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

[Minigiant]

I've not watched much Naruto, but what I saw looked more like spellcaster battles with the occasional physical attack rather than martial characters.

It's mostly spellcaster battles, yes.
But the underlying base is that every single one of the casters is a trained warrior and assassin. They use magic because everyone's hands are superhumanly lethal. The "useless" character punches earthquakes and fissures in the ground with just her fist. And the guy who can't cast spells is Captain America but faster and stronger in his base mode.

They all have absurdly high AC and damage bonuses. Magic and dodging is used to kill people from getting a clean hit. Most clean hits of punches, kicks, daggers, or swords end fights. And vs normal people, fights are a joke. It's a setting where they send little kids to beat up full grown gang members and warriors for money as a normal thing. And that's when the little kids barely know any magic and just punch, throw daggers, and dodge. In D&D terms, Naruto has dozens of 13 year olds that are level 11+ who barely know the equivalent of a 3rd level spell at the early part of the series.

Shonen anime and manga can often crazy high level before you get to "intermediate magic." or "magic/tech" items.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So, I'll discuss each point, but I want to also mention that we should compare spells-to-spells...rather spells-to-feature.

What I mean is that if you compare, say, Intimidating Presence to a bard's Fear spell, you'll find it rather underwhelming.

But Intimidating Presence isn't a leveled spell. It's a cantrip, at least comparatively. Know Your Enemy is a cantrip with a minute casting time like mending. Infiltration Expertise is a cantrip that has to be repeatedly cast. But they're all cantrips (or rituals). But cantrips and rituals are almost never nearly as powerful as these features. We're comparing a cantrip that can read the metagame to advantage on the next attack by using concentration or fixing a single tear on an object.


If your DM never grants downtime, it can be difficult to use the feature, but they should always be able to give the characters downtime. Still, it can be niche in the wrong campaign.

I don't know. Seems pretty broad to me. These are creatures in the general sense, so you can intimidate guards, or ghouls, or even a beholder if you're feeling lucky. Same with Know Your Enemy. Doesn't matter if they're human or not, you can get three ability scores, HP, class levels, and AC all in 6 minutes of interaction.

Charisma for the save is a balancing thing. Remember, it's a cantrip in terms of spellcasting. If you automatically had a DC 17 save for the feature, it'd start being something a barbarian would always try doing to even powerful enemies. Because, remember, it's nonmagical so creatures like devils and demons can't get advantage on it.

I mean, saying that they are like cantrips doesn't make then good features. They wouldn't even be particularly good as cantrips.

Ask yourself...of these, which of them would an actual caster want to select?

• A 30 ft range single-target, single round frighten using the caster's strength score to set th DC
• A one+ minute cast time play the high-low game with an enemy's attributes
• A 7-day +25gp cost cast to forge some effective documents.
• You don't age anymore

Maybe the fighter thing gets chosen by a couple more social casters..the others get used as a liner for the dumpster.

And these are often the only things the martials get at these levels. They aren't garbage because they are non-combat abilities. They are trash because they are trashy.

 

[tetrasodium]

The thesis of the thread was the issues between casters and martials. This strand of conversation has been about the particularities of 5e issues vs. what could have been, what might be down the road, what other systems do.

It seems like your argument is "5e did things another way. Wanting something different means you don't want D&D".

That strikes me as a poor argument.

No not quite. The original sour grapes "thesis" is fatally flawed because of two serious problems. In no particular order it draws on a false illusion of other media to support a type of character that simply does not align with the characters in many of them and from there it doubles down by declaring that caster's are op compared to poor martial when a player decides to ignore a big chunk of the d&d system.
Caster's who choose not to learn prepare & cast spells are pretty trash too. That does not mean that caster's need a serious bump elsewhere to support those poor downtrodden noncasting caster's. The very idea that caster's should be bumped to support thst character is just as flawed because it would make all of the other caster's just as overpowered as tuning martials as the "thesis" of this thread suggests would make all other martials.

There are ways that you can achieve your goal but they either look like the 2d20 Conan system or the older daeksun where magic item expectations 5e lacks are replaced by a passive scaling buff.

 

[Stalker0]

Erm.... Okay. Let's take a look.

I listed the sort of things I was thinking in the post above. I didn't list them originally as I didn't think we were going to get down to minutia as I thought this was a pretty hand wavy kind of discussion. But yes, I did assume some basic magic items for an epic level character. This might not be appropriate for some super low magic item settings I guess.

I also wouldn't expect an entire army to be fitted out with chain & shield (that's very expensive) but again, I suppose it depends on the setting. Yours could be extraordinarily well supplied.

Most armies also don't call down ranged attacks on their own troops location just to try to hit one guy standing in the middle of hundreds of their own guys..... Again, I suppose your campaign setting could be unusual in this regard. They might be very bloodthirsty.

But honestly, we can tailor the example however we like, but given the infinite possibilities of campaign settings, character builds, and actual player-DM storytelling interactions, to me there is plenty of room for this legendary swordsman to be able to acquit himself well in this scenario (or versions of it).

What is your fundamental disagreement with this?

I think part of the issue is that 5e changes the dialogue between a high level character and a swarm of mooks. In older systems, you could expect the high level fights to mow through mooks like grass, but scaling wise that is not how it works in 5e. Now that's true for casters as well, for example its harder for a high level wizard to be "invincible" versus a mook mob like they were before, but considering their arsenal of area effects they certain have more tools at their disposal.

Just to throw in a little more fun math, I will try a more "mook" scenario, and give the fighter some actual magic items, just to see how things would go.

20th level Battlemaster Fighter
20 strength
16 con
HP: 210 (I just rolled second wind in for convenience)
AC: 22 (does not take critical hits)
Attack: +13 x4 (x8 in first two rounds)
Damage: 1d8 + 10

+3 longsword
Adamantine Armor
+3 shield
Dueling Combat Style (so +2 damage)
AC style (+1 AC)

"Mook Archer"
HP: 8
AC: 10
Attack: +2 (proficiency only)
Damage: 1d8

So these are guys with 10s in all stats, basic proficiency, but otherwise nothing special at all.

Scenario 1: Straight up
These stats actually make running the scenario pretty easy, fighter is going to kill a mook every time he hits, no crits to worry about and don't really need to think about maneuvers. We assume the archers are close enough in formation that the fighter can get to any mook he needs to, so its really about how fast the fighter can kill the mook before he is taken out himself.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 89 archers. 90 will result in their death.

Scenario 2: Swap Adamantine armor for +3 armor
Lets try a different magic item that is still very powerful, but not really that helpful to the fighter in this scenario. So now when the mooks hit, they are actually critting. Let's see how this effects the result.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 64 archers. 65 will result in their death.

Scenario 3: The most mook of mooks
So lets get really schlub. These guys have clubs, attack in melee, and don't let their buddies move in and get attacks (aka they are complete idiots). So they get 8 attacks a round, though they are crits.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 410 melee mooks.

Scenario 4: So mook you can't believe it
You thought the last scenario these guys were terrible. But ok, no weapons, no armor, just guys using their fist! (aka 1 damage a round, and since its not a die its not crit multiplied). And still 8 guys in melee a round. Lets see what happens!

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 2005 melee mooks.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No not quite. The original sour grapes "thesis" is fatally flawed because of two serious problems. In no particular order it draws on a false illusion of other media to support a type of character that simply does not align with the characters in many of them and from there it doubles down by declaring that caster's are op compared to poor martial when a player decides to ignore a big chunk of the d&d system.
Caster's who choose not to learn prepare & cast spells are pretty trash too. That does not mean that caster's need a serious bump elsewhere to support those poor downtrodden noncasting caster's. The very idea that caster's should be bumped to support thst character is just as flawed because it would make all of the other caster's just as overpowered as tuning martials as the "thesis" of this thread suggests would make all other martials.

There are ways that you can achieve your goal but they either look like the 2d20 Conan system or the older daeksun where magic item expectations 5e lacks are replaced by a passive scaling buff.

To ignore a big chunk over which a player has zero control.

If the martial doesn't get magic stuff, we'll I guess it's just bad luck..or the gms world just doesn't work like that. If a caster doesn't learn or prepare their spells, then they've made a conscious choice to hobble themselves.

You keep acting like these are equivalent scenarios.
They aren't.

 

[Minigiant]

Every spell slot is a new, 1/day class feature that can be used to do anything from the range the caster has memorised.
Many caster classes even allow complete rearrangement of the capabilities of those class abilities after a short rest to allow them to be optimised according to what the group will be doing that day.

Caster's who choose not to learn prepare & cast spells are pretty trash too. That does not mean that caster's need a serious bump elsewhere to support those poor downtrodden noncasting caster's. The very idea that caster's should be bumped to support thst character is just as flawed because it would make all of the other caster's just as overpowered as tuning martials as the "thesis" of this thread suggests would make all other martials.

The issue isn't memorization of spells.
The issue is gaining spells with level ups.
If D&D treated casters like how they treat martials then every cater would have to find their spells the same way martials must find their magic weapons, armor,and trinkets.

Casters in D&D aren't tied to treasure as noncasters for power, range,and utility. That's the source of the issue.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

It wasn't Thor, it was Captain America.

View attachment 148536

Ahh, thanks

 

[tetrasodium]

To ignore a big chunk over which a player has zero control.

If the martial doesn't get magic stuff, we'll I guess it's just bad luck..or the gms world just doesn't work like that. If a caster doesn't learn or prepare their spells, then they've made a conscious choice to hobble themselves.

You keep acting like these are equivalent scenarios.
They aren't.

That's a different problem. The martial or caster who is not getting an appropriate amount of gold can just point at the wealth by level charts that show how far off the mark they are in other editions when making their case. Wotc failing to provide that or a solid economic foundation within the system is not a good reason to justify nerfing casters & massively buffing martials while ignoring the fact that d&d is a game overflowing with magic items. What you are calling for is a massive rewrite that cuts to the core of what d&d is as a game

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

D&D has a bunch of issues when it comes to this topic.

Spells are not neccesarily too powerful (although that is debatable as well) but more of a problem is that spellcasters are too broad. They are good at combat + transportation + social + divination + stealth + infiltration + etc. Besides the occasional Dr. Strange type most magic in fiction is depicted as limited and/or extracts a large price. If D&D limited Wizards to being decent (but not the best) at combat + getting 1 non combat utility sphere then martials would look a lot better.

Another issue is that martials should either become fantastic / mythical at higher levels OR perhaps there needs to be some kind of heavy metacurrency plot points / story points to compensate (which has not been D&D).

When you have Black Widow and Dr. Strange adventuring together, the plot conspires to give Black Widow her moments to shine despite the on paper power difference.

Personally I'm fine with this kind of "action hero" level martial that some people want and we basically have, BUT I get irked when those folks try to block a mythical hero from getting into the game. The game would be better with option to use 1 or the other or both.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

OK. And does 5e allow martials to have that kind of non-combat power within the game?

Well.... The game allows them to max their Cha & Int, and they can roleplay how they wish, so Genius, Philanthropist & Playboy are all well within their grasp. And Billionaire sounds like a background choice, so you might need your DM on board for that one, but I would want to be consulting my DM for any background of influence like Noble and so on to make sure it fits into their campaign setting.
Soooo.... Yes?

Most of King Arthur's temporal influence and capabilities would still require DM buy-in rather than simply being granted as part of the class.

The players don't exist in a vacuum, stories are created by a group of players and a DM. So, again, what's the story that player wants to tell?

If the player wants to play a character who is all about the pursuit of power, then I would be advising them to build their character and their part of the game world in accordance to that. If the type of power they're seeking is temporal power, which is part of the larger campaign setting, then yes, they would naturally tell that story working in concert with their DM.

If the power they're chasing is magical power, and they choose a non magical martial as their character concept, perhaps they want to tell that story by amassing a hoard of magic items, in which case, yes, they will need their DM on board. Or perhaps they want to tell a story of longing for something they can never attain, in which case, no, they don't. Or perhaps in this case, if chasing magical power is the story they want to tell, maybe a magical class would be a better choice? There's plenty of room for lots of choices here.

I once played a fighter with 6 Con and low Str. I wanted to tell a story about an underdog triumphing against all the odds, a weakling succeeding where everyone told them it was impossible. It was epic!

This is precisely the point Gammadoodler was making.
Two players can just create identical sorceresses of the same power, because 5e gives the tools to play Morgana as part of the class package.

If that's the story they want to tell, what's the problem?

And as you say, two players wanting to create King Arthur cannot do that in 5e because 5e does not give the tools to play King Arthur as part of a martial class package.
You yourself make the point that the two characters would have to fight over them if the DM did not grant enough to bring both fighters up to Morgana's level. Thus ending up with one character behind on power and fun, or a playing having to generate a new character other than the one they actually wanted to play.

No I said if two players WANTED to tell a story like that, they could. It would be awesome!

There might be only one King of England at any moment, but there could two twin brothers, identical in every way who are both princes, and heirs to the throne. Maybe there's a reason noone is sure which one was born first. They both vie for the crown. Different players might play them slightly differently which may decide which one succeeds. Maybe one is king for a while and then dies/is assassinated/abdicates for love /goes missing /is uncovered as a traitor and the other one gets a turn? So many epic stories possible!

Oh, was there a magic sword involved? Maybe. Maybe not. Hardly seems the point does it?