D&D 5E Party optimisation vs Character optimisation

[Jaron Mortimer]

It says no such thing.

What it does say is.
"Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."

Ranged attack rolls, which EB is just like any other ranged spell that is not resisted with a saving throw.

YOU....are 100% right.

Mother of god.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I know this is a 5e forum, but, yes, I was pointing out ways in which 5e is still very much representative of the classic game. And, yes, spell slots are a limited commodity ('rare' is an overstatement, something like 3/4 of sub-classes cast spells). That's part of the point - a character with a powerful, versatile, limited resource gives the player more 'agency' - his choices are more important, more significant in how the game and the campaign play out. Casters in D&D have always had that, martial characters virtually never - and still not in 5e.

Thus, party optimization is mostly about which casters you fill your party with, and how they manage their spell-casting resources.

Two things worth bearing in mind:

1.) In 5E, if "martial" means "has no spellcasting or magical abilities in any way, shape or form," then there are hardly any martials in 5E. Open Hand Monks, Champion Fighters, Battlemasters, Thieves, Rogues, and Frenzy Barbarians. Open Hand Monks and Frenzy Barbarians arguably don't belong on that list. And any of those characters who takes the right feats immediately comes off the list, because Magical Initiate, Ritual Magic (?) and Spell Sniper all make you a "caster". In short, 5E acknowledges the extra dimension of agency by making everyone a "caster", to use your terminology. (My understanding is that 4E did a similar thing by making everyone a caster with AEDU powers, although they flavored the fluff to distinguish martial magic from magic magic.)

2.) Some people might object that third- and half-casters in 5E aren't really "casters" and don't have as much agency as "full casters," and that Paladins and Rangers and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters and Elemental Monks and Shadow Monks are still being punished with "less agency". Before voicing any such objections, make sure you examine the shape of the spell slot table. A 20th level full caster and a 20th level half caster have very nearly the same number of spell slots (within 25% or so, I think it's 16 for a half-caster vs 22 for a full caster). The half caster still has plenty of agency and choices even on the spellcasting tier. Which, incidentally, is why Eldritch Knights are the best kind of fighter. IMHO.

 

[DaveDash]

I know this is a 5e forum, but, yes, I was pointing out ways in which 5e is still very much representative of the classic game. And, yes, spell slots are a limited commodity ('rare' is an overstatement, something like 3/4 of sub-classes cast spells). That's part of the point - a character with a powerful, versatile, limited resource gives the player more 'agency' - his choices are more important, more significant in how the game and the campaign play out. Casters in D&D have always had that, martial characters virtually never - and still not in 5e.

Thus, party optimization is mostly about which casters you fill your party with, and how they manage their spell-casting resources.

I agree that from a party optimisation viewpoint it's better to have a party of casters (and I include the Paladin as a caster) than non-casters yes.

Where I disagree however are:
1. From a standard combat pillar standpoint you do not *need* casters at the upper echelons of play. The monsters in the book have been designed with this in mind.
2. From a standard exploration pillar standpoint you also do not *need* casters at the upper echelons of play, and in fact with how short spell durations are now, and how limited spell slots are, it's always good to fall back to skills in this regard. But this is why I rate the Lore Bard so highly, as he is a full caster and has amazing skills to fall back on.

So it depends what you are trying to argue, what I got from your original posts is that you feel you simply can't play non-casters and be effective. You can and no one will kick you out of the party. If you are trying to argue however that it's more optimal to play spell casters (Paladin included) then sure, I agree. I will caution you however that the gap between "Standard" and "Optimal" in 5e is much smaller than say in 3rd Edition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So it depends what you are trying to argue, what I got from your original posts is that you feel you simply can't play non-casters and be effective. You can and no one will kick you out of the party. If you are trying to argue however that it's more optimal to play spell casters (Paladin included) then sure, I agree. I will caution you however that the gap between "Standard" and "Optimal" in 5e is much smaller than say in 3rd Edition.

Furthermore, the only real benefit to "optimal" is the feeling of joy you get for beating up on CR 15 monsters at level 8. If that kind of thing doesn't float your boat, "optimal" buys you nothing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1.) In 5E, if "martial" means "has no spellcasting or magical abilities in any way, shape or form," then there are hardly any martials in 5E.

True. 5 sub-classes out of 38 by my count, in the PH. Doesn't mean people who want play the concepts represented by those few sub-classes - rogues, pirates, assassins, scouts, theives, knights, champions, Robin-hood types, Conan-esque types, warriors, soldiers, fencing masters, gladiators, military commanders, and most protagonist Heroes in myth, literature, and the broader fantasy genre - should be /penalized/ for it.
Even if they are in as distinct a minority as the distribution of sub-classes might tend to imply.
Heck, especially if they're a distinct minority.

In short, 5E acknowledges the extra dimension of agency by making everyone a "caster", to use your terminology.

Not everyone, obviously. Or it would be 38 out of 38 sub-classes being casters. There are still clearly a few non-caster sub-classes in 5e, even if every class has at least one archetype that casts spells or has other supernatural powers.

My understanding is that 4E did a similar thing .. with AEDU powers

Close. It did create a sort of rough party between casters and non-casters via that structure. It also just plain devoted more space and development effort to martial classes. In the 4e PH1, there were 8 classes with 18 builds, and 4 of the 8 classes and 8 of the 18 builds were martial. Everyone had some degree of agency because of the AEDU structure.

But, while martial classes may have had the same number of exploits as arcane classes had spells, exploits were notably less versatile in the range of things they could do, and the variety of ways in which they might do them. Then there were rituals.
So 4e was merely not as bad as other editions of D&D, in that regard.
And, it maintained that rough parity for only 2 years, before Essentials came out with versions of the martial classes stripped of said AEDU-based agency.

5e is back to granting significant agency only to classes that use magic - typically by casting spells.

2.) Some people might object that third- and half-casters in 5E aren't really "casters" and don't have as much agency as "full casters," and that Paladins and Rangers and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters and Elemental Monks and Shadow Monks are still being punished with "less agency".

I'd certainly agree that they're really casters, and 'less' agency is still significantly more than the martial classes get. Not too worried about them, in general, since they also get most of the baseline mundane ability the corresponding martial types get.

The half-caster still has plenty of agency and choices even on the spellcasting tier. Which, incidentally, is why Eldritch Knights are the best kind of fighter.

OK, then.

I agree that from a party optimisation viewpoint it's better to have a party of casters (and I include the Paladin as a caster) than non-casters yes.

Where I disagree however are:
1. From a standard combat pillar standpoint you do not *need* casters at the upper echelons of play.
2. From a standard exploration pillar standpoint you also do not *need* casters at the upper echelons of play.

'Need' is relative, and campaigns can always be run 'tailored.' So if a party is sub-optimal, the DM just puts them up against challenges they can handle.

If that's your DM, party optimization is kinda moot, anyway.

So it depends what you are trying to argue, what I got from your original posts is that you feel you simply can't play non-casters and be effective. You can and no one will kick you out of the party. If you are trying to argue however that it's more optimal to play spell casters (Paladin included) then sure, I agree. I will caution you however that the gap between "Standard" and "Optimal" in 5e is much smaller than say in 3rd Edition.

It's a more nuanced point, I'm afraid. Of course you can play a Champion Fighter and be effective - an effective beatstick. You just lack the kind of versatility (and, in D&D, that always seems to correspond with resource management) that makes the decisions you make meaningful, and adds depth to the play experience - what someone started calling 'agency' at some point years ago.

Such DPR machines are fun for folks who like that sort of thing. The key is that not everyone who doesn't like that sort of thing, who does want an interesting character that provides agency and depth of play, wants to play nothing but casters. Martial archetypes should be open, as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think it's correct to refer to a character as a "beatstick" or DPR machine. You just mentioned Conan. Was he a DPR machine in the stories? Did he need kewl powerz to do things? He was a mercenary, a thief, a pirate, a warlord, and eventually a king. If you offered him magic powers he would probably decline (magic is for corrupt, civilized folks).

Yes, magic is interesting. I like Eldritch Knights better than Champions for the same reason I like Connecticut Yankee more than Conan. But 5E allows you to play Conan if that's your concept--you're not forced to acquire supernatural powers and that's a good thing which I would not change.

Your agency will have fewer dimensions to it but my experience is that you still won't lack for choices. You can start your own mercenary company, seek a reputation as a duelist, pursue beautiful women, or invent a steam engine. You can't cast powerful spells or make magic items, but that's because you chose not to--so it's still an exercise of agency.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why a martial archetype? "Martial" only covers one pillar: it basically says that you want combat options that don't involve magic. D&D 5E supports that style okay but it could certainly do better: it would be cool to have options for "things you can do with weapons." AD&D handled this via called shots (e.g. targetting the enemy's weapon, or cutting his hand so he can't hold a weapon, or parrying his attack, etc.) and apparently 3E handled it via feats and prestige classes. 5E does a bit of both: battlemaster picks options at build-time, but PHB allows grappling/pushing for anyone, and DMG adds disarm although I strongly prefer the AD&D way. Still, that only addresses the combat pillar.

If you want non-magical exploration or social options, I don't see any reason at all why they'd be martial in nature. D&D could add a detailed subsystem for social intrigue: everyone has a certain number of social goals, strengths and weaknesses, and Reputation resources to deploy, and over the course of several days gossiping/politicking you make Insight or Diplomacy checks to protect your Reputation and degrade (or enhance) others' and/or accomplish your social goals. It could add a detailed economics subsystem where you buy low in one city, choose another city where you expect to sell high, then move your goods to that city and try to sell them there. These subsystems might give you lots of agency and things to do in the exploration/social pillars without having anything to do with magic per se--but they're hardly martial in nature either. Instead of asking for martial options, why not ask for wealth-based options, or intelligence-based play (in the "spying" sense of the word), or socialite options, or something that conveys what you're actually looking for? Otherwise discussion will always devolve back onto the combat tier, and if you're genuinely looking for non-magical ways to enhance the exploration/social tiers that will leave you unsatisfied.

4E sucked in many ways, but it did show the D&D world how to do martial archetypes with agency and cool.

I detest the thinking that goes anything really cool and awesome must involve magic. I would love a 5e fighter being able to replicate (selected) magical effects, but presented as something strictly non magical.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think it's correct to refer to a character as a "beatstick" or DPR machine. You just mentioned Conan. Was he a DPR machine in the stories?

No, not hardly. He was skillful, preternaturally talented/lucky when it came to exploiting situations, damn near superhumanly strong, fast, and charismatic, had senses, reactions, instincts, and vitality more in keeping with the animal kingdom than civilization, and had a determination and iron will that no magic ever bent for long.

Prettymuch impossible to do him justice in any version of D&D.

Did he need kewl powerz to do things?

If you wanted to model him in a game, the player would need something beyond high stats and a good attack matrix to do it, yes. (Your snide misrepresentation of balanced/interesting character abilities granting player agency as 'kewl powerz' notwithstanding.)

If you offered him magic powers he would probably decline (magic is for corrupt, civilized folks).

[]Yes, magic is interesting. I like Eldritch Knights better than Champions for the same reason I like Connecticut Yankee more than Conan. [/quote]It's funny how, in arguing against the idea that martial characters should get more varied abilities and more player agency, you are continually unable to fathom that doing so doesn't require magic. That, indeed, magical powers would defeat the purpose. In that sense you offer an apt illustration of the problem. The unshakeable - and absolutely false - assumption that no player who wants to use a martial archetype would want any sort of agency.

He was a mercenary, a thief, a pirate, a warlord, and eventually a king.... But 5E allows you to play Conan if that's your concept--you're not forced to acquire supernatural powers and that's a good thing which I would not change.

Except it doesn't. It forces you to play a simplistic, optionless, DPR machine, that, at best, you can append a background to for a couple of proficiencies and some fluff.

Your agency will have fewer dimensions to it but my experience is that you still won't lack for choices. You can start your own mercenary company, seek a reputation as a duelist, pursue beautiful women, or invent a steam engine.You can't cast powerful spells or make magic items, but that's because you chose not to--so it's still an exercise of agency.

No, being deprived of agency because you make a reasonable choice of concept is not an exercise of agency.

4E .. did show the D&D world how to do martial archetypes with agency and cool.

I detest the thinking that goes anything really cool and awesome must involve magic. I would love a 5e fighter being able to replicate (selected) magical effects, but presented as something strictly non magical.

You don't even need to /replicate/ effects you just need to present a comparable breadth of meaningful options. It's one thing to give an archer a 1/day 'black arrow technique' that happens to work exactly like magic missle, and set it down as 'cast magic missle 1/day, using your bow as a focus, but it's not magic.' It's better to give him a unique ability that's both explicitly (not merely arbitrarily) not magical, /and/ comparable in usefulness and power - an auto-hit that bypasses resistance, to build on the same example.

Mechanically and conceptually D&D has room for that kind of thing - as you pointed out, 4e went further than other eds in that direction. 5e could have gone further - or at least not backed up as dramatically.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

4E sucked in many ways, but it did show the D&D world how to do martial archetypes with agency and cool.

I detest the thinking that goes anything really cool and awesome must involve magic. I would love a 5e fighter being able to replicate (selected) magical effects, but presented as something strictly non magical.

So the elemental monk doesn't float your boat purely because ki is still magical? You want fireballs created from... what, exactly?

I think any game system which satisfies your requirement will break my willing suspension of disbelief in the same way as a really bad science fiction movie.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No, not hardly. He was skillful, preternaturally talented/lucky when it came to exploiting situations, damn near superhumanly strong, fast, and charismatic, had senses, reactions, instincts, and vitality more in keeping with the animal kingdom than civilization, and had a determination and iron will that no magic ever bent for long.

Pretty much impossible to do him justice in any version of D&D.

I agree with your first paragraph and am totally baffled by the second. It doesn't seem to follow. In 5E, High stats + Lucky feat + Alert + smart player = Conan as described above.

What's missing?