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

[ph0rk]

And Fighters had one of the better progressions.

This was one of the worst changes from 2e. Indomitable helps, but it isn't enough.

 

[Asisreo]

Then a team of five martials and one wizard can result in the wizard making tea while the brutes engage in their labors. No need to expend resources because it is not necessary to win the encounter. Perhaps a firebolt or two so the lads know you're still on their side.

If we are to consider a team of five or six casters, though - you might need a 45 minute conversation just to get through the first round.

Uhm. Could you help me with what this means? Are you saying a wizard is good at not participating or that they don't have to? If that's it...that's almost my point but not exactly.

I mean, the number one answer for this combat encounter seems to be to...run? I feel like that still says Wizards are great at Utility but Fighters are good at fighting.

They're naturally going to lean into what they do good at. So I can accept that they will flee but I'm curious how that proves Wizards have any good amount of power in this scenario.

 

[ph0rk]

I mean, the number one answer for this combat encounter seems to be to...run?

Voadam assumed, as did I, it was a solo encounter.

If it is a trivial team encounter, why waste resources when a nontrivial encounter may be around the corner? These decisions, too, are part of what makes a wizard fun. Firebolt is pretty boring, but it is boring on purpose. In a well balanced adventuring day, a wizard isn't able to let loose with high level spells every single round or encounter.

If they are able to use upper level spells every round, then the deck is well stacked in their favor.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, and I offered to let Flamestrike tell me what that list would be. They refused.

As I said above - the burden of proof is upon you. If you are convinced wizards are that weak, generate a range of encounters and a range of wizards that fail at those encounters.

what part of choose spells are you getting lost on. Does he need to say that they need to be choices that the rules allow you to select? He made a stipulation about spells that require components, that leaves you with spells wotc published for fifth edition as this is a fifth edition within the selection limits for a wizard f the given level within the 5e rules as written as this is a 5e discussion & no other limitations have been put in place.

 

[Asisreo]

Sigil's portals aren't go anywhere any time for any reason, they are generally specific places under specific conditions but there are ones to most everywhere and there are lots of them, not everyone has access to them and I would not expect a bad guy to follow me to a place they did not know I was going.

The creatures are law enforcement type for Sigil and would not be refused access.

And the information pertaining to your location can be provided by an ability in their statblock.

Also, let's take a step back...which spells are you using for your escape?

Voadam assumed, as did I, it was a solo encounter.

If it is a trivial team encounter, why waste resources when a nontrivial encounter may be around the corner? These decisions, too, are part of what makes a wizard fun. Firebolt is pretty boring, but it is boring on purpose. In a well balanced adventuring day, a wizard isn't able to let loose with high level spells every single round or encounter.

It isn't "trivial." Its just not "deadly." If your answer is to not cast any high-level spells in search for a more dangerous encounter, then the martials were still useful as they were able to stand a bit more stalwartly against the creature's attacks.

Plus, it was a single encounter. They just follow you if you don't follow through with their defeat. If you defeat them here and now, you don't have to worry about it. (You had this feeling when you encountered them).

 

[ph0rk]

what part of choose spells are you getting lost on.

Please generate the encounters and wizards that routinely fail at those encounters.

I do not believe they routinely fail level appropriate encounters, and I require no convincing that they don't.

It isn't "trivial." Its just not "deadly." If your answer is to not cast any high-level spells in search for a more dangerous encounter, then the martials were still useful as they were able to stand a bit more stalwartly against the creature's attacks.

Plus, it was a single encounter. They just follow you if you don't follow through with their defeat. If you defeat them here and now, you don't have to worry about it. (You had this feeling when you encountered them).

Again, picking a list of spells for a specific encounter is boring, as are most whiteroom scenarios.

The point is you might have the absolute worst list for that encounter, and you might (for all you know) be alone.

McGuiver wouldn't be terribly interesting if he always got to pre-select tools tailored for his encounters that day.

 

[Stalker0]

Please generate the encounters and wizards that routinely fail at those encounters.

I do not believe they routinely fail level appropriate encounters, and I require no convincing that they don't.

You two start your own thread or go back to the OTHER thread where you were debating this. No reason to clog yet another thread with this back and forth arguing.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I'm not sure a combat encounter is really the best test anyway. Martials are pretty decent in a fight, at least at doing single target damage and taking a few hits. It's that spellcasters are not slouches at contributing to combat themselves, and have ridiculous capabilities outside of combat compared to most martials that tends to be the sticking point.

 

[ph0rk]

I'm not sure a combat encounter is really the best test anyway. Martials are pretty decent in a fight, at least at doing single target damage and taking a few hits. It's that spellcasters are not slouches at contributing to combat themselves, and have ridiculous capabilities outside of combat compared to most martials that tends to be the sticking point.

Indeed. Even with the given example - If the extradimensional creature successfully escapes, the martials will be hard pressed to track and follow it.

It might take a wizard a day or two, but it's gonna take an eldritch knight a heck of a lot longer than that.

 

[Asisreo]

I'm not sure a combat encounter is really the best test anyway. Martials are pretty decent in a fight, at least at doing single target damage and taking a few hits. It's that spellcasters are not slouches at contributing to combat themselves, and have ridiculous capabilities outside of combat compared to most martials that tends to be the sticking point.

I do not disagree that casters can contribute. I just want to see by how much. Because if casters contribute but martials contribute much more and much more often, then the balance may be asymmetrical but its existant.

Its because I want to experience this. Because I've yet to experience it over my years of high-level play and I just can't actually see what it is. Its like everyone's going "Look at this elephant in the room!" But someone's head is in the way. I can't really believe it wholeheartedly unless I actually see it.