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

[Gammadoodler]

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

I don't know what to tell you, most of the vertical space in most D&D worlds is not adjacent to cliffs or buildings or whatever (not a scientific observation, but hardly controversial I hope) and I haven't had a DM yet who would allow me to use athletics or acrobatics to climb up...air. There are creatures that can access this vertical space. Most martials are not included on that list of creatures.

Similarly, most D&D worlds are sufficient large that physical distance, obstacles and travel time are barriers to be navigated. Fully equipped, prepared martials do not have the tools to practically navigate those obstacles with comparable speed.

You've proposed a counter in your 20 strength lifting challenge in an anti magic zone. Compare how narrow this circumstance is vs simple going up and down or going far away quickly.

As it relates to the army, I thought it was implicit that AoE damage (which casters get access to, and martials do not..like basically at all)is significantly more effective in that circumstance than single target burst damage (which some martials excel at..but which many casters can do respectably), since there are likely to be multiple targets within an area of effect as armies are traditionally composed of groups of individuals. Please let me know if you require more "meaning" than that (noting that I don't believe I've provided any additional detail here beyond defining words and roughly summarizing generic class capabilities).

 

[Flamestrike]

Would you guys consider beating a T-rex to death with your fists 'superhuman'?

Because a Barbarian, Monk or Fighter can reliably do just this from mid level onwards.

Solo mind you.

At higher levels, they can also leap off 50 story buildings with a Superhero landing and survive, walking away, load and fire a heavy crossbow 8 times in less than 6 seconds (fighter), become ethereal or fly (barbarian and monk), or go toe to toe with a Balrog with nothing more than a sword, and win.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

So one of the first things you learn in playtesting is how the user actually uses the tool you design. Not how you envisioned, the actual.

It has always seemed to me that 6-8 encounters as the normal in a given day is just incredibly high, and its not a model I have ever seen used in any game I have played in or run. I have asked my friends if they have ever played in a game where that was normal...and people in general have said that is very very high.

Now if we really are the minority, so be it, it is what it is. But if its true that most players simply don't play the way that the designers intended....the fault is with the design. You don't get mad at the user for using your product in a way you didn't intend....you change the design to better guide them....or accept that the way they use it is fine and design around that.

So if the average group runs less than 6-8 encounters as standard....than balancing the game around such numbers is a design mistake.

 

[Stalker0]

Would you guys consider beating a T-rex to death with your fists 'superhuman'?

Because a Barbarian, Monk or Fighter can reliably do just this from mid level onwards.

Solo mind you.

At higher levels, they can also leap off 50 story buildings with a Superhero landing and survive, walking away, load and fire a heavy crossbow 8 times in less than 6 seconds (fighter), become ethereal or fly (barbarian and monk), or go toe to toe with a Balrog with nothing more than a sword, and win.

You mean a Balor? Even a 20th level fighter would have it tough 1 on 1, but I recognize the exaggeration is not an issue, just meant to illustrate a point.

As to your question, yes I consider mid to high level martials somewhat superhuman. Again I think Captain America is the best example of what a mid to high level fighter looks like. Capable of increase feats, and whips normal people time and time again, but against Ironman there are many things that Captain America just simply cannot do.

 

[Flamestrike]

It has always seemed to me that 6-8 encounters as the normal in a given day is just incredibly high, and its not a model I have ever seen used in any game I have played in or run.

Until now. See the thread in which we're doing just that.

I have asked my friends if they have ever played in a game where that was normal...and people in general have said that is very very high.

Your experiences differ then.

My experiences have always been most adventures in DnD take place in a 'Dungeon' level of roughly a dozen or more rooms and interlocking hallways, many of which (at least half a dozen) are full of monsters and traps.

You enter a room, fight the monsters, search for loot, repeat.

Does that not describe literally 99 percent of modules, adventures, and locations in the game, through every edition, literally ever, and is it not also reflective of how Gygax ran his games.

 

[Flamestrike]

You mean a Balor? Even a 20th level fighter would have it tough 1 on 1, but I recognize the exaggeration is not an issue, just meant to illustrate a point.

Presuming a magical weapon (preferably something with reach or range, but not really needed for a battlemaster with lunging attack), the Balor would be dead inside of 2 rounds.

 

[Flamestrike]

Magical +1 Glaive, PAM, GWM, Martial Adept. Max Str and Con. BM Fighter, Combat superiority F/S.

18 attacks over two rounds at +8 (needing 11's to hit), spamming 8 x d12 Sup dice on Precise strike to convert misses to hits.

50 percent hit with no sup dice needed on average. Of the remainders, 6/9 should also hit thanks to 8 dice being used on Precise strike. We can assume 1 of those hits is the butt stroke.

15 hits = 14d10+1d4+150+90 or 320 points of damage, and one dead Balor.

 

[Stalker0]

Until now. See the thread in which we're doing just that.

Its one of the reasons I agreed to do it, understanding of how other people experience the game. And the fact that I only get to DM nowadays so its always nice to play, even a little

Does that not describe literally 99 percent of modules, adventures, and locations in the game, through every edition, literally ever, and is it not also reflective of how Gygax ran his games.

I agree that traditional dnd was setup that way. But is that how modern players still play? Also are modules the standard way people play?

Presuming a magical weapon (preferably something with reach or range, but not really needed for a battlemaster with lunging attack), the Balor would be dead inside of 2 rounds.

Its true that reach basically changes everything, its actually funny how lopsided it is. A normal sword using fighter would take 90 fire damage on the first round (assuming action surge), add in an extra 35 for one of the balor's attack hitting, and its the fighter that might go down in 2 rounds.

But with a little reach the fighter only takes 10 fire, a massive difference. So the question is would said fighter also have a magic reach weapon.... but hey at 20th level I expect players to be resourceful and get the weapons they need to get so I think that's a reasonable assumption.

 

[Flamestrike]

But with a little reach the fighter only takes 10 fire, a massive difference.

They take none actually (till the thing blows up) unless they are within 5' of the Balor when it starts its turn (we're using reach weapons) or hit it within 5' of it (again, reach weapon).

 

[Flamestrike]

Its one of the reasons I agreed to do it, understanding of how other people experience the game.

Proabably the first time you've had to fall back on firebolts for a while