D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[Dausuul]

I just want to point out that there's only one class in the game that doesn't have access to spells.

I'm not drawing (or attempting to lead anyone to) any conclusions. I'm just stating a fact.

To expand a bit, there are:

• Five full-caster classes (wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid, bard)
• Two half-caster classes (paladin, ranger)
• One nonstandard caster class (warlock)
• Three non-caster classes with spell-using subclasses (fighter, rogue, monk)
• One total non-caster class (barbarian)

And even the barbarian can pick up Magic Initiate if she wants to play in the caster sandbox.

It's an interesting point, actually. I think it's driven by two factors. First, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster make fighter/caster and rogue/caster multiclassing work much better. Second, with such a big chunk of the Player's Handbook devoted to spells, they probably wanted to get as much use out of them as possible.

 

[Uller]

I just finished (well almost finished...we still have one encounter left) Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle...admittedly it was all with the last playtest packet but looking at the basic rules I dont see a ton of difference...for levels 1-9 the idea of casters outshining martials is just not true. At least i havent seen it. Every character had moments of standing out and every character was able to contribute to success and when they played as a team they were even more effective.

 

[Capricia]

To expand a bit, there are:

• Five full-caster classes (wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid, bard)
• Two half-caster classes (paladin, ranger)
• One nonstandard caster class (warlock)
• Three non-caster classes with spell-using subclasses (fighter, rogue, monk)
• One total non-caster class (barbarian)

And even the barbarian can pick up Magic Initiate if she wants to play in the caster sandbox.

It's an interesting point, actually. I think it's driven by two factors. First, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster make fighter/caster and rogue/caster multiclassing work much better. Second, with such a big chunk of the Player's Handbook devoted to spells, they probably wanted to get as much use out of them as possible.

Actually, with the way multiclassing works, you're much better off multiclassing into wizard than sticking with either class. If you're a Fighter, you can either jump off to wizard at level 11 if you're a battlemaster, or 12 if you're a Eldritch Knight. Either way you can get much more effective spellcasting than a pure Eldritch Knight, and the things you lose--a feat slot, a final extra attack you only get at 20, extra uses of action surge and indomitable--are really minor.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And even the barbarian can pick up Magic Initiate if she wants to play in the caster sandbox.

You don't even have to do that. A totem warrior barbarian gains a couple of specific spells--albeit only as rituals--automatically. So there's no 5e core class that doesn't have at least some magic as a base option.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, all-day martial resources are mythical. They still run on hp, making long adventuring days problematic for them too. It doesn't matter if the fighter can still hit hard if they're down to 5hp with no HD or recovery abilities left.

Even more basic than that, he has to have something in front of him he has reason to kill. If you only have a few encounters per day, and the casters pop off spells in every round of those encounters, then a spell is no less available on that day than the fighter's attack routine. FWIW.

Conversely, in a /very/ long day the lower performance of cantrips casters must resort to (whether because they're out of spells or conserving slots) on most rounds brings them down below the 'all day' martials.

The impression that the game is/has-always-been imbalanced in favor of casters comes, in part, from a preponderance of campaigns with too-short days compared to loo-long ones. (The greater versatility and more dramatic impact of caters also plays a role, of course.)

And, another, of course, is balance-of-imbalances across levels. Classically, in 1e, say, you'd expect to see melee types ruling at very low levels like these, something closer to balance through the sweet-spot, and caster supremacy kicking in later. It'll be interesting to find out what levels fall into 5e's sweet-spot.

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, with the way multiclassing works, you're much better off multiclassing into wizard than sticking with either class. If you're a Fighter, you can either jump off to wizard at level 11 if you're a battlemaster, or 12 if you're a Eldritch Knight. Either way you can get much more effective spellcasting than a pure Eldritch Knight, and the things you lose--a feat slot, a final extra attack you only get at 20, extra uses of action surge and indomitable--are really minor.

That's exactly what I meant: Eldritch Knight exists in large part to support multiclassing fighter/wizard. By taking the Eldritch Knight build, you allow one-third of your fighter levels to count toward spellcasting. Battlemaster 11/wizard 6 is not nearly as good as Eldritch Knight 12/wizard 5; the latter is effectively a wizard 9 because of the way caster levels stack.

Another good point to break off into wizard is after reaching Eldritch Knight 6. You get your second feat and two spellcasting levels, and you also picked up Extra Attack one level ago.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's an interesting point, actually. I think it's driven by two factors. First, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster make fighter/caster and rogue/caster multiclassing work much better. Second, with such a big chunk of the Player's Handbook devoted to spells, they probably wanted to get as much use out of them as possible.

I think that there might be a third major possibility. Options. Spells gives options and they do it without necessarily having to come up with new options since spells for one class can be re-used for another class. For some players, it might get boring to roll to hit and roll damage over and over again and a few spells allow for a break in that monotony.

The Battle Master resolves this without spells. The point, though, is to give each player of a 5E martial PC a few more options than 1E through 3E martial PCs (shy of splat books or special prestige classes).

 

[Daern]

I'm noticing that the relatively low DCs of Saving Throw spells means Casters are not so automatically effective if the DMs dice are hot.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Caster supremacy is alive and well in 5e - including the supremacy of full casters over the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

Also, I'm not quite sure why everyone is so excited by the Rogue. They do decidedly mediocre damage, and considerably less than the Fighter:

I'm noticing that the relatively low DCs of Saving Throw spells means Casters are not so automatically effective if the DMs dice are hot.

On the contrary, spell DCs rapidly outscale monster's saves, and casters are once again free to target whatever will be the enemy's weakest save:

Or simply to use a spell (Reverse Gravity, Force Cage, Otto's Irresistible Dance etc) that does not allow a save at all.

 

[Werebat]

At least in 4e, the standard usage of 1x/turn is to mean exactly that - once per turn taken, by whomever it is taken. It contrasts with 1x/round.

The 4e rogue's sneak attack ability was deliberately errata-ed from 1x/round to 1x/turn around the time Essentials was released.

This is all still a far cry from 3.x blink-enabled master thrower rogues, no?