The root cause of martial-screwing starts with the ability score system.

[Veldrenor]

Okay sure. But why does it synchronize more than with Wizard or something? You don't optimize a better wizard by being social either.

I'd disagree. Being a better wizard means cranking intelligence. Cranking intelligence makes you better at knowing things: what styles are currently in fashion, the preferred method to greet a high priest, which noble families are attending a ball based on which heraldry is on the banners outside, etc. You can't inherently win a social encounter just by knowing things, true, but knowing things will tell you things you need in order to optimally apply charisma to the situation.

As far as what I read, he's saying that if you take anything to be social, you become a worse barbarian. I was saying that you don't. The charisma barbarian I proposed is both a better barbarian than an Athlete/Shield Master barbarian, and is only weaker than the hypothetical not-optimal but all-combat melee barbarian by 1 point to hit and to damage.

Your charisma barbarian has fewer HP and lower AC than a barbarian who prioritized constitution rather than charisma so yes, your social barbarian is worse at doing what the barbarian class does. You also misread MOG's post: he never said that a barbarian would take GWM and Polearm Master and Shield Master and Athlete. He said that those are the only feats that synergize with the barbarian class' specific features, so taking any one of them would better augment a barbarian's natural abilities than a generic feat. Lucky is a great feat, but taking Lucky improves the barbarian exactly as much as taking Lucky improves the druid, or the wizard, or the rogue. Generic feats don't make a barbarian character specifically better, they make any character better regardless of class.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'd disagree. Being a better wizard means cranking intelligence. Cranking intelligence makes you better at knowing things: what styles are currently in fashion, the preferred method to greet a high priest, which noble families are attending a ball based on which heraldry is on the banners outside, etc. You can't inherently win a social encounter just by knowing things, true, but knowing things will tell you things you need in order to optimally apply charisma to the situation.

This is really reaching, I think.

I don't think that INT is inherently more valuable in a social situation than DEX, STR, CON, or WIS.

Your charisma barbarian has fewer HP and lower AC than a barbarian who prioritized constitution rather than charisma so yes, your social barbarian is worse at doing what the barbarian class does. You also misread MOG's post: he never said that a barbarian would take GWM and Polearm Master and Shield Master and Athlete. He said that those are the only feats that synergize with the barbarian class' specific features, so taking any one of them would better augment a barbarian's natural abilities than a generic feat. Lucky is a great feat, but taking Lucky improves the barbarian exactly as much as taking Lucky improves the druid, or the wizard, or the rogue. Generic feats don't make a barbarian character specifically better, they make any character better regardless of class.

He said, as I read it
"Athlete supports Barbarians due to the emphasis on Strength Checks (jump height/distance, climbing, +1 to STR), which Barbarians enhance due to Rage and having features that benefit from stacking Strength.

Shield Master supports Barbarian by utilizing Athletics Checks (which Rage gives you Advantage on), utilizing Attacks (which most Barbarian features focus on), being most beneficial in melee combat (which Rage requires), and provides a use for your Bonus Action which would otherwise be rarely used."
I disagree with both of these assessments. He's basically saying that "if you don't pick STR/DEX themed feats, you didn't pick STR/DEX themed feats." Which is tautological, and assumes that picking STR themed feats makes you a better barbarian. It doesn't. Picking abilities that work together does, so if you're picking a useless STR-themed flavor feat like Athlete you're in the exact same position as if you picked a social feat like Prodigy, except in the way of characterizing yourself. You don't need to pick useless STR themed feats for combat effectiveness, only if you want to characterize your character that way.

There's only so many synchronous abilities to take. Take 2-3 feats that stack, 1-2 ASI's, and 1 generic feat.

Theoretically, he has like 1 lower AC, if lower at all, because Barbarians can wear medium armor. And as for HP, you already have a quadrillion HP and damage resistance. More HP and more CON is worth less for you than it is for the wizard, so like, yes, you're a worse barbarian, but the wizard who dumped CON is a worse wizard by a greater degree than you're a worse barbarian. And the Wizard has like a 10 AC, so they're going to take more damage too to their lower HP.



My point is, that I think that the stat system is not the source of martial-screwing. Unless you're a Ranger. But Rangers have a lot not-going for them, so it's not martial-screwing.
Anyone can build for social with basically the same degree of penalty except Bards.
And anyone except Bards and Rogues who build for social are basically all equally as good.
Technically, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Paladin, as CHA-dependent characters, get combat function from putting ASI's into CHA so they're slightly less penalized and slightly better than others, but it's like 5% better, so very small.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'll be honest, some of this seems justified by "athletics is bad, so it doesn't count".

Saying something isn't bad because something else is worse, in a game doesn't really seem like good reasoning to me. Especially when it's really circumstantial.

I could pick up Message, Detect Thoughts, Sleep, and Disguise Self, picking up all ASIs, as a Wizard, and still do better in a social environment than a Fighter who dumped all of his feats for social stuff, while outputting...we'll say comparable damage to that same Fighter.

[Osuniev]

and...sure, but I'm not going to fist my way into a medicine check to punch the disease away.

I do Strength (Medicine) checks when my players try to hit someone inconscious (either out of combat, or when they're restrained somehow).

I would sometimes do Strength (Performance or Intimidation) for a demonstration of physical might, Strength (Acrobatics) for a complicated jump...Have never found a use for Strength (Insight) though...

To answer OP, the faces of my parties are the Goliath Fighter (because she has the Soldier background and they interact a lot with law enforcement) and the Half-Elf Ranger (she didn't feel the need to max DEX, and has quite decent Int and Cha). The High Elf Sorcerer roleplays a haughty Noble, so he only really interacts with nobility and Arcane magic, and he put most of his spells in damage, not utility.

Players choices define how their character interact with the worlds, but those choices are about so much more than your class. But yes, if you choose combat efficiency before anything else, you'll be less useful outside of combat. That's a feature, not a bug.

[Pex]

Also, it's perfectly fine to use constitution for your "dump stat". You don't even need use your best stat for whatever your class is. Ideas are more important then "builds".

No, it's not. I've played with people who only put a 10 in CO. It doesn't work. They're the first to drop, so we lose their actions. When they're close to dropping they get more cowardly. I don't mean cowardly in a derogatory sense, but they shut down not helping in the fight. They move away from the combat area. They're drinking healing potions. It makes sense even for those who have lots of hit points to get more defensive when close to 0 hit points, but because the low hit point characters have such low hit points it happens one or two rounds sooner than everyone else it negatively impacts the party's effectiveness for those rounds.

I firmly believe everyone needs at least a 14 CO. I cringe at a 12 and shake my head at anything lower. If you must have less than 14 at character creation level 1, make it a 13 and get it to 14 at level 4. 17 in prime 13 CO to get 18/14 is acceptable to me.

Uhh... Why?

You start with 15 STR, 15 CHA, something everywhere else. +1 to STR & CHA + GWM + Charm, and allocate your other 4 skills maybe to Intimidate, Atheletics, +2 from background. You're now literally as good as any other character can be at this point charming and intimidating, and you're not really worse at barbarianing. Put your ASI's into STR, and you'll remain basically as good at social as most other characters. You will fall behind expertise classes, but so will everybody else and you will, at worst if you commit nothing else to your CHA and skills, be only 2 points worse than the CHA casters. Or take prodigy to play with the Rogues and Bards.

If casters aren't making the trade off when it comes to selecting feats, it's because there are only a couple of good feats for casters but a lot of desirable ones for martials, which isn't exactly martial screwing.

There are some martials that have the short end of the stick. Rangers, for example, but I don't think barbarians are particularly disadvantaged.

To get that ST and CH means DX and CO will suffer, so forget about the iconic shirtless warrior because you're wearing armor. Wearing armor is not a bad thing, but you're not using a class feature. So what do you do? Prioritize DX so you have AC? Say goodbye to your hit points. Prioritize CO for the hit points? Say goodbye to your AC. The barbarian is losing combat effectiveness to pay for gaining social effectiveness. A bard or spellcasters in general don't have to make that trade. That's the problem.

So lets say we were working on a human barbarian, so we have 5 feats.
We'll start with 16 STR, 12 DEX, 10 CON, 11 INT, 8 WIS, 16 CHA.
Then we'll be a Knight, and take for skills Charm, History, Intimidate, Perception, and Athletics
Then for our 5 feat/ASI's well take: GWM, Sentinel, Prodigy [Charm, Deception], STR ASI, and then one of [STR ASI, PAM, or Martial Adept]

Compared to say:
16 STR, 14 DEX, 16 CON, 8 INT, 11 WIS, 8 CHA
Athletics, Perception, and 3 other skills
with GWM, STR ASI, STR ASI, Sentinel, PAM

you haven't traded much. What other 3 skills will build into barbarianing better? Comparatively, by trading a feat for prodigy, you got +6 to Charm and proficiency in Deception in exchange for +1 to hit and Damage or PAM, which isn't really critical, and you're not losing any more than a Wizard is by redesignating points from CON or DEX or WIS into CHA.

You've traded a lot. You have no AC and no hit points. That's bad for anyone but terrible for someone meant to be in melee combat.

Figuratively "no".

[LordCdrMilitant]

You've traded a lot. You have no AC and no hit points. That's bad for anyone but terrible for someone meant to be in melee combat.

Figuratively "no".

Take half plate, that's 16 AC, literally everything you lost from low CON. The only reason you need con is for the "shirtless warrior", which if that's what you want, like, sure, but you can be just as good without it.

And as far as HP, your HD is a D12! You don't need con, you have a ton of HP already. You have twice as many as the casters before you put in any points in CON.

As far as I'm concerned, I take having a D10 or D12 HD as a license to dump constitution for some stat that I'll enjoy more. Actually, I dump constitution anyway, and just stay out of fights as casters.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As an old (experienced) 2e player I'm going to disagree nearly entirely with the original post. With 5e providing the option of Str or Dex, but not needing both, martial characters have the most freedom to place their 3rd highest stat wherever they want.

[Waazraath]

Haven't gone through the entire thread so this might been adressed, but I object against the premise that there is something as "martial-screwing" in 5e.

[Pex]

Take half plate, that's 16 AC, literally everything you lost from low CON. The only reason you need con is for the "shirtless warrior", which if that's what you want, like, sure, but you can be just as good without it.

And as far as HP, your HD is a D12! You don't need con, you have a ton of HP already. You have twice as many as the casters before you put in any points in CON.

As far as I'm concerned, I take having a D10 or D12 HD as a license to dump constitution for some stat that I'll enjoy more. Actually, I dump constitution anyway, and just stay out of fights as casters.

16 AC isn't bad at low levels. It is at mid to high levels. Still, hit points mean everything for a barbarian. D12 is great. It's not enough. If you use Reckless Attack you need every hit point because they're coming after you. Unless you're bear totem you do not get resistance to magical damage. Fire Bolts are coming your way with advantage, Vicious Mockeries because you can never resist the damage and to mitigate Reckless Attack, and Tolls the Dead for your low Wisdom save. Those are just cantrips. If you are bear totem you last a little longer but not much.

If you're a spellcaster not in the fight what are you doing? Are you casting spells against the enemy or buffing party members? You're in the fight. The bad guys will attack you. Not being in melee doesn't make you immune to attack. Are you running away from the battlefield completely? Then what does the party need you for?

[Xervous]

The wizard can cast Suggestion...if the victim is alone and he fails his saving throw. In other cases, the non-combat encounter likely just became a combat encounter, and the fighter is good at those.

As for the Bard and Rogue, the Bard can’t boost his own checks (so boosting the Fighter is an option), and both the Rogue at the Bard are supposed to be skillmonkeys.

While these certainly aren’t the YES level of abilities that you see in ranger for exploration they are additional options that expand the classes’ choices for engaging with social challenges in absence of DM fiat. Fighter gets nothing in contrast.

[JellyPooga]

16 AC isn't bad at low levels. It is at mid to high levels. Still, hit points mean everything for a barbarian. D12 is great. It's not enough. If you use Reckless Attack you need every hit point because they're coming after you. Unless you're bear totem you do not get resistance to magical damage. Fire Bolts are coming your way with advantage, Vicious Mockeries because you can never resist the damage and to mitigate Reckless Attack, and Tolls the Dead for your low Wisdom save. Those are just cantrips. If you are bear totem you last a little longer but not much.

If you're a spellcaster not in the fight what are you doing? Are you casting spells against the enemy or buffing party members? You're in the fight. The bad guys will attack you. Not being in melee doesn't make you immune to attack. Are you running away from the battlefield completely? Then what does the party need you for?

While I don't necessarily agree that all adventurers require decent Con, it is most certainly advisable from a tactical and strategic perspective. It can be a compelling narrative to tell about the frail Raistlin-esque mage or the Thief that it only takes a single hit to take down, but as an "adventuring party" you'd have to have an awfully compelling reason to take on such glass-cannon types because the fact is that regardless of your HD, Con contributes a significant amount of survivability.

Compare a Wizard with 14 Con to a Fighter with 10 Con. On average, the difference is between d6+2 and d10...zero. A Fighter with 10 Con is simply not going to last in melee because they won't be able to take the hits to contribute. Yeah, they can participate, but that low Ability Score is going to put a hard damper on how well you can consistently contribute; in a similar way that a low Charisma or Wisdom limits your ability to contribute in non-combat pillars of play. The same does apply to anyone in combat to an extent; it's very hard to evade attacks/damage at all, but it applies less to those that tend to avoid melee combat; those back-line casters and archers, even skirmishers; these characters, by virtue of avoiding melee, aren't going to come under attack as often and as such won't require Con to the same degree.

[Sigreid]

I could see part of this being solved by making more varied personalities among the NPCs. I could easily see soldiers being much more willing to talk to a warrior they respect than a wizard. I could see a street urchin more comfortable spilling to the group scoundrel. I could see the princess who has seen dandies and fops every day of her life finding them tedious and wanting to give the over muscled barbarian a tongue bath in her own drool.

But that's just me.

[Xervous]

I could see part of this being solved by making more varied personalities among the NPCs. I could easily see soldiers being much more willing to talk to a warrior they respect than a wizard. I could see a street urchin more comfortable spilling to the group scoundrel. I could see the princess who has seen dandies and fops every day of her life finding them tedious and wanting to give the over muscled barbarian a tongue bath in her own drool.

But that's just me.

In other words, fiat.

[Sigreid]

In other words, fiat.

Not really. Just DCs individualized for the NPC to make them a more unique character. Your table your call, but I don't see anything wrong or unrealistic about that.

[JellyPooga]

I could see part of this being solved by making more varied personalities among the NPCs. I could easily see soldiers being much more willing to talk to a warrior they respect than a wizard. I could see a street urchin more comfortable spilling to the group scoundrel. I could see the princess who has seen dandies and fops every day of her life finding them tedious and wanting to give the over muscled barbarian a tongue bath in her own drool.

But that's just me.

In other words, fiat.

Calling it GM fiat is accurate, but I think it's a little unfair to dismiss it so readily as such. It's absolutely valid for certain situations to be more favourable to one character or another; such as a princess bored of her humdrum existence of 1st-world problems finding the Barbarian exciting and attractive compared to the Noble Knight with 10pts more Charisma. Under such circumstances, perhaps the Knight might require a Charisma check while the Barbarian does not or has a much easier DC, because of the princesses personality, but that's a specific scenario. For one, it won't always be the case that a certain character type will be favoured and secondly, it wouldn't take a lot to make Charisma the deciding factor again; simply presenting two Barbarians to the princess to choose between engages Charisma as the valid abilty score. Whilst GM fiat is a valid consideration for styles of play, it doesn't change the core issue.

[Deathtongue]

Haven't gone through the entire thread so this might been adressed, but I object against the premise that there is something as "martial-screwing" in 5e.

Why so? The utility gap, especially in noncombat, between casters and martials isn't as huge as it was in 2E/3E D&D but it's still pretty large. And I claim it's because casters, by nature of the stat system, have a permanent edge right out of the gate in terms of 'advance the plot' stats like intelligence and charisma.

I've heard two solutions to this so far:

1) Bounded accuracy gives the casters a permanent edge, sure, but you shouldn't worry about it because it's usually only a +6 edge at lower levels barring stuff like Expertise and Guidance and iterative probability is always there to save your butt. By the time that edge widens to +10 or more, who cares, no one plays at level 9. After all, your INT 8 barbarian at level 9 can still roll a 20 while the INT 20 Knowledge Cleric can still roll a 1. And even if the barbarian fails, you still have three or four other party members who can repeat the check for you, penalty be damned. Unless the DC is 20 or higher, which you shouldn't do with Bounded Accuracy, you have a good shot of winning. So who cares what your stats say?

2) The stats don't matter, because the DM can adjust not just DCs on the fly, but also failure conditions. If your INT 10, CHA 8 ranger fails their Diplomacy check, the DM can always make it so that the princess had a crush on you and argues to the king on your behalf. Or just because you couldn't get an audience with the general to warn them of a double-cross in their staff ranks, doesn't mean that the general doesn't find out. The judge can always be an angel in disguise who was going to acquit you of your murder no matter how poorly you did in your trial. Any sufficiently motivated DM can make any failure a success or provide an alternate path to victory, so who cares what your stats say?

[patchyman]

While these certainly aren’t the YES level of abilities that you see in ranger for exploration they are additional options that expand the classes’ choices for engaging with social challenges in absence of DM fiat. Fighter gets nothing in contrast.

They get 2 bonus ASIs.

[Xervous]

Whilst GM fiat is a valid consideration for styles of play, it doesn't change the core issue.

Agreed. Speaking on the handling of the game there is a lot that can be done to allow all players to participate in absence of rules and mechanics that empower their chosen character. But when we just look at the system as the OP has invited us to do, we see that hole where social options could be.

[Dork_Forge]

Why so? The utility gap, especially in noncombat, between casters and martials isn't as huge as it was in 2E/3E D&D but it's still pretty large. And I claim it's because casters, by nature of the stat system, have a permanent edge right out of the gate in terms of 'advance the plot' stats like intelligence and charisma.

I've heard two solutions to this so far:

1) Bounded accuracy gives the casters a permanent edge, sure, but you shouldn't worry about it because it's usually only a +6 edge at lower levels barring stuff like Expertise and Guidance and iterative probability is always there to save your butt. By the time that edge widens to +10 or more, who cares, no one plays at level 9. After all, your INT 8 barbarian at level 9 can still roll a 20 while the INT 20 Knowledge Cleric can still roll a 1. And even if the barbarian fails, you still have three or four other party members who can repeat the check for you, penalty be damned. Unless the DC is 20 or higher, which you shouldn't do with Bounded Accuracy, you have a good shot of winning. So who cares what your stats say?

2) The stats don't matter, because the DM can adjust not just DCs on the fly, but also failure conditions. If your INT 10, CHA 8 ranger fails their Diplomacy check, the DM can always make it so that the princess had a crush on you and argues to the king on your behalf. Or just because you couldn't get an audience with the general to warn them of a double-cross in their staff ranks, doesn't mean that the general doesn't find out. The judge can always be an angel in disguise who was going to acquit you of your murder no matter how poorly you did in your trial. Any sufficiently motivated DM can make any failure a success or provide an alternate path to victory, so who cares what your stats say?

I think you have a misinterpretation of what stats a caster need (they will need at least a 14 in Dex and ideally at least a 14 in Con) and how stats for martials usually end up. Your argument seems to be that since casters use Int/Wis/Cha they have an edge in those areas, That's one way of looking at it but it isn't the whole picture. Fighters and Rogues are pretty SAD for the most part and both get additional ASIs, Paladins need some Charisma, but that's good in the context of this argument as it's forcing them to have a decent "'advance the plot' stat", same with Monks and Rangers with Wisdom. The only one really put out in this kind of comparison is the Barbarian who is pretty MAD in purely physical stats.

However everyone has skill proficiencies, backgrounds go a long way to make sure that even the Barbarian has the opportunity to be proficient in non combat things. "martial-screwing" more likely comes from 5e's reliance on spells and magic to cover utility, were there more non magical abilities that provided utility then the perceived gap would be a lot smaller.

[Deathtongue]

They get 2 bonus ASIs.

How does that help them in this aspect? I've rarely seen Fighters spend their ASIs, especially at lower levels, on feats like Skilled. And I've never seen a Fighter or Rogue spend their ASIs on additional mental stats, including the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knights I've rolled with. You can see it in the guides for martials: noncombat feats get rated purple or red and the mental stats may get a middling rating.

[diplomancer]

I think you have a misinterpretation of what stats a caster need (they will need at least a 14 in Dex and ideally at least a 14 in Con) and how stats for martials usually end up. Your argument seems to be that since casters use Int/Wis/Cha they have an edge in those areas, That's one way of looking at it but it isn't the whole picture. Fighters and Rogues are pretty SAD for the most part and both get additional ASIs, Paladins need some Charisma, but that's good in the context of this argument as it's forcing them to have a decent "'advance the plot' stat", same with Monks and Rangers with Wisdom. The only one really put out in this kind of comparison is the Barbarian who is pretty MAD in purely physical stats.

However everyone has skill proficiencies, backgrounds go a long way to make sure that even the Barbarian has the opportunity to be proficient in non combat things. "martial-screwing" more likely comes from 5e's reliance on spells and magic to cover utility, were there more non magical abilities that provided utility then the perceived gap would be a lot smaller.

This. Honestly, I think one of the assumptions of the opening post that does not run true in most games is the idea that the Knowledge skills are better than Insight checks in the Social Pillar. Just ability score wise, Wizards SUCK at the social pillar. At best, they get to help their party with the knowledge they need to navigate a complicated social situation, which is not very common, and even when it is, that's not "stealing the spotlight". Int 16, Dex 14, Con 14 (very conservative for Wizards, in my experience Wizards tend to have either Dex or Con at 16) is a TERRIBLE stat array for the social pillar. Compare it with a Fighter, even a Str Fighter, that starts with Str 16 and Con 16, and can easily afford a 14 Cha or 14 Wis if he wants to, both better options than a 16 Int.

Order of classes in the social pillar (assuming they want to be good at it), just considering ability checks, which is what under discussion here, in my opinion: Lore Bard->Swashbuckler->Rogue/Other Bards-> Warlocks/Sorcerers->Paladins->Fighters->Clerics/Druids->Monks->Rangers->Wizards/Artificers->Barbarians. Barbarians, being the ONLY class that requires a decent amount of the 3 physical stats, is the only martial that is, indeed, mostly screwed in the social pillar.

How does that help them in this aspect? I've rarely seen Fighters spend their ASIs, especially at lower levels, on feats like Skilled. And I've never seen a Fighter or Rogue spend their ASIs on additional mental stats, including the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knights I've rolled with. You can see it in the guides for martials: noncombat feats get rated purple or red and the mental stats may get a middling rating.

Yeah, if you spend EVERYTHING you have to be better at combat, you will be worse at other pillars. That doesn't mean you HAVE to spend everything to optimize for combat; Fighters get 7 ASI (8 if variant human), spending 2 for maxing your main stat and 2 for combat feats (the usual PAM/HWM or SS/XBE, which are all you need to have much better than caster damage) still leaves you with 3 (or 4) ASIs "free". Yes, you can grab some other feats that help you a bit more in combat, OR you can grab some feats that help you in other pillars of the game. If you make the first choice, that does not mean that "fighters suck in social situations", it means you CHOSE to make your fighter suck in social situations.

Class guides optimize for combat. Some of them are even explicit about it. Which is fine, considering that combat is the most "objective" part of the game, with less variance from table to table, and usually the one with the most serious consequence (death). But that does not mean that if you try to make your character less overly focused on combat that your character will suck at it. So feat suggestions at class guides must be taken with a grain of salt. Still, the game could certainly use more social pillar feats. I thought the skill feats were a neat idea, which was only defeated by trying to give a combat use for almost all of them, making some of them broken.

[Willie the Duck]

To a point I understand where the OP comes from.
Casually reading the rules and going off to DM a game with what the rules say you're gonna screw the big dumb Fighter.

In general yes, but the OP had an additional supposition that it was the stats that are the root cause of the martial screwing, and that part I don't think works.

Mind you, yes, at surface level, Strength feeds into one interesting skill and a small bevy of non-combat-problem-solutions (and at the same time any or all of I/W/CH feed quite a few). However, I don't really feel that this (while existent) issue is really a cornerstone of the martial-caster disparities.

It is really much more stuff like this:

I could pick up Message, Detect Thoughts, Sleep, and Disguise Self, picking up all ASIs, as a Wizard, and still do better in a social environment than a Fighter who dumped all of his feats for social stuff, while outputting...we'll say comparable damage to that same Fighter.

Those spells (and many more like them), regardless of what stats they are tied to, are the game changers for spellcasters. There is a spell out there that is a solution to most-any problem that a party is likely to encounter in the main pillars of the game. So much so that certain portions of the game (say, the wilderness hex-crawling aspect of the exploration pillar) almost require certain spells to be off the table for many to find them fun. This would be true of the spellcasting stat was Strength instead of I/W/CH, or heck take attributes out of it altogether and make spells attribute-independent. The mechanisms for dealing with those problems, outside of magic, are very much underdeveloped. I'm not just talking the skill system or it's vagaries (hi there, Pex), but overall system mechanics for resolving problems. That leaves a lot of space open for player ingenuity with DM buy-in, which I'm very much a fan of, but I get the critique that that's outside of the rules (and DM fiat).

Very early on, D&D decided to use spells to solve lots of problems where it could have used other mechanisms (probably either when a cleric used healing magic instead of being actual medics, or when rangers got druid spells to emulate Aragorn's herb lore and stuff, or heck when the Knock spell was invented before the Thief class existed), and the tradition continues.

All of which is a longwinded way of saying that, yes, the attributes do slightly skew towards spellcasters getting to make more interesting ability checks more often, but no that is not the root cause of martial screwing.

[Pex]

While I don't necessarily agree that all adventurers require decent Con, it is most certainly advisable from a tactical and strategic perspective. It can be a compelling narrative to tell about the frail Raistlin-esque mage or the Thief that it only takes a single hit to take down, but as an "adventuring party" you'd have to have an awfully compelling reason to take on such glass-cannon types because the fact is that regardless of your HD, Con contributes a significant amount of survivability.

Compare a Wizard with 14 Con to a Fighter with 10 Con. On average, the difference is between d6+2 and d10...zero. A Fighter with 10 Con is simply not going to last in melee because they won't be able to take the hits to contribute. Yeah, they can participate, but that low Ability Score is going to put a hard damper on how well you can consistently contribute; in a similar way that a low Charisma or Wisdom limits your ability to contribute in non-combat pillars of play. The same does apply to anyone in combat to an extent; it's very hard to evade attacks/damage at all, but it applies less to those that tend to avoid melee combat; those back-line casters and archers, even skirmishers; these characters, by virtue of avoiding melee, aren't going to come under attack as often and as such won't require Con to the same degree.

Yes, they aren't getting the majority of hits, but they are getting the Fireballs, arrows, and range spell attacks. They need some hit points. Perhaps there is a better way to give PCs a decent enough amount of hit points that doesn't rely on an ability score, but for now D&D uses CO for hit points so we have to work with what we have. I've seen it too many times. CO 10 characters are staying in the back, but all it takes is one Fireball or equivalent and they're done. They don't drop immediately, but they're scrambling for healing potions, calling for the medic, or drop next round by some range attack. For a PC who is supposed to be in melee a low CO is death. One crit might as well be a failing a save or suck with no rerolling the saving throw each round.

[Deathtongue]

Mind you, yes, at surface level, Strength feeds into one interesting skill and a small bevy of non-combat-problem-solutions (and at the same time any or all of I/W/CH feed quite a few). However, I don't really feel that this (while existent) issue is really a cornerstone of the martial-caster disparities.

Even in games where magic is nowhere near as as impressive in advancing the plot such as Shadowrun, mental stats tend to be completely dominating in terms of advancing the plot. Noncasters are viable, even dominating in that game, but only so long as their contributions revolve around their intellect. A mostly physical-based street samurai will still never be the equal of a hacker or a rigger. And it's still true even in games that go out of their way to balance casters and noncasters, such as 4E D&D. Mental skills like Arcana are simply more generically useful, especially outside of skill challenges, than physical ones.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, they aren't getting the majority of hits, but they are getting the Fireballs, arrows, and range spell attacks. They need some hit points. Perhaps there is a better way to give PCs a decent enough amount of hit points that doesn't rely on an ability score, but for now D&D uses CO for hit points so we have to work with what we have. I've seen it too many times. CO 10 characters are staying in the back, but all it takes is one Fireball or equivalent and they're done. They don't drop immediately, but they're scrambling for healing potions, calling for the medic, or drop next round by some range attack. For a PC who is supposed to be in melee a low CO is death. One crit might as well be a failing a save or suck with no rerolling the saving throw each round.

I don't disagree, at least from a tactical perspective. I only point out that back-line characters can tend to afford lower Con than the front-line, who (as you point out) can't afford low Con at all; which is rather the crux of the OPs assertion.

[Willie the Duck]

Even in games where magic is nowhere near as as impressive in advancing the plot such as Shadowrun, mental stats tend to be completely dominating in terms of advancing the plot. Noncasters are viable, even dominating in that game, but only so long as their contributions revolve around their intellect. A mostly physical-based street samurai will still never be the equal of a hacker or a rigger. And it's still true even in games that go out of their way to balance casters and noncasters, such as 4E D&D. Mental skills like Arcana are simply more generically useful, especially outside of skill challenges, than physical ones.

You'll excuse me if I consider this a non sequitur, but I really don't see the relevance to my point. Magic is impressive in advancing the plot as 5e, and that was my point. Therefore, hile the mental/social stats do give the casters an (arguable, as we keep going round here on whether the small numeric difference is important or if martials can't have good mental/social stats), it isn't the primary driver of martial-caster disparity.

[Deathtongue]

Therefore, hile the mental/social stats do give the casters an (arguable, as we keep going round here on whether the small numeric difference is important or if martials can't have good mental/social stats), it isn't the primary driver of martial-caster disparity.

Considering it is a main driver in game systems that don't have such a wide gap in the utility of spellcasting with mundane skills I think the problem goes deeper than spellcasting. For example, in a game system like Champions where the characters have equal gestalt amounts of offense and defense combined, mental-stat focused characters like psychics and engineers still contribute more than the martial bruisers. Or in Shadowrun: Shadowrun has mages who can do things you can't ever do with technology, but the most powerful class in that game is the hacker/rigger, not the magician. Yes, the magician will run circles around the street samurai with their spellcasting, but the non-magical hacker/rigger will run circles around the street samurai even harder.

[Xervous]

Considering it is a main driver in game systems that don't have such a wide gap in the utility of spellcasting with mundane skills I think the problem goes deeper than spellcasting. For example, in a game system like Champions where the characters have equal gestalt amounts of offense and defense combined, mental-stat focused characters like psychics and engineers still contribute more than the martial bruisers. Or in Shadowrun: Shadowrun has mages who can do things you can't ever do with technology, but the most powerful class in that game is the hacker/rigger, not the magician. Yes, the magician will run circles around the street samurai with their spellcasting, but the non-magical hacker/rigger will run circles around the street samurai even harder.

Are you speaking to a specific edition or just broadly on SR? In my perusal of editions there’s varying divides between deckers and riggers, sometimes to the point of being mostly exclusive.

[Deathtongue]

Are you speaking to a specific edition or just broadly on SR? In my perusal of editions there’s varying divides between deckers and riggers, sometimes to the point of being mostly exclusive.

I have 4E Shadowrun (15 years ago) onwards in mind, when hacking and rigging was merged from two separate archetypes.

[Telok]

Considering it is a main driver in game systems that don't have such a wide gap in the utility of spellcasting with mundane skills I think the problem goes deeper than spellcasting. For example, in a game system like Champions where the characters have equal gestalt amounts of offense and defense combined, mental-stat focused characters like psychics and engineers still contribute more than the martial bruisers.

Untrue for Champions. As a point buy system that favors super powers, buying up skills and non-combat side effects in pretty cheap. Being a world class doctor, super jet pilot, famous movie star, or flat out billionaire is often less costly in build resources than a secondary attack or defense power. These things are generally only loosely coupled to character attributes.