Casters can do everything, YAY!!!!

[Dr.Samurai]

Inspired by the "Tanking Team" thread where, apparently, every single class has the ability to be an amazing "tank", I'm wondering... is this what D&D players want?

It seems to me the things that casters can crib from martial characters (weapon and armor proficiencies, extra attack, larger hit point pools, etc) go a much longer way than if a martial takes Magic Initiate and Fey-Touched.

In another thread about martials, someone mentioned how fighters were very powerful in AD&D and were the only ones that could achieve... I don't recall the parameters, but stuff. But I was intrigued by it because it seems more in line with the stories that I typically consume.

Apparently, maybe according to the same person in that thread, wizards didn't even get any weapon or armor proficiencies until 3rd edition (or the ability to even wear armor).

Anyways, it seems to me that it is rather lop-sided that not only can a caster cast up to 9th level spells, they also can, through some effort but apparently not much effort, get the armor and weapon profs, crazy amounts of hit points or temp hit points, Extra Attack in some cases, all without having to sacrifice their spellcasting.

Whereas martials can't really do the same in the other direction without really just multiclassing.

I don't know how true the other thread is in highlighting that every class can make an amazing tank, but I feel like that shouldn't be the case. Spells can be used to justify any sort of effect, but really the line should be drawn where magic can't help you also be an armored warrior god. It seems like everyone should just play a caster, and you can be a druid that can tank, and control and blast and heal and sneak. Or a bard and tank and control and heal and sneak. Or a cleric and tank and control and blast and heal. Or a wizard and so on and so forth.

Seems lame. Yes, I'm butthurt about this lol. That was my little rant, let me know your thoughts :smalltongue:

[Gignere]

Actually I agree with most of your points, about caster stronger than fighters. However this is an issue with pretty much every edition of D&D. 5th edition is imo better than most already.

At higher levels pretty much in all editions casters totally dominate, certainly in 3.x where you had CoDzilla and crazy wizards with craft everything decked out like Christmas trees with magic items.

Just for funsies a level 20 wizard player in 3.0 decided to duel another player that was level 20 barbarian and the wizard won with just a dagger and without casting a spell higher than 5th level. Because the players knew if the wizard can freely cast the barbarian had no chance.

[Dienekes]

Well... that's probably going to happen.

You essentially have one group of classes that is defined by being simple, direct, and easy to pick up and play and another that is defined by getting hundreds of different discrete mechanical abilities. Unless the designer is very, very careful, you will eventually cover everything the simple class can do with a selection of the discrete mechanical abilities.

It gets really funny, when those abilities can usurp the functions of other classes, and are still not even considered the optimal way to play the class.

But, you will get people who defend this, of course. After all, it's magic. It is defined by being able to do whatever, so of course, magic should be able to do pretty much anything. I'm not personally a fan of that design mentality, but it is a valid as any way to design a game.

[Dalinar]

I think we'd experience a lot less of this if it were harder to get casters into medium or heavy armor and shield proficiency. As it stands, it's a simple Artificer dip away for Wizards, Hexblade or Paladin dip away for CHA casters, or... well, WIS casters are a weird case, since Cleric gets it anyway and the whole Druid metal armor thing, but anyway.

The thing is that you have to broaden your definition of "tanking" because there are relatively few mechanics in this game that force/strongly encourage people to target specific PCs over others. Making yourself very obviously tanky without any other form of control means that they'll just go after the guy in the robe instead. LudicSavant had a good demonstration with Sorcadin Booming Blade in the other thread. Something like a ghost-lance build (Repelling Eldritch Blast via War Caster OA + Echo Knight shenanigans) can "tank" by virtue of making it really hard for enemies to actually approach, throwing down Spike Growth to restrict movement and knocking back anything that makes it through.

Though I don't actually see the martial/caster disparity as nearly as big a deal as people make it out to be, in practice anyway.

[JonBeowulf]

It also depends on how you define being a good "tank". IMO, the things that make a good tank in a MORPG are the opposite of what you need as a good tank in a TTRPG.

There is no you must attack me feature so you must make it in the enemy's best interest to attack you by being a threat they cannot afford to ignore. High damage mitigation without good damage output doesn't make you a tank - it makes you a tree that can be ignored until the real threats are taken care of. Intelligent enemies should behave intelligently.

There are some sub-classes and multi-class combos that can make what I would call "good tanks" but most lack the you must deal with me threat generation.

[Telok]

In another thread about martials, someone mentioned how fighters were very powerful in AD&D and were the only ones that could achieve... I don't recall the parameters, but stuff. But I was intrigued by it because it seems more in line with the stories that I typically consume.

Pretty much 3 things going on:
1. D&D is no longer based on archetypes. You get a menu of choices & build your own. You're a wizard? Choose armor, or skill, or more stats, or don't need a spellbook, etc. etc. AD&A 1e was archetype based. You're a wizard? Here's your robes, spellbook, your d4 hd, but you can choose staff or daggers or darts.

2. Casters weren't magical enough. Never understood this one myself. But there"s a set out there with the dev's ear that wants casters always casting spells every round of combat and a bunch of noncombat too. So all the old restrictions on casting gradualy got dropped... but the spells didn't. The spells are often weaker and less interesting now to compensate, but until they're reduced to basically what the non-casters can do with some added special effects you wan't see parity between a day long pile of magic and a day of the fighter swinging a sword & making jump/climb rolls.

3. The fighters lost thier toys. The old old magic item tables were 25% weapons & 15% armor (items making saves took its toll, but not generally that much), the warriors-only stuff went to +5, everything else capped at +3, and lots of it was warrior-only. Warriors were also the only ones who got extra bonuses from high strength & constituion. Opportunity attacks used to be your whole attack action, no limit on the number of times in a round, with a bonus to hit & no shield because turning your back on someone with a sword is a bad idea. Ability checks were usually d20 under stat... think about that, your 18 str +8 vs dc15 needs 7+, old style str 18 woukd translate into needing 3+. Oh, and all your saves went up. Not just one or two of them.

[MoiMagnus]

Inspired by the "Tanking Team" thread where, apparently, every single class has the ability to be an amazing "tank", I'm wondering... is this what D&D players want?

Yes, that's what I want.
Admittedly, 5e makes it slightly too easy to my taste (e.g.multiclassing is probably too good at it), but it it's not that far off from what I want.

I fundamentally dislike the concept of glass canon and I'd like most if not all character concept to be able to be build without being a glass canon (though I'm not saying you shouldn't also be able to build them as glass canon). Combined with the fact that I also have a preference for character concepts that are centred around mental ability scores (Cha/Int/Wis), that means I want my mages to be able to tank up to some degree.

And if the trade-off for balance reasons is that martial classes get access at some cost to superpowers of strength similar to a 9th level spell, I'm fine with it (and probably even glad of it). It can even come through OP magical weapons or something if putting those powers as class features is too weird (though it's not compatible with current design principle of "magic items are almost optional").

[Tanarii]

Don't use the Multiclassing optional rule for dips for armor then.

[Athan Artilliam]

The problem is with Spells not casters. Cut the spells to less grab bag of effects & suddenly everything is much more balanced

[prototype00]

In all my years of playing 5e, I’ve never seen a pure caster do single target damage worth a damn (except possibly the Hexblade/warlocks in general if you consider it).

Against the big endgame bosses with legendary resistance, you always have to hope against hope that someone on the party invested in a DPR martial.

Does it make up for the versatility of caster vs martial? Probably not, but dang if it isn’t an important role to play.

[Athan Artilliam]

In all my years of playing 5e, I’ve never seen a pure caster do single target damage worth a damn (except possibly the Hexblade/warlocks in general if you consider it).

Against the big endgame bosses with legendary resistance, you always have to hope against hope that someone on the party invested in a DPR martial.

Does it make up for the versatility of caster vs martial? Probably not, but dang if it isn’t an important role to play.

Just Banish it. Wish for x, push it through a Gate, etc. You don't need damage to kill something if you can just magic it away

[prototype00]

Just Banish it. Wish for x, push it through a Gate, etc. You don't need damage to kill something if you can just magic it away

Legendary Resistances and counterspell on a lot of the higher tier BBEGs.

And if you say that these traits aren’t common, might I remind you that the game is called Dungeons and *Dragons*?

Basically every dragon in my experience that we faced in T3, it was the martials who did the lion’s share of the work.

Edit: Also, Wish for X, if not an 8th level spell, is a mugs game, no caster I’ve played with has ever done that due to stress.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Pretty much 3 things going on:
1. D&D is no longer based on archetypes. You get a menu of choices & build your own. You're a wizard? Choose armor, or skill, or more stats, or don't need a spellbook, etc. etc. AD&A 1e was archetype based. You're a wizard? Here's your robes, spellbook, your d4 hd, but you can choose staff or daggers or darts.

2. Casters weren't magical enough. Never understood this one myself. But there"s a set out there with the dev's ear that wants casters always casting spells every round of combat and a bunch of noncombat too. So all the old restrictions on casting gradualy got dropped... but the spells didn't. The spells are often weaker and less interesting now to compensate, but until they're reduced to basically what the non-casters can do with some added special effects you wan't see parity between a day long pile of magic and a day of the fighter swinging a sword & making jump/climb rolls.

3. The fighters lost thier toys. The old old magic item tables were 25% weapons & 15% armor (items making saves took its toll, but not generally that much), the warriors-only stuff went to +5, everything else capped at +3, and lots of it was warrior-only. Warriors were also the only ones who got extra bonuses from high strength & constituion. Opportunity attacks used to be your whole attack action, no limit on the number of times in a round, with a bonus to hit & no shield because turning your back on someone with a sword is a bad idea. Ability checks were usually d20 under stat... think about that, your 18 str +8 vs dc15 needs 7+, old style str 18 woukd translate into needing 3+. Oh, and all your saves went up. Not just one or two of them.

As an old 2e player I largely agree with this. Sure wizards had a lot of spells which in some cases were more powerful than now, but they were squishy. And sure there was no concentration mechanic, but a smart DM could keep the number of encounters to a level where resource conservation was necessary. There were no cantrips, so a lot of the things that would burn up low level spell slots are now automatic. And that's on top of damage cantrips, where the equivalent would have been chucking a dagger for a handful of hp of damage.

I don't think enough gets made of the limited magic in 5e. The default setting is such that you can't really load your characters with magic without having to set the party against enemies that are way beyond what is recommended. This absolutely impacts martials more than casters, particularly given the concentration mechanic. In truth we haven't seen as much of a gap as I read about at other tables, but both our other DM and I are fine with handing out the magic to compensate where needed. This has usually meant martials are still kings of single target damage to late tier 3.

In short, no I really don't want everyone to be able to do everything. I don't need to give fighters a 'whirlwind attack' doing 8d6 to every enemy in a 20' radius once per short rest to try and even up AOE damage with casters. Much better to have classes be equally valuable in their own right.

[LudicSavant]

I don't know how true the other thread is in highlighting that every class can make an amazing tank, but I feel like that shouldn't be the case. Spells can be used to justify any sort of effect, but really the line should be drawn where magic can't help you also be an armored warrior god. It seems like everyone should just play a caster, and you can be a druid that can tank, and control and blast and heal and sneak. Or a bard and tank and control and heal and sneak. Or a cleric and tank and control and blast and heal. Or a wizard and so on and so forth.

Seems lame. Yes, I'm butthurt about this lol. That was my little rant, let me know your thoughts :smalltongue:

I support the notion that role isn't locked to class, and the fact that I can build a tank with a Wizard as well as a Fighter. Class != role, and I am totally on board with that.

However, I also think that martial classes deserve more than they get (especially when it comes to noncombat utility) and that a few caster tools could use some adjustments (minionmancy, Simulacrum, etc). The issue is less that a caster can be a tank, so much as that they can do it while also doing a ton of other stuff on the same character (e.g. not just comparing two different builds of the same class, but just one build alone doing tons of stuff), while martials tend to be narrower.

Part of the issue, IMHO, is that there's still vestiges of the idea that "skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." But of course casters don't suffer from that divide... like you say, a Bard can tank and control and heal and sneak (and more), all on the same character. Heck, that Bard might even be beating the Rogue out on their non-combat utility.

That "utility is for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters" idea has lost some of its hold over the years, but IMHO it needs to finish fading away. As is, people are always pointing at characters like Conan and going "well he must be a Rogue, because he's got tons of skills." But it doesn't need to be that way. We can just make martials in general carry full weight in all 3 pillars: combat, social, and exploration.


In all my years of playing 5e, I’ve never seen a pure caster do single target damage worth a damn (except possibly the Hexblade/warlocks in general if you consider it).

I'm sure there are plenty who haven't tried using pure casters as main tanks either, but that doesn't mean those builds aren't out there.

There are plenty of caster builds out there that can do strong single target damage.

[Leon]

So they can can do "everything". big whoop. They are an option to play nothing more, not better or worse than any other choice there is.

[prototype00]

I support the notion that role isn't locked to class, and the fact that I can build a tank with a Wizard as well as a Fighter.

However, I also think that martial classes deserve more than they get (especially when it comes to noncombat utility) and that a few caster tools could use some adjustments (minionmancy, Simulacrum, etc). The issue is less that a caster can be a tank, so much as that they can do it while also doing a ton of other stuff on the same character (e.g. not just comparing two different builds of the same class, but just one build alone doing tons of stuff), while martials tend to be narrower.

Part of the issue, IMHO, is that there's still vestiges of the idea that "skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." But of course casters don't suffer from that divide... like you say, a Bard can tank and control and heal and sneak (and more), all on the same character. Heck, that Bard might even be beating the Rogue out on their non-combat utility.

That "utility is for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters" idea has lost some of its hold over the years, but IMHO it needs to finish fading away. As is, people are always pointing at characters like Conan and going "well he must be a Rogue, because he's got tons of skills." But it doesn't need to be that way. We can just make martials in general carry full weight in all 3 pillars: combat, social, and exploration.



I'm sure there are plenty who haven't tried using pure casters as main tanks either, but that doesn't mean those builds aren't out there.

There are plenty of caster builds out there that can do strong single target damage.

Apart from some combination of Warlock and X (and Warlocks aren’t even considered full casters by some and more akin to a martial in playstyle), I haven’t seen that many/any casters that do good single target damage comparable to a Sharpshooter or a GWM specialist in AL, and if there is anywhere that the Gorgonzola would be brought out, it’s AL.

So plenty (barring the proliferation of Warlocks, which I grant do good single target DPR and said as much.) I’m not so sure, from first hand experience.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is with Spells not casters. Cut the spells to less grab bag of effects & suddenly everything is much more balanced

Strong agreement.

Although, I wonder how many of these builds ever see actual play outside of constructed one shots and AL.

[LudicSavant]

Although, I wonder how many of these builds ever see actual play outside of constructed one shots and AL.

Every single one that I recommended here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25359577&postcount=6) meets that criteria. And not even just from my own games, either -- you can find plenty of posts from people who have used such build recommendations in their own long-term games and shared their results (especially for anything that has been posted in the Eclectic Builds thread).

[Dr.Samurai]

Actually I agree with most of your points, about caster stronger than fighters. However this is an issue with pretty much every edition of D&D. 5th edition is imo better than most already.

At higher levels pretty much in all editions casters totally dominate, certainly in 3.x where you had CoDzilla and crazy wizards with craft everything decked out like Christmas trees with magic items.

Just for funsies a level 20 wizard player in 3.0 decided to duel another player that was level 20 barbarian and the wizard won with just a dagger and without casting a spell higher than 5th level. Because the players knew if the wizard can freely cast the barbarian had no chance.
Well someone had mentioned in another thread that casters don't totally dominate in maybe the first or second edition (I don't recall). It seems like there was a large shift between 2nd and 3rd maybe? But I don't know, I started right before 3.5.

But, you will get people who defend this, of course. After all, it's magic. It is defined by being able to do whatever, so of course, magic should be able to do pretty much anything. I'm not personally a fan of that design mentality, but it is a valid as any way to design a game.
Right, and that's why I labeled my own post a rant, because I recognize that this works for a lot of people and I'm just complaining because I don't like it. And maybe it's because I started in 3rd edition, but I have a hard time imagining what a wizard or cleric would look like if it were different from the current paradigm. But I feel like "we can do everything if we have the right spell selection and subclass" seems wrong.

I think we'd experience a lot less of this if it were harder to get casters into medium or heavy armor and shield proficiency. As it stands, it's a simple Artificer dip away for Wizards, Hexblade or Paladin dip away for CHA casters, or... well, WIS casters are a weird case, since Cleric gets it anyway and the whole Druid metal armor thing, but anyway.

Right. It' so easy to get the thing that makes martials mostly capable of front-lining, like it's a throw-away feature.

The thing is that you have to broaden your definition of "tanking" because there are relatively few mechanics in this game that force/strongly encourage people to target specific PCs over others. Making yourself very obviously tanky without any other form of control means that they'll just go after the guy in the robe instead. LudicSavant had a good demonstration with Sorcadin Booming Blade in the other thread. Something like a ghost-lance build (Repelling Eldritch Blast via War Caster OA + Echo Knight shenanigans) can "tank" by virtue of making it really hard for enemies to actually approach, throwing down Spike Growth to restrict movement and knocking back anything that makes it through.
Yeah there's no aggro feature. Generally people mean someone that's very tough, mixed with some amount of control. But consider a 6th level Battlerager Barbarian vs a 6th level Twilight Cleric. One is gaining 3 temporary hit points per round with their subclass feature. The other is granting ~9 temporary hit points to EACH ALLY and ending a Charmed/Frightened condition ever round. The barbarian can do it 4/day, and the cleric can do it 2/rest (meaning more often generally).

Now yes, the barbarian is also Raging, which halves damage. But the cleric has a whole host of spells and abilities to supplement this feature. And yes, Battlerager is a weak subclass, but even if you pump this feature up to Con+Barbarian Level, the cleric is still exceeding the raw thp numbers. But why? Why grant this ability to a cleric? Martials have larger HD and, generally, pump their Con. Here we're just handing out HP like candy, effectively raising everyone's HD or Con up to beyond martial levels because it's replenished every turn. This is just one example.

Though I don't actually see the martial/caster disparity as nearly as big a deal as people make it out to be, in practice anyway.
To be clear, the disparity here is less "casters can do things that martials can't" and more "casters can do things that martials can". There should be a clear distinction between casters and martials, in my opinion, so that you don't have mages running around with high level spells, and also wading into melee whenever they feel like it because they're just as tough or tougher than the warriors.

Pretty much 3 things going on:
1. D&D is no longer based on archetypes. You get a menu of choices & build your own. You're a wizard? Choose armor, or skill, or more stats, or don't need a spellbook, etc. etc. AD&A 1e was archetype based. You're a wizard? Here's your robes, spellbook, your d4 hd, but you can choose staff or daggers or darts.
Well, I would argue it still IS based on archetypes, but it's making it very easy to blur the lines. This may be okay and to some peoples' tastes, but it's lop-sided as I say in the OP.

But the archetype is there. That's why wizards don't start with armor proficiencies and have to pick the right race or multiclass to get it. Or grab features/spells.

2. Casters weren't magical enough. Never understood this one myself. But there"s a set out there with the dev's ear that wants casters always casting spells every round of combat and a bunch of noncombat too. So all the old restrictions on casting gradualy got dropped... but the spells didn't. The spells are often weaker and less interesting now to compensate, but until they're reduced to basically what the non-casters can do with some added special effects you wan't see parity between a day long pile of magic and a day of the fighter swinging a sword & making jump/climb rolls.
Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. The notion that someone can throw ten fire bolts every minute the entire day without issue seems... weird. Cantrips just suggest to me a higher level of power, like you're wielding infinite energy or something.

It's actually again, another encroachment on the martial. The martial is able to keep attacking all day every day. There aren't crazy spikes in impact, but they maintain consistent effectiveness in battle.

So let's let the casters do that as well, but also they have encounter-ending spells...

3. The fighters lost thier toys. The old old magic item tables were 25% weapons & 15% armor (items making saves took its toll, but not generally that much), the warriors-only stuff went to +5, everything else capped at +3, and lots of it was warrior-only. Warriors were also the only ones who got extra bonuses from high strength & constituion. Opportunity attacks used to be your whole attack action, no limit on the number of times in a round, with a bonus to hit & no shield because turning your back on someone with a sword is a bad idea. Ability checks were usually d20 under stat... think about that, your 18 str +8 vs dc15 needs 7+, old style str 18 woukd translate into needing 3+. Oh, and all your saves went up. Not just one or two of them.
Yeah this is akin to what the poster I mentioned in the OP was saying, and makes sense to me. So they made the fighter/martials much less heroic and then made it that much easier for casters to match the general stats of martials.

Yes, that's what I want.
Admittedly, 5e makes it slightly too easy to my taste (e.g.multiclassing is probably too good at it), but it it's not that far off from what I want.

I fundamentally dislike the concept of glass canon and I'd like most if not all character concept to be able to be build without being a glass canon (though I'm not saying you shouldn't also be able to build them as glass canon). Combined with the fact that I also have a preference for character concepts that are centred around mental ability scores (Cha/Int/Wis), that means I want my mages to be able to tank up to some degree.
I guess it's a question of "to what degree". I understand not wanting to be frail. But allowing casters to be as tough or tougher than martials, kind of easily, takes away another thing that is the purview of martial characters.

Don't use the Multiclassing optional rule for dips for armor then.
Well, it's also that a one level dip in a caster class won't do something similar for martials. If a martial wants to "be a martial" and also "replicate a caster" they basically have to become a caster.

Whereas a caste that wants to be a caster and "replicate a martial" can stay a caster and make a few choices and replicate a martial to varying degrees.

In short, no I really don't want everyone to be able to do everything. I don't need to give fighters a 'whirlwind attack' doing 8d6 to every enemy in a 20' radius once per short rest to try and even up AOE damage with casters. Much better to have classes be equally valuable in their own right.
I think this is my sentiment as well. I honestly don't care if our wizard throws out a Hypnotic Pattern and essentially removes half the monsters from play. As far as I'm concerned, that's their job and I'm thankful for it. But it does rankle me a little that the same wizard would also be able to hop alongside melee with me and have a higher AC and damage mitigation and go back and forth from frontlining and spellslinging. It's like... hey, we have roles, stay in your lane.

I support the notion that role isn't locked to class, and the fact that I can build a tank with a Wizard as well as a Fighter. Class != role, and I am totally on board with that.

However, I also think that martial classes deserve more than they get (especially when it comes to noncombat utility) and that a few caster tools could use some adjustments (minionmancy, Simulacrum, etc). The issue is less that a caster can be a tank, so much as that they can do it while also doing a ton of other stuff on the same character (e.g. not just comparing two different builds of the same class, but just one build alone doing tons of stuff), while martials tend to be narrower.

Part of the issue, IMHO, is that there's still vestiges of the idea that "skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." But of course casters don't suffer from that divide... like you say, a Bard can tank and control and heal and sneak (and more), all on the same character. Heck, that Bard might even be beating the Rogue out on their non-combat utility.

That "utility is for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters" idea has lost some of its hold over the years, but IMHO it needs to finish fading away. As is, people are always pointing at characters like Conan and going "well he must be a Rogue, because he's got tons of skills." But it doesn't need to be that way. We can just make martials in general carry full weight in all 3 pillars: combat, social, and exploration.
I'm on board with your sentiment regarding martial classes deserving more. But I'm afraid my long con has failed; this entire thread was to lure LudicSavant to come in and say "Actually, you can do all the things as a martial too" and whip out some crazy builds. Alas, it is not to be...

[LudicSavant]

I'm on board with your sentiment regarding martial classes deserving more. But I'm afraid my long con has failed; this entire thread was to lure LudicSavant to come in and say "Actually, you can do all the things as a martial too" and whip out some crazy builds. Alas, it is not to be...

Ha!

Well, I certainly like to put some versatility in my martials. You'll notice that in my builds I'm often sticking some utility in there... like putting Ritual Caster on my Samurai Sharpshooter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24726630&postcount=582), or making my Watchers Paladin a stealthy spymaster (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24941211&postcount=938). So you certainly can branch out and give yourself some presence in exploration and social pillars. And the "Skills are for Rogues, Fighting is for Fighters" design mentality isn't as bad as it was in older editions.

But yeah... it's still not to the same degree. I feel like they could use more of that. And that the "skills are for Rogues" mentality should finally finish off its death throes.

[Christew]

I think we'd experience a lot less of this if it were harder to get casters into medium or heavy armor and shield proficiency. As it stands, it's a simple Artificer dip away for Wizards, Hexblade or Paladin dip away for CHA casters, or... well, WIS casters are a weird case, since Cleric gets it anyway and the whole Druid metal armor thing, but anyway.
The lack of restrictions around armor and spellcasting was one of the most shocking discoveries on making the shift to 5e. Especially the inconsistency across the different methods:
A) Wizard ostensibly designed for combat (Bladesinger)? Light only.
B) Wizard using feats (Light/Moderate/Heavily Armored)? 4 levels for light, 8 for medium, 12 for heavy.
C) Wizard using multiclassing (Cleric/Artificer)? One level, all armor and shields.

Yes, feats and multiclassing are optional rules, but you think there would be even a modicum of consistency between the three approaches.

[LudicSavant]

If you want to do good single target damage as a full caster, look at...

- Minionmancy, be it Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, Tasha's Summons, SGD, even familiars can help add some extra DPR on top. Many of these can do damage comparable to not-super-optimized martial characters on their own, and then you just add the caster's damage on top of that.
- Action economy boosters (Simulacrum, Contingency, anything that can be pre-cast, anything that uses bonus actions or reactions, minionmancy).
- Bonus action attacks (like Crown of Stars, Spiritual Weapon, Dragon's Breath, Minute Meteors, etc).
- Reaction attacks (like Hellish Rebuke, Warcaster, etc).
- Hazard/pinball combos.
- A decent attack cantrip (Eldritch Blast being the obvious one, but stuff like an Evoker's Potent Toll the Dead aren't bad when being added onto other stuff. Gishes like Bladesingers also can reliably bop people in the face for decent damage that adds onto what they're doing with their actual spells).
- Buffs to spells that can apply that buff multiple times (such as Magic Missile in the Nuclear Wizard combo, or Scorching Ray for various others, or buffs that apply to multiple spells like your bonus attack *and* your reaction *and* your action and etc).
- Retributive damage (Armor of Agathys, Fire Shield, Hellish Rebuke, and things that can buff these things on each proc).
- Subclass features that enhance any of this stuff.
- Buffing someone else's single target damage.
- Combining multiple of the above together at once.

Note that caster single target damage is one of the things that got a lot more options in supplements too, with goodies like Crown of Stars, Tasha's Summons, Hexblade dips, etc. For example high level Clerics are now tossing around Summon Celestial regularly, when they weren't doing that before.

[Mr. Wonderful]

I think your problem isn't so much with the character class as it is with the team.

If your team is willing to devote some spells and resources to the martial the results can be really eye-popping.

Example: 11th level fighter with Holy Weapon and Bless. AC 22+ with 3 attacks/round or 9d8+15 sword and board, 18d8 +30 nova Action Surge. That of course assume all hits (but no crits) so tamp it down a bit. Add in a Haste and said fighter can pretty much be anywhere on the field and with AC 24+ and a bag full of HP isn't worried about op shots.

I'm sure there are clever people who can come up with even better combos, but you've just turned your tank into someone the enemy must deal with immediately, instead of the glass cannons. And isn't that what any self-respecting caster wants to have happen?

[Psyren]

is this what D&D players want?

*glances at sales figures*

The answer is clearly yes. Or at least, that most players don't care enough one way or the other to oppose it.


So they can can do "everything". big whoop. They are an option to play nothing more, not better or worse than any other choice there is.

That. This is the best edition yet to not be a full caster in, or to have parties without one.

[tiornys]

That. This is the best edition yet to not be a full caster in, or to have parties without one.
No, the best edition to not have casters in was 4E, and it's not even close. 5E is the next-best edition for not having a (caster) healer in the party, but outside of healing 1st/2nd/5th all want casters in the party about the same amount. 5E is better than 3rd/3.5 for not being a full caster, but I don't think it's better than 1st/2nd.

[Tanarii]

No, the best edition to not have casters in was 4E, and it's not even close. 5E is the next-best edition for not having a (caster) healer in the party, but outside of healing 1st/2nd/5th all want casters in the party about the same amount. 5E is better than 3rd/3.5 for not being a full caster, but I don't think it's better than 1st/2nd.
That's a pretty good summation.

IMO in terms of which it was best to be a Fighter & Barbarian in, its 4e > TSR D&D > 5e > 3e. Paladins you might be able to make a case that 5e has them on par with TSR D&D.

That said, in 5e Tier 1 and early to mid Tier 2, the 6 martials are more powerful than the 6 full casters, and they hold their own through early Tier 3. In most cases (but not all), that's because of armor. The optional Multiclassing rule really throws that out the window.

[Eldariel]

No, the best edition to not have casters in was 4E, and it's not even close. 5E is the next-best edition for not having a (caster) healer in the party, but outside of healing 1st/2nd/5th all want casters in the party about the same amount. 5E is better than 3rd/3.5 for not being a full caster, but I don't think it's better than 1st/2nd.

The best edition to that end was 1st/2nd; they want casters but they really want non-casters too. Especially on the leveling streak and with the way XP worked. They certainly were the editions that rewarded the archetypal party the most. In 3e and 5e, the archetypal party of Magic-User/Cleric/Fighting-Man/Thief is straight-up weak compared to alternatives: you could just replace the Thief with a Bard to get a massive improvement without giving up much in terms of skills (actually even better there at many places thanks to spells coming early) and the Fighter with e.g. Moon Druid, Bladesinger, Shepherd, Hexblade, Genielock, or whatever for even more improvement. Hell, in this edition the most effective frontliner of the archetypal party in the "protecting others" sense is the one that can use a 15' "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"-field that does damage (which can be double-dipped with e.g. Telekinetic) around them on level 5. 4e really cared about roles than classes more.

[Amechra]

It seems like there was a large shift between 2nd and 3rd maybe? But I don't know, I started right before 3.5.

There was! WotC bought TSR, who had declared bankruptcy as a result of hilariously terrible management decisions. When they got D&D, WotC dumped the MtG RPG they were working on (because they had D&D) and set about designing 3e... which is an entirely different game with the same branding as 1e/2e.

If you ever have the chance to play in a 1e or 2e game, I recommend it. Just... don't go into it expecting to play casters like you would in 3.5+, because that's how you end up very dead.

[tiornys]

Hmm. I can't get behind no casters in the party in 1st or 2nd the way I can in 4E; healing is too important in those editions and too hard to come by without spellcasting. Aside from that, fully agreed with both of the above.

[Athan Artilliam]

Hell, in this edition the most effective frontliner of the archetypal party in the "protecting others" sense is the one that can use a 15' "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"-field that does damage (which can be double-dipped with e.g. Telekinetic) around them on level 5. 4e really cared about roles than classes more.

Which one is that?

D&D should really divorce itself from the idea that a rogue or mage should be able to fight even close to a martial. Martials have terrible skills, & out of combat abilities. Rogues should not be as competent at fighting + have sneak attack. Sneak attack is something that should put you on par with a fighter ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The fix for Mages is controlling the spell abilities & ubiquity, their "Class" is fine. They really should bring back Maneuvers.

[Amechra]

It's funny that you bring up healing — Clerics went from being a class that people had to be bribed to play in TSR D&D to one of the strongest classes in the game in WotC D&D.

[Eldariel]

Hmm. I can't get behind no casters in the party in 1st or 2nd the way I can in 4E; healing is too important in those editions and too hard to come by without spellcasting. Aside from that, fully agreed with both of the above.

That's fair, for a non-caster party, 4e all the way (though 3e non-casters can at least pulverize any non-full caster in a single action because that edition goes a bit high on the optimization spectrum :smallbiggrin:)


Which one is that?

D&D should really divorce itself from the idea that a rogue or mage should be able to fight even close to a martial. Martials have terrible skills, & out of combat abilities. Rogues should not be as competent at fighting + have sneak attack. Sneak attack is something that should put you on par with a fighter ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The fix for Mages is controlling the spell abilities & ubiquity, their "Class" is fine. They really should bring back Maneuvers.

That's Cleric. Spirit Guardians is the aura and Spirit Guardians + Telekinetic allows for doubledipping the spell for damage or increased area control.

[LudicSavant]

D&D should really divorce itself from the idea that a rogue or mage should be able to fight even close to a martial. Martials have terrible skills, & out of combat abilities. Rogues should not be as competent at fighting + have sneak attack. Sneak attack is something that should put you on par with a fighter ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The fix for Mages is controlling the spell abilities & ubiquity, their "Class" is fine. They really should bring back Maneuvers.

I'd rather go in the other direction. Fighters and Rogues should both be great in all 3 pillars, just like casters are.

I think characters shouldn't specialize in pillars (like combat/exploration/social), but in roles within pillars (like healer/controller/damage). Everyone would be expected to participate fully in all pillars, just in different ways from each other.

I also think it's perfectly fine if a Class can be built in a variety of ways to fulfill a variety of roles -- or even all of them. It's totally okay, for instance, that one Fighter might be a back line DPR archer, while another is a lockdown melee controller.

[Amechra]

D&D should really divorce itself from the idea that a rogue or mage should be able to fight even close to a martial. Martials have terrible skills, & out of combat abilities. Rogues should not be as competent at fighting + have sneak attack. Sneak attack is something that should put you on par with a fighter ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The fix for Mages is controlling the spell abilities & ubiquity, their "Class" is fine. They really should bring back Maneuvers.

Part of the issue here is that the traditional Fighting-Man/Thief/Priest/Magic-User quartet was originally created in a context where "everyone contributes equally to combat" wasn't a core design statement. I'd honestly argue that being "the Fighter" is an anachronism in 5e, since everyone is some flavor of fighter (in the sense that you get into fights and are good at them). "I'm incredibly tough and can potentially take on an ogre in single combat" has gone from being a useful skillset to bring along to being the default.

[Townopolis]

I'd rather go in the other direction. Fighters and Rogues should both be great in all 3 pillars, just like casters are.

I think characters shouldn't specialize in pillars (like combat/exploration/social), but in roles within pillars (like healer/controller/damage). Everyone would be expected to participate fully in all pillars, just in different ways from each other.

I also think it's perfectly fine if a Class can be built in a variety of ways to fulfill a variety of roles -- or even all of them. It's totally okay, for instance, that one Fighter might be a back line DPR archer, while another is a lockdown melee controller.

Strong disagree. Everyone should be good in all pillars, but some classes (e.g. druid, ranger, rogue) should have that extra layer that makes the great in one pillar (e.g. exploration).

Martials, and especially fighters, for sure need to be better outside of combat, but not so much that combat isn't clearly their niche.

I've played games where everyone is roughly equal in every pillar, and I frankly hated it.

[LudicSavant]

Martials, and especially fighters, for sure need to be better outside of combat, but not so much that combat isn't clearly their niche.

I've played games where everyone is roughly equal in every pillar, and I frankly hated it.

Really? You hated games as a result of, say, everyone being roughly equally valuable in combat? Well, to each their own I guess.

Anyways, I think D&D already isn't treating combat as a "niche" that some people are expected to be falling well short in. So it's kind of weird that other pillars aren't given the same treatment.

In 5e D&D, casters are expected to be good in every pillar, but martials aren't. They still have the long shadow of this "skills are for rogues" mentality hanging over their head.

[Psyren]

No, the best edition to not have casters in was 4E, and it's not even close.

"When everyone's a caster, no one will be!" -Syndrome


Strong disagree. Everyone should be good in all pillars, but some classes (e.g. druid, ranger, rogue) should have that extra layer that makes the great in one pillar (e.g. exploration).

Martials, and especially fighters, for sure need to be better outside of combat, but not so much that combat isn't clearly their niche.

I've played games where everyone is roughly equal in every pillar, and I frankly hated it.

Agreed.

[Pex]

For me the pillars are besides the point. Players need to make some effort to participate in what's happening at the moment, and it is the DM's job to engage everyone. Class is irrelevant to this. It's playing the game. It's nice to have a power button to push to cause something to happen or protect yourself from some danger, but playing is everyone's responsibility.

A monster is not going to ignore the fighter next to it just because the fighter doesn't have a class power to force it to stay there. The monster will attack the fighter because that's playing the game. The character with 8 CH and no proficiency in any social skill is not forbidden from talking to NPCs. Yes, you still want the Face there for important occasions that will have a roll, but everyone gets to have dialogue. NPCs have conversations. They can do or not do things just because the player asks.

[MrStabby]

Inspired by the "Tanking Team" thread where, apparently, every single class has the ability to be an amazing "tank", I'm wondering... is this what D&D players want?

It seems to me the things that casters can crib from martial characters (weapon and armor proficiencies, extra attack, larger hit point pools, etc) go a much longer way than if a martial takes Magic Initiate and Fey-Touched.

In another thread about martials, someone mentioned how fighters were very powerful in AD&D and were the only ones that could achieve... I don't recall the parameters, but stuff. But I was intrigued by it because it seems more in line with the stories that I typically consume.

Apparently, maybe according to the same person in that thread, wizards didn't even get any weapon or armor proficiencies until 3rd edition (or the ability to even wear armor).

Anyways, it seems to me that it is rather lop-sided that not only can a caster cast up to 9th level spells, they also can, through some effort but apparently not much effort, get the armor and weapon profs, crazy amounts of hit points or temp hit points, Extra Attack in some cases, all without having to sacrifice their spellcasting.

Whereas martials can't really do the same in the other direction without really just multiclassing.

I don't know how true the other thread is in highlighting that every class can make an amazing tank, but I feel like that shouldn't be the case. Spells can be used to justify any sort of effect, but really the line should be drawn where magic can't help you also be an armored warrior god. It seems like everyone should just play a caster, and you can be a druid that can tank, and control and blast and heal and sneak. Or a bard and tank and control and heal and sneak. Or a cleric and tank and control and blast and heal. Or a wizard and so on and so forth.

Seems lame. Yes, I'm butthurt about this lol. That was my little rant, let me know your thoughts :smalltongue:

I don't have a problem with casters being able to do everything. I do have a problem with a caster being able to do everything.

If you find every role can be collectively filled by some (large) portfolio of classes... then so what? That by itself doesn't mean that any one of those classes individually is too broad nor does it mean any given non magical class can't be as broad.

This isn't to say there isn't a problem, but I think if we focus on what a group of classes is doing rather than what one particular character at one particular table can do then we kind of use the wrong yardstick.

That said, I do think that class spell lists are too broad - especially the wizard. The commitment needed to being great at anything is to just take the spell that does it. Gone are the specialisation feats that mean you would be unremarkable at an area of magic unless you focussed on it.

Thematically characters feel like they can devolve into a theme of 'being the best at as many things as possible' rather than say someone associated with Fire or a Necromancer. I personally think that things like domain spell lists have been a big help here but don't go far enough - if the cleric list was reduced but domain lists grown then I think magic would be in a better place.

If wizards actually had to focus on their schools of magic and being a specialist enchanter meant being less good at something else then I think we would be in a better place.

I kind of agree with the armor thing too... but here I don't think the issue is the multiclassing rules or whatever but rather that armor proficiency is a major ability that is so frontloaded. Imagine if the classes that gave armor proficiency did something like light armor at level 2, medium armor and shields at level 4 and heavy armor proficiency at level 6. You could still get this as a caster but it would take a much deeper dip and you would be playing more of a hybrid archetype for which it is appropriate... and for everyone else, yes there might be a bit of a reduction in AC at low levels (levels where martials tend to shine somewhat anyway) but it also means that generally you will be getting ability to use armor at the time you can afford to buy it (for the higher tier armors anyway).

[Townopolis]

Really? You hated games as a result of, say, everyone being roughly equally valuable in combat? Well, to each their own I guess.

Anyways, I think D&D already isn't treating combat as a "niche" that some people are expected to be falling well short in. So it's kind of weird that other pillars aren't given the same treatment.

In 5e D&D, casters are expected to be good in every pillar, but martials aren't. They still have the long shadow of this "skills are for rogues" mentality hanging over their head.
Yep, it has this weird flattening effect where you (or I, at least) lose the feeling that my character is good at something. It also impinged on the ability to shift into a lower gear and coast without stopping the game or jeopardizing the party.

i.e. if I'm playing a bard, I want to take center stage during (some) social encounters and investigations, and I want to be able to relax and merely "contribute" during combat.

You're right that D&D handles this terribly, though, particularly with combat. It feels like D&D is balanced around the assumption that 90% of the party's crisis resolution will be "hit the bad guys until they're too dead to cause trouble," so the fighting types can't be appreciably better than everyone else in combat. And that is a damn shame and probably my biggest beef with the game.

You're absolutely right about casters getting to shine in all pillars. I personally agree with the line of thinking that it's a lot to do with people pushing casters to be able to throw their magic around every encounter. A spell for every situation works when you have to pick your battles, but you lose the tradeoff when you have a slot for every encounter.

So, you know, if WotC is unwilling to make casters not amazing in every conceivable situation, then yeah, the only way to balance that is for everyone else to be so as well. That would be better than what we have.

I would just strongly prefer if... you know, the other pillars were given some [expletive] weight and everyone that isn't barbarian/fighter/monk/paladin/ranger wasn't such a combat powerhouse.

[LudicSavant]

Yep, it has this weird flattening effect where you (or I, at least) lose the feeling that my character is good at something.

I think you may be conflating "similarly good at a pillar" with "similarly good at the same things in general."

Unless you're telling me that you will legitimately play a game like Team Fortress 2 and think that your character isn't good/specialized at anything.

An awful lot of games make (or try to make) characters roughly similarly effective in all of their pillars. That is not the same as those characters being similar to each other... or necessarily even doing remotely similar activities. For example, you could have a character who doesn't have any offensive features at all, and still contributes a lot of value to combat.


Everyone should be good in all pillars, but some classes (e.g. druid, ranger, rogue) should have that extra layer that makes the great in one pillar (e.g. exploration).
Plus, heck, if as you said you want the range of difference to be between "good" and "great" at pillars, that's what you just get naturally when designers try to make things roughly equal.

I'm honestly not even sure where you're drawing a "hard disagree" line here between "everyone should be good or great in every pillar" and "everyone would be expected to participate fully in all pillars, just in different ways from each other." To me, the difference between good and great falls in the range of "roughly equal" for me. At least in contrast to what we see in 5e D&D where some characters just seem to kinda forget to have noncombat features.

[f5anor]

Inspired by the "Tanking Team" thread where, apparently, every single class has the ability to be an amazing "tank", I'm wondering... is this what D&D players want?

It seems to me the things that casters can crib from martial characters (weapon and armor proficiencies, extra attack, larger hit point pools, etc) go a much longer way than if a martial takes Magic Initiate and Fey-Touched.



I see a lot of of good points by many in this discussion, I generally agree with the sentiments expressed.

I would like to bring up a slightly different point of view. When comparing 5e not with previous DnD versions, but with different TTRPG systems, I believe the following becomes evident.

The main culprit here is Vancian magic specifically and not magic in general. The power creep represented by magic users in 5e, in particular Wizards, comes from an understanding of magic where the following applies:

spells are basically independent entities carrying out their task without any impact on, or effort needed by the caster. In fact even multiple spells may be active at the same time, without any special effort by the caster.
spells are only limited by their level, any magical effect is fair game, there are basically no limits, up to redefining reality (Wish)


It is no wonder that when you create a mechanism that has no impact on its user, even when used multiple times in parallel, and can achieve any effect regardless of impact on the world, that this mechanism will dominate.

If you want a more balanced game for martials, casting spells should have some negative impact on the caster, the bigger the spell, the bigger the impact. This would make the game more enjoyable for casters, since casting a spells successfully would actually reflect an achievement, rather than just ticking off a spell slot.

There should be no concentration spells, at least not without a heavy toll on the caster, that allows you to stack control and damage effects (no more cheese grating GenieLoc), possibly even buffs/debuffs.

Also, many of the spells in DnD are simply far too powerful for any kind of balanced play (Spirit Guardians anyone?), not to mention that some spells are basically game breakers such as Wall of Force, Forcecage, Simulacrum etc.

Second, even if you would implement all of the above, magic users would still have an edge over martials, simply because magic can replicate everything that a non-magical martial can do.

Martials, need a special edge that gives them something to do that cannot be replicated by magic. I see the class specific spell list for the Paladin as a good start. This gives Paladins some class specific abilities that can create an edge for them, but alas they are still magic.

I feel that the game should provide some alternative mechanism that helps balance things out. One example could be initiative, I feel that Initiative is not sufficiently exploited in DnD. Martials could for instance get a clear edge when in comes to initiative, so that they at least have a chance to kill off magic users before they get to cast their world beating spells.

In addition, I believe weapons are by far not deadly enough. When comparing fully developed and kitted characters, a martial with multiple attacks would likely still not be able to kill a magic user in a single round after multiple direct hits, due to the huge effect that hit points have in DnD. After all, impaling someone with a sword should achieve something meaningful.

[Dienekes]

It is no wonder that when you create a mechanism that has no impact on its user, even when used multiple times in parallel, and can achieve any effect regardless of impact on the world, that this mechanism will dominate.

If you want a more balanced game for martials, casting spells should have some negative impact on the caster, the bigger the spell, the bigger the impact. This would make the game more enjoyable for casters, since casting a spells successfully would actually reflect an achievement, rather than just ticking off a spell slot.

Some issues here. While I definitely find playing in a grim magic setting where every spell is a double edged sword fascinating and fun the few times I’ve been able to do it, you’re making a bit of a leap here. There most certainly are players who find fun in pretending they’re Harry Potter and just slinging spells as fast as you can. And I think this mentality is directly opposed to how D&D is currently designed. There’s the adage, if someone you do costs health; it actually costs cleric spell slots.

5e is not designed to follow these restrictions. Which is not to say, they couldn’t be used to make a perfectly serviceable game in its own right.

The rest of it, that martials need to be able to do their own things, I largely agree. Or at the very least abilities that when replicated by magic are always worse than the mundane alternative at equivalent level. But, I don’t really see that happening either.

On the whole, 5e was made with certain design paradigms. These helped make it the most popular ttrpg in the world (along with a seemingly random heavy push from outside influences that suddenly made the hobby popular). But no design is perfect for everyone and we are seeing the split happen. Unfortunately, few people seem to be jumping ship to other probably more satisfying games for their personal style.

And I’m in that boat as well. My growing nuisances with 5e has been expanding about every year I’ve played. But I’m still going to DM my 5e group on Saturday.

[tokek]

I think your problem isn't so much with the character class as it is with the team.

If your team is willing to devote some spells and resources to the martial the results can be really eye-popping.

Example: 11th level fighter with Holy Weapon and Bless. AC 22+ with 3 attacks/round or 9d8+15 sword and board, 18d8 +30 nova Action Surge. That of course assume all hits (but no crits) so tamp it down a bit. Add in a Haste and said fighter can pretty much be anywhere on the field and with AC 24+ and a bag full of HP isn't worried about op shots.

I'm sure there are clever people who can come up with even better combos, but you've just turned your tank into someone the enemy must deal with immediately, instead of the glass cannons. And isn't that what any self-respecting caster wants to have happen?

This is true. My level 20 Warlock did her best work making sure the fighter could get where they were going - whether that was removing speed bumps or buffing, usually both.

That was at level 20 where casters are supposed to dominate to the point that nothing else matters if I was to believe online discussion. In practice I never felt it was true and the surge capability of the equivalent well built fighter was awesome to behold.

Not that being 2nd best in combat felt bad, after all she had True Polymorph, the most ridiculous fun of all the spells in the game.

[Pildion]

Inspired by the "Tanking Team" thread where, apparently, every single class has the ability to be an amazing "tank", I'm wondering... is this what D&D players want?

It seems to me the things that casters can crib from martial characters (weapon and armor proficiencies, extra attack, larger hit point pools, etc) go a much longer way than if a martial takes Magic Initiate and Fey-Touched.

In another thread about martials, someone mentioned how fighters were very powerful in AD&D and were the only ones that could achieve... I don't recall the parameters, but stuff. But I was intrigued by it because it seems more in line with the stories that I typically consume.

Apparently, maybe according to the same person in that thread, wizards didn't even get any weapon or armor proficiencies until 3rd edition (or the ability to even wear armor).

Anyways, it seems to me that it is rather lop-sided that not only can a caster cast up to 9th level spells, they also can, through some effort but apparently not much effort, get the armor and weapon profs, crazy amounts of hit points or temp hit points, Extra Attack in some cases, all without having to sacrifice their spellcasting.

Whereas martials can't really do the same in the other direction without really just multiclassing.

I don't know how true the other thread is in highlighting that every class can make an amazing tank, but I feel like that shouldn't be the case. Spells can be used to justify any sort of effect, but really the line should be drawn where magic can't help you also be an armored warrior god. It seems like everyone should just play a caster, and you can be a druid that can tank, and control and blast and heal and sneak. Or a bard and tank and control and heal and sneak. Or a cleric and tank and control and blast and heal. Or a wizard and so on and so forth.

Seems lame. Yes, I'm butthurt about this lol. That was my little rant, let me know your thoughts :smalltongue:

Yes 5e really made it super easy for casters to get medium armor and shields. But that is not the issue, in 3.x you could always have dipped 1 level in fighter. Its the removal of Arcane Spell Failure that is kinda broken. But its also something you can easily bring back to your table if you think its a big issue. Personally I think making bards full casters was also nuts given they can use armor\shields and still cast arcane spells where wizard\sorc can't, but this might just be the 3.x in me.

[Jakinbandw]

It's funny that you bring up healing — Clerics went from being a class that people had to be bribed to play in TSR D&D to one of the strongest classes in the game in WotC D&D.

Man, I started in second edition, and I played a cleric as my first choice and loved it. I remember one time when we couldn't figure out how to get into a dungeon, so I just told the gm that I was going to use stone shape to follow a tiny hole that went inside all the way down, even if it took a week.

Entangle was an encounter ender, and charm meant I ended my second edition days with several kobalds as bodyguards/traveling companions.

And then there were the party tricks like summoning a swarm of flying insects and then enlarging a couple to serve as flying mounts. All this before we hit level 10.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I think your problem isn't so much with the character class as it is with the team.

And this is fuel for my current grognard fire.

As the influence of video games has taken over the expectations of the the players, players are more often building video game style avatars that could, with proper scaling and tactics, DO IT ALL. That's not how D&D used to work. You were a team, with each member given a primary role and some ability to do something else. Losing any part of that team was a very very bad thing.

What to do? It's up to what the DM says in session zero to set the expectations, perhaps some variation of, "work as a team, not an all star game" for the sports minded among you.

Or maybe the DM has to accept whatever shows up (AL for ex), but given the overload of elements (backstory, crunch, emotional neediness) they just ignore it all and play "their" character the world.

[Pooky the Imp]

To be honest, the thing I dislike about casters is how their spells scale from level 1-9.

Where you go from being able to lightly singe a few goblins in front of you to blasting them with an orbital laser or bursting the head of every enemy within 100ft.

When you go from being able to teleport yourself a short distance to teleporting an entire party, their entourage, their horses, their trailers etc. to a different continent or even a different plane.

When you go from being able to healing someone on the verge of death to bringing back someone who was disintegrated, their ashes scattered across the multiverse, with nothing more than a temporary wallet piercing.

I know there's the power fantasy aspect but I honestly prefer it when characters don't just naturally evolve into demigods as the game progresses.

It'll never happen, I know, but I'd honestly prefer a slow-boil magic system, with casters only going to Lv4 or 5 spells. Basically similar to the current half-casters but with more spells known and many more spell slots.

[Sigreid]

It's funny that you bring up healing — Clerics went from being a class that people had to be bribed to play in TSR D&D to one of the strongest classes in the game in WotC D&D.

Clerics were always one of the strongest classes in the game. In 1st edition they were pretty much second best at everything but sneaking with the caveat that they had to conform to their religion. That some groups just saw them as a heal bot does not diminish the fact that they were pretty much the best all rounder.

[Pooky the Imp]

I see a lot of of good points by many in this discussion, I generally agree with the sentiments expressed.

I would like to bring up a slightly different point of view. When comparing 5e not with previous DnD versions, but with different TTRPG systems, I believe the following becomes evident.

The main culprit here is Vancian magic specifically and not magic in general. The power creep represented by magic users in 5e, in particular Wizards, comes from an understanding of magic where the following applies:

spells are basically independent entities carrying out their task without any impact on, or effort needed by the caster. In fact even multiple spells may be active at the same time, without any special effort by the caster.
spells are only limited by their level, any magical effect is fair game, there are basically no limits, up to redefining reality (Wish)


It is no wonder that when you create a mechanism that has no impact on its user, even when used multiple times in parallel, and can achieve any effect regardless of impact on the world, that this mechanism will dominate.

If you want a more balanced game for martials, casting spells should have some negative impact on the caster, the bigger the spell, the bigger the impact. This would make the game more enjoyable for casters, since casting a spells successfully would actually reflect an achievement, rather than just ticking off a spell slot.

I would agree with this in that there's a severe disconnect in the D&D magic system between the effect of a spell and its cost.

Very few spells have any actual impact on the caster beyond costing spell slots (and what the hell else were you going to use them for?), and the ones that do have a cost usually just cost money in some form. But 5e gives players almost nothing else to spend their money on anyway, so who cares? Not to mention all the powerful spells that don't require an expensive component at all or else don't use it up (so the cost only needs to be paid once in a caster's entire lifetime).

I know not everyone wants this but I would definitely be up for magic having more impactful cost.

[Willie the Duck]

Well someone had mentioned in another thread that casters don't totally dominate in maybe the first or second edition (I don't recall). It seems like there was a large shift between 2nd and 3rd maybe? But I don't know, I started right before 3.5.

In another thread about martials, someone mentioned how fighters were very powerful in AD&D and were the only ones that could achieve... I don't recall the parameters, but stuff. But I was intrigued by it because it seems more in line with the stories that I typically consume.

In the TSR editions, magic users definitely still were more powerful at levels 10+. Gary kinda thought that 1-~9-12 was where the fun of the game was, and didn't really give Fighting Men many benefits after that point (other than being able to retire to being the lead in an army or dominion-style game), while magic users kept getting spells for several more levels (in theory mostly as stronger enemy opponents, but if you make rules for being demigods and getting to beat up Odin or Tiamat, by gawds gamers will want to play that).

Still, for the most part, fighters and magic users were both things you wanted to play in the TSR era. In particular, magic users were genuinely challenging to play. The d4 hit dice and no armor was a real challenge at that point, the spells per-day were lower (and the recharge longer in AD&D), and depending on specific game (and how you implemented the initiative system), spell disruption was a real problem*. The biggest issue, however (and IMO) was that you had the same spell-prep model as 3E (prepare a specific set of spells per day, not have a number of slots to divvy out amongst spells on a list), alongside a magic item model that meant you couldn't rely on having appropriate wands and scrolls to fill in gaps. Going into a dungeon, but don't know what is inside? Well then a lot of your spells will be dedicated to Knock and Dispel Magic and Passwall and so forth (that very well might not get used).
*In AD&D, if you were hit during the round before your turn on a round in which you were casting, you lost the spell. AND the incredibly obtuse initiative system was not kind on a magic user casting a high-powered spell.

[Psyren]

I know there's the power fantasy aspect but I honestly prefer it when characters don't just naturally evolve into demigods as the game progresses.

It'll never happen, I know, but I'd honestly prefer a slow-boil magic system, with casters only going to Lv4 or 5 spells. Basically similar to the current half-casters but with more spells known and many more spell slots.

But... you can do that. You can cap the game at 10 or just remove all the spells above 5th level yourself and keep the slots.

You not liking 9th-level spells shouldn't mean the designers take them away from the rest of us too.



I feel that the game should provide some alternative mechanism that helps balance things out. One example could be initiative, I feel that Initiative is not sufficiently exploited in DnD. Martials could for instance get a clear edge when in comes to initiative, so that they at least have a chance to kill off magic users before they get to cast their world beating spells.

You know this isn't a PvP game right? "Martials get to go first" will more often than not end with all the martials holding their action so the casters can buff them or rain down AoE anyway. And high-level monsters are frequently both, e.g. dragons and fiends, when do they go?


In addition, I believe weapons are by far not deadly enough. When comparing fully developed and kitted characters, a martial with multiple attacks would likely still not be able to kill a magic user in a single round after multiple direct hits, due to the huge effect that hit points have in DnD. After all, impaling someone with a sword should achieve something meaningful.

HP are not meat. You aren't actually impaling someone unless you've dropped them to or near zero.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't use the Multiclassing optional rule for dips for armor then. This is a good idea.

Against the big endgame bosses with legendary resistance, you always have to hope against hope that someone on the party invested in a DPR martial. Yes. We had two (Hexblade/Fighter MC and pure paladin). I buffed them (or debuffed foes) and they wrecked stuff. :smallsmile: And we had a sorlock too.

I also think that martial classes deserve more than they get
Particularly in the features added above level 10. Some of the capstone abilities are "uh, what?"

I think your problem isn't so much with the character class as it is with the team.

If your team is willing to devote some spells and resources to the martial the results can be really eye-popping. See my buff/debuff point above. In a different group, my warlock put a lot of effort in to getting our Ranger/Rogue MC advantage on his attacks, which synergy was frequently impressive.

Hmm. I can't get behind no casters in the party in 1st or 2nd the way I can in 4E; healing is too important in those editions and too hard to come by without spellcasting. Not just healing. Spells like web, fireball, stinking cloud, sleep, that break up large groups of enemies prevent some battles from being pure attrition slug fests.

Fighters and Rogues should both be great in all 3 pillars, just like casters are. Which takes us to where some more structure for exploration gets discussed.

I think characters shouldn't specialize in pillars (like combat/exploration/social), but in roles within pillars (like healer/controller/damage).
I guess we don't want Gimli to figure out that you need to say mellon at the gates of

For me the pillars are besides the point. Players need to make some effort to participate in what's happening at the moment, and it is the DM's job to engage everyone. Class is irrelevant to this. It's playing the game. Stole my thunder.

Clerics were always one of the strongest classes in the game. In 1st edition they were pretty much second best at everything but sneaking with the caveat that they had to conform to their religion. That some groups just saw them as a heal bot does not diminish the fact that they were pretty much the best all rounder. Turn Undead was a great feature when you were confronted with undead who could drain levels: wights, wraiths, specters.

[Tanarii]

Clerics were always one of the strongest classes in the game. In 1st edition they were pretty much second best at everything but sneaking with the caveat that they had to conform to their religion. That some groups just saw them as a heal bot does not diminish the fact that they were pretty much the best all rounder.
The problem was people didn't play as large groups as the game intended, so their primary strength, armor so they could be part of the front line of combat, wasn't valued enough. And if the party expected you to use all of your spells for healing and cursed every time you cast anything else, there really wasn't strong incentive to play them. So it's fair to say most people had to be bribed to play them, as a general but not unbreakable rule. OTOH in my experience there was always that one guy that had a thing for feeling like the most important member of the party and would volunteer. :smallamused: (Edit: oh yeah, and their value dropped dramatically if your DM didn't use undead, undead being very scary because of the morale rules for undead never routing vs other opponents regularly routing. Plus lots of specials like paralyzing or level drain.)

And it's definitely true they were the strongest class in 3e. People talk about linear fighters vs quadratic Wizards, but 3e Wizards had nothing on 3e Clerics. They were intentionally compensating for healbot mentality, and they ... definitely overshot the mark. :smallyuk:

[Psyren]

I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened?

[Sigreid]

Turn Undead was a great feature when you were confronted with undead who could drain levels: wights, wraiths, specters.

As annoying as it could be for the players to lose a level, it was actually a useful mechanic to reign in character advancement if the DM thought it was going too fast, wasn't ready for the players to be that powerful, or just wanted to futz around at a certain level range for a while longer.

Also, with regard to the vanican casting, D&D abandoned that after TSR lost it. In AD&D, a wizards spent spells could take days to replenish with hours of study devoted to committing each spell to memory. Along with a wizard only having a certain number of spells per level that they were even capable of understanding and a relatively low chance of being able to understand any given spell they came across with a failure meaning you could never learn that spell unless you somehow raised your intelligence. If you followed the rules (lots didn't) and the DM didn't hand out means to raise your intelligence to 19 or higher, you were never going to be that all powerful. Even if you could be really impressive in a short burst, you burned out your power quickly and it took a long time to recover. Spell casting times also meant you were very likely to be stabbed before you could get a spell off.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened? Let's put it this way.
I got talked into playing a cleric in OD&D by showing up late for the chargen session and being asked to play one. (I rolled a 9 wisdom but so what, my highest stats were Con and Dex). When I thought about it, the guy who had rolled that lucky 17 on Charisma (Paladin!) offer to me "you can get first choice on magic items" I immediately acquiesced. And that's how I learned how good a cleric could be.
The first bribery to play a cleric scheme that I saw was in AD&D 1e, in the rules, where you got bonus spells for having a higher wisdom. Getting extra spell slots for free was a big deal.
When I got contacted by my brother to play in 2014 in this new edition (everyone else had already picked a character, and I had not yet bought the PHB, so I only had the Basic Rules as a reference) I asked him what's every one playing and when I saw there was no cleric, I offered to be the Life Cleric. (DM actually expressed relief at my doing so).
That's how Korvin Starmast was born. No bribe needed, but it is/was curious how few people choose clerics ...

[Dienekes]

I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened?

I’ve never seen a bribe. I have seen “draw lots to see who gets stuck with it.”

Of course this was when my group were young and dumb and didn’t really understand how to build a good character yet.

[Psyren]

Let's put it this way.
I got talked into playing a cleric in OD&D by showing up late for the chargen session and being asked to play one. (I rolled a 9 wisdom but so what, my highest stats were Con and Dex). When I thought about it, the guy who had rolled that lucky 17 on Charisma (Paladin!) offer to me "you can get first choice on magic items" I immediately acquiesced. And that's how I learned how good a cleric could be.
The first bribery to play a cleric scheme that I saw was in AD&D 1e, in the rules, where you got bonus spells for having a higher wisdom. Getting extra spell slots for free was a big deal.
When I got contacted by my brother to play in 2014 in this new edition (everyone else had already picked a character, and I had not yet bought the PHB, so I only had the Basic Rules as a reference) I asked him what's every one playing and when I saw there was no cleric, I offered to be the Life Cleric. (DM actually expressed relief at my doing so).
That's how Korvin Starmast was born. No bribe needed, but it is/was curious how few people choose clerics ...

Thanks and bold is what I had in mind. I know plenty of groups welcomed (or coerced) cleric players, but designer incentives are what I was interested in learning about :smallsmile:

[f5anor]

Some issues here. While I definitely find playing in a grim magic setting where every spell is a double edged sword fascinating and fun the few times IÂ’ve been able to do it, youÂ’re making a bit of a leap here. There most certainly are players who find fun in pretending theyÂ’re Harry Potter and just slinging spells as fast as you can. And I think this mentality is directly opposed to how D&D is currently designed.

You are obviously right, there is a wide audience for this style of magic. I was just pointing out that the imbalance in favour of magic users just goes with the territory.

To clarify, my own ideal view of a magic system would be ShadowRun second edition, where casting a spell requires the magic user to make a test to resist damage. The more powerful the spell, the higher the damage, with the strongest spells being able to outright even kill the magic user. Strong willed mages, would be able to pull off casting medium powered spells without consequences. There are no spell slots. Magic items, could be used to offset some of the damage, thereby causing mages to depend on them.

Such a system is self governing, there are no arbitrary spell slots, the caster can decide at any time how much power he/she wants to pump out, and takes the consequences. In a regular scenario, it actually allows for much higher levels of magic use, since there is no artificial spell slot limit.



The rest of it, that martials need to be able to do their own things, I largely agree. Or at the very least abilities that when replicated by magic are always worse than the mundane alternative at equivalent level. But, I donÂ’t really see that happening either.

On the whole, 5e was made with certain design paradigms. These helped make it the most popular ttrpg in the world (along with a seemingly random heavy push from outside influences that suddenly made the hobby popular). But no design is perfect for everyone and we are seeing the split happen. Unfortunately, few people seem to be jumping ship to other probably more satisfying games for their personal style.

And IÂ’m in that boat as well. My growing nuisances with 5e has been expanding about every year IÂ’ve played. But IÂ’m still going to DM my 5e group on Saturday.

I am overall very positively surprised by the high level of quality in 5e (my previous opinions notwithstanding), it contains some very clever and well balanced elements that make it workable, in spite of said issues. In particular, its quite interesting how they manage to keep multiclassing (somewhat) balanced and functional.


I would agree with this in that there's a severe disconnect in the D&D magic system between the effect of a spell and its cost.

Very few spells have any actual impact on the caster beyond costing spell slots (and what the hell else were you going to use them for?), and the ones that do have a cost usually just cost money in some form. But 5e gives players almost nothing else to spend their money on anyway, so who cares? Not to mention all the powerful spells that don't require an expensive component at all or else don't use it up (so the cost only needs to be paid once in a caster's entire lifetime).

I know not everyone wants this but I would definitely be up for magic having more impactful cost.

I think as Dienekes correctly points out, this is just how 5e is, and obviously quite successfully so. People like to play a game where they can cast powerful flashy spells all the time. The only issue is that this by nature comes with some imbalance towards the martials.

Looking at the current trend of how even martial classes develop with Paladins and Rangers getting dedicated spell lists, and even Fighter subclasses such as the Rune Knight getting dedicated magical effects, its clear that 5e is moving more and more towards basically everyone becoming a magic user of sorts. This is the way to give martials a boost, by using the same mechanisms as for magic users.

[tiornys]

"When everyone's a caster, no one will be!" -Syndrome
Daily resources =/= spellcasting. C'mon, this should be obvious.


I see a lot of of good points by many in this discussion, I generally agree with the sentiments expressed.

I would like to bring up a slightly different point of view. When comparing 5e not with previous DnD versions, but with different TTRPG systems, I believe the following becomes evident.

The main culprit here is Vancian magic specifically and not magic in general. The power creep represented by magic users in 5e, in particular Wizards, comes from an understanding of magic where the following applies:

spells are basically independent entities carrying out their task without any impact on, or effort needed by the caster. In fact even multiple spells may be active at the same time, without any special effort by the caster.
spells are only limited by their level, any magical effect is fair game, there are basically no limits, up to redefining reality (Wish)


It is no wonder that when you create a mechanism that has no impact on its user, even when used multiple times in parallel, and can achieve any effect regardless of impact on the world, that this mechanism will dominate.

If you want a more balanced game for martials, casting spells should have some negative impact on the caster, the bigger the spell, the bigger the impact. This would make the game more enjoyable for casters, since casting a spells successfully would actually reflect an achievement, rather than just ticking off a spell slot.
I agree up to here. Beyond that, you don't need to actually impose negative backlash from spellcasting, you just need to make spellcasting actually difficult to do in combat. As others have pointed out, in 1st and 2nd to be a spellcaster (especially an arcane spellcaster) was to take on a much higher risk of death. Wearing armor either meant you couldn't cast spells period or at best you could only do so with a significant chance to outright fail. Casting a spell locked you in place and took away your Dex modifier since you couldn't dodge. Defensive casting didn't exist. Getting hit while casting meant you lost the spell. 3E softened this enough where spellcasters could usually cast a spell safely (with some combination of 5' step and/or defensive casting) and 5E has taken it to the point where Counterspell is essentially the only way to stop a spell mid-cast; it's not a coincidence that these editions are the ones where casters dramatically outshine non-casters. (4E took an entirely different approach to balancing casters; "everyone's a spellcaster" is overly dramatic but it's not wrong to say that casters and non-casters have similar resource management considerations in 4E).


I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened?
Yes, as someone who happily accepted (unnecessary) bribes back in the day, I can confirm this happened. Bribes that I personally experienced ranged from various in-game perks (e.g. start with a magic item!) through minor at-table benefits like getting first pick of snacks. I was young enough that money wasn't really a consideration but it wouldn't surprise me if actual cash bribes happened too.

[Tanarii]

Daily resources =/= spellcasting. C'mon, this should be obvious.
You wouldn't know it from the explosive pushback against Daily Powers (and even Encounter Powers) for martials in the last edition. That's why in 5e the only Long Rest Fighter is a caster, and the Shirt Rest battle master has very carefully designed resources to make them seem as different as possible from spells.

[f5anor]

You know this isn't a PvP game right? "Martials get to go first" will more often than not end with all the martials holding their action so the casters can buff them or rain down AoE anyway. And high-level monsters are frequently both, e.g. dragons and fiends, when do they go?


Not sure how PvP relates here, my point is that in a situation where casters can more or less clean up a fight on their own, e.g. a GenieLock build possibly with Sorcerer mixed in for Quickened EB, can impose battlefield control (Spike Growth) and not only inflict damage with EB/Agonizing Blast, but also use Repelling Blast to both cause extra damage (in conjunction with Spike Growth) and also further control enemies positioning.

All of the above can be done by a single magic user, with the martials potentially left in the situation where they can not even enter the Spike Growth area to pounce on the enemies. This is by no means the only such build, other shenanigans can be had with Plant Growth, Spirit Guardians, Wall of Force, Force Cage, and the list goes on.

Its all about allowing martials to have their opportunity to shine and for the players to have their fun as well.

[tiornys]

You wouldn't know it from the explosive pushback against Daily Powers (and even Encounter Powers) for martials in the last edition. That's why in 5e the only Long Rest Fighter is a caster, and the Shirt Rest battle master has very carefully designed resources to make them seem as different as possible from spells.
I'm aware. My opinion of that mindset should be obvious. (Also, even the non-long rest Fighter has at least one long-rest dependent ability in Indomitable.)

[Psyren]

Daily resources =/= spellcasting. C'mon, this should be obvious.

*crosses out "Arcane" and writes "Martial" under power source*

Omg you're right, staggering difference. Hooray 4e :smallbiggrin:


You wouldn't know it from the explosive pushback against Daily Powers (and even Encounter Powers) for martials in the last edition. That's why in 5e the only Long Rest Fighter is a caster, and the Shirt Rest battle master has very carefully designed resources to make them seem as different as possible from spells.

The Giant had a great comic about this in SSDT when 3.5e Roy encountered 4e Roy, and the former expressed disbelief that the latter had sword moves they could only do 1/day for no adequately explained reason. Short Rest mechanics are a lot easier to grok within the game's fiction.


Not sure how PvP relates here, my point is that in a situation where casters can more or less clean up a fight on their own, e.g. a GenieLock build possibly with Sorcerer mixed in for Quickened EB, can impose battlefield control (Spike Growth) and not only inflict damage with EB/Agonizing Blast, but also use Repelling Blast to both cause extra damage (in conjunction with Spike Growth) and also further control enemies positioning.

All of the above can be done by a single magic user, with the martials potentially left in the situation where they can not even enter the Spike Growth area to pounce on the enemies. This is by no means the only such build, other shenanigans can be had with Plant Growth, Spirit Guardians, Wall of Force, Force Cage, and the list goes on.

Its all about allowing martials to have their opportunity to shine and for the players to have their fun as well.

1) If the DM is throwing an encounter at the party that can be solved by a single spike growth while the martials stand on the sidelines doing nothing, that's a DM issue.

2) I brought up PvP because you said:


Martials could for instance get a clear edge when in comes to initiative, so that they at least have a chance to kill off magic users before they get to cast their world beating spells.

The goal is not for martials to "kill off magic users," the goal is for them to contribute to solving the encounter. That again comes down to encounter design, most subclasses have what they need to accomplish this.

[f5anor]

I agree up to here. Beyond that, you don't need to actually impose negative backlash from spellcasting, you just need to make spellcasting actually difficult to do in combat. As others have pointed out, in 1st and 2nd to be a spellcaster (especially an arcane spellcaster) was to take on a much higher risk of death. Wearing armor either meant you couldn't cast spells period or at best you could only do so with a significant chance to outright fail. Casting a spell locked you in place and took away your Dex modifier since you couldn't dodge. Defensive casting didn't exist. Getting hit while casting meant you lost the spell. 3E softened this enough where spellcasters could usually cast a spell safely (with some combination of 5' step and/or defensive casting) and 5E has taken it to the point where Counterspell is essentially the only way to stop a spell mid-cast; it's not a coincidence that these editions are the ones where casters dramatically outshine non-casters. (4E took an entirely different approach to balancing casters; "everyone's a spellcaster" is overly dramatic but it's not wrong to say that casters and non-casters have similar resource management considerations in 4E).


Exactly my point, its a bit ridiculous that you can wear full plate, stand in the middle of combat, maintain a concentration spell such as Spirit Guardians that combines battlefield control and AoE damage, take the dodge action so that no one can truly hit you, and also have your bonus action free to use spiritual weapon.

Who needs a party?

[Sigreid]

The problem was people didn't play as large groups as the game intended, so their primary strength, armor so they could be part of the front line of combat, wasn't valued enough. And if the party expected you to use all of your spells for healing and cursed every time you cast anything else, there really wasn't strong incentive to play them. So it's fair to say most people had to be bribed to play them, as a general but not unbreakable rule. OTOH in my experience there was always that one guy that had a thing for feeling like the most important member of the party and would volunteer. :smallamused: (Edit: oh yeah, and their value dropped dramatically if your DM didn't use undead, undead being very scary because of the morale rules for undead never routing vs other opponents regularly routing. Plus lots of specials like paralyzing or level drain.)

And it's definitely true they were the strongest class in 3e. People talk about linear fighters vs quadratic Wizards, but 3e Wizards had nothing on 3e Clerics. They were intentionally compensating for healbot mentality, and they ... definitely overshot the mark. :smallyuk:

We've played with very different kinds of people. I can't say which style is more common.

[tokek]

I'm aware. My opinion of that mindset should be obvious. (Also, even the non-long rest Fighter has at least one long-rest dependent ability in Indomitable.)

Yes but Indomitable is a trashcan fire of awful. Its a dead level when you level up and that's all you get. It needs a re-write.

Just as well you get a proficiency bonus boost at the same time.

Subclasses may of course have long rest abilities. I love the Rune Knight and some of its key abilities are long rest.

[Sorinth]

For the social pillar I find a good way to have non-face characters participate is by giving the NPCs actual personalities & attitudes rather then treat them as challenges.

So for example the party wants to talk the guard captain into letting them investigate a crime scene. Rather then treat this as a challenge where they have to make say a DC 15 persuasion check or use a charm spell. Give that guard captain an actual life, maybe he's a former soldier who only respects those who can wield a blade and thinks all magic users are pompous jerks. So the Bard whose supposed to be the face tries to talk to the guard captain they will fail or face a very hard DC because the guard captains first impression of the bard is a bad one. But if the fighter has the guard captains instant respect and a reasonable DC will do the trick, and maybe the guard has a child who had a terrible sickness that was healed by a Mercy Monk, so if a Monk asks it's auto-success. And of course Insight checks can be used to help figure out this stuff and guide the party into having the right people do the talking.

The more alive the NPCs are the more avenues players have to interact and the more likely the non-face player is the one who should do the talking. You can also just throw in people who have a loose backstory connections. Maybe the guard captain is from the same village as the cleric, they weren't friends or anything but you both recognize each other and know a little about each other's families so you can pull on that loose connection.

[ZRN]

I think the OP's visceral reaction that casters can do "martial stuff" but not vice versa isn't unjustified, but I do think it's missing some subtle points.

When you see people like LudicSavant talking about how effective casters can be at tanking or damage-dealing (both in this thread and the other one the OP mentions), note how they (or at least he) carefully redefines those terms. "Tanking" is redefined as "party-wide damage control and prevention," which is 4e was the actual role ("controller") of classes like Wizard, and was specifically distinct from classes like fighter and paladin that were defined as "defenders." "Damage-dealing" is defined to include all the damage from minions and (although he doesn't say so in this thread) often from buffs as well, even when you're buffing other party members.

This is, in my mind, really the most freeing and fun way to look at these things when building a character, because when I say I want to play a "tank" I often mean "I want to keep my teammates alive" and should be as creative as possible about thinking of ways to do so. When I say I want to be a "damage-dealer" I mean "I want to help my party kill the bad guys quickly," not "I want to see big numbers when I stab someone," so if I can achieve my goal by buffing party members, that's fine too. But it can be misleading when considering class balance, because the classes with more options (i.e. spellcasters) naturally end up having more viable "builds."

What this DOESN'T mean is that it's not possible to build a "martial" character that can hang with the (equally well-optimized) casters in the party, in terms of overall contribution and chances to shine in the spotlight. You just have to do the same work that the caster player does in terms of figuring out what your focus is and building to achieve it. Like, the abjurer in your party can "tank" or at least prevent damage quite effectively, but that doesn't mean a conquest paladin or whatever in the same party is going to feel overshadowed. They have different and hopefully complimentary ways of keeping the party from getting killed.

[tiornys]

*crosses out "Arcane" and writes "Martial" under power source*

Omg you're right, staggering difference. Hooray 4e :smallbiggrin:
If that's all you're doing, sure. If you actually think that's the only difference between Arcane and Martial powers in 4E, then I'd have to conclude you don't understand 4E very well (note the conditional; I'm aware you're snarking here).


The Giant had a great comic about this in SSDT when 3.5e Roy encountered 4e Roy, and the former expressed disbelief that the latter had sword moves they could only do 1/day for no adequately explained reason. Short Rest mechanics are a lot easier to grok within the game's fiction.
While I agree in a broad sense, I find it interesting when this is the point where D&D breaks someone's sense of verisimilitude as opposed to various more basic elements of the game (HP, the way armor functions, weights on equipment, stats and skills, etc.). Personally, D&D any edition is already gamey enough that I don't have any problem with letting martials do things on an action hero scale.


Yes but Indomitable is a trashcan fire of awful. Its a dead level when you level up and that's all you get. It needs a re-write.

Just as well you get a proficiency bonus boost at the same time.

Subclasses may of course have long rest abilities. I love the Rune Knight and some of its key abilities are long rest.
I certainly wasn't defending Indomitable. Just pointing out that 5E hasn't broken away from mixing martials and long rest abilities.

[Willie the Duck]

I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened?

This is all going to depend on game version and optional rules, but here goes.
The cleric, as it stood, was a class that had decent AC, fine-enough saves, and okay spells. Think 3e Cleric if most/all of the 'CoDzilla' spells either didn't exist or didn't pan out as well for one reason or another. However, in these versions of the game, a fighter has really good saves, only the fighter can use most of the best magic items and the combat discrepancy is a wider gulf. The later is because the fighter only gets multiple attacks per round (outside of 2wf or weapons which have a high RoF), fighters can get 18/## strength (the only kind that will get you more than +1 hit/+1 damage), and being limited to bludgeoning weapons is a huge gulf (longbow has twice the rate of fire as a sling and does* d8 instead of d4+1/1d6+1; maces did 1d6+1/1d6 while a longsword did 1d8/1d12 or greatsword 1d10/3d6!). In the 2e era, it should also be mentioned that fighters got some of the best non-weapon proficiencies (non-thief skills), as well as some of the better followers at high levels. Therefore, if you didn't play a magic user, a fighter at least seemed like they got a lot of cool things compared to a cleric.
*damage was divided between that vs small-medium targets/and large or bigger targets.

The cleric did have some nifty spells, however (as mentioned by others), they often got 'forced' into being healing batteries for the team (dedicating those levels you had that had cures available to that purpose and that purpose alone). That's because natural healing rates were abysmal; hit points were lower (so everyone always felt a little too close to zero if they were hurt); also if you were playing basic/classic you were dead at 0 but raise dead was easier while if you were playing AD&D you might have to -3 or -10 but raising had a failure chance and permanent Constitution loss; wands of curing were rare and non-rechargable (and magic item crafting DM-gated), and number of spell slots were lower so you probably didn't have enough cures to even fill up the whole party much less have anything left over.

Thus the meme that Clerics were a class to play so everyone else could enjoy the game. Could be worse, you could be genuinely excited to play a Thief character, only to find out how well they worked in the rules given.

[Leon]

I've seen the "bribed to play cleric" a couple of times now, was that actually a thing that happened?

I've seen Bribed to not play a cleric, party had a Cleric, Fighter/Cleric and Ranger/Cleric.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ha!

Well, I certainly like to put some versatility in my martials. You'll notice that in my builds I'm often sticking some utility in there... like putting Ritual Caster on my Samurai Sharpshooter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24726630&postcount=582), or making my Watchers Paladin a stealthy spymaster (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24941211&postcount=938). So you certainly can branch out and give yourself some presence in exploration and social pillars. And the "Skills are for Rogues, Fighting is for Fighters" design mentality isn't as bad as it was in older editions.

But yeah... it's still not to the same degree. I feel like they could use more of that. And that the "skills are for Rogues" mentality should finally finish off its death throes.
Love the dex-paladin build. I'm currently multiclassing into Watchers but not dex-based.

I do think the delineations in martials serves to weaken them. Especially when, as mentioned before, casters can be effective in multiple ways, the martials have to make a choice "do I want to be good at skills, or do I want to be a frontline attacker?"

A class like "Fighting Person" that is expected to be skilled and capable in combat, and then subclasses/archetypes that branch from there would be appropriate.

I think your problem isn't so much with the character class as it is with the team.
It's more with the assumption (in current design) that casters should be able to do everything.

From the sounds of it, things have changed over each edition to make martials weaker, and allow casters to more easily fight in combat.

As an example, it sounds like opportunity attacks went from "Full Attack per opportunity" to "Limited to one attack per round but you can get Combat Reflexes to increase this to Dex mod per round" to "Only one attack per round".

So now there's no meaningful difference between the two when it comes to OAs, except how strong their base attack is. And as we know, casters can have a nasty OA with cantrips.

If your team is willing to devote some spells and resources to the martial the results can be really eye-popping.
Very true.

*glances at sales figures*

The answer is clearly yes. Or at least, that most players don't care enough one way or the other to oppose it.
Yeah, I'm not sure that "I can play a caster that can also be a rogue and a fighter" is the reason sales are booming. More like, everything geeky is becoming mainstream and D&D is no different.


So they can can do "everything". big whoop. They are an option to play nothing more, not better or worse than any other choice there is.
That. This is the best edition yet to not be a full caster in, or to have parties without one.
I ignored Leon's comment because it was simply dismissive but... I don't agree that this is the "best edition to not be a full caster in".

I actually wanted to play a fighter in 4th edition. In 5th edition, they look pretty boring, and combat options are gated behind DMG optional rules.

There was! WotC bought TSR, who had declared bankruptcy as a result of hilariously terrible management decisions. When they got D&D, WotC dumped the MtG RPG they were working on (because they had D&D) and set about designing 3e... which is an entirely different game with the same branding as 1e/2e.

If you ever have the chance to play in a 1e or 2e game, I recommend it. Just... don't go into it expecting to play casters like you would in 3.5+, because that's how you end up very dead.
Well, I may try this, but it wouldn't be to play a caster. I love me my martials. It would be interesting to see what they were like in those editions.

D&D should really divorce itself from the idea that a rogue or mage should be able to fight even close to a martial. Martials have terrible skills, & out of combat abilities. Rogues should not be as competent at fighting + have sneak attack. Sneak attack is something that should put you on par with a fighter ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The fix for Mages is controlling the spell abilities & ubiquity, their "Class" is fine. They really should bring back Maneuvers.
I agree with this sentiment. The Bard gets full spellcasting, and Expertise. And can get weapon and armor proficiencies and Extra Attack through their subclass.

I do think martials should be able to do more out of combat. But I also feel that casters can do way too much and it skews the framing of the conversation.

I see a lot of of good points by many in this discussion, I generally agree with the sentiments expressed.

I would like to bring up a slightly different point of view. When comparing 5e not with previous DnD versions, but with different TTRPG systems, I believe the following becomes evident.

The main culprit here is Vancian magic specifically and not magic in general. The power creep represented by magic users in 5e, in particular Wizards, comes from an understanding of magic where the following applies:

spells are basically independent entities carrying out their task without any impact on, or effort needed by the caster. In fact even multiple spells may be active at the same time, without any special effort by the caster.
spells are only limited by their level, any magical effect is fair game, there are basically no limits, up to redefining reality (Wish)


It is no wonder that when you create a mechanism that has no impact on its user, even when used multiple times in parallel, and can achieve any effect regardless of impact on the world, that this mechanism will dominate.

If you want a more balanced game for martials, casting spells should have some negative impact on the caster, the bigger the spell, the bigger the impact. This would make the game more enjoyable for casters, since casting a spells successfully would actually reflect an achievement, rather than just ticking off a spell slot.

There should be no concentration spells, at least not without a heavy toll on the caster, that allows you to stack control and damage effects (no more cheese grating GenieLoc), possibly even buffs/debuffs.
Well, I'm not looking to punish casters so much. But it does seem that if you're going to lift all the restrictions on them, you should take care to make sure they remain casters. And it seems like that's done by being careful with what their spells can do and not handing out martial traits like candy (armor and weapon proficiencies, Extra Attack, features that boost AC/HP).

To be clear, I'm perfectly okay with a party dynamic that requires teamwork, and I'm okay with casters shining and having huge impacts on some encounters. But it seems to me that they encroach more and more on the martial's role, and you actually wind up losing that dynamic to some degree. Similar to how people claimed you could replace a 3rd edition Fighter with the Druid's Animal Companion.

It's like... make casters interesting and dynamic and meaningful, but don't allow them to replicate/replace the non-casters while doing so.

Yes 5e really made it super easy for casters to get medium armor and shields. But that is not the issue, in 3.x you could always have dipped 1 level in fighter. Its the removal of Arcane Spell Failure that is kinda broken. But its also something you can easily bring back to your table if you think its a big issue. Personally I think making bards full casters was also nuts given they can use armor\shields and still cast arcane spells where wizard\sorc can't, but this might just be the 3.x in me.
That's a good point. But also, 3rd edition had Arcane Spell Failure, and then Mithral and Twilight armor and all other types of stuff to overcome/ignore/reduce it. I suspect something similar would happen here if this were still the case (though that being said, they have stuck very closely to the "you can only concentrate on one spell at a time" mechanic).

In addition, I believe weapons are by far not deadly enough. When comparing fully developed and kitted characters, a martial with multiple attacks would likely still not be able to kill a magic user in a single round after multiple direct hits, due to the huge effect that hit points have in DnD. After all, impaling someone with a sword should achieve something meaningful.
I do agree with this as well. It makes me think the entire game would have to be restructured/balanced to do martials justice because the number of attacks it would take for a fighter or barbarian to wail on something until it dies is kind of ridiculous.

Also, with regard to the vanican casting, D&D abandoned that after TSR lost it. In AD&D, a wizards spent spells could take days to replenish with hours of study devoted to committing each spell to memory. Along with a wizard only having a certain number of spells per level that they were even capable of understanding and a relatively low chance of being able to understand any given spell they came across with a failure meaning you could never learn that spell unless you somehow raised your intelligence. If you followed the rules (lots didn't) and the DM didn't hand out means to raise your intelligence to 19 or higher, you were never going to be that all powerful. Even if you could be really impressive in a short burst, you burned out your power quickly and it took a long time to recover. Spell casting times also meant you were very likely to be stabbed before you could get a spell off.
Right, it seems we're on the opposite side of this spectrum, where they essentially get everything, or it is relatively easy for them to get everything.

Looking at the current trend of how even martial classes develop with Paladins and Rangers getting dedicated spell lists, and even Fighter subclasses such as the Rune Knight getting dedicated magical effects, its clear that 5e is moving more and more towards basically everyone becoming a magic user of sorts. This is the way to give martials a boost, by using the same mechanisms as for magic users.
The more and more I participate in these discussions, the more I think "I should probably just go out and search for a system that better suits my needs". I think martials should be able to remain viable as non-magic martials, but D&D leaves a bit to be desired there.

I think the OP's visceral reaction that casters can do "martial stuff" but not vice versa isn't unjustified, but I do think it's missing some subtle points.

When you see people like LudicSavant talking about how effective casters can be at tanking or damage-dealing (both in this thread and the other one the OP mentions), note how they (or at least he) carefully redefines those terms. "Tanking" is redefined as "party-wide damage control and prevention," which is 4e was the actual role ("controller") of classes like Wizard, and was specifically distinct from classes like fighter and paladin that were defined as "defenders." "Damage-dealing" is defined to include all the damage from minions and (although he doesn't say so in this thread) often from buffs as well, even when you're buffing other party members.
Agreed. But in a game where no one, even the martials, can "aggro", the term will have a different meaning and it is still a question of whether or not the casters can replicate martials according to that new definition.

Consider that the whole point of "tanking" is to protect casters and skill monkeys. But if the casters can also "tank", the role becomes meaningless. Who are you protecting? If everyone has good AC (to be supplemented by class features/spells) and ridiculous THP, and are dishing out control effects and buffs/debuffs from the frontline, there is no longer a "frontline" and "backline". There are no longer "squishies" to tank for. If there are a dozen summons on the field and armored casters wielding martial weapons, the differences get smaller and smaller still.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'm not sure that "I can play a caster that can also be a rogue and a fighter" is the reason sales are booming. More like, everything geeky is becoming mainstream and D&D is no different.

I didn't say it was; what I said was that not enough people care about this so-called "problem" to impede its success.



I ignored Leon's comment because it was simply dismissive but... I don't agree that this is the "best edition to not be a full caster in".

I actually wanted to play a fighter in 4th edition. In 5th edition, they look pretty boring, and combat options are gated behind DMG optional rules.

4e is certainly more balanced between martials and casters - mostly by making the distinction as meaningless as possible - but then you're stuck playing 4e, so I stand by my statement.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't say it was;
"The answer is clearly yes."

- Psyren, 2022

You hedged afterwards, so you said two different things.

what I said was that not enough people care about this so-called "problem" to impede its success.
You also said that yes. I don't think that all the newcomers to D&D are as engrossed in this stuff as the people that talk about it on forums every day and watch videos and consume other media on it regularly. I imagine if you interview people new to the game and asked them "what do you like so much about it?" they'll say something like "I love how simple it is to get into and I get to play as a wizard or I get to be a knight in shining armor and kill monsters and stuff". As opposed to "I love that I can play a full blown caster with access to 9th level spells while still being able to get necessary armor and weapon proficiencies so that I can wade into melee combat and make other members of my party obsolete. I have avoided D&D all these years but as the caster/martial distinction becomes less and less, I have been thinking more and more about getting into it, and now 5th edition has made that dream a reality!".

In other words, I wasn't really asking about the newbies coming into D&D, so this can serve as a clarification.

[LudicSavant]

When you see people like LudicSavant talking about how effective casters can be at tanking or damage-dealing (both in this thread and the other one the OP mentions), note how they (or at least he) carefully redefines those terms. "Tanking" is redefined as "party-wide damage control and prevention," which is 4e was the actual role ("controller") of classes like Wizard, and was specifically distinct from classes like fighter and paladin that were defined as "defenders.”

I didn’t redefine anything. Here’s the definition of a Defender, copy-pasted from a 4e page:

“A character with the Defender role primarily focuses enemy fire by making it difficult for enemies to move past, and punishing enemies who attack other party members.”

So, literally *exactly* what characters like Arcana Cleric Frontliners (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds) do. Moving past such characters to go after others is difficult and highly punishing.

Things like Warcaster and Booming Blade are straight up Defender abilities.


"Damage-dealing" is defined to include all the damage from minions and (although he doesn't say so in this thread) often from buffs as well, even when you're buffing other party members.

Damage dealing is defined to include dealing damage. I’m curious what yours is.

Also I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be here, because I also gave like a dozen different ways to do it — minions and buffs being only 2 in a long bullet-pointed list of options. Direct blasting was another option. Hazard combos were another option. And so forth.

[Athan Artilliam]

The whole idea of "tanking" is terrible too. You either fight & theaten people because they don't want to die, or you don't fight & run away. MMO themed special abilities & such that lockdown opponents are terrible. HP bloat allows PCs & enemies to be able to make really wonky unrealistic strategies because they loose HP not a limb

[Rukelnikov]

That said, I do think that class spell lists are too broad - especially the wizard. The commitment needed to being great at anything is to just take the spell that does it. Gone are the specialisation feats that mean you would be unremarkable at an area of magic unless you focussed on it.

While I don't think in 3e specialization feats were "needed", I agree with the sentiment.


Thematically characters feel like they can devolve into a theme of 'being the best at as many things as possible' rather than say someone associated with Fire or a Necromancer. I personally think that things like domain spell lists have been a big help here but don't go far enough - if the cleric list was reduced but domain lists grown then I think magic would be in a better place.


If wizards actually had to focus on their schools of magic and being a specialist enchanter meant being less good at something else then I think we would be in a better place.

Well, they could bring back the prohibited schools, but I don't think that's really a good idea, it makes the balance of schools more relevant, and historically has never been a thing (conjuration has historically been amongst the, if not the best, school of every edition, whille divination has usually been the weakest).

What I dislike a bit of the current system is that casters end up feeling samey. I don't like every Cleric casting Bless, "Hey I'm a cleric of the god of desecration and corruption, but I'll bless us cause my god allows me to and its too stronk!" Clerics spell list has been done backwards, it should be like 1 or 2 spells per level common to all of them, and your domain gives you the bulk of your list.


I kind of agree with the armor thing too... but here I don't think the issue is the multiclassing rules or whatever but rather that armor proficiency is a major ability that is so frontloaded. Imagine if the classes that gave armor proficiency did something like light armor at level 2, medium armor and shields at level 4 and heavy armor proficiency at level 6. You could still get this as a caster but it would take a much deeper dip and you would be playing more of a hybrid archetype for which it is appropriate... and for everyone else, yes there might be a bit of a reduction in AC at low levels (levels where martials tend to shine somewhat anyway) but it also means that generally you will be getting ability to use armor at the time you can afford to buy it (for the higher tier armors anyway).

I suggested something similar a couple days ago. Though it'd be pretty crappy if no one started with any kind of armor prof, light should be a given at 1st, but even then we would be preventing sword and board archetype at 1, which is kinda the most clasic adventurer I can imagine, so... I think the rework should be a bit deeper.

Make it something like 2e, you get some weapon proficiencies at 1st start and then every X levels depending on class you get more proficiencies. Change it so instead of weapon proficiencies they are equipment proficiencies, so you can get light, medium, heavy, shields, and weapons. I'm not proposing going back to mastery, expertise, etc. just having basic proficiency to use or wear.

This would mean martials have less equipment proficiencies at 1st level, but by 5 they should have most or all of what they need, and means a single level dip wouldn't jump you from no prof to heavy armor (like clerics do).

[Dr.Samurai]

The whole idea of "tanking" is terrible too. You either fight & theaten people because they don't want to die, or you don't fight & run away. MMO themed special abilities & such that lockdown opponents are terrible.
I sort of agree with this.

The idea that the fighter needs a special ability because, if they don't have one, a monster will simply ignore them and move past them to target someone else, is kind of dumb. An armed and armored warrior should not be so easy to ignore. As someone mentioned earlier, it appears in earlier editions provoking an OA meant getting a full attack unleashed on you. It should just be dangerous to be in melee combat with a martial, as opposed to this intricate balance of risk/reward "who is having a greater impact and who do I see wearing lighter armor" type of dance.

When HP =\= Injury, what does it mean when a monster ignores the warrior swinging a two-handed weapon? It's not "These sword strikes are barely scratching me" because the monster is not actually getting hit. So it's more like "I don't consider this armed warrior as much a threat as the person behind them, so I am going to completely ignore the greatsword in their hands and walk right past them". Pretty ridiculous way to run things.

Combat should be deadlier for both sides I think. But again, sounds like a different game.

[Townopolis]

Ludic, I think I'm not expressing my perspective very well, and I might also be misinterpreting yours.

In an earlier post, you said you wanted fighters and rogues to both be great in all 3 pillars, and you also expressed the desire for the idea of attacks are for fighters, skills are for rogues, to finally die. I interpreted this as meaning that you want all classes to be as equal as possible in every pillar.

My position is that the issue is mostly with casters being able to do everything. I prefer fighters being better than everyone else in combat and rogues being better than everyone else outside. For me, the main issue is that bards are just as good as fighters in combat and also better than everyone else outside (with fighter being as good as bard in combat and far worse outside and rogue being almost as good as bard outside combat and worse inside).

Since I think casters not being good everywhere all the time isn't going away, I agree with you that non-casters being good everywhere all the time is necessary, but I want some amount of niche supremacy to be preserved. The bold is why I said I hard disagreed with you.

And this is different than there being different specializations within a pillar. Fighters do a ton of damage and are hard to take down. Damage and passive mitigation are about the only two things bards aren't natively good at, but they have enough crowd control, buffs, and debuffs to be just as good as fighters in combat. And that, despite the fact that bards are doing none of the things fighters do in combat, makes it feel like fighters aren't really good at fighting (for me).

Compared to the status quo, I think our positions looks very similar, but I do think the distinction is important enough to waste keystrokes on.

[Athan Artilliam]

Another problem with the other non Combat "Pillars" (more like a stick in the dirt) is that they are binary & not granular. How many different attacks are there? How many damage types? How many combat action interactions? Tons

How many social approaches? A couple. How many interactions? Hardly any.
Roll skill, get X. When people say "I dont care if the Fighter has 6 Cha, he can still talk" it's like saying "the Fighter isnt trained in lockpicking but he can still try" a party isnt going to do that. They are going to send out the biggest number & watch from the sidelines where it's safe. Just like how non combat characters should sit on the sidelines where its safe.

How about exploration? Nothing but a little bit of Survival Skill book keeping that most everyone ignores

[Dienekes]

The whole idea of "tanking" is terrible too. You either fight & theaten people because they don't want to die, or you don't fight & run away. MMO themed special abilities & such that lockdown opponents are terrible. HP bloat allows PCs & enemies to be able to make really wonky unrealistic strategies because they loose HP not a limb

It’s more or less caused by necessity of the system though. In real life, a single swing of a sword kills people. Maybe, in mass armies, certain units would try to rush past or through the infantry to reach the archers or artillery. But doing so was always incredibly dangerous and often only done when absolutely necessary.

In D&D, a big enemy is supposed to survive multiple rounds of people whaling on it. And hell sometimes they’re supposed to get away to come back and fight another day. Which means you can’t just kill them with one good stab to the back.

Now I agree tanking abilities are silly and unrealistic. But, this is an inherently silly and unrealistic game. Recurring villains are fun. Encounters that last a few rounds are great. Seeing the damage number applied to enemies giving the players a sense of progress toward victory is useful.

So why fight against all that, just because something isn’t realistic?

[LudicSavant]

Ludic, I think I'm not expressing my perspective very well, and I might also be misinterpreting yours.

In an earlier post, you said you wanted fighters and rogues to both be great in all 3 pillars, and you also expressed the desire for the idea of attacks are for fighters, skills are for rogues, to finally die.

Yep!


I interpreted this as meaning that you want all classes to be as equal as possible in every pillar.

Sort of. But it's important to clarify that when I say "pillar" I mean a broad range of the party's gameplay time that includes a whole lot of diverse niches and activities -- one so broad that it could very well be made into a whole game unto itself.

So two characters may shine a lot more or less in various types of encounters. But I wouldn't want to have a situation where someone goes "oh, Bruce Banner shouldn't have much to do out of combat, he's just supposed to be the guy who's good at fighting." Bruce Banner has tons of crucial stuff to do out of combat, that could be argued to be just as important as what Black Widow does out of combat. But they clearly still have superiority in different niches -- Natasha will handle some encounters very well that Bruce Banner would not handle well at all, and vice versa.

Also it doesn't have to be strictly equal or anything. Just... I should clearly want Bruce Banner around even if we're not going to have a fight scene today. Bruce Banner can carry a comic issue that doesn't have any fight scenes, period!

[Athan Artilliam]

It’s more or less caused by necessity of the system though. In real life, a single swing of a sword kills people. Maybe, in mass armies, certain units would try to rush past or through the infantry to reach the archers or artillery. But doing so was always incredibly dangerous and often only done when absolutely necessary.

In D&D, a big enemy is supposed to survive multiple rounds of people whaling on it. And hell sometimes they’re supposed to get away to come back and fight another day. Which means you can’t just kill them with one good stab to the back.

Now I agree tanking abilities are silly and unrealistic. But, this is an inherently silly and unrealistic game. Recurring villains are fun. Encounters that last a few rounds are great. Seeing the damage number applied to enemies giving the players a sense of progress toward victory is useful.

So why fight against all that, just because something isn’t realistic?

There are so many more ways to handle something, especially combat, beyond a binary. Is a sword fight won with the first stroke? No, there is interplay. But a darting enemy shouldnt be able to face check a battle axis & get away with it

[Willie the Duck]

The idea that the fighter needs a special ability because, if they don't have one, a monster will simply ignore them and move past them to target someone else, is kind of dumb. An armed and armored warrior should not be so easy to ignore. As someone mentioned earlier, it appears in earlier editions provoking an OA meant getting a full attack unleashed on you. It should just be dangerous to be in melee combat with a martial, as opposed to this intricate balance of risk/reward "who is having a greater impact and who do I see wearing lighter armor" type of dance.

When HP =\= Injury, what does it mean when a monster ignores the warrior swinging a two-handed weapon? It's not "These sword strikes are barely scratching me" because the monster is not actually getting hit. So it's more like "I don't consider this armed warrior as much a threat as the person behind them, so I am going to completely ignore the greatsword in their hands and walk right past them". Pretty ridiculous way to run things.

Combat should be deadlier for both sides I think. But again, sounds like a different game.

It is, and there are plenty of examples of games built around someone saying 'it ought to be this way' based on how real combat works. Some of them are fairly fun*. However, most are realistic enough that they make you really not want to get into fights because, well, they are really deadly. D&D captures a different niche -- one where rolling initiative is exciting**
*RuneQuest is a good example where weapon damage approximately equals take-you-down damage and you don't want to give up hits to an opponent... unless you are so armored you can shrug off their attack...unless they find a gap in your armor and ignore your armor...etc. It makes for pretty decent abstracted-but-realistic combat, but also is a game where you really want to avoid getting into fights.
** At least hopefully. There are plenty of people who think D&D combat is one of the more boring parts of it.

Regardless of that, I think some kind of rules have to be put into place to address a different issue: D&D, like most TTRPGs and similar systems**, have the model where each character takes a turn in the initiative order, than (with some rare exceptions like Reaction actions or Action Points in reserve or the like) freeze while the next creature takes their turn. That's an abstraction made to keep from having to micro-manage where everyone is on a fraction-of-second level and turn the game into an infinite slog. However it leave open the situation of you being at point A with a weapon with reach B, so I can just move B+1 units away and run around you, while in real life we both know you could intercept me if I tried to run by you. For that reason, even if you have attacks dangerous enough to disincentivize running past an opponent, you still need some kind of abstract Zone of Control rules to make the situation realistic.
*some wargames, like Starfleet Battles, do map things down to each ship slowly turning and turrets turning and managing who gets to react to information on the others actions first and it can get teeeedious.


So why fight against all that, just because something isn’t realistic?
That's the right follow up. Is 'realism' a primary concern for a game, and if so, why?

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not quite looking for realism exactly though.

The abstraction is fine. If we need monsters to have to be able to take a bunch of hits before they go down, no problem.

But if this is the game we're playing, let martials excel at the thing they're supposed to do, without allowing casters to get close or exceed those abilities.

If you want to say "One-hit kills is for a different game and won't work with what D&D is trying to do, so we have to make martial weapon attacks sort of puny by comparison, which means we also need martials to be able to be tough enough to stand toe-to-toe with these monsters for several rounds", don't turn around and say "Also, by virtue of spells and class features and dips spellcasters will also be able to get as good or better OAs and be just as tough or tougher than martials".

[Psyren]

"The answer is clearly yes."

- Psyren, 2022

Which was the response to "Is this what D&D players want?" (Dr.Samurai, 2022). Sales figures are a clear answer to "is this what people want?"



You also said that yes. I don't think that all the newcomers to D&D are as engrossed in this stuff as the people that talk about it on forums every day and watch videos and consume other media on it regularly. I imagine if you interview people new to the game and asked them "what do you like so much about it?" they'll say something like "I love how simple it is to get into and I get to play as a wizard or I get to be a knight in shining armor and kill monsters and stuff". As opposed to "I love that I can play a full blown caster with access to 9th level spells while still being able to get necessary armor and weapon proficiencies so that I can wade into melee combat and make other members of my party obsolete. I have avoided D&D all these years but as the caster/martial distinction becomes less and less, I have been thinking more and more about getting into it, and now 5th edition has made that dream a reality!".

In other words, I wasn't really asking about the newbies coming into D&D, so this can serve as a clarification.

The distinction has clearly been made more prominent in 5e than in 4e, so if anything this is a return to form :smallconfused: Just not quite as bad as it was in 3e.

[Townopolis]

So two characters may shine a lot more or less in various types of encounters. But I wouldn't want to have a situation where someone goes "oh, Bruce Banner shouldn't have much to do out of combat, he's just supposed to be the guy who's good at fighting." Bruce Banner has tons of crucial stuff to do out of combat, that could be argued to be just as important as what Black Widow does out of combat. But they clearly still have superiority in different niches -- Natasha will handle some encounters very well that Bruce Banner would not handle well at all, and vice versa.

Also it doesn't have to be strictly equal or anything. Just... I should clearly want Bruce Banner around even if we're not going to have a fight scene today. Bruce Banner can carry a comic issue that doesn't have any fight scenes, period!

So here I'm in total agreement with you.

[Dienekes]

There are so many more ways to handle something, especially combat, beyond a binary. Is a sword fight won with the first stroke? No, there is interplay. But a darting enemy shouldnt be able to face check a battle axis & get away with it

There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate a sword fight. But not a lot of the good ones I’ve seen work with with simple d20+modifier checks made by pieces on a 5x5 square. Especially when that system also has to handle things like fireballs being hurdled around.

Riddle of Steel has the best combat system in any ttrpg ive ever played. And it is so different I don’t think it’s possible to put any of what it does into D&D. I’ve tried. The end results were crap.




That's the right follow up. Is 'realism' a primary concern for a game, and if so, why?

Now I would point out the aforementioned Riddle of Steel was designed around realism and was bar none the best martial experience in a ttrpg I’ve ever had. It is fantastic and so much more fun than any warrior type in 5e. It’s incomparable.

But that system was focused on vastly different things. A 5e Wizard would have broken Riddle of Steel at level 1.

[Dr.Samurai]

Perhaps Riddle of Steel is what I am in search of... *looks thoughtfully off into the distance*

[diplomancer]

There are so many more ways to handle something, especially combat, beyond a binary. Is a sword fight won with the first stroke? No, there is interplay. But a darting enemy shouldnt be able to face check a battle axis & get away with it

You mean, like this?


But even as they retreated, and before Pippin and Merry had reached the stair outside, a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high, clad in black mail from head to foot, leaped into the chamber; behind him his followers clustered in the doorway. His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red; he wielded a great spear. With a thrust of his huge hide shield he turned Boromir’s sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground. Diving under Aragorn’s blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the Company and thrust with his spear straight at Frodo. The blow caught him on the right side, and Frodo was hurled against the wall and pinned. Sam, with a cry, hacked at the spear-shaft, and it broke. But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. The orc fell with cloven head. His followers fled howling, as Boromir and Aragorn sprang at them.

[Psyren]

Perhaps Riddle of Steel is what I am in search of... *looks thoughtfully off into the distance*

I found a blog post by a hectorgrey that describes RoS combat in detail. I'd link it here but it does contain some questionable language in places. If you google "RPG writeups riddle of steel" you should locate it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Exactly my point, its a bit ridiculous that you can wear full plate, stand in the middle of combat, maintain a concentration spell such as Spirit Guardians that combines battlefield control and AoE damage, take the dodge action so that no one can truly hit you, and also have your bonus action free to use spiritual weapon.

Who needs a party? A cleric facing 6-8 encounters per day (or 4 deadly/deadly (-) encounters per day).
It’s more or less caused by necessity of the system though. In real life, a single swing of a sword kills people. Maybe, in mass armies, certain units would try to rush past or through the infantry to reach the archers or artillery. But doing so was always incredibly dangerous and often only done when absolutely necessary. Been reading about King Alfred the Great's era and shield walls. Amen.

Which means you can’t just kill them with one good stab to the back. And all of the rogues/thieves (OD&D) look up and go "wait, I can't?" :smalleek: The wizard points to the bag of HP and say "no, you can't, usually, so I'll drop a hold person on them..."

So why fight against all that, just because something isn’t realistic? The balance between "realism" and "playability" long preceded D&D. (See both miniatures battles and board games like Afrika Korps vs 1914 or Panzerblitz or Blitzkrieg...)

You mean, like this? heh.
Morale checks for the win. :smallsmile:

[Dr.Samurai]

That's the right follow up. Is 'realism' a primary concern for a game, and if so, why?
I think the question I am posing is more "Should casters be able to replicate or exceed the same combat statistics as martial characters and, if so, why?"

The realism vs playability can help explain the current state of martial abilities, but it doesn't help explain why casters should be entitled to those abilities.

It does help explain to some degree why it is more easy to bridge the gap. If you reduce OAs from "your entire attack sequence" to "only once", there's no difference between a barbarian with 2 attacks, and a wizard with 1, or a fighter with 3 attacks, and a wizard with 1.

If you gate combat options that are almost all reliant on Strength/Athletics, behind optional rules, the differences are less, so that if a wizard can attack with Intelligence, they are not missing out on too much in combat. They won't be able to shove/grapple as well as a fighter, but they have spells that can do that. But if the fighter could also climb onto enemies, disarm, or overrun, they still have more options than a wizard or cleric that has keyed their attacks off their casting stat, but don't have the necessary strength/athletics to reliably pull off these other combat moves.

And this is similar with Weapon and Armor proficiencies, which can be obtained with a race selection, and with HP, of which there are numerous ways to gain effective HP.

I found a blog post by a hectorgrey that describes RoS combat in detail. I'd link it here but it does contain some questionable language in places. If you google "RPG writeups riddle of steel" you should locate it.
Found it, thank you Psyren!

[Athan Artilliam]

You mean, like this?

Exactly, he bull rushed Boromir, & attempted to dart past Aragorn, he died because of it

[Dienekes]

Perhaps Riddle of Steel is what I am in search of... *looks thoughtfully off into the distance*

It’s my favorite ttrpg. But it is flawed. Immensely flawed, what it does well it does better than anyone: in depth melee combat, tying character roleplay to progression.

What the designers clearly did not care about they most certainly did not spend much thought on: Magic in all its forms.

Hell the lead writer admitted he didn’t even play with his own magic system. And when I played we basically made up some subtle magic whole cloth (essentially one character could kinda sorta speak with spirits and have prophetic visions, they had little actual control or it though).

So maybe you’ll still be interested maybe you won’t be. But the system is very dead. I don’t think there’s even a place to buy it anymore. But it can be found online, if you’re interested.

[diplomancer]

Exactly, he bull rushed Boromir, & attempted to dart past Aragorn, he died because of it

He DID dart past Aragorn, only in the "next round" did Aragorn kill him.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't see how that proves the point.

It can be interpreted as Aragorn's Opportunity Attack missed, and then next turn he landed a strike that killed the orc.

As opposed to Aragorn landed a strike that chipped away 7 damage, and then next turn landed another blow for 6 damage, and then for 9 damage, until eventually he kills the orc. I think that was the point.

If the first attack (the opportunity attack) would have landed in the narrative, Aragorn may have killed or severely wounded the orc. But in D&D, Aragorn would only slightly perturb the Orc, while the Arcana Cleric would hit it with Booming Blade.

[Athan Artilliam]

He DID dart past Aragorn, only in the "next round" did Aragorn kill him.

But my point isnt that it's impossible to physically move past, I'm saying that doing so will get you killed. You proved my point. Rushing in to poke the non(lesser) combatant is extremely bad tactics in most scenarios.

[Athan Artilliam]

I don't see how that proves the point.

It can be interpreted as Aragorn's Opportunity Attack missed, and then next turn he landed a strike that killed the orc.

As opposed to Aragorn landed a strike that chipped away 7 damage, and then next turn landed another blow for 6 damage, and then for 9 damage, until eventually he kills the orc. I think that was the point.

If the first attack (the opportunity attack) would have landed in the narrative, Aragorn may have killed or severely wounded the orc. But in D&D, Aragorn would only slightly perturb the Orc, while the Arcana Cleric would hit it with Booming Blade.

Orc bull rushes Boromir
Aragon swings & misses
Orc pokes Frodo triggering Aragorn's AoO
Orc dies

[Dr.Samurai]

Orc bull rushes Boromir
Aragon swings & misses
Orc pokes Frodo triggering Aragorn's AoO
Orc dies
Right. In the case of LotR, there is a reason to run through Boromir and Aragorn; the ring is influencing them to target Frodo.

To your point, in normal circumstances, it doesn't make sense to ignore the two burly warriors in front of you, because swords kill you pretty easily.

[Psyren]

I think the question I am posing is more "Should casters be able to replicate or exceed the same combat statistics as martial characters and, if so, why?"

My answer is "in D&D: yes." Reasons:

1) A number of popular caster concepts are indelibly tied to some degree of martial prowess. The cocky einhander spellsword, the savage shapeshifting druid, the stoic cleric with mace and shield, the sneaky crimnial with magic up her sleeve; these are concepts that people expect to see in their RPGs, and especially in D&D.

2) A caster achieving the same prowess as a martial is often spending resources to do so - in this edition, those consist of limited spell slots, short duration buffs, and above all concentration. Thus even when they're equal with a martial at fighting, they're often not actually equal since they have drawbacks to deal with that the martial doesn't, even when those drawbacks boil down to simple opportunity cost.

3) Spellcasters are often the more advanced classes in a D&D party, having more rules, resources and interactions to keep track of than noncasters. Because caster players tend to go in expecting this, they are often the ideal players to which classes with multiple viable playstyles and decision points can be assigned. Even if they themselves are newcomers or less experienced, it's safe for designers to assume that somebody who looks at a wizard, warlock or druid is at least willing to learn the ins and outs of a more complicated class - and if they are, it's a relatively small addition to suggest a gish playstyle on top of what they already know.

TL;DR - Gishes add beneficial depth to a fantasy RPG, and that kind of depth is easiest for caster classes and their players to approach (gameplay-wise) as well as being easiest to justify narratively (because magic can justify anything narratively).

[Pex]

Not sure how PvP relates here, my point is that in a situation where casters can more or less clean up a fight on their own, e.g. a GenieLock build possibly with Sorcerer mixed in for Quickened EB, can impose battlefield control (Spike Growth) and not only inflict damage with EB/Agonizing Blast, but also use Repelling Blast to both cause extra damage (in conjunction with Spike Growth) and also further control enemies positioning.

All of the above can be done by a single magic user, with the martials potentially left in the situation where they can not even enter the Spike Growth area to pounce on the enemies. This is by no means the only such build, other shenanigans can be had with Plant Growth, Spirit Guardians, Wall of Force, Force Cage, and the list goes on.

Its all about allowing martials to have their opportunity to shine and for the players to have their fun as well.

Enter our party's 12/4 fighter/barbarian with basic great weapon master, reckless attack, action surge doing over 300 hit points damage against the fiend BBEG of the battle killing it from full health in one turn of attacks. Martials get their glory. He's not crying when the cleric banishes someone or the druid polymorphs into a t-rex.

[Dienekes]

My answer is "in D&D: yes." Reasons:

1) A number of popular caster concepts are indelibly tied to some degree of martial prowess. The cocky einhander spellsword, the savage shapeshifting druid, the stoic cleric with mace and shield, the sneaky crimnial with magic up her sleeve; these are concepts that people expect to see in their RPGs, and especially in D&D.

2) A caster achieving the same prowess as a martial is often spending resources to do so - in this edition, those consist of limited spell slots, short duration buffs, and above all concentration. Thus even when they're equal with a martial at fighting, they're often not actually equal since they have drawbacks to deal with that the martial doesn't, even when those drawbacks boil down to simple opportunity cost.

3) Spellcasters are often the more advanced classes in a D&D party, having more rules, resources and interactions to keep track of than noncasters. Because caster players tend to go in expecting this, they are often the ideal players to which classes with multiple viable playstyles and decision points can be assigned. Even if they themselves are newcomers or less experienced, it's safe for designers to assume that somebody who looks at a wizard, warlock or druid is at least willing to learn the ins and outs of a more complicated class - and if they are, it's a relatively small addition to suggest a gish playstyle on top of what they already know.

TL;DR - Gishes add beneficial depth to a fantasy RPG, and that kind of depth is easiest for caster classes and their players to approach (gameplay-wise) as well as being easiest to justify narratively (because magic can justify anything narratively).

I suppose the questions then becomes:

Is the investment needed to usurp an entire other classes role high enough a cost in the current system?

And

Are there still enough power focused incentives to play the other classes, as in, are their legitimate reasons that it is optimal to play a different class than the ones that can choose to do anything?

Because if the answers to those are “No.” then we are essentially creating a system where to be powerful one must only pick a select few classes and gameplay styles, which you may not find problematic but I sure as hell do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TL;DR - Gishes add beneficial depth to a fantasy RPG, and that kind of depth is easiest for caster classes and their players to approach (gameplay-wise) as well as being easiest to justify narratively (because magic can justify anything narratively).

Strong disagree with the "magic can justify anything narratively" idea. If magic is a narrative cheat code, then the narrative makes no sense. Limits and boundaries give the narrative shape and provide coherence. If it's just "LOL magic", then it all falls apart.

This is the core issue with D&D magic--there are no "magic cannot"s. The only limits are on what there has been a spell written for so far. And that's an ever-receding boundary. Martials are inherently limited; magic must be as well, otherwise there can never be any semblance of balance. Or make everything purely magic and throw away any kind of meaningful setting or narrative.

[loki_ragnarock]

Strong disagree with the "magic can justify anything narratively" idea. If magic is a narrative cheat code, then the narrative makes no sense. Limits and boundaries give the narrative shape and provide coherence. If it's just "LOL magic", then it all falls apart.

This is the core issue with D&D magic--there are no "magic cannot"s. The only limits are on what there has been a spell written for so far. And that's an ever-receding boundary. Martials are inherently limited; magic must be as well, otherwise there can never be any semblance of balance. Or make everything purely magic and throw away any kind of meaningful setting or narrative.

This is me, nodding along.

Remember when spell school specialization killed two other opposing spell schools, and being a generalist meant significantly reduced spell progression comparatively?
I rather miss that.

[Telok]

Which was the response to "Is this what D&D players want?" (Dr.Samurai, 2022). Sales figures are a clear answer to "is this what people want?"

I would caution against taking self reported sales as a metric of what people want. Buying/spending habits depend on a number of factors involving a customer's budget, customer's wants, availability of product, availability of information about the product, and a heavy dose of advertising. Mostly its that d&d is the only rpg someone outside the hobby has any knowledge of, and many people simply stick with what they know.

I've had a number of d&d products bought for me that went straight to the used bookstore because I already possessed them (ad&d stuff) or didn't want them (all other editions). The only thing people knew was that I "did that role playing game thing".

[Sigreid]

I think the question I am posing is more "Should casters be able to replicate or exceed the same combat statistics as martial characters and, if so, why?"

The realism vs playability can help explain the current state of martial abilities, but it doesn't help explain why casters should be entitled to those abilities.

It does help explain to some degree why it is more easy to bridge the gap. If you reduce OAs from "your entire attack sequence" to "only once", there's no difference between a barbarian with 2 attacks, and a wizard with 1, or a fighter with 3 attacks, and a wizard with 1.

If you gate combat options that are almost all reliant on Strength/Athletics, behind optional rules, the differences are less, so that if a wizard can attack with Intelligence, they are not missing out on too much in combat. They won't be able to shove/grapple as well as a fighter, but they have spells that can do that. But if the fighter could also climb onto enemies, disarm, or overrun, they still have more options than a wizard or cleric that has keyed their attacks off their casting stat, but don't have the necessary strength/athletics to reliably pull off these other combat moves.

And this is similar with Weapon and Armor proficiencies, which can be obtained with a race selection, and with HP, of which there are numerous ways to gain effective HP.

Found it, thank you Psyren!

Honestly, most players seem to squander a lot of their power proving they can out fight the fighter etc. Heck, I had to teach my brother that it's far more efficient to use those buff spells you were going to cast on yourself on the fighter and then lock the door behind him until the screaming stops when he was playing Never Winter Nights.

Most of those spells are force amplifiers. The bigger the force you apply them to the bigger the result.

I will say that in 5e, the change so that fighters don't get improved accuracy with their weapons seems...off to me. Joe the fighter should be much, much better at getting past a person's defenses and finding openings in armor with everything from a stick he found beside the road to the mightiest greatsword than Bob the wizard is.

[prototype00]

Enter our party's 12/4 fighter/barbarian with basic great weapon master, reckless attack, action surge doing over 300 hit points damage against the fiend BBEG of the battle killing it from full health in one turn of attacks. Martials get their glory. He's not crying when the cleric banishes someone or the druid polymorphs into a t-rex.

Yeah, totally agree here. Martials are the kings of constant, unforced single target damage, period.

Even when spellcasters try to pull the same things off, they are spending their resources and twisting their classes to work in weird ways (you're *really* going to depend on AoOs and enemies being stupid enough to trigger your Booming Blade or cast *Concentration* spells to justify that you are doing merely "good" single target damage?) to not quite do as well.

Say you're fighting a dragon or a lich with spellcasting and legendary resistances, who would you rather have for that particular combat? A Cleric (I'll even let you pick which one) or the aforementioned 12/4 Fighter Barbarian?

[Ganryu]

Yeah, totally agree here. Martials are the kings of constant, unforced single target damage, period.

Even when spellcasters try to pull the same things off, they are spending their resources and twisting their classes to work in weird ways (you're *really* going to depend on AoOs and enemies being stupid enough to trigger your Booming Blade or cast *Concentration* spells to justify that you are doing merely "good" single target damage?) to not quite do as well.

Say you're fighting a dragon or a lich with spellcasting and legendary resistances, who would you rather have for that particular combat? A Cleric (I'll even let you pick which one) or the aforementioned 12/4 Fighter Barbarian?
I mean, Lich is immune to all nonmagical damage, so....

[prototype00]

I mean, Lich is immune to all nonmagical damage, so....

Your 16th level multiclass Fighter/Barbarian does not have a magical weapon...? (At worst, worst, worst case, a Common Magic Item?)

I'd switch DMs if I were you.

Edit: Also in this case, with all fairness to spellcasters, I hope the DM is equally as parsiminious with spell scrolls and expensive spell components as he is with magical equipment for the martials.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Eh, as usual, no one wants to look at the party as a whole, rather they want to compare single characters or classes. I mean, I get it, it becomes very complicated very quickly, but it's also how the game is designed.

Buffing the martials can be an incredibly effective use of a concentration spell for a caster. It can also make the armored, high HP, tanky character the focus of the enemy's ire.

But no. Let's have the 1034th argument that fighters suck rather than consider combat a team game.

[Amechra]

I would caution against taking self reported sales as a metric of what people want. Buying/spending habits depend on a number of factors involving a customer's budget, customer's wants, availability of product, availability of information about the product, and a heavy dose of advertising. Mostly its that d&d is the only rpg someone outside the hobby has any knowledge of, and many people simply stick with what they know.

I've had a number of d&d products bought for me that went straight to the used bookstore because I already possessed them (ad&d stuff) or didn't want them (all other editions). The only thing people knew was that I "did that role playing game thing".

This.

Even if people are aware of other RPGs, there's a powerful network effect in play here. One of the things you learn if you try to get into the "indie" side of the hobby is that it's really hard to get a non-D&D game going without running it yourself, unless you're one of those people who are lucky enough to have a playgroup that hasn't locked itself into playing D&D.

[Tanarii]

I will say that in 5e, the change so that fighters don't get improved accuracy with their weapons seems...off to me. Joe the fighter should be much, much better at getting past a person's defenses and finding openings in armor with everything from a stick he found beside the road to the mightiest greatsword than Bob the wizard is.
As a general rule, the 6 martial classes are better with weapons than the 6 full caster classes. Just because their primary is Str or Dex.

Which is the main reason Hexblades are bunk. Before that, the only other way is to muck around with Shillelagh, or pump Str or Dex as well as your casting stat.

[Dr.Samurai]

My answer is "in D&D: yes." Reasons:

1) A number of popular caster concepts are indelibly tied to some degree of martial prowess. The cocky einhander spellsword, the savage shapeshifting druid, the stoic cleric with mace and shield, the sneaky crimnial with magic up her sleeve; these are concepts that people expect to see in their RPGs, and especially in D&D.

2) A caster achieving the same prowess as a martial is often spending resources to do so - in this edition, those consist of limited spell slots, short duration buffs, and above all concentration. Thus even when they're equal with a martial at fighting, they're often not actually equal since they have drawbacks to deal with that the martial doesn't, even when those drawbacks boil down to simple opportunity cost.

3) Spellcasters are often the more advanced classes in a D&D party, having more rules, resources and interactions to keep track of than noncasters. Because caster players tend to go in expecting this, they are often the ideal players to which classes with multiple viable playstyles and decision points can be assigned. Even if they themselves are newcomers or less experienced, it's safe for designers to assume that somebody who looks at a wizard, warlock or druid is at least willing to learn the ins and outs of a more complicated class - and if they are, it's a relatively small addition to suggest a gish playstyle on top of what they already know.

TL;DR - Gishes add beneficial depth to a fantasy RPG, and that kind of depth is easiest for caster classes and their players to approach (gameplay-wise) as well as being easiest to justify narratively (because magic can justify anything narratively).
Thanks for this.

I think for point 1 I would just ask why can't these concepts be better done from the martial side. I'm not sure these concepts require a full blown spellcaster with equal proficiencies in armor/weapons/attacks.

For point 2, there is some truth to this, but also not. Once you have proficiencies, you have the proficiencies. A level 3 Valor Bard has armor and shield proficiencies and martial weapons, very similar to a dex fighter, and the bard will have that going forward. Similarly,cantrips don't require slots, and casters take War Caster just as much for the boost to Concentration checks, so it's not exactly a an opportunity cost to have a dangerous OA. But if you are casting spells to achieve some of these results, then yes, there is an opportunity cost.

For point 3 well... I mean that's an assumption people make for whatever reason. There is no intrinsic need for martials to be "simple" or "simpler" than casters. It seems from what I read of Riddle of Steel you can easily make a very in depth martial combat system.

I do think that D&D has a mega focus on "gishes" and I'll probably never understand it but I take your point that gishes are an important part of the game.

Strong disagree with the "magic can justify anything narratively" idea. If magic is a narrative cheat code, then the narrative makes no sense. Limits and boundaries give the narrative shape and provide coherence. If it's just "LOL magic", then it all falls apart.

This is the core issue with D&D magic--there are no "magic cannot"s. The only limits are on what there has been a spell written for so far. And that's an ever-receding boundary. Martials are inherently limited; magic must be as well, otherwise there can never be any semblance of balance. Or make everything purely magic and throw away any kind of meaningful setting or narrative.
I'm inclined to agree.

I would caution against taking self reported sales as a metric of what people want. Buying/spending habits depend on a number of factors involving a customer's budget, customer's wants, availability of product, availability of information about the product, and a heavy dose of advertising.
Agreed.

Mostly its that d&d is the only rpg someone outside the hobby has any knowledge of, and many people simply stick with what they know.
I can second this. D&D is the only ttrpg I know, and I've played through 3rd, 4th, and now 5th. That said, I may give earlier editions and/or Riddle of Steel a shot.

Honestly, most players seem to squander a lot of their power proving they can out fight the fighter etc. Heck, I had to teach my brother that it's far more efficient to use those buff spells you were going to cast on yourself on the fighter and then lock the door behind him until the screaming stops when he was playing Never Winter Nights.
This is true, and Psyren made the same point. But it also depends on the build and concept. If we look at the Arcana Cleric Frontliner, Booming Blade is gained through a class feature. War Caster is just generally a good feat for casters. Medium Armor and Shields is already on the class. The Celestial Generalist is also using native features to frontline and doesn't seem to require a huge expenditure to perform.

I will say that in 5e, the change so that fighters don't get improved accuracy with their weapons seems...off to me. Joe the fighter should be much, much better at getting past a person's defenses and finding openings in armor with everything from a stick he found beside the road to the mightiest greatsword than Bob the wizard is.
Agreed, and this is what I was getting at when discussing the optional combat maneuvers; very little differentiates an attack from a martial and an attack from a caster if the caster gets to use their casting stat to attack and has the martial weapon proficiency.

Yeah, totally agree here. Martials are the kings of constant, unforced single target damage, period.

Even when spellcasters try to pull the same things off, they are spending their resources and twisting their classes to work in weird ways (you're *really* going to depend on AoOs and enemies being stupid enough to trigger your Booming Blade or cast *Concentration* spells to justify that you are doing merely "good" single target damage?) to not quite do as well.

Say you're fighting a dragon or a lich with spellcasting and legendary resistances, who would you rather have for that particular combat? A Cleric (I'll even let you pick which one) or the aforementioned 12/4 Fighter Barbarian?
I'm not sure that casters can do the same amount of damage in melee as martials. But they can certainly perform at the base level (proficiencies, extra attack) and be as tough or tougher.


And I'm curious how the "over 300 damage" was achieved. If I assume max damage on a greatsword, 20 strength, +2 rage damage, a +2 weapon, and Great Weapon Master... that's 31 points of damage. If the fighter hits with 4 attacks and then action surges for 3 attacks, that's 31x7 = 217. Let's add another 12 for a crit that triggered the bonus action attack, so 229? And that's max damage on every attack hitting but it's kind of close. So was there a powerful weapon or belt of giant strength or magic buffs, etc?


Eh, as usual, no one wants to look at the party as a whole, rather they want to compare single characters or classes. I mean, I get it, it becomes very complicated very quickly, but it's also how the game is designed.

Buffing the martials can be an incredibly effective use of a concentration spell for a caster. It can also make the armored, high HP, tanky character the focus of the enemy's ire.

But no. Let's have the 1034th argument that fighters suck rather than consider combat a team game.
There's no single class; it's literally 9th level casters (all of them) vs martials (all of them).

It is a team game; that's the entire point of the sentiment behind this thread. Should casters be able to take the place of martials?

Yes, they can buff other people. That's fine. But they can also buff themselves as well, on top of getting features and proficiencies that martials typically get.

[LudicSavant]

you're *really* going to depend on AoOs and enemies being stupid enough to trigger your Booming Blade or cast *Concentration* spells to justify that you are doing merely "good" single target damage?

I gave a big fat list of ways for casters to do good single target damage, and "Booming Blade OAs" wasn't even on it.

The main point of Booming Blade OAs is to discourage other people from moving.

[prototype00]

I gave a big fat list of ways for casters to do good single target damage, and "Booming Blade OAs" wasn't even on it.

The main point of Booming Blade OAs is to discourage other people from moving.

So you spend your character resources on the spells in your list and the abilities in your arsenal (and I'm quite familiar with spellcaster single target damage effects, having tried to use them in the past) that are, you've admitted, not your best (because that is in the realms of out of combat utility, control, aoe damage and buffing) trying to become somewhat okay, but not as good as Fighty McFighterson, 12 Barbarian/4 Fighter at dealing the consistent round-to-round single target DPR?

That... seems like a not efficient use of your limited character resources to fail to make a point.

Edit: The exception to all of this (as I mentioned in my first post) being the Warlock and Warlock/X, who actually can keep up with Fighty McFighterson single target DPR, but also is kind of a weird duck in the realms of Full Spellcasters (most posters not even seeing them as such).

[LudicSavant]

So you spend your character resources on the spells in your list and the abilities in your arsenal (and I'm quite familiar with spellcaster single target damage effects, having tried to use them in the past) that are, you've admitted, not your best

You've lost me. What are you even talking about here?


trying to become somewhat okay, but not as good as Fighty McFighterson, 12 Barbarian/4 Fighter

If you stat out your hypothetical Barb 12 / Fighter 4, I'd be happy to show you how you can do comparable damage with a caster.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Yeah, totally agree here. Martials are the kings of constant, unforced single target damage, period.

Even when spellcasters try to pull the same things off, they are spending their resources and twisting their classes to work in weird ways (you're *really* going to depend on AoOs and enemies being stupid enough to trigger your Booming Blade or cast *Concentration* spells to justify that you are doing merely "good" single target damage?) to not quite do as well.

Say you're fighting a dragon or a lich with spellcasting and legendary resistances, who would you rather have for that particular combat? A Cleric (I'll even let you pick which one) or the aforementioned 12/4 Fighter Barbarian?

Oh, the cleric, without a doubt.

See, my 16th level cleric has, of course, used planar binding to secure a host of 7 Couatls who have shape changed into Morgaen and summoned a bunch of wolves or eagles to create a wall of critters the dragon can’t move past without killing, while the Couatl-Morgaens fire on them.

And now my cleric will actually use their spells and concentration on wrecking the dragon from afar. Or summoning a planar ally like a Ki Rin to do the same.

That Nova damage doesn’t mean much against a summoned mob that summons mobs.

And while this is the edge of RAW shenanigans, the core premise of summoned celestials planarly bound making short work of the dragon while the Cleric runs away, or locks the dragon down. And the cleric can just planeshift away and try again if it goes south.

What the shenanigans illustrate is the scope of power at the hands of a full spellcaster. There are no class mechanics that govern the acquisition of sidekicks or retinues. A barbarian cannot assume to have 100 fey warriors at their beck and call, provided they have the materials.

A cleric can.

This is, of course, old hat. In previous editions, the martial would have followers at a certain level, or be able to take feats to grant them companions and a retinue.

5e lacks even that.


Eh, as usual, no one wants to look at the party as a whole, rather they want to compare single characters or classes. I mean, I get it, it becomes very complicated very quickly, but it's also how the game is designed.

Buffing the martials can be an incredibly effective use of a concentration spell for a caster. It can also make the armored, high HP, tanky character the focus of the enemy's ire.

But no. Let's have the 1034th argument that fighters suck rather than consider combat a team game.

Unfortunately, outside of combat is not a team game.

Social interactions are frequently a one player, one check affair, as is exploration.

And what do martials meaningfully add to those pillars anyway? The handful of ranger powers a druid makes obsolete by level 5 or a rogue being as good at sneaking as a bard is?

Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks dominate social checks because they aren’t MAD like a Paladin (or a CHA rogue) is, plus spells enhance social success, spells Martials don’t have.

Exploration? Druids and Wizards trump rangers and rogues. Pass without trace, silence and invisibility do everything stealth can do. A couple of flying summons or a spell bypasses difficult overland terrain, and polymorph or wildshape takes care of the rest.

And fighters, monks and barbarians aren’t doing much exploring. Not mechanically.

This is the real issue. You can talk about combat optimization and prove a fighter can produce 10 more points of damage, on average, over an adventuring day. But while they might take that edge, in the rest of the game they’re miles behind

[prototype00]

You've lost me. What are you even talking about here?

The list of spells you quoted, most of which (apart from Simulacrum) don't really end up on the list of "Caster's greatest hit" spells on account that there are a lot of other things that casters are considered "better" at. (Just look up any optimization guide).

By selecting these spells, you are spending character resources on chasing a playstyle (Single Target DPR), that casters already kind of are a step behind in, and not selecting things that casters shine at (out of combat utility, control, AoE and buffing).

Whereas if a martial selects all the single target DPR stuff (sharpshooter, GWM, Crossbow Expert, PAM e.t.c.), all their core class abilities work to reinforce their choice.

How about this, if it makes it easier to understand, and feel free to disagree. Single Target DPR (and I recall WebDM said as much in their videos on Barbarians and Fighters) is the natural province of martials, their class kits make them better at it. I don't think the same can be said of spellcasters.

Edit: Granted Minionmancy comes close to doing good single target DPR, but the number of times I've seen an enemy just AoE a Conjure Animals makes me leery of the tactic at anything past T2. It doesn't last long enough for tough fights in my opinion.

[Dienekes]

The list of spells you quoted, most of which (apart from Simulacrum) don't really end up on the list of "Caster's greatest hit" spells on account that there are a lot of other things that casters are considered "better" at. (Just look up any optimization guide).

By selecting these spells, you are spending character resources on chasing a playstyle (Single Target DPR), that casters already kind of are a step behind in, and not selecting things that casters shine at (out of combat utility, control, AoE and buffing).

Whereas if a martial selects all the single target DPR stuff (sharpshooter, GWM, Crossbow Expert, PAM e.t.c.), all their core class abilities work to reinforce their choice.

How about this, if it makes it easier to understand, and feel free to disagree. Single Target DPR (and I recall WebDM said as much in their videos on Barbarians and Fighters) is the natural province of martials, their class kits make them better at it. I don't think the same can be said of spellcasters.

Edit: Granted Minionmancy comes close to doing good single target DPR, but the number of times I've seen an enemy just AoE a Conjure Animals makes me leery of the tactic at anything past T2. It doesn't last long enough for tough fights in my opinion.

I don't think it matters if it's a greatest hit or not, it matters if the damage is comparable or not.

If your argument is "Sure you can do comparable damage, but you'd be better off doing more important things." I don't think you're making the point about class balance you think you're making.

[prototype00]

I don't think it matters if it's a greatest hit or not, it matters if the damage is comparable or not.

If your argument is "Sure you can do comparable damage, but you'd be better off doing more important things." I don't think you're making the point about class balance you think you're making.

The point I am trying to make is, from personal experience, even the casters who chase the single target DPR playstyle don't actually do as much damage over even just one session as as Fighty McFighterson 12Barb/4 Fighter.

And they did it by sacrificing character resources they could have been spending on things Casters are known to be good at.

As to balance, I completely agree with all of you and martials and casters are not balanced. The only point I've been trying to make here is Martials are naturally good at Single Target DPR and can easily reach a peak that casters cannot reach (in response to the Casters can do literally everything thesis of the thread).

[LudicSavant]

The list of spells you quoted, most of which (apart from Simulacrum) don't really end up on the list of "Caster's greatest hit" spells on account that there are a lot of other things that casters are considered "better" at. (Just look up any optimization guide).

You mean optimization guides like this? (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CR2AoDVco5rf_o1KmxH_NOPxTIiX6FA58N_prw8Qzww/edit)


How about this, if it makes it easier to understand, and feel free to disagree. Single Target DPR (and I recall WebDM said as much in their videos on Barbarians and Fighters) is the natural province of martials, their class kits make them better at it.

There are martial builds that can do quite good DPR, but there's also caster builds that can do comparable DPR.


As to balance, I completely agree with all of you and martials and casters are not balanced. The only point I've been trying to make here is Martials are naturally good at Single Target DPR and can easily reach a peak that casters cannot reach (in response to the Casters can do literally everything thesis of the thread).

Then show us some evidence of that. Show us a martial that can reach a peak that can't be matched by something like a Nuclear Wizard or an optimized minionmancer with current splats.


I don't think it matters if it's a greatest hit or not, it matters if the damage is comparable or not.

If your argument is "Sure you can do comparable damage, but you'd be better off doing more important things." I don't think you're making the point about class balance you think you're making.

Indeed.

[prototype00]

You mean optimization guides like this? (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CR2AoDVco5rf_o1KmxH_NOPxTIiX6FA58N_prw8Qzww/edit)

Yes, the one that starts with this quote:


The wizard, if you take the class at face value, is kind of pants at the whole blasting thing even if you choose a subclass meant for it like Evoker.

[Ganryu]

Let's have a blade singer wizard. This will go great.

Summon Elemental. 8th level. This lasts for an entire fight, so it is not resource intensive.

4d10+48 one round.

Blade Singer with crossbow expert then fires twice, and uses firebolt.
3d10
2d6+10

What is the barbarian/fighter done this level?

Oh, and all else failed, simulacron to double above.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, the one that starts with this quote:

Yeah, and concludes with the writer saying that he thinks it's probably the strongest blaster in the entire game.

Like... seriously, you are recklessly disregarding the context of your quote.

[prototype00]

Let's have a blade singer wizard. This will go great.

Summon Elemental. 8th level. This lasts for an entire fight, so it is not resource intensive.

4d10+48 one round.

Blade Singer with crossbow expert then fires twice, and uses firebolt.
3d10
2d10+10

What is your barbarian/fighter done this level?

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.

[LudicSavant]

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.

Please provide us with the stats of your character, so that we can do the math for you.

Previous offer still stands:

If you stat out your hypothetical Barb 12 / Fighter 4, I'd be happy to show you how you can do comparable damage with a caster.

[Ganryu]

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.

I was doing level 16, as someone mentioned earlier a fighter barbarian at lvl 16.

I'm comparing for consistent damage for as little resources used as possible. Otherwise, hell, throw meteor swarm in. This is consistent damage with as few spells cast {1} as possible. Nothing else is used on this caster.

Fighter has used many of their battle maneuvers and both action surges in the first two turns. It's not like they HAVE anything to concentrate on. The accuracy will also not be higher if they are using sharpshooter, which the math is indicating they are here. Also, comparing 2 turns vs 1.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.

Less damage than the 16 water elemental myrmidons (48d10 (168) plus 48d10 (264) plus 192 (624 total)) a level 16 druid has used planar binding on.

18d6+288 (351/2=175.5) doesn’t quite stack up.

Plus I haven’t actually cast a spell or used an action yet….

But tell me again how a crossbow master Nova can beat permanent summons.

[Ganryu]

Side note, I would definitely kick all of us from the table at this point XD.

Feels like sometimes as a caster you have to hold back or your DM will walk over and punch you in the face. There's a bit of recognition of "Well, this breaks the game, so I won't do it, this is how I'm supposed to play" at some point. Definitely should be that none of this sees the light of day at a table.

[Townopolis]

Yes, nobody (in my regular group, at least) would try to pull these sort of caster supremacy tactics out unless we were specifically playing an archmages kind of game. In fact, I think the last time a caster in my group outshone everyone else was... me. Let's not talk about that.

I did have a work group where the wizard was toxic, but that was mostly the player being toxic, as toxic players will.

But this is the internet, and this is where we bicker over the flaws of the system and I express my annoyance at the fact that I can "waste" two proficiencies and expertises on History and Performance as a bard and still be the most useful party member, even though that lets me have two skills taken purely to reinforce my character fantasy without placing myself at a disadvantage. You'd think I'd appreciate the luxury, but noooooo.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Side note, I would definitely kick all of us from the table at this point XD.

Feels like sometimes as a caster you have to hold back or your DM will walk over and punch you in the face. There's a bit of recognition of "Well, this breaks the game, so I won't do it, this is how I'm supposed to play" at some point. Definitely should be that none of this sees the light of day at a table.

This is valid.

But does this imply that the martial is allowed to XbowX/SS archery optimize, while it’s expected that the caster pull its punches?

Because in this case, yes, the martial is competitive in single target DPS, while grossly lagging in exploration and social pillars.

Or are they expected to be good sports, and not munchkin out, which means they won’t compete against even the most basic combos; and they still won’t compete in the social or exploration pillars.

A system that relies on players pulling their punches is a bad system.

[Amechra]

A system that relies on players pulling their punches is a bad system.

One million times this. While many of my grumbles about 5e are ultimately a matter of my personal tastes, the fact that a subset of the available classes has to actively avoid breaking the action economy after a certain level is just bad design.

[Pex]

And I'm curious how the "over 300 damage" was achieved. If I assume max damage on a greatsword, 20 strength, +2 rage damage, a +2 weapon, and Great Weapon Master... that's 31 points of damage. If the fighter hits with 4 attacks and then action surges for 3 attacks, that's 31x7 = 217. Let's add another 12 for a crit that triggered the bonus action attack, so 229? And that's max damage on every attack hitting but it's kind of close. So was there a powerful weapon or belt of giant strength or magic buffs, etc?


He does have a magic weapon. It's +1 with extra stuff against giants, but he was fighting a fiend. He has three attacks. With action surge it's 6 attacks. He hit all 6 times, so with great weapon master that's already 60 damage. 20 strength makes it 90 damage. Raging makes it 102 damage. +1 weapon makes it 108 damage before dice are rolled. That 7th attack hit for another 18 damage so 126 damage before dice are rolled. I think it was 4 crits. 22d6 averages 154 so that's 280 damage. We can surmise he rolled above average. Of course it was a lucky fluke. Not even the player denies it. It usually takes him two rounds to kill the BBEG or a Lieutenant, three when he's unlucky and misses a few times. He still doesn't cry when the druid becomes a t-rex. He's happy with everyone else when the druid does so. I'm playing a paladin. I do well when I'm smiting, but he's more consistent in dealing great damage. I'm happy sometimes my job is support. Keep people in my auras. Plus 5 to everyone's saving throws has saved the day too many times to count.

[Witty Username]

Casters do a subpar job dealing consistent damage over the course of an adventuring day (sans warlock to some degree) because of limited spell slots and concentration. Casters tend to rely on concentration spells to maintain damage numbers, so Casters need to plan around defending concentration and attempt to precast, both have there concerns. Furthermore, as combats and obstacles occur spell slots are uses reducing effectiveness.
A hand crossbow, Sharpshooter, Archery fighting is all the damage needed to surpass most Casters, and uses no rest resources as I understand it.
And it doesn't randomly disappear when they get domed for 50 damage.
Now, half-Casters like Paladin and Ranger are very effective because they get both. But I believe Casters here refers to full Casters, correct?

[LudicSavant]

It's really tiring to hear people talk about GWM in damage comparison conversations without providing their accuracy, or any other relevant variables that would actually allow a mathematical comparison to happen.

No, it's not a negligible thing to mention. For example, 3 vanilla GWM attacks with max proficiency and 20 Strength against AC 19 might do 66 damage on hit, or over 150 damage on lucky fluke day... but it's just ~27 DPR.

For perspective, that's about as much damage as a level 1 Magic Missile + Empowered Evocation, which is only 25.5 average damage on hit, but never misses.

Of course, martial damage can get a lot higher than that, and hopefully just as obviously, so can casters. The point is that "damage assuming all hits" numbers don't mean much of anything, especially when talking about GWM.

[Chaos Jackal]

Reading through the last page or two, Ludic has a point here.

Damage ceilings are great in cool stories. Yeah, it's awesome that you hit all your attacks when using GWM, critted half of them and then proceeded to roll 5s and 6s in all those greatsword dice. That SS-fueled machine gun-like crossbow Action Surge turn where you hit all the attacks was amazing.

Hell, I have a story too! I surprised the enemies, threw that upcast 5th-level fireball, hit six of them at once, they all failed their saves, and I rolled 54 damage to boot.

What the above examples all have in common is that they're not indicative of anything. Lucky nova rounds, crit streaks, rolling way above average on damage, all enemies failing saves they had a 50% chance of making, they're good stories, but they're not good for judging builds.

[Lacco]

Perhaps Riddle of Steel is what I am in search of... *looks thoughtfully off into the distance*

If you are a fan of the martials, and are looking for a good combat system... yes. There are not many RPGs that work so well on this front as this one does.

There are also few "descendant" systems (Blade of the Iron Throne, Band of Blades, Song of Swords) that took basics and did few reworks (e.g. BoIT has actually a nice sorcery system, and interesting rework of damage system; Band of Blades did ditch my favourite combat mechanic - initiative throw - something that made the game really fun), that are relatively alive.

The unfortunate thing is editing: while the system is great, the rules have a lot of holes (e.g. the core rules do not describe in full how to deal with combat of multiple persons...). Also, the best way to play is to use a specific combination of rules from the 3 rulebooks + add the magic system from BoIT. And that's a lot of work.

So if you decide to go for it, I'd gladly assist in any way I can. There's never enough fans of this hidden gem of martial combat :smallbiggrin:.

[Solusek]

Side note, I would definitely kick all of us from the table at this point XD.

Feels like sometimes as a caster you have to hold back or your DM will walk over and punch you in the face. There's a bit of recognition of "Well, this breaks the game, so I won't do it, this is how I'm supposed to play" at some point. Definitely should be that none of this sees the light of day at a table.

Jumping in here, I think a big part of the problem is WotC had to design hundreds of spells. Most of them are just fine. A few are balanced poorly. Any of those hundreds of spells that the community has identified as being overpowered now get picked by every single spell caster, hence making the classes too good. We get to pick and choose only the most powerful options - the options that WotC messed up the balance with.

Martial characters rarely get many choices to make, and when they do it's usually between just a couple different options. Much less chances for WotC to have made an egregious error in game balance.

A bit of errata on a few overtuned spells fixes a lot of these issues.

[tokek]

He does have a magic weapon. It's +1 with extra stuff against giants, but he was fighting a fiend. He has three attacks. With action surge it's 6 attacks. He hit all 6 times, so with great weapon master that's already 60 damage. 20 strength makes it 90 damage. Raging makes it 102 damage. +1 weapon makes it 108 damage before dice are rolled. That 7th attack hit for another 18 damage so 126 damage before dice are rolled. I think it was 4 crits. 22d6 averages 154 so that's 280 damage. We can surmise he rolled above average. Of course it was a lucky fluke. Not even the player denies it. It usually takes him two rounds to kill the BBEG or a Lieutenant, three when he's unlucky and misses a few times. He still doesn't cry when the druid becomes a t-rex. He's happy with everyone else when the druid does so. I'm playing a paladin. I do well when I'm smiting, but he's more consistent in dealing great damage. I'm happy sometimes my job is support. Keep people in my auras. Plus 5 to everyone's saving throws has saved the day too many times to count.

This is how it was in my tier 4 game. The fighter (Rune Knight with minimal Warlock dip) did so much single target damage that my warlock (minimal sorcerer dip) was happy to just clear the path for him to get there. I don't recall 300 damage on a single turn but he did over 200 damage on a turn often enough that we sort of accepted that as fairly normal. Hexblade warlock can't do that and nor should they, so she just removed obstacles and countered spells that would stop him, it was efficient teamwork.

The fighter did have a homebrew weapon roughly equivalent to a Holy Avenger but that's honestly fair enough in tier 4 and I think you should expect that unless its a very low magic campaign - its not like my warlock didn't have a staff of power :) I know "magic items are not required" but honestly there are more magic items in the game than there are spells, ignoring the existence of magic items when discussing high tier games is very specific to campaigns where the DM really pushes down hard on low magic. If you have low magic for items but not for spells then not surprisingly full casters are relatively more powerful in that game.

[Sorinth]

Unfortunately, outside of combat is not a team game.

Social interactions are frequently a one player, one check affair, as is exploration.

And what do martials meaningfully add to those pillars anyway? The handful of ranger powers a druid makes obsolete by level 5 or a rogue being as good at sneaking as a bard is?

Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks dominate social checks because they aren’t MAD like a Paladin (or a CHA rogue) is, plus spells enhance social success, spells Martials don’t have.

Exploration? Druids and Wizards trump rangers and rogues. Pass without trace, silence and invisibility do everything stealth can do. A couple of flying summons or a spell bypasses difficult overland terrain, and polymorph or wildshape takes care of the rest.

And fighters, monks and barbarians aren’t doing much exploring. Not mechanically.

This is the real issue. You can talk about combat optimization and prove a fighter can produce 10 more points of damage, on average, over an adventuring day. But while they might take that edge, in the rest of the game they’re miles behind

Nothing in the rules suggests that 1 player 1 check is how the social pillar is supposed to work. That's a choice the DM is making. They can very easily make a different choice and make the social pillar more inclusive.

As for exploration, it's all about party choices of where to go. Do we go down the left hallway or the right one, do we go through the shorter but more dangerous mountain path or do we take the long route. If the martials don't get a say on those sorts of decisions that's not a problem with the rules.

[Gignere]

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.

18 shots over two rounds is so unimpressive at level 20 when any wizard can chain simulacrums for basically infinite attacks over 2 rounds.

If chained simulacrum is too cheesy the wizard can just simulacrum the same fighter, and get the same exact number of attacks and still have his own actions over the same 2 rounds.

[tokek]

18 shots over two rounds is so unimpressive at level 20 when any wizard can chain simulacrums for basically infinite attacks over 2 rounds.

I've never played a game where that is permitted and I never expect to. Its so clearly an un-fun exploit that I can't imagine why any DM would permit it.

So its an interesting case but not relevant to any game I'm going to play.

[Gignere]

I've never played a game where that is permitted and I never expect to. Its so clearly an un-fun exploit that I can't imagine why any DM would permit it.

So its an interesting case but not relevant to any game I'm going to play.

Any wizard could also just simulacrum said fighter, and exceed that fighter’s DPR over two rounds because the wizard would have his/her own damage on top of said simulacrum.

[Psyren]

The very few times I've reached a level where Simulacrum was a thing, it was almost immediately banned.

Beyond that I agree with Ludic's math as always.


I would caution against taking self reported sales as a metric of what people want.

Your caution is noted, but it's not (https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/50387/wotc-sold-over-950-million-tabletop-games-2021) self-reported. (https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/48851/top-5-roleplaying-games-spring-2021)


Thanks for this.

I think for point 1 I would just ask why can't these concepts be better done from the martial side. I'm not sure these concepts require a full blown spellcaster with equal proficiencies in armor/weapons/attacks.

For point 2, there is some truth to this, but also not. Once you have proficiencies, you have the proficiencies. A level 3 Valor Bard has armor and shield proficiencies and martial weapons, very similar to a dex fighter, and the bard will have that going forward. Similarly,cantrips don't require slots, and casters take War Caster just as much for the boost to Concentration checks, so it's not exactly a an opportunity cost to have a dangerous OA. But if you are casting spells to achieve some of these results, then yes, there is an opportunity cost.

For point 3 well... I mean that's an assumption people make for whatever reason. There is no intrinsic need for martials to be "simple" or "simpler" than casters. It seems from what I read of Riddle of Steel you can easily make a very in depth martial combat system.

I do think that D&D has a mega focus on "gishes" and I'll probably never understand it but I take your point that gishes are an important part of the game.

I'm inclined to agree.

Agreed.

I can second this. D&D is the only ttrpg I know, and I've played through 3rd, 4th, and now 5th. That said, I may give earlier editions and/or Riddle of Steel a shot.

This is true, and Psyren made the same point. But it also depends on the build and concept. If we look at the Arcana Cleric Frontliner, Booming Blade is gained through a class feature. War Caster is just generally a good feat for casters. Medium Armor and Shields is already on the class. The Celestial Generalist is also using native features to frontline and doesn't seem to require a huge expenditure to perform.

What I'm getting from this is you seem to want martial prowess to require as much build investment as spellcasting prowess. Is that right? Currently the only things that arguably need significant investment are the fourth attack from Fighter 11 and the fifth from Fighter 20; everything else (weapon and armor proficiencies, fighting styles, ways to attack with your bonus action etc) don't have much of a barrier for entry, and most of the other classes are on par with Fighter's DPR anyway even without 5 attacks.


Strong disagree with the "magic can justify anything narratively" idea. If magic is a narrative cheat code, then the narrative makes no sense. Limits and boundaries give the narrative shape and provide coherence. If it's just "LOL magic", then it all falls apart.

This is the core issue with D&D magic--there are no "magic cannot"s. The only limits are on what there has been a spell written for so far. And that's an ever-receding boundary. Martials are inherently limited; magic must be as well, otherwise there can never be any semblance of balance. Or make everything purely magic and throw away any kind of meaningful setting or narrative.

I think what is more important than "magic cannots" are "spellcasting cannots." That is where the limits make sense - things like spell slots, spells known/preparations and components are all meaningful limitations on a caster. Magic might be able to do anything, but the caster's own facility with using it is the barrier.

[RSP]

I've never played a game where that is permitted and I never expect to. Its so clearly an un-fun exploit that I can't imagine why any DM would permit it.

So its an interesting case but not relevant to any game I'm going to play.

If you’re in a tier 4 game, I imagine such tactics are expected more often than not.

If a DM doesn’t want to have high level caster abilities in their game, they can either ban those classes, or not play at that level.

[tokek]

If you’re in a tier 4 game, I imagine such tactics are expected more often than not.

If a DM doesn’t want to have high level caster abilities in their game, they can either ban those classes, or not play at that level.

If even AL outright bans it then I'm not expecting to run into it.

Your games may differ.

[diplomancer]

If you’re in a tier 4 game, I imagine such tactics are expected more often than not.

If a DM doesn’t want to have high level caster abilities in their game, they can either ban those classes, or not play at that level.

Having 1 Simulacrum in high-level play? Yes, totally expected. Having Wish-Simulacrum chains? No. Pretty much every DM bans that (and HAS to if he wants to play at that tier), but that doesn't mean that he's banning Wizards and Bards. He's just banning one stupid rules exploit.

[Gignere]

Having 1 Simulacrum in high-level play? Yes, totally expected. Having Wish-Simulacrum chains? No. Pretty much every DM bans that (and HAS to if he wants to play at that tier), but that doesn't mean that he's banning Wizards and Bards. He's just banning one stupid rules exploit.

However with 1 simulacrum a wizard will exceed the single target DPR of any martial class as long as the target of simulacrum is DPR king of the group.

[diplomancer]

However with 1 simulacrum a wizard will exceed the single target DPR of any martial class as long as the target of simulacrum is DPR king of the group.

But who's adding the DPR in this case? The Wizard, or the DPR king? ;)

It's a party game. Enjoy the ride.

[tokek]

Having 1 Simulacrum in high-level play? Yes, totally expected. Having Wish-Simulacrum chains? No. Pretty much every DM bans that (and HAS to if he wants to play at that tier), but that doesn't mean that he's banning Wizards and Bards. He's just banning one stupid rules exploit.

Exactly. There are specific ways to ban it and if a DM is struggling then they can always just look at how AL chose to ban it for inspiration.


I mean if we are allowing every dumb exploit in the game then everyone can do everything in the game because they all have multiple rings of wishes and decks of many things. Right? That's the only sort of game I can imagine where infinite simulacrum would even be considered.

[tokek]

But who's adding the DPR in this case? The Wizard, or the DPR king? ;)

It's a party game. Enjoy the ride.

Yes this is teamwork in action. Both players get to feel awesome.

[Brookshw]

Yes this is teamwork in action. Both players get to feel awesome.

Hmmm,... would I feel awesome if you could do everything I can do, plus everything you can do? :smallconfused:

[diplomancer]

Hmmm,... would I feel awesome if you could do everything I can do, plus everything you can do? :smallconfused:

But this is not happening without your consent (unless you have really screwed up party dynamics)

[Brookshw]

But this is not happening without your consent (unless you have really screwed up party dynamics)

Consent that something is in the best interest of the party is not the same as feeling awesome for being marginalized.

[Psyren]

If you’re in a tier 4 game, I imagine such tactics are expected more often than not.

If a DM doesn’t want to have high level caster abilities in their game, they can either ban those classes, or not play at that level.

Oh come off it. You can play high level games without Simulacrum just fine, as AL can attest. It's the most broken spell in the game.

[diplomancer]

Consent that something is in the best interest of the party is not the same as feeling awesome for being marginalized.

But you're not being marginalized. Out of the whole multiverse of creatures the caster could have created a simulacrum from, he chose you. I don't see that as an insult or even as a problem. But if you DO see it as a problem, just tell your Wizard "please don't do this". If he insists on doing it even then, you have bigger problems.

[Gignere]

Oh come off it. You can play high level games without Simulacrum just fine, as AL can attest. It's the most broken spell in the game.

I mean doesn’t this settle the thread that casters can do everything unless DM steps in or caster players hold back.

[Brookshw]

But you're not being marginalized. Out of the whole multiverse of creatures the caster could have created a simulacrum from, he chose you. I don't see that as an insult or even as a problem. But if you DO see it as a problem, just tell your Wizard "please don't do this". If he insists on doing it even then, you have bigger problems.

That a wizard has the ability to marginalize another character with a single spell is more the issue, i.e., your PC is the equivalent to me of a spell I just need to cast once. That marginalizes, however you may feel about it. Agreed there could be a potential out of game (or, possibly, in game) conflict.

Personally, I just ask my players not to abuse it and that works fine. Best use I ever saw was running their shop while they were off adventuring.

[Psyren]

I mean doesn’t this settle the thread that casters can do everything unless DM steps in or caster players hold back.

I wasn't aware that every caster in the game was a wizard.

[Gignere]

I wasn't aware that every caster in the game was a wizard.

Nearly every full caster has subclasses except for the Druid to either get simulacrum or wish. Bards can nab it via magical secrets, arcana clerics can get it, genie locks can get wish, so yeah basically casters can do everything.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Unfortunately, outside of combat is not a team game.

Social interactions are frequently a one player, one check affair, as is exploration.

And what do martials meaningfully add to those pillars anyway? The handful of ranger powers a druid makes obsolete by level 5 or a rogue being as good at sneaking as a bard is?

Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks dominate social checks because they arenÂ’t MAD like a Paladin (or a CHA rogue) is, plus spells enhance social success, spells Martials donÂ’t have.

Exploration? Druids and Wizards trump rangers and rogues. Pass without trace, silence and invisibility do everything stealth can do. A couple of flying summons or a spell bypasses difficult overland terrain, and polymorph or wildshape takes care of the rest.

And fighters, monks and barbarians arenÂ’t doing much exploring. Not mechanically.

This is the real issue. You can talk about combat optimization and prove a fighter can produce 10 more points of damage, on average, over an adventuring day. But while they might take that edge, in the rest of the game theyÂ’re miles behind

I guess if you reduce social interactions and exploration to one die roll for the group, you are correct. So don't do that.

A good social or exploration adventure should approach the nuance and length that a good fight has. That is to say, everyone participates and has the opportunity to advance the party's interest.

Let me sketch out a social interaction that describes what I mean. The party is at a local noble's court, trying to convince the Baroness that her neighbor has come under the influence of a cult. Casting a spell in such a situation would be seen as a dreadful faux pas at best and an attack at worst. The party's Bard takes up the argument but is immediately opposed by a Courtier who is a diplomat herself. Party members can (skillfully or not) support the Bard's arguments, throw some dust on the Courtier's or find another path altogether.

I'm sure you can find better examples, but again, the goal is to make the other pillars complex, interesting and not a timeout for everyone else while the "face" palavers.

[Psyren]

Nearly every full caster has subclasses except for the Druid to either get simulacrum or wish. Bards can nab it via magical secrets, arcana clerics can get it, genie locks can get wish, so yeah basically casters can do everything.

Oh wow, you mean Wish is powerful, I had no idea!

I don't actually care. Very few games even make it to 13th level (much less higher), and banning or using the AL modifications to such spells is perfectly reasonable.

[Athan Artilliam]

I guess if you reduce social interactions and exploration to one die roll for the group, you are correct. So don't do that.

A good social or exploration adventure should approach the nuance and length that a good fight has. That is to say, everyone participates and has the opportunity to advance the party's interest.

Let me sketch out a social interaction that describes what I mean. The party is at a local noble's court, trying to convince the Baroness that her neighbor has come under the influence of a cult. Casting a spell in such a situation would be seen as a dreadful faux pas at best and an attack at worst. The party's Bard takes up the argument but is immediately opposed by a Courtier who is a diplomat herself. Party members can (skillfully or not) support the Bard's arguments, throw some dust on the Courtier's or find another path altogether.

I'm sure you can find better examples, but again, the goal is to make the other pillars complex, interesting and not a timeout for everyone else while the "face" palavers.

Tell me what mechanics they are using? Perhaps at best a handful of binary skill checks? Or possibly non mechanical role play? Did the barbarian use a Insult Maneuver to Break the Composure of the Courtier? Was the Bard channeling a Reasonable Defense? Did the Wizard perhaps Threaten to Litigate if the Courtier Breached Etiquette? Did anyone even think to Summon Witnesses?

Oh wait... those actions don't exist in the game... roll Diplomancy three times & tell me what you get.

[Sorinth]

Tell me what mechanics they are using? Perhaps at best a handful of binary skill checks? Or possibly non mechanical role play? Did the barbarian use a Insult Maneuver to Break the Composure of the Courtier? Was the Bard channeling a Reasonable Defense? Did the Wizard perhaps Threaten to Litigate if the Courtier Breached Etiquette? Did anyone even think to Summon Witnesses?

Oh wait... those actions don't exist in the game... roll Diplomancy three times & tell me what you get.

Not sure if your being serious here but are you saying that non-mechanical role play shouldn't be able to accomplish anything without a roll being made and that you can only ever accomplish anything of value through a feature or check?

[Athan Artilliam]

Not sure if your being serious here but are you saying that non-mechanical role play shouldn't be able to accomplish anything without a roll being made and that you can only ever accomplish anything of value through a feature or check?
Neither one

[Witty Username]

Please provide us with the stats of your character, so that we can do the math for you.

Previous offer still stands:

Looks like 20th level Fighter, dex 20.
XBE, Archery style, and sharpshooter using both action surges.
So something like 9 attacks first round, 9 attack second round.
He stated battlemaster but appears to not be using maneuvers for this. Probably I would expect precision attack. Sounds like what his build is.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Nothing in the rules suggests that 1 player 1 check is how the social pillar is supposed to work. That's a choice the DM is making. They can very easily make a different choice and make the social pillar more inclusive.

Nothing in the rules, expect for, of course, the rules: Skill checks are Binary and beyond multiple success/failure mechanics that are loosely sketched in the DMg (and still can simply be the bard or sorcerer making multiple checks), there’s nothing systematically that encourages this.

And Friends, Charm Person, Command, Suggestion, Enthrall, Gift of Gab, Dominate Person, Geas….. those are all rules governing social interactions.

Martials don’t have those rules…



As for exploration, it's all about party choices of where to go. Do we go down the left hallway or the right one, do we go through the shorter but more dangerous mountain path or do we take the long route. If the martials don't get a say on those sorts of decisions that's not a problem with the rules.

Oh, but it is. See, a caster can send its familiar, scry, send a magic floating eyeball, cast augury, etc and figure out if left or right is the better choice. And with that information prepare for that choice.

Martials have no such resources.

And Martials mostly lack the ability to completely bypass the dangerous mountain path (half casters can, with spells, but that’s hardly a point for Martials)

Nothing a martial can do can’t be done better by a caster, or sooner, which is a problem.


I mean doesn’t this settle the thread that casters can do everything unless DM steps in or caster players hold back.

It certainly does.


I guess if you reduce social interactions and exploration to one die roll for the group, you are correct. So don't do that.

Don’t call for a persuasion check when the bard tries to convince the guard to let them free?

Don’t roll a deception check when the warlock lies to the ogre?

Lots of interactions are short. And even extended ones don’t recommend themselves for having the CHA 8 intimidation fighter be involved. Or even the fighter with 15 CHA and a feat spent to get expertise. The Bard or Warlock will still do better with multiple checks while the fighter keeps their mouth shut.

This is a problem with social checks in this edition (and previous ones)


A good social or exploration adventure should approach the nuance and length that a good fight has. That is to say, everyone participates and has the opportunity to advance the party's interest.

It should. Too bad the Martials don’t have a toolkit to have that happen the way casters do. This is the grievance.

Martials don’t have social powers. Casters do. If casters sucked in combat, this might be a different issue. But they don’t. They excel in combat, and embarrass Martials in the social and exploration pillars.


Let me sketch out a social interaction that describes what I mean. The party is at a local noble's court, trying to convince the Baroness that her neighbor has come under the influence of a cult. Casting a spell in such a situation would be seen as a dreadful faux pas at best and an attack at worst. The party's Bard takes up the argument but is immediately opposed by a Courtier who is a diplomat herself. Party members can (skillfully or not) support the Bard's arguments, throw some dust on the Courtier's or find another path altogether.

I'm sure you can find better examples, but again, the goal is to make the other pillars complex, interesting and not a timeout for everyone else while the "face" palavers.

Why would casting a spell that reveals the cultists be a faux pas? (Scry) or one that makes the Bard get advantage on their CHA checks (Enhance Ability)? Or a cleric sanctifying a zone of truth to confirm what the bard says is not a lie?

Do Martials have tools like this?

Or if you made a faux pas, the gift of gab corrects that without committing a faux pas…

And the rest of the party supporting the bard simply recommends more casters: a Wizard with a expertise in History using legend lore and Fox’s cunning, a warlock with Eagle’s splendour and Expertise in deception presenting a convincing illusion of the cultists, a cleric with Owl’s Wisdom using their expertise in insight to see through the diplomat’s speech.

All these casters will perform better than Martials will. Because of their toolbox.

What tools do Martials have? I suppose Rogues and fighters can sacrifice feats to be competitive in this arena (though this weakens their combat effectiveness).

All told, spells create a massive inventory of abilities for casters to dominate outside of combat, while the skill rules hardly favour the Martials (especially with Bards being full casters)

[Rukelnikov]

Tell me what mechanics they are using? Perhaps at best a handful of binary skill checks? Or possibly non mechanical role play? Did the barbarian use a Insult Maneuver to Break the Composure of the Courtier? Was the Bard channeling a Reasonable Defense? Did the Wizard perhaps Threaten to Litigate if the Courtier Breached Etiquette? Did anyone even think to Summon Witnesses?

Oh wait... those actions don't exist in the game... roll Diplomancy three times & tell me what you get.

I'm glad dnd doesn't work like that, I've played WoD for more than 20 years, every time a new edition comes out, wwe try the "diplomacy" rules, they've never stuck, they go against what rping is.

[Sorinth]

Neither one

So then what, you agree with @Mr. Wonderful that there's no need to simply reduce everything to a roll (Or series of rolls) and that you can contribute without needing a feature or to be skilled in the necessary skill? If not then maybe you can elaborate.

[Pex]

It's really tiring to hear people talk about GWM in damage comparison conversations without providing their accuracy, or any other relevant variables that would actually allow a mathematical comparison to happen.

No, it's not a negligible thing to mention. For example, 3 vanilla GWM attacks with max proficiency and 20 Strength against AC 19 might do 66 damage on hit, or over 150 damage on lucky fluke day... but it's just ~27 DPR.

For perspective, that's about as much damage as a level 1 Magic Missile + Empowered Evocation, which is only 25.5 average damage on hit, but never misses.

Of course, martial damage can get a lot higher than that, and hopefully just as obviously, so can casters. The point is that "damage assuming all hits" numbers don't mean much of anything, especially when talking about GWM.


Reading through the last page or two, Ludic has a point here.

Damage ceilings are great in cool stories. Yeah, it's awesome that you hit all your attacks when using GWM, critted half of them and then proceeded to roll 5s and 6s in all those greatsword dice. That SS-fueled machine gun-like crossbow Action Surge turn where you hit all the attacks was amazing.

Hell, I have a story too! I surprised the enemies, threw that upcast 5th-level fireball, hit six of them at once, they all failed their saves, and I rolled 54 damage to boot.

What the above examples all have in common is that they're not indicative of anything. Lucky nova rounds, crit streaks, rolling way above average on damage, all enemies failing saves they had a 50% chance of making, they're good stories, but they're not good for judging builds.

The point of my anecdote was the telling that martials get to have their place in the sun in combat since that was the worry I was responding to. For a moment of nova he achieved supernova killing the BBEG in one round from full health. On a regular basis he is our top damage dealer even with all the misses that happen whether he uses great weapon master or not. Everyone in the party contributes in their way. He does not have a conniption fit when the druid becomes a t-rex. He does not cry in despair because the cleric banishes a creature. He is not a superfluous waste of space.

[Brookshw]

Nothing a martial can do can’t be done better by a caster, or sooner, which is a problem.


Ehhh. Despite all the times we talk about it on the boards, and about balance, I can say with all honesty it's rarely a problem at the table. YMMV.

[MrCharlie]

For my two cents onto the core issue here...

I've recently begun playing a lot of other systems, and what impressed me most is how ingrained to the core DnD's problem here is. If you compare something like starfinder, you find that while magic is as convenient and some spells are even on similar scales of power, it's not problematic because the setting itself provides an out. Yes, the mystic can cast fireball, but the soldier can cast guided missile launcher with high yield plasma warheads. And the missiles are just better, actually.

DnD by design does not have that out. A fighter can't pull out some tech item to match magic, because tech does not exist. Magic is highly developed and has a broad base of power, but technology doesn't, and the fighter is trying to keep up anyway.

This wouldn't be a problem if the system was made so that, y'know, stabbing people were lethal and spellcasting were difficult to do, but spellcasting is often faster than stabbing someone and you have to stab someone over and over against to do anything.

Systems exist with solutions to these issues, but the setting is built for it. A grim-realism setting like Conan can institute combat such that a single hit that gets past armor is instantly a lethal threat, and the wizard requires three minutes and a child sacrifice to cast fireball. This works because in the root story magic is arguably an evil, and the solution is swords.

But DnD isn't about that. In DnD's root stories, farmlad the sixth, who does not have magic but is introduced to a world of it, is going to adopt magic and make it his own. In modern DnD that's a sucker move because it's an inefficient multiclass. DnD lets you play as Belgarath, but Belgarion is a loser who just wasted his fighter levels.

Hence DnD is not made for the setting it tries to emulate. In the setting it seeks to emulate, magic is the only game in town because that's the point. The hero is introduced to magic, adopts it, and uses it. Fighters without magic are NPCs, not a vital part of the party dynamic. When you realize that the caster/martial dynamic has existed since forever (although casters were at least made of paper pre 3.0), it's entirely possible that DnD doesn't work on some fundamental level.

Given that 5e is very well cognizant of this problem and didn't fix it, and 4e's videogamey solution was hated, maybe it's time to accept that this is a fundamental problem with DnD's setting that has no solution. Maybe it's time to accept that no class is non-magical, martials are NPCs, and the "martial" PC is a magic knight and the "caster" PC is a magic scholar, but they are all magic.

[Amechra]

So then what, you agree with @Mr. Wonderful that there's no need to simply reduce everything to a roll (Or series of rolls) and that you can contribute without needing a feature or to be skilled in the necessary skill? If not then maybe you can elaborate.

Honestly, while letting people get through social encounters through pure RP and real-world social skills sounds good, it all falls apart if you have a player who wants to play someone more socially adept than they are. And, like... "you can contribute without needing a feature or to be skilled in the necessary skill" is the case literally nowhere else in D&D. Your Wizard doesn't get to do cool stuff with a greatsword just because you do a lot of HEMA stuff on the weekends, or climb up a wall just because you're an avid rock climber, so why should Social Steven over there effectively get a free set of skills on his Fighter just because he can talk pretty in real life?

[Pex]

For my two cents onto the core issue here...

I've recently begun playing a lot of other systems, and what impressed me most is how ingrained to the core DnD's problem here is. If you compare something like starfinder, you find that while magic is as convenient and some spells are even on similar scales of power, it's not problematic because the setting itself provides an out. Yes, the mystic can cast fireball, but the soldier can cast guided missile launcher with high yield plasma warheads. And the missiles are just better, actually.

DnD by design does not have that out. A fighter can't pull out some tech item to match magic, because tech does not exist. Magic is highly developed and has a broad base of power, but technology doesn't, and the fighter is trying to keep up anyway.

This wouldn't be a problem if the system was made so that, y'know, stabbing people were lethal and spellcasting were difficult to do, but spellcasting is often faster than stabbing someone and you have to stab someone over and over against to do anything.

Systems exist with solutions to these issues, but the setting is built for it. A grim-realism setting like Conan can institute combat such that a single hit that gets past armor is instantly a lethal threat, and the wizard requires three minutes and a child sacrifice to cast fireball. This works because in the root story magic is arguably an evil, and the solution is swords.

But DnD isn't about that. In DnD's root stories, farmlad the sixth, who does not have magic but is introduced to a world of it, is going to adopt magic and make it his own. In modern DnD that's a sucker move because it's an inefficient multiclass. DnD lets you play as Belgarath, but Belgarion is a loser who just wasted his fighter levels.

Hence DnD is not made for the setting it tries to emulate. In the setting it seeks to emulate, magic is the only game in town because that's the point. The hero is introduced to magic, adopts it, and uses it. Fighters without magic are NPCs, not a vital part of the party dynamic. When you realize that the caster/martial dynamic has existed since forever (although casters were at least made of paper pre 3.0), it's entirely possible that DnD doesn't work on some fundamental level.

Given that 5e is very well cognizant of this problem and didn't fix it, and 4e's videogamey solution was hated, maybe it's time to accept that this is a fundamental problem with DnD's setting that has no solution. Maybe it's time to accept that no class is non-magical, martials are NPCs, and the "martial" PC is a magic knight and the "caster" PC is a magic scholar, but they are all magic.

Even accepting the issue, you don't fix it by making swordplay easy-peasy lethal deadly killing while magic can't do anything before the combat is over if you don't kill yourself while trying to do it. You're just reversing the problem.

[Sorinth]

For my two cents onto the core issue here...

I've recently begun playing a lot of other systems, and what impressed me most is how ingrained to the core DnD's problem here is. If you compare something like starfinder, you find that while magic is as convenient and some spells are even on similar scales of power, it's not problematic because the setting itself provides an out. Yes, the mystic can cast fireball, but the soldier can cast guided missile launcher with high yield plasma warheads. And the missiles are just better, actually.

That's the thing, D&D can't really provide an "out" in the setting because it's meant to be used in a multitude of different settings. Magic in particular is hard to handle because the setting might be a Tolkien-like setting where magic is rare and not at all flashy but it also might be an MTG world where everyone is firing off big spells.

My personal take is that you need to move full spellcasters to be more in line with the Warlock, and to support the generalist wizard you'd have to go with something like a half/three-quarter caster. So if you want to be that flashy planeswalker inspired mage you have a limited spell selection and very limited spells per day. If you want that versatile I have a spell for every occasion you lose out on higher power stuff. But perhaps an easier solution would be to have the wizard spell list be based on subclass, so if you are an Evoker you have mostly only evocation spells, so you won't get the high level non-evocation spells, but that would require balancing the spell schools which is a lot of work.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, while letting people get through social encounters through pure RP and real-world social skills sounds good, it all falls apart if you have a player who wants to play someone more socially adept than they are. And, like... "you can contribute without needing a feature or to be skilled in the necessary skill" is the case literally nowhere else in D&D. Your Wizard doesn't get to do cool stuff with a greatsword just because you do a lot of HEMA stuff on the weekends, or climb up a wall just because you're an avid rock climber, so why should Social Steven over there effectively get a free set of skills on his Fighter just because he can talk pretty in real life?

That's not something limited to social encounters. If I make a master tactician character and I'm not good at the tactical wargame stuff I'll make mistakes that a warfare genius shouldn't.

At least with social the DM has leeway to take into account the player and adjust, and they should. A socially awkward player who makes a smooth talking con-man character should be able to talk their way past people without needing to roll or even have convincing RP, and it's perfectly reasonable to haw the low charisma barbarian auto-fail or need to roll that same situation even if they do a good RP job.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would drop the school focus and balance around themes. Like "elemental blaster" or "Mesmer" or "war mage". The 8 schools are just legacy baggage at this point, hollow shells of anything meaningful.

[Dr.Samurai]

The point I am trying to make is, from personal experience, even the casters who chase the single target DPR playstyle don't actually do as much damage over even just one session as as Fighty McFighterson 12Barb/4 Fighter.

And they did it by sacrificing character resources they could have been spending on things Casters are known to be good at.

As to balance, I completely agree with all of you and martials and casters are not balanced. The only point I've been trying to make here is Martials are naturally good at Single Target DPR and can easily reach a peak that casters cannot reach (in response to the Casters can do literally everything thesis of the thread).
So let me clarify here; I don't think "everything" has to include "peak performance".

Firstly, I don't know what peak performance is. Pex's anecdote sounded very unlikely, and sure enough it went from "this is what martials do, they one-shot BBEGs" to "of course it was a lucky fluke". I don't know what caster peak damage is, and if it can be done alongside of wading into combat, but it's not really the point.

"Casters can do everything" was not meant to mean "Casters can perform at 130% in every role". The question is more "should they be able to do all the things they can do with spells, and also wade into melee combat and not be concerned with taking damage and everything else that comes with being in melee".

Over the same two rounds my Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Battlemaster has shot eight times with his +1 hand crossbow.

8d6 + 128 damage.

He has better accuracy thanks to maneuvers and Archery Fighting Style.

He maintains concentration on nothing.

Oh, wait, this is high level, my apologies. I thought you meant at 8th level. 18 shots over two rounds then, you do the math.
This appears to be the gold standard of martials I guess, because the same thing happened in the "Barbarians are frontloaded thread". We're talking about comparisons, and this thread in particular is about wading into melee combat. But when the inevitable comparison comes, it's always with a hand crossbow fighter. Something that exists in like... Diablo 2?

Should casters be able to tank hits in melee combat? Well, fighters can deal a lot of damage with hand crossbows!

... ok...

He still doesn't cry when the druid becomes a t-rex.
This isn't an argument Pex, just a bad faith interpretation of the discussion.

If you are a fan of the martials, and are looking for a good combat system... yes. There are not many RPGs that work so well on this front as this one does.

There are also few "descendant" systems (Blade of the Iron Throne, Band of Blades, Song of Swords) that took basics and did few reworks (e.g. BoIT has actually a nice sorcery system, and interesting rework of damage system; Band of Blades did ditch my favourite combat mechanic - initiative throw - something that made the game really fun), that are relatively alive.

The unfortunate thing is editing: while the system is great, the rules have a lot of holes (e.g. the core rules do not describe in full how to deal with combat of multiple persons...). Also, the best way to play is to use a specific combination of rules from the 3 rulebooks + add the magic system from BoIT. And that's a lot of work.

So if you decide to go for it, I'd gladly assist in any way I can. There's never enough fans of this hidden gem of martial combat .
Thank you Lacco. I'm a HUGE fan of martials. I will keep this in mind :).

What I'm getting from this is you seem to want martial prowess to require as much build investment as spellcasting prowess. Is that right? Currently the only things that arguably need significant investment are the fourth attack from Fighter 11 and the fifth from Fighter 20; everything else (weapon and armor proficiencies, fighting styles, ways to attack with your bonus action etc) don't have much of a barrier for entry, and most of the other classes are on par with Fighter's DPR anyway even without 5 attacks.
Well, that would be nice. I wouldn't mind a more complex melee combat system, but I recognize D&D wants to get simpler (spells aside).

It's more that I want some respect to be had for martials. The intent of this thread is not to say, as some of the other comments seem to be saying, "casters can send their familiars to scout ahead, martials can't do that, casters can cast Friends or Suggestion, martials can't do that, etc etc".

It's more to say, shouldn't martials have some things that remain the sole purview of martials? If casters can scout better because they have Invisibility and familiars and Pass Without Trace, and casters can do Social better because they have spells that can assist and the ability scores to help, why can't martials just strictly be better wading into melee combat? Why does every caster need subclass features and spells that allow them to also wade into combat and tank hits and be super defensive?

For my two cents onto the core issue here...

I've recently begun playing a lot of other systems, and what impressed me most is how ingrained to the core DnD's problem here is. If you compare something like starfinder, you find that while magic is as convenient and some spells are even on similar scales of power, it's not problematic because the setting itself provides an out. Yes, the mystic can cast fireball, but the soldier can cast guided missile launcher with high yield plasma warheads. And the missiles are just better, actually.

DnD by design does not have that out. A fighter can't pull out some tech item to match magic, because tech does not exist. Magic is highly developed and has a broad base of power, but technology doesn't, and the fighter is trying to keep up anyway.

This wouldn't be a problem if the system was made so that, y'know, stabbing people were lethal and spellcasting were difficult to do, but spellcasting is often faster than stabbing someone and you have to stab someone over and over against to do anything.

Systems exist with solutions to these issues, but the setting is built for it. A grim-realism setting like Conan can institute combat such that a single hit that gets past armor is instantly a lethal threat, and the wizard requires three minutes and a child sacrifice to cast fireball. This works because in the root story magic is arguably an evil, and the solution is swords.

But DnD isn't about that. In DnD's root stories, farmlad the sixth, who does not have magic but is introduced to a world of it, is going to adopt magic and make it his own. In modern DnD that's a sucker move because it's an inefficient multiclass. DnD lets you play as Belgarath, but Belgarion is a loser who just wasted his fighter levels.

Hence DnD is not made for the setting it tries to emulate. In the setting it seeks to emulate, magic is the only game in town because that's the point. The hero is introduced to magic, adopts it, and uses it. Fighters without magic are NPCs, not a vital part of the party dynamic. When you realize that the caster/martial dynamic has existed since forever (although casters were at least made of paper pre 3.0), it's entirely possible that DnD doesn't work on some fundamental level.

Given that 5e is very well cognizant of this problem and didn't fix it, and 4e's videogamey solution was hated, maybe it's time to accept that this is a fundamental problem with DnD's setting that has no solution. Maybe it's time to accept that no class is non-magical, martials are NPCs, and the "martial" PC is a magic knight and the "caster" PC is a magic scholar, but they are all magic.
I think you're right, and others have said it before as well. D&D seems to have a certain attitude toward casters vs noncasters. And it seems to have been some sort of switch between 1st/2nd and 3rd and beyond (well, 4th is an outlier obviously).

[tokek]

This discussion seems to have gone down the rabbit-hole of "Character with Wish can do what they Wish" - which is to an extent true but how many games does this actually cause problems in?

Its not like there is only one way to access Wishes in tier 4.

I'm going to say this again : there are more magic items in the game than spells. Any discussion that ignores the existence of magic items is unrealistic for any game that I have ever played - and I've been playing this game a very long time. If your DM allows high level spells but not high level magic items then its the DM that has unbalanced the game at that table.

[Athan Artilliam]

So then what, you agree with @Mr. Wonderful that there's no need to simply reduce everything to a roll (Or series of rolls) and that you can contribute without needing a feature or to be skilled in the necessary skill? If not then maybe you can elaborate.

No. Stop trying to frame my argument & take the information at its face.

I agree with Amechra & Dr Murgunstrum

[Unoriginal]

This discussion seems to have gone down the rabbit-hole of "Character with Wish can do what they Wish" - which is to an extent true but how many games does this actually cause problems in?

Its not like there is only one way to access Wishes in tier 4.

IMO, the Wish spell is too limited for the "characters with Wish can do what they Wish" statementto be accurate.

[Rukelnikov]

Don’t call for a persuasion check when the bard tries to convince the guard to let them free?

Don’t roll a deception check when the warlock lies to the ogre?

Lots of interactions are short. And even extended ones don’t recommend themselves for having the CHA 8 intimidation fighter be involved. Or even the fighter with 15 CHA and a feat spent to get expertise. The Bard or Warlock will still do better with multiple checks while the fighter keeps their mouth shut.

This is a problem with social checks in this edition (and previous ones)

There's something to be said about this kind of reasoning (a lot tbh).

The terms, Combat as Sport and Combat as War are often seen in threads about stuff that breaks the game. While the stuff being argued about may indeed be OP in a CaW mindset, often its fine for play in a CaS mindset.

And that doesn't only apply to combat. The game as a whole is designed to be... a game. It's expected from players to be playing with the idea of having fun. The game approached as "what's the most effective way to interact with this ogre" is a Wargame, not a Roleplaying game. In a Roleplaying game, if it would be in character for the fighter to talk to the ogre, they would do so.

So while I acknowledge that "the most effective way" may be having every PC be a bot, Roleplaying is not about going for "the most effective way", that's a strategy game.

[LudicSavant]

For my two cents onto the core issue here...

I've recently begun playing a lot of other systems, and what impressed me most is how ingrained to the core DnD's problem here is. If you compare something like starfinder, you find that while magic is as convenient and some spells are even on similar scales of power, it's not problematic because the setting itself provides an out. Yes, the mystic can cast fireball, but the soldier can cast guided missile launcher with high yield plasma warheads. And the missiles are just better, actually.

DnD by design does not have that out. A fighter can't pull out some tech item to match magic, because tech does not exist. Magic is highly developed and has a broad base of power, but technology doesn't, and the fighter is trying to keep up anyway.

This wouldn't be a problem if the system was made so that, y'know, stabbing people were lethal and spellcasting were difficult to do, but spellcasting is often faster than stabbing someone and you have to stab someone over and over against to do anything.

Systems exist with solutions to these issues, but the setting is built for it. A grim-realism setting like Conan can institute combat such that a single hit that gets past armor is instantly a lethal threat, and the wizard requires three minutes and a child sacrifice to cast fireball. This works because in the root story magic is arguably an evil, and the solution is swords.

But DnD isn't about that. In DnD's root stories, farmlad the sixth, who does not have magic but is introduced to a world of it, is going to adopt magic and make it his own. In modern DnD that's a sucker move because it's an inefficient multiclass. DnD lets you play as Belgarath, but Belgarion is a loser who just wasted his fighter levels.

Hence DnD is not made for the setting it tries to emulate. In the setting it seeks to emulate, magic is the only game in town because that's the point. The hero is introduced to magic, adopts it, and uses it. Fighters without magic are NPCs, not a vital part of the party dynamic. When you realize that the caster/martial dynamic has existed since forever (although casters were at least made of paper pre 3.0), it's entirely possible that DnD doesn't work on some fundamental level.

Given that 5e is very well cognizant of this problem and didn't fix it, and 4e's videogamey solution was hated, maybe it's time to accept that this is a fundamental problem with DnD's setting that has no solution. Maybe it's time to accept that no class is non-magical, martials are NPCs, and the "martial" PC is a magic knight and the "caster" PC is a magic scholar, but they are all magic.

I think there's still an awful lot of untapped design space to give new nice things to martials without them even exceeding the limits of characters like Hawkeye, Link, the Belmonts, or even characters like Legolas or Conan.

I get what you're saying about a "conceptual power limit" but I think we're still quite a ways off from hitting that. Especially when it comes to the versatility of these characters, which I think is a bigger part of the issue than their raw strength.

Even a lot of the stuff already in the game conceptually is just undertuned, or locked into too narrow a path. For example, a Mastermind Rogue can lie even in their thoughts, while people are reading their minds... thus allowing them to spoof Detect Thoughts or the like. Great! But... it's at tier 4, and Detect Thoughts is at tier 1. A Battle Master Fighter can size up an opponent... but the ability is remarkably stingy with information compared to its counterparts in fiction.

[Dr.Samurai]

To Rukelnikov's point, my barbarian doesn't have any social skills, but I still actively engage in social interactions. If the DM calls for an ability check and I fail, it is what it is, but my character isn't going to just sit idly by every time there is a conversation going on.

Similarly, there are some knowledge checks I abstain from rolling for because even if I were to succeed, I don't really think my hunter from the Shaar would have been exposed to that information.

So again, this thread is less about martials matching up to casters in all pillars, and more about whether casters should be able to do the things that martials can do.

[LudicSavant]

So again, this thread is less about martials matching up to casters in all pillars, and more about whether casters should be able to do the things that martials can do.

So it sounds like the question you're asking is about role exclusivity.

I think it's fine to not have role exclusivity. It's fine if a game allows you to build a trapfinder that's not a Rogue, a tank that's not a Fighter, an AoE blaster that's not a Wizard, etc.

[Tanarii]

So again, this thread is less about martials matching up to casters in all pillars, and more about whether casters should be able to do the things that martials can do.
So don't allow Multiclassing, or strip off any armor benefits from multiclassing into other classes (including class features like HA from Cleric domain). And don't allow the Hexblade. That'll solve the majority of the problem.

[Athan Artilliam]

There's something to be said about this kind of reasoning (a lot tbh).

The terms, Combat as Sport and Combat as War are often seen in threads about stuff that breaks the game. While the stuff being argued about may indeed be OP in a CaW mindset, often its fine for play in a CaS mindset.

And that doesn't only apply to combat. The game as a whole is designed to be... a game. It's expected from players to be playing with the idea of having fun. The game approached as "what's the most effective way to interact with this ogre" is a Wargame, not a Roleplaying game. In a Roleplaying game, if it would be in character for the fighter to talk to the ogre, they would do so.

So while I acknowledge that "the most effective way" may be having every PC be a bot, Roleplaying is not about going for "the most effective way", that's a strategy game.

The most effective way, is to have the Wizard Charm it, or the Bard/Warlock use Diplomancy. Combat is the single worst way to handle threats in D&D

[Ganryu]

Honestly, I think the core of the problem is, spells are easy to make. So every new book, new spells are added. Fun toys for martials are not, so there's a bloat problem. Martials tend to be able to get more mileage from feats, and everytime feats are added, you see martial builds catch up a bit. But it's far less common than spells.

Some of the worst offenders from spell casters that have stepped on martial and skill monkey's toes:

Pass without a trace - Stealth check is meaningless
Misty Step - Movement stolen, and get out of jail free card
Shield - +5 to AC is massive
Goodberry - Survival checks
Detect Thoughts - Intimidation/Insight checks
Invisibility - Stealth checks 2, the electric boogaloo
Animate Dead - All action economy
Conjure Animals - All action economy
Comprehend Languages - Any language based difficulties
Silvery Barbs- ... all of the above!

Also, none of these are wish, they are all low level spells.

[tokek]

IMO, the Wish spell is too limited for the "characters with Wish can do what they Wish" statementto be accurate.

I'm not the one making statements that access to Wish inherently unbalances the game because only full casters can access it.

There are more magic items that grant that than there are spells. Its not limited to a small sub-set of classes unless the DM chooses it to be - which is a DM choice.

Or do we just ignore all the pages dedicated to magic items in the game whenever we discuss the game?

[PhantomSoul]

Honestly, I think the core of the problem is, spells are easy to make. So every new book, new spells are added. Fun toys for martials are not, so there's a bloat problem. Martials tend to be able to get more mileage from feats, and everytime feats are added, you see martial builds catch up a bit. But it's far less common than spells.

I think it also goes beyond that (in a way you probably mean to imply, to be fair!): not only are spells easier to make than some martial alternative, but feats as a way to expand martials are way more limited: (a) feats are most easily magic-like if they're to expand your options, based on recent books; (b) feats are far more rare since they're generally only occurring once per four levels and are already in competition with stats [oof!] and other feats; (c) feats aren't as directly level-gated under the current system; (d) feats are optional to begin with; (e) spells can additionally be tied to extra thematic restrictions and interactions [notably spell schools, class lists]; (f) spells scale with slots [vs. proficiency/rest, etc.] and might even benefit from the framework to upcast; and (g) I forget what I was saving for last, so please imagine that it was brilliant.

[Psyren]

It's more that I want some respect to be had for martials. The intent of this thread is not to say, as some of the other comments seem to be saying, "casters can send their familiars to scout ahead, martials can't do that, casters can cast Friends or Suggestion, martials can't do that, etc etc".

Martials can get familiars just fine, and they definitely don't need Friends or Suggestion to be able to convince people to do things. In fact, both of those methods of influencing people have clear drawbacks.


It's more to say, shouldn't martials have some things that remain the sole purview of martials? If casters can scout better because they have Invisibility and familiars and Pass Without Trace, and casters can do Social better because they have spells that can assist and the ability scores to help, why can't martials just strictly be better wading into melee combat? Why does every caster need subclass features and spells that allow them to also wade into combat and tank hits and be super defensive?

They ARE strictly better. They don't need to concentrate on Greater Make Me Not Die In Melee to not die in melee, nor do they need to multiclass into Can Wear Armor And Shields to wear armor and shields.

[Athan Artilliam]

I think it also goes beyond that (in a way you probably mean to imply, to be fair!): not only are spells easier to make than some martial alternative, but feats as a way to expand martials are way more limited: (a) feats are most easily magic-like if they're to expand your options, based on recent books; (b) feats are far more rare since they're generally only occurring once per four levels and are already in competition with stats [oof!] and other feats; (c) feats aren't as directly level-gated under the current system; (d) feats are optional to begin with; (e) spells can additionally be tied to extra thematic restrictions and interactions [notably spell schools, class lists]; (f) spells scale with slots [vs. proficiency/rest, etc.] and might even benefit from the framework to upcast; and (g) I forget what I was saving for last, so please imagine that it was brilliant.

(G) feats cannot be swapped out like spells can
(H) you cannot gain feats to your list with a bit of gold & time

[PhantomSoul]

(G) feats cannot be swapped out like spells can
(H) you cannot gain feats to your list with a bit of gold & time

I greatly appreciate the relay in this race! :)

[Ganryu]

(G) feats cannot be swapped out like spells can
(H) you cannot gain feats to your list with a bit of gold & time
Would be super nice if you could on martials.

[Athan Artilliam]

Martials can get familiars just fine, and they definitely don't need Friends or Suggestion to be able to convince people to do things. In fact, both of those methods of influencing people have clear drawbacks.



They ARE strictly better. They don't need to concentrate on Greater Make Me Not Die In Melee to not die in melee, nor do they need to multiclass into Can Wear Armor And Shields to wear armor and shields.
Hexblades, Clerics, & Druids have no need to multiclass to wear armor, & Consentration is far from an Achilles Heel, when a fighter has literally nothing


I greatly appreciate the relay in this race! :)

Dont mention it :)

[Psyren]

Hexblades, Clerics, & Druids have no need to multiclass to wear armor, & Consentration is far from an Achilles Heel, when a fighter has literally nothing.

In all three cases you're talking about specific subclasses to be strong martials. The opportunity cost there are the other subclasses they could have taken instead. (Not to mention additional restrictions, like Moon Druids not being able to talk while fighting or scouting.)

[Athan Artilliam]

In all three cases you're talking about specific subclasses to be strong martials. The opportunity cost there are the other subclasses they could have taken instead. (Not to mention additional restrictions, like Moon Druids not being able to talk while fighting or scouting.)

And what opportunity cost do martials get to cast spells? Ah yes, they can take a Subclass to gain restricted access (not even full access like the spellcaster can) through Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.

[Psyren]

And what opportunity cost do martials get to cast spells? Ah yes, they can take a Subclass to gain restricted access (not even full access like the spellcaster can) through Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.

If you want to cast spells, choosing not to be a spellcaster is a curious first step.

Most martial players go in knowing that spellcasting is not something they'll need or want to be doing.

[Athan Artilliam]

If you want to [wear armor], choosing not to be a [armored class] is a curious first step.

Most [spellcasting] players go in knowing that [getting into melee] is not something they'll need or want to be doing.

[Psyren]

If you want to [wear armor], choosing not to be a [armored class] is a curious first step.

Most [spellcasting] players go in knowing that [getting into melee] is not something they'll need or want to be doing.

You can pick up "wear armor" with a feat, just like you can pick up casting a spell with a feat.

That spell might be a cantrip, but it's still a spell :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you want to [wear armor], choosing not to be a [armored class] is a curious first step.

Most [spellcasting] players go in knowing that [getting into melee] is not something they'll need or want to be doing.

I agree with both of you.

[Athan Artilliam]

You can pick up "wear armor" with a feat, just like you can pick up casting a spell with a feat.

That spell might be a cantrip, but it's still a spell :smallamused:

So you see the disparity? It's not even a spell slot you could swap, like armor, or upcast like armor can be upgraded

[Witty Username]

Hexblades, Clerics, & Druids have no need to multiclass to wear armor, & Consentration is far from an Achilles Heel, when a fighter has literally nothing



Dont mention it :)

You misspelled concentration.

Concentration isn't about effects that you can have as caster and Fighter. It is about being brought back to basic by enemy damage. Fighters can deal effective damage without concentrating on a spell. Casters generally can't. Spells can only partially make up for this and cost resources.

I would need to check Tasha's again, but I am pretty sure it adds feat swapping.

[Pex]

So let me clarify here; I don't think "everything" has to include "peak performance".

Firstly, I don't know what peak performance is. Pex's anecdote sounded very unlikely, and sure enough it went from "this is what martials do, they one-shot BBEGs" to "of course it was a lucky fluke". I don't know what caster peak damage is, and if it can be done alongside of wading into combat, but it's not really the point.

I never said that's what fighters do. The only point of it was responding to someone else being concerned about martial getting their moment to shine. All I was doing was showing they do. I never advocated they do 300+ damage every combat at high level. We don't need your permission to have a round of 300+ damage. If you think that's impossible that's your problem.


"Casters can do everything" was not meant to mean "Casters can perform at 130% in every role". The question is more "should they be able to do all the things they can do with spells, and also wade into melee combat and not be concerned with taking damage and everything else that comes with being in melee".

That is exactly what people are saying.




This isn't an argument Pex, just a bad faith interpretation of the discussion.

That is what people are saying. Because spellcasters can dish out damage or tank or whatever why play a martial. What I'm saying is despite what ever spellcasters do the fighter is not irrelevant.


Honestly, I think the core of the problem is, spells are easy to make. So every new book, new spells are added. Fun toys for martials are not, so there's a bloat problem. Martials tend to be able to get more mileage from feats, and everytime feats are added, you see martial builds catch up a bit. But it's far less common than spells.

Some of the worst offenders from spell casters that have stepped on martial and skill monkey's toes:

Pass without a trace - Stealth check is meaningless
Misty Step - Movement stolen, and get out of jail free card
Shield - +5 to AC is massive
Goodberry - Survival checks
Detect Thoughts - Intimidation/Insight checks
Invisibility - Stealth checks 2, the electric boogaloo
Animate Dead - All action economy
Conjure Animals - All action economy
Comprehend Languages - Any language based difficulties
Silvery Barbs- ... all of the above!

Also, none of these are wish, they are all low level spells.

Or, what non-spellcasters can do all day long for free just making a skill check spellcasters need to learn the spells, prepare the spells, and use up spell slots to cast them just to do what the muggles can do because they got up in the morning.

[Athan Artilliam]

You misspelled concentration.

Concentration isn't about effects that you can have as caster and Fighter. It is about being brought back to basic by enemy damage. Fighters can deal effective damage without concentrating on a spell. Casters generally can't. Spells can only partially make up for this and cost resources.

I would need to check Tasha's again, but I am pretty sure it adds feat swapping.

Sorry I must have failed my Spellcraft check. Honestly I rely on Spellcheck to grant me advantage but I guess I rolled really bad.

It doesnt matter if a wizard is brought low by a failed Concentration though, the problem is that wizards have X+Int Bonus times a day they can fight better than a fighter, sneak better than a Rogue, talk better than a Paladin, etc. Just saying that you can activate GodMode x number a day as a resource cost & there is a slim chance of it getting deactivated does not counterbalance the ability to activate GodMode in the first place

[Sigreid]

To Rukelnikov's point, my barbarian doesn't have any social skills, but I still actively engage in social interactions. If the DM calls for an ability check and I fail, it is what it is, but my character isn't going to just sit idly by every time there is a conversation going on.

Similarly, there are some knowledge checks I abstain from rolling for because even if I were to succeed, I don't really think my hunter from the Shaar would have been exposed to that information.

So again, this thread is less about martials matching up to casters in all pillars, and more about whether casters should be able to do the things that martials can do.

I personally think it's fair to have modifiers based on the character. For example, the barbarian may have advantage on social interactions with the barbarian tribe or the bard may have disadvantage with that same tribe if they don't respect him as a warrior. Similarly, I may have decided beforehand that a given princess likes/fantasizes about big burley manly men and really isn't into the charming court fop type.

[Ganryu]

Or, what non-spellcasters can do all day long for free just making a skill check spellcasters need to learn the spells, prepare the spells, and use up spell slots to cast them just to do what the muggles can do because they got up in the morning.

I mean... so can spell casters. They can also then do a spell to trivalize most of them afterwards ontop of the same resource martials have.

[Athan Artilliam]

I personally think it's fair to have modifiers based on the character. For example, the barbarian may have advantage on social interactions with the barbarian tribe or the bard may have disadvantage with that same tribe if they don't respect him as a warrior. Similarly, I may have decided beforehand that a given princess likes/fantasizes about big burley manly men and really isn't into the charming court fop type.

But this is arbitrary while a spell is not

[Psyren]

To Rukelnikov's point, my barbarian doesn't have any social skills, but I still actively engage in social interactions. If the DM calls for an ability check and I fail, it is what it is, but my character isn't going to just sit idly by every time there is a conversation going on.

Similarly, there are some knowledge checks I abstain from rolling for because even if I were to succeed, I don't really think my hunter from the Shaar would have been exposed to that information.

So again, this thread is less about martials matching up to casters in all pillars, and more about whether casters should be able to do the things that martials can do.

Your DM can also let you roll Strength (Intimidation) or Dexterity (Performance) etc to be able to participate in interactions as a martial. The PHB and DMG both specifically allow this.


So you see the disparity? It's not even a spell slot you could swap, like armor, or upcast like armor can be upgraded

Working as intended.


Sorry I must have failed my Spellcraft check. Honestly I rely on Spellcheck to grant me advantage but I guess I rolled really bad.

It doesnt matter if a wizard is brought low by a failed Concentration though, the problem is that wizards have X+Int Bonus times a day they can fight better than a fighter, sneak better than a Rogue, talk better than a Paladin, etc. Just saying that you can activate GodMode x number a day as a resource cost & there is a slim chance of it getting deactivated does not counterbalance the ability to activate GodMode in the first place

Components still exist though. "Sneak better than a rogue" is dubious when you have to loudly yell "SNEAK!" before you can do it and it lasts for either a minute, 10 minutes, or an hour depending on what specifically you're doing. And god forbid you need to concentrate on something else or cast a ritual.

[Sorinth]

Nothing in the rules, expect for, of course, the rules: Skill checks are Binary and beyond multiple success/failure mechanics that are loosely sketched in the DMg (and still can simply be the bard or sorcerer making multiple checks), there’s nothing systematically that encourages this.

And Friends, Charm Person, Command, Suggestion, Enthrall, Gift of Gab, Dominate Person, Geas….. those are all rules governing social interactions.

Martials don’t have those rules…

Can you point to the rule and page number where it says skill checks are binary and must be used for every interaction? Because I'm pretty sure my books say it's up to the DM and even have a section in the DMG where they talk about the pros and cons of using the dice too much or too little. There's also a section about degree of success/failure.



Oh, but it is. See, a caster can send its familiar, scry, send a magic floating eyeball, cast augury, etc and figure out if left or right is the better choice. And with that information prepare for that choice.


Martials have no such resources.

And Martials mostly lack the ability to completely bypass the dangerous mountain path (half casters can, with spells, but that’s hardly a point for Martials)

If exploring a dungeon and every time there's a turn they are spending 10 minutes casting Augury the party is setting themselves up for a bad time, giving the denizens that much time to react to the player presence is a disaster waiting to happen.

Casting Arcane Eye to scout is all well and good but there's an opportunity cost to that, if in your games the party can rest whenever they want and so take every situation at full resources and it never matters how slowly they act then you might have a point. I've never seen such a game played though.


Nothing a martial can do can’t be done better by a caster, or sooner, which is a problem.

The thing is you are comparing a martial to every single spellcaster with every single spell prepared and unlimited slots to use those spells. It's not a problem that a wizard can cast arcane eye and scout better then the rogue because if you are doing 100% of your scouting with arcane eye that's a huge cost in resources and can only work in the 5 minute adventure day type games.

[Athan Artilliam]

Working as intended.


The intent is bad. As for the other thing, I dont care that if your GodMode has a duration, it that your actions are slightly limited, it's still wrong.

[Sorinth]

But this is arbitrary while a spell is not

And?

This strikes me as a very adversarial approach to the game where you want/need things that you can rules lawyer the DM into having "success", which fine if that's the way you like to play have fun but for many that's not how they play or would want to play.

[Athan Artilliam]

And?

This strikes me as a very adversarial approach to the game where you want/need things that you can rules lawyer the DM into having "success", which fine if that's the way you like to play have fun but for many that's not how they play or would want to play.

It's not adversarial. The point is that hard mechanics are the only concrete rules one can work with. DM will fall on every possible side of the spectrum so saying "the DM will arbitrate" makes the whole thing arbitrary by literal definition. This isnt about the "winning D&D" mindset. Dont frame my argument into boxes that aren't there.

[Tanarii]

It's not adversarial. The point is that hard mechanics are the only concrete rules one can work with. DM will fall on every possible side of the spectrum so saying "the DM will arbitrate" makes the whole thing arbitrary by literal definition.
Given that 5e was designed around rulings not rules, it may not be the right edition for you.

I know stepping out of 3e and 4e, it took me a long time to get my head around it. I still lapse sometimes, as a mostly recovered rules lawyer.

[Chaos Jackal]

Or, what non-spellcasters can do all day long for free just making a skill check spellcasters need to learn the spells, prepare the spells, and use up spell slots to cast them just to do what the muggles can do because they got up in the morning.

Casters can't make skill checks now? The spells just let them do the stuff better and more reliably, but I'm pretty sure they don't deny them access to the skill system.

[Athan Artilliam]

Given that 5e was designed around rulings not rules, it may not be the right edition for you.

I know stepping out of 3e and 4e, it took me a long time to get my head around it. I still lapse sometimes, as a mostly recovered rules lawyer.

Gatekeeping is wrong on any level.
I'm not even arguing AGAINST 5e in that manner, but even if I was, I am allowed to express my opinion about something even if it WAS negative.

I am saying that relying on arbitration is arbitrary, & trying to say that there isnt a flaw, because it can be arbitrarily fixed, does not actually mean there is no problem

[PhantomSoul]

Gatekeeping is wrong on any level.
I'm not even arguing AGAINST 5e in that manner, but even if I was, I am allowed to express my opinion about something even if it WAS negative.

I am saying that relying on arbitration is arbitrary, & trying to say that there isnt a flaw, because it can be arbitrarily fixed, does not actually mean there is no problem

And the problem is failure to actually make a complete game xD

[Sorinth]

It's not adversarial. The point is that hard mechanics are the only concrete rules one can work with. DM will fall on every possible side of the spectrum so saying "the DM will arbitrate" makes the whole thing arbitrary by literal definition. This isnt about the "winning D&D" mindset. Dont frame my argument into boxes that aren't there.

Fine it's not adversarial but saying only it's not possible to work with anything but hard mechanics and concrete rules is simply not true. Plenty of people are out there playing without those hard mechanics and concrete rules. Is it arbitrary, yes absolutely nobody is saying it isn't, but how is being arbitrary a problem though?

[Psyren]

The intent is bad.

Disagree.


As for the other thing, I dont care that if your GodMode has a duration, it that your actions are slightly limited, it's still wrong.

How is it "god mode?" As one example, Raistlin or Dumbledore being able to become invisible doesn't magically turn them into Ryu Hayabusa. If you're bad at stealth you're still bad even if you can remove the "sight" part from the equation.


Casters can't make skill checks now? The spells just let them do the stuff better and more reliably, but I'm pretty sure they don't deny them access to the skill system.

"Differently" is not necessarily "better and more reliably" - that depends on the situation.

More importantly, a caster who is blowing a bunch of spells to become a fighter or rogue is likely being a worse caster as a result. Just because magic can duplicate some mundane things doesn't make that the best use of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fine it's not adversarial but saying only it's not possible to work with anything but hard mechanics and concrete rules is simply not true. Plenty of people are out there playing without those hard mechanics and concrete rules. Is it arbitrary, yes absolutely nobody is saying it isn't, but how is being arbitrary a problem though?

Yeah. Literally everything in d&d is arbitrary and only exists if and where the dm says it does. That's what being the final word means. And that's inevitable. 5e just recognizes that and stopped lying about it.

[Telok]

but how is being arbitrary a problem though?

Has been for me this entire edition so far.

Nothing about jumping? Gotten answers for str 10 characters from 'yes you jump 20 feet' to 'no you cant jump further than 10' to something like 'roll athletics + strength at... lets say 10 plus distance, so the grid says you have to make dc 25 to go more than10 feet'.

Been like that for everything not combat or a spell. So I stopped doing pretty much anything noncombat that wasn't spells with reliable effects. Everyone else stopped doing anything in combat that wasn't a spell or walk & attack. Makes combat fairly tedious.

[Athan Artilliam]

And the problem is failure to actually make a complete game xD

Preach my brother!

Fine it's not adversarial but saying only it's not possible to work with anything but hard mechanics and concrete rules is simply not true. Plenty of people are out there playing without those hard mechanics and concrete rules. Is it arbitrary, yes absolutely nobody is saying it isn't, but how is being arbitrary a problem though?

I am trying to say that just because something can be ruled one way doesnt mean it WILL be ruled that way. You are taking your idea of how it should work as the ONLY example of how it should work. That's the issue. You are defending an arbitrary line in the sand & I am saying that if you are going to debate if something is fundamentally broken or not on a stick figure webcomics forum you need to have a wall of stone, not a line in the sand

[Sorinth]

Has been for me this entire edition so far.

Nothing about jumping? Gotten answers for str 10 characters from 'yes you jump 20 feet' to 'no you cant jump further than 10' to something like 'roll athletics + strength at... lets say 10 plus distance, so the grid says you have to make dc 25 to go more than10 feet'.

Been like that for everything not combat or a spell. So I stopped doing pretty much anything noncombat that wasn't spells with reliable effects. Everyone else stopped doing anything in combat that wasn't a spell or walk & attack. Makes combat fairly tedious.

Surely within the same game the rules are consistent though right? It's not like one session you can jump 10' and the next you can jump Athletics roll, then the session after that it's back to 10'.

The fact that it varies from one game to the next (Possibly even with the same DM) isn't really a problem because the world/story being told is different. In one game it's a Marvel movie and even the normals like Black Widow and Hawkeye can make ridiculous jumps without being super strong. Another game might have a more realistic tone and stick to guy at the gym type stuff. I don't see the problem with supporting both of those styles and everything in between.



I am trying to say that just because something can be ruled one way doesnt mean it WILL be ruled that way. You are taking your idea of how it should work as the ONLY example of how it should work. That's the issue. You are defending an arbitrary line in the sand & I am saying that if you are going to debate if something is fundamentally broken or not on a stick figure webcomics forum you need to have a wall of stone, not a line in the sand

No I'm not, I'm saying there's no perfect place to put that arbitrary line so might as well let each table decide where it goes so that it fits the game they want to play.

[Brookshw]

And the problem is failure to actually make a complete game xD

In the same sense a cookbook doesn't come with the ingredients, sure. Some things you're expected to provide yourself.

[PhantomSoul]

In the same sense a cookbook doesn't come with the ingredients, sure. Some things you're expected to provide yourself.

A cookbook with some ingredients missing, no proving or baking times (rarely the temperatures), and all quantities described as "to taste" if they say anything at all!

I guess 5e is really just a technical on the Great British Bake-off, not a cookbook.

[Athan Artilliam]

Surely within the same game the rules are consistent though right? It's not like one session you can jump 10' and the next you can jump Athletics roll, then the session after that it's back to 10'.

The fact that it varies from one game to the next (Possibly even with the same DM) isn't really a problem because the world/story being told is different. In one game it's a Marvel movie and even the normals like Black Widow and Hawkeye can make ridiculous jumps without being super strong. Another game might have a more realistic tone and stick to guy at the gym type stuff. I don't see the problem with supporting both of those styles and everything in between.




No I'm not, I'm saying there's no perfect place to put that arbitrary line so might as well let each table decide where it goes so that it fits the game they want to play.

So on this context YOU are saying that Jump rules are fine because one ruling, & I am saying that Jump rules need changed because of a different ruling, yet you aren't understanding because for YOU there isnt a problem

[Brookshw]

A cookbook with some ingredients missing, no proving or baking times (rarely the temperatures), and all quantities described as "to taste" if they say anything at all!

I guess 5e is really just a technical on the Great British Bake-off, not a cookbook.

Not even slightly, rules work pretty damned well the overwhelming majority of the time. If you want super crunchy defined systems for everything, you're just buying the wrong product. Incidentally, D&D 5e is hardly the only RPG that expects substantial decision making by the DM/GM/Storyteller.

[Sigreid]

But this is arbitrary while a spell is not

Point taken though I wouldn't consider it arbitrary. More of giving more depth of personality to your NPCs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not even slightly, rules work pretty damned well the overwhelming majority of the time. If you want super crunchy defined systems for everything, you're just buying the wrong product. Incidentally, D&D 5e is hardly the only RPG that expects substantial decision making by the DM/GM/Storyteller.

And most of those highly crunchy systems are also super fragile as soon as you deviate from the blessed path. That's part and parcel of higher specificity.

Also, I've found that highly detailed rules actually cause more "discussion" (ie loophole hunting and weaponized debate). Because it's literally literally impossible to create a ruleset that allows open ended play yet is "complete". So you get absurdity as a common factor. And you encourage legalistic (in the pejorative sense) readings. Which encourages finding loopholes and exploits.

[Sorinth]

So on this context YOU are saying that Jump rules are fine because one ruling, & I am saying that Jump rules need changed because of a different ruling, yet you aren't understanding because for YOU there isnt a problem

It's not a case of good/bad rulings, I've played games where jumping was very restrictive and your jump distance was modified by the weight of the gear you carried and I've played with more generous rules/rulings where you can jump over 20+ feet carrying an unconscious ally while wearing plate armor. I don't think having that variety is a problem because it's a question of taste which is going to vary from player to player and table to table. At the end of the day not every player is going to enjoy the style of every DM, and that's ok. I still think it's better that the game allows many different styles then for the rules to enforce what the game designers think its the one true style and everybody has to follow that style.

[Townopolis]

It's not a case of good/bad rulings, I've played games where jumping was very restrictive and your jump distance was modified by the weight of the gear you carried and I've played with more generous rules/rulings where you can jump over 20+ feet carrying an unconscious ally while wearing plate armor. I don't think having that variety is a problem because it's a question of taste which is going to vary from player to player and table to table. At the end of the day not every player is going to enjoy the style of every DM, and that's ok. I still think it's better that the game allows many different styles then for the rules to enforce what the game designers think its the one true style and everybody has to follow that style.

I think the issue here is that, for example, Fly provides a concrete, reliable amount of aerial movement that you can use to bypass walls, cross gaps, etc. Climbing and jumping are the mundane answers to these same issues, and...

... In one game, where you can jump 20' and climbing is done the way the book says it should be, there's no reason to cast Fly to cross most raging rivers and deep chasms or to get over a ruined castle's walls. The fact that a caster has Fly available is nice, but not that big of a deal.

... In another game, where you can only jump about 5', and the DM requires an action and Athletics check to climb a tree, a lot more obstacles become "Fly or go home."

There are, of course, ways a DM can give spells the same treatment. The setting could have a permanent antimagic field 100' above sea level. Just, the entire sky is a no-fly zone for mages. That is exceptionally rare, however, while the value of ability check proficiencies and basic physical capabilities are notorious for varying wildly between tables. So, sometimes rogues can solve just as many problems as wizards, because the DM lets you do just so much with ability checks; but other times the rogue has minimal noncombat utility because the DM is just very guy-at-the-gym in their rulings. The wizard is consistently "good," while the rogue vacillates between being equally "good" with some DMs and being "bad" with others.

[tiornys]

In all three cases you're talking about specific subclasses to be strong martials. The opportunity cost there are the other subclasses they could have taken instead. (Not to mention additional restrictions, like Moon Druids not being able to talk while fighting or scouting.)


More importantly, a caster who is blowing a bunch of spells to become a fighter or rogue is likely being a worse caster as a result. Just because magic can duplicate some mundane things doesn't make that the best use of it.
I find this line of argumentation to be self-defeating. Yes, if I'm using a caster subclass to be a strong martial, or using half of my spells to be a rogue, then I'm a worse caster than a caster that concentrates on being a caster. But, if we feel like we need a fighter or a rogue in a party, who contributes more? The fighter/rogue, or the caster who is just as good as the fighter/rogue and still has half of their caster capability left over?

[Athan Artilliam]

snip

As I keep saying, you are defending something that is arbitrary, i.e. has no real value to defend

[Tanarii]

I am saying that relying on arbitration is arbitrary, & trying to say that there isnt a flaw, because it can be arbitrarily fixed, does not actually mean there is no problem
It's not a flaw. It's a feature.

[Sorinth]

As I keep saying, you are defending something that is arbitrary, i.e. has no real value to defend

But you haven't explained why arbitrary == bad.

@PhoenixPhyre's post explains why arbitrary is actually good.

[Athan Artilliam]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature.

It that was true then there would not be a thousand threads on a thousand forums about the Martial/Caster "Feature"

[Athan Artilliam]

But you haven't explained why arbitrary == bad.

@PhoenixPhyre's post explains why arbitrary is actually good.

I have, read my posts.

[Pex]

I personally think it's fair to have modifiers based on the character. For example, the barbarian may have advantage on social interactions with the barbarian tribe or the bard may have disadvantage with that same tribe if they don't respect him as a warrior. Similarly, I may have decided beforehand that a given princess likes/fantasizes about big burley manly men and really isn't into the charming court fop type.

That is up to the DM to do that, and it's not unreasonable. Character background can matter. Just being a member of a class can matter. That's playing the game. Having an 8 or 10 CH does not forbid a PC from talking to every NPC everywhere. My barbarian was 'tolerated' among the nobility because I did technically save the day now and again, except for the boy king who idolized me after I saved him from kidnappers. I was the goldenboy hero among the rabble rousers, taverns, and fighting arenas.

[Tanarii]

It that was true then there would not be a thousand threads on a thousand forums about the Martial/Caster "Feature"
Right. There would instead be ten times as many, or more. Having participated in forums for three editions, I can tell you that from experience.

We've already been down the path of a class feature or rule for everything for two editions now. It didn't work. That's why it was rolled back.

Could some martials use more interesting or more specific features to liven up "I attack"? Yes, definitely. I'd welcome Fighters with at-will abilities like Tide of Iron from 4e.

Could exploration and social use some game structures for the players to interact with? Definitely.

Does there need to be few new social or exploration abilities like 4e's Utility powers for some classes? I don't think that would be a disaster, if they were designed to interact or even bypass occasionally with the ability check system

Is the 5e ability score universal mechanic a feature and not a flaw? Absolutely. Could it be tweaked? Oh sure, there are tons of ways it could be tweaked. But it's an extremely handy tool, conceptually.

Does the game need to go back to "you need a feat / power to do that"? Does it need to go back to a complex set of rules and/or class features/powers that you need to spend table time looking up? Definitely not. In fact, spellcasters could do with less of the latter, it's a pain to play them without spell cards.

[diplomancer]

I think the issue here is that, for example, Fly provides a concrete, reliable amount of aerial movement that you can use to bypass walls, cross gaps, etc. Climbing and jumping are the mundane answers to these same issues, and...

... In one game, where you can jump 20' and climbing is done the way the book says it should be, there's no reason to cast Fly to cross most raging rivers and deep chasms or to get over a ruined castle's walls. The fact that a caster has Fly available is nice, but not that big of a deal.

... In another game, where you can only jump about 5', and the DM requires an action and Athletics check to climb a tree, a lot more obstacles become "Fly or go home."

There are, of course, ways a DM can give spells the same treatment. The setting could have a permanent antimagic field 100' above sea level. Just, the entire sky is a no-fly zone for mages. That is exceptionally rare, however, while the value of ability check proficiencies and basic physical capabilities are notorious for varying wildly between tables. So, sometimes rogues can solve just as many problems as wizards, because the DM lets you do just so much with ability checks; but other times the rogue has minimal noncombat utility because the DM is just very guy-at-the-gym in their rulings. The wizard is consistently "good," while the rogue vacillates between being equally "good" with some DMs and being "bad" with others.

I don't understand this. The game has clear, simple, easy, and generous rules for climbing and jumping. If a DM, or even many DMs, decides to ignore that and impose his own rules in a way that makes casters too good compared to non-casters, how is that the fault of the game?

[Pex]

Casters can't make skill checks now? The spells just let them do the stuff better and more reliably, but I'm pretty sure they don't deny them access to the skill system.

The argument was spellcasters casting spells compared to martials using skills. If you can use a skill why waste a spell slot.

[Sorinth]

I think the issue here is that, for example, Fly provides a concrete, reliable amount of aerial movement that you can use to bypass walls, cross gaps, etc. Climbing and jumping are the mundane answers to these same issues, and...

... In one game, where you can jump 20' and climbing is done the way the book says it should be, there's no reason to cast Fly to cross most raging rivers and deep chasms or to get over a ruined castle's walls. The fact that a caster has Fly available is nice, but not that big of a deal.

... In another game, where you can only jump about 5', and the DM requires an action and Athletics check to climb a tree, a lot more obstacles become "Fly or go home."

There are, of course, ways a DM can give spells the same treatment. The setting could have a permanent antimagic field 100' above sea level. Just, the entire sky is a no-fly zone for mages. That is exceptionally rare, however, while the value of ability check proficiencies and basic physical capabilities are notorious for varying wildly between tables. So, sometimes rogues can solve just as many problems as wizards, because the DM lets you do just so much with ability checks; but other times the rogue has minimal noncombat utility because the DM is just very guy-at-the-gym in their rulings. The wizard is consistently "good," while the rogue vacillates between being equally "good" with some DMs and being "bad" with others.

Has this actually ever happened though? Has anyone been on an adventure that they failed because the wizard didn't take the Fly spell and the DM created a situation where you needed to Fly or the BBEG would win?

Yes I fully agree the how the DM rules things can and does alter class and spell balance. But a) Things aren't particularly balanced no matter the rulings and b) Establishing hard rules for everything will either force a particular game style that can't be deviated from or end up being a game about finding the best loopholes.

[Athan Artilliam]

Right. There would instead be ten times as many, or more. Having participated in forums for three editions, I can tell you that from experience.


{scrubbed} I've played for decades & been a part of truly ancient discussion boards & hobby magazines. Does that give me the "nerd credit" to have an opinion to you? Is that enough to count as "experience"?

I'm not saying we have to have excessive rules. That has never been my point. {scrubbed} I am saying that the rules are half baked & not spread properly. We have rules for x doing y, but no rules of z doing y, so then the whole ability of z to do y is left to arbitration & ARBITRATION IS NOT EQUAL!

[Pex]

Surely within the same game the rules are consistent though right? It's not like one session you can jump 10' and the next you can jump Athletics roll, then the session after that it's back to 10'.

The fact that it varies from one game to the next (Possibly even with the same DM) isn't really a problem because the world/story being told is different. In one game it's a Marvel movie and even the normals like Black Widow and Hawkeye can make ridiculous jumps without being super strong. Another game might have a more realistic tone and stick to guy at the gym type stuff. I don't see the problem with supporting both of those styles and everything in between.



That is a problem because that means the rules are changing based on who is DM that day. That lack of consistency means I don't know what my character can do based on the choices I make to create it. This is where spellcasters have the advantage. I know every time what happens when I cast Fireball. I know how it works, how to apply it, the results that can happen. Any game, any DM. However, if I want to climb a tree, I've been told ok, give me a roll DC 10, give me a roll DC 15, give me a roll DC 20, no because you're wearing armor. I have no idea if I can climb a tree or not when creating my character.

I would like to state for the record I did not start this topic reoccurring. :smallyuk:

[Townopolis]

I don't understand this. The game has clear, simple, easy, and generous rules for climbing and jumping. If a DM, or even many DMs, decides to ignore that and impose his own rules in a way that makes casters too good compared to non-casters, how is that the fault of the game?

You know what, you're right. Just the same as "the DM can fix it" isn't a justification of bad rules, "nobody runs it as written" isn't a strike against good or decent rules.

In practice, there's still the issue of spells being more reliable than skills.

But, inasmuch as we're complaining about what's written, you have a good point that, for example, what's actually written about climbing and jumping isn't really part of the problem.

And, to be fair, the unreliability of skills is in part the result of the ability check system's open-ended nature, and that is one of the valuable features of the system. And, to be even fairer, the unreliability of skills vs spells is only an issue when moving between tables or trying to have a productive discussion on balance between classes.

[Sorinth]

It that was true then there would not be a thousand threads on a thousand forums about the Martial/Caster "Feature"

If the number of forum threads is going to be used as proof that we need explicit features then I guess the popularity of 5e compared to previous editions and other TTRPGs that have those crunchy features is proof that we actually don't.

[LudicSavant]

Has this actually ever happened though? Has anyone been on an adventure that they failed because the wizard didn't take the Fly spell and the DM created a situation where you needed to Fly or the BBEG would win? There's a pretty significant example of lack of flight capability making the party fail, with long-lasting consequences, in the Order of the Stick comic (I'd be more specific, but like, spoilers).