D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

[Gammadoodler]

When you get down to it, the problem with martials VS casters is that when people say "Martial" they mean "Mundane."

That is both a fair statement and kind of a red herring.

The "problem" is that while all PCs are expected to be extraordinary fantasy heroes, the only tools that exist to surmount many obstacles are spells or other magic effects.

In addition, even in the specifically martial niche, the tools provided frequently have a very narrow scope even within that niche while casters also have tools that allow them to operate effectively within that niche.

This disparity is not something I experience in PF2e.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm not sure this kind of highly abstract/high level analysis of magic and what it can do is really helpful.

I think the problem of casters - wizards especially - is not that they can do fantastic things. Of course they can, they are wizards! The problem is the number of different things a wizard or similar caster can do.

This notion that the wizard can solve almost any problem is why the martials feel so underwhelming. But it doesn't HAVE to be this way. This is a very D&D trope. A lot of other gaming systems have mages that are much more constrained in what they can do. In warhammer, mages follow a "color" of magic system and are effectively restricted to one school of magic. So they can be pretty good... at one kind of magic.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

This disparity is not something I experience in PF2e.

Would love to hear more about this difference and/or your experience!
What does PF2e do differently so that this disparity is less of a thing ?

 

[ECMO3]

5E is the time of the Wizard and I like it that way.

Older editions, especially 1E fighters and fighter subclasses were way overpowered and wizards were weaklings and this stayed true at all levels. By the time Wizards had enough power to be on an even footing fighters only needed like an 8 to save and the spells took 7 segments to cast.

It is about time wizards were the best class IMO.

 

[Vaalingrade]

5E is the time of the Wizard and I like it that way.

3e wasn't?

 

[Ancalagon]

3e wasn't?

I concur - wizards have been kocked back a fair bit in 5e.

 

[HammerMan]

NOT ENOUGH...

2e I think was built to have fighter rule the low level and casters the high level (like the versions before it) but by 'balanceing' the classes at low level without giving the fighters the high level support every edition since as messed the game up.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

When you get down to it, the problem with martials VS casters is that when people say "Martial" they mean "Mundane."

MCU Thor should be the baseline for what a "martial" character looks like post level 10, and without relying on the DM to hand out the gear they need to keep pace with overpowered casters who get to repick their superpowers after a nap.

It's far too late to salvage the fighter (and rogue). We need a Mythic hero that's just a flat out better version, to appease us that want a decent non-caster. Those that want to play a wand caddy/BMX bandit can keep those classes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm not sure this kind of highly abstract/high level analysis of magic and what it can do is really helpful.

I think the problem of casters - wizards especially - is not that they can do fantastic things. Of course they can, they are wizards! The problem is the number of different things a wizard or similar caster can do.

This notion that the wizard can solve almost any problem is why the martials feel so underwhelming. But it doesn't HAVE to be this way. This is a very D&D trope. A lot of other gaming systems have mages that are much more constrained in what they can do. In warhammer, mages follow a "color" of magic system and are effectively restricted to one school of magic. So they can be pretty good... at one kind of magic.

Agreed, decently balanced games dont have this issue. Savage Worlds for example, you have to spend the equivalent of a feat to be able to cast (then have to build up your casting skill), and pay a feat for each 2 powers.

D&D is a caster power fantasy, but every time we try and get some of that for a non-caster, the "muh v-tude" crowd screams bloody murder to keep the game stuck in Revenge of the Nerds mode.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Would love to hear more about this difference and/or your experience!
What does PF2e do differently so that this disparity is less of a thing ?

One side of it is (IMO) more security within the single target damage niche. From what I've experienced so far, spells are powered down quite a bit especially as far as damage relative to what the fighter's, barbarians, and rogues are bringing to the table. And the casters that I've seen are waaay squishier getting fewer relative hit points per level and little way to get good armor proficiencies which makes them much easier to take down.

Another side of it is feats and the actions they support in combat. 5e has grappling rules, but almost nothing in the system refers to or makes use of them. And a martial character with a high mental stat will almost always have to go outside of their class to find tools that allow them to benefit from it.
In 2e, there are a ton of feats that encourage you to engage with crafting, intimidation, grappling/tripping/shoving, etc. and there are distinct benefits for doing so. You're almost never in a situation where all you've done on your turn is attack, and the non-attack actions rarely feel wasted.

In addition, martial feats largely continue to scale in power. With certain feat choices Barbarians can become dragons or giants, fighters can cut through the fabric of space, rogues can phase through walls, rangers can hunt things across planes.

I can't testify to how effective these things feel relative to spells at the equivalent levels, since I haven't gotten there yet, but the options alone help reinforce that these characters are heroic, not just dudes at the gym.