D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[ECMO3]

The wizard focusing exclusively on fire spells is a super edge case. Wizards get plenty of spells, and t is not hard for a high level wizard to slot in one spell of a differing damage type (or even a control spell, which tend to be stronger anyway) so that if you encounter something fire immune you can still function.

First off all we need to specify we are not including Monks in this discussion as all of them get the ability to do magic damage.

That said I can say from experience when my Bladesinger faced a Nightwalker outside of melee range 2 weeks ago the only spell I had that could damage him was Tasha's Maind Whip (which is 7 points of damage on average).

All of my damaging Cantrips are necrotic damage which he was immune to (and yes I wasted an attack blasting him with Chill Touch) and the only damaging spells I had prepared at 14th level and with slots were Wither and Bloom (necrotic) and Tasha's Mind Whip.

It is not hard for a non-caster in that edge case without magic weapons to carry Holy Water, Acid, Oil or use subclass or racial abilities and it is equally rare to have a non-caster with no magic weapon that also can't do anny of those things.

Very few monsters have legitimate anti-magic.

And on the other hand, it is unheard of to have an enemy to be immune to magic weapons and holy water and fire and acid and poison and those things will generally stack with damage boosts like Giants Might, Battlemaster Maneuvers, Divine Fury etc. I don't think a single such enemy exists that has all those immunities and any martial can use all of those things.

When you bring non-caster subclasses into this you have psychic, force, necrotic, magic piercing (with a non magic bow), cold and lightning damage. That is without even considering Monks, feats, races or spells afforded to EKs and ATs.

So the idea that a non-caster can only do non-magic P/B/S is just flat false. If you purposely built and equipped a character as such it is true, but that is no different than the caster who did not diversify his spell selection.

Counterspell is why basically every wizard I've seen prepares Counterspell. NPC tries to counter your spell? Counter their Counterspell. So it really only works if you have more NPCs that can Counterspell than PCs, in which case you've arguably crafted that encounter specifically to counter the caster(s). I too can craft an encounter to foil any character. That proves nothing.

If you are within 60 feet and can see the opponent sure. Another example from play though - I counterspelled a giantess caster last week on her legendary action and then she hit me with a Power Word Stun on her turn when I had no reaction (and the DC was so high it was permanent until the party used GR on me).

Also played right counterspell is not a panacea due to the spell casting checks and level involved. As long as your DM hides the spell he is casting (announcing "BBEG is casting a spell" instead of "BBEG is casting wall of force") then the level slot to use to counter is ambiguous and high level slots are rare. Whether to counter an unknown spell against a high level caster at 8th level, using your only slot, or 3rd is a difficult choice. Add the check in there and there is a significant chance of failing (both on the initial CS and on the counter-counter-spell) and if you fail you lost your reaction and then can't absorb elements on the meteor storm you chose to counter at 3rd level.

Where counterspell becomes OP is when the DM announces the spell he is casting so the player knows ahead of time what level to counter it at.

 

[Fanaelialae]

An argument for removing Counterspell altogether.

I'm on the fence about it. I kind of think there ought to be some means of counterspelling, but I also think the Counterspell is simultaneously too broad and too niche a spell. When it's applicable, it's basically your best option, and when it's not, it's utterly useless.

The closest I've come to a solution I'm satisfied with would be to counter spells using an opposing spell. So maybe you could counter fireball with cone of cold. Maybe Detect Magic with Magic Aura. Cure wounds with inflict wounds. That sort of thing. I sort of like the idea, but I think it's a bit too finicky.

 

[ECMO3]

Not enough to deal enough damage to those bloated HP sponges in the MM and other books without specializing in archery.

Absolutlely it is enough. You will outdamage the majority of Cantrips.

You actually have to purposely build NOT to be able to do this by dumping dexterity and even then your damage with a Bow is still significant because of extra attack and proficiency bonus, sneak attack, battlemaster maneuvers etc

You have to come up with a theoretical Whiteroom case build where this is not the case and purposely make a string of bad decisions to create such a character.

I would even go further and say it is far easier to build a melee-oriented non-caster to deal with such a foe than it is to build some melee-oriented casters to deal with that foe. A fighter, Barbarian or melee Rogue has an easier time against flying enemies than a melee Paladin is going to generally, or a mele-oriented Cleric, Druid or Valor Bard.

 

[Minigiant]

How many magic items would it take to make a Fighter supernatural?

None.

The issue is that since 2000, D&D has filled with HP sponges. Some that fly out of melee and some that crawl into melee with strong armor.

Then you have the game namer, the flying tanky HP sponges that can strife breath weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

Absolutlely it is enough. You will outdamage the majority of Cantrips.

You actually have to purposely build NOT to be able to do this.

Cantrips do bad damage.

Heck, a longsword martial with 20 STR is bad damage vs all these 100 to 300 HP monstrosities printed after level 5.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Cantrips do bad damage.

Heck, a longsword martial with 20 STR is bad damage vs all these 100 to 300 HP monstrosities printed after level 5.

It seems (again) that you're not satisfied with the basic design assumptions of the game. This really has nothing to do with casters and martials.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not enough to deal enough damage to those bloated HP sponges in the MM and other books without specializing in archery.

I believe I also said something about reducing hit points across the board?

 

[Corinnguard]

Hit Points is a Goldilocks issue. Some players think the monsters have too many hit points and some players probably think the monsters have too few hit points. Are there any monsters who have just the right amount of hit points?

 

[Minigiant]

It seems (again) that you're not satisfied with the basic design assumptions of the game. This really has nothing to do with casters and martials.

I'm unsatisfied with the dishonesty due to the wishy washyness of the D&D community.

They say a DM doesn't need to give you magic items but then designs monsters that practically require magic items for the martial to deal with.

"Oh a DM doesn't have to give you magic items"
"So my DM can choose to not give out magic items"
"They can. But then the game breaks down"
"That doesn't make a-. Can my character be equivalent to one who has magic items in case my DM doesn't give them out?"
"Eh. No. I don't like that image"
"Then fix the monsters and magic"
"Eh. No. I don't like that image"
"So magic items are required but we are going to pretend they aren't."
"Yup"

 

[Maxperson]

That has not been my experience.

This is assuming a strength based fighter (as I've said, Dex based martials don't run up against these issues nearly as often). Typically, you won't invest heavily into Dexterity, due to heavy armor proficiency, so you're probably around a 12 in Dexterity. Thrown weapons have very short ranges, so if you're using them you're probably attacking with disadvantage. If you're attacking with a bow, you're effectively taking a -4 to hit and damage, but generally without disadvantage. Additionally, at T3, a fighter has 3 attacks. But a readied action only allows 1 attack. So if the fighter is forced to ready an action (far less likely with a bow), it effectively reduces their damage output by 66%, before any of the other "penalties" are factored in. That's a huge loss of efficacy.

With a bow, they probably don't need to ready unless they're trying to avoid disadvantage, but due to their lower Dex they still suffer somewhere in the ballpark of a 50% reduction in damage output due to their lower Dexterity, and that's assuming their bow has the same pluses as their primary weapon (admittedly, this assumes that the -4 penalty is meaningful and they don't have a 95% chance to hit after factoring in the penalty).

First, many flyers don't have much(as in they run out of uses quickly) or any ranged attacks, so they will have to fly down to the fighter allowing him to swing. Either that or they fly around doing nothing and there's no combat.

Second, it looks like you are assuming point buy which is an invalid assumption. Rolling is a default method to make characters and huge numbers of us roll stats. You cannot assume a 12 dex for a strength based fighter. It can easily be higher.

Third, where are you getting one attack from? Readied action does not limit you to one attack. Neither does reaction. A readied action is not an opportunity attack which only allows one attack, it's readying an action of your choice which can include the attack action. You get all of your attacks with an attack action. That you use your reaction to use the attack action doesn't change the number of attacks you get.

As for resistance, that's half damage. While my PCs rarely run up against this past T1, because I make sure the martial PCs have magic weapons, I often allow them to recruit henchmen, who aren't guaranteed magic weapons (a significant portion of loot IMCs is randomly generated). The current party of 6 PCs has 3 henchmen (2 fighters and a barbarian IIRC). Let me tell you, when those henchmen don't have magic weapons and they're fighting a monster with resistance, the difference is noticable from behind the screen (I'm speaking metaphorically; I haven't used an actual DM screen in a long time). That's (over, due to rounding down) a 50% reduction in damage output. It's very noticable. When that's the case, those henchmen generally do very little to alter the trajectory of the encounter. It's certainly better than nothing, but in a lot of cases the tiny amount of damage they contribute means the monster would have gone down at the exact same time anyway (because the rogue or the warlock completely overkills the creature, rendering the henchman's damage contribution moot).

Of course the difference is noticeable. That's the point. The point of resistance is to take half damage. If you give out magic weapons, these fights get a LOT easier. Too easy in an already easy game. All resistance does is turn the fight from a speed bump to an easy to moderate encounter.

I'll freely admit though that that latter one can be considered an edge case. Even so, a 50% to 66% damage loss is a very significant reduction in damage output. Yeah, you can still technically contribute to the encounter, but you're probably not pulling your weight under those circumstances.

Monster special abilities have nothing to do with pulling your weight or not. That's like saying that a wizard who misses a paralysis save and is out of the entire fight due to bad rolls didn't pull his weight. It's not an individual's fault that they are doing less damage due to a monster ability, and the phrase not pulling your weight is about an individual not trying as hard as he can. The phrase depends on the fault being on the part of the one not pulling his weight.