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

[tetrasodium]

I'm confused. My question was whether people see players complain when another player brings a utility-focused caster to the table. What does the availability of AL magic items have to do with whether or not players complain about utility-focused casters? The only items on that list with active utility applications are the Ring of Animal Friendship and the Ring of the Ram.

The complaint is usually that the casters are massively outshined by martials in just about every pillar with scorlock being an exception for social where they stand on good footing due to high charisma. Regarding "Utility Caster" as a concept itself concentration and me spells tend to put a huge crimp in what they can bring.

I more often see someone desperately trying to peddle (de)buffs & control spells as leverage for some kind of strategy beyond facerolling through encounters by running up & repeatedly bashing targets. If the caster gets lucky enough to have the opponent still in a good arrangement for web or something when their turn rolls around the group might take advantage on it.


It really comes down to nobody actually needing it even slightly though. The only time I can think of it mattering was when the martials managed to get involved with both a marlinth & bunch of knolls at the same time towards the end of DiA when an artillerist managed to web the gnolls & spam temphp to keep folks up during the marling the fight. Put in perspective how "thrilled" they were, a fight with yeenagau followed where the artillerist could not even get the martials to sacrifice flanking advantage for a single round to be within range of the healing turret. Given the level & equipment the martials needed to roll like an 8-9 to hit so it's not like dropping flank would cripple them

 

[Mort]

Wizards are good at utility, Fighters are good at fighting. If Wizards are not as good as combat as Fighters are not as good as utility, would this not be a type of balance?

Sure, it would be a type of balance - but your premise is off. Casters (wizards, bards, sorcerers etc.) are different at fighting, not worse.

The bard casts faerie fire and gives the martials advantage against the majority of enemies; the martials then pound the enemies into goo. The bard didn't do a point of damage, but did he contribute any less than the martials?

The wizard casts hypnotic pattern and incapacitates many of the enemies and allows the martials to, once again, pound the enemies into goo while getting hit minimally in return (thus minimizing true weakness of martials - that monsters hit back). Again the wizard didn't do a point of damage, but did he contribute less than the martials?

The sorcerer twin spells haste on the two martials in the party - thus allowing them to hit more often while getting hit less in return. Again, not a point of damage, but did she not massively contribute to winning the combat?

The wizard (or sorcerer or bard) sees that the fighter is down to single digit HPs and the cleric doesn't go until after the bad guys. He polymorphs the fighter into a giant ape. The fighter now has 157 HP (likely much more than his actual max at all but extreme levels) and a pretty decent attack - once again allowing him to pound the bad guys into goo. The caster didn't do a point of damage but did he contribute less than the martials?

Casters contribute differently to a fight - not worse.

 

[Xetheral]

The complaint is usually that the casters are massively outshined by martials in just about every pillar with scorlock being an exception for social where they stand on good footing due to high charisma. Regarding "Utility Caster" as a concept itself concentration and me spells tend to put a huge crimp in what they can bring.

I more often see someone desperately trying to peddle (de)buffs & control spells as leverage for some kind of strategy beyond facerolling through encounters by running up & repeatedly bashing targets. If the caster gets lucky enough to have the opponent still in a good arrangement for web or something when their turn rolls around the group might take advantage on it.


It really comes down to nobody actually needing it even slightly though. The only time I can think of it mattering was when the martials managed to get involved with both a marlinth & bunch of knolls at the same time towards the end of DiA when an artillerist managed to web the gnolls & spam temphp to keep folks up during the marling the fight. Put in perspective how "thrilled" they were, a fight with yeenagau followed where the artillerist could not even get the martials to sacrifice flanking advantage for a single round to be within range of the healing turret. Given the level & equipment the martials needed to roll like an 8-9 to hit so it's not like dropping flank would cripple them

I think we're talking about different things. You seem to be taking about a perception of lackluster caster contribution to combat.

I'm asking whether anyone sees players grumble (because they don't want to be outclassed in utility) when another player brings a utility-focused (i.e. out-of-combat-focused) caster. I'm asking because the major complaint being discussed in this thread seems to be casters outshining martials in utility, but my personal experience is that martial (and combat caster) players are thrilled when someone brings a spellcaster that focuses on casting utility spells out of combat.

If casters outshining martials in utility is a problem in actual play, I would expect the players of martials to prefer that casters to stick to combat spells. Since I haven't seen that occur, I'm asking if other people have.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I took this as a given irregardless of casters.

Because if I was a DM doing stuff for an adventure, I'd need to present close to airtight challenges absent of the entire party's class.

Because if I put a challenge that must have a specific spell casted to prevail, then the wizard that happened to not prepare it against my thoughts would have been hurt.

And if I wanted to publish, who knows what magic items the DM prior could have given previous to the adventure, so there's much to be considered.

I don't feel like a challenge that can be prevailed by anything short of clever thinking deserves to be called a challenge in terms of exploration.

And my point is really this:

Wizards are good at utility, Fighters are good at fighting. If Wizards are not as good as combat as Fighters are not as good as utility, would this not be a type of balance?

This could be considered a kind of balance if the amounts strong suits of both were tuned appropriately to be even close.

Your example involved an encounter with a single creature. This is a best case scenario for the martial in terms of relative contribution in combat. Add 1 additional creature in range, and the fighter's contribution remains the same while the caster's contribution can double. And it works like that for each incremental enemy. So in the combat pillar, the martial goes from competitive to completely outclassed verrrry quickly, and this applies no matter how difficult the enemies are (with limited exceptions for creatures that specifically negate magic or are harmful to each other). This is literal linear fighter quadratic wizard progression.

Also note, the caster in many cases will have a selection of attack vectors, attacking AC if desired, or one of several different saves. If the enemy looks beefy, they can target Dex, frail casters can have their Con targeted, dumb creatures can get subjected to one of 4 mental saves. The martial, with limited exception, gets to choose from targeting AC, and also AC.

Compare with relative utility. Perhaps it's lack of creativity, but I struggle to think of a single utility scenario where the martial outclasses the caster unless the starting premise involves some kind of antimagic something or other. Climbing..fly or spider climb...Swimming..alter self, maybe polymorph..Falling...also fly or feather fall or polymorph..talking..charm, modify memory, dominate, glibness...Etc.

So on the one hand, the caster can potentially outshine the fighter in the thing the fighter is best at...and the fighter can outshine the caster only when the caster is bound, gagged, hooded, and all their fingers broken.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, it would be a type of balance - but your premise is off. Casters (wizards, bards, sorcerers etc.) are different at fighting, not worse.

The bard casts faerie fire and gives the martials advantage against the majority of enemies; the martials then pound the enemies into goo. The bard didn't do a point of damage, but did he contribute any less than the martials?

The wizard casts hypnotic pattern and incapacitates many of the enemies and allows the martials to, once again, pound the enemies into goo while getting hit minimally in return (thus minimizing true weakness of martials - that monsters hit back). Again the wizard didn't do a point of damage, but did he contribute less than the martials?

The sorcerer twin spells haste on the two martials in the party - thus allowing them to hit more often while getting hit less in return. Again, not a point of damage, but did she not massively contribute to winning the combat?

The wizard (or sorcerer or bard) sees that the fighter is down to single digit HPs and the cleric doesn't go until after the bad guys. He polymorphs the fighter into a giant ape. The fighter now has 157 HP (likely much more than his actual max at all but extreme levels) and a pretty decent attack - once again allowing him to pound the bad guys into goo. The caster didn't do a point of damage but did he contribute less than the martials?

Casters contribute differently to a fight - not worse.

And the rounds between casting those massive game changing spells, the casters also get to endlessly pew pew with ranged damage cantrips or a good supply of low level damage spells, drop big AoE spells like fireball, lightning bolt, drop walls splitting big groups of enemies, drop snow storm to slow groups of enemies. With the scaling of cantrips, casters do about the same as the regular (non-burst / NOVA) damage output of martials...plus they can alter the fabric of reality with a snap of their fingers.

This really is a ridiculous argument. Being able to cast the wish spell is not balanced by wizards having fewer hit points.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Many people have a really hard time characters being so good at something that they can transcend real world limitations - unless magic is involved, then it's totally fine - because magic.

A bit ago there was a long thread where a decent number of people were arguing that the 11th level rogue ability reliable talent was just too good for gasp a mundane person. That it's ridiculous to believe that a rogue could do that without magic.

Yep. Seen the same thing with fall damage. "There's no way the barbarian could survive that...just ignore all those hit points intended to reflect their ability to survive stuff..oh look the Wizard decided to float down here, because magic"

 

[Mort]

Compare with relative utility. Perhaps it's lack of creativity, but I struggle to think of a single utility scenario where the martial outclasses the caster unless the starting premise involves some kind of antimagic something or other. Climbing..fly or spider climb...Swimming..alter self, maybe polymorph..Falling...also fly or feather fall or polymorph..talking..charm, modify memory, dominate, glibness...Etc.

Yeah and notice how most published dungeons of mid to high have the "hamstring the caster" section: Teleport doesn't work because reasons, scry doesn't work because reasons, find the path doesn't work because reasons etc.

Not too many published adventures have a "hamstring the martials section." I honestly can't think of any - any out there?

 

[tetrasodium]

@Gammadoodler that "Add 1 additional creature in range, and the fighter's contribution remains the same while the caster's contribution can double." is missing "and they are arranged on the grid for the aoe/line and the martials are not sandwiched between" as blasting bob is usually considered poor form given that bob tends to do similar or better damage each round as each of the targets in that AOE.

I think we're talking about different things. You seem to be taking about a perception of lackluster caster contribution to combat.

I'm asking whether anyone sees players grumble (because they don't want to be outclassed in utility) when another player brings a utility-focused (i.e. out-of-combat-focused) caster. I'm asking because the major complaint being discussed in this thread seems to be casters outshining martials in utility, but my personal experience is that martial (and combat caster) players are thrilled when someone brings a spellcaster that focuses on casting utility spells out of combat.

If casters outshining martials in utility is a problem in actual play, I would expect the players of martials to prefer that casters to stick to combat spells. Since I haven't seen that occur, I'm asking if other people have.

You are correct about the complaint I have seen. The "complaint" about casters outshining martials in my experience is baseless in ways that are divorced from reality. The vast majority of the time some edge case where a caster could pull out a spell to trivialize some exploration or social thing the response tends to be "I didn't have that spell, "I could aver a long rest" or similar unless the spell is tiny hut and I've seen a few wizards refuse to take it for obvious reasons related to how it basically relegates them to saying "skip me. I ready an action to cast a cantrip if something gets in with burrow teleport or whatever" mid-rest. martials don't tend to care what spells asters prep unless one of them can be healing spells.

 

[ECMO3]

Bladesingers are Wizard with a complex 'Blade Song' thing you need to maintain to get the best out of its ability... why would I want to play that when I can just play a Blade Lock with permanent Mage Armor?

You said you wanted a class where you do not have to worry about spell slots and concentration. Warlocks have spell slots and a more complex mechanic for their use. Warlocks have concentration spells too.

Bladesong is a "power" or "blessing" that does not require spell slots or concentration. That is what some on this thread claim they want more of.

If you don't like slots, don't use them. Get rituals for all your spells except shield, that way anytime you cast anything you cast it as a ritual and don't need to worry about spell slots. By 5th level you will have enough slots and a high enough AC that you will never run out of slots for shield .... so you no longer have to worry about spell slots. With 23 rituals available (I think), you will eventually have all of them in your book by about 11th level or so. After that just add random spells to your book but never cast the non-rituals (except for shield).

As far as AC a bladesinger in studded will typically have a higher base AC than a warlock in mage armor because they have a higher dexterity which makes up for the 1-point difference at low levels and beats it outright at high levels. In bladesong they have a much higher AC than an armor of shadows bladelock.

So grab your scimitars and go to it .... no concentration or worry about slots required!

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yeah and notice how most published dungeons of mid to high have the "hamstring the caster" section: Teleport doesn't work because reasons, scry doesn't work because reasons, find the path doesn't work because reasons etc.

Not too many published adventures have a "hamstring the martials section." I honestly can't think of any - any out there?

In my experience most all dungeons have walls.. which are remarkably effective at hamstringing martials. One could likely say that most of most dungeons are the "hamstring the martial" section.