Yes, when Mentioning silence I forgot just how hosed sorcerers are on their spell list.
D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
I wouldn't mind seeing the game make spellcasters more powerful so they outperform martials in combat. Basically martials have had their day in the sun since 1E, I think it would be nice to give the casters their turn at the top tier.I've long been a defender (ahem) of martial classes in D&D. After all, there are numerous archetypes in fantasy, but one of the enduring one has always been that of the warrior. Whether it's Conan or Aragorn, Zatochi the Blind Swordsman or Drunken Master, Sir Gawain or Prince Colwyn, serious or chock full o' the cheese, the idea of the martial archetype is entwined in a great deal of fantasy. There is a reason that the first two classes in D&D were Fighting Man and Magic User, the yin and the yang of D&D.
And because of that, I have defended the role of the fighter in 5e. It has been my experience that many, many players enjoy martial characters in 5e; arguably, new players especially (in my observations) are attracted to martial archetypes. Not all of them, of course.
But watching new players over time, a distinct pattern tends to emerge. Eventually, most new players who are into ... leveraging rules (is that a good way of putting it) migrate to the spellcasting classes. In the most favorable light, it would be because they are provided more options. In a less favorable light, it would seem that some players who choose spellcasters do so because spellcasters put you on third base, and those players can claim they have hit a triple. It almost seems like every spellcaster is an Audi RS8, while the poor martials are Toyota 4Runners, and the spellcasting players think they are Lewis Hamilton because they are given a faster car.
That's the gnawing truth of what I have realized- and it's taken me a while. The thought crystalized in the Lankhmar thread I just put up. I expected people to disagree with the premise regardless of what I said in the OP- after all, this is the internet, & U KANT TEL ME WUT 2 DO! But the specific objection I saw repeatedly is what surprised me. Here's one example I will quote that is illustrative:
But seriously, the bottom line is, you have to replace magic in combat with something and it can't be 'really bad mundane combat'. Even if they're not casting spells, they should be able to legitimately contribute and have meaningful choice in combat.
(Bold in original)
Here's why this idea (which was repeated by numerous people) surprised me- first, that it focused on combat exclusively. Second, that it contemplates that all classes must be "balanced" (equally effective) in combat at all times. Third, that it implicitly rejects the idea that other pillars (exploration, social interaction) matter at all when it comes to balance.
And that's when I realized why I have been having recurrent issues with spellcasting in 5e. It's not just the ubiquity of spells, it's the lack of balance created by the evolution of the game toward this concept. A quick explanation-
In OD&D and 1e, the martial characters (Fighters and their subclasses, specifically) were fearsome for many reasons. In combat, they had the ability to use any weapons and any armor- which included numerous magic versions of the same. Their armor class was usually, by far, the lowest. Their hit points were, by far, the highest. Their ability "to hit" was the best. They could eventually get multiple attacks (which were a rarity). With 1e came additional advantages- the ability to use percentile strength and high constitution scores, for example. Magic Users, on the other hand, were incredibly weak (d4hp), struggled to get a good AC, did not have attack cantrips, and generally struggled in combat outside of their spells. There was a rough balance- Fighters being much more powerful early, MUs catching up later, Fighters being absolutely necessary for combat but MUs having numerous necessary spells.
In 5e, that balance is upended because of that prior thought. What should a fighter be, other than a character who is superior at fighting (it's almost a truism)? And yet, it would seem that spellcasters should have:
A. The ability to use cantrips every round that gives them roughly the equivalent of the martial character's attacks; and
B. The ability to use combat spells that aren't cantrips- from damage, to control, to buffs, to whatever, because that gives them variety in combat ... you know, meaningful choice; and
C. The ability to have numerous out-of-combat spells because spellcasting isn't just about combat, man, and that's what they have cantrips for anyway; and
D. The ability to use their numerous spells to affect the game in all of the pillars in a supernatural way, because ...
Which I totally understand. I, too, want my characters to be the awesome-est at everything! And yet, if spellcasters are required to be just as good as the martial characters at, um, martial stuff (combat), and spellcasters also get all the other goodies that spellcasters will get outside of combat, and if martials don't have that ... then, that kind of sucks for the martial, doesn't it?
And you're left with either giving martial spells (spell inflation), or not.
And maybe I'm missing something on this, but the specific thoughts (that spellcasters had to be just as good as martials at combat) surprised me somewhat. Is it because everyone is playing 5e as a tactical combat game (I didn't think so)?
So I'm putting up a poll, with a plethora of choices. Choose from one, and use this thread to explain your principles in the comments.
That said, putting aside Paladins and Monks for a moment - RAW I think Fighters and Barbarians have an edge in combat over every other class. The only exceptions is in a game with a lot of short rests and then warlocks built for combat might be their equal. The idea that cantrips do as much as weapon attacks by martials is false for two reasons, first because they generally do not get ability bonuses to damage and second, because without a feat they usually can not be used on AOOs which happen all the time.
Fighters and Barbarians also either one or more combat style to improve combat performance or in the case of Barbarians a rage ability and damage resistance. Fighters also have things like improved criticals or battlemaster maneuvers etc that come as kits on their base class. Fighters get 7 ASIs compared to most classes that get 5 (including all full casters). Not only do they get more ASIs, the combat feats available to martials are better at increasing weapon damage then spellcasting feats are. For example spell sniper is the caster equivalent of sharpshooter for ranged cantrips but sharpshooter is hands down a more powerful feat. Things like GWM, sharpshooter, piercer, PAM and CBE all provide substantial boosts to martial damage, more so than you are going to get out of comparable spell casting feats. Even without the +10 damage, GWM and SS boost damage by the bonus action attack and cover/range bonus. Finally in strength builds these characters can also generally execute grapple and shove better than non-martials making them more useful in combat outside of their superior damage output.
In my experience, Paladins are the most effective class in the game in terms of raw combat performance. Now that is largely because of smites and spells, so I don't know if they fit the "martial" definition we are using here.
Monks can be close to fighters and Barbarians in a game with a lot of short rests, I think they are a step down but in the same ballpark. This is particularly true if your game has a lot of enemy "high-fantasy" bosses. Spellcasters, dragons, undead etc. where stunning strike really makes in money. It requires skilled play though and if your game has mostly martial enemies this will not be as powerful.
Now 5E is extremely flexible in terms of character builds and it is possible to build a caster that excels at combat and a martial that doesn't (for example take commanding presence as a battlemaster maneuver). So I would not go as far as to say all martials can outperform all casters but most martials can if they focus their build on that.
Last edited:
So at the end of day, the number of encounters you run hugely affects the balance of the classes. Too few and caster reign, too many and casters sit back out of spells bored while the martials keep swinging away.
So in terms of "in combat" there is no single answer (out of combat is a separate debate).
So I think for these things, its really less about "class type X is too strong" its "class type X is too swingy". Ideally we want to tighten up the classes so that the number of encounters per day affects their power balance less, that way the classes stay roughly the same in power throughout X amounts of encounters.
One idea for example would be to have casters use a "hybrid-warlock" model. Perhaps casters get fewer spell slots per day but more of them regenerate on a short rest (aka a stronger version of the Wizard's spell recovery ability). So now the casters cannot nova as effectively, but also have more staying power. Now the caster is more in line with the output of a martial....and from there you can decide if you need to actually change the power of one or the other for balance reasons.
So in terms of "in combat" there is no single answer (out of combat is a separate debate).
So I think for these things, its really less about "class type X is too strong" its "class type X is too swingy". Ideally we want to tighten up the classes so that the number of encounters per day affects their power balance less, that way the classes stay roughly the same in power throughout X amounts of encounters.
One idea for example would be to have casters use a "hybrid-warlock" model. Perhaps casters get fewer spell slots per day but more of them regenerate on a short rest (aka a stronger version of the Wizard's spell recovery ability). So now the casters cannot nova as effectively, but also have more staying power. Now the caster is more in line with the output of a martial....and from there you can decide if you need to actually change the power of one or the other for balance reasons.
Is this serious or an attempt at humor? It is impossible to tell!
Manbearcat
Legend
When I ran my old Six Kingdoms setting, casters have a number of spells and characters healed based on the amount of "latent mana" in an area.
Conveniently proper dungeons had leaky mana batteries in them whereas cities were pretty bad for mana if you were not a bloodmage.
I'd hate to say "Have everyone make 3 different character sheets for the same characters, each with different Max HP, spells known, and spells per day" but it worked.
Conveniently proper dungeons had leaky mana batteries in them whereas cities were pretty bad for mana if you were not a bloodmage.
I'd hate to say "Have everyone make 3 different character sheets for the same characters, each with different Max HP, spells known, and spells per day" but it worked.
I think martials that are built and optimized for combat are better in combat than casters in 5E. In previous editions, especially 1E and 2E, martials were WAY better than casters.
I like the way 5e is balanced, but if we have to tilt one way or another and make one significantly more powerful I would tilt it towards casters. The older editions worked with overpowered martials, 5E would work with casters who are more powerful than martials.
I think it makes more sense storywise for casters to be more powerful too. If not then why would anyone be a caster?
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
did you never play 3e. when casters are overpowered you might as well not play fighter.
Shadowedeyes
Adventurer
If you made casters more powerful than martials in 5e, there would be 0 reason to ever play one beyond character concept. Even if we accept that in previous editions martials were more powerful than casters in combat(although they definitely were not in 3e), casters have plenty of unique abilities that cannot be replicated by martials. Thus an actual choice. Take away martials one thing though, and you end up with casters and the wrong choice.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I mean .... I have to admit, you have staked out a corner. That was a hot take I was not expecting! One of the values of hearing other people is that you learn that people do, in fact, have opinions that you would not have suspected!
Similar Threads
