Balance vs 3.5

[Kane0]

- Proficiency bonus is used for skill/ability checks, attacks and saving throws instead of BAB, save progressions and skill points. It's all based off Stat + Proficiency, and the numbers are lower and scale slower. HP and abilities/options are the primary differentiation between low and high levels.
- Due to reduced scaling of basic numbers (skills, attacks, damage, AC) it is expected that low CR creatures remain a threat to higher level parties in significant numbers. This is intended.

- You have a saving throw type for each attribute.
- You can't have a stat higher than 20 by normal means, nor a stat higher than 30 by any means.
- Movement is not an action, and actions can happen between movement. Bonus actions are like swifts, reactions are like immediates. No action can be traded for another type. You can also make one interaction (grab a weapon, open a door, etc) per turn for free.
- Attacking does not impede your ability to move (ie ‘Full Attack’) and you can in fact move between attacks if you have multiple.
- Attacks are classified oddly but they mostly boil down to a combination of [melee or ranged] and [weapon or spell]
- You cannot delay your turn, only ready an action.
- By default only one thing provokes an AoO: Moving out of a creatures reach.
- Learn the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, it replaces 90% of fiddly +1s and -2s.
- Dying works differently. You only die outright when you take damage equal to your max HP in one hit after reaching 0. When reduced to 0 you make saving throws, three successes stabilizes you and 3 failures you die. Taking damage while making death saves counts as one failure.
- Damage resistance, reduction and vulnerability is simplified. It's half damage, doesn't exist (as such) and double damage respectively.

- There are two kinds of rest: short and long. There are expected to be two short rests for every long on average, which is important to in balancing short rest classes (monk, warlock) against long rest classes (paladin, sorcerer).
- Everybody can heal via hit die, which are spent during short rests.

- Concentration is a thing casters should learn well. Most buff, debuff and control spells need concentration, and you can only concentrate on one thing at a time. You have a chance to lose concentration each time you take damage.
- There are relatively few permanent or near-permanent bonuses/buffs
- All casting is 'spontaneous', as in you don’t put individual spells into slots, you just have a collection of spells available to you and spell slots to fuel them with. Your spells will either be prepared or known based on class.
- High casting stat doesn’t give you additional spell slots, but does affect your spell attack bonus and spell DC (which is the same across all spell levels).
- Spells scale by spell slot rather than by caster level, which makes multiclassing considerably more friendly for casters
- Cantrips are notable now, offering viable damage output based on PC level not caster level
- There is a rule that restricts how many levelled spells you can cast on your turn, but it’s… complicated.

- Levels 1-3 are supposed to go by very quickly, and 4-5 fairly quickly. The majority of PC time is angled to be spent in the level 6-11 range.
- Encounter design and challenge rating is also different. A CR 6 enemy is an easy (little resource expenditure & low chance of falling) challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not an easy challenge for a single level 6 character. You are expected to deal with half a dozen or so medium encounters during an adventuring day, not one or two hard ones.
- Don't use any optional rules to start with. This includes multiclassing and feats.
- The core math of the game does not expect you to get magic items by default. You can play through levels 1 to 20 without seeing a magic item at all, anything you get/give is a bonus.

Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

Don't worry about balance. Its only really noticeable once you get familiar and press into optimisation

[strangebloke]

In general balance improvements come down to

• concentration limits buff stacking and makes it easier to lose spell slots
• smaller spell lists with more limitations on most of the old big offenders (scrying and teleport for example are far less reliable. Simulacrum is still ridiculous but harder to get online. Etc.)
• lots of spells are simply higher level than they were before.
• pretty much every monster above a certain level has protection against your most debilitating saves-or-sucks, for one reason or another.

For noncasters, the big buff is being able to move freely in between or during any action, and just having more class features in general. Even something like a barbarian, probably the weakest class in the game currently, has a few things they're pretty good at.

Now, none of the above means that the game is 'balanced.' In fact, bounded accuracy ends up making summoning/minionmancy really, really strong. Just having a big pack of zombies or wolves is probably the most busted thing you can do in this edition, and as you would expect casters are really good at this.

Of course. Almost everyone's a caster too. I think if you add up all the archetypes its something like 4/5 of all archetypes that have some level of casting or casting-replacement feature. And tons of races and feats give some level of spellcasting as well. So if you end up unable to cast, that's almost always a conscious decision on your part.

[kazaryu]

Those are exactly the games where optimization shines the most and where casters can showcase how much more useful and versatile they are.

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials. because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them. and they don't have enough reactions to defend themselves from a variety of attack angles. Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips. maybe tossing out a shield or a magic missile if it becomes necessary. in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials. and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage. and once you run out of spell slots....

if you manage to make it to levels 11+ then you might stand a chance, but...oh boy before that you're in for such a headache of a game.


edit: i should actually add an addendum: the exception to this is summons. a single cast of one of the mass summon spells is straight up broken...or the mass casting of single summons is also strong. but thats a single outlier, and the big reason you want those is for the same reason you want martials. efficient damage output, extra HP, and limiting access to the squishier casters.

[LudicSavant]

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...

Yes.

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them.

So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

Even if it did, the idea that "Wizards are squishy" is very much a stereotype, not something that's actually universally (or even usually) true of optimized Wizards (which includes a wide range of characters that play very differently from each other. It would be a mistake to point at 'Wizards as if they all conformed to the same playstyle). An easy hard counterexample is armored, limitless-regenerating-ward Abjurers, who are so durable they can straight up go 'get behind me Barbarian, you're too fragile!"

Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips.

With the exception of very early levels, casters in general have considerably more resources than just enough for one spell per combat in an 8-combat day unless those resources are mismanaged (which will not be the case in a ‘high optimization game.’)

And if you're in a game with an entire party of casters, you've got an awful lot of spells for the party to burn.

in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials.

This will often not be the case if someone's playing a gish, minionmancer, hazard combo, hexvoker, or other caster built to be good at damage.

and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.

Rakshasas aren't 'a wall.' There are numerous ways for a caster party to deal with them. Heck you could just have the thing you summoned in the encounter half an hour ago kick them in the teeth.

Don’t underestimate just how many counters there are to most anti-spell defenses.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage.

Except... no it isn't? There are all kinds of options. Casters who want to do damage are using things like Crown of Stars, contingent Armor of Agathys, Thrall-boosted Danse Macabre, pinballing people through Walls of Fire with no save several times per round, walling people in with a concentration-free Faithful Hound, and so, so much more.

You say 'high optimization game' but your examples don't seem to reflect that.

[Chaos Jackal]

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...

Obviously. But you didn't say that. You said "games where optimizations [sic] is largely unnecessary".

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials. because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them.

I didn't say wizards, I said casters. Which includes heavily armored clerics, Moon druids and gish subclasses like Hexblade and Swords bard. Not that wizards in general will "fall over if someone farts on them". Diviners, Chronurgists, Abjurers, Bladesingers... many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be.

And again, there's other casters. Hit die makes way less of a difference than you'd think when your primary means of tanking damage is to avoid taking it at all and stuff like armor is a feat or race away. And don't say "niche/fringe cases"; we're supposed to be optimizing, so yes, there will be races with armor proficiency, flight and feats in the mix. It's expected.

Party optimization, you say? I'm not gonna search for and quote Eldariel's multiple examples of full caster parties, but suffice to say that, since there are subclasses made for any situation, you can make a full caster party that is just as tough at the baseline as your regular fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard while having many times more slots and power. And while multiple martials are additive, each one just adding their damage and HP to the mix, multiple casters are exponentially stronger. Restrictions of concentration, spells known/prepared and needing multiple turns to set up combos? Gone. The infamous forcecage+area damage over time comes online four levels earlier and can happen in a single turn without requiring a simulacrum. You can throw buffs on that Bladesinger or Moon druid until they're immortal. You can afford someone knowing/preparing mostly utility and out of combat spells.

A full caster party is the definition of optimizing a party.

and they don't have enough reactions to defend themselves from a variety of attack angles. Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips. maybe tossing out a shield or a magic missile if it becomes necessary. in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials. and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.

There's multiple casters, which means multiple reactions and ways to protect not just yourself but your allies too. Or just, you know, be proactive and remove key targets from play. Again, multiple casters. Worst case scenario, they'll punch through with multiple saves until the enemy folds, but there are also a lot more elegant ways to go about it.

And no, in this type of high optimization games, damage won't come from the martials, because martials aren't there. Damage will come from summons, who will also take enemy damage. Damage will come from gishes, who have way more potent defenses than eating the damage and hoping they'll last the day because of their HP pool. Damage will come from a cleric's spirit guardians or a druid's spike growth combined with forced movement effects, damage and control in one package. Damage will come from something like a nuclear wizard, specifically made to, alongside everything else, also pack a way to bring jaw-dropping numbers to the table should the need arise.

For "anti-magic" enemies, again, see above. Summon something. Use your army of the dead. Buff the Bladesinger and watch them be nigh invulnerable as they hack about. Employ positioning and kiting tactics that you just can't employ as effectively with martials' limited mobility. Throw down tiny huts and rope tricks mid-combat and watch as the enemy is left with literally nothing to do. And so on and so forth. And before you say anything about high level, these are tricks available since at least lv5.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage. and once you run out of spell slots....

No, read above.

if you manage to make it to levels 11+ then you might stand a chance, but...oh boy before that you're in for such a headache of a game.

Again, read above. And the lower the levels, the less likely you'll run into enemies that can resist even your basic tricks. A lv2 wizard has four slots, if you factor in Arcane Recovery. Four wizards have 16. You want to tell me that you'd rather have 15-20 HP and 17-18 AC rather than another four slots of sleep and shield at lv2? Because you've gravely miscalculated if that's the case.

edit: i should actually add an addendum: the exception to this is summons. a single cast of one of the mass summon spells is straight up broken...or the mass casting of single summons is also strong. but thats a single outlier, and the big reason you want those is for the same reason you want martials. efficient damage output, extra HP, and limiting access to the squishier casters.

Read above about how summons are far from the only way and reason casters are both tough and ideal for party optimization.

This feels likely to turn, expectedly, into another casters vs martials thread and I really have better things to do than argue once more about how casters are better in 2022. The game's been out for eight years, the proof and arguments are out there. I'm out of here before it gets too cramped.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bladesingers... many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be.

I played an optimized Bladesinger from 7 to 17. She was easily the sturdiest character in a party--Paladin very much included.

[Ignimortis]

Wizards are less durable than Fighters by 4HP at first level and then 2 HP per level. That's it. The Tough feat already makes them as durable. If your Wizard starts off with 16 DEX and Mage Armor, they already have the same AC as a starting Fighter without a shield. If they are a dwarf and have a shield, they're more durable. The gap is incredibly small and can be partially or fully transcended starting at level 1.

Barbarian can stay ahead for a while, Rangers are the same as Fighters, Paladins get better saves eventually, but not better HP/AC.

[kazaryu]

Obviously. But you didn't say that. You said "games where optimizations [sic] is largely unnecessary".

and then followed it up with a description of a game where optimization is necessary, with a reasonable segue. unless you were saying that 'games where optimization shines' is in games where optimization is unnecessary? in which case i misininterpreted what you said.

I didn't say wizards, I said casters. Which includes heavily armored clerics, Moon druids and gish subclasses like Hexblade and Swords bard.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

with that out of the way. i'd like to first start by conceeding the point...basically entirely. my very first reply was in response to the notion that 'you always want no martials in high optimization' or at least, thats what seems to have been implied, and has been doubled down on below. However, i got carried away and instead began defending the notion that 'you always need some martials' instead of 'martials are perfectly viable in a high lethality/optimization game'. This was, as you have both pointed out, dumb. It is very much true that its possible to build a caster to fill the role of Meat in a party.

So, if you'll give me a moment to dig my foot out of my mouth, there are a few specific points that i'd like to respond to, since i DO still disagree with the notion that a caster is *always* the better option for that role. I will note, that i am specifically ignoring minionmancy. or specifically im ignoring mass minionmancy (like mass summon spells, or undead hordes) and im doing so because in practice they're so likely to get either hard or soft banned. many, many tables are unlikely to want to consistently spend initiative time going through all 24 of your giant eagles turns. even with ways to speed it up. But i do acknowledge that such spells are super strong in 5e, and if you actually run with them, then martials are 100% obsolete.

Not that wizards in general will "fall over if someone farts on them". Diviners, Chronurgists, Abjurers, Bladesingers...

diviners get 2 (eventually 3) portent dice per day as their only subclass specific defensive option...they're not anywhere near being in the same tier as a martial in terms of 'toughness'. chronurgist is better. 5 rerolls and (eventually) 1-2 auto success/failures per day..but again, those are still super limited resources. not on par. bladesingers are decent, they have exceptional AC, and eventually, at level 10, they can trade spell slots for damge reduction. so yes, as long as their slots last they have some potential. but pre level 10? all they have is a bonus to AC, any non attack based damage is still a major threat to them. Abjurerer is the only one you listed that has defenses comparable to a full martial. their ward gives them, essentially, a d10 hit dice (technically a bit higher at low levels due to the intmod). However:

many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be.

this is only true if you really stretch the definition of 'tough'. With a TON of investment (as in, race AND feats) the abjurerer can have almost as much HP as a barbarian of the same constitution. but that barbarian is also gonna tend to take half damage from weapon attacks, and if they really wanna lean into tankiness, all damage except psychic. They're also proficient in constitution saves and have advantage on dex saves, meaning they're going to tend to take less damage from those sources compared to the wizard. and on top of that, could also go the same feat/race combo as the abjurer, and have them beat on HP too. Its not an exaggeration to say that a well built caster can be tanky enough to fill the meat role. it might not be an exaggeration that a specific build of a caster is able to absorb more damage over the course of a day (likely via THP or HP boosting spells). But in order to do so a TON of their resources (this includes: character build resources, spell slots, and action economy) is going to be spent on pure defense. Whereas a martial can just spend some character build resources and..boom. super tough.

And again, there's other casters. Hit die makes way less of a difference than you'd think when your primary means of tanking damage is to avoid taking it at all and stuff like armor is a feat or race away

first of all, don't tell me what i think. in a high lethality game/optmization game, you're not avoiding all the damage. i mean i suppose we could go back and forth about what constitutes such a game. but if its a game where a 16-17 (pre-shield)AC is enough that you're not reliably taking damage...idk, doesn't sound like a terribly lethal game to me. at some point you're going to take some damage, and hit die size is a significant contributor to how much damage you can take.

to put it another way..if you're able to avoid all damage, the game is...not lethal. by like...definition. even things like wall of force at higher levels aren't gonna stop creatures from teleporting on top of you, or using abilities that bypass it.

And while multiple martials are additive, each one just adding their damage and HP to the mix, multiple casters are exponentially stronger.

multiple casters...are also additive. casters, individually, scale exponentially. but putting them together just...linearly increases those exponential resources. its the difference between. (yx^2) and (x^(2y))

Restrictions of concentration, spells known/prepared and needing multiple turns to set up combos? Gone. The infamous forcecage+area damage over time comes online four levels earlier and can happen in a single turn without requiring a simulacrum. You can throw buffs on that Bladesinger or Moon druid until they're immortal. You can afford someone knowing/preparing mostly utility and out of combat spells.

while i get that you're trying to prove that martials aren't neccesary (because, as mentioned, i ****ed up my own argument). none of this actually backs up your thought that martials are bad. in fact...it does the opposite. you know whats better than a bladesigner with multiple buff spells stacked on top? a martial...since they do all the things you're looking for that 'immortal' bladesinger to do..but better. But, again, i get the point, if you put the right spells on the caster, they temporarily become a pseudo martial.

For "anti-magic" enemies, again, see above. Summon something. Use your army of the dead. Buff the Bladesinger and watch them be nigh invulnerable as they hack about. Employ positioning and kiting tactics that you just can't employ as effectively due to martials' limited mobility. Throw down tiny huts and rope tricks mid-combat and watch as the enemy is left with literally nothing to do. And so on and so forth. And before you say anything about high level, these are tricks available since at least lv5.

so...in your mind, a high lethality/optimization game means that enemies are immobile, and stupid? and what kind of mobility are you using as a caster that martials can't match? its arguments like this that make it seem like you're not really talking about a game where optimization is a necessary. because like...i can think of several ways to deal with a party that tried to make an impenetrable shield by dropping a tiny hut/rope trick mid combat. like...SUPER easily. not all of them work in every scenario, but like...they're generalized enough that its hardly the trump card you think it is. one option is...just back off and wait for you to come out of your shell...or cast dispel magic, readied actions...

Again, read above. And the lower the levels, the less likely you'll run into enemies that can resist even your basic tricks. A lv2 wizard has four slots, if you factor in Arcane Recovery. Four wizards have 16. You want to tell me that you'd rather have 15-20 HP and 17-18 AC rather than another four slots of sleep and shield at lv2? Because you've gravely miscalculated if that's the case.

i'd rather that someone in the party has some meat, could be me, could be someone else. (again, you're correct that it doesn't have to be a martial. However, it can, viably, be a martial, )i yes,. its not just about specific level ranges. eventually you're going to level up.

An easy hard counterexample is armored, limitless-regenerating-ward Abjurers, who are so durable they can straight up go 'get behind me Barbarian, you're too fragile!"

as pointed out above...this is a gross exaggeration. even when you consider short rests and the like. abjurerer gets their ward back, but barbarians get more HP out of HD. and with their resistances it balances out pretty well in the long run.

With the exception of very early levels, casters in general have considerably more resources than just enough for one spell per combat in an 8-combat day unless those resources are mismanaged (which will not be the case in a ‘high optimization game.’)

as pointed out at the top, for the most part i've conceeded your point, but i would like to correct something here, since you seem to have misunderstood the point i was making (or maybe i just made it poorly :shrug:). my point was that overall you're going to want to stretch your spell slots out, and save your best ones for emergencies/really bad fights. meaning that at some point, you're not hitting at your weight class. and you need to make up for that somehow. one of the ways to do that is to have some form of consistent damage dealer (like a martial) obviously DoT spells can also work, if you're using a party of full casters. stack enough spirit guardians on top of each other and you do, indeed, end up with a good enough damage output.

But yeah..the point was meant to be that as a caster in a high optimization game, you're not dropping your big spells every fight. and you're not spending multiple spell slots every round (which are 2 of the biggest times that casters REALLY outshine martials)

Don’t underestimate just how many counters there are to most anti-spell defenses.

a lot of the options you might think of, i wouldn't call counters. i'd equate them more to the 'well...at least i have X'. in an antimagic fight, as a party of full casters, you're still going to generally be on your back feet. you might win, but it'd sure as hell help to have options that weren't magic reliant. doesn't have to be a martial...but it wouldn't be a bad idea for it to be one.

i didn't reply to omuch to Ludic just because most of what you said was in response to my (attempts)to back up a faulty claim, which i already conceeded.

[JNAProductions]

Wizards are less durable than Fighters by 4HP at first level and then 2 HP per level. That's it. The Tough feat already makes them as durable. If your Wizard starts off with 16 DEX and Mage Armor, they already have the same AC as a starting Fighter without a shield. If they are a dwarf and have a shield, they're more durable. The gap is incredibly small and can be partially or fully transcended starting at level 1.

Barbarian can stay ahead for a while, Rangers are the same as Fighters, Paladins get better saves eventually, but not better HP/AC.

How do you get shield from dwarf?

Mountain dwarves grant medium armor, but not shields.

[Waazraath]

How do you get shield from dwarf?

Mountain dwarves grant medium armor, but not shields.

And how do you get a 16 dex AND the same con as a fighter (also 16) AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)? And why does the wizard gets to upgrade his defenses with racial features, and the fighter not? And why, if we are comparing defenses, don't we assume a fighter with defense fighting style and a shield? And why do we assume that mage armor is always on?

I know why, cause it's always the same in these threads, but at the same time it doesn't stop to amaze.

[Ignimortis]

How do you get shield from dwarf?

Mountain dwarves grant medium armor, but not shields.

Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency).

And how do you get a 16 dex AND the same con as a fighter (also 16) AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)? And why does the wizard gets to upgrade his defenses with racial features, and the fighter not? And why, if we are comparing defenses, don't we assume a fighter with defense fighting style and a shield? And why do we assume that mage armor is always on?

I know why, cause it's always the same in these threads, but at the same time it doesn't stop to amaze.

16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor.

[Selion]

Yes.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

I don't know if the meat grinder mindset is the best way to approach this discussion, I mean, if we are scratching the ceiling of optimization in order to obtain survivability in an extremely deadly context, they will shine characters with specific builds (likely over-busted) to fit every role and still be able to fill holes.
In most situations a fighter is pretty good as a front liner, with their specific build they could cover a secondary role, depending on character choices, but that's all.
The classic 4-pc party with fighter, wizard cleric and rogue can cover basically every role, without so many overlaps.
In an extremely high optimization game, though, the same result may be obtained with a bladesinger, hexblade, moon druid and twilight cleric, it's a hell of a party, in which every character can cover multiple roles, including front liner, but we just cherry-picked specific subclasses to obtain this alchemy.
Without this cherry picking, i think a party composed of evoker, old one warlock, star circle druid and light domain cleric is lacking in some areas and overflooding in utility in respect to a more balanced party composed of core subclasses like champion fighter/evoker wizard/light domain cleric/ scout rogue (i intentionally picked average optimized sub classes in both scenarios)

Edit:

Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency).


16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor.

The opportunity cost of a fighter in full plate (18/19 AC) without any attribute or feat or subclass investment and a wizard utilizing 1/2 1st level slots every day and investing in dexterity/constitution (and still being behind) is not the same.
Even the tough Feat has is a lower investment for a fighter in respect to a wizard, because a fighter has bonus feats, so i think it's not fair comparing a wizard with spells and attributes investment with a fighter without any investment. Fighters are naturally tanky, and may become tankier with builds. Wizards are naturally squishy, they can become decent in survivability with specific builds

[Grod_The_Giant]

AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)?

Not if you're building a gish, necessarily. It means trading out some versatility (blasting and debuffing) for a bulkier melee presence, but that still leaves you with dozens and dozens of fun and powerful spell options. A warrior-mage who uses their slots on things like Hex, Mirror Image, and Greater Invisibility doesn't give a **** about their casting stat.

[strangebloke]

So like. Heavy Weapon fighter vs. Wizard at level 5.

• Fighter has 16 CON we'll say and uses splint with defense style for 18 AC. 47 HP + 41.5 HD healing + 31.5 SW healing assuming two short rests. That's 120 total HP throughout a day.
• Wizard has 14 CON and 16 DEX which gives 16 AC with mage armor. 30 HP + 26.5 HD healing. That's 56.5 total HP throughout a day.
• Fighter with no resources deals [2d6+4]*2=22 damage! Ouch!
• Wizard with no resources deals 2d10=11 damage.

Now at first glance this looks very conclusive. The wizard is way behind in HP and deals half as much damage! But then you remember the wizard has spells. Yeah, spells. Those things. As one example of a spell, the wizard can cast summon fey twice. This spell conjures 30 hp with each casting, so two castings completely equalizes the HP gap. Or they could cast animate dead twice for 8 skeletons with a combined HP pool of 104! Or they could cast summon lesser demons for 8 dretches with each casting for 288 hp! Now. Sure. Maybe that isn't realistic. But casting absorb elements or shield to get rid of 10+ damage is absolutely in the cards, and if you're able to do so 3 times, you've bridged the gap by half.

For damage, a wizard could cast fireball which deals a whopping 21 damage to all creatures in a 20 foot radius. If there are three enemies in that radius, that's a combined average of 62 damage, and it can do that three times a day! Wow! Remember, we didn't consider accuracy for the Fighter's sustained damage. In three turns the wizard has dealt 186 damage. Assuming the fighter has a 70% hit rate, we can actually calculate the 'break even' point where the fighter catches up in total damage output. Lets say the fighter blows all three of their action surges, to be fair. How long do you think it takes? 18 rounds. In a five encounter day where each combat takes 4 rounds, the total DPR will be very very close for the fireballer and the basic GWF fighter. Both damage dealers have their advantages and disadvantages, but suffice to say that overall its a wash.

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

Yeah, things don't get better from here.

1st level spells look cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on. 3rd level spells look cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on. A 9th level wizard can cast fireball eight times. Meanwhile, second wind scales poorly and fighter damage almost completely stagnates after level 11. You reach a point where the shorter days favor the fighter, because until you get to crazy high numbers of encounters the wizard just practically isn't running out of spell slots.

....And this is purely looking at tanking and spanking. Meanwhile the wizard is giving everyone mounts, giving advantage with familiar, identifying all the magic items, scouting with familiar, using detect magic to sus out secret rooms, etc. etc.

Sure, I know this analysis is ignoring that fighter has a few really good subclasses (wizard does too) and I know that fighters can get a lot of good feats, but the overall pattern is here. Wizards are not that far behind fighters purely in tanking and spanking, and can do a lot more than that without sacrificing anything.

[kazaryu]

Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency).

ironic that you're talking about toghness...and dismiss the sorcerer. the full caster class with the ability to have permanent mage armor, and (effectively) a d8 scaling HP while only investing their subclass. throw in toughness and hill dwarf, and their at a s14 scaling HP. not quite as high as an abjurer of the same build...but still...a weird option to dismiss.

16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor.

so you've proven that with a ton of investment a wizard can have as much bulk as just...a baseline fighter....what exactly are you trying to prove? serious question. if you're stance, overall, is that you don't neccesarily need martials. then i agree, you can absolutely build a caster to fill the same role that martials typically fill.

OTOH, if you're trying to prove that this makes martials unnecesary...well, then i think you've done a not so great job of it.

[MrStabby]

So like. Heavy Weapon fighter vs. Wizard at level 5.

• Fighter has 16 CON we'll say and uses splint with defense style for 18 AC. 47 HP + 41.5 HD healing + 31.5 SW healing assuming two short rests. That's 120 total HP throughout a day.
• Wizard has 14 CON and 16 DEX which gives 16 AC with mage armor. 30 HP + 26.5 HD healing. That's 56.5 total HP throughout a day.
• Fighter with no resources deals [2d6+4]*2=22 damage! Ouch!
• Wizard with no resources deals 2d10=11 damage.

Now at first glance this looks very conclusive. The wizard is way behind in HP and deals half as much damage! But then you remember the wizard has spells. Yeah, spells. Those things. As one example of a spell, the wizard can cast summon fey twice. This spell conjures 30 hp with each casting, so two castings completely equalizes the HP gap. Or they could cast animate dead twice for 8 skeletons with a combined HP pool of 104! Or they could cast summon lesser demons for 8 dretches with each casting for 288 hp! Now. Sure. Maybe that isn't realistic. But casting absorb elements or shield to get rid of 10+ damage is absolutely in the cards, and if you're able to do so 3 times, you've bridged the gap by half.

For damage, a wizard could cast fireball which deals a whopping 21 damage to all creatures in a 20 foot radius. If there are three enemies in that radius, that's a combined average of 62 damage, and it can do that three times a day! Wow! Remember, we didn't consider accuracy for the Fighter's sustained damage. In three turns the wizard has dealt 186 damage. Assuming the fighter has a 70% hit rate, we can actually calculate the 'break even' point where the fighter catches up in total damage output. Lets say the fighter blows all three of their action surges, to be fair. How long do you think it takes? 18 rounds. In a five encounter day where each combat takes 4 rounds, the total DPR will be very very close for the fireballer and the basic GWF fighter. Both damage dealers have their advantages and disadvantages, but suffice to say that overall its a wash.

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

.

Hang on... are you suggesting that the caster uses their level 3 spells for both conjure fey twice per day and fireball three times a day? At level 5?

[strangebloke]

Hang on... are you suggesting that the caster uses their level 3 spells for both conjure fey twice per day and fireball three times a day? At level 5?

No. This was my actual point:

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

You can shift more towards 'defense' by spending those 3rd level spell slots on summoning/conjuring instead, and your damage doesn't actually suffer that much because lol summon fey does good damage. But fireball is easier for this sort of analysis so I went with that.

Wizards, even very dumb ones, are not far behind martials when it comes to tanking and spanking even at relatively low levels.

[kazaryu]

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

for the types of games being discussed...that idiot wizard would run out of spell slots and become nigh useless real fast. Now, i agree with some of what you said, in particular about the summons. summon spells are, and have always been broken. But they're also incredibly frustrating to use at a lot of tables. as a result, i tend to ignore them. sure, in a white room scenario, casters gonna dominate nearly everything with summons. But i'd wager that at most actual tables, such things are going to either not be allowed, or allowed only sparingly. noone wants to sit through that many turns.

So aside from summons, can you think of a legit way a wizard can do what a martial does, in such a way that it completely removes the desire to play a martial? i've already admitted that a caster can fill much the same role as a martial. But can you provide an optimized lvl 5 caster build, that does what a martial does so well, that a lvl 5 optimized martial is no longer viable?

I mean this earnestly when i say: unless you're not actually trying to support that at all. If all you mean to prove is that a wizard (or other caster) can do the job that a martial does, as well as a martial. thats fine. Im just looking for someone to actually provide a good argument for why an optimized party *shouldn't* contain martials...i've really not seen any yet, at least, not for low levels.

[strangebloke]

for the types of games being discussed...that idiot wizard would run out of spell slots and become nigh useless real fast. Now, i agree with some of what you said, in particular about the summons. summon spells are, and have always been broken. But they're also incredibly frustrating to use at a lot of tables. as a result, i tend to ignore them. sure, in a white room scenario, casters gonna dominate nearly everything with summons. But i'd wager that at most actual tables, such things are going to either not be allowed, or allowed only sparingly. noone wants to sit through that many turns.

So fighters are better because ALL SUMMON spells get banned? Saying that something is so good that it needs to be banned/nerfed seems to me to be acknowledging that its an extremely powerful class.

And while spells like conjure animals are outliers, they're otherwise really not. How much damage does spirit guardians deal over the course of the encounter? Spiritual Weapon?

So aside from summons, can you think of a legit way a wizard can do what a martial does, in such a way that it completely removes the desire to play a martial? i've already admitted that a caster can fill much the same role as a martial. But can you provide an optimized lvl 5 caster build, that does what a martial does so well, that a lvl 5 optimized martial is no longer viable?

I mean this earnestly when i say: unless you're not actually trying to support that at all. If all you mean to prove is that a wizard (or other caster) can do the job that a martial does, as well as a martial. thats fine. Im just looking for someone to actually provide a good argument for why an optimized party *shouldn't* contain martials...i've really not seen any yet, at least, not for low levels.

...unless all summon spells are banned, of course. If they're not, then the point's already been made! So casters can fill the martial role completely and we both agree about this, you just don't like that and say it should be banned (and thus not counted for this discussion??)

But sure. To humor you, here's my optimized builds that almost completely overshadow most martials at almost all levels:
A hexblade
A moon druid
A twilight/peace cleric

[Gnoman]

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

[kazaryu]

So fighters are better because ALL SUMMON spells get banned? Saying that something is so good that it needs to be banned/nerfed seems to me to be acknowledging that its an extremely powerful class.

And while spells like conjure animals are outliers, they're otherwise really not. How much damage does spirit guardians deal over the course of the encounter? Spiritual Weapon?

noooonoono, i've already made the mistake of trying to prove that martials are neccesary. My point is that they are viable, even in high optimization games.

...unless all summon spells are banned, of course. If they're not, then the point's already been made! So casters can fill the martial role completely and we both agree about this, you just don't like that and say it should be banned (and thus not counted for this discussion??)

my point about summons is twofold.
1. the spells are, as you put it, outliers. they're ridiculously broken, just based on the action economy. to say nothing of the control they can give you over the battlefield, and some of the more clever things you can do with them (i.e. summon pixie+polymorph).
and
2. of all the general class of spells, they're the most likely to be banned/nerfed at a table. so yeah, if summons are on the table, obviously martials are obsolete, summon spells are broken. But in practice you're as likely to find a table that lets you use them, because, in addition to being broken, they're also really really obnoxious to use.

so, while in theory summons make caster's too good that martials are no longer viable, situations where summons are either nerfed or banned are common enough that, imo, the discussion is far better served by removing the outlier. it makes no sense to make a general statement like 'caster's are always better' if its based on a feature that is commonly excluded from the game.

A hexblade

sorry, you're going to have to explain this one...remember, the point is to show how a hexblade is so good, that it makes martials nonviable. like EB is solid damage, and obviously a blade pact warlock can get pseudo extra attack. but as far as i can see that really only puts them on par with martials. not way ahead. and at level 5? right when martial hit their first powerspike? they certainly do have some benefits over martials. i.e. the ability to swap from doing a 2d6 melee weapon to a 1d10 ranged weapon without needing to boost 2 ability scores or take a feat. But the various martial classes all have benefits that warlocks lack.

A moon druid

LMAO. no...just...no. at higher levels they're pretty decent. but animal forms don't come near being able to match the turn-by-turn versatility that martials can have. yeah moon druids get a lot of HP, but there's way more to being a martial than that. battlemaster maneuvers, grappling, straight up battlefield control (for example sentinal/pam). This isn't to say that moon druids can't be used to fill that role. but they're not SO good at it that its always better to play one than to pick a martial.

A twilight/peace cleric

right....because martials can't use the benefits that twilight/peace clerics give? again, im not arguing that you have to have a martial. im arguing that martials are still viable. and they use the buffs provided by clerics really well. they even (situationally) use some of the peace cleric benefits better than a caster would.

[Kane0]

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

That's basically a D&D tradition isn't it?

[Telok]

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

Oh you'll get used to that. Its been a complaint since 5e hit the ground.

[Ignimortis]

ironic that you're talking about toghness...and dismiss the sorcerer. the full caster class with the ability to have permanent mage armor, and (effectively) a d8 scaling HP while only investing their subclass. throw in toughness and hill dwarf, and their at a s14 scaling HP. not quite as high as an abjurer of the same build...but still...a weird option to dismiss.

so you've proven that with a ton of investment a wizard can have as much bulk as just...a baseline fighter....what exactly are you trying to prove? serious question. if you're stance, overall, is that you don't neccesarily need martials. then i agree, you can absolutely build a caster to fill the same role that martials typically fill.

OTOH, if you're trying to prove that this makes martials unnecesary...well, then i think you've done a not so great job of it.

My point was that even without any noticeable investment (i.e. 16 DEX and Mage Armor, which is pretty much nothing), the gap is very small and keeps getting smaller as levels go on. If you actually try and pick something like Abjurer or Bladesinger, it vanishes, and further on the Wizard will overtake the Fighter for durability. Bladesinger 8 with no magic items routinely gets 21 AC and 26 in a pinch.

Tough is a very direct way to demonstrate the actual difference between their HP - half of a mediocre feat is all that Fighter actually gets HP-wise compared to Wizard. Now, Barbarian...

Draconic Resilience is a decent point (and I forgot that it does grant +1 HP per level), but it rather pales in comparison to Abjurer/Bladesinger or Twilight Cleric. Power creep et al. Stone UA was a bit better at this, but it never got released for some reason.

The opportunity cost of a fighter in full plate (18/19 AC) without any attribute or feat or subclass investment and a wizard utilizing 1/2 1st level slots every day and investing in dexterity/constitution (and still being behind) is not the same.
Even the tough Feat has is a lower investment for a fighter in respect to a wizard, because a fighter has bonus feats, so i think it's not fair comparing a wizard with spells and attributes investment with a fighter without any investment. Fighters are naturally tanky, and may become tankier with builds. Wizards are naturally squishy, they can become decent in survivability with specific builds

Investment into DEX/CON is expected. I don't see Wizards (nor anyone who isn't into heavy armor) with less than 14/14, unless the player wants something very specific (and probably not raw numbers-oriented) out of the character. You don't have to take Tough - your subclass alone can provide more value and survivability than Tough+Fighter subclass ever will.

Fighters are not actually naturally tanky. Barbarians are, and they're easy to make even more tanky (Bear Totem, done). Paladins are situationally tanky (self-healing, great saves, don't noticeably lose out on offense if using SnB). Even Monks can be noticeably more durable than Fighters (though it takes either effort or a particular magic item, but their saves skyrocket at 14 and certain subclasses get great defensive features). Fighters by default are, at best, not very squishy, and you can make them semi-tanky if you use a shield/defense fighting style/subclasses that improve defenses. And if you don't, and go with the default 2H/heavy armor build, you are, quite frankly, less durable than most other classes played intelligently, and it gets worse with levels.

[KirbyDerby]

Not replying to anything in particular since this has been brought up so many times, but it's actually fairly easy for casters to achieve better AC than martials. A one level dip into a class like artificer, cleric, or hexblade grants instant medium armor + shield proficiency (keeping the same number of slots and only slightly delaying your new spells known), and light armor casters can pick up moderately armored instead. They also have access to the Shield spell and can more effectively use the Dodge action when concentrating on a spell. Martials, on the other hand, can't use a shield without sacrificing their damage significantly, and many don't have access to spells like Shield or Absorb Elements. They also need to take the two weapon feats (SS + XBE or GWM + PM) to deal good damage, so they can't invest as many feats into survivability (not that there are many good ones that they can use in the first place).

[tiornys]

Are martial characters viable at high op? Depends on how you define viability and your threshold for optimization. This (from TTB) is the core argument against non-spellcasters at the highest level of optimization: "Spellcasting is by far the strongest feature in the game, and as such all the top builds can cast spells. We’ll have some more dedicated martial builds in the future, but for the best-of-the-best, we have to leave about half of the classes in 5E behind as a primary class. The strength and diverse coverage the Spellcasting provides is, at least in 5E, impossible to match."

Paladins and/or Rangers are just as good with being buffed as a non-spellcaster, and also they cast a decent amount of spells. Martial subclasses of full caster classes are almost as good, and also they cast spells at full power. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks just don't get enough in return for not casting spells, and each one you have in your party is a sacrifice of numerous spell casts per day.

[KirbyDerby]

Paladins and/or Rangers are just as good with being buffed as a non-spellcaster, and also they cast a decent amount of spells. Martial subclasses of full caster classes are almost as good, and also they cast spells at full power. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks just don't get enough in return for not casting spells, and each one you have in your party is a sacrifice of numerous spell casts per day.

Funnily enough, most of these martial options for casting classes are dumped in favor of focusing on spellcasting, because it's just THAT strong. Optimized paladin builds barely use any of their martial features and hardfocus Charisma for their spellcasting and Aura of Protection, and rely mainly on Eldritch Blast for damage. The best full caster builds don't use any of the martial subclasses (or if they do, they ignore their martial features) and just cast spells or use Eldritch Blast. The main exception is Ranger, but they still rely a lot on their spellcasting to stay relevant.

[Selion]

noooonoono, i've already made the mistake of trying to prove that martials are neccesary. My point is that they are viable, even in high optimization games.


my point about summons is twofold.
1. the spells are, as you put it, outliers. they're ridiculously broken, just based on the action economy. to say nothing of the control they can give you over the battlefield, and some of the more clever things you can do with them (i.e. summon pixie+polymorph).
and
2. of all the general class of spells, they're the most likely to be banned/nerfed at a table. so yeah, if summons are on the table, obviously martials are obsolete, summon spells are broken. But in practice you're as likely to find a table that lets you use them, because, in addition to being broken, they're also really really obnoxious to use.

so, while in theory summons make caster's too good that martials are no longer viable, situations where summons are either nerfed or banned are common enough that, imo, the discussion is far better served by removing the outlier. it makes no sense to make a general statement like 'caster's are always better' if its based on a feature that is commonly excluded from the game.


sorry, you're going to have to explain this one...remember, the point is to show how a hexblade is so good, that it makes martials nonviable. like EB is solid damage, and obviously a blade pact warlock can get pseudo extra attack. but as far as i can see that really only puts them on par with martials. not way ahead. and at level 5? right when martial hit their first powerspike? they certainly do have some benefits over martials. i.e. the ability to swap from doing a 2d6 melee weapon to a 1d10 ranged weapon without needing to boost 2 ability scores or take a feat. But the various martial classes all have benefits that warlocks lack.
LMAO. no...just...no. at higher levels they're pretty decent. but animal forms don't come near being able to match the turn-by-turn versatility that martials can have. yeah moon druids get a lot of HP, but there's way more to being a martial than that. battlemaster maneuvers, grappling, straight up battlefield control (for example sentinal/pam). This isn't to say that moon druids can't be used to fill that role. but they're not SO good at it that its always better to play one than to pick a martial.
right....because martials can't use the benefits that twilight/peace clerics give? again, im not arguing that you have to have a martial. im arguing that martials are still viable. and they use the buffs provided by clerics really well. they even (situationally) use some of the peace cleric benefits better than a caster would.

TBH i can agree with you, i responded to the statement that in a high optimized meat grinder game martials are pretty much optional.
I proposed a team that may work without martials, but, as i said, it's needed to build the entire team in a proper way to make it work without a dedicated front liner.
If you ever have played a MOBA (when it comes to optimizing teams by roles i think it's a good example), you can play a team without a full tank only if their role is split among at least a couple of off-tanks, meaning characters that are tanks as secondary role.
The same way, the 4 subclasses above could fill the front liner role, but neither of them are specialists. Neither of them could be the tanky character able to absorb damage and at the same time cannot be ignored because of the sheer amount of consistent damage it can deliver.
It's necessary to split the front liner in 4 secondary front liners to produce the same result, and i think this could be overall very effective in a deadly environment, because in this 4 men team everyone is a full caster.
Does it prove that martials are useless or not viable? Hell no! It just proves that spells give a ton of utility (!) and that you can build specific teams to work without martials, BTW it's not as easy as it sounds, you need a fine tuning between subclasses, because a bunch of random wizards/clerics/druids would simply die in most situations, and i don't think it's fair comparing the standard fighter to the all-star-subclasses-team.

Edit:

Funnily enough, most of these martial options for casting classes are dumped in favor of focusing on spellcasting, because it's just THAT strong. Optimized paladin builds barely use any of their martial features and hardfocus Charisma for their spellcasting and Aura of Protection, and rely mainly on Eldritch Blast for damage. The best full caster builds don't use any of the martial subclasses (or if they do, they ignore their martial features) and just cast spells or use Eldritch Blast. The main exception is Ranger, but they still rely a lot on their spellcasting to stay relevant.

Of course, abusing
- dip in a front headed class, which is likely a design error at first level
- taking the worst written feat in the game to prevent disadvantage in close combat for elditch blast, for a feat thought to be used for crossbow in a totally different way
Then you have your eldritch pala machine gun, which is not that stonger than a straightforward ranged blattlemaster.
Does it proves that spells are too good or that hexblade multiclass and crossbow expert are unbalanced stuff?

Your argument is plausible only for extremely optimized tables, in which the sheer amount of spells and material in the game is in favor of spellcasters. Basic mechanics IMHO are good, balancing parties over parties and not single characters. An average wizard sounds stronger than a average fighter, but a figher and a wizard are stronger than two wizards, unless you're minmaxing options.

[LudicSavant]

TBH i can agree with you, i responded to the statement that in a high optimized meat grinder game martials are pretty much optional.
I proposed a team that may work without martials, but, as i said, it's needed to build the entire team in a proper way to make it work without a dedicated front liner.
If you ever have played a MOBA (when it comes to optimizing teams by roles i think it's a good example), you can play a team without a full tank only if their role is split among at least a couple of off-tanks, meaning characters that are tanks as secondary role.

There is nothing at all stopping you from making a caster a dedicated frontliner.

[AdAstra]

Are martial characters viable at high op? Depends on how you define viability and your threshold for optimization. This (from TTB) is the core argument against non-spellcasters at the highest level of optimization: "Spellcasting is by far the strongest feature in the game, and as such all the top builds can cast spells. We’ll have some more dedicated martial builds in the future, but for the best-of-the-best, we have to leave about half of the classes in 5E behind as a primary class. The strength and diverse coverage the Spellcasting provides is, at least in 5E, impossible to match."

Paladins and/or Rangers are just as good with being buffed as a non-spellcaster, and also they cast a decent amount of spells. Martial subclasses of full caster classes are almost as good, and also they cast spells at full power. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks just don't get enough in return for not casting spells, and each one you have in your party is a sacrifice of numerous spell casts per day.

Okay, that's not an argument, that's just the writer stating their opinion on spellcasting. I agree with that opinion, but if you were to use it as an argument it would be completely circular, and luckily the writer doesn't seem to treat it as such (and could probably offer an actual argument if required, it's just clearly outside the purview of the article). "Spellcasters are the best because spellcasting is the best" is only relevant at all if one can justify why spellcasting is the best. Only the last sentence has any relevance to the reasoning behind the statement, that spellcasting is usually stronger than equivalent non-spellcasting options, the ability for spells to do things that are simply not doable by most if not all non-spellcasters, and the wide variety of spells suiting most situations. With the caveats of requiring limited resources and having the right spells ready at the right time. But even that's just a summation.


With regards to the original topic, you should be fine if your players aren't particularly rabid optimizers. Spellcasters are very strong, but overall everyone should feel able to contribute. There are occasional broken options and weird exploits you may want to ban or adjust (but I'd recommend actually getting experience with things first), and you can probably get some good opinions on those here, but overall those things are comparatively minor (either in the sense of power level, or in the sense of being an obvious problem/exploit), and it's far harder to create a character that's just bad at their job. For all the talk about how you can be better off just going with all casters, you're also not hamstringing the party by not doing so. And going without spellcasters at all isn't exceedingly painful, either.