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

[Stalker0]

So the paladin used his very combat pillar useful aura & spent a few days of game time watching the wizard cast a ritual spell to ask a bunch of questions consisting of "On a successful save, you can ask the entity up to five questions. You must ask your questions before the spell ends. The GM answers each question with one word, such as "yes," "no," "maybe," "never," "irrelevant," or "unclear" (if the entity doesn't know the answer to the question). If a one-word answer would be misleading, the GM might instead offer a short phrase as an answer."

How often do those answers come up in play during the average session?

The Paladin wanted to work on writing a book so it was perfect timing, they did have a few buddy cop moments basically being roommates for a few weeks

how useful was it? Extremely. Now many of the questions were not useful but a good bit were. The wizard figured out a lot about various events going on, and uncovered a major conspiracy in the process. It gave the the party a major head start when the adventure picked back up

 

[Minigiant]

To me the whole issue is

The Caster's combat power is defined by the books (spells). The Martial's combat power is defined by the books (attacks).
The Caster's combat utility is defined by the books (spells). The Martial's combat utility is defined by ???? (????).
The Caster's out of combat power is defined by the books (spells). The Martial's out of combat power is defined by the books sometimes (skills).
The Caster's out of combat utility is defined by the books (spells). The Martial's out of combat utility is defined by ???? (????).

Basically D&D is not a narrated media so no one has a frame of reference to base utility and power for anything not written down. This is different from most printed, acted, or drawn narrative media.

I understand the Martial vs Caster dynamic in HeMan, Avatar, A Song of Ice and Fire, Dying Earth, Dresden, Final Fantasy, and Dragon Age.
D&D can be rather vague on it.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Our DM once pitted us against a re-skinned Clay Golem. The thing has an attack that reduces your maximum HP, PERMANENTLY. The only, ONLY, way to get rid of this affliction is with a 5th level Spell. A SPECIFIC spell. I think it's Greater Restoration.

I was flabbergasted as this aweful design choice. My druid was nowhere near the level to get that specific spell, and it just punished the melee character for doing their job of standing at the front and taking hits, making them weaker for days to come. How did we solved it? We went into the next town over and found a Cleric to do it for money. That's it.

Why is there a condition with a SINGLE cure for it instead of multiple?!

 

[Undrave]

But even still, I think the fact that these players actually do not have to just not play 5e is the entire strength of Martials.

Augh we already mentioned this: SIMPLE shouldn't automatically mean MARTIAL! And COMPLEX shouldn't automatically mean CASTER!

There is, and its the EK. And it does use spells but I still don't see a mechanical reason why this is bad. I mean, that just means that a player that never touched EK's can still hop in without having to learn a completely separate subsystem if they've been introduced to magic and vice-verse.

Adding more subsystems are adding more headaches to a player's end and can ultimately turn them away.

An Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, Psy Knight or Arcane Archer aren't purely Martial. They're closer to Rangers and Paladins and Monks who I don't count as 'Martial characters'. Just because it uses a weapon or engage in melee doesn't make it a martial character. I want a MARTIAL character, and I don't want to faff about with Spell Slots and the damn awful Spell Section of the book (Why aren't spells grouped by levels?! it makes picking new spells such a CHORE at level up!).

 

[overgeeked]

Augh we already mentioned this: SIMPLE shouldn't automatically mean MARTIAL! And COMPLEX shouldn't automatically mean CASTER!

An Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, Psy Knight or Arcane Archer aren't purely Martial. They're closer to Rangers and Paladins and Monks who I don't count as 'Martial characters'. Just because it uses a weapon or engage in melee doesn't make it a martial character. I want a MARTIAL character, and I don't want to faff about with Spell Slots and the damn awful Spell Section of the book (Why aren't spells grouped by levels?! it makes picking new spells such a CHORE at level up!).

That is one benefit to D&D Beyond. You can search the spells and filter by class and level.

It would make sense that they're alphabetical rather than by level, then alphabetical, if different spells were different levels for different classes, but that's not a thing anymore.

 

[Asisreo]

Augh we already mentioned this: SIMPLE shouldn't automatically mean MARTIAL! And COMPLEX shouldn't automatically mean CASTER!

Why not?

Isn't it being taken for granted that we even have the "Martial" category. This is a holdover by the community at large from previous editions and other TTRPGs, but 5e doesn't have Martials. They just have classes with the complex Spellcasting trait and classes without the Spellcasting trait.

I still don't see how that desire to be complex but an almost allergy to spells isn't at least a bit peculiar. It just seems like...a design choice. Like someone said "Complex = caster" that way everyone knows their class is complex at a glance.

While it may be one some people disagree with, why is it bad? To me, its just another design decision like Bounded Accuracy or Concentration. It can be annoying to those that disagree, sure, but it shouldn't be classified as a "problem."

Now, if the argument is that Casters can just be equally as good or good enough in combat that them being replaced by a fighter wouldn't be a big deal, that could be a significant problem.

But I don't see that.

How about this:

Two people in the forum make up an encounter. One person creates the encounter design with enemies that they don't outright reveal to the other. The other chooses the spells they'd cast. After the scenario, we can see how likely the caster is to instantly win.

I only ask that the encounter is Hard difficulty for a level 20 party of 4 characters. So somewhere under 50,800 adjusted EXP.

If that helps with the impartiality, cool.

I still can't believe you'd think I'd try to gotcha so blatantly, but if it makes you all feel better, it could be someone who actually thinks good on casters.

 

[Don Durito]

The problem seems pretty simple to me.

People like the fictional idea of warriors.
In play people find that these characters are rather dull with little decisions to make in combat and reliant on a rather arbritrary binary skill system without very much to mitigate it's arbritrariness in the way of metacurrency or special abilities (that aren't spells).

They want to play D&D and not a game that solves these problems such as Modiphius's Conan game for example.

Therefore they experience a dissonance when they see that the fictional character they want to play can't easily be matched up with the mechanical options that seem fun to play.

They are not happy with this situation.

 

[overgeeked]

Why not?

Because not everyone who wants to play a complex character wants to play a caster. We've told you that about a dozen times already.

Isn't it being taken for granted that we even have the "Martial" category. This is a holdover by the community at large from previous editions and other TTRPGs, but 5e doesn't have Martials. They just have classes with the complex Spellcasting trait and classes without the Spellcasting trait.

Martial is the best descriptor of the classes that are left over when you exclude all those with spellcasting abilities. Let's see. Barbarian. Fighter. Monk. Rogue...and that's it. What do they all have in common? They all fight with weapons rather than spells. A martial artist is someone who fights with weapons and/or their body. The common shortened version used in RPGs is "martial". Likewise, "caster" is the common shortened version of spellcaster in RPG communities.

I still don't see how that desire to be complex but an almost allergy to spells isn't at least a bit peculiar.

You don't understand it. You admit to not understanding it. Then when people who feel that way try to explain it to you, you dismiss them and argue with them and try to present gotchas as if we're all lying to you.

It just seems like...a design choice. Like someone said "Complex = caster" that way everyone knows their class is complex at a glance.

While it may be one some people disagree with, why is it bad?

Yep. It's a design choice. It just happens to be a bad one...because not everyone who wants a complex character wants to play a caster. As we've told you a dozen or so times.

To me, its just another design decision like Bounded Accuracy or Concentration. It can be annoying to those that disagree, sure, but it shouldn't be classified as a "problem."

It's different from those other design choices because they do not limit our playable options at the table. Bounded accuracy doesn't limit my choices as a player. Designing the game so that casters are complex and martials are simple limits my choices. It's interesting that they provided a simpler caster in the form of the warlock, but there's no complex martial choice...that doesn't also dip into spellcasting. So that makes it a bad design choice. Because it forces certain choices and styles of play.

Now, if the argument is that Casters can just be equally as good or good enough in combat that them being replaced by a fighter wouldn't be a big deal, that could be a significant problem.

Except the reverse is true. Casters are so much better than martials that after the lowest levels there's basically nothing a martial character can do that a caster cannot do better, faster, or easier. See the simple damage comparison I posted above where the wizard smokes the fighter at damage output. See spells like knock and invisibility for how the wizard smokes the rogue at stealth and opening locks/doors.

 

[Minigiant]

Augh we already mentioned this: SIMPLE shouldn't automatically mean MARTIAL! And COMPLEX shouldn't automatically mean CASTER!

I have come to the conclusion a while ago that D&D and those in its genre are bogged down by its refusal to make a a simple and complex versions of the fighter and rogue. The warlock should no have been

5e Missed the boat in making a Simple Warrior, Complex Weaponmaster, and a Fighter somewhere in between.
Same with the Jack- > Rogue -> Scoundrel.

DMs and setting can choose which ones they allow.

 

[Asisreo]

Then when people who feel that way try to explain it to you, you dismiss them and argue with them and try to present gotchas as if we're all lying to you.

This isn't what I did, nor is it my intention. I'm pressing for the deeper reasonings and the logical continuations.

Because not everyone who wants to play a complex character wants to play a caster. We've told you that about a dozen times already.

Heard. But should the game cater to everyone's fantasy of their character. Is it bad design that some people can't choose a psionics class, for example? Or is it just another game design aspect?

Yep. It's a design choice. It just happens to be a bad one...because not everyone who wants a complex character wants to play a caster. As we've told you a dozen or so times.

I perfectly understand this. Which is why this seems to be going in circles.

What I understand:

• Some people would like a complex class that doesn't have spells.

WHat I don't understand

• Why these specific people must be catered to or its a problem.

Well, I also don't understand...

Because it forces certain choices and styles of play.

But it does the exact opposite in my eyes. Because now players have the choice to have the gameplay of a frontliner without complexity (champion), with a little complexity (battlemaster), and quite a bit more complexity (Eldritch Knight) but they also have the option to have a fully complex character (wizard), fully simple character (Champion) and all the ranges in-between.

I don't consider Warlocks a "simple caster." Between their Pact Magic, Invocation, Pact Boons, and Mystic Arcanum, they can be more complex than even a 3rd-caster easily. Plus, they aren't as resilient on the frontlines.

Except the reverse is true. Casters are so much better than martials that after the lowest levels there's basically nothing a martial character can do that a caster cannot do better, faster, or easier. See the simple damage comparison I posted above where the wizard smokes the fighter at damage output. See spells like knock and invisibility for how the wizard smokes the rogue at stealth and opening locks/doors.

As others have stated, your math was off.

Fighters at-will can do 48 (8d6+20) without any sort of fighting style buff or adjustment. Firebolt does 4d10, which is 22.

Even counting only ranged attacks, Fighter have access to Longbows while wizards still really only has firebolt. That's 4d8+20 which is 38 average damage compared to the firebolt's 22.

So fighters always will outdamage a caster's cantrip if they really want to. It takes higher level spells to pump bigger numbers...but those cost resources and aren't guaranteed to be effective.

Have some good faith for me and try my challenge. We have everything documented, I can't pull anything under the rug. If I wanted to lie, doing so like this would be the worse way to do it.

I'm giving every opportunity for this to be demonstrable but if it is a gotcha, people will catch on immediately. I won't make things up that I didn't already state unless its obtuse pieces of lore.

But I want to see how wizards are just reliable in combat and effective when players must face typical high-level encounters. Obviously its not an Orc or a Lich, but those are the obvious fights. Wizards will eventually have to deal with foes that aren't just easily recognized by memory in the players.