D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I don't think fighter rogue and barbarian are useless myself, but I can see where people feel that way. Especially if for them the fun is picking special features and how those features interact in the world.

I know you were trying to help but this is still a misrepresentation of what I said.

I didn't say fighter or rogue or barbarian is useless.

I said that most times, lets say 7 out of 10 a party of full casters, that still makes sure to have melee options covered, will be better at handling things when at the same level of optimization and same level of player ingenuity as a party with 2 full casters and 2 non casters.

there are exceptions. A dungeon full of dead magic zones for example. However I can't believe that you or anyone that spends anytime world/dungeon building past level 5 can't see that if you build a dungeon not knowing what the players will bring and DM it fair and square a table with 2 fighters and 2 rogues will have a harder time then a warlock, artificer, cleric, and wizard

 

[HammerMan]

At the same time, I want the D&D game to be as inclusive as possible for players with other personal preferences, including a tradition of nonmagical Fighter flavor.

Having multiple classes. Even if the one I want gets put in an optional book I feel is the best option.
To be honest I want an arcane half caster martial class a warlord and a sword sage alongside the fighter.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I have been afraid to step my toe in here since page 5 or so, but I think it odd you don't hear that at least often enough that you wouldn't find it odd.
I don't think fighter rogue and barbarian are useless myself, but I can see where people feel that way. Especially if for them the fun is picking special features and how those features interact in the world.

I actually signed in to comment on this.
I hate when DMs pull this. At least the people who claim fighters suck have the guts to just say not to play one set or the other. People who claim "Oh all classes are balanced in my games" then just turn off class features on the regular are playing favorites.
I understand dead magic and anti magic have a place but they better not be common or you best tell people at session 0.

it reminds me of the DMs that used to say "oh psionics are different" and they didn't mind people playing psion... but then they just give everything that has magic resistance now has psychic resistance and if you are immune magic you are immune psychic.

I think the issue with anti-magic zones for spellcasters is a bit of a reflection of the issue with magic in D&D in general. It's too damned reliable. And that reliability is so baked into its underlying design that the only decent counter is to turn it off completely.

Like if magic had a chance of failure, you could introduce more interesting hazards to spellcasting than "I turn off your magic completely"

 

[Yaarel]

Having multiple classes. Even if the one I want gets put in an optional book I feel is the best option.
To be honest I want an arcane half caster martial class a warlord and a sword sage alongside the fighter.

That would mean something analogous to a 5e Warlord.

There is opposition to such a solution.

In some ways, the opposition comes across as spiteful − "I dont want it and you cant have it either".

But to be charitable, maybe it is more diplomatic to frame this as a "setting preference".

For example, in a "Greyhawk setting" maybe the Fighter has strictly nonmagical features, heavy reliance on a "christmas tree" of magic item adornments, high level spellcasters, and less concern about balance at high level.

 

[HammerMan]

I think the issue with anti-magic zones for spellcasters is a bit of a reflection of the issue with magic in D&D in general. It's too damned reliable. And that reliability is so baked into its underlying design that the only decent counter is to turn it off completely.

Like if magic had a chance of failure, you could introduce more interesting hazards to spellcasting than "I turn off your magic completely"

100%. When people get used to at will and major numbers of slots and the like taking them away seems like punishment.

 

[James Gasik]

But magic does have a chance of failure. Many spells require attack rolls or give enemies saving throws. Powerful creatures can just say "nope, that didn't affect me". While martials only have to care about whether a creature is vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage, spellcasters have to worry about whether creatures have resistance or immunity to poison, necrotic, thunder, radiant, cold, fire, electricity, force, psychic, actual conditions like stun, sleep, poisoned, charmed...all things that you rarely have to consider as a guy playing a Fighter or Barbarian.

And let's not forget many spells also require you to maintain concentration or they fizzle outright?

Do we also need a "magic check" on top of these factors, with a chance of triggering a wild surge or other calamity? I know someone is reading this saying "yes", lol, but I honestly think that the reliability of the magic system isn't the issue; it's plenty unreliable in actual play, when every enemy you encounter you have to ask "which of the relatively small number of useful spells I can use at this moment will actually work?".

The issue is more with the scope of magic, and how much more a high level spell slot is allowed to do when compared to the effort of a non-magic character.

If, for example, a 3rd level spell was equal to 3 turns of a 5th level warrior attacking enemies, but can only be used X amount of times per day, is that fine? Is a 4th level spell equal to 4 turns of activity too much? I don't think magic has ever been balanced with the idea of comparing it to the contributions of other characters, and it really should be.

 

[Yaarel]

I think the issue with anti-magic zones for spellcasters is a bit of a reflection of the issue with magic in D&D in general. It's too damned reliable. And that reliability is so baked into its underlying design that the only decent counter is to turn it off completely.

Like if magic had a chance of failure, you could introduce more interesting hazards to spellcasting than "I turn off your magic completely"

Making rituals a separate design space that uses ability (skill) checks, can be where magic can fail, and even go terribly wrong, with each ritual describing what happens if its check fails critically.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Having multiple classes. Even if the one I want gets put in an optional book I feel is the best option.
To be honest I want an arcane half caster martial class a warlord and a sword sage alongside the fighter.

Specifically a base class that doesn't have to support having Champion as a subclass.

 

[Yaarel]

To be clear, I feel strongly that the 5e Wizard and the 5e Fighter are balanced with each other equally ...

...

... in combat.


The tension is really about noncombat. The magic that a high level spellcaster enjoys allows so much narrative control in so many scenarios − and even to decide if scenarios ever even can happen.

A strictly nonmagical Fighter seems logically shut out of this kind of narrative control.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But magic does have a chance of failure. Many spells require attack rolls or give enemies saving throws. Powerful creatures can just say "nope, that didn't affect me". While martials only have to care about whether a creature is vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage, spellcasters have to worry about whether creatures have resistance or immunity to poison, necrotic, thunder, radiant, cold, fire, electricity, force, psychic, actual conditions like stun, sleep, poisoned, charmed...all things that you rarely have to consider as a guy playing a Fighter or Barbarian.

And let's not forget many spells also require you to maintain concentration or they fizzle outright?

Do we also need a "magic check" on top of these factors, with a chance of triggering a wild surge or other calamity? I know someone is reading this saying "yes", lol, but I honestly think that the reliability of the magic system isn't the issue; it's plenty unreliable in actual play, when every enemy you encounter you have to ask "which of the relatively small number of useful spells I can use at this moment will actually work?".

The issue is more with the scope of magic, and how much more a high level spell slot is allowed to do when compared to the effort of a non-magic character.

If, for example, a 3rd level spell was equal to 3 turns of a 5th level warrior attacking enemies, but can only be used X amount of times per day, is that fine? Is a 4th level spell equal to 4 turns of activity too much? I don't think magic has ever been balanced with the idea of comparing it to the contributions of other characters, and it really should be.

I am referring primarily to utility magic. You cast fly and you fly, invisibility and you are invisible, etc. I'm sure it could be, but I haven't ever seen anti-magic used to combat a wizard shooting fireballs or casting save or suck spells.

In my experience it is used to avoid having a caster trivialize navigation past some kind of obstacle.

Beyond that, it seems crazy to me that a character can fail a check to jump a gap, fix a wagonwheel, or balance on ice, but casters cannot fail in their efforts to manipulate the magical tethers that gird together reality.

Like..a squirrel with 'summon celestial' on a spell list cannot fail to conjure an angel to do it's squirrel bidding, but it could fail a survival check to make sure it has enough food for the winter..