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

[KarinsDad]

2) For me, when I think of fighters vs wizards I think of the old barbarian esque movies (like Conan). You would have wizards that can raise elementals, summon giant scorpions, steal the souls of man, etc...but when it was Conan vs the Wizard....Conan just couldn't be stopped. In a straight up fight, he was simply superior.

Interestingly enough, in the Conan novels, especially the older ones, Conan was almost helpless against many wizards, even minor hedge wizards. He often had to overcome them with side tactics (like a ring that protected against their magic, or through a concubine, or through surprise, or whatever). He was just as vulnerable to their magic as any other non-protagonist.

In those books, magic was vastly superior to brawn. And I think that this is a perfectly reasonable campaign option as long as magic is relatively rare. The problem comes in with PCs instead of NPCs where PCs seem vastly superior using magic as opposed to not using it. I do think that 5E struck a good balance there.

 

[Morty]

I agree. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to give one group of classes their pick from a list of hundreds of concrete mechanical effects and to leave the other group to negotiate with the DM every time they want to do something.

It all comes down to numbers not being interesting, exciting or rewarding. Numbers only matter in relation to other numbers. They're necessary for a system like D&D to function (although I'm pretty sure there are role-playing systems which don't use any numbers). But there's only so far you can get with them.

I love it anytime someone brings up improvisation as the means of making interesting martial PCs. Improvisation in combat in D&D sucks. Nine times in ten you will be better off simply attacking your foe. Improvisation usually comes with additional skill checks or penalties to the attack roll that make it far to unreliable. On top of that the conditions it allows for are often not worth the penalties or additional rolls. Sure, sometimes a string of lucky rolls might give the player a feeling of having done something cool, but more often than not their turn spent improvising is a wasted turn.

For the people who want tactically interesting martial warriors, improvisation simply doesn't cut it. They want reliable abilities that are not repeatable at-will. They want to be able to make a tactically interesting choice every round. They want tier choices to be meaningful. At-will improvisation does none of those things. What is worse, just because you have a few codified abilities, it doesn't mean you can no longer improvise! You can improvise in addition to using whatever maneuvers you have.

I want to see an awesome martial with capabilities worthy of the challenges he is facing. When fighting an ancient red dragon, the warrior should not play the exact same way he did when he was fighting rats in the basement.

An example I like to use are two iconic swordsmen of D&D fiction: Drizzt, and his arch-nemesis, Artemis Entreri. Masterful fencers and tacticians, who run rings around lesser enemies, control the flow and momentum of battle and become a localized apocalypse of sharp steel when forced to cooperate. When they duel, even seasoned adventurers and mercenaries can't help but gawk in amazement. And yet, in all editions of D&D except for 4e (where duels between two characters with PC abilities aren't really a thing), their amazing skill with blades comes down to rolling and rolling again, with higher numbers. They might get some rudimentary maneuvers if they're Battlemaster Fighters in 5e.

 

[sunshadow21]

The only way you are ever going to get true balance between the fighter and the wizard is to throw out both classes as traditionally understood in D&D terms and start over from scratch. Just be prepared for a massive backlash if people don't like the rewrite, ala 4E. It's interesting, though, that on a thread on the Paizo forums that asks what 8 classes people would keep, only the cleric out of the classic 4 made it into the top 8 after all the different posts were counted, and even that was only #6. Paizo has a lot more wiggle room than WotC does in catering to changing play styles, however, since PF as a brand doesn't have to pay nearly as much attention to the traditions that people have attached to the D&D brand. At this point, for WotC to significantly change the relationship between fighter and wizard would basically require them to reboot the brand. Whether people really like it or not, a versatile wizard and a combat focused fighter are part of the core expectations, and veering too far from that alienates a lot of people; just look at 4E for proof of that. How well 5E ultimately did with this remains to be seen, but so far at least, I'm skeptical. They still seem to be trying way to hard to "fix" something that there is no particular agreement on just what the best solution is or if there's even a problem at all. I'll withhold final judgment until I see the DMG and the alternate rules they come up with, but for now, it seems like they are trying so hard to please everyone, no one is going to really be satisfied. Either way, I'm getting a bit tired of calls to "fix" this problem when the bigger issue is that people simply need to accept that there are different preferences in play styles and no one brand can possibly cover all of them.

 

[Jack the Lad]

The first level two weapon fighter doing 13 points of damage (8.15 DPR with 60% chance to hit) in a single round by hitting twice is shining compared to the wizard using a cantrip and doing 6 points (3.575 DPR with 60% chance to hit).

In fact, he is shining more than twice as much.

In your mind, though, this is not shining.

In my mind, the fighter dropping twice as many foes at low level as the wizard is shining. He's influencing most encounters significantly more than the wizard is. The fighter does more in most encounters, the wizard does more in a few encounters, but they might be more memorable because they are flashier.

This is why I am saying that you are ignoring those scenarios where the non-spell casters (or even semi-spell casters) shine and focusing solely on one narrow portion of the rest of the game.

I'm sorry, but this isn't accurate. At level 1 you're fighting enemies like goblins and orcs. A wizard with a longbow will have the same attack bonus as a Fighter (+5) and deal 1d8+3 damage when he hits. That's enough to kill a goblin in 1 hit and an orc in 2 hits on average - the same as a Fighter.

Or you can cast Burning Hands and kill up to 7 of them at a time; an option the Fighter simply doesn't have.

Also, you're talking about level 1. And stacking the deck in your favour by choosing two-weapon fighting, which is worse than the great weapon option after level 5.

5E has limited healing, but the DM controls that. If the DM amps up healing and number of encounters per day, then the fighter is shining even more as the wizard has to stretch his resources over a longer day.

Be specific, please. When you talk about amping up healing and number of encounters, what do you mean? I'll happily run the numbers, and I think you'll be surprised by the results.

It's pretty simple how to address many of the concerns people have on this issue. The DM takes control whenever something appears to be an issue.

Ah yes, the "the DM can fix it" argument. They shouldn't have to.

It's not a flaw with game design. Game design is fine for the most part

But you're saying the DM needs to amp up healing and take control and stuff. If there was no flaw with the game design, why would they need to?

in fact, it's the best D&D game design with regard to QWFL ever IMO.

How much 4e have you played?

Interestingly enough, in the Conan novels, especially the older ones, Conan was almost helpless against many wizards, even minor hedge wizards. He often had to overcome them with side tactics (like a ring that protected against their magic, or through a concubine, or through surprise, or whatever). He was just as vulnerable to their magic as any other non-protagonist.

In those books, magic was vastly superior to brawn. And I think that this is a perfectly reasonable campaign option as long as magic is relatively rare. The problem comes in with PCs instead of NPCs where PCs seem vastly superior using magic as opposed to not using it. I do think that 5E struck a good balance there.

Really? Can you give me some examples of this? Because I've read the entire Conan chronology and I don't recall things going down like that the vast majority of the time.

In fact, the vast majority of the time they rant about how powerful they are and then Conan just kills them like it's nothing.

Old Tsotha rose and faced his pursuer, his eyes those of a maddened serpent, his face an inhuman mask of awful fury. In each hand he held something that shimmered, and Conan knew he held death there.

The king dismounted and strode toward his foe, his armor clanking, his great sword gripped high.

'Again we meet, wizard!' he grinned savagely.

'Keep off!' screamed Tsotha like a blood-mad jackal. 'I'll blast the flesh from your bones! You can not conquer me - if you hack me in pieces, the bits of flesh and bone will reunite and haunt you to your doom! I see the hand of Pelias in this, but I defy ye both! I am Tsotha, son of-'

Conan rushed, sword gleaming, eyes slits of wariness. Tsotha's right hand came back and forward, and the king ducked quickly. Something passed by his helmeted head and exploded behind him, searing the very sands with a flash of hellish fire. Before Tsotha could toss the globe in his left hand, Conan's sword sheared through his lean neck. The wizard's head shot from his shoulders on an arching fount of blood, and the robed figure staggered and crumpled drunkenly.

`Aye, blench, dog!' The voice was like the hiss of a giant serpent. `I am Thugra Khotan! Long I lay in my tomb, awaiting the day of awakening and release. The arts which saved me from the barbarians long ago likewise imprisoned me, but I knew one would come in time - and he came, to fulfill his destiny, and to die as no man has died in three thousand years!

`Fool, do you think you have conquered because my people are scattered? Because I have been betrayed and deserted by the demon I enslaved? I am Thugra Khotan, who shall rule the world despite your paltry gods! The desert is filled with my people; the demons of the earth shall do my bidding, as the reptiles of the earth obey me. Lust for a woman weakened my sorcery. Now the woman is mine, and feasting on her soul, I shall be unconquerable! Back, fool! You have not conquered Thugra Khotan!'

He cast his staff and it fell at the feet of Conan, who recoiled with an involuntary cry. For as it fell it altered horribly; its outline melted and writhed, and a hooded cobra reared up hissing before the horrified Cimmerian. With a furious oath Conan struck, and his sword sheared the horrid shape in half. And there at his feet lay only the two pieces of a severed ebon staff. Thugra Khotan laughed awfully, and wheeling, caught up something that crawled loathsomely in the dust of the floor.

In his extended hand something alive writhed and slavered. No tricks of shadows this time. In his naked hand Thugra Khotan gripped a black scorpion, more than a foot in length, the deadliest creature of the desert, the stroke of whose spiked tail was instant death. Thugra Khotan's skull-like countenance split in a mummy-like grin. Conan hesitated; then without warning he threw his sword.

Caught off guard, Thugra Khotan had no time to avoid the cast. The point struck beneath his heart and stood out a foot behind his shoulders. He went down, crushing the poisonous monster in his grasp as he fell.

`Back!' Nabonidus's voice cracked like a whip. `Another step and I will blast you!'

Murilo's blood turned cold as he saw that the Red Priest's hand grasped a thick velvet rope which hung among the curtains just outside the door.

`What treachery is this?' cried Murilo. `You swore-'

`I swore I would not tell the king a jest concerning you! I did not swear not to take matters into my own hands if I could. Do you think I would pass up such an opportunity? Under ordinary circumstances I would not dare kill you myself, without sanction of the king, but now none will ever know. You will go into the acid-vats along with Thak and the nationalist fools, and none will be the wiser. What a night this has been for me! If I have lost some valuable servants, I have nevertheless rid myself of various dangerous enemies. Stand back! I am over the threshold, and you cannot possibly reach me before I tug this cord and send you to hell. Not the gray lotus, this time, but something just as effective. Nearly every chamber in my house is a trap. And so, Murilo, fool that you are-'

Too quickly for the sight to follow, Conan caught up a stool and hurled it. Nabonidus instinctively threw up his arm with a cry, but not in time. The missile crunched against his head, and the Red Priest swayed and fell face-down in a slowly widening pool of dark crimson.

`His blood was red, after all,' grunted Conan.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's interesting, though, that on a thread on the Paizo forums that asks what 8 classes people would keep, only the cleric out of the classic 4 made it into the top 8 after all the different posts were counted, and even that was only #6. Paizo has a lot more wiggle room than WotC does in catering to changing play styles, however, since PF as a brand doesn't have to pay nearly as much attention to the traditions that people have attached to the D&D brand.

That's kinda ironic, really. PF made it's fortune on being more like 3.5 D&D than the then-current edition of D&D, itself. Now it's enjoying the freedom to improve itself by being "not D&D," while D&D is back to gimping it's designs for the sake of tradition, in order to challenge Pathfinder for the #1 spot?

They still seem to be trying way to hard to "fix" something that there is no particular agreement on just what the best solution is or if there's even a problem at all.

It's a matter of what you want out of the game. If you want a balanced game that lets everyone play the concept they have in mind without one overwhelming and overshadowing another, then D&D's lack of class balance is a very real problem. If you want a game where "Casters Rule & Martials Drool," then, no, it's not a problem - except when it comes to getting people to play anything other than a caster (but there are always newbies and character-driven 'real' RPers, and trap choices can be made to look quite enticing, so it's never been an insurmountable problem).

I'm getting a bit tired of calls to "fix" this problem when the bigger issue is that people simply need to accept that there are different preferences in play styles and no one brand can possibly cover all of them.

Actually, a balanced game /can/ cover a very wide range of playstyles, it just makes establishing that one kind of character is more powerful than others a matter of spotting that kind of character levels or build resource or extra abilities, making the intent obvious.

I'm sorry, but this isn't accurate. At level 1 you're fighting enemies like goblins and orcs. A wizard with a longbow will have the same attack bonus as a Fighter (+5) and deal 1d8+3 damage when he hits.

You're assuming a pretty large investment in DEX there - on both counts.

Be specific, please. When you talk about amping up healing and number of encounters, what do you mean? I'll happily run the numbers, and I think you'll be surprised by the results.

The encounter guidelines we've seen (Basic D&D DM pdf) seem to suggest that the average existing day will consist of 8 encounters and two short rests between long rests (though the short rests are only implied).

Really? Can you give me some examples of this? Because I've read the entire Conan chronology and I don't recall things going down like that the vast majority of the time.

In fact, the vast majority of the time they rant about how powerful they are and then Conan just kills them like it's nothing.

I vaguely recall one scene where a sorcerer paralyzed Conan with a ray. He might even have been astrally projecting at the time - at any rate, he caught him by surprise. But, it's been a long time since I read Howard's Conan, and I never really got into the pastiche.

 

[Morty]

Howard's Conan stories cover a pretty wide range of moods and themes. Conan himself is sometimes a king, a conqueror, a pirate, a thief and a mercenary. Likewise, sometimes he easily kills a sorcerer with a thrown sword, and sometimes he's helpless against sorcery.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Howard's Conan stories cover a pretty wide range of moods and themes. Conan himself is sometimes a king, a conqueror, a pirate, a thief and a mercenary. Likewise, sometimes he easily kills a sorcerer with a thrown sword, and sometimes he's helpless against sorcery.

Can you give an example? The only occasion I can think of is against Xaltotun, who is in turn easily defeated when the Heart of Ahriman is stolen from him.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm sorry, but this isn't accurate. At level 1 you're fighting enemies like goblins and orcs. A wizard with a longbow will have the same attack bonus as a Fighter (+5) and deal 1d8+3 damage when he hits. That's enough to kill a goblin in 1 hit and an orc in 2 hits on average - the same as a Fighter.

The fighter can kill the orc in a single round with two weapon or two handed, the wizard two rounds.

Also, you mean an "Elf Wizard" with a longbow with a 16 Dex? Last I checked, the other races did not have this option.

If using some sort of ranged weapons, most PC wizards are limited to light crossbows which do D6+Dex and not all PC wizards have 16 Dex.

Your example is bit misleading because most wizards do not have that level of ranged non-magic firepower.

Or you can cast Burning Hands and kill up to 7 of them at a time; an option the Fighter simply doesn't have.

Seven? Really? In most games? Your DM bunches up the bad guys like that?

A bit of hyperbole?

Burning Hands is a 53 degree cone. 53 degrees is actually kind of narrow (almost 7 such cones in 360 degrees). It's less than two hex lines on a hex map.


Nor does the wizard typically have the option to kill two goblins a round with two weapons. His dagger tends to be a bit weak as does his Dex as does his AC as does his hit points.

Also, you're talking about level 1. And stacking the deck in your favour by choosing two-weapon fighting, which is worse than the great weapon option after level 5.

It's not worse. People just look at DPR or average damage and ignore other aspects of the math.

The overall results are similar after level 5 and before level 10 due to damage overkill. Yes, the two handed weapon user does slightly more DPR, but there are plenty of times when he either does too much damage (15 points on a 5 hit point remaining creature, lowering his overall effective DPR) or when the two weapon fighter drops a foe with his 8 points of damage and then turns and injures a second opponent with another weapon swing.

At level 8 (when they both get to 20 Str) for example against 8HD foes with 44 hit points each, the two handed fighter does (on average) 13.33 damage on a successful hit and it take 4 successful hits to take them out. The two weapon fighter does (on average) 8.5 damage on a successful hit and it take 5 or 6 hits to take them out. If it takes 6 hits, then they are equal (6 hits at 3 attacks per round or 4 hits at 2 attacks per round). In this example, if the two weapon guy gets just a hair luckier and does 1.5 more points of damage, he takes them out in 5 successful hits and has a successful hit left over. To get his 4 successful hits down to 3, the two handed fighter has to average almost 15 points of damage. Sure, either of them can roll lucky and take out the foe in one fewer successful hit, but in this particular example, its easier for the two weapon guy to get 1.5 extra damage in 5 swings than it is for the two handed guy to get 4 extra damage in 3 swings.

Obviously, there are times when the two handed fighter has the advantage (2h 16.8 DPR vs. 2w 15.8 DPR, 60% chance to hit, slightly higher for Champion), but he is only really doing an average of 1 more point of damage per round at level 8, 9, and 10. The advantage is still slightly skewed for the two weapon fighter because of damage overkill. The two handed fighter just typically wastes more damage than the two weapon fighter overall.

This happens less at higher levels (i.e. above 10) due to monsters having more hit points and more at lower levels (i.e. below 10). And it happens at lot more when one is discussing more than one target (the two weapon fighter having an additional attack gets to attack and additional foe).

At level 10, the player who wants to do more damage can switch to 2 handed. He can still shine.

As for stacking it into my favor, it was just an example.

The first level two handed fighter doing 11.33 points of damage (8.22 DPR with 60% chance to hit) in a single round by hitting twice is shining compared to the wizard using a cantrip and doing 6 points (3.575 DPR with 60% chance to hit) still effectively does twice as much damage. If the wizard has a light crossbow and a Dex of 16, then yea, he's doing 6.5 points of damage (4.075 DPR with 60% chance to hit).

The fighter still shines and still does double damage overall.

Sword and board does not manage this because he gives up damage for survivability.

Be specific, please. When you talk about amping up healing and number of encounters, what do you mean? I'll happily run the numbers, and I think you'll be surprised by the results.

Ah yes, the "the DM can fix it" argument. They shouldn't have to.

But you're saying the DM needs to amp up healing and take control and stuff. If there was no flaw with the game design, why would they need to?

Reread what I wrote. I wrote that if he people have an issue with it, the DM can control it. If people do not (like I do not), then there is no need.

I suspect many DMs will not make adjustments for GWFL because it might not even enter their minds. In decades of playing 1E through 3.5, I do not recall a lot of houserules due to GWFL, regardless of whether I was the DM.

WotC picked a certain level of encounters per day. I prefer more, so I will try to convince my DM to have more, possibly via more healing (and not necessarily through weaker monsters). Not because of GWFL, but because as a player, I enjoy adventures that run for many encounters.

How much 4e have you played?

Over a thousand hours, over a dozen PCs (plus DMed more than half of that).

Really? Can you give me some examples of this? Because I've read the entire Conan chronology and I do not recall things going down like that the vast majority of the time.

In fact, the vast majority of the time they rant about how powerful they are and then Conan just kills them like it's nothing.

Conan often kills them at the end. But, the story is not just the 5 pages at the end. It's 250+ pages leading up to it (well, not the novellas).

There was the one (I forget the title) where Conan was given a dull metal ring to wear. When the Black Seers (IIRC) dropped large puff balls down the mountainside, a puff ball would kill a man outright. Conan had on the ring, so they did not affect him.

In Conan the Victorious, Conan did not defeat the two wizards at the end. He ran away with the girl and let them duke it out (one of them might have been a demon IIRC).

There are probably times when Conan just chops a wizard in two, but there are also cases where he is mesmerized (one of the big things magic in the east does), or the wizard gets away (Thoth-Amon did that quite often, but then again, he was a reoccurring villain, course, Conan may have slew him once or twice and he came back, but I don't remember for sure).

Edit: missed your examples.

 

[Argyle King]

There are several aspects of magic which are different in the Conan stories. In particular, powerful magic often takes extra time. Where a D&D wizard might spend one action casting a high level spell, it would take either several 'rounds' or a group of casters working together to perform a ritual in Howard's writing. There certainly are exceptions to that though.

When Conan is actually able to engage a caster directly, there are more than a few stories in which a sword makes quick work of the caster. I would agree there are many stories in which Conan gains some advantage via items, allies, or other such things, and those advantages play a role. However, it's not unusual for a combat encounter in Howard's writing to end rather quickly and brutally.

I think that is only partially a D&D magic issue though. It also highlights the abstract nature of D&D hitpoints and defenses compared to other mediums.

 

[Remathilis]

That's kinda ironic, really. PF made it's fortune on being more like 3.5 D&D than the then-current edition of D&D, itself. Now it's enjoying the freedom to improve itself by being "not D&D," while D&D is back to gimping it's designs for the sake of tradition, in order to challenge Pathfinder for the #1 spot?

Pathfinder has a different issue in tow; most of its fans have playing 3.X for 14 years now! Most of the classes they picked were either Paizo new (Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle) or heavily reworked in Pathfinder (barbarian, sorcerer). I think it better reflects fatigue from "yet another cleric" then it does Pathfinder edging away from "dancing with the one who brought ya".

Trust me, a Pathfinder 2.0 with "Bloodrager, Skald, Oracle, Shaman, Slayer, Brawler, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Arcanist, Magus, Summoner, and Witch" as the core classes would reek of the BETRAYAL chants that got them to Pathfinder in the first place.