D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Asisreo]

I have to disagree here. By design, high level wizard spells are more powerful than fighter damage, so fewer rounds of combat means the wizard can exclusively use high level spells.

Also, while a DM may employ misdirection, generally, a creature’s description gives some indication as to what spells might be successful (especially at higher levels where experience with different types of creatures may provide hints to the player).

Don't mean to harp but would you mind providing a sequence of 6 spells that you believe would be good for the description of the creatures I proposed?

I believe my descriptions would make it somewhat apparent what the creature is by intuition and it was mostly from the Monster Manual itself. There are answers that are better than others but I still believe that the chances of getting it wrong are still significant.

If I can get a good sampling, though, I could gauge whether its just my experience and the forums are better at these things than most of my players.

 

[ph0rk]

Don't mean to harp but would you mind providing a sequence of 6 spells that you believe would be good for the description of the creatures I proposed?

I believe my descriptions would make it somewhat apparent what the creature is by intuition and it was mostly from the Monster Manual itself. There are answers that are better than others but I still believe that the chances of getting it wrong are still significant.

If I can get a good sampling, though, I could gauge whether its just my experience and the forums are better at these things than most of my players.

The point isn’t that there is one clear best strategy (though there are probably a few that are better than others) but that a full caster has a multitude of ways to approach that combat encounter.

Even if we consider eldritch knights, they are usually built for archery, shadow blade and shield, or occasionally GWM/melee dpr. They might use spirit shroud. The thing is, whatever it is they are doing, it is probably the same thing they’ve done for the last 20 encounters.

A full caster gets new, mechanically different toys every couple levels, and sometimes may even have more than one brand new toy to choose from in a given encounter.

A wizard gets to start each day with a radically different decision tree for that encounter if they want. A fighter cannot swap feats, fighting styles, and ability scores with that much freedom - nor are there as many combinations.

 

[Asisreo]

The point isn’t that there is one clear best strategy (though there are probably a few that are better than others) but that a caster has a multitude of ways to approach that combat encounter.

Which is an okay point, but to make that point clear I would like to see which of these ways are effective, in your eyes.

Because batman having his utility belt works because batman is a genius that knows the best tools for the job. But I don't suppose anyone is playing with Bruce Wayne as a player, so they'll fumble quite often with their utility belt.

 

[ph0rk]

Which is an okay point, but to make that point clear I would like to see which of these ways are effective, in your eyes.

You are focusing on the wrong point.

The joy is making the decisions at that moment; and that your short list of options may be different than the one you had yesterday.

You are deliberately not making it a batman encounter, because one of those involves a day of planning, and those aren't solo - the planning involves picking spells around the capabilities of the party.

A fighter just casts sword.

I should add that single target damage is already well within the fighter's wheelhouse, too. That should be clear, but perhaps it is not.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have to disagree here. By design, high level wizard spells are more powerful than fighter damage, so fewer rounds of combat means the wizard can exclusively use high level spells.

Also, while a DM may employ misdirection, generally, a creature’s description gives some indication as to what spells might be successful (especially at higher levels where experience with different types of creatures may provide hints to the player).

That absolutely should have been the intent yes, but wotc pegged spells to a combination of garbage in garbage out with dmg249's target assumption and a spherical cow of no feats no magic items that they themselves strongly urge against using at the table as a meaningful hurdle if at all in multiple publications. The math actually used by the system as a result does not support that intent or your claim. Going to back that up with details like spells & things that support it or just double down on the way it should be?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Haha, oh man, that was funny. What's next, Investigation?

I always like to take athletics for melee oriented characters. Being grappled held and pushed around can be less than ideal.

I also like to shove enemies prone and open holes in enemy lines if someone wants to retreat without aoo, push people off of walkways.

dumping strength and athletics is a choice but it’s not ideal for all situations.

fighters played intelligently have utility of their own. Respectfully I don’t think that notion is absurd at all.

 

[Asisreo]

You are focusing on the wrong point.

The joy is making the decisions at that moment; and that your short list of options

Not everyone finds joy in making decisions. I, for instance, often have decision paralysis in a good majority of my life. Please don't ask me what takeout I want.

I'd rather do the same thing and it just keeps doing what I want it to do. If I am choosing spells and I make the wrong decisions the entire fight, I'm going to wish I never had to make decisions to be effective.

Which is why I'm not worried about the quantity of decisions. Because I wouldn't want 25+ potential spells to be able to cast when the cost is diminishing power and a chance of them doing nothing.

And it would help me show my point if anyone wished to actually display what spells they'd cast.

 

[ph0rk]

I always like to take athletics for melee oriented characters. Being grappled held and pushed around can be less than ideal.

You misunderstand my snark. I like the idea of Athletics mattering, but in practice it is only slightly less rare than a table where Intimidation doesn't cause more trouble than it solves, and when acrobatics can do the same job, well. Athletics becomes a bit of a joke unless one builds for grappling.

If one does build for grappling, the DM needs to play ball for it to matter.

 

[Stalker0]

I'll break down the issue into pieces. Note I am looking at the historical issue, as I do think 5e has made strides to address some of these issues.

Combat Superiority
In the worst cases, the use of magic makes it where a caster not only has greater utility outside of combat, but great effectiveness in combat as well. In other words, they have it all. This was probably at its peak with 3.5 CODzilla, where a properly buffed cleric or druid simply won compared to a fighter.

I think 5e has toned this down quite a bit to the point where I don't think its a major issue anymore.

The Narrative Power of Magic
Magic by its definition allows you to break the rules, to do things that can't normally be done. As such, it imposes its own narrative construct on the game. Casters can use divinations to learn things a martial couldn't possibly know. Teleports to go places a martial can never go. They can survive in areas a martial cannot. A duke may not budge no matter how good your diplomacy, but if he fails against my dominate....he will submit.

Further, casters can expend resources to "end battles". This gives a lot of narrative control to the casters.... "this fight lasts as long as I deem to allow it", compared to a fighter that "fights until its done". Now this is not necessarily a mechanical problem, as people note dnd relies on multiple encounters to keep this in check. The casters ability to "end fights" is countered by the "fights where the caster has no power". However, cinematically people don't remember the long fights of "attack attack attack attack win". But they do remember the time the wizard snapped his fingers and the BBEG was curb stomped in a single round.

Utility + Downtime
So a lot of arguments are focused on the "adventuring day", and honestly I think this is where the bias towards casters is at its lowest, especially in 5e. 5e casters have a small selection of spells to prepare on a given day and only so many spell slots....so their utility can be great but its also rigid.

However, many campaigns are a balance of a "adventuring" and "downtime"....and downtime is where casters really shine. With the luxury of time, I can prepare what spell I need to handle a problem on a given day, and then switch out the next day. I can speak with dead to that murder victim, and the next day fabricate a suit of armor....the day after teleport circle to see the duke of Sandberg and have a long roleplay chat, etc. Meanwhile the cleric decides to commune and asks like 15 questions over the week about the ancient lost city of Salamain.

During downtime, the frequency and immediate availability of abilities is much less important than "can you do the thing at all". And in those scenarios, casters can do a lot. Martials can replicate some of that....but it takes more time...and some things they simply can't do at all.

Unbeatable Magic
Take a spell like resilient sphere. A fighter gets caught up in it....what can he do? The answer....not much. A caster can dispel it, or teleport out of it, or summon creatures out of it, etc. There are many spells in dnd that can only be effectively dealt with by casters.... again giving casters a certain cinematic "ownership" of the game, leaving the martials somewhat beholden to them to deal with many scenarios.


What do I want?

At the end of the day, some of these problems are bigger than others, and frankly as a martial lover myself I don't need ALL of them fixed. I accept that the consequence of swinging a big sword instead of magical power is I'm not going to be traveling the planes with a snap of my fingers. So what would I like to see as far as bridging the gap?

• Weaker abilities that "just work". To me a good divide between martials and casters. Casters can do the big stuff, but with risk, saving throws, chance of failure, and limited slots. Martials can't do as much, but it simply....works. All the time every time.

Example: Awesome Reputation (10th level fighter) - Any warrior of 3 HD or lower is charmed by me if non-hostile, and frightened is hostile.

So in this example, I'm a 10th level fighter getting a status effect against "weak" martials. This isn't going to break the bank, I'm not breaking demon lords here. But....it just works and its cool. Any joe warrior know me, and they know to be impressed...just because I'm that good. No save, no muss, no fuss...just awesome. I get automatic fans, the wizard gets to dominate a single person and have them do whatever they want....perfectly fine.

Or combat wise: "Martial Perfection (20th level) - 1/round I can choose to take 10 on an attack roll". Again doesn't give me a huge power boost or some crazy fight altering power. But on this swing, if I deem it shall hit....it shall hit. 20th level Rogues get the ability to auto crit periodically, that's super cool....more things like that.

• Ways to counter magic

I want Conan style, able to bash magic away with a big blade. Resilient Sphere should be breakable. I should be able to flex my way out of a banishment. 5e added a great counter to fly through the use of prone effects, I can inflict prone effects to knock them out of the sky. That's great...I want more of that. Teleports leave a ghostly image for just a few seconds that I can grab on and pull you back with raw awesome, etc.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not all Martial characters need to be Champions, not all Caster character need to be Illusionists.

Not only do all casters need to be illusionists, all characters need to be. Specifically, they need to be gnome illusionists.

Also, all adventures need to be wars waged against kobolds.