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

[Flamestrike]

Sure. I think I've conceded that a wizard without spells does less damage than a fighter or rogue. As you've stated here, it's roughly half as much.

Half as much, without feats and magic items (which exist in most games, and can be added to yours if you see a problem with your martials).

Do you really want to compare the 'at will' DPR of a Spellsniper/ Elemental Adept Firebolt/ Red Dragon Sorcerer with Cha +5 at 11th level, armed with a Wand of the War mage +3, with that of a +3 Crossbow/ +3 Bolt, Sharpshooter/ Crossbow expert Fighter with Archery style at the same level?

+12 to hit (3d10+5 damage) vs +12 to hit (x3) dealing a total of 3d10+63 damage.

Obviously an outlier, but the point stands. Feats and Magic items favor martials far more than they do Casters skewing the numbers more in their favor.

Notably, the Fighter also has 50 percent more HP, and a likely higher AC (no resource usage remember). Add in magic items, and (again) the Fighter benefits the most again.

 

[Flamestrike]

Designing 5E with the need for MMO style filler trash encounters just so the non-casters can "shine" through boring scut work was a bad call.

But its a call that was made and does exist.

If you want to compare the classes outside of that call, then obviously you get different results.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure. I think I've conceded that a wizard without spells does less damage than a fighter or rogue. As you've stated here, it's roughly half as much, which they are applying from range (presumably). That is the lowest point for a caster (and more specifically wizards and sorcerers, as the d8 casters have some additional tricks at their disposal).

So 50% as effective compared to the martial in the martial's most advantaged pillar. Compare that to when the party needs to fly, or needs to teleport, or is facing an army, where the peak fighter, full resources is a tiny percentage (some might say 0%) as effective as a loaded spellcaster.

And again, when it's gotten to the point that a mid-high level caster is that out of resources, does the fighter feel like a good tool to address whatever the challenge is? Or just the only effective tool remaining.

You invoked This looks like a job for aquaman Not once but twice . The first with a ten minute single target concentration spell. God thing your example ensures that the rogue fighter or whatever could not possibly use athletics or acrobatics to climb instead of burning a third level spell slot. As to the party "needs teleport" the only time the party "needs" teleport is wgen the GM creates a situation where forcing the wizard to consume a seventh level spell to meet some condition. You might as well include when the party neeeds someone to life powerful build+20strenth worth of weight in an antimagic zone as props to the barbarian at this point too. "facing an army" is a meaningless quantum statement void of any detail that would explain how any class is especially relevant to it

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You mean the guy that took down Wanda Maximoff, when Thor and Cap couldn't?

And for the record, Martials are Thor, Captain America and the Hulk past 5th level or so.

A 6th level Barbarian (Con 18, 74 HP) for example can get angry, and literally leap off the Empire State Building, do a Superhero landing, and walk off with zero chance of death or even unconsciousness.

Martials are Hulk? The guy who can throw tanks, OHKO Chitari battleships, leap a mile, stun a battalion with a handclap and rearrange the battlefield with a foot stomp ?

We couldnt even have warlord healing without the imagination impaired grognards flipping out. "Muh v-tude!" they cried, "You shouted a hand back on!", while ignoring that HP loss doesnt actually cause any lingering injuries.

 

[Undrave]

D&D is the problem when it insists on letting casters be Dr. Strange and the best a martial can do is Hawkeye. Martials need better scaling, and narrative control.

Have you seen my comment on 4e Martial Epic Destinies?

EDIT: This one.

 

[Undrave]

And for the record, Martials are Thor, Captain America and the Hulk past 5th level or so.

Thor is a Paladin, so not Martial. Hulk is way off into epic, not past 5th level!

Though I agree with the idea that Hulk would be a good Epic tier Barbarian.

 

[Flamestrike]

Thor is a Paladin

He's clearly a Storm Herald Barbarian, armed with a Hammer of Thunderbolts (with an additional ability that grants him a fly speed), and wearing a Belt and the Gloves (its literally his exact fluff, he is a berserker and the belt, hammer and gauntlets are literally based on his mythology).

Toss him a Ring of Air Elemental command for some chain lightning action and you're pretty much done.

so not Martial. Hulk is way off into epic, not past 5th level!

Hulk is a Berserker barbarian, with Fighting initiate (unarmed), Tavern Brawler, and boots of springing and striding who has had access to one too many Tomes of Gamma-ainful Exercise.

Cap is an Open Hand Monk with a Magic shield that doesnt interfere with his abilities.

Hawkeye is a Battlemaster Fighter/ Assassin Rogue with Archery and Sharpshooter.

Iron Man is an Armorer Artificer. Dont get me started on what HE's attuned to!

 

[Iry]

That treasure is not generally going to matter. If the GM puts in treasure or retreat path is blocked & they take a different one or engage in a battle they are generally "expected" to win. Players miss treasure all the time just by not coincidentally stumbling across it or searching for it somewhere.

If it's a battle, sure. It could easily be a social challenge or another exploration challenge. Often treasure is something you can miss and continue on with your day without major issue, but there are also times where missing the treasure can be directly detrimental to you. Like Curse of Strahd.

The social examples you note are too specific without enough context to know the point. If they were important the GM will need to find some other way of getting that information or resource to the players. Even if they are important & for purposes of argument we say there is a spell that would help, you still run into the same problem faced with players not stumbling across treasure. Casting that spell on every single npc interaction would be silly & in the case of spells like charm leads to serious problems.

Plot critical social encounters usually have a fail-forward or no-way-to-miss-the-clue safety net, but in my experience, the social pillar is the one most likely to result in a failure, and the one most likely to result in medium to major narrative changes. Thankfully there are classes who are very good at the Social pillar.

I think that dump stat primary attribute build red herring is more than a little off the mark from the statement it's trying to challenge. The point of those non-resource consuming abilities generally being able to accomplish a solution in hypothetical social/exploration problem that a hypothetical solution spell could solve at cost marginally faster is relevant because people are making seriously flawed* comparisons & holding up edge case situations the game expects you to be able to solve without those nice edge case spells. The point is that the shining gold star of awesome people are claiming exists is generally redundant & comes with objective pains elsewhere such as performance in the combat pillar likely to arise in the vast majority of sessions

The primary point of the dump-stat caster is to illustrate how casters have access to the same non-resource consuming abilities and solutions. Plus spells. The Rogue is the exception here, but I would rank him as a competent contributor to all pillars, as opposed to someone with a focus on the Combat Pillar. And beyond that, my stance is that you don't need to be especially competent in the combat pillar to win the vast majority of combat challenges. It's only necessary to be moderately competent. The rest is usually overkill.

Granted, overkill CAN be fun. And that's what we are all here for. Big numbers wow and dazzle in the same way that teleporting across the country or turning into a giant mammoth do.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Half as much, without feats and magic items (which exist in most games, and can be added to yours if you see a problem with your martials).

Do you really want to compare the 'at will' DPR of a Spellsniper/ Elemental Adept Firebolt/ Red Dragon Sorcerer with Cha +5 at 11th level, armed with a Wand of the War mage +3, with that of a +3 Crossbow/ +3 Bolt, Sharpshooter/ Crossbow expert Fighter with Archery style at the same level?

+12 to hit (3d10+5 damage) vs +12 to hit (x3) dealing a total of 3d10+63 damage.

Obviously an outlier, but the point stands. Feats and Magic items favor martials far more than they do Casters skewing the numbers more in their favor.

Notably, the Fighter also has 50 percent more HP, and a likely higher AC (no resource usage remember). Add in magic items, and (again) the Fighter benefits the most again.

I don't recall saying anything about at-will single target damage comparisons. That would be a fools errand as you've demonstrated (with an extreme outlier up a magic item on the comp, and even here, I would contend that melee martials cannot get close to this)

That said, I was referring to when the wizard is using their leveled spells, and specifically against multiple targets. Does the fighter with full resources feel 50% as effective as the wizard using their leveled spells. Honest question.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't recall saying anything about at-will single target damage comparisons.

Any reason Fighters keep getting called 'single damage' classes?

Rogues for sure, but nothing stopping a fighter from directing his multiple attacks vs multiple targets in a single round, moving if he wants between attacks as well.

That would be a fools errand as you've demonstrated (with an extreme outlier up a magic item on the comp, and even here, I would contend that melee martials cannot get close to this)

Melee martials do better. Far more magical melee weapons then there are ranged weapons.

Toss a Fighter something as iconic as a flametounge sword and see his damage go dambusters. Throw on a belt of giant strength as well and it gets crazy.

There simply are not magical items that even come close for the Wizard, available at the same frequency, and those that do exist require attunement (unlike + arms and armor and shield).

That said, I was referring to when the wizard is using their leveled spells, and specifically against multiple targets. Does the fighter with full resources feel 50% as effective as the wizard using their leveled spells. Honest question.

If we're talking resource use your 11th level GWM BM Fighter, Str 20, +3 Great Sword, using action surge and his 6 Sup dice, who manages to drop a creature to 0 HP on his turn (triggering cleave) deals: 6d10+14d6+126 (210) points of damage.

210 average damage, with no Crits.

While a Wizard can drop a save or suck, he doesn't have anything in his repertoire that can deal that kind of damage, barring having over half a dozen creatures all bunched together in a fireball, and all failing their saves.