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

[ph0rk]

I've played a wizard. A high level wizard over a campaign. I hated it precisely because of the nuances I had to explain to Flamestrike. These cool combinations seem amazing at a glance but with so many rules and interactions, you can mess it up and waste multiple turns on something that was doomed to fail from the start.

By that reasoning, a champion would be preferable to a battlemaster or eldritch knight. And that's okay - not everyone has to like playing wizards or other casters. But watching one (or doing it yourself) utterly trivialize an encounter with a single spell makes it hard to take arguments that question their flexibility seriously.

Really, if folks aren't jonesing for an area effect blaster by mid/late tier II, I can only assume their encounters are designed especially for single target martials. There's nothing wrong with that, but if people put fingers on the balance scales with such a heavy helping of DM fiat, they should be honest about it. Setting up a gotcha exhibition match with 1-2 enemies of high CR is not being honest about it.

Look, a level 12-15 battlemaster can solo a Purple Worm. They have a small to moderate chance of failure, but a pretty good chance of success. But if folks can't recognize the entire setup is designed with a battlemaster's capabilities in mind, they are missing the meat of the difference.

That same battlemaster would have a hard time with an evil necromancer's undead army (just the army, not the necromancer herself). To equal the XP value of one Purple Worm, that battlemaster has to stand alone against 55, 75, or 260 skeletons (depending on which CR to level calculation you choose), equipped with shortswords and shortbows.

That Battlemaster goes down like Boromir.

The reason is action economy, and it is addressing the problem of action economy with multiple enemies that makes casters (blasting casters, particularly, but control casters too) important in combat.

 

[Don Durito]

1im on my phone right now but posted spreadsheet earlier that goes into great detail on the math showing that they are. I'd be happy to dig up the link and post it again you want.

I saw it. You know how I said that whether Fighters do enough damage is one of the topics in the discussion in the thread? I know this because you among others discussed it.

2is tea less pleasing to drink than coffee because of caffeine content in most blends? This is pretty much entirely subjective so worded and I can't think of any ways it could be measured.

So? You're the second person to say it's subject as if that's meaningful at all. Lots of things are subjective and yet people argue about them all the time. No we may not be able to reach a final resolution - who cares (If that was enough to prevent people arguing about something this forum would have less than 5% of the posts which it does)

In any case, the point is that people are aleady arguing about it. And have been arguing the matter since 5E was released, incuding in this very thread. You may think they shouldn't argue about it. I don't much care.

All I was attempting to do was sort out what people are aleady arguing about and how different points were getting mixed up.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

I have asked this question myself in conjunction with PF2, which has the opposite problem that playing a wizard feels lackluster. The conclusion I came to is that a game should cater to the archetypes of the genre it seeks to emulate.

By that metric, there probably should be a tactically complex fighter as that is an archetype that is common in fantasy literature.

 

[ph0rk]

By that metric, there probably should be a tactically complex fighter as that is an archetype that is common in fantasy literature.

Which I really don't think would be that hard - though they'd probably need some form of either magic resistance or personal anti-magic. Not unlike Psychic Blanks in 40k.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They're actually flying with their wings, but you can still Wall of Force one of them with a Spherical Force Wall, but there isn't room to fit both of them at once.

Talking with them, they say "We are enforcers. You may present your case among the court of justice, my duty is to take you in. And my duty will be done."

Considering that you're concentrating on restricting one, the other would attack you to attempt to break your concentration.

So wait, the wizard is alone?

 

[Asisreo]

So wait, the wizard is alone?

Nah, the wizard has allies of ambiguous class/race/statistics. The point of the exercise is to show how difficult it can be to actually be a wizard rather than have a theoretical idea of how playing wizards would work.

 

[Asisreo]

Setting up a gotcha exhibition match with 1-2 enemies of high CR is not being honest about it.

You keep saying its a gotcha, what part of my experiment makes it a gotcha?

I've been honest in my replies. Point out where I haven't been.

Even if you don't think it will prove anything, it will. To me. And as someone that's trying to understand your camp of the debate, it would be a good thing to have common ground between understanding. But I have to see it first. It isn't a gotcha. No wool over your eyes. They aren't "deadly" for the level, as I said. The people that figured out the encounter can verify that.

 

[tetrasodium]

I saw it. You now how I said that whether Fighters do enough damage is one of the topics in the discussion in the thread? I know this because you among others discussed it.


So? You're the second person to say it's subject as if that's meaningful at all. Lots of things are subjective and yet people argue about them all the time. No we may not be able to reach a final resolution - who cares (If that was enough to prevent people arguing about something this forum would have less than 5% of the posts which it does)

In any case, the point is that people are aleady arguing about it. And have been arguing the matter since 5E was released, incuding in this very thread. You may think they shouldn't argue about it. I don't much care.

All I was attempting to do was sort out what people are aleady arguing about and how different points were getting mixed up.

Actually I went further than saying that question has a subjective answer. I went on to say that "i can't think of any ways it could be measured"... since you quoted that part too but didn't suggest one while lamenting reticence to expand into the realm of our subjectivity rather than suggesting one am I right in assuming you can not either?

 

[Flamestrike]

So, your initial casting of Wall of Force would cause them to go invisible, which means they're no longer visible.

Ok, but I dont need to be able to see them to trap them in a Magic Circle, and as a Diviner I can see invisible creatures up to 10' away in any event.

But whatever. If they want to go invisible and worse comes to worse, I can also simply pop a True Seeing, recovering an expended 5th level slot as I do so (because Diviner). Now (with truesight) I can see them just fine.

Next up, in order for you to continue your line of casting, one of them will have to be freed. Disintegrate doesn't bypass Wall of Force but it does destroy it. If you let go of the wall, it is still an invalid target since it has gone invisible.

No, they dont have to be freed. Once trapped in the Magic Circle, I can safely drop the Wall of Force if I must (but I dont have to, seeing as Wall of Force doesnt block Planar Binding).

They have no methods of magical travel out of the Magic circle/ Wall of Force combo, and it doesnt stop my spells from entering.

Magic Circle has a costly material component, without Wish or some form of DM fiat, its inaccessible to you like Magic Items would be to Martials in this scenario.

I'm a 20th level Wizard without 200 GP of powdered silver and iron? So by that reasoning, all spells with costly material components are now off the table eh?

Fine then. I'll wish the iron and silver into existence.

Even if it didn't, it has a minute casting time which gives the creatures a minute to not let you successfully circle them since minute castings break concentration.

The spell has a a 10' radius. They're trapped in 10' radius spheres (20' across at their highest point, more than enough to trap a Large creature). They have nowhere to go.

With Planar Binding, both you and your simulacrum would need lower than a 7 on two of the portent rolls.

We have 6 rolls between us. I'm sure between the two of us, we have 2 results of 7 or less.

I mean really, this is a bit pointless. My Simulacrum and I could simply both cast Meteor Swarm, inflicting 80d6 damage on each of them which they're not resistant to and likely kills both, or simply banish them inside the Wall of Force (again nixing their saves with Portent) presuming they don't have readied actions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Most of those spells are not problematic.

They're just problematic for DMs that lack experience in high level play (a lot) and who keep running 'Street' level adventures for high level (i.e. Superhero) PCs.

That might be partly true, but the high level D&D with its spells often doesn't feel epic, it feels dull. Like I want high level characters traversing fantastic landscapes with their magical mounts or flying ships, fighting demigods and demon kings. In Exalted I get that. In D&D high level characters just teleport around and are literally immune to death.