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

[Asisreo]

The one in the OP with the green flying creatures.

So my initial plan is to, quite simply, tough out any damage they deal and to attempt to hit them back kinda hard.

Now, if I'm playing a Battlemaster, the very first thing I'd attempt is a Trip Attack to prone the target. Its flying so my hope is that I can get additional damage via fall damage. It still resists it, but its still a decent chunk for each creature.

Next, I would probably try to disarm them. I wouldn't have known this from the description, but they don't have proficiency in either Dex or Str and they don't have advantage since they aren't resisting magic.

Now, this could be unacceptable to some DM's, but by RAW, it is possible to pick up a monster's weapon. I might not since they're not likely to engage in melee without their weapons anyways and I'd have disadvantage due to its size, but its something I'll keep in mind especially since they are magical and bypass resistances.

But perishing that thought, my gameplan after that is to just take any more abuse they can muster and hope they can't debilitate me with Wisdom/Intelligence saves.

On the Planetar's side, I'd assume they'd try to close in for melee attacks since that's their strongest option unless there's a party in AoE distance. They can't disable the fighter easily, but they do still hit extremely hard when they get in range. They'd probably avoid being in the air after their turn, though, to avoid taking unnecessary fall damage.

 

[DnD Warlord]

That's because you're wrong, and such an exhibition match would prove it.

In a 6ish encounter/ 2ish short rest adventuring day, the problems you claim exist, don't.

My 20th level character (been playing her since level 2) is a17th level warlock (fey tomb) 3rd level divine soul sorcerer.
Her opening round depend on if she is full honor not...
If full HP I flame bolt (unless flavor makes me think immune to fire like when we fought red dragons) or if near melee I use primal savagery to bite with iron teeth.
my fall back if I need HP is Eneveration.
I then spend two sorcery pets to quicken a toll the dead.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

EDIT: This one.

Oh, I liked those. They should have start earlier than 20 though. A level 11 rogue should be stealing someone's skills and memories, not their coins.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Epic Boons which treat their lifting capacity as if they were gargantuan sized.

Call me when the classes get epic boons at level 10+ as part of their chassis that the player controls. Thor should be created without hoping the DM deigns to drop the gear you need. The weapons and armor should be magic because they are worn by a badass, not because they happened to drop.

You clearly arent arguing in good faith, so whatever.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If they would just merge the fighter and warlord like I been saying for years this would not even be a debate. And some people just want the simple subclass like champion so it is no problem. I would like to see more that makes fighters want a high charisma so they can be the leaders like in many stories and movies. I would not want a class doing that because many fighters have zero desire for such things. But a subclass or more charisma based leadership maneuvers for the battle master would be great.

There isnt enough space in a subclass for the warlord to the level we want. Borrowing the warlock chassis would be a good start, with exploits replacing invocations and modifying attacks and skills, and stratagems being the short rest resource similar to spells that offer a greater impact.

 

[Flamestrike]

You clearly arent arguing in good faith, so whatever.

Pop over to the thread where I am and see how the casters are NOT dominating in a 6 encounter standard adventuring day at 7th level.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Thsts your hail mary?... "sskmething not attached to or suspended by anythubg?...
what if we need to reach a cloud?" Is a situation I don't believe is at all even common enough to be dated" extremely unusual". When you create an improbable situation depending on unstated plot armor to prevent other solutions but only then grasp for an excuse when challenged it becomes difficult to actually convert to play examples as your seeing.

As to navigating the world.... it's called a horse.. . Or a ship.. or even a carriage.... if you're gm is making challenges thst require a 7rh level spell because those are not good enough thsts not a strength of caster le it's a gn problem


The "counter" of an sntimsguc field is at least something that is up front and started. You bu contract have put forward "going up and down or going far away quickly" while invoking an improbable situation involving needing to reach something with no surfaces and skipped right past horses along with every other run fly or swim capable mount along with totally extreme measures like a horse. Teleport us going to be the last option because as a 7th level spell it requires level 13 o to cast and has serious risks involved with trying to use it to reach not well known areas

If I read the later posts right you already realize how favorable even that freezing sphere example is to the fighter and I don't need to detail the math on my phone

"Hail Mary"??? The titular D&D monster (the second D in "D&D")..has wings, which it uses...to fly. Strangely, I have seen no rules which restrict them from flying away from convenient cliff faces, trees, and very tall buildings. They are not unique in possessing this ability.

With regard to travel. If the caster has abilities which allow them to teleport, it is just better than horses or carriages or whatever near 100% of the times it is used. If the party chooses to use the methods you've listed, it is because there is zero sense of urgency or value for downtime; it is an indulgence. It's like the people who take trains across the US. Like..it works, but it doesn't really make sense unless what you're after is the journey itself.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

At page 24, I want to recalibrate ourselves to where we are and what we've discussed in this thread.

There's a few points from those that believe MvC is a problem. I'll also address how I feel about these points and any confusion or contention with them.

• There is an audience of players who desire a complex martial with no spellcasting
  • This is absolutely okay. And it may be valuable to cater to them but I don't know why they would have priority unless they are the majority.
• Martials shine exclusively in combat but caster are good in all areas
  • This very well may be true, but I'm curious how it holds in a session within the forums.
  • I'm not sure its bad if martials are specialized in combat if combat is the most integral sequences in this franchise unless the margin gap is too small
• Casters can replicate great, strong fictional characters in media without magic items but Martials cannot
  • I'm not sure that the intention of D&D is to be a fictional character simulator. I feel like any direct character-like feature is either a reference or coincidental
• Any complexity martial combatants have are not complex enough to feel like the player has breadths of options
  • I believe this is just kinda subjective. Naturally, you don't get a wizard's complexity in any martial class, but the complexity is what makes wizard unique.
  • As long as there's at complexity enough to keep yourself occupied but not so much you are bogged down with choices expecting a more streamlined experience, I think its fine.
  • I don't think complex = level-up options. I think its more about how many descriptions, rules, and resources that you must balance within a day. Sure, nobody but a wizard has 44 of those, but I'm still not sure that's a bad thing

What a surprise, you went into this "discussion" with your mind made up, and... shocker... 25 pages later it's still made up. We can have half the friggin book dedicated to casters, including one completely pointless and redundant class (sorc) but until the majority want a warlord or narrative control for their non-casters, none is needed?

 

[Oofta]

What a surprise, you went into this "discussion" with your mind made up, and... shocker... 25 pages later it's still made up. We can have half the friggin book dedicated to casters, including one completely pointless and redundant class (sorc) but until the majority want a warlord or narrative control for their non-casters, none is needed?

No game can be everything to everyone. No game can cater to every possible option every potential player could desire. There will always be compromises made in game designs.

It's fine for you to want things you don't have, but at some point you also just have to accept that you can't get everything you want.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Pop over to the thread where I am and see how the casters are NOT dominating in a 6 encounter standard adventuring day at 7th level.

Ohhh, a hack and slash game with no political maneuvering, intrigue or downtime! All dungeon crawl, all the time! I'll let my 12 year old self know.