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

[jmartkdr2]

@Flamestrike By extreme levels I meant character levels - ie even at 20, a fighter is able to do cool stuff in combat.

 

[Mort]

I agree that it is a stretch, but a large part of the discussion is that martials rely on the DM to give them options/abilities/choices but without that, they have nothing.

But if the wizard also must rely on the DM, that argument is harder to justify in my eyes.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that DM fiat is part of the game and isolating it is likely removing a big chunk out of it. But there was a massive disagreement as the Wizard could do so much more without DM intervention. I wanted to see exactly how much more they can do without DM intervention and if they can beat a simple encounter as easily as claimed.

I agree its a bit ridiculous, but I believe that since the Wizard is considered so powerful without DM intervention and the Martial so weak, it should at least be verified a little bit.

Does this make sense?

1. The problem is that most DMs tend to be overly permissive with magic (and casters) and underpermissive (probably not a word, but it should be) with martials using their abilities - magic gets away with too much because "magic" up to and including many DMs not bothering with its constraints.

2. You're framing the argument in extremes and loaded language: Wizards are "so powerful" and martials are "so weak." and that colors things badly from the get go.

People are arguing that Casters (particularly full casters such as wizards) have a load more options than non-casters and that gives them a leg up in overall play (when including all three tiers) especially when the DM isn't giving martials an inch but being flexible with allowing magic solutions (as many DMs do especially when they allow the casters do dictate the pace of play and rest enough to never be harried on resource management).

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry. I can't make any sense of this at all. Grammar's messed up and I have no idea what point you are making or even if you understood what I initially said (but suspect not).

You were the one that raised the complaint about not considering subjective elements & lamented that two people pointing to objective ones didn't dive into them for you. The only pushback people wanting to lean on subjective metrics are receiving has been largely in one of three forms. One:"That example requires changing how the rules are written or omitting large chunks of them like forgetting to add dex/str mod to weapon attacks", This is something difficult to argue unreasonable given how far off some of those cases it was used in were. Two: "Except the game is not played with a quantum spell list you can 'prepare' for a fully known isolated whiteroom contrived situation". Three: "You do realize there are typically other ways of solving those situations when not invoking This looks like a job for aquaman style contrivances to exclude them from the possible solution".

Clearly you want to discuss subjective elements, go for it! Nobody is stopping you. However, if those subjective elements are in violation of the rules or not reflective of the way a session of d&d5e is actually played at a table?... you should expect to be called on it if that's the case

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IME - when cleaving to the 6ish encounter/ 2 short rest AD using the AD guidelines in the DMG that is not the case.

At 13th level, you Teleport the party to the dungeon (bye bye 7th level slot). You then have 6 encounters to deal with.

You have 1 x 6th, 2 x 5ths, 3 x 4ths and 3 x 3rds (plus 1sts and 2nds that are likely used on shields, absorb elements, mage armors and utility) to go around (plus arcane recovery), and at this level, 3rd level spells like fireball and fly aren't the same thing they used to be.

Your BM Fighter standing next to you is 2 feats up on you, is spamming 3-4 attacks per round, has action surge, second wind and half a dozen superiority dice, all of which refresh on a short rest, plus 50 percent more HP.

In other words, even at this level, and at this encounter frequency, you generally have enough juice in the tank to meaningfully impact a few encounters (a choice wall of force or a banishment here or there), while the Martials do the actual heavy lifting.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

My point was that caster power doesn't peak at one encounter per day. You claimed that it did, and that every encounter thereafter the martials were ahead. Here:

Casters (long rest types) only dominater in single encounter adventuring days. Martials dominates in longer ones.

What your example shows, pretty well, is that in a 6-encounter 2 short rest day the classes are relatively balanced.

Which is literally what I said.

So rather than claiming that one encounter/day is the only situation casters dominate in (which is the stated position), maybe note that the longer the day, the more likely Martials are to end up in first an equitable position, and then an advantageous one, and that at higher levels, the number of encounters this takes increases. Pretty sure 6-8 was chosen because of this.

Yet you said "that is not the case". Then you proved that it was the case. That's rather confusing.

At 13th level you'd expect the caster to peak at 3-4 encounters, and yes, by 5-6 we'd see parity, maybe by 8 they'd even be behind.

The caster's contribution in the your example is absolutely gigantic. Incalculable even. He uses his highest-level spell to teleport the party into the dungeon - nobody does that unless it's a huge deal. That ain't casual. That's serious business. They must be using that to avoid tons of potentially draining encounters, or to make a huge gain on some kind of race-against-the-clock situation. It seems likely that if the party wants the wizard to blow his only 7th-level spell on teleporting them right at the beginning, the entire adventure would might have failed had he not done that. That one spell is pivotal. Either that or he and the entire party are complete lazy numpties but your point re: doom clocks etc. suggests this is a smart move not a dumb one.

Already right then and there, he's proven himself perhaps the most vital single member of the group. The other characters are going to have to work to be as important as that. And in a six-encounter day or more they probably will.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

What are you talking about 'not winning'. Both PCs (assuming 20th and fully rested) are a good change of winning (though the Fighter needs a magic bow to get through the HP in time).

The exact scenario was no magic items/costly spell components. But regardless, the point I made before last post was that combat isn't the problem. Fighters can output high levels of damage. That isn't the issue. Especially if, in your own words, both characters can handle the encounter.

 

[Flamestrike]

The exact scenario was no magic items/costly spell components. But regardless, the point I made before last post was that combat isn't the problem. Fighters can output high levels of damage. That isn't the issue. Especially if, in your own words, both characters can handle the encounter.

Both characters can handle the encounter. The Fighter uses Short rest resources (action surge x2, Second wind, arcane shot options, hit dice to heal after) but the Wizard is forced to use several long rest resources (including high level spell slots, of which he has few).

The question isnt whether they can handle it; the question is how many of those encounters, punctuated by short rests, can they handle in between long rests.

 

[Asisreo]

People are arguing that Casters (particularly full casters such as wizards) have a load more options than non-casters and that gives them a leg up in overall play (when including all three tiers) especially when the DM isn't giving martials an inch but being flexible with allowing magic solutions (as many DMs do especially when they allow the casters do dictate the pace of play and rest enough to never be harried on res

But if they're giving this benefit of the doubt to Casters but not Martials, is the problem not the DM who has this inherent favoritism?

But regardless, the point I made before last post was that combat isn't the problem. Fighters can output high levels of damage. That isn't the issue. Especially if, in your own words, both characters can handle the encounter.

I want to show exactly how spells interact with a regular encounter scenario without any DM fiat and show that my point is:

Casters get these utility options and breadth of combat options for the exchange that they have a more manual experience in the campaign.

They must be careful adjudicators of their resources because every spell used incorrectly is a spell slot of the day gone and an action wasted. Which isn't conducive to be "fine in combat" unless you are good at the system as a whole.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

My point was that caster power doesn't peak at one encounter per day. You claimed that it did, and that every encounter thereafter the martials were ahead. Here:

No I didn't.

I claimed longer adventuring days favor martials.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What are you talking about 'not winning'. Both PCs (assuming 20th and fully rested) are a good change of winning (though the Fighter needs a magic bow to get through the HP in time).

Note: the PCs were 17th level as per the initial mention. Also, as the wizard was limited to components without a cost, the Fighter did not have a magic bow either.

 

[Asisreo]

Note: the PCs were 17th level as per the initial mention. Also, as the wizard was limited to components without a cost, the Fighter did not have a magic bow either.

To be clear, my intentions were 20th level characters with no DM fiat. The options, therefore, must be carefully adjudicated because I find it odd to say giving Martials a boon or blessing or magic item is off-limits but giving the caster extraneous benefits is perfectly acceptable.

I promise I'm not being intentionally argumentative but I believe a serious discussion requires someone to be thorough in their points/discussions and build upon the other side.

This is the whole point of the discussion, to have good faith arguments about each side and figure out exactly where we're coming from.