admit that combo is only do-able at level 17...but even before that Wizards can break games

With non-magic, a 11th level rogue can talk a hostile dragon into doing them a favor 100% of the time. Or track an enemy across bare stone. With an ability score of 20, expertise, and reliable talent, an 11th level rogue can't roll less than 23 on an ability check. Put another way, they can not fail on challenges that are impossible for a proficient commoner. At level 17, they can't roll less than 27, and can hit 30+ pretty regularly. But if the DM decides that this only makes them a little better than Bob down at the gym, then casters are going to be way more awesome.

Kane0

2021-02-12, 09:38 PM

Depending on definitions either as soon as casters can do something noncasters can’t, as soon as they start influencing the flow of combat or when they start ignoring game rules and meta-rules.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 12:37 AM

With non-magic, a 11th level rogue can talk a hostile dragon into doing them a favor 100% of the time. Or track an enemy across bare stone. With an ability score of 20, expertise, and reliable talent, an 11th level rogue can't roll less than 23 on an ability check. Put another way, they can not fail on challenges that are impossible for a proficient commoner. At level 17, they can't roll less than 27, and can hit 30+ pretty regularly. But if the DM decides that this only makes them a little better than Bob down at the gym, then casters are going to be way more awesome.

Honestly, what a level 11 Rogue can do isn't really that special. Lore Bard of 3rd level or higher can use Enhance Ability and has Expertises leading to similar rolls as a level 11 Rogue 75% of the time and better rolls more often than the Rogue, who has a hard time giving themself advantage. Level 14 Lore Bard can, of course, add 1d12 further to the roll and have their Simulacrum cast Enhance Ability + Bardic Inspiration die casting Skill Empowerment themselves to the point that they can have that Advantage + Expertise + 2d10 [2d12 on level 15] on almost any skill (Lore Bard has 8 skill proficiencies + any possible racial ones at this point). Their 50% point is 27, a number Rogue can never reach and other bonuses are the same. It's not at all odd for a level 14 Lore Bard to go around making DC 40 skill checks with rather decent reliability in all their 8+ skills. The chance of the Bard rolling lower than 11? 0,5%. Once in 200 rolls. That's how often they'd care about Reliable Talent. It might matter once over the course of a game.

And it's not just Rogue; any character, caster or martial, can hit the same number with Skill Expert on the board. Rogue has some more reliability in that they can't roll low post-11 but if the character has Advantage (from e.g. Enhance Ability) and, say, Lucky, the chances of rolling too low are minor enough that it doesn't really matter (you get 87,5% chance of rolling 11 or higher with 3 dice). And those abilities come online much earlier than Reliable Talent. It would take for a really bizarre day if you needed to roll enough high rolls that caster resource use would be a problem in this sense.

Skill system doesn't mathematically scale hard enough for skill experts to truly perform anything astounding compared to everyone else since everyone has access to the same boosts except Lore Bards get one extra. There's no "Extra Skill Roll" type of mechanic or any special features opening up new options or anything of the sort for skill users to set themselves apart. Aside from, again, Bards who can eventually get higher check bonuses than anyone else (but ironically they're better at boosting others than themselves; for most of the game from 3-13 you're better off with two Bards for skilling than anything else due to cross-inspiration) but even there it's just numbers. It's plain stupid that Bard is e.g. the best class for Athletics too; if you ever wanna open that DC70 door which requires immeasurable strength, what you need is not the Heracles-incarnate Barbarian but rather a Bard whose strength doesn't even really matter that much. What he gets is a bunch of random numeric bonuses on the roll breaking bounded accuracy.

The only way to make the skill system really work as is is to ignore skill bonuses and numbers entirely and just tell what the character can do based on character type, specialisation, and level instead. That way you can give them appropriate (in your eyes) rewards for their skills on given level. Because the skill system itself is going to numerically fail at that.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-13, 12:58 AM

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 01:06 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-13, 01:16 AM

By spending how many resources?

I've never actually seen this theoretical domination in actual play. In 5e at least. I saw it by 6th level in PF, and that was with the casters not even really trying. I've seen people bend over backwards to let magic break the rules and find reasons why spells will work while holding non spell attempts to a blinkered, worse than reality standard. I've seen lots of forum talk that boils down to white rooms and Schrodinger's builds, plus generous assumptions about rulings (but only for casters). All of that tells me that most of this is manufactured and goes away if people don't try to shove it in.

Asisreo1

2021-02-13, 01:42 AM

Spells aren't nearly as reliable as people believe.

Their effects are predictable, true, but if you think a DM can't screw over a spell that was cast arbitrarily with excuses ranging from invalid targets to fudging saves to saying you did your somatic component wrong, well, there's clearly some bias going on.

How predictable can your abilities be if you live in an unpredictable world? Regardless, you need to speak to your DM about how you want your character to be portrayed and used.

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 01:43 AM

ezekielraiden

2021-02-13, 01:46 AM

By spending how many resources?

I don't feel like "one low-level spell slot and one of five-per-short-rest Inspiration uses" is an inordinate resource expenditure. A Bard can easily pull off this combo three times a day without meaningfully "wasting" any resources--after all, she has nine higher-level spell slots (if we're talking about the 20th level Barbarian with 24 Str) even if we ignore the slots of 6th level and higher, and as long as she gets at least one short rest that day, she'll be handing out more than twice as many Inspiration uses to other players. And her cantrips, because they auto-scale, remain competitive with ordinary attacks, too (though she'll probably want to pick up eldritch blast via Magical Secrets if she's doing so all that often).

JoeJ

2021-02-13, 02:00 AM

Bard is a great class. But why would the bard choose to gain Expertise in the same skills the rogue did? That's not being a team player. It's much better for the party if they choose different ones.

Enhance Ability is sometimes a useful spell. But it uses 1/3 of your 2nd level spell slots and requires concentration. And if you're not careful when you use it, you'll end up spending a spell slot to accomplish nothing more than the Help action.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 02:20 AM

Opening the door isn't an athletics check. It's a straight STR check, no proficiencies allowed. And unless you've got Schrodinger's bard (whose expertise and ability scores and spells are exactly what the situation needs at all times), very few Bards are built for that. And if they are, they're pretty bad at most other things. Bards aren't really generalists--they can be built in a bunch of different ways, but once built a lot of their flexibility goes away.

Yeah, fair, that particular door is DC70 Strength-check. Doesn't really matter: an 8 Str Lore Bard is still better than a 24 Str Barbarian on average with 0 skill investment. 24 Str Barbarian with Athletics proficiency gets +13 and Advantage on level 20. Lore Bard gets +2d12 + 2 Prof - 1 Str on level 15 (+3 on level 17 due to Jack of All Trades) plus Advantage from Enhance Ability averaging +14-+15 at Advantage. That's the difference in their ability; with nary an expertise, no proficiencies, negative modifier, a level 15 Bard has a better bonus than a level 20 Raging Barbarian with their capstone specifically enhancing this. All they need to expend is one of their 5/Short Rest resources and a 2nd level spell slot which lasts an hour and they have two casters for it (themselves and the simulacrums). And the Bard can do that 15 times per day with two short rests; how many times do you need to force more than 15 doors open in a day? That's what I thought.

Bard is a great class. But why would the bard choose to gain Expertise in the same skills the rogue did? That's not being a team player. It's much better for the party if they choose different ones.

Enhance Ability is sometimes a useful spell. But it uses 1/3 of your 2nd level spell slots and requires concentration. And if you're not careful when you use it, you'll end up spending a spell slot to accomplish nothing more than the Help action.

Better question, why would you pick a Rogue when you could just play another Bard that brings another set of Enhance Abilities and Bardic Inspirations and such to the table? That's not being a team player.

EDIT: Not to mention, Bard of 9th level or higher can always replicate Expertise in any skill with a spell if desired. Once they get their Simulacrum they can do both, Expertise and Advantage any trained skill (of which they can easily have 9-10 so really any skill you care about) effortlessly.

Valmark

2021-02-13, 02:42 AM

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 03:20 AM

Yeah, fair, that particular door is DC70 Strength-check. Doesn't really matter: an 8 Str Lore Bard is still better than a 24 Str Barbarian on average with 0 skill investment. 24 Str Barbarian with Athletics proficiency gets +13 and Advantage on level 20. Lore Bard gets +2d12 + 2 Prof - 1 Str on level 15 (+3 on level 17 due to Jack of All Trades) plus Advantage from Enhance Ability averaging +14-+15 at Advantage. That's the difference in their ability; with nary an expertise, no proficiencies, negative modifier, a level 15 Bard has a better bonus than a level 20 Raging Barbarian with their capstone specifically enhancing this. All they need to expend is one of their 5/Short Rest resources and a 2nd level spell slot which lasts an hour and they have two casters for it (themselves and the simulacrums). And the Bard can do that 15 times per day with two short rests; how many times do you need to force more than 15 doors open in a day? That's what I thought.

The Barbarian gets +7, not +13, because Athletics is irrelevant to doors.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 03:22 AM

The Barbarian gets +7, not +13, because Athletics is irrelevant to doors.

Okay, fair enough. But even in Athletics-check the Lore Bard without proficiency would come out ahead, without using shapechanging magic to gain stats, and having proficiency and magic to further gain expertise.

JoeJ

2021-02-13, 03:22 AM

Better question, why would you pick a Rogue when you could just play another Bard that brings another set of Enhance Abilities and Bardic Inspirations and such to the table?

Sneak attack damage. Bonus action hide, disengatge or dash every round. Earlier expertise. Expertise with thieves' tools. Better than the bard with expertise starting at 10th level, because of higher ability scores via an extra ASI. Better still with reliable talent. And yet better still with stroke of luck. Blindsense. Survivability due to uncanny dodge, evasion, slippery mind, and elusive. That's not even counting the archetype features.

EDIT: Not to mention, Bard of 9th level or higher can always replicate Expertise in any skill with a spell if desired. Once they get their Simulacrum they can do both, Expertise and Advantage any trained skill (of which they can easily have 9-10 so really any skill you care about) effortlessly

At 9th level you're going to use your only 5th level slot, plus concentration, just for temporary expertise in one skill?

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 03:28 AM

Sneak attack damage. Bonus action hide, disengatge or dash every round. Earlier expertise. Expertise with thieves' tools. Better than the bard with expertise starting at 10th level, because of higher ability scores via an extra ASI. Better still with reliable talent. And yet better still with stroke of luck. Blindsense. Survivability due to uncanny dodge, evasion, slippery mind, and elusive. That's not even counting the archetype features.

And all of those combined are comparable to...maybe level 4 spells? Sadly Bard gets 9th level spells so it's not much of a comparison. Arcane Trickster gets even more 4th level spells but, again, that doesn't compare to higher level options. Like it's pretty trivial for a Bard to outdamage any amount of Sneak Attack damage by just dropping a Magical Secrets on Animate Dead or Conjure Animals, though even base Bard is pretty good in this regard. Bonus action utility is pretty good, granted. Rest...whatever? The party is 100% better off with a second Bard over a Rogue. Rogue is, as you put it, the selfish class. It doesn't give the party mates anything but it eats up resources from others to do its thing. Sadly for the Rogue, party is stronger with party friendly as opposed to selfish classes. Frankly, it's hard not to eclipse the party Rogue if you're playing a spellcaster. Been there.

JoeJ

2021-02-13, 03:33 AM

Rogue is, as you put it, the selfish class.

Hunh? When did I ever say that. Rogue is very definitely no more selfish than any other class, including your beloved bard.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 03:50 AM

Hunh? When did I ever say that. Rogue is very definitely no more selfish than any other class, including your beloved bard.

Okay, so what does Rogue do to improve his teammates' performance?

JoeJ

2021-02-13, 03:56 AM

Okay, so what does Rogue do to improve his teammates' performance?

I already answered that two posts ago.

Asisreo1

2021-02-13, 04:15 AM

Honestly, it still speaks of caster dominance if the DM needs to be adversarial against the casters. Also speaks of bad DMing, but that's a whole other story.
The DM needs to be adversarial to the martials, too. If a player decides they want to attempt something that is entirely reasonable and the DM says no because it wouldn't fit their idea of what should happen, its adversarial DM'ing.

I'm also considering that a dialogue already took place about the expectations of the campaign. If the player isn't stepping over any bounds besides "The DM didn't think of this." And the DM decides to put a fail state on something reasonable for nothing other than hoping to prevent the action from taking place, that's adversarial.

Let's be real. Some DM's don't make a character roll to climb to add tension, engage the players, or simulate reality. Its because they're climbing something they didn't intend for them to climb and want to punish that behavior. Now, if a DM does have a circumstance where they need to add tension through climbing checks, that's fair.

But if a player is denied action because of DM's concern of their storybook over the player's agency, then its not just martial characters that are going to feel that blatant railroading.

That is, unless there's a caster bias. In that case, the problem identifies the solution.

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 04:21 AM

I already answered that two posts ago.

Two posts ago you said:

Sneak attack damage. Bonus action hide, disengatge or dash every round. Earlier expertise. Expertise with thieves' tools. Better than the bard with expertise starting at 10th level, because of higher ability scores via an extra ASI. Better still with reliable talent. And yet better still with stroke of luck. Blindsense. Survivability due to uncanny dodge, evasion, slippery mind, and elusive. That's not even counting the archetype features.

Those are inward-facing self-buffs though. They provide less benefit to teammates than Bardic Inspiration and spells do. Cooperation with a Rogue involves buffing the Rogue (e.g. Invisibility), but cooperation with a Bard often involves benefiting from what the Bard can do to you (e.g. Bardic Inspiration to mitigate the threat of concentration failures). It just so happens that 5E is designed so that this outward-facing team buffs add up to more (IMHO) than the inward facing Rogue buffs: two Bards can do more than two Rogues, and I think also more than a Bard and a Rogue together.

If you're not careful/party doesn't have good teamwork, Rogue abilities like Cunning Action can actually harm the party by making the enemy focus fire on another PC.

That's what makes "selfish" a valid characterization. The Rogue PC need not be selfish, but the class abilities face inward, not directly helping the rest of the party.

Rogues are a great 2 level dip though.

OldTrees1

2021-02-13, 08:26 AM

Okay, so what does Rogue do to improve his teammates' performance?

Depends on the Rogue, but it usually translates to self buffs being turned into a qualitative buff to the party.

Dun the Dungeon tour guide:
Negated surprise, noticed ambushes / traps in advance
Provided recon
Improved the party (visual and auditory) stealth
Granted darkvision to the last person without it
Improved the party's senses by proxy
Used healing to revive allies in combat
Helped the party escape 3 different deadly situations in 3 different ways
(cunning action to move PCs faster)
(stealth to survive drawing the enemy away)
(hideous laughter + healing)
oh and if your DM rules aiding another requires proficiency the rogue might have proficiency
and I guess providing focused fire against a single target helps with preventative healing (I hesitate to list this one)

So it is a rather short list. Comparing to 3E/5E martials this is a longer list. Compared to casters, well they have more buff spells (and I omitted the effect of Dun's 1 level of Knowledge Cleric)

Naerytar

2021-02-13, 08:56 AM

Those are inward-facing self-buffs though. They provide less benefit to teammates than Bardic Inspiration and spells do. Cooperation with a Rogue involves buffing the Rogue (e.g. Invisibility), but cooperation with a Bard often involves benefiting from what the Bard can do to you (e.g. Bardic Inspiration to mitigate the threat of concentration failures). It just so happens that 5E is designed so that this outward-facing team buffs add up to more (IMHO) than the inward facing Rogue buffs: two Bards can do more than two Rogues, and I think also more than a Bard and a Rogue together.

If you're not careful/party doesn't have good teamwork, Rogue abilities like Cunning Action can actually harm the party by making the enemy focus fire on another PC.

That's what makes "selfish" a valid characterization. The Rogue PC need not be selfish, but the class abilities face inward, not directly helping the rest of the party.

Rogues are a great 2 level dip though.

That distinction is pretty pointless, though. In D&D you win as a team or you lose as a team. Whether you buff yourself to do X more damage or buff a party member to do X more damage... point is the damage gets done. Who cares who actually did it? Either the party beats an encounter or they don't. Same thing with the door mentioned earlier. Either the party manages to open it or they don't.

So at the end of the day, self-buff or party-buff really doesn't make much of a difference.

Valmark

2021-02-13, 09:28 AM

The DM needs to be adversarial to the martials, too. If a player decides they want to attempt something that is entirely reasonable and the DM says no because it wouldn't fit their idea of what should happen, its adversarial DM'ing.

I'm also considering that a dialogue already took place about the expectations of the campaign. If the player isn't stepping over any bounds besides "The DM didn't think of this." And the DM decides to put a fail state on something reasonable for nothing other than hoping to prevent the action from taking place, that's adversarial.

Let's be real. Some DM's don't make a character roll to climb to add tension, engage the players, or simulate reality. Its because they're climbing something they didn't intend for them to climb and want to punish that behavior. Now, if a DM does have a circumstance where they need to add tension through climbing checks, that's fair.

But if a player is denied action because of DM's concern of their storybook over the player's agency, then its not just martial characters that are going to feel that blatant railroading.

That is, unless there's a caster bias. In that case, the problem identifies the solution.

The problem is that the examples you made are just antagonizing to the players. It doesn't actually mean that casters don't become superior after a while if the DM is going to be against the party- just that the specific DM in question is being a jerk about it (assuming like you said that bounds were being respected).

That distinction is pretty pointless, though. In D&D you win as a team or you lose as a team. Whether you buff yourself to do X more damage or buff a party member to do X more damage... point is the damage gets done. Who cares who actually did it? Either the party beats an encounter or they don't. Same thing with the door mentioned earlier. Either the party manages to open it or they don't.

So at the end of the day, self-buff or party-buff really doesn't make much of a difference.

The point Max was making was that according to him party-buffs work better in 5e then self-buffs, which means that a class like a bard is going to generally work out better then a class like a rogue.

I'm not sure how much of that is true, but I do agree that a bard is going to contribute more then a rogue in general.

Obviously they consume resources to do that, which is fine- it would be terrible design otherwise.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 09:43 AM

That distinction is pretty pointless, though. In D&D you win as a team or you lose as a team. Whether you buff yourself to do X more damage or buff a party member to do X more damage... point is the damage gets done. Who cares who actually did it? Either the party beats an encounter or they don't. Same thing with the door mentioned earlier. Either the party manages to open it or they don't.

So at the end of the day, self-buff or party-buff really doesn't make much of a difference.

But it does, because party buff increases party efficiency while self-buff increases self efficiency and party power generally eclipses personal power (outside very specific nonsense like Animate Dead and Conjure Animals). When you have party buffs instead of the self-buffs, they can be used on the recipient best able to utilise them. Thus you get more value out of them than equivalent self-buffs (and in this edition, party buffs are often better than self-buffs, e.g. Bardic Inspiration).

And that's before we get to the topic of resources: it's simply more efficient to have two Bards both throwing buffs at one another improving one another at checks than it is to have one Bard with a far more limited supply of buffs throwing them on Rogue, since far as doing stuff without buffs, Rogue and Bard aren't really much different (both have Expertise, both have lots of skills) but their capacity for contributing in terms of helping allies accomplish something is pretty far removed. And when you get similar at-will but a massive increase in party resources, it doesn't take a genius to figure out getting a lot of resources is better than not getting them, and if the at-will ability is pretty similar, it takes very little in terms of resources for the resource richer class to match the resource poorer class meaning they'll have resources left over.

If you've ever played a Bard in a party with a Rogue, you'll know what I'm talking about: the Rogue will gladly take your resources but they can't really give you much in return and ultimately you could do most of what the Rogue could do easily enough, and then some once you get to casting Enhance Ability or Invisibility or some such. Wizard is similar: if you build a roguish Wizard you'll have to try really hard to not make them useless.

Asisreo1

2021-02-13, 09:57 AM

The problem is that the examples you made are just antagonizing to the players. It doesn't actually mean that casters don't become superior after a while if the DM is going to be against the party- just that the specific DM in question is being a jerk about it (assuming like you said that bounds were being respected).

See, here's the thing.

If we strip D&D—and all TTRPGs with a spell-like system— from its core, there aren't many differences between a spell and a character's ability. A player saying "I cast fly," is mechanically the same as them saying "I want to fly for 10 minutes." The only difference is whether the DM thinks its plausible to allow this to happen.

Spells are strong suggestions to the DM to let the player who took them to do these unorthodox style abilities without the DM having to bend over backwards justifying how or why this weak human has gained the ability to spontaneously summon fireballs. It also tells the DM that these abilities come at a reasonable cost and has certain requirements. You cannot cast a spell without its components or spell slots unless something explicitly allows this to happen, which usually also has a cost or drawback.

However, this suggestion to the DM doesn't always have to be honored and the DM can essentially strip your characters ability to use what you've invested into to prevent the spell being cast.

Abilities from noncasters, though, do not have this suggestion. The noncaster can still fly and shoot fireballs without the need for spell slots or even magic, in general. What limits them has always been the DM finding these activities illogical in their fiction.

By all means, they are right that letting a noncaster fly for funsies at level 1 is incredibly game-breaking, but its not at all gamebreaking to let a noncaster break down a boulder standing in their path at level 20. Nor is it gamebreaking to let the noncaster craft explosive arrows and have their own AoE style attacks.

Some DMs don't necessarily want all of that in their game and that's fair, too. But if you're not letting a noncaster complete an action because you think they shouldn't be able to contribute meaningfully in a situation that they want to contribute in that isn't ridiculous, you're being slightly adversarial.

Spells have this predictability to ensure spellcasters are told no less often than noncasters but spells are not the proof that you should never say "yes" to noncasters.

Tanarii

2021-02-13, 10:39 AM

I've never actually seen this theoretical domination in actual play. In 5e at least. I saw it by 6th level in PF, and that was with the casters not even really trying. I've seen people bend over backwards to let magic break the rules and find reasons why spells will work while holding non spell attempts to a blinkered, worse than reality standard. I've seen lots of forum talk that boils down to white rooms and Schrodinger's builds, plus generous assumptions about rulings (but only for casters). All of that tells me that most of this is manufactured and goes away if people don't try to shove it in.
Agreed. That's how I feel whenever I see numbers start being thrown around. The theoretical Bard being posited in this thread is just reinforcing my feeling on that. :smallyuk:

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 10:40 AM

That distinction is pretty pointless, though. In D&D you win as a team or you lose as a team. Whether you buff yourself to do X more damage or buff a party member to do X more damage... point is the damage gets done. Who cares who actually did it? Either the party beats an encounter or they don't. Same thing with the door mentioned earlier. Either the party manages to open it or they don't.

So at the end of the day, self-buff or party-buff really doesn't make much of a difference.

It matters because it just so happens that 5E is designed so that this outward-facing team buffs add up to more (IMHO) than the inward facing Rogue buffs: two Bards can do more than two Rogues, and I think also more than a Bard and a Rogue together.

It's similar to how in 5E, the marginal cost of more defense (e.g. halving the enemy's DPR via Blur or Web is just a 2nd level spell slot; gaining heavy armor proficiency only cost a single level; a feat like Mobile solves whole classes of melee enemies; etc.) is lower than the marginal cost of doubling your own DPR (need to be a 17th level Fighter to even just get two Action Surges per short rest; Haste only gives one extra attack instead of double; features like Rage and Brutal Critical give small bonuses on the only of +10% to +20%). Defense isn't inherently stronger than offense, per se, but in 5E's design it is.

The Bard has more net power than the Rogue. It is focused outward, so a lone Bard can't access all of that power, but a Bard in a party can.

See, here's the thing.

If we strip D&D—and all TTRPGs with a spell-like system— from its core, there aren't many differences between a spell and a character's ability. A player saying "I cast fly," is mechanically the same as them saying "I want to fly for 10 minutes." The only difference is whether the DM thinks its plausible to allow this to happen.

Spells are strong suggestions to the DM to let the player who took them to do these unorthodox style abilities without the DM having to bend over backwards justifying how or why this weak human has gained the ability to spontaneously summon fireballs. It also tells the DM that these abilities come at a reasonable cost and has certain requirements. You cannot cast a spell without its components or spell slots unless something explicitly allows this to happen, which usually also has a cost or drawback.

However, this suggestion to the DM doesn't always have to be honored and the DM can essentially strip your characters ability to use what you've invested into to prevent the spell being cast.

Abilities from noncasters, though, do not have this suggestion. The noncaster can still fly and shoot fireballs without the need for spell slots or even magic, in general. What limits them has always been the DM finding these activities illogical in their fiction.

I don't see where you're coming from with this one. If the reason the Fly spell doesn't work is because winds are too high, why would a noncaster Aarakocra be immune?

JNAProductions

2021-02-13, 10:48 AM

Agreed. That's how I feel whenever I see numbers start being thrown around. The theoretical Bard being posited in this thread is just reinforcing my feeling on that. :smallyuk:

I'd also like to know how the Bard is getting +2d12.

An 8 Strength, level 20 Bard as compared to a 24 Strength, level 20 Barbarian when opening a jammed door...

Bard
-1 (Strength Mod)+3 (Jack of all Trades) for a total of +2
If they are a Lore Bard and can help themselves with an inspiration die, for +1d12.
They can also use Enhance Ability for advantage, if they REALLY need to get the door open.
So at best, they're looking at 2d20b1+2+1d12. They CAN hit 34... less than one percent of the time. And they've got just over 50/50 odds of hitting 23, so they should be able to get most doors.

Barbarian
+7 (Strength Mod) for a total of +7, with a minimum result of 24 due to Indomitable Might.
They can gain advantage from Rage, and as they have unlimited Rage, they might as well.

So, the Bard has a 44.46% chance of matching the Barbarian's minimum, and a mere 37.81% chance of beating it, if they go all out.

Edit: If we're talking two Bards (at least one of which has to be Lore) it seems apt to compare what a Bard and Barbarian can do.

Two Bards, for +2d12, gives you...

2d20b1+2+2d12
Minimum 5

A Bard plus a Barbarian gives you...

2d20b1+7+1d12
Minimum 24

The Barbarian plus Bard has the following distribution...

Target Number
Percent Of Success

24 or Lower
100%

25
69.46%

26
63.96%

27
57.96%

28
51.46%

29
44.46%

30
37.81%

The double Bard has...

Target Number
Percent Of Success

15 or lower
97.90%

16
97.02%

17
95.89%

18
94.47%

19
92.23%

20
90.62%

21
88.13%

22
85.22%

23
81.88%

24
78.08%

25
73.80%

26
69.11%

27
64.08%

28
58.77%

29
53.27%

30
47.65%

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 11:07 AM

I'd also like to know how the Bard is getting +2d12.

An 8 Strength, level 20 Bard as compared to a 24 Strength, level 20 Barbarian when opening a jammed door...

I did say "Simulacrum can use Inspiration on the real Bard." That's a second d12. Bard is 20% to roll under 24. So 80% of the time they'll match or beat the Barbarian, and this is assuming absolutely 0 investment. Now imagine it was a Str Bard or had a Belt of Giant Strength or there Bard was casting Shapechange instead or something: suddenly we're talking about turning into a Leviathan and hitting the door with 2d20+13+2d12. Of course, you can add a fair bit to that. Guidance, Bend Luck, Flash of Insight, etc. would further add to it; you can hit 70 this way but martials don't add anything of note sadly enough, even though there's no reason inspiration need be magical.

diplomancer

2021-02-13, 11:11 AM

I'd also like to know how the Bard is getting +2d12.

Simulacrum

Tanarii

2021-02-13, 11:13 AM

dmhelp

2021-02-13, 11:16 AM

I did say "Simulacrum can use Inspiration on the real Bard." That's a second d12.

I always assumed that Peerless Skill was inspiration and wouldn't stack with inspiration.

I mean, not really...a DM can keep non-magic special...but there's not much a martial can do when Wizards at high levels can literally make a perfect, permanent clone of any Humanoid/Beast vis Wish and True Polymorph over the course of two days. Now, I will admit that combo is only do-able at level 17...but even before that Wizards can break games

I see this thrown around in various threads. Where in True Polymorph does it say you can turn a simulacrum into a full specific person?

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 11:25 AM

If you guys are going to throw around theoretical white room numbers, at least do it for something like 5, 7, 9 and 11. Since that's where the majority of play is for most players. Maybe 5, 9, 13 if you want each change in proficiency bonus.

FWIW I did mention it but that's kinda foregone conclusion so why bother? Someone went on to talk about Reliable Talent, at which point we're obviously already talking Tier 3 stuff, where Lore Bard completely takes over instead of only kinda. Obviously Bard is the best skill monkey on 3, 5, 7, and 9, having both Expertise and Enhance Ability, and plenty of slots to use them unlike every other class in the game. And Lore Bard has the largest number of proficiencies while at it too. Rogue is the best on 1-2 when spells aren't applicable; classes with Guidance otherwise. That's about it. Barbarian is never the best even at Str checks. They're sorta good, but that's about it.

JNAProductions

2021-02-13, 11:30 AM

FWIW I did mention it but that's kinda foregone conclusion so why bother? Someone went on to talk about Reliable Talent, at which point we're obviously already talking Tier 3 stuff, where Lore Bard completely takes over instead of only kinda. Obviously Bard is the best skill monkey on 3, 5, 7, and 9, having both Expertise and Enhance Ability, and plenty of slots to use them unlike every other class in the game. And Lore Bard has the largest number of proficiencies while at it too. Rogue is the best on 1-2 when spells aren't applicable; classes with Guidance otherwise. That's about it. Barbarian is never the best even at Str checks. They're sorta good, but that's about it.

I mean...

Level 5
Barbarian: +3 or +4 to Strength Checks, advantage if you spend 1/3 Rages
Bard: +0 to Strength checks, advantage if you spend 1/3 2nd level or 1/2 3rd level slots, +d8 if you spend 1/4 short rest Inspiration Dice and are a Lore Bard
Barbarian plus bard: Same as Bard, but doesn't require you to be a Lore Bard and increases the base bonus to +3 or +4

Level 9
Barbarian: +4 or +5, 4 Rages
Bard: +1, a lot more slots available
Barbarian plus bard: Same relative value

A Bard can, in a pinch, be okay at pushing open doors. But, especially since I'd agree with the ruling that Inspiration is the same ability as using Inspiration from Peerless Skill, you're basically always better off using your abilities on a big muscly person, rather than on yourself.

anthon

2021-02-13, 11:43 AM

in the game of MMORPG DPS, the Caster dominates when they get their first large AOE.

Lines are notorious for only hitting 2-3 bad guys, and thats equal to two weapon fighting, action surge, or 2nd attack. It's nice, but it's not TPMK DPS meme - total party monster kill level.

So when?

5th level. There are many 5' squares in a 20' radius. Even more if you are fighting flyers, like angry bats.

Any spell with a cube or cone or sphere makes fighter and frens irrelevant. Go get them some snacks.

assume the surface area of a circle is like .7 a square, and sphere is .5 a cube. These are not true, but close enough. .8 is closer but because DMs like to round down and play "not in 5ft square" games, .7 is more RAI accurate.

So 20 radius is 40 diameter. 40/5 = 8. 8x8 = 64 x .7 is like 40 something targets. Assume they aren't in British imperial line form, and you cut that in half. 20 creates. Subtract 4 so you can squeeze in some bigger things like trolls, ogres, or a giant.

16. 16 x 8d6 = 126d6 damage at 5th level, save for half, as opposed to "save for miss" which is what the fighter attacks are. A d20 is rolled, and if it rolls low, fighter damage is negated. With fireball, wizard/cleric of fire/light/etc. damage is reduced to 1/2.

Now we all know at Meteor Swarm, this damage rises again. 40d6 x some insane number of targets a mile away. Basically your map. Every monster dies. At the same time. How many fighters is that?

40 ft radius x 4.

40 ft radius is 80 ft diameter. = 16 squares x 16 squares. = 256 squares x 4.
= 1024 squares times about .7 = 700 squares. 1/2 = 350 squares. Minus about 50 squares to toss in multiple giants and ogres, and possibly a dragon or three - who are largely taking up those missing aerial squares and 350 checker board spaces for their remaining volume.

300 x 40d6 = 12000d6 damage, save for half.

This is how a DPS calculator will factor it. The machine doesn't care if your hasted two weapon fighter with swords of speed and feats of double crit thinks he's cool. They don't care if your rogue assassin backstab has a loop hole to do octuple damage. Your 80d6+Cha bonus + dex bonus + cheat bonus is still a joke to the 12000d6 of the 17th level wizard....

but when?

5th level. And is it always a wizard? Nope.

Lots of classes can can 8d6 sphere attacks. Some are fire, some are electric. Some are sonic or necrotic.

The Warlock Radioactive Fatigue Spell is insanely deadly, possibly worse than Meteor Swarm, especially if you pin your opponents with a cave in, or carefully timed movement hindering effect. Warlock effects take longer than fireball, but their creepiness when properly applied turns them into DoTs of doom. 20d6, 40d6 etc. AOEs with side effects. Remember any AOE is going to multiply your DPS by 2-16+. The bigger the AOE, the bigger the multiplier, exponentially.

JNAProductions

2021-02-13, 12:01 PM

And if you fight, say, a singular Red Dragon? What good is your Fireball then? You're far better off casting Fly on the melee bruiser, and using teamwork.

anthon

2021-02-13, 12:02 PM

Warriors aren't unfun or useless.

correct. an absurd AC warrior is basically a DoT in the 10-400 round duration range. So if they did 15-60/round, they continue to do 15/60 round 10, 100, etc. rounds later, because their AC hedges their bets against merely being tanks.

Tanking is about taking hits. AC is about NOT taking hits. Every round you dont take a hit, is another round of DPS. So while a short single fight martial dominance vs. mobs goes to spell casters of any flavor, the long term dps vs. mobs for an absurd AC character (being roughly 1/2 level +18, i.e., AC 19-28) is Xena Warrior/Berserk Witcher level campiness. If you make your saves and have resistances, you can burn through the enemy spells until they run dry then continue your gleeful distribution of lazy 8 DoT.

anthon

2021-02-13, 12:12 PM

And if you fight, say, a singular Red Dragon? What good is your Fireball then? You're far better off casting Fly on the melee bruiser, and using teamwork.

that's a canard.

"a dragon" at level 5 would be thoroughly clock cleaned by a 5th level caster, because you are talking about a wyrmling.
1. not every AOE is fire damage.
2. the main advantage of the dragon is hit points.
3. their attack bonus misses a wizard 90% of the time: +6 to hit is average AC 16. Spells like Armor, Dex, and Shield usually place the Wizard AC around 22.
4. Dragon average save is 12 vs. wizards because their Dex sucks. Average DC for the 5th level wizard is 15, so the dragon fails their saves taking full dps + whatever side effects.
5. Firebreath for a red wyrmling averages 12 after the save, which is 1 point lower than the average wizard save, and 3 points lower for other classes.

While it isn't a good idea to fight a dragon solo as a spell caster, with only mediocre levels of luck (i.e., averages), it can be done.

at 17th level a caster can turn into a dragon. Don't get me started on infinite hp druids of the moon.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 12:20 PM

I mean...

Level 5
Barbarian: +3 or +4 to Strength Checks, advantage if you spend 1/3 Rages
Bard: +0 to Strength checks, advantage if you spend 1/3 2nd level or 1/2 3rd level slots, +d8 if you spend 1/4 short rest Inspiration Dice and are a Lore Bard
Barbarian plus bard: Same as Bard, but doesn't require you to be a Lore Bard and increases the base bonus to +3 or +4

Level 9
Barbarian: +4 or +5, 4 Rages
Bard: +1, a lot more slots available
Barbarian plus bard: Same relative value

A Bard can, in a pinch, be okay at pushing open doors. But, especially since I'd agree with the ruling that Inspiration is the same ability as using Inspiration from Peerless Skill, you're basically always better off using your abilities on a big muscly person, rather than on yourself.

My point on lower levels wasn't about Bard for the door in specific but in general for all kinds of skill challenges. There's no class that compares to their toolkit. That said, there's literally nothing stopping a Bard from being a big muscly person. They'll eventually lack -2 to the check but compared to the boons, that's pretty minor; much better to get the Guidance or Flash of Insight or whatever. That's the thing; combining casters just has the tendency of giving the best results.

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-13, 12:40 PM

And if you fight, say, a singular Red Dragon? What good is your Fireball then? You're far better off casting Fly on the melee bruiser, and using teamwork.

I'm in agreement with what you are getting at here. There have been a few posts in this thread suggesting that DMs need to help out the martials, but... Into tier 3 I have added a few lower level minions in Boss fights A) to make combat more challenging, but B) so that casters have something useful to do.
Yes, casters are definitely useful in the sense that the round 1 buff spell is more impactful than it 'feels', but after that sometimes they struggle with things that are resistant/ immune to nearly everything (except Magical B/S/P). Our Cleric 1/ Wizard 13 came away from fighting Tiamat with the comment, "I probably should have just upcasted Bless".

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 01:01 PM

I'm in agreement with what you are getting at here. There have been a few posts in this thread suggesting that DMs need to help out the martials, but... Into tier 3 I have added a few lower level minions in Boss fights A) to make combat more challenging, but B) so that casters have something useful to do.
Yes, casters are definitely useful in the sense that the round 1 buff spell is more impactful than it 'feels', but after that sometimes they struggle with things that are resistant/ immune to nearly everything (except Magical B/S/P). Our Cleric 1/ Wizard 13 came away from fighting Tiamat with the comment, "I probably should have just upcasted Bless".

That's generally just a factor of casters choosing to not do their "kill things"-options. E.g. Animate Objects or Summon Greater Demon or Animate Dead/Tiny Servant/whatever. Depends on what you're up against. Like if you're fighting Tiamat, just cast the 20' cage version of Forcecage and you can plink her dead with whatever at over 120'. Or play a Bladesinger/Swords Bard/Valor Bard, cast Tenser's, get Haste from your Simulacrum and shoot them in the face better than most warriors until they die. It's not like casters couldn't attack martially just as well as the best Fighter; it's just that people don't tend to do that since it seems it doesn't match peoples' preconceptions of the classes.

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 01:03 PM

I see this thrown around in various threads. Where in True Polymorph does it say you can turn a simulacrum into a full specific person?

Agreed, I don't think that works.

that's a canard.

"a dragon" at level 5 would be thoroughly clock cleaned by a 5th level caster, because you are talking about a wyrmling.

What if it's not a wyrmling? What if it's a Young Adult?

OldTrees1

2021-02-13, 01:40 PM

Agreed, I don't think that works.

What if it's not a wyrmling? What if it's a Young Adult?

Gathering relevant data about 5th level party and Young Adult Red Dragon. I hope this is useful to the discussion you two are having.

4 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 3000XP
4 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 4400XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 is 5900XP
So that is an extreme but possibly valid example (I wish 5E gave more advice on when the upper end of Deadly was).

5 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 3750XP
5 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 5500XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 is 5900XP
A more reasonable Deadly encounter

6 5th level PCs, Medium Encounter is 3000XP
6 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 4500XP
6 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 6000XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 vs 6 PCs is 2950XP
Sounds like the party will easily win.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 01:40 PM

What if it's not a wyrmling? What if it's a Young Adult?

Wouldn't that depend on the caster as much as the martial? Just like a Battlemaster Archer is far better suited for fighting a Young Adult Red than a Two-Hander Barbarian, so too is a DPR caster like Wizard with Hexblade dip or CBE/SS Swords Bard or anyone with a good bunch of animated Skeletons better suited for this fight (in the damage capacity) than many others. E.g. Diviner can easily just save-or-X it on most days; Earthen Grasp it if it comes down, Suggestion it (though details of course depend on how DM runs the spell), Phantasmal Force it or whatever to the point that it doesn't have many options left, etc. He wouldn't actually kill it most of the time unless he has said group of Skeleton Archers but he can certainly deal damage. Magic Stone Wizard (from MI: Artificer) or Cleric (from MI: Druid or Nature domain I guess) with some animated things could work pretty well, too.

In fact, most cookie cutter casters have some good solutions to it and an all-caster party would almost certainly have an easier time than an all-martial party (simply because Young Dragons lack Legendary Resistance and thus CC spells have a pretty high probability of either hurting them a lot or disabling them entirely even if you don't have a Diviner with an under-10 Portent). It's not like casters couldn't fight the same way martials can. Martials are better at it, but the difference really isn't that big.

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 01:45 PM

Gathering relevant data about 5th level party and Young Adult Red Dragon. I hope this is useful to the discussion you two are having.

4 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 3000XP
4 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 4400XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 is 5900XP
So that is an extreme but possibly valid example (I wish 5E gave more advice on when the upper end of Deadly was).

5 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 3750XP
5 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 5500XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 is 5900XP
A more reasonable Deadly encounter

6 5th level PCs, Medium Encounter is 3000XP
6 5th level PCs, Hard Encounter is 4500XP
6 5th level PCs, Deadly Encounter is 6000XP+
Young Adult Red Dragon CR 10 vs 6 PCs is 2950XP
Sounds like the party will easily win.

Wouldn't that depend on the caster as much as the martial? Just like a Battlemaster Archer is far better suited for fighting a Young Adult Red than a Two-Hander Barbarian, so too is a DPR caster like Wizard with Hexblade dip or CBE/SS Swords Bard or anyone with a good bunch of animated Skeletons better suited for this fight (in the damage capacity) than many others. E.g. Diviner can easily just save-or-X it on most days; Earthen Grasp it if it comes down, Suggestion it (though details of course depend on how DM runs the spell), Phantasmal Force it or whatever to the point that it doesn't have many options left, etc. He wouldn't actually kill it most of the time unless he has said group of Skeleton Archers but he can certainly deal damage. Magic Stone Wizard (from MI: Artificer) or Cleric (from MI: Druid or Nature domain I guess) with some animated things could work pretty well, too.

In fact, most cookie cutter casters have some good solutions to it and an all-caster party would almost certainly have an easier time than an all-martial party (simply because Young Dragons lack Legendary Resistance and thus CC spells have a pretty high probability of either hurting them a lot or disabling them entirely even if you don't have a Diviner with an under-10 Portent). It's not like casters couldn't fight the same way martials can. Martials are better at it, but the difference really isn't that big.

Yes, all I'm saying is that "you're 5th level therefore it's only a wyrmling" isn't a valid inference. Sometimes it's not.

@OldTrees if 5E/WotC gave advice about the upper end, based on CR, I wouldn't believe the advice. CR just isn't detailed enough to be useful for that. A fairly vanilla 7th level party can reliably kill a vanilla RAW (non-spellcasting) Ancient Red Dragon in the right terrain (open skies, no dragon-sized total cover), or unlimited numbers of Iron Golems, but how useful would it be for the books to say "7th level party of four can sometimes handle CR 23"? It wouldn't.

At a certain point tactics matter more than CR.

sithlordnergal

2021-02-13, 02:21 PM

I see this thrown around in various threads. Where in True Polymorph does it say you can turn a simulacrum into a full specific person?

Oh, that comes from how the two spells are worded in 5e and how True Polymorph functions.

Simulacrum states:

You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or Humanoid that is within range for the entire Casting Time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take Actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature...the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates.

Meanwhile True Polymorph states:

If you concentrate on this spell for the full Duration, the transformation becomes permanent....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.

True Polymorph allows you to transform a creature into any other creature. Its not like Shapechange where you turn into an average species of said creature, you turn directly into that creature. Meaning if you wanted to be cheeky, you could technically turn a fellow level 20 PC into a level 20 duplicate of, say, the Paladin, and now there are two Paladins with the exact same abilities, spells, feats, ect.. Or you could turn them into something like a Balor or some sort of powerful undead, as long as the CR is 20 or lower. The only thing the creature will keep is their Alignment and Personality.

At the same time Simulacrum creates a creature with all of the statistics of whatever you cast Simulacrum on. This includes everything from Feats and Spells to Ability Scores and Levels. Meaning if a level 20 Wizard casts Simulacrum on themselves, they will create a level 20 Creature that serves them without question. Since the Wizard is level 20 and the Simulacrum is level 20, you can cast True Polymorph on it to make it into a perfect duplicate of yourself. The Simulacrum will gain all of your statistics, including your full HP, then you can Concentrate on it for an hour to make it Permanent.

Afterwards, for all intents and purposes, that Simulacrum is technically a perfect clone of yourself. True Polymorph removed any previous statistics it had, outside of the personality. Meaning it can now, technically, heal over time and regain spell slots, along with having double the HP it previously had.

Now, there are some debates about using this method. The biggest one is will the Simulacrum continue to obey you. The spell states:

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and Acting in accordance with your wishes and Acting on Your Turn in Combat.

But is that part of the Simulacrum's Personality? If it not, what is a Simulacrum's Personality? IS it the same as your character's Personality? If so, would your character ever be willing to help a duplicate of themselves? But it does work on a technical level. Each of the requirements in the True Polymorph spell is checked off to turn a Simulacrum into another Creature, and True Polymorph states that when you transform creatures into other creatures, those creatures lose all of their previous physical stats. That includes detriments as well.

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 02:25 PM

True Polymorph allows you to transform a creature into any other creature. Its not like Shapechange where you turn into an average species of said creature, you turn directly into that creature.

The spell description you quoted says "any kind". An individual PC isn't a kind of creature, it's a specific creature.

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 02:27 PM

Yes, all I'm saying is that "you're 5th level therefore it's only a wyrmling" isn't a valid inference. Sometimes it's not.

This actually makes me a bit curious: a level 5 party vs. a non-casting Adult Red in an open area with plenty of kiting room. What kind of party would come out on top? I feel like this is a scenario where one Battlemaster might actually be somewhat optimal simply for reasonable chances of landing some telling blows (specifically because on level 5, Fighter does have Extra Attack but caster warriors only get it on level 6). Archery CBE/SS Vuman/CL with Precision Attack can have +4 vs. AC 19, and it should be relatively easy to get Concealment-based advantage with Minor Illusion (or another illusionary cover spell) if the Dragon kites. The Dragon can breathe from 60' away and kite back to 140' but that's still within 30' + 120' so Hand Crossbow range so for many rounds CBE is worth it, though Longbow might be needed otherwise. Buffing the warrior seems like a pretty viable strategy here specifically because the Dragon has so much room to kite and Legendary Resistance before the efficient counters come online. Even a Hex Wizard is caught on an inopportune level since they don't get level 3 slots yet due to multiclassing; it's mere 4d4+16 (average 26) automatic damage with Curse + Magic Missile thrice, which barely cuts a half off the Dragon's HP. A horde of flying summons from a Druid and a bunch of skeleton archers from a Wizard/Cleric can certainly still do work in this scenario but it seems like a formidable battle.

Of course, Battlemaster does run the risk of dying to a single breath due to not having access to Absorb Elements and of course, Frightful Presence can significantly cut into his efficiency due to lacking reasonable Wis saves (but Calm Emotions and its ilk does exist). Yoyoing leaves him vulnerable to getting full HP'd to instadeath (level 5 Battlemaster does probably have 10+6*4+3*5 = 49 HP and maybe ~9 temporary HP from Inspiring Leader or Shepherd Druid or whatever but that's not quite enough to facetank the breath; at 1 HP, failed save is death and there's a pretty decent chance of that even at +4 Dex with the DC21). So including a non-Absorb Elements character might not be workable after all. But it could potentially be Eldritch Knight or Gloomstalker or even a Horizon Walker then. Extra Attack does seem like a valuable DPR increase and Archery Style is as essential as ever.

sithlordnergal

2021-02-13, 02:34 PM

The spell description you quoted says "any kind". An individual PC isn't a kind of creature, it's a specific creature.

I'm pretty sure you can...The whole quote is "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)." If I choose the form to be that of the Wizard or Fighter, they should take on the characteristics/statistics of that Wizard or Fighter.

Not only that, but Shapechange specifically calls out that "You transform into an average example of that creature, one without any class levels or the Spellcasting trait." Meaning that, normally, you could transform into an above average version of such a creature that has Class levels or Spellcasting traits. Otherwise they wouldn't have a need to specifically call that out as an exception to what you can transform into with Shapechange. True Polymorph lacks that restriction, meaning that you can, technically, change into a creature that has class levels with it.

PhantomSoul

2021-02-13, 02:43 PM

5eNeedsDarksun

2021-02-13, 03:04 PM

This actually makes me a bit curious: a level 5 party vs. a non-casting Adult Red in an open area with plenty of kiting room. What kind of party would come out on top? I feel like this is a scenario where one Battlemaster might actually be somewhat optimal simply for reasonable chances of landing some telling blows (specifically because on level 5, Fighter does have Extra Attack but caster warriors only get it on level 6). Archery CBE/SS Vuman/CL with Precision Attack can have +4 vs. AC 19, and it should be relatively easy to get Concealment-based advantage with Minor Illusion (or another illusionary cover spell) if the Dragon kites. The Dragon can breathe from 60' away and kite back to 140' but that's still within 30' + 120' so Hand Crossbow range so for many rounds CBE is worth it, though Longbow might be needed otherwise. Buffing the warrior seems like a pretty viable strategy here specifically because the Dragon has so much room to kite and Legendary Resistance before the efficient counters come online. Even a Hex Wizard is caught on an inopportune level since they don't get level 3 slots yet due to multiclassing; it's mere 4d4+16 (average 26) automatic damage with Curse + Magic Missile thrice, which barely cuts a half off the Dragon's HP. A horde of flying summons from a Druid and a bunch of skeleton archers from a Wizard/Cleric can certainly still do work in this scenario but it seems like a formidable battle.

Of course, Battlemaster does run the risk of dying to a single breath due to not having access to Absorb Elements and of course, Frightful Presence can significantly cut into his efficiency due to lacking reasonable Wis saves (but Calm Emotions and its ilk does exist). Yoyoing leaves him vulnerable to getting full HP'd to instadeath (level 5 Battlemaster does probably have 10+6*4+3*5 = 49 HP and maybe ~9 temporary HP from Inspiring Leader or Shepherd Druid or whatever but that's not quite enough to facetank the breath; at 1 HP, failed save is death and there's a pretty decent chance of that even at +4 Dex with the DC21). So including a non-Absorb Elements character might not be workable after all. But it could potentially be Eldritch Knight or Gloomstalker or even a Horizon Walker then. Extra Attack does seem like a valuable DPR increase and Archery Style is as essential as ever.

Assuming you could start 300-400 feet away equally spaced around the dragon 4 characters with longbows, sharpshooter, and archery proficiency seems pretty optimal.
Under more normal conditions the Frightful Presence seems more of a stumbling block to me than the breath weapon because of the area of effect. It's likely the combat starts will the entire party within a 120' radius circle, so anyone without both a decent Wis and Wis saving throw proficiency is likely going to be compromised.

KorvinStarmast

2021-02-13, 03:29 PM

Agreed. That's how I feel whenever I see numbers start being thrown around. The theoretical Bard being posited in this thread is just reinforcing my feeling on that. :smallyuk: That's two of us.

If you guys are going to throw around theoretical white room numbers, at least do it for something like 5, 7, 9 and 11. Since that's where the majority of play is for most players. Maybe 5, 9, 13 if you want each change in proficiency bonus. Agree. For Useful Analysis.

(I wish 5E gave more advice on when the upper end of Deadly was).
Depends on if the breath recharges after round 1. :smallwink:

MaxWilson

2021-02-13, 03:40 PM

This actually makes me a bit curious: a level 5 party vs. a non-casting Adult Red in an open area with plenty of kiting room. What kind of party would come out on top?

Any party that can move faster than a dragon and has at least one flying ranged attacker wins if they can keep it up long enough.

For example, a single 5th level Spell Sniper Tomelock (Book of Ancient Secrets: Phantom Steed; Agonizing Blast; Eldritch Spear) has effectively 200' move already and enough range to kill the dragon. But his steed can't fly unless he casts Fly on it, leaving it with only 120' flying speed to pursue if the dragon breaks contact. So, add a 5th level wizard on another Phantom Steed, who casts Haste on the warlock's flying steed when the dragon breaks off. This gives it 360' flying speed for 10 rounds, and 420' if the wizard also Longstriders it. After that it reverts to 140' flying speed, so the dragon gains 60' per round (Dash + Wing Buffet = 200'), and given that the warlock has to account for Haste ending (must end turn 10 at 415' away from the dragon to be safe from the breath weapon), you only get a handful of attacks after that, at 475' and 535' and 595'. So it's only safe to assume maybe eleven or twelve rounds of attacks (call about 70 HP of damage) after the dragon starts fleeing. The two 5th level PCs just don't have quite enough endurance to finish off a 546 HP dragon unless it makes some mistakes.

Can we do better?

We could scale it up and have two wizards and two warlocks, but that would be an atypical party. But we no longer need Book of Ancient Secrets because we have a wizard! What if we increase the level to 7 and make it a Paladin 5/Warlock 2 (Spell Sniper, Agonizing Eldritch Spear) on a Longstridered Steed that has a Fly on it from the 5th level wizard? Wizard is still safe on a Phantom Steed. Paladin's mount has flying speed 70', effectively 140', and with Expeditious Retreat it's 210'! Hurray, now the dragon cannot escape. It takes about 70 HP of damage for 5 minutes and dies.

Wizard 5 + Padlock 7 checkmates the ancient red dragon in open skies.

A larger party will do it more easily and probably slightly differently, moreso if using non-PHB options. That's not my point. My point is that a table somewhere saying "7th level PCs can sometimes kill CR 23 creatures" is useless because (1) CR doesn't carry that much information, and (2) the table is useless if THOSE 7th level PCs are not YOUR 7th level PCs.

That's why I think there could be value in a Monte Carlo-based difficulty calculator, rather than a CR-based difficulty calculator.

Quoting from another thread:

What if WotC could also sell you:

(1) A D&D Coaching app for your smartphone which could not only read and update your character sheet, but also coach you through the rules for your class on each turn ("now roll d20+5 with advantage", "your damage on this attack is d8+15", "you still have a bonus action free to Second Wind, press this button to do so") and even run you through imaginary practice fights and/or DPR calculations.

(2) A 5E Encounter Builder with integrated difficulty estimator for DMs. The DMG difficulty estimator based on CRs and levels is necessarily simplistic because it has to be done manually. But if the tool knows what monsters are in the encounter, it can tell you how hard the encounter is for a specific party. Is 6 Quicklings using hit-and-run tactics too many for a 6th level Ranger, Wizard, Paladin, and Bard to handle? How much easier does it get if there are only 5 Quicklings? How much do things change if the Ranger knows Spike Growth?

(3) A Mass Combat mode for higher-level play which doesn't require you to stop playing by 5E rules. When 200 hobgoblins and 10 hill giants are besieging 30 dwarves in their fortification, what actually happens under 5E if a 13th level party attacks the hobgoblins from the rear? What if you could run that whole fight using actual 5E rules in only 15 minutes from start to finish? Would high-level adventures become more varied and fun?

If they made these things, would you approve?

For DMs who want to explore the upper levels of Deadly combat, there's no real substitute for using your brain, but a well-written tool like #2 envisions can at least work with you to figure out if your party's go-to tactics will trivialize the encounter (like a chess AI program assisting a chess player to test variations). How much harder does the ancient dragon encounter get if there's also a young red dragon along? (A LOT harder I think.) Will 12 skeletons TPK my 5th level party if the skeletons aren't in Fireball formation? Will the party trivialize the encounter if there's partial cover available and they use it? What happens if there's only 9 skeletons?

Retrospectively you can also ask questions like, "My 5th level PCs just beat the pants off a CR 13 vampire. Was it too weak and I should have made it tougher, or did they just have lucky dice that night? My goal was to make it just tough enough to use up at least half of the party's HP and special abilities, but I don't want more than a 1% chance of TPK. If I used the same tactics 100 times, how much damage would that vampire normally do before the Paladin smites and Action Surges killed it? What would change if the Sharpshooter Fighter didn't have that Hand Crossbow +1? What would change if the vampire had Dodged more while attacking and kiting with his legendary actions? At what point was the battle basically over?"

Eldariel

2021-02-13, 04:12 PM

Assuming you could start 300-400 feet away equally spaced around the dragon 4 characters with longbows, sharpshooter, and archery proficiency seems pretty optimal.
Under more normal conditions the Frightful Presence seems more of a stumbling block to me than the breath weapon because of the area of effect. It's likely the combat starts will the entire party within a 120' radius circle, so anyone without both a decent Wis and Wis saving throw proficiency is likely going to be compromised.

Hm. Longbow, Archery style and Extra Attack is looking at 11,5ish DPR (at -5/+10) or 14,5ish with Advantage (but I see a hard time making that in a linear party). Dragon has 256 HP so that's 5 rounds to bring it down on average, 4 if they all Action Surge. Dragon Dashes for 160' so at 400' away assuming the party kites 30' away, they get two rounds of attacks before the Dragon is within attack range (Dragon closes 400' and they'll be at 460'). Then the Dragon has a hard choice to make on whether to try to kill one with breath weapon or use its Frightful Presence. If Frightful Presence succeeds the party DPR is cut down to 5 per affected character. OTOH if the Dragon's breath succeeds, it kills one PC (assuming the PCs don't have good recovery skills like Healing Word that can bring them back in an action efficient manner). On average, assuming Action Surging Fighters that have all dropped 4d8 of extra damage on it from Battlemaster too (too lazy to do Precision Attack math right now), it'll have taken 210 damage meaning it's got one-two turns, so it'll probably have to go with the Frightful Presence; assuming all fail that's 230 damage the next round, Dragon kills one, 245 damage, Dragon kills another, 255 damage, Dragon kills one, Dragon goes down. More or less; assuming Legendary actions + full round attack or breath suffice to kill one character (while it can close in with Wing Attack, it doesn't have enough damage or legendaries to come anywhere near killing a full HP character). So yeah, this should work, though it'd be close (if the Dragon gets to full attack + frightful presence instead of just frightful presencing on turn 3, it'd go the other way around probably).

The Dragon could also approach under Dodge but that would make for enough more turns that it's not worth it as the warriors can kite back. It's less ideal for the warriors if the location isn't flatlands but rather a hill or something where it's possible to approach under cover and where line of effect can be cut by retreating, to the point of complete impossibility. That is to say, this setup relies on getting a couple of rounds of free attacks due to range.

What about the caster equivalent of four Hexvokers? The first big thing is that they don't get free rounds so they'll be taking as soon as they are giving. OTOH due to Absorb Elements, it's unlikely that breath OHKOs anyone and their damage is pretty significant. 3 turns for a kill (Level 2 Curse Magic Missile does an average of 26 damage per caster or 104 DPR), first round effects don't really matter (Dragon breathes or frightful presences; FP doesn't do that much since it doesn't prevent casting and breathe doesn't suffice to drop 8+4*4+3*5 = 39 HP Wizards even on a failed save more than 2% of the time though it might suffice to enable a Wing Attack > Tail Attack kill if within 40'). Assuming Dragon drops one per round (though with 18-19 base AC and Shield-spell for a total AC of 23-24, the Dragon is only actually looking at 60-55%ish chance of hitting when not forcing Absorb Elements first), it'll take 104 - 78 - 52 - 26 leaving one Wizard alive, but at significant variance (and assuming they either survive the breath or win Initiative).

Of course, this variant does have race, feats and ASIs open. Generically useful stuff like Alert and Lucky seems decent; one could also Metamagic Adept Distant Spell (or make them Sorcerers since on this level Wizard doesn't actually do anything for this particular build yet) but that seems like catering to this particular challenge too much so let's not go there.

Other than max damage racing, I wonder if a more rounded party couldn't do this better (since these damage builds have rather grizzly results of potentially a bunch of dead PCs as the angry dragon has breath and legendary actions to hammer the bodies). Notable party buffs on this level include Crusader's Mantle, which goes nicely with a horde of skeletons or whatever you've got in your backpocket. Flying Snake seems funny off Conjure Animals and since it has Flyby, they can split up enough to avoid Wing Attack just wiping them all out though they obviously can't keep up with the Dragon. 30ish damage per round off those buggers (well, as many as survive the Wing Attack); Crusader's Mantle would make that 40. Eight Skeletons would be 21 DPR with Mantle, 14,6 without. Three Magic Stone hurlers would be 10,5 DPR.

There's obviously the option of trying to Fly some Pally at it for that triple attack with 3d8 Smites up its ass but that requires beating Frightful Presence first and dealing with the fact that the Dragon is a faster flyer than someone under Fly-spell, so probably not all that enthralling.

Valmark

2021-02-13, 04:21 PM

I'm pretty sure you can...The whole quote is "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)." If I choose the form to be that of the Wizard or Fighter, they should take on the characteristics/statistics of that Wizard or Fighter.

Not only that, but Shapechange specifically calls out that "You transform into an average example of that creature, one without any class levels or the Spellcasting trait." Meaning that, normally, you could transform into an above average version of such a creature that has Class levels or Spellcasting traits. Otherwise they wouldn't have a need to specifically call that out as an exception to what you can transform into with Shapechange. True Polymorph lacks that restriction, meaning that you can, technically, change into a creature that has class levels with it.

Keep in mind that TP requires the form taken to have a CR, so you can't turn somebody into one of the PCs who have levels, not CR.

Levels only work as a substitute to CR to determine the highest CR of the taken form.

sithlordnergal

2021-02-13, 10:05 PM

Keep in mind that TP requires the form taken to have a CR, so you can't turn somebody into one of the PCs who have levels, not CR.

Levels only work as a substitute to CR to determine the highest CR of the taken form.

Hence why you would use TP on a Simulacrum. They're a creature with the same statistics as the original, including the creature's CR or, in the case of a PC, level. Though you could also turn it into other things, such as CR 20 dragons, demons, or undead that are friendly to you and might, potentially, serve you.

OldTrees1

2021-02-13, 10:59 PM

Hence why you would use TP on a Simulacrum. They're a creature with the same statistics as the original, including the creature's CR or, in the case of a PC, level. Though you could also turn it into other things, such as CR 20 dragons, demons, or undead that are friendly to you and might, potentially, serve you.

True Polymorph lets you reference the level of the victim IFF they don't have a CR, but the destination form must be a kind of creature that has a CR. This makes even more sense under the more common and stricter reading of "kind of creature".

So I think the "turn it into other things" is the closest usage you will get agreement on. Basically you found a way to spawn new instances of an existing kind of creature. A form of fast paced Reproduction as it were.

GeoffWatson

2021-02-13, 11:12 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2021-02-14, 12:52 AM

Caster dominance starts at level 1, if the DM lets them.
In the Mold Earth (a cantrip available at first level) discussions, some were arguing that a caster should be able to bury an opponent with it for an automatic win against most medium or smaller creatures.

Yeah, that wouldn't fly (or dig, in this case) with me. Or anyone I'd be willing to play with. That's so far outside the bounds of the spell as to be laughable munchkinry.

Valmark

2021-02-14, 01:35 AM

Hence why you would use TP on a Simulacrum. They're a creature with the same statistics as the original, including the creature's CR or, in the case of a PC, level. Though you could also turn it into other things, such as CR 20 dragons, demons, or undead that are friendly to you and might, potentially, serve you.
Except that a Simulacrum is still bound to turn only into creatures with a CR.

But yeah, you could turn it into Dragons, Fiends etc.

Caster dominance starts at level 1, if the DM lets them.
In the Mold Earth (a cantrip available at first level) discussions, some were arguing that a caster should be able to bury an opponent with it for an automatic win against most medium or smaller creatures.

I can see the argument but yeah, I don't think anybody I know would let that work (me included).

JoeJ

2021-02-14, 03:18 AM

Those are inward-facing self-buffs though. They provide less benefit to teammates than Bardic Inspiration and spells do. Cooperation with a Rogue involves buffing the Rogue (e.g. Invisibility), but cooperation with a Bard often involves benefiting from what the Bard can do to you (e.g. Bardic Inspiration to mitigate the threat of concentration failures). It just so happens that 5E is designed so that this outward-facing team buffs add up to more (IMHO) than the inward facing Rogue buffs: two Bards can do more than two Rogues, and I think also more than a Bard and a Rogue together.

A meaningless distinction. Every hit point of damage the rogue does helps the party. Every trap bypassed; every door unlocked; every challenge that is successfully overcome is a victory for the party. And at the end of the adventure, when everybody is sitting around talking about what a great game it was, whatever the bard did with their simulacrum isn't going to be remembered any more fondly than the moment when the rogue stole the BBEG's magic ring right off his finger, or when the barbarian picked up a stone golem and used it as an improvised weapon, or the monk stunned Orcus with one punch.

Eldariel

2021-02-14, 04:04 AM

A meaningless distinction. Every hit point of damage the rogue does helps the party. Every trap bypassed; every door unlocked; every challenge that is successfully overcome is a victory for the party. And at the end of the adventure, when everybody is sitting around talking about what a great game it was, whatever the bard did with their simulacrum isn't going to be remembered any more fondly than the moment when the rogue stole the BBEG's magic ring right off his finger, or when the barbarian picked up a stone golem and used it as an improvised weapon, or the monk stunned Orcus with one punch.

Really? Yes, everyone can contribute damage but if you have to roll for a skill the Rogue doesn't have proficiency in, they do nothing. Meanwhile a caster of most stripes has a means to help out, buffing the other character (caster or noncaster, makes no difference; anyone can specialise in any stat in this edition) who does have the proficiencies thus improving party result in spite of not having tools to do it personally. This means bringing a caster instead of a rogue means the party is more likely able to deal with those issues: the whole party gets stronger and thus everyone can do better at whatever they wanna do, while bringing a Rogue brings a single character who can only do a thing but doesn't enhance overall party results in any way. Similarly, everyone can deal damage but a CC effect is a damage multiplier multiplying the whole party's damage meaning, again, everyone performs better instead of just the damage dealer. In this edition everyone can deal plenty of damage if built for it so "I do damage" isn't a valid character role, at least not exclusively. You should be able to do something beyond that.

It just so happens that even in combat, combining effects also tends to produce results greater than the sum of their parts. Haste + Holy Weapon is better than only one or the other. Haste + Holy Weapon + Tenser's even better than any two alone. Wall of Force + Wall of Light/Sickening Radiance/Cloud of Daggers/etc. turns the spell from a trap to an autokill against anyone who can't escape. Animate Dead/Conjure Animals + Crusader's Mantle is obvious. Being able to CC enemies when called for can be worth a lot; even simple Hold Person/Monster produces those autocritical rounds. Being able to deal with groups of enemies or single enemies is better than only being able to do single target damage.

There's no reason Rogue would be any better than anyone else at stealing the BBEG's magic ring. If anything, again, Bard has Enhance Ability and the same Expertise so it's probably in their wheelhouse.

This isn't about what's remembered fondly. A commoner can be remembered fondly. That's not relevant to the context of what's favoured mechanically in the system. And sadly, mostly due to overconservative design, in this edition it's beyond blatantly obvious that a caster is a better addition to basically any party and any party role than a non-caster outside extremely specialised one-level range scenarios (if we're talking about a game that ranges from low levels to mid levels). There's just basically never a point where you wouldn't want more resources and more different ways to deal with different things. The abilities non-casters get to shine in their area of expertise are mostly accessible to casters as well, and casters can often use spells to reach greater competency in those areas than non-casters. Things like Expertise, Fighting Style, Extra Attack, etc. come as components and feats and class dips. There's no real reason to take a lot of levels in a martial class even for combat competency. Let alone non-combat; rituals and cantrips alone are gamechangers out of combat, let alone everything else.

Sadly no amount of handwaving of "but I have fun playing Rogue" isn't going to make that go away. Mundanes are fine for certain kinds of play but the game system could give them so much more without there really being any risk of them being broken, and doesn't. Which is the crux of the issue.

Waazraath

2021-02-14, 04:18 AM

There's no reason Rogue would be any better than anyone else at stealing the BBEG's magic ring. If anything, again, Bard has Enhance Ability and the same Expertise so it's probably in their wheelhouse.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that makes these discussions so tedious. Yeah, theoretically, maybe. But in practice, few bards will have maxed out their dex (instead going for feats after maxing out charisma), and fewer will have of all bloody things 'enhance ability' cast on themselves in the boss fight with the BBEG - it one thing, in many boss fights it's a quick route to needing a raise dead, since most of bard's defenses need to come from concentration spells. (and please spare me another white room bard who doesn't cause he's a mountain dwarf with AoA and Shield and Aid and etc. picked with magical secrets).

JoeJ

2021-02-14, 05:15 AM

There's no reason Rogue would be any better than anyone else at stealing the BBEG's magic ring. If anything, again, Bard has Enhance Ability and the same Expertise so it's probably in their wheelhouse.

Are you kidding me? Even in the unlikely event that the bard has both maxed out the dexterity and chosen expertise in sleight of hand, the bard still doesn't have Reliable Talent. And they can't make up the difference with magic, because casting a spell in the presence of the BBEG will almost certainly turn the interaction into combat.

Eldariel

2021-02-14, 05:16 AM

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that makes these discussions so tedious. Yeah, theoretically, maybe. But in practice, few bards will have maxed out their dex (instead going for feats after maxing out charisma), and fewer will have of all bloody things 'enhance ability' cast on themselves in the boss fight with the BBEG - it one thing, in many boss fights it's a quick route to needing a raise dead, since most of bard's defenses need to come from concentration spells. (and please spare me another white room bard who doesn't cause he's a mountain dwarf with AoA and Shield and Aid and etc. picked with magical secrets).

This kind of nonsense is precisely why we'll never get anywhere in these discussions. Yeah, it really is tedious when people keep saying "Stuff where Rogue has no special advantage is what makes them awesome". You accuse me of white rooming, but the example is just as much white room. Sure, Rogue can steal the ring or belt pouch or whatever. With DM cooperation with an action literally every class has access to. Rogue doesn't even have meaningfully higher bonuses than anyone else who wants to be a thief. Even at -2 Dex bonus compared to the Rogue (which assumes this happens on level 8 or above), if the BBEG is indeed reliant on this item and wants to steal something, obviously he'll go for Enhance Ability (plus Advantage on Dex-checks is nice anyways so upcast Enhance Ability: Dex for the party is not even a bad spell to have active while walking in). Like if you plan to take stuff from the BBEG, you'll obviously maximise your chances of doing it. If you notice it in combat, well, having -2 less than the Rogue isn't really that meaningful of a detriment to this end.

And no, Bards don't really rely on Concentration-based defensive boosts; Valor and Swords come with medium armor and shields, Lore has Cutting Words, any Bard has access to Moderately Armored if they want to be in a position where they get attacked for 19 AC. What Concentration buffs do they even have for defense that you'd actually want to cast? Where is this nonsense coming from? Do you truly play with casters who go down as soon as they are looked at? 'cause if that's the case it's a choice: there's nothing intrinsic in the game that would lead to them being significantly squishier than any martial. Couple of points of HP, which is rarely even one attack, and that's about it.

JoeJ

2021-02-14, 05:24 AM

Rogue doesn't even have meaningfully higher bonuses than anyone else who wants to be a thief.

Hunh? That is completely false. Only one other class gets expertise, and that class does not have dexterity as their most important ability. No other class gets reliable talent, or the chance to take their expertise in thieves' tools.

DwarfFighter

2021-02-14, 05:44 AM

Late to the party here. It seems to me that caster superiority has less to do with level of play and more to do with Long Rest vs Encounter balance.

If you take a Long rest after x encounters, set x low to favor casters, and high to favour martials.

-DF

Valmark

2021-02-14, 06:14 AM

ArmorClass

2021-02-14, 07:17 AM

That also depends upon player skill. I have not played enough high tier sessions to claim caster "dominance" is even in existence, but I'll say at level 15.

Why? Our 15th level cleric completely wrecked an encounter by casting earthquake. And then, when he was later scouting around using etherealness, we had to use a bunch of the marvelous pigments to get to where he was (we ended up drawing a tunnel, and then another one ... and then another one to get out ... ) Burned up a pretty valuable magic item to do that. (yeah, it is a consumable, so it is intended to be used)

Absolutely. A good fullcaster will leave martials in the dust by level 7. Polymorphing the cleric into a Giant Ape and then hiding at the edge of the map throwing Fireballs brings so much more to the table than a perfectly played martial could ever hope to do.
A martial fighting perfectly doesn't change all that much, he never misses turns due to carrying backup ranged weaponry and he focusses targets well, while protecting the backline through positioning.
Fullcasters have the far higher skill ceiling (alone from the fact that you need to know a ton of spell text and rules interactions to play them well), but their power rises much higher when played optimally.

To make a cutoff point as to where a average player on the average martial class falls behind the average fullcaster is hard, in some tables it happens never.
I'd say it has to be one of the odd levels where new spells become available. Spell slot level 3 is too early, there are some potent spells in there but martials keep up with extra attack. Slot level 4 is only for skilled players, as level 4 spells for all the fullcasters are somwhat underwhelming apart from a few powergamer options like Polymorph and Conjure Woodland Beings. I would say they overtake them probably by spell level 5, and definitly by spell level 6. So character level 9-11.
Conveniently also the level where most published adventure's for 5e either end or draw close to the endgame. WotC knows this "flaw" of the rules, and it is something I highly expect to see the martial lategame to be tinkered with for 6th edition.

I personally don't think the power progression of martials/melees is a big problem in 5e for combat, but the out of combat options for martials would need some touching up.

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 07:39 AM

A meaningless distinction.

Only if you ignore the final sentence. "More" vs "less" is not meaningless.

MrStabby

2021-02-14, 07:40 AM

This kind of nonsense is precisely why we'll never get anywhere in these discussions. Yeah, it really is tedious when people keep saying "Stuff where Rogue has no special advantage is what makes them awesome". You accuse me of white rooming, but the example is just as much white room. Sure, Rogue can steal the ring or belt pouch or whatever. With DM cooperation with an action literally every class has access to. Rogue doesn't even have meaningfully higher bonuses than anyone else who wants to be a thief. Even at -2 Dex bonus compared to the Rogue (which assumes this happens on level 8 or above), if the BBEG is indeed reliant on this item and wants to steal something, obviously he'll go for Enhance Ability (plus Advantage on Dex-checks is nice anyways so upcast Enhance Ability: Dex for the party is not even a bad spell to have active while walking in). Like if you plan to take stuff from the BBEG, you'll obviously maximise your chances of doing it. If you notice it in combat, well, having -2 less than the Rogue isn't really that meaningful of a detriment to this end.

And no, Bards don't really rely on Concentration-based defensive boosts; Valor and Swords come with medium armor and shields, Lore has Cutting Words, any Bard has access to Moderately Armored if they want to be in a position where they get attacked for 19 AC. What Concentration buffs do they even have for defense that you'd actually want to cast? Where is this nonsense coming from? Do you truly play with casters who go down as soon as they are looked at? 'cause if that's the case it's a choice: there's nothing intrinsic in the game that would lead to them being significantly squishier than any martial. Couple of points of HP, which is rarely even one attack, and that's about it.

I think casters can be tough, no doubt. I think that most casters do throw a couple of resources at survivability. Wizards with good con, mage armour and shield. Bards with valor bard for armour OR a magical secrets option, clerics with heavy armour and shields...

I do think that the warriors of the game do win at toughness just through so many edge cases building up. Mage armour can be dispelled or run out, shield is a useless spell when surprised. Those few extra class HP can make the difference between needing 5 hits or 6 to take a character down - a 20% increase isn't negligible and boosts their short rest HP recovery as well. There have been several times I have seen fighters on half a dozen HP or so, low enough that being a d6 or a d8 HD class would have seen them down.

Not a huge gap and it can be overstated.

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 07:52 AM

I think casters can be tough, no doubt. I think that most casters do throw a couple of resources at survivability. Wizards with good con, mage armour and shield. Bards with valor bard for armour OR a magical secrets option, clerics with heavy armour and shields...

I do think that the warriors of the game do win at toughness just through so many edge cases building up. Mage armour can be dispelled or run out, shield is a useless spell when surprised. Those few extra class HP can make the difference between needing 5 hits or 6 to take a character down - a 20% increase isn't negligible and boosts their short rest HP recovery as well. There have been several times I have seen fighters on half a dozen HP or so, low enough that being a d6 or a d8 HD class would have seen them down.

Not a huge gap and it can be overstated.

Fighters also get extra HP every short rest via Second Wind. Net result: wizards don't just have smaller HD, they are also more dependent on extrinsic healing sources like Inspiring Leader, Aura of Vitality, etc. to get through an adventuring day.

One of the many reasons why Healing Spirit v1 was so awful: it removed a wizard weakness without any real opportunity cost (just need literally ANY druid or ranger in the party).

MrStabby

2021-02-14, 09:11 AM

Fighters also get extra HP every short rest via Second Wind. Net result: wizards don't just have smaller HD, they are also more dependent on extrinsic healing sources like Inspiring Leader, Aura of Vitality, etc. to get through an adventuring day.

One of the many reasons why Healing Spirit v1 was so awful: it removed a wizard weakness without any real opportunity cost (just need literally ANY druid or ranger in the party).

Sorry I was a bit imprecise in my answer. I was meaning "fighter" more generically than the class. You are absolutely right that fighters get second wind but barbarians also get rage, rangers and paladins get their defensive buffs as well, rogues get uncanny dodge...

And yeah, healing spirit was a silly mistake... bit they fixed it.

Tanarii

2021-02-14, 10:37 AM

I think casters can be tough, no doubt. I think that most casters do throw a couple of resources at survivability. Wizards with good con, mage armour and shield. Bards with valor bard for armour OR a magical secrets option, clerics with heavy armour and shields...
Clerics can be pretty tough. All other full casters require optional rules (Multiclassing or feats).

I know the internet likes to assume these are in play, and that rules (for these and spells and races etc) from any splatbook are in play. But that's not only not a given, it's assuming power creep that hugely changes the class balance dynamic.

Note this also holds true for martials, especially feats like GWM, PAM, & SS. It's not all a one way street towards full casters. But the defensive benefits of e.g. Medium Armor Proficiency to Bards or Warlocks, or starting with a Fighter or Cleric or Paladin dip to Wizard or Sorcs, are massive.

OldTrees1

2021-02-14, 10:45 AM

2 Arcane Trickster 16s try something they are specialized in. If they wanted to be specialized for depth they might also have Guidance (Rogues get an extra Feat and Magic Initiate is a common choice). I know Dun had Guidance.

2 Lore Bard 16s try something they are specialized in. They could inspire each other.

A mixed pair is trying the same thing.

Finally one of each is supporting an ally (but maybe not in their triple specialty).

Rogues: Adv (min 10) + Expertise + 1d4 + Ability
Min 11 Ave 17.04 Max 24 (+ Expertise + Ability)

Bards: Adv (min 1) + Expertise + 1d12 + Ability
Min 2 Ave 20.32 Max 32 (+ Expertise + Ability)

Mix Rogue: Adv (min 10) + Expertise + 1d12 + Ability
Min 11 Ave 21.04 Max 32 (+ Expertise + Ability)

Mix Bard: Adv (min 1) + Expertise + 1d4 + Ability
Min 2 Ave 16.32 Max 24 (+ Expertise + Ability)
Mixed Average = 18.68

Reliable Talent is nothing to sneeze at. That is a full +9 to the minimum.
Bardic Inspiration is nothing to sneeze at. That is a full +8 to the maximum (after accounting for Rogue's extra feat).
The averages are rather close (17.04 vs 20.32) especially when considering the higher one consumes resources.

Rogue with ally: 1d20 (min 10) + Expertise + Ability
Rogue buffing ally: Adv (min 1) + 1d4 + Bonus
Specialist: Min 10 Ave 15.46 Max 20 (+ Bonus)
Ally: Min 2 Ave 16.32 Max 24 (+ Bonus)

Bard with ally: 1d20 (min 1) + Expertise + Ability
Bard buffing ally: Adv (min 1) + 1d12 + Bonus
Specialist: Min 1 Ave 10.5 Max 20 (+ Bonus)
Ally: Min 2 Average 20.32 Max 32 (+ Bonus)

When buffing an ally you can see how the Rogue increases the reliability of both while the Bard only increases the reliability of their ally. At that point we should compare the skill gap between the ally and the skillmonkey. The Bard's lack of self support matters less if the skill gap between the specialist and the ally is large (unless the ally is the real specialist which is a different hypothetical). However in areas where the skill gap is smaller (skillmonkey is only proficient or the ally has a better ability score) then the Bard starts to pull down the reliability of both PCs passing the check.

In conclusion: It is not so cut and dry. They both have their advantages in the support role. Talk with your group to find out if reliability or height is more important at your table. Talk with your group to find out if there are lots of checks that might overwhelm bardic inspiration. Talk with your group to find out if skills will matter at all (I want them to matter, but not every group runs that way).