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

[Flamestrike]

At the very least we should be giving the Fighter the benefit of a high Dexterity. That should be at least 4d8 + 20. More if magical arrows are involved. That's not even considering feats. It's a very poorly built fighter who is not putting a spellcaster (other than Warlocks) to shame in single target damage.

Factoring in feats and magic items (which most games use) it's not even close.

There is no Wizard equivalent to Archery F/A, Sharpshooter feat and +X bows and arrows (which stack).

Heck, the wizard likely needs a feat tax in Elemental adept just to get his firebolts to damage most things properly.

Toss on top the baseline fighters 2 x action surges his archetype features like 6 x d12 superiority dice, with one coming back every time re rolls initiative, and it's no contest.

 

[tetrasodium]

Factoring in feats and magic items (which most games use) it's not even close.

There is no Wizard equivalent to Archery F/A, Sharpshooter feat and +X bows and arrows (which stack).

Heck, the wizard likely needs a feat tax in Elemental adept just to get his firebolts to damage most things properly.

Toss on top the baseline fighters 2 x action surges his archetype features like 6 x d12 superiority dice, with one coming back every time re rolls initiative, and it's no contest.

With two short rests per long its 6 action surges too. The superiority dice likewise recover on each short rest

 

[Flamestrike]

With two short rests per long its 6 action surges too. The superiority dice likewise recover on each short rest

He also recovers 1 die every time he rolls initiative and has none.

Even without that, lets assume a standard median adventuring day at 20th level (200,000 XP for 5 PCs) of 6 encounters (with a budget of roughly 35,000 XP each) and 2 short rests.

6 Action surges, 3 second winds (1d10+20), 18 Sup dice (d12s), 3 Indomitable uses, 50 percent more HP than the Wizard, 2 extra feats/ ASI (with all the 'broken' feats like SS, CBE, PAM, GWM available to him, that have no Wizard equal).

Mate, and remember - despite people arguing otherwise, every single week we get these threads:

• Complaining about GWM or SS and wanting them nerfed, hurting Fighters the most
• Arguing for 'instant death' for falling/ getting stabbed while asleep/ falling in magma (depriving Fighters of the benefit of their core class feature - namely HP)
• Arguing for Fumble rules (that nerf Fighters the most, due to the volume of attacks they make)
• Arguing for Flanking rules (that punish Fighters who are in melee all the time).
• Refusing to police the adventuring day in any way shape or form, depriving Fighters of the benefit of their short rest abilities, and favoring casters who can repeatedly safely nova.
• Imposing exhaustion for zero HP, which punishes fighters as they tend to get hit more, and the Exhaustion penalties directly affect their skill checks, attack rolls and movement, which a Wizard doesnt care about at all.

DMs are playing their games in such a way that the punish the crap out of Fighters (Wizards dont care if you nerf those feats, they dont care about instant death for falling into magma, because that tends to happen to them anyway due to low HP, they dont care about fumble rules seeing as they can ignore spells with attack rolls, they dont care about being flanked because they're never in melee, and when they are they can get out easily, slapping exhaustion levels on Fighters cripples them in ways that Wizards dont give a naughty word about, and they like 'single encounter adventuring days' because it lets them nova in ways Fighters cant).

tl;dr - the problem isn't with Fighters or Wizards - the problem is with DMs. They're repeatedly punishing fighters while also propping up wizards via a combination of poorly thought out house-rules, and poor management of the adventuring day.

I assure you I could step into any one of those DMs campaigns, and make those problems disappear overnight.

 

[Stalker0]

He also recovers 1 die every time he rolls initiative and has none.

Even without that, lets assume a standard median adventuring day at 20th level (200,000 XP for 5 PCs) of 6 encounters (with a budget of roughly 35,000 XP each) and 2 short rests.

Why look at 20th levels when the vast majority of players rarely see 10th, let alone 20th. 20th is a pipe dream for most players....its a scenario that never comes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What is hard to understand?! The FICTION I want to represented does not equate the GAMEPLAY I want to engage with! It's that's friggin' simple! How much simplier can we explain it?!

Have you tried the Codex Martialis???

Codex Martialis: Core Rules (Martial Combat Rulebook)

www.codexintegrum.com

 

[Flamestrike]

Why look at 20th levels when the vast majority of players rarely see 10th, let alone 20th. 20th is a pipe dream for most players....its a scenario that never comes.

You and I are currently running an adventure set at 7th level - the sweet spot - and I'm (still) yet to see any of the 3 casters (your Wizard, the Bard and the Cleric) dominate over the Fighter or Rogue (both non casters).

 

[Don Durito]

It seems to me that there are three seperate issues being discussed in this thread and it would probably be useful to treat them seperately.

1) Are Martials able to keep up in their key area (damage) when compared to casters?
2) Are Martial characters duller to play in combat because of the smaller range of options that they have?
3) Are Martials lacking because they don't don't have anything like the caster's utility out of combat?

These three things may all be true, may all be false, or may be true in some cases and false in others. They are not really intrinsically connected.

 

[Flamestrike]

1) Are Martials able to keep up in their key area (damage) when compared to casters?

The answer is clearly 'yes'. They can also soak more as well, having higher HD.

2) Are Martial characters duller to play in combat because of the smaller range of options that they have?

Subjective. Some people prefer 'high damage, hit things hard' playstyle.

3) Are Martials lacking because they don't don't have anything like the caster's utility out of combat?

Rogues (for example) arguably have more options outside of combat. Particularly from 11th level when reliable talent kicks in.

And they can do it at will, without burning slots also.

 

[Don Durito]

The answer is clearly 'yes'. They can also soak more as well, having higher HD.

It's not me you need to convince. It's clearly an object of dispute in this thread though.

Subjective. Some people prefer 'high damage, hit things hard' playstyle.

Well obviously.

Rogues (for example) arguably have more options outside of combat. Particularly from 11th level when reliable talent kicks in.

And they can do it at will, without burning slots also.

My experience with playing Rogues is that while they're clearly better off than Fighters and Barbarians they're also clearly better off if they are Arcane Tricksters. Having access to spells like Invisibilty, Disguise Self, Misty Step, Fog Cloud etc just give you a lot more range of options to use your skills and expertise. (Eg if you can turn invisibile you can use your expertise in Stealth in circumstances where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.)

 

[Stalker0]

You and I are currently running an adventure set at 7th level - the sweet spot - and I'm (still) yet to see any of the 3 casters (your Wizard, the Bard and the Cleric) dominate over the Fighter or Rogue (both non casters).

Correct....level 7....not 20. 7 is a reasonable level to look at things, 20 is not.